Dell's Good, Bad & Ugly Movie Reviews

[dell71]

Hotel Transylvania
<strong>Directed by Genndy Tartakovsky.</strong>
<em>2012. Rated PG, 91 minutes.
Cast:
Adam Sandler
Selena Gomez
Kevin James
Steve Buscemi
Fran Drescher
Molly Shannon
David Spade
Cee Lo Green
Adam Samberg</em>​

After the passing of his wife, Count Dracula (Sandler) is left all alone with his little girl Mavis (Gomez). To provide a safe haven for them and other monsters, he decides to build a hotel where only they can come while he and Mavis will never have to leave. Every year, all of their monster friends gather to celebrate Mavis’ birthday. This one is special because it is her 118th. Like normal 118 year olds, she wants to leave the castle and explore the world. She gets her wish, but thanks to a nifty setup by her dad, she finds out humans are every bit as rotten as he makes them out to be. When Dracula discovers a not-so-threatening human Jonathan (Samberg) on hotel grounds, he goes to great lengths to get rid of the unwanted visitor before Mavis and his guests find out.

Despite its use of just about every type of movie monster imaginable, Hotel Transylvania is really just a tale about an overprotective father and his daughter becoming an adult. It uses similar humor to what we’ve seen in other such movies, animated or not. It works, at times. It has more success with all the double-entendres it slips in. Most of these work fine as surface jokes for the kids, but also as slyly naughty bits for the parents in the audience.

The movie also works well when it is showcasing all of those monsters and making them as normal as possible. For instance, the werewolf (Buscemi) is a weary dad and husband with a boat-load of unruly kids; Frankenstein (James) is a big and strong but very insecure guy. His fragility epitomized by his literal coming apart at the seams. Our wicked witches provide hotel house cleaning. And on it goes. It puts characters we’ve known for a long time in a different light and has fun with it. Helping further, it effectively spoofs a number of traditional elements of monster lore. We get riffs on the seemingly endless number of secret corridors in movie castles and other such things.

Where parents and kids are likely to be most divergent in their opinions of this movie is when it shifts into manic musical mode. I’m sure the little ones will have a blast when Jonathan rocks out on the guitar, or raps, or when Dracula himself raps. For me, it came across as a reach for cool points with the youngsters that it didn’t need to make, not something organic to the story. It doesn’t help that during these scenes the characters are animated with the goofiest possible looks on their faces.

Musical numbers aside, for me at least, Hotel Transylvania is a fun flick. Even though it includes all the monsters, it never strives for kiddie horror. Still, it’s pretty slick with its inclusion of horror movie tropes. It even includes a moment or two that could almost be described as grisly (a pitchfork through a zombie’s head, for example). Our cast is also game. Adam Sandler does his best Bela Lugosi and even gets mocked for it. Steve Buscemi is perfect in his role, as are a number of others. If you’re looking for a Halloween appropriate movie for the children, this is a solid choice.

<strong>MY SCORE: 6.5/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

Jack & Diane
<strong>Directed by Bradley Rust Gray.</strong>
<em>2012. Rated R, 105 minutes.
Cast:
Juno Temple
Riley Keough
Cara Seymour
Kylie Minogue
Neal Huff
Haviland Morris
Michael Chernus
Jen Ponton</em>​

Diane (Temple) finds herself in a part of town who’s unfamiliar with, having lost her cell phone and unable to stop her nose from bleeding. >Looking for a phone to use, she wanders into the store where Jack (Keough) works. The two ladies, yes Jack is a girl, have a love at first sight moment and wind up spending the rest of the day together. This also becomes all night as they, both underage, sneak into a nightclub. They do some talking, some drinking, and eventually, some kissing. Throughout, Diane isn't feeling too well. Her nose keeps bleeding and she vomits. In the morning, she returns home to grounded by Aunt Linda (Seymour). Since love must persist, she continues to see Jack and the girls fall hard for one another. There are two issues at hand, though. First, Diane appears to literally some sort of monster. Second, she’s supposed to be going away to school in a few weeks. Her tumultuous relationship with Jack ensues.

Though this is a romance, the element of horror runs throughout the movie. Every so often, there is a cutaway to what we can only assume is going on inside Diane’s body. It shows hair seemingly growing and moving through her innards. Between these shots, nosebleeds keep happening. However, our concentration is on the issues our troubled teens are having. This includes dealing with the baggage they each brought into the relationship. It is fairly interesting since the two lovebirds appear to be from opposite ends of the universe. Diane is confused about her future, her relationship with Aunt Linda, her twin sister, and which lines she can and cannot cross with Jack. On the other hand, Jack struggles mightily with authority figures, the recent death of her brother, how much she should commit to Diane, and at least in my opinion, personal hygiene.

The problem is that the horror meant to prop up the story actually undermines it. Initially, it’s set up as if sexual arousal brings about the physical change in Diane that gives us our monster, a la Cat People. Later, it appears Jack might suffer the same affliction. Then, it’s abandoned all together as the movie ends. This means that our monster is one hundred percent metaphor with not literal bearing on the plot. This can work. After all, it was done to great effect in Beasts of the Southern Wild. In that movie, the beasts were not only a constant part of the story, their plot line came to a head. Though open to interpretation, they clearly mean something. That doesn't happen here and what exactly this creature is supposed to symbolize is murky, at best. Is it supposed to represent the raging hormones of teenagers? The dangers of teenage love and/or sex? The dangers of lesbian love? All of these? None of these? The questions do more than nag. They leave a void in the narrative. What the movie is trying to say is far too ambiguous, even for me. In the immortal words of the great Roger Ebert (R.I.P.): “If you have to ask what something symbolized, it didn't.”

I am more than willing to say maybe I just don’t get it. Someone else may watch this and instantly form some tangible idea about the monster and how it informs Jack and Diane’s relationship. This is fine. Just understand that whether or not you can do this is key to your enjoyment of the movie. Our two leads are intriguing enough to fly the plane. They need the other aspects of the film to step up and land the thing. For me, that never happens.

<strong>MY SCORE: 5/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

Meant to post these last few horror flicks yesterday...yay computer problems...sigh...on with the show...

 

[dell71]

Piranha 3DD
<strong>Directed by John Gulager.</strong>
<em>2012. Rated R,83 minutes.
Cast:
Danielle Panabaker
David Hasselhoff
Christopher Lloyd
Gary Busey
Matty Bush
David Koechner
Chris Zylka
Paul Scheer
Clu Gulager
Meagan Tandy</em>​

A couple years ago, the remake of the ‘70s cult classic Piranha swam into theaters. It knew exactly what type of movie it wanted to be and executed its plan perfectly. Piranha 3D wanted nothing more than to show drunken, naked female twenty-somethings, give us the goriest death scenes possible, crack a bunch of jokes almost as gross as the co-ed carnage on display and do it all at a blistering pace. It did exactly that from end to end. Every frame of it was so bad it’s awesome! The sequel, with no less titillating a title than Piranha 3DD, promised to be more of the same.

Somehow, the director of this mess got the idea he was making a real movie and not something with double D in the title. Of course, he fails miserably. First, he (and the writers, if there are any) tries to emphasize the incredibly flimsy plot. Final girl Maddy (Panabaker), don’t act like that’s a spoiler, is helping her sleazy uncle re-open a water park which will feature an “adult” section. Second, way too much time is spent with David Hasselhoff who plays himself. This is actually a nice bit of stunt casting, a gag that should've been afforded a few short scenes a la Bill Murray in Zombieland. Instead, it eats up a huge chunk of the movie for no apparent reason other than for Hoff to make fun of himself. Sounds awesome, doesn't work out that way. Third, the detestable things we love about the first movie are just plain detestable, here. This includes manner of death. When the fish finally take over the proceedings, the kills are a good deal less imaginative than in 3D. There are some good ones, but they’re weaker on the whole. Eventually, things turn to setting up another sequel (3DDD?) and they somehow get too ridiculous, even for this franchise.

Like its predecessor, 3DD is complete trash. However, the first movie was trash of an endlessly and enjoyably repugnant variety. It was like gorging yourself on a gigantic bag of your favorite mini candy bars. The sequel is more like eating directly out of a dumpster.

<strong>MY SCORE: 0/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

Frankenweenie
<strong>Directed by Directed by Tim Burton.</strong>
<em>2012. Rated PG, 87 minutes.
Cast:
Charlie Tahan
Catherine O’Hara
Martin Short
Martin Landau
Atticus Shaffer
Winona Ryder
Robert Capron
James Hiroyuki Liao
Conchata Ferrell
Tom Kenny</em>​

Victor Frankenstein (Tahan) doesn't have many friends other than Sparky, his dog. Victor’s father notices this and urges his son to get our there with the other kids. Specifically, he gets the boy to participate in a baseball game. Not wanting to be left out, Sparky chases the ball into the street and is killed when hit by a car. Inspired by what he learned in science class, Victor successfully resurrects the dog. Initially, this is unbeknownst to anyone else. When word gets out, all the kids want to bring something back to life in hopes of winning the upcoming science fair. Of course, things don’t go as well for them as they did for Victor.

The journey director Tim Burton takes us on is one steeped in nostalgia, paying homage to horror’s glorious past every step of the way. While Victor himself is a rather typical looking Burton creation, the rest of the kids look like classic monster movie characters. One kid resembles Igor, another Frankenstein’s monster, and so on. The science teacher is a dead ringer for the legendary Vincent Price. There are many instances we’ll note as inspired by those old pictures and the entire thing is shown in a traditional black and white.

Simply incorporating elements from great movies is not enough to make this film any good. Fortunately, Burton tells us a wonderful story. It functions as a tale about a boy and his dog and as a horror flick. In true Burton fashion, the boy is a loner and a bit of an outcast. This is displayed by a brilliant inversion of the way the director usually presents things. In movies such as Edward Scissorhands, Batman, and as recently as Dark Shadows, the protagonist is not only clearly different from those around him, but to us, also. Whether it’s a physical deformity, ghastly colored skin, or just running around in a costume, we saw something strange about them. Here, the hero looks more like us than anyone else in the movie. The other characters are the more gothic creations. Since they are the majority, Victor still comes across as the oddball. However, like other leads in the Burton canon, he’s an oddball by nature, not some stubborn contrarianism. He also has a good heart. Misguided as it may have been, he brought Sparky back to life out of love for the dog. He tries to stop others from doing similar things because he knows there is great potential danger. Victor is easy to root for.

Like the best of Burton, several genres convene seamlessly. Dark comedy and horror blend into a deliciously macabre family flick. Whether we’re laughing, noticing something lifted from an eighty year old movie or staring slack-jawed at all the mayhem of the finale, it doesn’t detract from the overall experience. It’s something the director was unsuccessful doing in the aforementioned Dark Shadows. There, his switches in mode are jarring and leave us wondering what we are supposed to be watching. In Frankenweenie, it all goes down smoothly.

<strong>MY SCORE: 8.5/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

The Amityville Horror (1979)
<strong>Directed by Stuart Rosenberg.</strong>
<em>1979. Rated R, 119 minutes.
Cast:
James Brolin
Margot Kidder
Rod Steiger
Don Stroud
Murray Hamilton
Natasha Ryan
K.C. Martel
Meeno Peluce
Helen Shaver
Amy Wright
Irene Dailey</em>​

The Lutz family is shopping for a house. Even though George (Brolin) and Kathy (Kidder) are on a strict budget, they need a place big enough for them, Kathy’s three kids from a previous marriage and their dog. Fortunately, a house sitting right on the lake with more than enough property is available. It would normally go for an exorbitant price, but the real estate agent is desperate to get this one off the market. That has something to do with what happened a year ago. One of the prior residents lost it and killed his whole family. Yes, our prospective buyers are aware of this fact. But hey, the agent assures the Lutzes that their low-ball offer will be accepted so they make the deal and move in. This shouldn't be a problem because, as George says, “Houses don’t have memories.” Or, do they? Things go haywire promptly at 3:15 AM every night and anyone wearing any type of religious garb is rudely welcomed.

It isn't long before hell starts breaking loose which helps create tension early on, keeping us engaged. We’re not exactly sure what’s going to happen next, but we eagerly anticipate what that might be. Even better, the house seems to be working a divide and conquer scheme, mostly concentrating on George. More and more as the movie progresses he gets that far away look in his eyes, separates himself from the family and we’re just waiting for him to completely snap.

An interesting subplot is that of Father Delaney (Steiger) who shows up early to bless the house at the Lutz's request. How this story plays out runs perfectly alongside the main plot. It doesn't quite fit the haunted house motif, but it works by bolstering our understanding of the house’s power. It becomes a character with more than one dimension, proactive in what it’s doing to the family, reactive and defensive with those who may have the ability to stop it.

Thirty plus years since its release, The Amityville Horror is a movie that has to contend with history. First and foremost, it has to deal with the countless haunted house flicks that have come out since 1979. Many, if not all of them, are heavily influenced by this movie. Though not nearly as impactful on the viewer as it once might have been, it stands above most of the crowd. Helping it to do so is how the family is handled and the performances of the leads. Many of the genre’s entries trudge along way too slowly, showing the family’s mundane life in a feigned attempt at character development. Here, we get to to know them as the rest of the story unfolds. This doesn't make the Lutz family the most memorable lot, but it’s an effective way of telling the story.

That story and its history also loom large over the film. When it came out it was billed as a tale based mostly in fact. Over the years, how true that is has been debated heavily. Books have been written and interviews conducted, including with the real Lutz family. Their stories have changed several times and their credibility has become highly questionable. Conventional wisdom now says that the true story angle is a crock. Truthfully, this is neither here nor there with regards to the quality of the movie, just an interesting tidbit I thought I’d share.

As for the movie, it is still a very solid haunted house flick. It may come off as dated. Some of this is due to the look of the film and the fashions on display. The bigger problem, however, is that so many of the things this movie introduced have become old hat. Viewers without perspective may struggle to see what the big deal is. I’ll address them directly in case I somehow haven’t made it clear: all of the haunted house movies you love stole from this one.

<strong>MY SCORE: 7.5/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

The Amityville Horror (2005)
<strong>Directed by Andrew Douglas.</strong>
<em>2005. Rated PG-13, 89 minutes.
Cast:
Ryan Reynolds
Melissa George
Chloë Grace-Moretz
Jesse James
Jimmy Bennett
Rachel Nichols
Philip Baker Hall</em>​

In 1979, The Amityville Horror hit theaters, and not only became a hit movie, but a cultural phenomenon. People actually made the trek to New York to see the house where the movie was set because it was supposedly a true story. I don’t knock anyone for believing in ghosts and/or haunted houses. To each his own. However, I do have to question the intelligence of people who believe it to be true and go there on purpose. What if it is? Being in the midst of a demonic paranormal entity doesn't sound like a barrel of laughs to me. As noted in my review of the original, whether or not our tale is rooted in reality has been hotly debated and largely debunked. What is inarguable is that it provided the template for the modern haunted house movie which is still being ripped off ad nauseum all these years later.

This brings us to the remake you came here to read about. The setup is the same as the older movie. The Lutz family is house shopping for a place suitable for their family of six: George (Reynolds), Kathy (George), three kids, and one dog. The kids and the dog came with Kathy as part of a package deal, having remarried after the death of her first husband. They check out the fateful house and it is obviously out of their price range. No worries, the real estate agent assures them she’s letting it go cheap. When asked what gives, she explains what we saw at the very beginning. The year before, some nut got up out of bed at 3:15 AM and blasted everyone in his family with a shotgun. Since it is a beautiful house, and George wants to make his woman happy, the Lutzes decide to buy it. After all, as George so eloquently puts it, “houses don’t kill people.” We’ll just see about that, won’t we.

Right away, and every night at 3:15, things go haywire. George is affected more than anyone. The movie, including Reynolds himself, does a nice job with his rapidly deteriorating mental state. This is very clearly a man losing it. Just to make sure we know that it’s the house causing all of his issues, he’s a much nicer guy whenever he is away from it. For the most part, he drives the movie. The film, and the house, uses him to crank things up or ratchet them down at the appropriate times.

The character who shoulders the rest of the load is the daughter Chelsea. She interacts with the house in a way no one else does. As a result, she’s often in harm’s way. This is one of the very early performances of child star Chloë Grace-Moretz. She’s about as solid as any kid would be in the role, but it’s hard to tell from this that she would become a top notch and highly sought after talent with many horror titles on her resumé. Still, the movie effectively uses her to score easy sympathy points and provide some harrowing scenes.

On its own, this is a briskly pace film packed with creepy visuals. It hardly gives us a chance to catch our breath as it is constantly sprinting to the next big moment. Juxtaposed with its predecessor, we see that it is a more concentrated effort. This version is almost solely focused on the Lutz family. The story of Father Callaway (Hall), Father Delaney in the original, ran prominently alongside the main plot in that older flick, but is barely included here, almost totally diminished in importance and altered in execution. Conversely, the bit about Lisa (Nichols), the baby-sitter, is expanded into a much more intense scene and the character herself is completely different. The other major difference is how the dog is handled. In the original, it is used to show how caring a person George really is when not under the house’s influence. This time it’s used to demonstrate George’s loosening grip on reality.

It is my opinion that this is a very underrated movie. It ramps up the tension early and doesn't let up. Ryan Reynolds gives a very convincing performance of a guy flipping out. There are also excellent and unsettling visuals throughout. Normally, a ninety minute remake of a two hour movie is cause to ring the alarms. Ring them even louder when you add the fact that Michael Bay is a producer on this one. Logic tells us that so much would be left out it would feel incomplete. Honestly, there are things left out of this version. However, it feels like what was removed made it a more concise effort without sacrificing the essence of its predecessor. It’s just plain fun to sit through.

<strong>MY SCORE: 7/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

Fist of the Vampire
<strong>Directed by Len Kabasinski.</strong>
<em>2007, Not Rated, 96 minutes.
Cast:
Brian Heffron
Darian Caine
Brian Anthony
Cheyenne King
Len Kabasinski
Deanna Visalle
Victor Kuehn
James C. Nickels
Dave Campbell
Melissa Scott</em>​

We've finally reached the bittersweet end to 31 consecutive days spent in horror flick captivity. To commemorate the occasion, I figured I’d go out with something totally nutty. Since I have plenty of odd cinematic excursions in my own collection I started by searching there.

Searching.

Searching.

Keep searching.

Voila!

Fist of the Vampire.

Okay…before I get into this, let me get my mind right.

Deep breath in…big exhale. Again. Okay, now I’m good.

Let’s start with our hero, Lee (Anthony). He’s a detective who’s request for transfer has just come through. When he get to his new duty station he is promptly assigned an undercover gig to infiltrate an underground fight club. In addition to people beating the crap out of each other there is suspected to be, of course, lots of gambling, illicit drugs and possibly some prostitution. Instead of posing as a prospective gambler as suggested by his boss, our knight in shining armor decides to go in as a potential fighter. Okay, fine. Do things your way, Mr. Hero. Anyhoo, he finds out what we already know: Brad Pitt and Edward Norton are really…oh, wait. Wrong movie. What Lee really discovers is that this particular fight club is ran by a trio of vampires who, in addition to being crooks, occasionally dine on the talent. Bad. Movie. Heaven.

Everything about this movie is horrendous, amazing, or both at the same time. The fight scenes epitomize this. Whenever one starts up, which is quite often, some heart pounding music kicks in. Good stuff. Our combatants are full of vigor. Good stuff. The fight choreography is nothing special, but passable. Good stuff considering I didn’t expect Sammo Hung quality. Unfortunately, the execution of that choreography is hilariously bad. I mean, you see the same moves you’ve seen in hundreds of other movies, but with pauses between them. Often, instead of a punch being blocked as it is being thrown, a fighter throw the punch then leave his/her arm extended for a second or so until their opponent reaches up to block the punch. I really can’t tell you how much laughter this gave me.

Visual effects are another example of how good and terrible this movie is. The movie opens in 1977, by the way, before transitioning to “present day.” During these opening scenes, the filmmakers made a concerted effort to make it look like a 70s flick. The color is a little more washed out and they superimposed some grain onto the screen to make it look like old school film stock. I was genuinely impressed. Vampire related gore is also a plus. Throats are ripped open pretty good. Granted, it looks as if they got everything they needed for these scenes from the Halloween section at Party City, but they did a pretty solid job with it. Then there are gun related effects. Oh man, is this bad. Superimposing grain for the 1977 scenes works. Doing the same with cartoon splatters and flashes of light does not. It doesn't help that the actors often poke out their guns in an exaggerated manner as they shoot. No one in real life who has any experience with firearms does this. Yes, this incites more laughter.

I could go on listing things that sorta work until they fail in spectacularly funny fashion, but I think I’ve said enough. Well, I will mention one more thing. I have to mention the acting. I guess you can call it that. It’s never actually good. Instead it ranges from sounding as if the lines are being read for the first time to sounding the way someone would say them if they were talking in their sleep. Anticipating how much more unnaturally the next line will be delivered just adds to the fun. And I haven’t even mentioned that our hero gets woken up by a phone call from his boss every single morning and we’re shown this with the shot framed the exact same way every stinking time. Mix in a barely coherent script, gratuitous nudity, and the oddity of gangsta vampires and you've got yourself a flick that’s so bad it’s awesome!

<strong>MY SCORE: -10/10</strong>​

 

[JimLeavy59]

That has to be a softcore porn.

 

[dell71]

That has to be a softcore porn.

It might sound like it, but it's actually not.

 

[dell71]

The Odd Life of Timothy Green
<strong>Directed by Peter Hedges.</strong>
<em>2012. Rated PG, 105 minutes.
Cast:
Jennifer Garner
Joel Edgerton
Dianne West
CJ Adams
Rosemarie DeWitt
Ron Livingston
David Morse
Common</em>​

Cindy (Garner) and Jim Green (Edgerton) are a happily married couple with one major problem. For whatever reason, they will never produce a baby of their own. We meet them as they’re applying to become adoptive parents. When asked what qualifies them for parenthood, they relate the story of Timothy (Adams), their son. Confused? Okay, pay attention. The year before, the Green’s decided they were going to move and continue their lives without worrying about having children. To symbolize this, they bury their list of baby names in the backyard. When it rains that night, guess what grows like a planted seed? Only, instead of a newborn the Greens get Timothy, a ten year old boy with leaves attached to his legs. A crash course in parenting ensues.

Ask any parents, if you yourself are not one, and they will tell you that your first child teaches you how to be one. This happens as the child grows from birth. Imagine the confusion someone feels if they suddenly gained a ten year old after not having any kids at all. You may think you know what to do, but will quickly discover you don’t. Such is the case with the Greens. Things arise that they are totally unprepared for. We watch as they muddle through them. We also get to see Timothy grow as a person. Though undeniably awkward, he is a charming kid. Along with Jennifer Garner’s angst and Joel Edgerton’s flusteredness (?), Timothy pulls us through the movie.

The cynic in me wants to hate this movie so badly because of all it’s thorough Disneyness. Throughout the succession of obstacles placed before our microwave family, we’re given heartwarming, cute and heartwarmingly cute moments. Timothy repeatedly proves to be everything the Greens hoped for, in quite the literal sense. A number of these also have enough humor to keep things bouncing along merrily. And of course, our little hero changes the lives of everyone he comes into contact with. This is all so syrupy sweet I think it will force my lunch to reappear as soupy chunks on my lap, but it doesn’t. Somethow, <em>The Odd Life of Timothy Green</em> drives right up to the cliff of happiness where it threatens to fall into a hopelessly twee abyss. Alas, it manages to keep its balance. I keep all of my meals down plus the popcorn I’ve been gnawing on. Everybody wins.

<strong>MY SCORE: 6.5/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

A Late Quartet
<strong>Directed by Yaron Zilberman.</strong>
<em>2012. Rated R, 106 minutes.
Cast:
Christopher Walken
Philip Seymour Hoffman
Catherine Keener
Mark Ivanir
Imogen Poots
Liraz Charhi
Wallace Shawn</em>​

The Fugue is a highly successful string quartet that has been playing together for twenty-five years. They are led by David (Ivanir), the first violinist and an uncompromising perfectionist. Robert (Hoffman), the second violinist is married to viola player Juliette (Keener). This seemingly perfect square is completed by Peter (Walken), the cellist and elder statesmen. We meet them as they’re getting ready for the start of their next season. Peter realizes he isn’t quite right and soon learns he is in the early stages of Parkinson’s. As he contemplates his predicament, his illness becomes the impetus for the lives of these people and their group to start coming apart at the seams.

These are people who have intently studied every note of the classical music they play. No subtlety or idioscyrasy of its composers has gone unnoticed. Fittingly, the story we’re told is very nuanced. It starts with the double-edged dialogue spread throughout. The characters, especially Peter, will occasionally spout little anecdotes about their lives that work on the literal level by being amusing. Subcutaneously, they function as clever analogies for what’s taking place on screen. The tricky part, which <em>A Late Quartet</em> masters, is they don’t tell us what’s about to happen. Instead, these tales present us a way of looking at the various situations that informs our viewing.

Of course, we run into some predictable plot points along the way. Thankfully, the movie deals with them in often unconventional ways. However, it’s not doing this just for the sake of being creative, or contrarian. They culminate in scenes that feel wholly organic to the situations, forgoing many of the contrivances of other movies. This fosters the notion we’re watching real people go through difficult times.

Also helping us believe in what we’re seeing is a phenomenal cast. Among our four principals, plus Poots as Robert’s and Juliette’s daughter Alex, there isn’t a false chord struck. I’m a hug fan of Philip Seymour Hoffman so it’s no surprise I find him to be great here. I will note that for some reason I haven’t figure out yet, he wears his wedding band on his right hand for the entire movie. Mistake or metaphor? Catherine Keener plays a woman caught in the middle of multiple dilemmas. Still, it never feels like she’s overwhelmed despite the fact all of these are potentially earth shattering. Keener does a wonderful job conveying this. Perhaps most impressive of them all is Christopher Walken. For starters, he steers clear of giving us the usual Christopher Walken shtick. Admittedly, it’s served him well in many roles including the recent <em>Seven Psychopaths.</em> The absence of it works here. He really gives a poignant performance in what is ultimately a heart-breaking storyline.

While I see Walken’s storyline as a sad one, it’s debatable whether it’s totally so. That’s because it sets the stage for the others to possibly end happy. Whether any of them are or are not is open to interpretation. This is good. It leaves us something to discuss. There is ammunition for both sides of the argument. It gives us this ammo in a way that is not confusing, but fun to analyze.

As much as I like this movie, it isn’t for everyone. It is not the type of film that throws us into deep waters as soon as possible. We wade in, slowly at first, and gain momentum as time passes. Even so, this is a drama absent much of the over the top histrionics found in plenty other pictures. Your “movie night” crowd might find it boring, especially if it is made up of viewers with middle age still over their horizons. This is a movie about adults with no illusions of youth who’s adventure is born of the anxiety of breaking their decades long routines.

<strong>MY SCORE: 8/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

Girl Model
<strong>Directed by David Redmon and Ashley Sabin.</strong>
<em>2011. Not Rated, 78 minutes.
Cast:
Ashley Arbaugh
Nadya Vall
Tigran Khachatrian
Rachel Blais</em>​

The very first thing we see is a room filled with hundreds of very young, hopeful Russian girls in bikinis. Most of them are tall and frighteningly thin. There are some adults giving them the once-over. They say things like “She’s too short,” and “Her hips are too wide.” Soon, we meet Nadya. She is a thirteen year old girl from Siberia who meets the criteria better than any of the other girls. Her prize for winning the genetic lottery is a professional modeling contract. She is flown from Russia to Japan because, as Ashley puts it, she’s perfect for the Japanese market. Indeed, her facial features are quite like a female character in anime. More to Ashley’s point, she’s not only very young, she looks it. Since immigration laws in Japan require anyone wishing to stay in the country to be employed, Nadya is given a contract that guarantees her at least two modeling jobs and $8000 (USD). Her family could definitely use the money.

You may have noticed I mentioned the name Ashley. She is a scout and hand-picked Nadya. She travels all over the globe searching for models, most of which she sends to Japan. She receives a commission from Switch Modeling Agency for every girl sent. Ashley is also deeply conflicted about what she does for a living. Once a model, she understands the lifestyle is not all glitz and glamour. She knows that the modeling industry chews girls up and spits them out at an alarming rate. Now she helps feed the beast. It is a job she doesn’t seem to like. Through old footage that she took of herself back in 1999, we gather she didn’t much like being a model, either. Then why do what she does? It’s so simple, I’ve already given you the answer. That commission she is paid is a handsome one. It has enabled her to buy a large secluded house in the hills of Connecticut. There is also the allure of all that globe trotting.

We follow both Ashley and Nadya, getting to see both sides of the coin. Largely, it boils down to us watching Nadya get exploited, along with roommate and fellow Ashley recruit Madlen, then seeing Ashley speak sadly about her role in that exploitation while trying unsuccessfully to take inventory of her emotions. On the other hand, we see her smile broadly in the face of clients and models. She also gives a television interview where every word she says is a blatant lie. Occasionally, we see the heads of two agencies. The Russian guy, Tigran, at least pretends, maybe even believes that he’s doing a good thing for these girls. His Japanese counterpart, oddly named Messiah, just says things no one with even just an inkling of the way the world works would possibly think are true. It all adds up to a powerful dissertation on the corrupting power of money and the shameless mistreatment of young girls. To call what we see unethical business practices is understating it quite a bit. For instance, Nadya’s contract includes a clause that the agency can change it any time they want for any reason, with or without her knowledge or consent. Of course, this includes what they will actually pay her.

For the most part, the filmmakers stay out of the way. This works as a way to let the story tell itself. However, there are a number of occasions where I wanted them to inject themselves a bit more. For starters, let’s go back to that moment with the head of the Japanese agency. He says some damning things when they pressed him just a bit. A little more might really have been revealing. The movie also only hints at, but never really explores the overwhelming sense of pedophilia that seems to be driving things. The constant push for newer and younger girls is disturbing. It gets mentioned a few times by some interviewees, Ashley included, but they mainly shrug it off as if to say “Oh well, what can you do?” No effort is made to dive any deeper than that.

<em>Girl Model</em> also resists the urge to become a rant on what affect the industry has on the self-esteem of girls worldwide. That’s certainly a worthy topic, but not one that fits here. However, we do see the girls purposely rebelling against the strict standards they are kept to concerning their bodies. For example, Nadya and Madlen gorge themselves on candy in an effort to be sent home since their modeling gig is not what they thought it was. They are aware that those wonderful contracts they signed says that they can be released if they gain as little as one centimeter on any of the measurements taken of them when they first arrived in Japan.

We finish the movie with a deep dislike for just about everyone on the business side of the industry. Our strongest feelings are reserved for Ashley. She seems to know she’s part of a slimy machine, but always rationalizes her actions with her own selfish reasoning. We’re not so sure how to feel about Nadya and her family. Because of their financial situation, we struggle whether to blame them for being complicit in her exploitation. Furthermore, does it cease to even be exploitation if she is one of the few who make it big. Tough questions are raised and that’s precisely why <em>GM</em> deserves to be seen. However, it is not all it can be because it doesn’t really try to answer any of them.

<strong>MY SCORE: 7.5/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

Snitch
<strong>Directed by Ric Roman Waugh.</strong>
<em>2013. Rated PG-13, 112 minutes.
Cast
Dwayne Johnson
Susan Sarandon
Barry Pepper
Jon Bernthal
Michael K. Williams
Benjamin Bratt
Melina Kanakaredes
Nadine Velazquez
Rafi Gavron
David Harbour</em>​

You just can’t trust people these days. Jason (Gavron) learns the hard way when his best friend sets him up with the feds by shipping a box of illegal pills to his house. The thing is, Jason is not really in the drug game. His buddy is and just needed someone to implicate in order to reduce his own sentence. Now, he faces a possible ten year prison bid. No worries, his dad happens to be The Rock…er…Dwayne Johnson…I mean …, played by The Rock…um…Dwayne Johnson. Like any good parent, dad wants to help his son in any way possible. Since we need something to justify us spending nearly two hours with him on his quest to save the boy from permanently becoming Bubba’s bitch, he does so in the dumbest way he can imagine. Despite being wealthy enough to afford a lawyer good enough to beat an extremely flimsy case, he uses his connections to get a meeting with Joanne Keeghan (Sarandon), the powerful District Prosecutor. There, he volunteers to do what his son wouldn’t: help the cops catch more bad guys. Despite being told it doesn’t work that way, and warned not to do anything stupid, he does precisely that. He takes it upon himself to go undercover and pretend to be a guy looking to get into the drug trafficking business.

The setup of any movie requires the viewer to buy in for our suspension of disbelief to kick in. This is no different. The problem is in trying to simultaneously create empathy for John it removes logic from his thought process. What he does should be a last ditch effort, not the first thing that pops into his brains. As mentioned, he’s financially well off. He owns a successful business. It is obvious he is not an idiot. I’m sure the man has dealt with lawyers before. Why he immediately accepts what he’s been told at the police station and by the prosecutor who’s job it is to lock people up boggles the mind. He never even asks his son what happened. It becomes galling because we know that the case against the kid is flimsy. Yes, the feds have a bunch of pills that were shipped to the boy. However, their whole case is really based on the idea Jason explicitly agreed to commit the crime he’s charged with. What makes this flimsy is not just that he did no such thing, but the entire conversation takes place online, so it’s presumably retrievable. Any lawyer worth his salt would have a field day with this. The takeaway from all this is that our hero is a guy unnecessarily playing cowboy. It’s something he does several times throughout the picture, putting himself and the rest of his family in harm’s way. The movie would have benefited greatly from having everything he does be the only thing he can. It rarely feels this way. Instead it feels like we’re watching a man back himself into a corner over and over again when he doesn’t have to.

Faulty premise aside, <em>Snitch</em> does a number of things well. For starters, and in aid of its “inspired by true events” label, it resists the urge to become an all out balls-to-the-wall action flick until very late in the movie. It lets situations play out in a manner that at least suggests reality more than simply having John load up his arsenal and go hunting bad guys. We get a decent bit of tension from wondering how our hero will come out of his various predicaments in possession of his life. Two people in particular help things along in this regard. First, Barry Pepper as Agent Cooper excellently provides our voice of reason. He gets roped in to working with John, but doesn’t like it one bit. He knows the risks too well. His heedings are at the backs of our minds whenever … decides to fly by the seat of his pants, which is often. On the other end of the spectrum is Michael K. Williams as mid-level drug dealer Malik. I know, it’s a stereotypical role. However, he plays it with such intensity we can’t help feeling a little worried for anyone on the screen with him.

The pacing of the film also works to its advantage. It moves along nicely, quickly getting our hero into one dangerous scenario after another. Between them, he argues with Susan Sarandon. The cycle works well enough that eventually, we let go of that nonsensical beginning and just roll with the idea that this is a father trying to save his son. Still, the memory of it is never completely erased because our hero keeps doing stupid things. This is just one way in which the movie undermines itself. Another is in its heavy-handedness. I mentioned the plus is a plus. However, we get numerous pauses in the movie’s flow so someone to make sure the audience understands that none of this would have happened if not for the evils of mandatory sentencing. Whether I agree or not is irrelevant. I don’t want to be repeatedly hammered over the head with any viewpoint. At times, it feels more like propaganda than entertainment. A message should be weaved seamlessly into the narrative, not stopping it in its tracks every so often. The end result is a movie that works when it focuses on dad saving the day, but struggles with everything else.

<strong>MY SCORE: 6/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

Midnight Cowboy
<strong>Directed by John Schlesinger.</strong>
<em>1969. Rated R, 113 minutes.
Cast:
Jon Voight
Dustin Hoffman
Brenda Vaccaro
Sylvia Miles
John McGiver
Barnard Hughes
Bob Balaban
Ruth White
Jennifer Salt</em>​

Joe Buck (Voight) is tired of his life as a dish washer in a Texas diner. On a whim, he quits his job and boards a bus headed for New York City where he hopes to become a gigolo. He figures there are a lot of lovely ladies there and, in his words, all the guys are “tutti fruitties.” Once he gets to the Big Apple, he discovers it is not so easy to make money slinging ding-a-ling. To make matters worse, he gets ripped off by Ratso (Hoffman), a local miscreant who pretends to be helping him break into the industry. Unable to continue paying for his hotel room, Joe finds himself on the streets with only the clothes on his back and his trusty portable radio. By chance, he runs into Ratso again. Instead of beating him up as he intends, he strikes up an unlikely friendship with Ratso whom we shortly find out is a squatter in a condemned building. The two men carrying on this friendship while trying to make money any way the can ensues.

What draws us in first are the performances of our two leads. On the surface, Jon Voight has the slow “aw-shucks” southerner thing going, complete with clothes that make him look as if the most garish outfits in a Country-Western store exploded all over him. What’s beneath that is what sells us on him. He obviously has a dark and complicated sexual history. He also has no idea how to deal with it. We the sense that he was always a fish out of water, even in his own hometown. Voight, with plenty of help from director John Schlesinger, brings this across wonderfully. As good as he is, Dustin Hoffman is even better. We’re inclined to dislike a person as unscrupulous as Ratso, especially when that person appears to be constantly drowning in their own sweat and generally looks shifty. This applies even if the person is a cripple, as he describes himself. However, Hoffman makes his character a sympathetic figure long before the movie itself actually tries to accomplish this. It’s truly a brilliant piece of acting.

The story of Joe and Ratso also ensnares us. We become interested in their plights and get excited when it seems their fortunes might change for the better. Eventually, it becomes apparent that there is some repressed sexual tension between them. Though rather brazen for its own era, what it holds back is what makes the movie work. It shows us this without spelling it out for us. If made today, there would likely be a moment in which Ratso misconstrues something Joes says and kisses him only to have his advances rebuffed. That doesn’t happen here and the movie is better for it. While it is true that we see Joe being “gay for pay” when he has absolutely no money and needs a meal, it feels more genuine that neither would engage in anything physically intimate with another man without the threat of starvation hanging over their heads. These are two guys who identify themselves as straight and maintain their macho veneers, at least in part, by verbally disparaging those they call fags. Neither would ever admit there was anything other than a platonic kinship between them. These simmering emotions permeate the movie. We notice them in one of Ratso’s jealous rants and when Joe has sexual performance issues with a woman. She even taunts him with questions about his sexuality. The feelings are there, though neither guy will admit it.

It is said that everything happens not only for a reason, but when it is supposed to. With that in mind, I’m no longer surprised this is my first viewing of <em>Midnight Cowboy</em>, even though it is a couple years older than I. Truth is, I may not have been ready for it before now. No doubt, a much younger me may very well have liked the movie a lot, but missed much of the movie. I don’t mean I would physically miss it, because I’d watch every second. I mean the subtleties and subtexts would fall silently on my ears. I’d liken this bromance to any number of others without really differentiating it from them. The complexities of Joe and Ratso’s relationship would be lost on me. In short, I wouldn’t appreciate the masterful filmmaking on display.

<strong>MY SCORE: 10/10</strong>​

 

[Maynard]

ive never seen midnight cowboy....always heard great things about it, but never thought about seeing it. im gonna see if i can find a download.

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

Snitch was terrible. The movie loses sight of the message its supposed to be delivering almost immediately.

The movie, complete with infomercial at the beginning of the BR release, is supposed to be a lesson about how fucked up the war on drugs has become where the police can use whoever they want to get to higher level members of the drug trade...but it becomes hypocritical in that the character Johnson plays is just doing exactly what the police want him to do. Johnson's character is hypocritical and selfish and the end result is a movie that is frustrating from the jump.

It doesn't help that you had The fucking Rock and you tried to make it a more restrained drama over the all out action flick you'd expect it to be. Pretty bad flick.

 

[dell71]

A Good Day to Die Hard
<strong>Directed by John Moore.</strong>
<em>2013. Rated R, 98 minutes.
Cast:
Bruce Willis
Jai Courtney
Sebastian Koch
Rasha Bakvic
Mary Elizabeth Winstead
Yuliya Snigir
Radivoje Bukvic
Cole Hauser
Amaury Nolasco</em>​

When ultimate action hero John McClane (Willis) receives word that his wayward son Jack (Courtney) is sitting in a jail cell in Moscow he does what any good father would and boards the next flight to Russia. Needless to say, about two minutes after he steps off the plane, all hell breaks loose. In short order, we find out that Junior is actually a CIA operative trying to protect a political prisoner who knows the whereabouts of some very valuable and sensitive information. That means we get father and son teaming up to kill bad guys while working through their relationship issues. Everything going boom ensues.

I mean that last sentence literally. EV-UH-REEEE THING goes boom. Like its immediate predecessor, <em>Live Free or Die Hard</em>, this is an extended exercise in property destruction and pyrotechnics. The difference between the two is that McClane’s new sidekick is as much of a badass as he is. We sprint from one set piece to the next and reduce everything to a pile of rubble. If you want non-stop action, this is the place to be. The pace is relentless and most of the carnage is spectacular looking.

Unfortunately, the breadth and scope of the damage being done is all there is. Sure, there’s the bit about who is betraying who, but it’s nothing that couldn’t have been written out, in full, on the back of a napkin. Bruce Willis is funny, but its as often unintentional as it is on purpose. This is courtesy of the incredulous smirk he wears for much of the movie. It seems to say “I can’t believe they’re paying me to make another Die Hard.” Courtney, the young buck, seems to be giving it the old college try. Sadly, he’s very Sam Worthington-esque in both appearance and blandness. He adds nothing more than a second body to help cause mayhem. Granted, this is expertly rendered and constant mayhem, but it’s still just that.

Due to all that action, and it’s relatively short run time, <em>A Good Day to Die Hard</em> isn’t completely terrible as a disposable stand alone. The problem is that it can’t simply be what it wants. As the fifth movie in the fabled <em>Die Hard</em> franchise, there is too much history behind it. Too many of us not only remember, but revere what this series once was. When the first movie came out, John McLane was the antithesis of the typical action hero. He wasn’t some beefed up slab of man indiscriminately destroying everything in his path to save the day. He was far more human. Public safety was a major concern of his. Above all, he didn’t just say he was a family man, his actions proved it. Now, he is precisely what he once was the opposite of: an overly macho and unstoppable cyborg whose actions ignore the possibility of collateral damage. The arc of McClane as a character perfectly parallels that of the franchise as a whole. He has become exactly what this movie is. Soulless.

<strong>MY SCORE: 5/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

Snitch was terrible. The movie loses sight of the message its supposed to be delivering almost immediately.

The movie, complete with infomercial at the beginning of the BR release, is supposed to be a lesson about how fucked up the war on drugs has become where the police can use whoever they want to get to higher level members of the drug trade...but it becomes hypocritical in that the character Johnson plays is just doing exactly what the police want him to do. Johnson's character is hypocritical and selfish and the end result is a movie that is frustrating from the jump.

It doesn't help that you had The fucking Rock and you tried to make it a more restrained drama over the all out action flick you'd expect it to be. Pretty bad flick.

Overall, I call it "meh," but you make all valid points, no real arguments from me.

 

[dell71]

Just Go with It
<strong>Directed by Dennis Dugan.</strong>
<em>2011. Rated PG-13, 117 minutes.
Cast:
Adam Sandler
Jennifer Aniston
Brooklyn Decker
Nick Swardson
Nicole Kidman
Dave Matthews
Bailee Madison
Griffin Gluck
Kevin Nealon
Ratchel Dratch
Minka Kelly
Dan Patrick
Keegan-Michael Key</em>​

Ever since he was jilted at the altar twenty some odd years ago, Danny (Sandler) has been an unrepentant womanizer. He still wears the engagement ring he bought way back when as a decoy. When the woman he’s talking to notice it, he tells them how miserable his marriage is to gain sympathy points and to get in their pants. It usually works. When he meets Palmer (Decker), he thinks his days as a ladies’ man is done because she is the one. However, she actually wants to meet his wife to verify the two are actually getting a divorce. This is where Katherine (Aniston) comes in. Danny happens to be a top notch plastic surgeon and Katherine is his assistant. She agrees to pose as his soon-to-be-ex-wife during a lunch. When it slips that she has two children, Palmer naturally assumes they are also Danny’s kids. One thing leads to another and the whole gang of them, plus Danny’s cousin Eddie (Swardson), are off to Hawaii for a week of bonding that our hero hopes will end with he and Palmer living happily ever after.

If you want to know how this is going to play out, you only have to tap into your memory banks and do a little tweaking. Let me help. If these characters were in high school, Brooklyn Decker would be playing the hot and popular cheerleader while Jennifer Aniston play’s Sandler’s platonic best friend, hiding her beauty beneath a pony tail and glasses. Aniston really does sport that look, at least in the beginning. If that doesn’t help you, I don’t know what will.

Since we don’t have to worry about where the plot will take us, we only have to decide whether or not we find it funny. It is. In a few spots. Sandler doesn’t do anything terribly different than normal so he’ll make you laugh as much, or as little as usual. Swardson is his buffoonish sidekick and mostly annoying, but does have a moment or two worthy of a laugh. The two kids have their moments, as well. Aniston is funny only when her character is “in character” as the over the top ex-wife. Nicole Kidman and Dave Matthews fare best as a couple Aniston desperately competes with in Hawaii. Finally, as an actress, Brooklyn Decker is a great swimsuit model.

Therein lies the rub. Ms. Decker is both the best and worst part of <em>Just Go with It.</em> As implied, her performance is entirely forgettable. Nothing she does suggests she is more than just a pretty face. She’s since failed to change my mind on that with her less than stellar work in <em>Battleship</em> and <em>What to Expect When You’re Expecting.</em> On the other hand, for pigs like me, the scene of her emerging from the ocean in a yellow bikini is indelible. It’s probably one of the best bikini scenes of any movie ever made. It completely overshadows a similar, less bombastic but still impressive moment featuring Aniston. Then again, what does it say about this film that these are by far the two best scenes? Other than causing envy in lots of viewers wishing that their own sexual dilemma is having to choose between these two ladies, it doesn’t speak well. The only thing I clearly heard the movie say is Adam Sandler has lots of money and will spend any amount of it for a piece of ass.

<strong>MY SCORE: 4.5/10</strong>​