Older Reviews- The Island

This film starts out as your typical science fiction opener, a calm scene with a vague idea what’s actually going on. The two main characters Lincoln Six Echo (Ewan McGregor) and Jordan Two Delta (Scarlett Johansson) find themselves in a secure facility after the end of the world. The facility is fairly standard futuristic technology, with the hologram screens, white walls and furniture, and creepy security guards. The facility is supposedly in existence to find and protect the survivors of a pathological apocalypse, as well as funnel the survivors off to the last “clean” place on earth, the Island.

There are only two ways to get to this mythical island, though only one of them is ever mentioned outright, and the other is seen in and assumed from the plot. One of the residents can either win the lottery, a random draw of a person to go to the island, or if a pregnant woman goes into labor, she is instantly sent to the island. Before you start thinking that the easy solution is to get pregnant, the inhabitants of this facility actually don’t know how babies are made. And now is where we see the Mr. Evil of the movie, Dr. Merrick. I’m sorry, but if they were going for a plot twist here, they should have made it less obvious. First, when the “kind” doctor looks as evil as Sean Connery does to Alex Trebek in celebrity jeopardy, you know something's not right. The entire setup is pretty obvious, so anyone who doesn’t see this coming is not the sharpest tool in the shed. Jordan wins the lottery, hip hip hurray! She’s told to pack her things and get ready for paradise. Meanwhile Lincoln follows a bug up the ventilation shaft to the evil laboratory of the facility… the medical wing. There, he sees a pregnant woman give birth, and witnesses the miracle of life, only to see her die of lethal injection a few seconds later. This sends him running to save the life of his good friend Jordan.

And now we can say, let the action begin! For those of you that go to a movie to see things blow up, this is where you wake up from your nap. For those of you that actually enjoy the plot, I hope you enjoyed the film up until now, because it’s about to go to hell in a hand basket… literally. The entire film now follows the classic action movie plotline, not even bothering to switch things up even a tiny bit. I’ll admit that as a 20 year old guy and pyro chem. major, I appreciate the occasional explosion and little bits of action here and there. However, Michael Bay takes it to a whole new level, turning a movie that could have had both a better than average plot and amazing action, to a film with more action than even I could stand. And keep in mind he fits the action into the last hour of the film, so by the end you’re a bit sick of it.

Now it’s time for some actual comments on the film. The movie starts out with an above average plot setting, and some fairly decent character development. However, once we get about forty-five minutes in, everything becomes chase scenes and things going boom. This is a film where there are many casualties near the end, and one of them is the plot. The plot line in the beginning holds so much potential that is eventually put to waste. My final advice on this movie is this. If you like lots of action and a little bit of plot, fast forward and you’ll like it. If you like plot, and some action, you’ll enjoy it. You won’t love it, and you might be disappointed to see such unfulfilled potential, but you’ll enjoy it.

Grade: B+ Despite my rant, it was a decent film, it just could have been so much better.
Reviewed by Thomas Jenkins

Older Reviews- Twilight

            It is impossible to separate Twilight from its fandom.

            Thursday night, theaters around the country were filled with teenage girls anxiously anticipating the release of the film version of Stephenie Meyers’ hit novel. Lines of preteens wearing “Team Edward” tshirts sat along the wall before the doors opened. The Twilight series has gotten more kids excited about reading than any book since Harry Potter, and the movie has sparked a similar excitement for the obsessive readers. But is it worth it?

            A part of me doesn’t see the point of writing this review, since the people who want to see the movie will see it, regardless of what I say, and the people who don’t want to see it probably still won’t want to see it, at least not within the first two weeks. It’s not that the movie can’t stand on its own, away from the books- it can. It’s that the fans in the audience cheer, sigh, and applaud so loudly at parts that foreshadow or portray parts of the novel that it can ruin the mystery of the story for anyone who doesn’t know it.

            That said, the movie is a decent movie. Nitpicky fans of the books will probably find issues with the representation, but for my own part, it got the plot down pretty well. If you would like to compare it to any of the Harry Potters, compare it to the fourth. The move is beautiful visually with a great soundtrack, and the only real plot changes are artistic and cinematic licenses that make it flow more smoothly on the silver screen.

            As the leads, Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson perform well as Bella and Edward. Kristen Stewart is adorable when she trips over everything in her path and accidentally hits a classmate in the head with a volleyball, and her performance otherwise is reminiscent of her quiet, understated performance in Speak (but with less angst). As Edward, Robert Pattinson is slightly more awkward than his literary counterpart, but this just adds to his believability as a boy changed into a vampire at seventeen, and keeping his seventeen-year-old mindset. The two of them make a nice couple, much more realistic and likeable than their characters in the books (though militant “Team Edward” members will probably disagree).

            Once fans can pry their eyes away from Robert Pattinson, they can admire the rest of the movie. As Charlie, Bella’s quiet and slightly awkward father, Billy Burke gives a wonderful performance. At first, he seemed a little stiff, but as the movie goes on, his acting is much more believable and much more heartwarming. His facial expression in one crucial scene towards the end of the movie is more emotion-inducing than every lovey-dovey scene between Edward and Bella combined. Visually, the film is stunning, capturing every possible bit of beauty that Washington State has to offer. Fans who have never seen Forks, La Push, or Port Angeles will now be able to understand exactly what Bella gets to wake up to every morning, and no amount of rain can make that view ugly. The soundtrack is a decent but not overbearing backdrop to the film, and the screenplay allows for little moments of dialogue that make the entire movie.

            The film’s flaws come mainly from the story itself and the filmmaker’s duty to the squealing fanbase. The least believable moments are the love proclamation scenes between Edward and Bella that could easily have been taken out, except that fans would have revolted. Robert Pattinson spends many close-ups staring moodily into space, as if the filmmakers really wanted to make screenshots for teenage girls’ posters. And, of course, it is impossible to hear much of the film with the applause and swooning from the peanut gallery every time Pattinson appears on film. But, such is the territory of fan candy. 

Grade: B

Older Reviews-The Uninvited

            A surprise ending turns this mediocre horror movie into an above average one.

            The Uninvited, released this Friday, is a pretty standard representation of its genre. Emily Browning (Series of Unfortunate Events) plays Anna, a troubled teen who has spent ten months in a mental hospital after attempting suicide following the death of her mother (who knew that one-time suicide attempts could get you ten months in a hospital these days?). After her release, she returns to her now-haunted lakeside home to find that her father is shacking up with her mother’s former nurse, the delightfully creepy Rachel (Elizabeth Banks, from Zack and Miri Make A Porno). Together with snarky sister Alex (Arielle Kebbel, who looks like Mandy Moore but is actually the girl from The Grudge 2), Anna begins to believe that Rachel has murdered their mother and intends to murder them.

            Most of the scares are fairly standard. Three vaguely creepy children haunt Anna at random intervals, leading her to their gravestones and telling her that she’s next. Anna’s mother’s ghost appears crawling and burned to a crisp, pointing blindly at any of the characters and moaning “murderer!” Blood flows from keyholes, garbage bags have dance parties, and all the while, stepmother Rachel practices her Jack Nicholson impressions. The army of teenagers in the audience (PG-13 horror film- what can you expect?) scream in terror at all of these moments, but the seasoned horror fan sees it all as par for the course, and will most likely remain unmoved.

            What the film lacks in scares, it makes up in plot. The audience is expecting a twist (or at least it should be- the teenagers behind me kept getting fooled by the most obvious red-herrings), and there is one. Part of the twist is not that surprising, but the biggest shock of them all comes almost out of nowhere. I considered watching the movie again to see all of the pieces fall into place and check to make sure the filmmakers didn’t cheat, but as I couldn’t find the movie online and don’t feel like paying $9.25 to see it again, you’ll just have to sort it out for yourselves.

            Frankly, if the filmmakers had settled for making a psychological thriller rather than a horror film, this one would have been better. As Anna, Emily Browning is gorgeously innocent and almost as fun to watch as Elizabeth Banks (who knew that Banks could do creepy?). Browning and Kebbel make a nice pair and have passable chemistry as far as sisters go. If the filmmakers wanted to expand the plot, they could have given the father (David Strathairn) more to do- he’s certainly capable of having more of a presence. The landscape is gorgeous, the plot is almost intriguing- the ghosts are unnecessary.

            This film will never match up with the horror films it’s being compared to. It is not The Shining, or The Sixth Sense. But as far as horror films go, it is far better than most of the other ones out there, PG-13 or otherwise. Just wait to rent it on video, if you want to uninvite those pesky audience teenagers. 

Grade: B-

Older Reviews- Miracle at St. Anna

            Spike Lee really wants that Best Picture Oscar, doesn’t he? Sadly, Miracle at St. Anna falls short of what it would take to earn said Oscar; however, that is absolutely no reason to skip this movie.

            Miracle at St. Anna, released this past Friday, appears to be the perfect film to start the Oscar bait season. The film begins with a murder mystery in a post office in 1983 but spans most of its time in 1944, covering the story of the 92^nd Infantry Division of the American army during World War II and its four soldiers trapped behind enemy lines in Italy. Being the first Hollywood film to feature the African American soldiers who fought for their country in a time when it refused to respect them, the film is primed to receive national attention. Add in the epic style of the film making, and it would seem to be a clear choice for the academy. And yet…

            The film, according to most critics, is far from Best Picture worthy. And admittedly, it is far from perfect. Certain moments tend to be a little cheesy, and, for a World War II film, parts of it feel awfully 20^th century. The film feels a little too long in parts and spends too much time on too many subplots. However, aside from these flaws, this war film is easily one of the best films to be released so far this year.

            There are moments when Spike Lee’s directing truly shines. Visually, this movie is stunning. Lee clearly saw the potential of filming Italy’s countryside, which even through the eyes of war manages to hold its beauty. However, even the less beautiful images stay with the viewer long after the film, not the least of which is a moment towards the beginning where the corpses of several soldiers float in a swamp, victims of a recent battle. The film manages to glorify the soldiers without making them unrealistic, and to portray the realities of war without sacrificing imagery. Backed by Terence Blanchard’s score, the film feels as epic as its director intended.

            Many moments in the film manage to be heartwarming, and it’s easy to sympathize with even the most minor characters (which, in a cast this large, is an impressive feat on its own). The four soldiers to cross enemy lines befriend the Italians they meet, and the scenes between them are often very rewarding to watch. In particular, Private Train, played by Omar Benson Miller, has several wonderful scenes with a young and potentially delusional little boy named Angelo, played by Matteo Sciabordi. The familial moments in Italy almost allow the viewer to believe that the film could end happily, and the soldiers can rebuild a life in a country where, despite the language and political barriers, accepts them more than their home country ever will. However, this is a war film, and, in the words of William Goldman, “There is death ahead, and some of the wrong people die.”

            I will be honest and admit that I was sobbing for pretty much the entire second half of the film. The presence of a broken statue head held by one of the soldiers and the trauma hinted at by Angelo suggest that something horrible happened at the St. Anna cathedral, and the film manages to take the event and make it stay with the viewer long after the credits. And, if that wasn’t enough, the rest of the film from that moment on keeps the viewer in tears. The ending, while not necessarily happy, ties up every mystery- all of which keep the viewer’s attention, I might add- and leaves the viewer feeling satisfied, even when it seems a little cheesy.

            So to the harshest of critics, Miracle at St. Anna may not leave the impression that Spike Lee was expected to make. But to the average filmgoer, it wins the battle over every other film out so far moment. Welcome to Oscar season. 

Grade: A-

Older Reviews- Smart People

            A pretentious reincarnation of the indie film about the dysfunctional family, Smart People is like the self-proclaimed genius in the back of every classroom, throwing out self-important attempts at wit and relying too heavily on the studious actors in the front row. For as good as the screen writers think it is, you’d expect it to be better.

            Smart People stars Dennis Quaid as Lawrence Wetherhold, an arrogant literature professor at Carnegie Mellon who loses his driving privileges after falling off of a fence and suffering a seizure. Since his wife is long gone and his two kids (Ellen Page  as overachiever Vanessa and Ashton Holmes as slacker poet James) are too wrapped up in their own lives to care, Wetherhold is forced to rely on his laid back and irresponsible adopted brother Chuck (Thomas Haden Church) and his ex-student turned doctor/girlfriend, Janet (Sarah Jessica Parker). It’s interesting that Chuck had been recruited as a chauffeur when he drives Wetherhold all of twice in the movie, most of the time leaving the professor to take a taxi, but I suppose they needed some excuse to bring the humor into the film. It certainly isn’t coming from anywhere else.

            There is a certain format to the modern indie film. There must be realistic performances, heavy-hitting humor, and a light, modern-folk oriented soundtrack. There must be a dysfunctional family with unusual circumstances that let the audience know that the creative team spent hours coming up with the new quirkiness. And while these films manage to not rip each other off, they don’t really feel different from each other after a while. Smart People is this sort of film, keeping the general format of predecessors like Little Miss Sunshine and Garden State, but it loses the humanity that other indie films are renowned for in favor of pretentious realism.

            The acting is all very good. As Vanessa, Ellen Page gives yet another Juno-esque performance as a snarky teenager, but for some reason overachiever Vanessa is significantly less likeable. Dennis Quaid is extremely believable as the nasty professor, but he fails to make the character enjoyable to watch. Sarah Jessica Parker is passable but bland, and only Thomas Haden Church manages to make his character fun to watch. The actors all did the best they could with the given script, and it would be unfair to call their performances anything less than wonderful. But even the best actors can’t carry a film without any other redeeming qualities.

            There is something to be said for a film that paces itself so poorly that the audience constantly feels the end must be coming and is shocked to learn that only an hour and forty minutes has passed since it started. The movie cannot be faulted on its realism, but realism only works if the film has other redeeming qualities. Every so often an interesting joke will come through, but there is only so much “intelligent” humor that one movie can take. Intellectuals will feel superior watching this film, as every other joke involves obscure SAT terminology or Victorian literature references, but understanding a joke doesn’t make it funny, just as relating to a film doesn’t make it enjoyable. Maybe next time the screen writer can look up “human” in his thesaurus, rather than letting the Smart People try to act it for him.

Grade: C 

Older Reviews- Righteous Kill

            What do Al Pacino and Robert DeNiro have in common? Multiple awards after performing in decent movies and easy paychecks after coasting through Righteous Kill.

            Pacino and DeNiro are undeniably good actors. It is almost always worth watching them perform alone, and seeing them perform together should be a rare opportunity to witness art on the big screen. But do remember- this is a cop-thriller. Which means that no matter how noteworthy the talent is, they’ve still got a criminal record following them- after all, predictability is easy and lucrative enough to be considered crime, and, like the villains in their films, screenwriters are now just begging to be caught.

            The film follows DeNiro and Pacino as detective team Turk and Rooster, two aging, tough-guy cops after a poetry-writing, bad guy-murdering serial killer. Further investigation leads the team of detectives (DeNiro and Pacino, with John Leguizamo and Donnie Wahlberg as Detectives Simon Perez and Ted Riley, respectively, led by Brian Dennehy as Lieutenant Hingis and shadowed by CSI Karen Corelli, played by Carla Gugino) to determine that the killer is almost certainly a cop- a fact supported by both cinematic past precedent and the confessional film-footage of one of the main characters interspersed throughout the movie.

            The film doesn’t particularly feel like a movie at first. For a long time, I forgot that I was in the theater, and wondered, instead, which season of Law and Order I was watching. Then Karen Corelli was introduced, and I realized my mistake- I was watching CSI, not Law and Order. And then dramatic music started playing, and the lighting changed, and I remembered that this was, in fact, a DeNiro and Pacino blockbuster. Once this became clear, the plot became slightly more interesting.

            The trouble with genre clichés is that they become clichés for a reason. The movie isn’t a complete waste of time, as it manages to be entertaining- it was enjoyable to watch the investigation team attempt to solve a murder that the audience thinks it has already solved. Though the way the plot is set up does put the film into a bit of a bind- after all, if there is no plot twist, the audience will feel gypped out of a surprise ending, and if there is a plot twist, the film becomes yet another tiresome thriller. The serial killer’s antics are typical- after all, what serial killers don’t leave appropriate rhyming quatrains on their victims’ bodies these days? But that said, these little quirks keep the film-goer’s interest.

            If all else fails, the viewer can fall back on the little pleasures. Moments where the acting is so realistic that the audience may as well be sitting in an actual precinct. Several times, the actors talk over each other so loudly that it is impossible to understand a single word of dialogue, and once or twice, DeNiro and Pacino utter monologues that consist of nothing more than a few innocuous words framed by strings of profanity. It’s touching moments of realism like these that make modern films worth watching. Unless, of course, you’re looking for high art.

            If that’s what you’re looking for, look for other Pacino and DeNiro films. Even this Oscar-winning investigative team can’t save this film.

Grade: C+

Older Reviews- Quills

Quills is a well-done film about a difficult historical figure. Blessed with a leading cast of four Oscar nominees (two of which double as Oscar winners), the film is fun, thought-provoking, and strangely educational for a film with such a pornographic subject.

            The film studies the life of the Marquis de Sade (Geoffrey Rush) in his years at the Charanton Insane Asylum. The asylum is surprisingly enlightened for an 18^th century France establishment. Inmates are given many opportunities for self-expression, including group games, painting, and even public theater, using the Marquis’ prose as a medium. Some of these scenes are a bit unbelievable- the paintings in the art room are all magnificently done, the patient choir is full of magnificent singers, the inmates are given access to candles and, in the Marquis’ case, almost everything he desires, and dangerous inmates, while usually locked up, are far too often free with only the Abbe (Joaquin Phoenix) and a few women to guard them. Patients at modern crisis centers are denied everything from pens to shoelaces, so it is amazing to wonder that France, in the era of the guillotine, no less, is so enlightened.

            Alas, these many opportunities for self-reflection are not enough for the Marquis de Sade. Desiring publication, he smuggles his erotic literature out of the asylum with the laundry maid, Madeline (Kate Winslet). Madeline, in her life of cleaning the linens of the insane, desires much in the way of excitement, and is smitten with both the Marquis and his prose. Everyone, for that matter, loves the Marquis de Sade in this world, from Madeline to the inmates to the Abbe himself, who calls him a friend. Under the Abbe’s handsome nose, the Marquis’ pornographic novel, Justine, is published in the outside world.

            Never fear, viewers. Doctor Royer-Collard (Michael Caine) arrives just in time to ruin the brain-healing utopia. Having read the Marquis’ smuggled novel, Napoleon orders the doctor to undergo an impossible task and cure the Marquis de Sade. In his first scene, the doctor demonstrates a “cure” for madness that involves forcibly dunking them in buckets of water over and over again. His every action suggests a sadistic nature that would make even the Marquis de Sade proud. The Marquis, in fact, is quick to make this connection himself, after hearing that the doctor has taken a young wife directly from a convent and virtually imprisoned her in his mansion. The inmates of the asylum instantly and at the last second pick up the Marquis’ comedy about a wealthy, elderly doctor raping his young wife to perform for the public, including the doctor and his underage bride. This gives Collard the ammunition necessary to really attack the kind-hearted atmosphere of the Abbe’s asylum.

            The movie moves from farce to tragedy as the Marquis ruins himself and everyone around him in his quest for notoriety. After the Marquis refuses to be reasoned with, the Abbe confiscates his quills and writing implements. He proceeds to write in wine on his linens. After being given only bread and water, he writes on his clothing in his own blood. When stripped of his clothes and locked in solitary confinement, he passes the story orally through the patients in the other stalls to Madeline, who proceeds to copy it. After Madeline is murdered by a highly suggestible inmate and Dauphin, the asylum’s pyromaniac, sets his bed on fire, the Marquis writes all over the walls of his cell with his own excrement.

            The movie does raise several interesting questions about the nature of pornography. Should the Marquis de Sade be allowed to publish, even though his works are, as the Abbe says, “unprintable” and in the case of Justine, “nothing but an encyclopedia of perversions?” Probably the most controversial notion raised is that the Marquis’ pornography insights violence. One inmate constantly attempts to assault Madeline, generally after having heard the Marquis prose. After foreshadowing it the entire movie, he rapes and drowns her during the movie’s climax (no pun intended) where the inmates pass the story through the walls of the asylum. The movie gives little indication that sane people are just as likely to commit these acts; however, the Marquis’ novel does inspire the doctor’s young wife to commit adultery with the architect sent to design the interior of her prison.

            Aside from its inconsistencies, the film is beautifully made. Kate Winslet, Geoffrey Rush, Joaquin Phoenix, and Michael Caine are acting at their best in four drastically different roles. Phoenix is loveable as the Abbe and manages not to become insufferable, and the viewer finds it easy to root for his character from the beginning to his tragic end. Kate Winslet manages to be both innocent and corrupt, and Michael Caine is delightfully sinister as the doctor. Of course, Geoffrey Rush stands out as the likeably crude yet undeniably dangerous Marquis de Sade. Nominated for three Oscars, Quills should be on the viewing list of anyone looking to learn more about the issue of forbidden sex. Or just anyone in the mood to see a decent film.

Grade: A

. 

Older Reviews- Punisher: War Zone

            It is possible to make a decent movie from a comic book. Iron Man, Batman Begins and Dark Knight, and the first two Spiderman movies have proven as such. Even Sin City, for all its gore and plot issues, stood out stylistically as a worthy film. That said, as good as some comic-book movie franchises can be, it is way easier to make a horrible one.

            I really wasn’t expecting much from this Punisher movie. I could barely sit through one of the trailers before wanting to scream and run away in terror (much like the movie’s victims, actually). I could only imagine how much more horrible an hour and forty-seven minutes of this could be.

            Fortunately, The Punisher: War Zone is not as atrocious as its advertisements would make it out to be. It’s slightly better. But only slightly.

            The Punisher: War Zone does have a few nice touches. In one scene, villains Jigsaw and Loony Bin Jim spend some time in front of an American flag backdrop, mimicking Uncle Sam’s attempts to recruit soldiers in a quest to recruit people to fight the Punisher. There are a few cute one-liners, including one moment where FBI agent Paul Budiansky tells a criminal that he’s under arrest, only to have the Punisher come up from behind and shoot the criminal in the face, provoking Budiansky’s “Would you stop doing that?” The production crew makes liberal use of the surround sound in the theater, causing little jumps and confused glances around the room when voices and missiles come up from behind and next to the audience. Otherwise, this film is a tiresome series of clichés and boring action sequences that really make audiences wish they had stayed home to watch Dark Knight for the thousandth time instead.

            The recipe for a good comic book adaptation is to take the action sequences in stride, make them interesting, and make the characters involved in those action sequences worth caring about. Punisher does have an abundance of action sequences, but the characters are wooden, hackneyed, and hard to sympathize with. In the first scene, Punisher Frank Castle murders an entire family as they’re sitting down to eat dinner. True, this was a mob family, and a terribly one-dimensional, archetypal mob family at that, but were we really supposed to believe that every person in that room was a bad person? No matter how many flashback scenes The Punisher gives us, showing how his own family was murdered in cold blood by the mob, it still is nearly impossible to sympathize with him later. Ray Stevenson’s one-note acting doesn’t make it easier.

            The movie is predictable to a fault. I found it very difficult to stay interested and pay attention, and while I wondered why and when the characters decided to go to whatever locations they were going to, I found it very easy to figure out what would happen when they got there. Worse still, the filmmakers chose to endanger a child as a desperate ploy for sympathy. The idea of putting a little girl in danger is a cheap trick on its own, but it would have worked a little better if her mother, played by Julie Benz, had been anything but annoying. Her acting clearly came from watching the female leads in movies like Cellular and attempting a watered down version.

            At one point in the movie, Julie Benz turns to The Punisher to ask, “Who punishes you?” It’s a decent question, and one that pretty much remains unanswered. We don’t know who punishes the Punisher, but we do know who punishes the audience. 

Grade: D

Older Reviews- Nick and Nora's Infinite Playlist

            Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist tells the story of teenagers enjoying a perfectly imperfect night together- appropriate, since this is a perfectly imperfect movie for teenagers to watch on an evening out with each other. Blessed with believable acting, a witty screenplay, and one of the best movie soundtracks since Garden State, the film is definitely entertaining enough for its target audience.

            The film follows high school musician Nick (Michael Cera) and high school music lover Nora (Kat Dennings) as, accompanied on and off by separate groups of friends, run around New York City in search of a secret concert performed by their favorite band, Where’s Fluffy. The two leads are charming and entertaining to watch, with Michael Cera continuing to excel as a slightly nerdy but still lovable teen and Kat Dennings putting on an impressively realistic performance as his shy, awkward, subtly beautiful and sarcastic counterpart. The cast also includes Alexis Dziena as Tris, Nick’s teen queen ex girlfriend, Ari Graynor as Caroline, Nora’s fun but unreliable drunk friend, and Aaron Yoo, Rafi Gavron, and Jonathan B. Wright as Nick’s trio of homosexual companions, out to get Nick over Tris and onto Nora.

            What the actors provide with their believable performances, the film loses in its plot. The characters, even with their petty gossip and insecurities, feel more like college students than high school students- the one exception being Alexis Dziena, who performs several stripper-tease dances that really makes the audience wince, partly because she looks too young to be acting that way, and partly because so many high schoolers really do act that way. It simply does not make sense that the parents of these suburban teenagers would let them wander around New York City at four in the morning, looking for a performance without a set location and club hopping with more alcohol than the average frat party. The plot itself is predictable and filled with character archetypes- archetypes that the actors avoid falling into, but that the audience can still see in the screenplay. However, the film keeps from being a complete cliché by giving the audience enough to enjoy in the watching.

            The screenplay is witty in the same way Juno was witty, giving the characters sarcasm and one liners in a way reminiscent of The N’s commercials, calling their shows’ characters “like your friends, only funnier.” Caroline’s unreasonable obsession with holding onto the same piece of gum the entire night gets grosser and grosser, appealing to the PG-13 sense of humor the film aims for- the high point involving a public bathroom stall. The music backdrop brings to mind the early days of Questionable Content, referencing bands and labels that people in the know will laugh at and people not in the know will put aside and enjoy anyway. And the music itself almost makes the film worth watching on its own.

            So, while not a perfect movie, Nick and Nora’s Infinite Playlist is still worth seeing. Especially if it’s a Friday or Saturday night, and, unlike the characters, you’d rather not wander around New York in the middle  of the night in search of drunk friends and elusive rock bands. Grade: B+

Older Reviews- Murder By Death

            Rarely do fans of any given movie, book, or genre of movie or book find anything more amusing than parodies of said works. In recent years, this has been seen through Scary Movie and the subsequent other lackluster works from it (Epic Movie, Date Movie, and all of the others that I keep seeming to forget). While parody is easy to laugh at, a really good genre parody is hard to come by. However, in 1976, Neil Simon managed to succeed in parodying the hardboiled detective genre in his cult classic film, Murder By Death.

            The film takes a star-studded cast and launches them into cleverly designed and easy to recognize roles, with James Coco and Elsa Lanchester as Milo Perrier and Jessica Marbles (parodies of Agatha Christie’s Hercule Poirot and Miss Marple), David Niven, Maggie Smith, and Peter Falk as Dick and Dora Charleston and Sam Diamond (Dashiell Hammett’s Nick and Nora Charles and Sam Spade, respectively), and Peter Sellers as Sidney Wang (Earl Derr Bigger’s Charlie Chan). Alec Guinness plays the traditionally suspicious butler (this time blind- a source of many gimmicks that arise with the introduction of a deaf-mute-illiterate cook), and Truman Capote makes his acting debut as eccentric millionaire Lionel Twain.

            Having so many wonderful actors in one movie is one of the many joys of watching this. Peter Falk’s performance as Sam Diamond sticks out as a slightly more insane impersonation of Humphrey Boggart’s Sam Spade, and his impersonation is impossible for any viewer to fail to recognize. As Dick and Dora Charles, Maggie Smith and David Niven never waiver from their posh but amicable styles, and Niven’s snappy delivery makes for many of the film’s best one liners. And Peter Sellers gives a decent if horribly politically incorrect performance as Sidney Wang, delivering the other half of the film’s best one liners (“Conversation like television on honeymoon- unnecessary.”)

            Neil Simon’s script misses none of the cloak and dagger mystery clichés, mocking every single one of them. The doorbell screams, the guests are on their guard for murder attempts designed for each of their individual skills (what the characters lose in seriousness, they keep in style and intelligence, and as in any real murder mystery, it’s always a pleasure watching them solve the crimes ahead of them), and cotton candy cobwebs decorate the bedrooms. The snappy one-liners and round of gags is occasionally silly, but show off Neil Simon’s talents as a playwright and screenwriter nonetheless.

            The only real downsides of this movie come from its extremely dated political incorrectness (mainly in Sellers’ portrayal of Sidney Wang) and its Holy Grail-esque unsatisfying ending. The former may or may not be forgivable, depending on how much the viewers are willing to keep the time period in mind, but the latter does leave the viewer wanting something more. Even with these flaws, the film is worth renting for a few decent laughs at a genre that could always use a few more.

Grade: B+

Older Reviews- The Haunting of Molly Hartley

            It’s Halloween. The PG-13 audience needs something to do. They’re too old to trick or treat, and too young to go to parties or better, R-rated horror films. Sadly, their remaining option appears to be “The Haunting of Molly Hartley.”

            The film begins with an opening sequence involving a father trying to kill his daughter, crying and saying over and over again, “I can’t let you turn 18.” It’s a nice enough beginning, but it lacks relevance to the actual plot of the movie, and is inherently more sad than scary- I cried a little, but then, I cry easily at movies. And it could have always been tears for the money I spent at the box office.

            The rest of the film concerns Molly Hartley, a troubled teen dealing with a new private school, strange voices and nosebleeds, and the fact that her mother is now institutionalized after trying to murder Molly with a pair of scissors. As Molly, Haley Bennett gives a decent performance, ranging from unexpectedly violent to cute and flirty, with a decent number of panic sequences in the middle. The audience did laugh hysterically at some of her more violent moments, but it’s nice to have a little cheese in a horror film. Especially one so devoid of other entertainment.

            Most horror films possess one of two kinds of entertainment. Either they have so much gore and terrifying images that the audience leaves wanting to vomit (think Silent Hill, The Hills Have Eyes, or Amityville Horror), or they avoid gore and concentrate on  suspense (The Others). The best horror films have both, but Molly Hartley manages to have neither. There is one spooky face thrown in the middle for no apparent reason, but otherwise, the scares come from birds, mail through a mail slot, and visions of Molly’s dead mother, shouting, “Let me save youuuuuuu!” at the top of her lungs across the street. The scariest thing about the movie is the fact that I expected it to be scarier. There is something so terrifying about anti-climax.

            The film is fairly predictable for the most part. The second we recognize that Molly is destined to be Satan’s homegirl (which is from the beginning of the movie- not from the dialogue, mind you, but from the trailers), it becomes obvious that her religious-zealot friend is going to either save her or try to kill her (or both, as the case turns out to be).  The film is rife with plot-holes- we assume Molly is only having visions of her mother, but she does end up appearing for real at one point- after all, Molly’s father does check on the dead body. Which leads to the obvious yet never answered question- how did she even get out of the maximum-security mental institution in the first place?

The ending is a bit out of left field, and my film-going companion and I argued about it for the rest of the evening, since we simply could not agree on what happened. He thought it was a complete non-sequitor dream sequence, and I thought it was a Stepford Wives-esque attempt at a meaningful letdown, if one that only manages to be disappointing. Neither ending manages to make sense, and the fact that we never came to a consensus means that this movie was going over one or both of our heads, and is likely to do the same to most of its candy-hungry audience. The only real consolation was the feeling that it really could have been worse. Grade: C

Older Reviews- Lulu Meets God and Doubts Him

(Note: The following article was written in November of 2007 by a Franklin and Marshall College student.) 

           F&M students should be proud.

            Danielle Ganek’s novel, Lulu Meets God and Doubts Him, has been floating around campus since its publication earlier this semester. It’s been on display in both the bookstore and the writers’ house. The alumni magazine published on parents’ weekend featured Ganek on the front page. The writers’ house sponsored a book reading and discussion on Lulu. And finally, after postponing her visit in October, Ganek came back to visit F&M Saturday, November 10.

            It’s one thing to celebrate an F&M alumna (yes, Ganek is an alumna- class of 1985, Franklin and Marshall College). But when I first picked up Lulu Meets God and Doubts Him, I didn’t know anything about the author. That being said, it should have been no surprise that one of our own could publish a book like Lulu Meets God and Doubts Him.

            The book treads a very dangerous ground, plot-wise. The main character, Mia McMurray, is a pretty girl who calls herself ugly and works in a Chelsea art gallery, surrounded by gorgeous men and women and famous artists and art collectors. This could easily be an art world rip off of The Devil Wears Prada. But Ganek is much better than that.

            The writing style is extremely witty, first of all. Ganek, through Mia’s voice, fully acknowledges the clichés potential by mocking it and changing it to something only slightly too happy to be satire. The book’s second chapter begins “as a good story often does, with a dead man. The dead man seems a fitting place to start. You might be disappointed to know the dead man wasn’t murdered. No, there’s no murder in my story. Not a lot of sex, either, if that’s what you’re after. If you want to call it a roman a clef, go ahead; I can’t even pronounce that word.” Mia’s voice remains like this for a good part of the book.  Her story is full of caricatures- the pretentious-without-a-clue gallery owner; the gossipy gallery receptionists; the boyish rebel postmodern artist. They are admitted caricatures- there is no doubt to their caricature-osity. In a lesser novel, this could be a problem, but Ganek is a wiz at using stock characters to reveal Mia’s voice and take the cliché of the hackneyed.

            It’s one thing to acknowledge and mock cliché as a way of abandoning it. But Ganek manages to go beyond wit and give the book substance. The title of the book comes from the title of the aforementioned “dead man’s” painting, Lulu Meets God and Doubts Him. Something in the title bothers the art world. As Mia says, “It’s so wordy, so literal, so not cool somehow. It perplexed me. Annoyed me. And made me think.”

            The painting itself is of a girl, Lulu, nine-years-old and holding a paintbrush and a clear expression of self-doubt. The painter, Jeffrey Finelli, before dying several pages later, explains “It’s about the creative endeavor…It’s about how we meet God through our creative acts.” As the book moves forward and the adult Lulu joins the plotline, the book becomes much less about the glamour of the art world and much more about Mia’s own self-doubt with the paintbrush, bringing the book to a much more human level.

            Simply put, the book is a wonderful read. For some reason, it’s difficult to find a fast, easy read in modern fiction without it feeling like a guilty pleasure. Lulu Meets God and Doubts Him has the look of a guilty pleasure, but as far as writing goes, Ganek could be a young reincarnation of Oscar Wilde. And what else should we expect from an F&M graduate?

Grade- A-

Older Reviews- Leatherheads

            Leatherheads is an enjoyable but easily forgettable and rarely original war film, sports drama, and romantic comedy rolled into one. With everything this movie has going for it, it should have gone further than it did, but while it may not score a touchdown, it has a few decent plays on the field.

            The movie boasts an all-star team of George Clooney (who doubles as the director), Renee Zellweger, John Krasinski, and Jonathan Price. Clooney plays Dodge Connolly, an suave and witty middle aged professional football player for the Duluth Bulldogs in a time when professional football meant acting on childhood fantasy, and professional football’s spectators consisted of cows staring blankly at the twenty-two grown men tumbling around in the mud and ruining perfectly good grass. As the Bulldogs lose their sponsorship and chance to play, Dodge decides to convince college football star Carter Rutherford (Krasinski) to join the team. Meanwhile, beautiful yet tough reporter Lexie Littleton (Zellweger) gets in the middle of the two men as she attempts to uncover a scandal about Rutherford’s “war-hero” past (and, of course, sleep with both Rutherford and Connolly at the same time).

            The movie is perfectly happy to be cheesy. Zelleweger seems to have perfected the art of parroting historical genres, between Leatherheads, Down With Love, and Chicago. Clooney is almost too charming, and Krasinski almost too goofy at times, but the parodies are recognizable and keep the characters somewhat loveable. Jonathan Price appears to be phoning in his performance as Rutherford’s manipulative agent, but with a character so cliché, there really isn’t any need for him to pull out anything remarkable in his acting. Some of the jokes fall flat—not because they aren’t funny, but because they were only funny in the first three hundred movies to use them. Some conversations are directly ripped out of better films (the conversation about what can and cannot be said on the radio is almost exactly the same as the one in Inherit the Wind), and if I see one more movie where sappy music is played when the romantic hero first sees the romantic heroine, I will have to tackle the projectionist and intercept the film.

            That said, stylistically, the movie is fun to watch. Randy Newman’s score adds nicely to the twenties vibe, and the slightly faded coloration makes the film look like a classic. Certain scenes do manage to be amusing—Clooney and Zelleweger have an appropriately entertaining argument while on two levels in a bunk bed, and the final showdown between Clooney and Krasinski is certainly fun to watch (all I will say is that it involved enough mud that I spent the entire scene trying to figure out how many hoses and showers would be needed to wash it off).  Even the cheesiness of the romantic comedy is entertaining at times. The audience was laughing from start to finish, but it was hard to tell whether they were laughing with Clooney’s antics or at his critical fumble.

            With the sheer number of films out there, it is fairly difficult to recapture the twenties and forties style charm that Leatherheads attempts to copy. In Singing in the Rain, Debbie Reynolds comments of the movies, “You’ve seen one, you’ve seen ‘em all.” It is certainly possible to re-imagine a genre, and while imitation is a decent start and a worthy form of flattery, movies like Leatherheads too often leave the audience with a sense of deja-vu and a desire to see something—anything—that manages to break away from that sort of cliché. Like the football players in the film, this is a genre that has been tackled one too many times. 

Grade: B-

Older Reviews- Inkheart

            Well, it’s no Harry Potter.

            Over the past couple of years, filmmaker after filmmaker has tried to take the enchantment from childrens’ fantasy literature and throw it onto the silver screen. We’ve seen this in films from Harry Potter and Narnia to Golden Compass and Spiderwick Chronicles. Blessed with epic music, beautiful cinematography, and hoards of special effects, the PG audience loves seeing their bedtime stories come to life in front of them.

            Inkheart takes this premise a step further, bringing forth the idea of what the world would be like if we really could make our bedtime stories come to life. Brendan Fraser plays Mortimer, a father and book binder who has the ability to bring characters and objects out of books by reading them out loud- the only price being that for everyone who comes out of a book, someone else must go back in.

            The film is lovely to watch. Cinematographer Roger Pratt, whose work was previously seen in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, maximizes the beauty of the European landscape, forming a brightly colorful backdrop of greens, grays, and reds that almost make the film worth seeing on its own. The treasure trove of well-known actor slumming their way through this film (pass on Brendan Fraser, and you’ve still got Helen Mirren, Paul Bettany, Jim Broadbent, Andy Serkis, and, in an entirely pointless cameo, Jennifer Connelly) give some life to a less than ideal screenplay. And when the special effects do come into play, they give the film the aura of magic required of this sort of film.

            That said, there is so much wrong with this film that, beautiful or not, it cannot really stand on its own among the other fantasy classics and modern classics in either literature or film. There are many good guys and characters that, as fun as they appear to be, really are useless to the plot. Helen Mirren rides into Andy Serkis’s evil lair on a unicorn towards the end of the movie, but this plot device fails to work when she still has nothing to do when she shows up. Jim Broadbent, as the author of the book whose villains are trying to take over our world, appears to be the one who can save everyone and, in the end, still manages to be rather useless. Even Brendan Fraser does very little to save the day, leaving the plot in the hands of daughter Meggie (played by Eliza Bennett). It’s always fun to watch Helen Mirren and Jim Broadbent hang around with brightly colored special effects, but did they really need to waste their time in this movie?

            Add this to the fact that the story, for all of its magical wisdom, really makes very little sense. It’s never made clear what comes out of a book and what goes in at any given point in time, and the laws of the world change frequently enough that they only seem to be governed by what is needed for the plot at any point in time. If Mo had this power his entire life, it seems highly implausible that he wouldn’t know it until his mid thirties (wouldn’t he notice various people and objects disappearing and popping up around him whenever he read out loud?). And all of this pales in comparison to the greatest mystery of all- why is Mo American and Meggie British, when they’ve lived and traveled together for all of Meggie’s life?

            That said, this movie is harmless. It has a nice message about the wonder of classic literature and is a fun enough movie for kids to see on a lazy night. And, if all else fails, enjoy the trailer for Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince before the movie starts.

 Grade: B

Older Reviews- He's Just Not That Into You

            He’s Just Not That Into You has all of the makings of a poignant social satire; however, too often it settles for being a standard romantic comedy.

            The movie seems bound for commercial success. The trailers featured the wittier aspects of the storyline and made it seem like a modern-day Woody Allen film. The star-studded cast is gigantic, lending itself more to the question, “Who isn’t in this movie?” than “Who is?” The movie seems refreshing and smart, offering romantic advice about situations that appear in real life but that more conventional romantic comedies have yet to touch upon- for instance, the difference between a text, a call, and a myspace message when it comes to pursuing relationships?

            Occasionally, the movie’s strengths do come through. Periodically, the film asks relationship-type questions (“What do you do if he’s cheating on you?”) and answers these questions through interview-style footage of people talking about their own romantic history, which is often more intriguing than that of the main characters (one woman launches into a tirade against caller ID, complaining that she should have the right to call a man every fifteen minutes until he picks up without seeming like a stalker). The clever merging of the subplots and characters gives a six degrees of separation feel that shows just how widespread this web of romantic deception is in our society. The movie is eye-candy to the point of diabetic coma (and more insecure viewers will wonder why these beautiful people are all having so much relationship trouble), and the footage is bright, cheery, and colorful with an upbeat but not overbearing soundtrack to back it up.

            The film’s failures, however, are in its inability to be as risky as it has the potential to be. The characters themselves are relatively conventional, and the actors portraying them just play to their types. Jennifer Aniston is in a seven-year relationship and is bitter about the lack of marriage. Scarlett Johanson is blowing off the guy who is completely in love with her for a married man, as the married man’s wife laments losing  her husband. Ginnifer Goodwin wants desperately to fall in love, but her clinginess too often shoves men away. The stories are standard- it’s the merging of them that gives this the potential to work. If the characters could be used as commentary rather than a cheap way of making ten romantic comedies for the price of one.

            The film could probably be about half an hour later. But what would the filmmakers cut? Could they get rid of Drew Barrymore’s character, who is fairly useless for the main plot but gives the most original amount of satirical commentary? What about Jennifer Aniston’s plotline? It isn’t essential, but it’s the one story with a relationship where both people are clearly in love with each other, rather than being fully one sided, and it does seem essential to show that angle as well as the others. Cut out the Scarlett Johanson/Bradley Cooper/Jennifer Connelly love triangle, and the film loses the sad reality of relationships that really do fail as a result of deception and betrayal, and lose Ginnifer Goodwin and Justin Long and you lose the two most likeable and interesting characters.

            That said, the film is entertaining and does get a decent number of laughs and appropriate reactions from the audience. It just seems like it could have gotten even more, had the filmmakers been willing to make it happen. 

Grade: B

Older Reviews- Fools Gold

            Fools Gold is essentially three different movies morphed into one film that may or may not please the audiences of each genre. Part gangster film, part romantic comedy, and part treasure-hunting adventure, it loses some entertainment value in all of the clutter.

            The film follows Finn (Matthew McConaughey), an admittedly adorable treasure-hunting fool and his more intelligent but less adorable wife, Tess (Kate Hudson). According to the film, it would be more accurate to call Tess Finn’s ex-wife, but it’s very difficult to take a divorce seriously when the film makes it so clear from the very beginning that the couple is doing little more than taking a break for a hissy fit. There is very little mystery to the predictable romantic comedy.

            The couple ends up together on Nigel Honeycutt’s (Donald Sutherland) yacht, and after one of the longest exposition scenes in action film history, the billionaire agrees to finance the two on a mission to find the lost treasure of the Aurelia, a ship that sunk in 1715 and apparently has been forgotten about by almost everyone. Almost, of course, does not include Finn and Tess, the treasure-hunters who taught Finn everything he knows, or the gangster-rappers hunting Finn for everything he has.

            The film has its good moments. The opening scene is fairly well done with jumpy camera angles and a humorous set of captions about the Aurelia. In one scene, Nigel plays gin rummy with his Paris Hilton-esque daughter, Gemma (Alexis Dziena). For the first time in the movie, Gemma is charming and believable; the rest of the time, she serves little more purpose other than the beautiful idiot foil for Tess. Certain points in the treasure-hunt make the audience yearn to leave the film and go treasure hunting in the Caribbean (as opposed to leaving the film, period, which only happens once or twice). The acting is fine all around—nothing noteworthy, but all the leads are as good as can be expected.

            Otherwise, the film loses in continuity and bad writing. Most of the jokes fall flat, and the ones that don’t were overplayed in the trailer. The exposition scene on the yacht is so slow and difficult to follow that the audience is likely to feel as intelligent as Gemma listening to it. The gangster-rappers are little more than annoying as villains, stealing focus from the slightly more interesting romantic comedy and treasure-hunting plotlines.

            The movie is filled with so many gaping holes that it is surprising the ocean didn’t pour into the theater and drown the first few rows. If this treasure-filled ship was such a big deal, why are these jokers the only ones looking for it? True, they are following theories and ignoring fake leads, but it still makes little sense that not a single historian is after this treasure—why now, three hundred years later, and why Tess and Finn? This mystery is only second to the mystery of Gemma’s character—is she supposed to be an idiot or not? The film hints that she’s only pretending to be stupid to get attention, but after the gin rummy scene, she returns to her old ways and never really redeems herself.

            Overall, the film is entertaining as a travel-logue and even occasionally as an action film, but rarely as a romantic comedy. Best to add the $9 to your own treasure-hunting fund, and pray you can be more careful with the equipment than Finn—or the writers.

Grade- C 

Older Reviews- Confessions of a Shopaholic

            Confessions of a Shopaholic tries to make a strong point about the dangers of materialism and addiction, but it gets lost in glitz and ditzy humor.

            Isla Fisher (Wedding Crashers, Definitely Maybe) plays Rebecca Bloomwood, a journalist obsessed with shopping, glitter, and the elite fashion magazine “Alette.” When she discovers both an opportunity to work at the magazine and a ticket out of her $16,000 debt, she jumps for it in her seven-inch pink heels, only to find out that her best available opportunity is at Super Savings- yes, a boring, unglamorous, yet infinitely more useful finance magazine.

            This movie is essentially Uptown Girls, The Devil Wears Prada, Bridewars, Legally Blonde, and AA philosophy rolled up into one film. It preys upon the consumerist culture, label dropping constantly and, even when it tries to give a message about fiscal responsibility, wraps it in a fuzzy leopard print blanket of fashion porn.

            Hidden within the movie is a stronger message about addiction. One of the high points is a monologue by Isla Fisher, where she comments to the editor of Alette magazine about being lost in debt over clothing that Alette calls “affordable fashion.” There are moments that take place at shopaholics anonymous, and while the idea that such meetings exist (as, with the economy in its current state and movies like this one being made, they probably do) could say something about the danger of compulsive activity and compulsive spending in particular, the writers take the same approach to these scenes as the writers of Blades of Glory took in the sexaholics anonymous meetings- using it as another excuse to joke about an addiction that the majority of the world will never take seriously.

            Thrown into the mix is a love affair with Super Savings editor Luke Brandon (Hugh Dancy). The relationship is essential to the chick flick formula, but it rarely ventures outside the realm of pointless. There is very little chemistry between Fisher and Brandon, and the romance seems forced and thrown in at the last minute. The film is long enough as it is (1 hour and 45 minutes that feel way longer with all of the repetitive gags), and the Brandon/Bloomwood situation only makes it feel longer.

            As far as the acting goes, Isla Fisher is appropriately charming as Bloomwood. She’s shown a talent for playing loose cannons before, and she does not disappoint in Shopaholic. The problem is, she keeps playing the same parts, so it’s hard to know if she’s talented or simply nuts. If she wants to live up to her stunt double Amy Adams, she needs to stop making movies like Shopaholic, pronto. As best friend Suze, Krysten Ritter is delightfully neurotic, though even her antics get tiring after awhile. Probably the most noteworthy acting comes in the form of a series of store mannequins that taunt Fisher with the allure of shopping. But, as Fisher learns about spending money on clothing, the audience of this film would best spend its money elsewhere.

Grade: B-

Older Reviews- Adventureland

            Adventureland, released this Friday, is about as much of an adventure as the theme park it takes place in. The film is yet another soft indie comedy about young adults with mellow indie music in the background (think Juno, Nick and Nora’s Infinite Playlist); however, within the realm of the genre, Adventureland is touching, funny, well-acted, and well scripted, and as such worth spending an evening watching.

            The film stars Jesse Eisenberg (an adorably awkward male version of his sister Hallie Kate Eisenberg, aka “the Pepsi girl”) as James Brennan, a recent college grad told last-minute that his parents not only cannot sponsor his post-graduation trip to Europe but won’t pay for his tuition to Columbia’s school of journalism. “Not even qualified for manual labor,” in James’ words, he takes a summer job as a games operator at the sleazy theme park called “Adventureland,” where games are rigged, rides dismember their passengers, and “nobody ever wins a giant f-ing panda.”

            The movie is extremely realistic. It almost feels like someone filmed a bunch of adolescents working at a theme park and placed it on the screen. The dialogue is sparse in places, but in a way that suggests that the screenwriter personally went and listened to conversations to get a feel for the natural rhythm and style of speech and molded it carefully into dialogue. It’s easy to see the film and feel not only a connection but a familiarity in the characters, aided in part by the acting.

            Jesse Eisenberg is delightfully awkward as James and should have a decent career as the innocent young adult type. Kristen Stewart plays the same type of realistic pretty yet troubled young girl that she usually plays, but as she plays it well, the audience can forgive the typecasting. Martin Starr and Bill Hader provide consistent comic relief, with Starr as the overzealous manager of the park and Hader as James’ apathetic coworker. Ryan Reynolds is every bit a movie star among a cast of character actors as sleazy maintenance man Mike Connell. And Jack Gilpin gives a wonderfully understated performance as James’ father, saying no more than five lines but communicating at least forty more with his facial expressions.

            The film does go on for a bit longer than necessary. There are several unnecessary subplots that add to the realism of the film but slow the pace and the drama. The film borrows heavily from other films in the genre plot-wise, and some of the jokes and plot twists wax cliché. There is the young-looking park virgin slut Lisa P. who takes up far too much screen time, and apparently vomit jokes are essential to any movie about roller coasters. That said, there may not be an adventure in “Adventureland,” but the viewer will still have the pleasant experience that comes with the lazy days of summer torture-jobs that we hate and then miss for years on end. Such is the experience of Adventureland.

Grade: B+

Older Reviews- 88 Minutes

            Like Cellular, Phone Booth, and other cheesy action thrillers of its kind, 88 Minutes is good for one thing only: entertainment and humor at the film’s expense. Of course, Cellular and Phone Booth never had Al Pacino along for the ride.

            Pacino stars as Dr. Jack Gramm, a forensic psychiatrist responsible for putting accused serial murderer Jon Forester (Neal McDonogh) on death row. The day that Forester is set to die, one of Gramm’s students is found murdered in the same manner as Forester’s alleged victims, and Gramm receives a phone call, informing him that he has 88 minutes to live. The rest of the film consists of Pacino running around and trying to figure out who is trying to kill him before he or she succeeds.

            The film is filled with an army of plot holes. Gramm’s would-be murderer goes out of his way to frame him for the other murders. However, it does not make any sense to try to frame a man who is about to become the next victim- it would completely defeat the purpose. As Kim Cummings, Gramm’s teaching assistant, Alicia Witt acts so guilty throughout the film that when she is found to have nothing to do with the crime itself, every single suspicious expression ceases to have a purpose. Stephen Moyer follows Dr. Gramm around the entire day for reasons that have nothing to do with the death threats, and the viewer never finds out why. There is a subplot involving Gramm’s younger sister, giving Gramm motivation against Forester, but why on earth the murderer is so keen on using the subplot against Gramm is never made clear. And why is Gramm so ready to let Kim out of his sight when he’s refusing to trust anyone during his last 88 minutes?
            To be fair, the doctor has a lot on his mind. The film takes place in real time, so both Pacino and the murderer have to be very industrious. Of course, this is absolutely the biggest plothole in the film- it is inconceivable that the murderer and Gramm can engage in a terror-filled, information-grabbing, chase-scene bonanza of this caliber in less time than it takes for me to write this review. If the average person is given 88 minutes to live, the most they will be able to accomplish is a few phone calls and maybe a run to the drugstore. But these people are running around, smashing cars, dodging police, kidnapping and raping young woman, all in the space of 88 minutes. It is completely unbelievable.

            But that is exactly why I am recommending this movie. Yes, it’s goofy. Yes, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. But it’s fun to watch. Al Pacino is one of the best actors of our time period, and there’s a definite pleasure in following him for 88 (well, 108) minutes, even with the shoddy screenplay. There are stunts and lines meant to be poignant that come off as cheesy, but the audience is likely to have a good laugh or two about them. If next Friday night comes around, go see this movie with a couple of friends and laugh at the characters’ expense. After all, if you’ve only got 88 minutes, you may as well spend them laughing.

 Grade: C

Older Reviews- 17 Again

            17 Again is a somewhat heartwarming but easily forgettable family comedy. That said, there are worse movies out there.

            The plot is all too familiar. Mike O’Donnell, a bitter 37-year-old man (Matthew Perry) makes a wish to be young again, and a magical janitor is all too happy to grant this wish. Yawn. The man turns 17 again (hence the title) and is reincarnated as teen heartthrob Zac Efron. Double yawn. The moral of the story: appreciate what you have, be careful what you wish for, and family is the most important and worthwhile thing you could ever have in life. Fine, but this movie has been made so many times that High School Musical 4 would have been better.

            There are some laughs in this movie. Thomas Lennon shines as Zac Efron/Matthew Perry’s best friend, and all fantasy/sci fi/computer geeks will appreciate the references that come from his character. I laughed out loud when called himself pathetic for having a replica of Gandalf the Grey’s quarterstaff from Two Towers, only to have his uptight and conservative date (Melora Hardin) reply, “You’re right, it is pathetic. Especially since Gandalf the Grey was only in The Fellowship of the Ring. In Two Towers, he is reincarnated as Gandalf the White.” The rest of their conversation continues in Elvish, and I found myself wondering if it was Quenya or Sindarin, as the film never specifies and I never finished learning the language in high school. That said, these jokes might not be as funny to less geeky audiences.

            Otherwise, the movie is pretty standard. Michelle Trachtenberg’s character is wholly unlikable, as is that of her standard teenage bully of a boyfriend (played by Hunter Parrish, whose apparent popularity is as inexplicable as the casting director’s decision to cast Matthew Perry as an older Zac Efron). Leslie Mann is gorgeous as Perry/Efron’s wife, but her scenes with Zac Efron tend to be a little creepy in a Stacey’s Mom/MILF obsessed world (as are Efron’s scenes with Trachtenberg). Sterling Knight is sweet and adorable as Alex, and he and Efron probably have the best chemistry of anyone in the film (short of Lennon and Hardin, of course). And Zac Efron is passable, occasionally believable as a 37-year-old in a 17-year-old’s body, but not really stretching himself in any other way (in how many movies is he planning to be a basketball star?).

            Even with these flaws, the movie does manage to be a little heartwarming. The moral is clear, and Mike’s desperate desire to stay close to and protect his children is the best seen in a live-action family comedy since Mrs. Doubtfire (though not nearly as good as Finding Nemo- sorry, Disney). Shame that this will be lost on the teeny-bopper audience waiting for Efron to stare moodily into the camera, and that audiences that would understand would never want to see this movie. Grade: B-

Yet Another Review Blog- Updated

So, clearly this blog has never been updated. Well, that's about to change. Here are some of my new policies:

1. I am accepting multiple authors. If you are interested in writing for Yet Another Review Blog, comment with your blogger username/email address, and I'll add you. 

2. I will take requests. If you would like something reviewed, tell me, and I will review it. This is what the comments are for. 

3. Jump in, read, enjoy.