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.