Reviews: I Love You, Man & Knowing

Brotherly Love

This film is the result of two pop culture trends coming together, neither of which I'm particularly fond of. One is the "Apatow Look-a-like." This is the film that has the same raunchy humor that one would expect from a film directed or produced by Judd Apatow, and often contains many actors that he works with, but nowhere is his name found. Films like Role Models, Zach and Miri Make a Porno and the forthcoming Observe and Report are a few examples. The other trend has coined the term "bromantic comedy", a term that I despise. This is the film that dissects the relationship between two straight men as they search for the strong platonic love for one another (the reality show "Bromance" is the worst example of this as it gives the world another reason to hate Brody Jenner). As I said, I don't care for these two trends but they have combined to create this surprisingly pleasant film.

The always reliable Paul Rudd plays Peter Klaven, a well to do, but meek, relestator who is recently engaged to his fianceé Zooey, played by The Office's Rashida Jones. As they prepare for their wedding, Zooey and Peter realize that he has no best man, as Peter has had many girlfriends over the years but has never gravitated toward a male friend. After many unsuccessful attempts, then enters Sydney (Jason Segel) the brash counterpart to Peter's controlled life who eventually helps Peter rediscover himself and grown on him as a best friend.

Rudd is always a good guy to have in your movie, and I've always been convinced that he'd make a good leading actor. He showed us one side in Role Models, and it was an effort I appreciated from Rudd but didn't think carried all the way through to the end. Here, Rudd is always doing great work but this time he's got the material to back him up, and if this continues, I would hope to see more roles with Rudd as the top star. Segel is great in the film, and is actually the reason why the movie works. Sydney is meant to be a total opposite, but his character is never cartoonishly over the top. He's got real problems, and many of them are called out and shown him as a human being. He is crude, but in the most realistic way one can think of. Both Segel and Rudd have great chemistry together and their friendship is totally believable (unlike Rudd and Seann William Scott).

Circling them, the supporting players tend to range from good to throw away. For instance, Jones is a good sideline for the film as she always invests a warm spirit without stealing the focus away from the two leads. Jaime Pressley and Jon Faverau (yes, the director of Iron Man), play a couple friend of Peter and Zooey and the two can go over the top in one moment then bring it back down to a reality the next. Andy Samberg as Peter's gay brother and J.K. Simmons as his crass father are good saviors to a film, but others like Rob Huebel as Peter's real estate rival, Thomas Lennon as an awkward "man-date" participant, Joe Lo Truglio as a voice pitch impaired trainer and Lou Ferrigno as himself seem like parts of a movie striking below the smart bar, which didn't seem necessary for a movie that could have been a little smarter.

Director John Hamberg and his co-writer Larry Levin most of the time deliver well in the comedic scenes as well as the sincere ones. Not only are the moments between Peter and Sydney genuine, but so are the moments between Peter and Zooey, a rare find in these films. Still, there are elements of the story that don't always work and they seem included just to excite for excite sake. For instance, I don't really understand why Samberg's character is gay since the film does nothing with him, nor do I really get why all the friends circling Peter and Zooey tend to be one note characters. Fortunately, these concerns are not present all the way through.

As much as this film tries to be a little smarter than what you would normally expect, it still reduces itself to some sophomoric humor that really makes the quality lower itself. It's too bad because with such a strong execution from a wimpy premise, that would have been a major surprise. Even still, there's a lot to take from the film, particularly the stellar performances from the whole cast. I may not like the reasons for the movie's existence, but I do like the finished product. *** / ****; GRADE: B




Knowledge is Sour

I've always been amazed at how Nicolas Cage is one of those few actors who is able to let his own hair upstage him in nearly every scene. I've also been amazed at how Cage is constantly able to gravitate toward sub par material when we obviously know that he is much better than that. Why must the latter half of his career be plagued by Ghost Rider, Next, Bangkok Dangerous, The Wicker Man and the ridiculously silly, but money grabber that it is, National Treasure films. For his latest outing, I was going in with some pretty low expectations, as one can imagine. In the end, I found many elements to a film that made it a little more tolerable than I thought it would be.

Cage plays John, a professor at MIT who is a nonbeliever about all things predestined and divine. As his son Caleb attends the opening of a time capsule at his school from fifty years ago, he discovers a piece of a paper scribbled with numbers all around. John discovers that these numbers correlate to major disasters that occurred over the last half century and three more dates remain until the numbers finally run out.

Knowing is a film that starts off with a good premise but finds some flaws within its execution. Director Alex Proyas, the man behind the cult classic Dark City the enjoyable joyride known as I, Robot dresses every scene up quite nicely, and he has a good sense of pace for the film. All the action is able to flow out at an even pace and we don't get a film that seems hurried along. Proyas's direction is also enhanced very well by the excellent lighting from Simon Duggan and the effectively eerie score from Marco Beltrami, particularly during some intense disaster sequences that accomplish their unnerving tasks.

However, it is the script that is the major fault of the film. John switches from skeptic to true believer with no stop in between and his quest is always one that feels it doesn't have energy. By the time we get to the third act, the plot no longer seems necessary. Some might laugh at the film's heavy religious ending, but I quite enjoyed the reminder of science fiction's strong parallel to religion. Still, that doesn't mean all of it easy to take in, and even I found myself rolling my eyes during some of the final parts of the film.

At this point, you're either going to like Nicolas Cage or you're going to hate him. Here, there are reminders that he provides which shows he is still a great actor, and there are other moments when his mind goes on auto pilot with that blank stare as he lets the action sequences take over. Overall, it's certainly not the best work Cage has done, but we've certainly seen him in a lot worse. Some other members do quite well, such as Chandler Canterbury, who plays Caleb as more than just the plucky kid and Nadia Townsend as John's sister brings some good natured humanity to the film. However, Rose Byrne doesn't really impress here and she's got a pretty basic throw away part.

The movie is far from perfect, and because of a tough call with the third act, I can't really say that the film is a recommendable one. However, knowing where Cage's career has been the last few years, to get a project that has an intriguing premise and a halfway decent execution is a nice surprise. Unfortunately, the film doesn't follow up all the way through, but I certainly found this to be a little more engaging that the poster might had led me to believe. **1/2 / ****; GRADE: B-

Review: Duplicity

Plan on Fire

I don't know what Tony Gilroy's personal and political views are like, but I'm starting to wonder why he seems to have such a resentment to corporate America. With this and his previous outing, Michael Clayton, the big businesses of the world that are particularly centered in New York City are not really painted in the brightest of colors. They are organizations that are sneaky, greedy, corrupt, and always doing dirty deals in order to eliminate the problems that others are causing. Even the CIA in the Jason Bourne films, which Gilroy has written, seem to be a model of a company trying to get silence a disgruntled employee with valuable insider information. This film isn't meant to be quite as serious but I still found it to contain a lot of smart and quick energy.

Mega stars Julia Roberts and Clive Owen play two former spies, one who was with the CIA and one with MI-6 (can you guess which one?). They both have been hired by rival conglomerate companies that are in the business of making anything. Tom Wilkinson is in one corner that employs Roberts and Paul Giamatti is in the other with Owen. The zigzagging plot centers around the different sides trying to get their hands on a revolutionary product and the question of who's conning who is one that comes up very frequently.

I wasn't a huge fan of Michael Clayton when it came out, and one of the reasons was I didn't believe Gilroy was good enough to direct it. The film had a great script, but Gilroy could never move the action in scenes well enough for me to get totally invested. On his second try, the efforts seem a little more comfortable, and the sleek presentation from Gilroy feels more natural and the visuals are able to develop along with the story. The film is directed with a much more composed hand this time, and I believe Gilroy will only get better as a director as time goes on. Of course, his script is superb, occasionally needing a suspension of disbelief, but always smart and sophisticated, forcing an audience to constantly observe its ins and outs.

Owen and Roberts are two great actors, and their relationship feels really genuine, probably because they worked so wonderfully together in Mike Nichols's adaption of Closer. Both of them appear comfortable in their roles and they each know the right tones to strike. Owen delivers that great balance of sternness and charm, once again providing evidence that he would have been my 007. Roberts has been an actor that I've never fallen in love with, but it was fun watching her enthusiasm in the role and especially how she plays off of Owen. Giamatti is always great in anything he does as he can bring that everyman quality even to an enormously wealthy CEO. However, I though Wilkinson wasn't given that much to do, given his caliber as an actor. I saw his talents wasted in Michael Clayton and I'm still hoping that one day Gilroy will realize what a great actor he's got and give him room to shine.

The film's complicated plot structure might be a bit much for some. For me, it was a welcomed breath of fresh air, particularly from a writer/director that left me feeling cold after his first time out. The movie is fun and smart, the latter being the most important attractor even if the premise isn't always believable. Owen and Roberts shine, and the supporting cast excels as well, even if Wilkinson is again wasted here. Add to it the smooth score from James Newton Howard, and Tony Gilroy delivers another solid effort. At this point, I think he's still proving to me that he's a better writer than director, but his achievements behind the camera are gradually catching up. ***1/2 / ****; GRADE: A-

Review: Watchmen

Indifference Made

For those who consider themselves serious fans of the famous Watchmen graphic novels by mastermind Alan Moore, I will give you a word of caution at the start of this review. I am someone who has not read the source material for this film, has no idea how faithful the intentions are to that source, and until a few months ago even had no idea what Watchmen was. I say this not to make you feel as if this review will be so ignorant that it will cause a polarizing emotion from reading it. I say it because I feel it is necessary to explain how I judge this movie. Like all of them, I judge them by how they function as a film that exists within its own world, not necessarily how much they remain faithful to the original source. On that scale, Watchmen has many good things that clash with many not so good things, making the film a tough call for me.

The present day for the film is an alternate 1985 where Richard Nixon is still the president (and in his fifth term), Congress has outlawed masks and nuclear war between the US and Russia is imminent. The film begins with the murder of The Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan), one of the original members of a superhero group known as Watchmen who have been involved in many of the American politics and actions since World War II. One member, the psychotic Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley) is one of the few who believe the murder is connected to a conspiracy.

His investigation leads into tangent storylines of Nite Owl (Patrick Wilson), a reluctant superhero trying to discover his new path, Laurie Jupiter (Malin Ackerman), the daughter of another superhero trying to make sense of the crazy world around her, Adrian Veidt (Matthew Goode), a self-outed superhero who has turned to a global energizing tycoon, and Dr. Manhattan (part Billy Crudup, many parts CGI), a shape shifting, blue hazed experiment gone wrong who can work wonders with his mind.

All of these characters circle around an ambitious plot concerning international relationships and the high stakes involved when dealing with the human condition. Perhaps in the original graphic novel, these ideas seemed fresh and worked well with the source. For a film, the scope seems to broad, and David Hayter and Alex Tse's script tries too hard to be an all encompassing salute to the comic without fulfilling the needs of a workable story. Sometimes the story feels like it only needs to lose little things, like some dream sequences or gratuitous, and completely unnecessary, violence and sex scenes. Other things are a little bigger, such as Dr. Manhattan's trip to Mars. However, there are times when you can recognize what the movie is trying to be, and you can appreciate that effort.

Still, the movie doesn't really carry its theme of being a sort of "anti-superhero movie" all the way through. Director Zach Snyder seems as if he started the film like it was something that tried to be that type and dealt with issues bigger than ordinary comic book movies. But then, it feels like the film starts to devolve and it begins to include action set pieces that are wonderfully staged, but feel like their in a generic comic book movie and not really in this "anti" film. Toward the end, with one line (and you'll recognize it), the film turns around but it's a little late and doesn't forgive all. Still, Snyder's vision as a director is one that is very similar to the one we saw in 300, and this movie is not without its pervasive use of slow motion and spraying blood that is both stimulating and annoying.

The acting the film has to offer left me with a curious set of thoughts. Haley, as will probably be the consensus, is marvelously talented and he pulls off this character well. Yes, Rorschach is pretty much one note, but Haley plays it to perfection, both with and without the mask. Next to him, the only other one I would try to pick as a standout is Goode. He's someone who physically changes himself in nearly every role and while there were times I thought the story wasn't doing his character justice, I managed to see that he was portraying him as best he could and elevating the material some. Other actors, like Morgan, Crudup and Carla Gugino, who plays Laurie's mother, are good enough, but it felt like there was always a personality trait in their characters that kept them from becoming well rounded and believable. They are acted alright, but never mindblowingly good.

However, I have to say that Ackerman is just downright awful. It's acting that is working at a level that is well below even the most one dimensional and limited characters. Even the Nixon impersonator with the ridiculously enhanced nose and jowles was more convincing than her in this film. Not only is it bad acting, but it is a character that I never felt was much use other than to reveal for sex appeal and serve as one important plot trigger. Other than that, it is a waste of screentime, and in a two hour and forty minute film, one should be careful of waste.

In the film, Dr. Manhattan gives a speech about life's contradictions. I could have cared less about what he had to say, but I recognized that I was contradicting myself a bit while watching it. So much so that I had to see it a second time. With the first viewing, I saw a film that was very bloated with okay acting but still warranted me saying I liked it enough to recommend it. Oddly enough, the second time I found myself pointing out more plot elements, liking the acting even more but feeling the film wasn't as good. I don't know what exactly changed that second time, but I think it might have been that I started to see how much Snyder wanted to make this like a comic book movie and not like a film, which is bad news for me.

Last year, we had a once in a lifetime phenomenon known as The Dark Knight. I loved that movie, and the reason was because it felt completely divorced from the source material. Sure, it was still a Batman film, but Christopher Nolan was thinking how this story could work in a real setting. Snyder doesn't seem to have that same mindset. He does some good things, as he gets a wonderful performance out of Haley and the visual spectacle is spectacular, especially as Alex McDowell's sets and Michael Wilkinson's costumes are enhanced tenfold by Larry Fong's lighting. But the movie is very bloated with an broad plot that makes the movie sluggish. Ultimately, I don't know if I can really say that Watchmen has the cinematic appeal to carry you through all the way to the end. It is a noble effort, but falls just short of becoming a true screen presence. **1/2 / ****; GRADE: B-