Reviews: Surrogates & Jennifer's Body

Body Hatchers

Today, it seems that whenever Bruce Willis appears in a film, the barometer to use in gauging how much one likes the film is the use of his hair. Willis's hair seems to be always a curious case, and it really can't be decided which look is better for him. What does seem to be the case is that those films which showcases his clean shaven scalp seem to do better at the box office and score mostly high marks with the critics (i.e. Live Free or Die Hard and What Happened?). But, when he's forced into wearing an off-putting rug or even growing his own, the films tend to be duds (A Perfect Stranger, 16 Blocks, Alpha Dog, and others, though Sin City is an exception). Here we get the best of both worlds in a film that isn't without its flaws but is actually an interesting premise to digest.

Based on a graphic novel, the film finds a familiar sci-fi setup. In the future, a corporation has created lifelike avatars that have now semi-permanently replaced all human interaction. Willis plays a detective who, along with his partner Rhada Mitchell, investigates the destruction of two surrogate robots that also resulted in the deaths of their operators. His probing leads to an underground human resistance, led by a dreadlocked Ving Rhames, a super powerful weapon, and a philosophical exploration on humanity.

That last part is something that has been seen in other science fiction films, but I always consider it an interesting proposition. The ideas behind the film are continually stimulating, and it is interesting how director Jonathan Mostow plays off those ideas. He allows the surrogates to appear in a slicked up, almost plastic manor in their buffed skins and lifeless eyes in a way that feels convincing, while doing the opposite physique of the actual humans. Mostow does a lot better job at hinting at bigger ideas than he did with the third Terminator installment. Although his action scenes don't stack up quite as well as some did in Terminator 3, one can still get a good enough sense of sequences that are well staged and admire their intentions. But this film's strong suit is its ideas.

Unfortunately, those ideas aren't always translated will by the script. Writers Michael Ferris and John Brancato feel rather lazy in their efforts to explain the plot in huge, painstakingly long monologues that spell out key plot events as if an audience couldn't figure it out on its own. The last act in particular, when everything has to fall in place, is really a drag and the final reveal seems a bit much and overindulges on a not-so-subtle hint of our current humanity.

I actually think Willis is quite good in a duel role here, even though he's cashing in his usual deadpan deliveries crossed with his mean stare. With all that, Willis is still an actor that brings energy to the screen (most of the time), and it's quite easy for the detective story to unfold and the dissecting journey to begin. Other players like Mitchell, Rhames, James Cromwell as the shadowy creator of the robots and Rosmunde Pike as Willis's wife do enough to hold their scenes in order to not bring the movie down but also not make the film anymore better by their participation. Except for Jack Noseworthy. I don't know why, but his presence always seems to light up a room in whatever film he's in, no matter how small the role. It's nothing major, but just something to be said.

The film has many seeds that could have grown into a really thought provoking film that also entertained on a sizable level. Some of those things are there in the premise and some action sequences. However, most of the movie is territory that we've already seen before and its been executed in better ways. The script is weak, the acting is passable but at least the direction seems solid enough. I can't fully recommend this film, but I think that if it ever passes your Netflix queue, you might find something of solace within a somewhat empty framework. But when it's over, there might be more of a disappointment than surprise. **1/2 / ****; GRADE: C+

Soul Food

The story of Diablo Cody could pretty much be separated into two contrasting descriptions. For those who admire Cody, she's the embodiment of the Cinderella story: a girl who wasn't born into the business but broke-out on her own with a witty script that caused all of America to fall in love with her plucky attitude. With all that, she even garnered an Academy Award and receiving vindication at such an early stage. Those who aren't fans relate her as a self-conscious, self-referential hipster whose dialogue feels like it's force fed indie quirk pulled the wool over the eyes of those who are less intellectual than the ones who liked There Will Be Blood. Then she took an Oscar without having to pay the dues of many other talented writers who have yet to receive such an honor. Cody's a polarizing figure indeed, but that shouldn't stop anyone from disliking her latest effort.

The Jennifer, as we all know by now, is the very attractive Megan Fox in one of those simple, generic, small Midwestern towns. Jennifer is the "it" girl at school, and her best friend is Needy (Amanda Seyfried), the geeky girl that still has no trouble having a boyfriend in Chip (Johnny Simmons). Jennifer and Needy are inseparable as friends and attend a small concert at the town's bar, whose lead singer is Adam Brody. But a fire at the bar confuses the two, and Jennifer is led to the band's van and they drive off. The next day, Jennifer arrives seeming much different. Her personality is always upbeat, she isn't always looking glowingly pretty, and she's possessed by a demon that needs to feed on flesh to survive.

I admit that I had some problems with Juno, but it was mainly that first twenty minutes when the dialogue tried too hard to be quirky and original. After that, the tone was brought down and that, plus Ellen Page's performance, saved it. Now if you take that first twenty minutes and make it an entire film, then you have Cody's screenplay to this film. There's no longer a sharp edge because the script is trying to cover several bases at the same time. It wants to mock horror films, teenage soaps, hormone manipulated relationships, and even indie, Emo rock bands. All good subjects, but not congeal well within the story, and the humor meanders without any consistency. When an intelligence level can't be reached, Cody reverts back to that hipster language that gets tiresome rather quickly.

Many have noticed a trend in which male writers are creating interesting stories for men to interact with one another but have been shallowing on providing the same level of sophistication for their women characters. This is true, but Cody is also guilty of the opposite. Her female characters are more complex, or have the possibility to be more complex, than their male counterparts. Michael Cera was almost treated as an afterthought, and all the boys in this film can be manipulated by the very mention of that three lettered word. There isn't a lot of confidence in the male characters here, and it allows the screenplay to cater to the female audience, and even that doesn't deliver enough.

As much as there are faults in the screenplay, the aimless direction by Karyn Kusama is not helping the case either. In short, it's completely flat and almost uninterested in its subjects. The pace is never set to a regular beat, and the sequences that call for action in particular are poorly staged. That fire at the bar is so badly shot and covered, that is feels like a fantasy sequence. That is true for most parts of the film. Kusama can get in a good suspense scene every now and again, but by the time the seventeenth false reveal shows up, our nerves do not become racked so easily.

Now I don't know what can be said of Megan Fox that hasn't already been said. She's very attractive; we get it. But it seems like the movie either doesn't or believes its audience is too stupid to get it. Every scene is a showcase of Fox's beauty, but never once her talent as an actress, if she even has any. She never makes Jennifer an appealing character, even one on a villainous vixen level. Seyfried also gives some charm, and she's quite a good actress (I adore her on Big Love). But most of the time she' just meant to be the kind protagonist and a foil for the evil Jennifer, who by the way, when it comes to be much talked about same-sex kiss between the two, acts completely out of character in a moment that is only meant to bring in the guys. Brody and an oddly placed J.K. Simmons score some laughs, but their jokes wear thin as well. The only redeeming character here is Chip. He's the only one who seems written for another movie, and thus the only one we can really relate to. Simmons isn't really out of place, but he's more like the only voice of reason in a film that isn't smart enough to self parody. He's literally the only likable character, and I wish there was more of him here.

I try to mix a little of both of those origin stories when I think of Diablo Cody, but all of that doesn't matter with this film. It's sloppy, poorly crafted, mediocrely acted and feels completely false. One or two good characters and a couple of frights are certainly nowhere near enough to like a movie. One might say it's enough to dislike it, and I'd agree. Another Cody creation deals with another catastrophic personality, but it actually manages to find people who seem relatable, and no matter how outrageous their problems grow, it always seems like their tethered to the ground. Showtime's The United States of Tara is a great example of that. This is not. ** / ****; GRADE: C

Reviews: The Informant! & Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs

Whistle-blowhard

There are few filmmakers who have had such a career as Steven Soderbergh. This is a guy who has had ups and downs, but always has an agenda. Even while most people like to say he's wasting his time with the ultra-slick Ocean's remake franchises, he uses the paychecks from those to pay for his ambitious, more intimately detailed smaller projects, usually shot on digital video and employing non-actors. The look of this film resembles his more polished films, as does his plethora of accomplished and well known actors here. However, what results is not something that is enjoyable even on a level that is respectable for this often tedious filmmaker.

Matt Damon, an Ocean's favorite, has the lead role of Mark Whitacre, a high level management guy working for Archer Daniels Midland, a huge agricultural company that specializes in lysine, a food additive. Among some of Mark's daily activities are checking in on the plants, going over the finances, and participating in illegal activities such as receiving kickbacks and sitting in on the company's scheme to meet with competitors in order to engage in price fixing. More so pushed by his wife (Melanie Lynskey), Mark turns informant for the F.B.I., and mainly reports back to two agents (Scott Bakula and The Soup's Joel McHale). But it doesn't take long for the F.B.I. to get suspicious of Mark, and he yo-yos his allegiance to the government and his company.

Some out there may not think I'm the foremost expert on Soderbergh, and I don't claim to be. I mean, I'm the guy who liked The Good German and Ocean's 13. I also think those were better movies as well. For as many problems as those films had, you could see the agenda and the considerable follow through. The Good German wanted the nostalgic style to overwhelm the senses and the caper film wanted to be a slick, ubercool, overindulgent piece of Hollywood schlock. For what its worth, I liked them. Here, Soderbergh's tone is never fully realized, and the pace of the film is often irregular, making the movie seem longer than it is. There's never anything that makes the film come alive off the screen, and it is not helped by the way Soderbergh has shot this (done under his pseudonym Peter Andrews). There's a sterile look to the film that traps the energy and dispels it.

Those faults are also translated to Scott Burns's screenplay, which becomes another in a long line of films to struggle at the attempt to make white collar crimes interesting. There are films that can pull that off, but those are examples where the crime was a means to showcase the characters. Burns's screenplay has little concern for the characters here, and there is hardly a trait that is recognizable to anyone. Every interaction lays still in a flat execution; there is nothing intriguing about these people. They all seem flat, boring and expressionless in the face of the plot's overly complicated structure. The one element of the script that is interesting is when we get these random narrations by Whitacre often about mundane topics. Those are fascinating because they give us insight into the personality of this character, something the rest of the film lacks.

On that note, the one standout would be Damon. We all know he's a good actor, and it is refreshing to seem him take on such an unlikely character. His conviction to this guy is compelling at times, often leading to moments of quick and intelligent humor that can transition well to his thought provoking analyses on life. However, Damon has ultimately been given a character who is uninteresting most of the time, and many times you can see Damon struggling to find enough freshness to bring to the character. With that, all the other characters circle around Damon looking like cardboard cut outs, giving hardly anything to this premise to make it worthwhile to watch.

I was tempted to give a slight pass to this film because of how Soderbergh operates. He isn't always looking for the approval of others, but wants to make a project he has faith in. Even his most frustrating films have a passion behind them. That is missing here as everyone seems to just wander around the film's premise with nobody actually diving into the water and find the treasure. The only one who tries is Damon, and I did appreciate that. But all the other elements, including the incredibly distracting score from Marvin Hamlisch that feels like a redone score to The Sting. I don't always expect to love every Soderbergh film, but I expect to have more admiration for his passion than I do with this one. **1/2 / ****; GRADE: C+

Meat n' Greet

Usually, there is one animated film that generally impresses me in how well it is not only able to tell an interesting story that I can get invested in, but of course provides a great visual spectacle as well for me to gawk at. In the past, these films have included many well known Pixar additions like The Incredibles (still my favorite of theirs), WALL-E, Ratatouille and Fining Nemo along with some non Pixar movies like Monster House and even this year's Coraline. Here is another opportunity for an animated film to try and achieve that, and I can tell you it doesn't hit anywhere near those levels. However, what I can say is that given my low expectations for the film, this actually turned out to not be quite as bad as I imagined it would be. In fact, I thought it was quite enjoyable and a nice surprise.

Based off of the literally paper thin children's book of the same name, the film adaptation centers around the ambitious inventor Flint Lockwood (voiced by Bill Hader) living in the ultra-tinny island named Swallow Falls (I'd have gone with a different title given the film's dozens of unintentional double entendres concerning meat). Most of Flint's inventions never come to their realized goal, except one: a machine that turns water into whatever designated food is ordered. The machine goes up in the air and converts the atmospheric moisture into food for the town, which brings out a cute weather-girl (Anna Farris) for Flint to admire, his increasingly disappointed dad (James Caan), a tenacious policeman (Mr. T) and the greedy mayor (Bruce Campbell) who is the force that ignorantly dooms the town when the machine starts mutating the food into larger quantities.

I was not expecting very much from this film, and it isn't without its flaws mind you. The story itself is pretty basic and doesn't really try for anything new. Every character is predictable, the story arcs are clichéd, and there's an overindulgence on the visuals in the last act when the story itself starts to fall apart. At the same time, directors and adapters Phil Lord and Chris Miller provide more than enough laughs here, and what is surprising is that for every attempt at broad jokes for the kids, there are also smaller moments that exist within the quick banter of dialogue and tiny elements in the background of the frame, reminding me, admittedly, a lot of Airplane! and the Naked Gun series.

To be fair, not every joke works, and a big one would be the continuing use monkeys as humor. Take my word for it, the use of monkeys as a source of comedy is a lazy one that never has great payoffs. The jokes are the broadest they can be, and when they fail, as they often do, they fail big. The humor also isn't helped by the enormous visual spectacle at the end. Some of it looks really good, such as an impressive looking spaghetti tornado, but by the time we get to the climax, the phrase "too much of a good thing" come to mind many times.

Though I would say the voice acting in this film is on a memorable level, at least much more so than last week's animated release. Hader is a pure comedic talent, and he poses a lot of whit and charm in his role. The same thing goes for the sweet voiced Farris, the fatherly tone of Caan, the menacing dirtbag persona of Campbell and the self-consciously mocking tone of Mr. T. There's also a good group of supporting cameo voices from Neil Patrick Harris, Andy Samberg and Benjamin Bratt that add to the film's likability.

There are many moments in this film where it feels like its trying to hard, in the vein of being overly stimulated on the visuals and syrupy sweet on the heartfelt emotions. But underneath all that junkfood is a surprising core; one that manages to still pull you into the story as well as continually laugh at jokes that work well both on the broad humor as well as the subtle ones. That something this particular studio's last animated film, Surf's Up, managed to do well. While neither this film or that one compares to anything of Pixar, I think this is definitely showing promise for something to emerge as a serious contender in the future. *** / ****; GRADE: B

Review: 9

Sack Attack

We are fortunate enough now that not all animated films aspire to the clean cut, family friendly standard that most people associate with Disney, even while Pixar is gradually trying to change that. This isn't to say that all animated films should automatically start being hard edge adult films. All that is being said is that when animated films are given the freedom to aspire beyond a specific, age defined demographic, what can usually emerge is an interesting story that is populated by much heavier and darker themes. Such is with this film, which does indeed carry that dark tone. However, it may still need to borrow a bit from some of the lighter films in terms of telling a decent narrative.

The world of 9 is a somber, abandoned, and apocalyptic one where the human race has been totally eradicated following a deadly war with a machine uprising (sound familiar?). All that remains are a group of living rag dolls each named by a number. 9, voiced by Elijah Wood, has just awoken to the devastation and bands together with the rest of the group to try to take down the vicious machines who steals the souls of the group. The highlights of the group include the stern leader 1 (Christopher Plummer), the eager explorer 5 (John C. Reilly) and the ostracized but vicious warrior 7 (Jennifer Connelly).

Shane Acker's original, Oscar nominated short wasn't a great spectacle by any means. However, what it was able to do so well was immediately implant you into a horrific world and be energized by the entire surroundings, and that included not a single breath of dialogue. That only goes so far in a feature length film, and at seventy-nine minutes, the films never gives a moment to really develop the surroundings or the characters. Its bleak, war time tone and dark subject matter would give fodder to even more interesting characters, and it would have been beneficial to explore those territories and allow the film to become a real achievement. Instead, Pamela Pettler's screenplay rushes the action and never lets us revel in the scenery or character development.

However, Acker does provide a credible job at giving us a dark world that is very captivating. While the story doesn't really give true enough credit, Acker still allows the scenery to become a magnificent portrait drenched in a green tinted pallet with a rusted overtone. He also stages some very placed action sequences that can really ramp up the excitement. In between those scenes, it is always a welcomed pleasure to observe a wide shot of the barren and destructive wasteland before it is automatically replaced by another action set piece or obligatory plot point reveal.

The voice acting is only okay, and it is never memorable. Wood has the lead, but his lines are so stale that he fails to make an impact. The same is said for Connelly, Reilly and other voice actor Cripin Glover. The only one who comes close to making an impression is Plummer, who is able to make a presence whenever his stern orator of a voice pierces the soundtrack. Still, all the voice talent is seemingly wasted, which makes a strong case for the film to have retained its atmosphere or stunning visuals, a pulsating sound design and absolutely no talking.

Even with the major faults of the story, I still found many elements to take solace in. Acker in the end still provides a film that keeps you interested during its entire, short duration and you will more than likely be invested in these characters' plight and surrounding areas, even when the screenplay seems less interested in doing so. The reason why some lighter animated films still dominate is because of their great attention to story detail. Some darker films can still be as good as their lighter counterparts, but they have to realize where it starts first. *** / ****; GRADE: B

Reviews: Extract & World's Greatest Dad

Work Overload

The talent of Mike Judge has always been one that is appreciated more on the small screen rather than the large one. For instance, television hits like Beavis and Butthead and King of the Hill, a very personal favorite of mine, have garnered high praise and numerous well deserved accolades (well, at least for the folks in Arlen). However, his luck has not been quite so successful with feature length films. Office Space is a cult classic, which is another way of saying that it failed at the box office and later got appreciated through much less expensive channels, and Idiocracy barley registered a pulse with anyone. Chances are they will continue to pass up his latest film, which is a shame because I haven't laughed harder and in greater number for any other film I've seen this year.

The always wonderful Jason Bateman plays Joel, the manager of a factory that not only produces different types of extract, but an arrangement of wild characters. Chief among them are J.K. Simmons as another high ranking employee with a distaste for his fellow co-workers, Beth Grant as a nagging assembly line worker, and Clifton Collins Jr. as a tough-as-nails, desperately-wanting-to-be-made-floor-manager citizen who is met with an unfortunate accident. He's taken off the floor, and the extract company agrees to settle with him. That is until Cindy (Mila Kunis), a scheming grifter, walks in to persuade him to ask for more. The stress is a killer on Joel, who reveals his home problems with his wife, played the constantly amazing Kristin Wiig, to a zen-lite bartender played by Ben Affleck.

The film is so offbeat with they way its story meanders and its characters deliver their lines, that is very tempting to not like this film. I did try at times to resist the charm, but at the end of it all, it works. Judge is a man who knows how to create a world filled with average people dealing with average problems but trying to resolve them in a non-average way. He consistently makes every scene worth some kind of value. Not every joke lands and not every pacing to a scene works entirely, but I find it amazing how just when you think a joke or premise has worn out its welcome, there's a burst of energy right at the end that makes you appreciate most of what came before it. That's the sense of humor that I really like from Judge; it's not trying to be overcomplicated but it does look at a normal situation and asks how it would be solved by an abnormal chain of events.

It is really hard to make Bateman look bad. Even in something as terrible as Hancock, Bateman still comes off looking like the hero. His charm and witty delivery save every scene he's in and it's almost impossible not to like his deadpan sensitivity (fans of Arrested Development can attest). Kunis also brings her charm for a role that isn't much for the film, but is always a scene stealer, much in the same way the Simmons is for most of his films. And Kristen Wiig delivers another one of her understated performances that plays so well off of everybody else that I'm waiting for her to be given the lead in a comedy soon.

There are even characters here that don't seem like much but are saved by their actors. Gene Simmons plays an ambulance chasing attorney shaking down the factory, and while at first I thought he was putting on too much of a show, he eventually shows how funny that wild show can be, and he makes it work. Dustin Milligan is a gigolo named Brad who is sent to see if Joel's wife can be tempted by another man, and when at first his character is too one-note in how dumb he is, he eventually finds a comedic rhythm that ends up delivering very well as the film goes on. And Ben Affleck has a character that can be looked at as him trying to hard to become offbeat with his half-assed new age approach to drug abuse and relationship advice. But it didn't matter because I laughed at pretty much everything he said. The only character that does seem a bit off is an annoying neighbor played by David Koechner. He's funny at first, but his schtick wears out its welcome after a while.

If I had one real gripe against the movie, it would be that its main plot concerning Cindy and the takedown of the company is not as interesting as the smaller moments and even the stuff in Joel's domestic life. This is mainly a problem because Cindy is not given that much of a development and she never grows. I wouldn't normally say that's a big problem for a very supporting player, but for an actress as good as Kunis, it feels as if she deserves more time than the film allows. Having her play this role is good, but because it is so limited, it feels as if she should have a bigger part to play and the role ends up feeling a little wasted. Even though Kunis has fun with this role, and does make it memorable, it is a performance that is not proportional to the amount of screen time.

I do have a fondness for highbrow, sophisticated comedy, such as In the Loop, which I think is good enough to be honored with a Best Picture nomination at this point. In fact, I do think that's the type of comedy that we should be seeing more of. However, every once in a while, you just have to sit back and remind yourself that if a movie is described as a comedy and it makes you laugh consistently, then it did its job and your obligated to recommend it. Extract did that over and over again for me. Judge's script and a great cast sell a decent premise with minor missteps here and there. More than likely, this will result in a pass by major audiences and it will be a financial dud. Too bad, but I would definitely be an advocate for some people to discover this through less expensive channels in the future. But for right now, it's one of the funniest films I've seen this year. ***1/2 / ****; GRADE: A-

Father Knows Best

Lately, the career of Robin Williams has been described as "hit or miss" as of late. I personally think that's not quite the right description. It's more like "five miles off or slightly graze." Williams's comedy career has taken a great left turn lately, and his most recent efforts have not provide the same amount of laughs his career did at what seems like a long time ago in the past. Even his occasional dramatic works usually fails to register a great impact, as One Hour Photo is pretty much the only one he succeeded at (I'd debate about Insomnia). However, Williams relies only on an understated comedic tone and genuine emotions to play off of a wonderfully inspired dark comedy.

Williams plays Lance Clayton, a mediocre high school teacher whose poetry class is quickly losing students. He has a secretive relationship with a fellow teacher (Alexie Gilmore) and he feels that relationship is strained by her adoring friendship with another male teacher (Henry Simmons). He's a sorry case indeed as his novels have all been rejected for publication and he has the world's worst son in Kyle (Daryl Sabara, a long way from Spy Kids). Kyle is a mean spirited, crass pervert who can't function on any social level. As much as Lance tries to have a decent relationship with his son, it never materializes. Especially when Kyle falls victim to an autoerotic asphyxiation accident. In order to hide the embarrassing death, Lance makes the scene look like a suicide and writes a deep suicide note. The story is picked up and the perceptions of Kyle quickly change to admiration, and Lance uses it to his own benefit.

Now there has been a lot of conversation and controversy surrounding that major plot point I just revealed, considering none of the advertisements mentioned this despite it being known during the festival circuit runs. After a long thought process, I decided to reveal it. Not only because it happens within the first act of the film, but also because it is impossible to have a legitimate discussion about this film without that reveal since the relationship between Lance and Kyle is not what the film is about. And I commend writer/director Bobcat Goldtwaith for taking that risk.

Instead of making this an average raunchy comedy about the mild mannered Lance butting heads with his perverted son, Goldtwaith has instead made a superior social commentary about the perception of a human being after death, made especially relevant after the death of Michael Jackson. The kind of forgiveness and positive memories that arise only after someone has died is an interesting notion, and Goldtwaith captures it all in a right comedic tone. He does allow the scope to widen a bit too much by the end, and there's a heavy handed scene at the end involving the song Under Pressure that doesn't strike the right tone with the rest of the film, but for the most part, he creates a world with sympathetic characters dealing with a premise that is all too familiar and executed very well.

This is also a great step forward for Williams as he provides a character that is not cartoonish but feels as if he has legitimate problems. His comedy feels smart and his emotions feel sincere. This is one of Williams's most sympathetic characters in a long time, and he shows off his skills as an actor greatly. Sabara is also really good in this role that I think is more complex than some give credit. He can be looked at as one note, but there is something in the way he gives a look or says a certain line that makes you believe there is a more complex being underneath the facetious nature. It's a performance than can be argued in terms of depth, but is generally agreed to be very funny. Another good character in the film is Andrew, Kyle's only best friend, played by Evan Martin. There's something to Andrew's shy and quiet personality that really makes his occasional banter with Williams really touching.

This might not be a film for everyone, because it does deal with some rather dark themes playing off of a comedic backdrop. However, this does what all the best dark comedies manage to do: it presents the comedy upfront while also allowing some emotionally tender moments to slip through. This film does that very well, and the smart script and capable cast are proof of that. This is definitely a sure fire hit for Williams, though I doubt his forthcoming Old Dogs will have quite the same effect. ***1/2 / ****; GRADE: B+

Reviews: Taking Woodstock & Time Traveler's Wife

High Times

The only reason for this film's existence is that Ang Lee wanted to laugh. I don't blame him. Not just because his previous films have been pretty somber melodramas like The Ice Storm, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and the absolutely fantastic Brokeback Mountain (for which he won the Best Director Oscar). Lee might also have a reason to want to laugh because the reception to his last film, Lust, Caution, was less than stellar, despite winning him his second Best Picture award at the Venice film festival. It was a significant bomb for this great filmmaker, and he very much wanted to have a good time. Indeed, this is Lee's first light fare since Sense and Sensibilities and his first flat out comedy since his breakout hit Eat Drink Man Woman. This is by no means a masterpiece, but it does provide enough smiles to warrant a mild recommendation.

Up and coming comedic talent Demitri Martin has the lead role of Elliot Teichberg, the sole employee of his parents' (Henry Goodman, Imelda Staunton) mediocre, fourth-rate motel that is facing foreclosure. As a way to help the dying resort, Elliot maneuvers the paperwork to get the once cancelled Woodstock concert virtually in his backyard. The concert brings to the town an assortment of interesting characters, such as Emile Hirsch as a Vietnam vet with PTSD, Jonathan Groff as the concert's groovy manager, and Liev Schriber as a cross dressing ex-Marine who assists in the concert's security. The light and funny story is also peppered with family drama with Elliot dealing with the abandonment issues facing his parents and dealing with discovering his closeted homosexuality.

Those dramatic elements, as well executed as they are by Lee, is really the main fault of the film, and this lies with its screenwriter James Schamus. In the first two thirds of this film, Schamus does find a good enough comedic tone, and while not every joke lands, he does enough to keep the comedy at a breezy pace. But then, the film gets to the point when the concert actually begins, and since the story is not about the concert itself, the rest of the plot and characters start to become muddled as the music plays in the far distance. The third act really loses steam and drags along a bit until that final scene is reached.

However, this movie does deliver in those first two acts, and even in some parts of the third, and that is because of the cast. Martin is known to most for his "alternative" style of comedy on Comedy Central shows Important Things and brief spots on The Daily Show. Here he presents a more stripped down style, and thankfully doesn't allow Elliot to wander into territory that would pander to a Martin fanbase. He's grounded, real and not selling jokes, making his situations all that more funny, endearing and tender (though one scene after he smokes pot tries for it). Goodman and Staunton do well in their roles as well by providing most of the broad comedy as well as the best of the gentle moments. Groff is a real scene stealer here, as his character's inability to become depressed or enraged always creates a warm feeling even when you think the rest of the film isn't reaching there, and the same is said of Schriber's limited role. The only one a bit out of place is Hirsch, only because his character is so serious that it feel like it belongs in another film. Hirsch is almost too good for this role because the way he convincingly portrays this man with PTSD is so great that the basis for it as comedy seems off.

Lee's style is always one that usually hints and suggests throughout much of the film until you discover some beautifully crafted scene at the end. But that is when Lee is really dedicating himself to the project. Here, Lee is never that serious and his intentions are usually seen to have fun. He's providing a broad message about peace and love before it all gets serious, and how that needs to be remembered. The bright color pallet of this film reflects that, brought out really well by Into the Wild cinematographer Eric Gautier. Though I was a tad disappointed in Danny Elfman's score, which is for the most part forgettable, I do think Lee accomplished what was needed, even as he allowed that third act to become really drawn out, and also for filming one of the most boring drug trip scenes ever shot in a film.

To be perfectly clear, this is not a serious meditation on the events of the actual Woodstock concert. If you want that, then I'd recommend you'd watch the 1970 documentary Woodstock which Martin Scorsese and Thelma Schoonmaker worked on. This is a only meant to be a light, breezy comedy, and for two thirds of it, it does it really well. The third act suffers greatly, but the cast manages to still keep it afloat. I hope Ang Lee laughed while making this film, and I'm sure he did. Though I would appreciate him wanting to get back to the melancholy. *** / ****; GRADE: B

Time Has Come Today

Some time has passed in between the writing of this review and the actual weekend of this film's release, and I have certainly noticed a thing or two. Mainly that the critical outcry for this film has been resoundingly negative, and hardly anybody is willing to give this film the time of day. I think the main reason is that this film is based off of a best selling book, and like most movies whose source material is from a book that nearly everyone has read, there is sometimes an obligation to immediately say that the book is superior and that the film is a total waste of time to even try an adaptation. Well, since I haven't read the book, you won't be hearing that argument against the film from me. What I will say that, as a film, it actually works better than some critics give credit, though I do recognize it has some major blemishes to go along.

Eric Bana and Rachel McAdams play Henry, the time traveler, and Claire, his future wife, obviously made clear by the title. Henry has been traveling back and forth through time since he was six years old and survived a car accident that killed his mother. These movements, for which he has no control over and reappears in the stark flesh, is attributed to a genetic disorder later in the film. Upon some of his encounters, he meets Claire as a little girl. She grows up and becomes his wife, but is suffering hardships because of his condition and tries her best to sustain it.

Like I said, having never read the book, I'm not going to base this on how good of an adaptation this is. What I can say is that I think director Robert Schwentke has a good sense of framing for this film and paces it at a steady tempo that knows the right moments when to beat faster. The script by Bruce Joel Rubin most of the time provides enough of an interesting premise, but suffers from some problems. One is that with all the time crossing Henrys at different points in space and time, it is a little much to try and keep track of it all and to know exactly where and when in the story we are at now. The other major problem is that the film doesn't know if it wants to treat the time travel, far gone from the realm of science fiction here, as an actual disorder that can be cured or as a metaphor for a marriage in crisis or schizophrenia or any number of other things. Both are intriguing, but there's only room for one, and the film tries to squeeze in both. I personally think the somber metaphor would have had a better consistent tone, but then any consistency would have been welcomed.

Bana and McAdams are good in their roles, especially McAdams. Having to encompass most of the emotional range, she is very effective at portraying a character that often times looks lost, but seems authentic as a woman trapped in a relationship she felt destined to despise. She really delivers the best performance of the film. Bana is good in almost anything he does, but Henry is never given a chance to completely become realized. His existence seems more to milk an interesting premise and provide an emotional backdrop for Claire and he has a hard time manifesting his own emotional passion. But when opposite McAdams, Bana does shine and his performance is enhanced next to her. Unfortunately, the rest of the supporting cast is really underdeveloped, particularly Ron Livingston as the couple's best friend.

This film has too many flaws within the storytelling tone and emotional depth of some characters that I can't fully recommend the film. But, I can say that the two leads pull you in enough so that you aren't left feeling limp at the end. Bana and McAdams greatly help pull the film up from the sagging parts, and they are also partially helped by Mychael Dana's score. I would say that if you were to see this film based on this review, I would be happy to receive both your compliments and complaints. **1/2 / ****; GRADE: B-