A Eulogy for the Bens

Last Saturday night, and early Sunday morning, was the final show of the movie review show At the Movies the played host to Ben Lyons and Ben Mankiewicz. As common knowledge to most people, the "Bens" took over the show after Richard Roeper neglected to renew his contract with Disney, the parent company of ABC television, along with Roger Ebert, who had been out of commission from the show since his battle with cancer removed his ability to speak nearly three years ago.

Since that time, Lyons and Mankiewicz have endured many criticisms, including from myself, regarding their approach to film criticism. Mainly, the argument was against Lyons, who many regarded as an opportunistic quote-whore who suffered a conflict of interest by hobnobbing with Hollywood elite on the E! channel. Many also believed he lucked into this job because his father, Jeffrey Lyons, is also a well known film critic who has received similar complaints. Mankiewicz, on the other hand, has had some ill feelings, but mostly has been given a pass because standing next to Lyons makes him seem infallible.

But now their time has passed, and we will no longer see these two faces on the television. I'm not going to say that I will miss them, nor will I believe they will be broken up by this news either. Both of them still have very successful jobs on other channels, with Lyons on the previously mentioned E! Channel and Mankiewicz doing the daytime hosting on Turner Classic Movies. What I will say, though, is that this situation did not start off entirely their fault.

The show originated with Ebert and the late, great Gene Siskel, and their format was the rival to many film critics. Inherently born to disagree (Ebert wrote for the Chicago Sun-Times, Siskel for the Tribune), these two looked at each film on a case by case basis, constantly dissecting the qualities a film possessed and judging each film on that basis. What was so special about that was their discussions always felt as if you were leaning in on a conversation between two good friends. The format wasn't grand or too staged and the emotions felt real. That continued with Roeper after Siskel passed away and even to many of Ebert's temporary replacements until a back and forth rhythm was set between A.O. Scott of the New York Times and Michael Phillips of the Chicago Tribune.

But then, when Ebert and Roeper decided not to renew their contracts, the show was forced by Disney to deliberately move into a new direction, where the approach looked to seek a younger audience. The show was rebranded with a more "home video" type of edge, and the supposed high society aspect of film criticism was to be downgraded instead for more easily digestible descriptions. Because that was the starting off point to this show, it had no choice but to shy in comparison. The forces that be only thought it was the film clips that kept people's attention. Those who watch the show will generally have an interest for film to begin with, and those people are capable enough to understand what real film criticism is. The main fault lies with those that tried to force feed a change in style when it was not supported in the first place.

However, the new hosts did not help this problem. There have been many articles, essays, rants, and even an entire webstie dedicated to the bashing of Ben Lyons, and I repeatedly admit that I participated. I am not going to say that I regret those comments, and just because he has gotten fired from this position do I now find him a redeemable figure. I think Lyons is good at his job of making people feel comfortable in a laid back setting, which is why he's a great personality on E!. He can get those celebrities laughing with him, and it makes for a great interview. The problem here was that those who watch and read film criticism are not looking for jokes. It is a serious trade that should be taken as such. Lyons's methods are out of touch with a large group of people looking to take moviegoing seriously. For many, including myself, this is not just something you do on a Saturday night, and Lyons made critiquing movies seem like that.

The other major criticism of Lyons is that his work on E! should be ground for an immediate case of conflict of interest. Well, let's not forget that Siskel, Ebert and Roeper all talked with actors, directors and other filmmakers whose very films they were critiquing, and that didn't stop them from saying how they felt about a particular film. One image that comes right to mind is when Siskel was calling Judge Dredd one of the worst films of that particular year and actually broke form and "talked" to Sylvester Stallone right into the camera, reassuring him that he knows he can make a good movie, but this isn't it. Siskel knew Stallone personally, but their friendship didn't stop him from pointing out flaws. The show itself was owned by Disney, but that didn't stop anybody from giving thumbs down to a product they produced. You can have people who talk with celebrities and talk about their movies at the same time. The difference is that they were better at the latter, while Lyons takes the former.

Now, it's a little different for Mankiewicz. He doesn't spend as much time with celebrities and his appearances on TCM should only embolden his credentials, not to mention him also being related to Hollywood elite (his grandfather co-wrote Citizen Kane). However, I don't want to totally free him either. Mankiewicz had a way of only looking at the surface quality of a film and often times resented the notion of going deeper. I could talk about Rachel Getting Married (yes, it was full of unlikeable people, but that wasn't the point!), but the best example is his review of Synecdoche, New York. Now, I understand that this was an incredibly difficult film to comprehend, but it's meant to be confusing on the surface. It when you dig at it multiple times and show up to the film's challenges that you see an appreciation for it. The film has gotten some split opinions, but not one that I've heard from has dismissed the film solely for its strange qualities. Foolishly, I took his opinion and passed this film by. It's a mistake I sorely regret and have never fully forgiven Mankiewicz for.

But on September 5, we won't have that problem anymore, as the new hosts will be A.O. Scott and Michael Phillips. Now, I am very biased in loving this decision because I am a subscriber of the Chicago Tribune and have been actively reading Phillips's opinions for years. Now that my appreciation for films has grown a bit, I start liking more and more movies along with Phillips, so he is undoubtedly my favorite film critic. Scott is also very respectable and I enjoyed hearing his opinions on the show. These are two men who have made a living analyzing films and have make it their profession instead of vicariously enjoying it through a family member. Many will hope that the year long experiment will be quickly forgotten, but I should hope not. I won't miss the opinions these two gave, but I will miss the passion they inspired me and many others to look for professional criticism. They gave us a reminder that even in this day and age, listening to people acutely describe a film is still an experience worth having, and the powers at play listened to those pleas. I see noting but good times for Scott & Phillips, and I'm sure many agree. As for the Bens, I can only wish good luck in their old jobs, which I might add they do very well.

Reviews: Inglourious Basterds & 50 Dead Men Walking

Old Dirty Basterd

It now seems impossible for me to remember a time when I wasn't a fan of the work by Quentin Tarantino. In fact, his films have become so legendary that the very mention of his iconic name has been burned into every cinephile's lexicon of a director's work that is required to be admired. Even some of Tarantino's minor failures (e.g. the extended cut of Death Proof) still provide a more exciting time at the movies than some other mainstream films. I long thought that it would be impossible for him to deliver a bad film. Then there's this, which isn't to say that this film is bad. I think the best way to put it is how my favorite Chicago film critic, Michael Phillips, put it: "Some people say things are 'love it or hate it.' In this case, it's 'love it and hate it.'"

From the advertisements this film puts out, one would be under the suspicion that the film's main tale spins around Brad Pitt, as Lt. "Aldo The Apache" Raine. Speaking with a thick southern drawl, he blatantly mugs the screen and talks about the new mission at hand, in which he and eight Jewish soldiers have been dropped into Nazi occupied France, and have been given the name The Basterds. They're doing one thang, and one thang only: killin' Nazees. Sound good!?

Well, not entirely. The movie is just as much about a fugitive Jewish woman, Shosanna (Mélanie Laurent) and how her operation of a local movie theatre will lead to her own Nazi revenge that would result in burning the house down filled to the brim with high German rank, including the Füher himself. It's also a little bit about a famous German actress (Diane Kruger) working as a double agent with the Basterds. Not only that, but she, as well as everyone else, is deftly afraid of Col. Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz), the real bastard of this picture who is so good at his evil job the country nicknames him the "Jew Hunter."

In truth, this movie's as much as an action picture as Kill Bill: Vol. 2 was. Wait, isn't that a good thing? It should be, especially since I was one of the few that thought the second chapter was vastly superior. However, that film always knew to pace the excellent dialogue effectively enough so that the sparringly good action scenes would pack a punch. Here, Tarantino lets his movie drown in an incredibly uneven tone, and constantly has it switch from pulpy entertainment, to tense thriller, to satirical history lesson, to disturbing portrait of revenge. It's all interesting, but doesn't have a consistency. The dialogue, usually in high form in all of his films, seems a bit smug in pointing out the interesting ticks in every character and overindulgence on cinema knowledge only somebody like Tarantino could comprehend.

But still, Tarantino knows what a particular scene needs, and when he gets focused in some parts of the film he can really deliver. He is a man who can really let the tension rack up by using very little. Tarantino usually has a good sense of pace in moments when the action needs to be supplied, the tension wound up, and the laughter provided. There are some unusual touches here, particularly brief spots of narration by Samuel L. Jackson that seem really out of place. Also, one of the final shots in the film is in that burning theatre (the trailers give that away) and seeing such horror doesn't sit well. Just because it's now being done to the other side doesn't really make it justifiable, even though a beautiful shot of a projected head laughing devilishly against smoke tries its best to do so. It leaves a rather bitter aftertaste just as the film ends.

There's an interesting cast here, but to be honest, I don't think there are many people that are given enough to really shine. Pitt is talented, but his character seems so one-dimensional that he could have been played by a virtual unknown. He occasionally delivers a few sprouts of intriguing laughter, but nothing significant. Eli Roth, on the other hand, is just blatantly miscast and he's as good an actor as he is a filmmaker (that's an insult, by the way). I'd say the greatest fault of the character pieces is that there's too many, and just as we are starting to find interesting things about them, they are cut short. Til Schweiger plays a perfected Nazi killing machine recently freed from jail by the Basterds, but he's taken out just as his psychology would have provided interesting setups. Daniel Brühl is an war hero that takes a strong liking to Shosanna, but he's pretty much treated as just a plot point. B.J. Novak, from The Office, also pops up in the last act, but is only given a glimpse of what may have been a promising character to banter with Pitt.

The only exceptions here would be Laurent and Waltz. She carries most of the film's humanity, and her entirely sympathetic case would seem fit to draw us in the most. She's also got a lot of expression, and no matter how many ways she pulls her character, we remain invested through her entire ordeal. Waltz is especially terrific, and immediately causes tensions to rise whenever he enters the room. This isn't just the run-of-the-mill bad guy; he's smart, clever, and sophisticated, and coupled with his occupation, makes him a man that can be both respected and feared. Tarantino got a similar performance out of the unjustly overlooked David Carradine (RIP), and Waltz delivers. I'd somewhat carry the same courtesy to Kruger, but she's more stunning vixen than complex character.

Inglorious Basterds is certainly a mixed bag that will leave you feeling a bit uneasy when it's all over and done. It all looks good, but the wildly uneven tone will make you feel like you've been on a roller coaster that had a height limit you didn't reach. But Waltz and Laurent push the movie enough to be a recommendable one. I probably liked this movie a little more than Phillips, but I can understand his plight along with many others, Tarantino fans and non-Tarantino fans alike, that will find this film tedious. Maybe there's at least one thing we can agree on: the best part of this film was the teaser for Christopher Nolan's upcoming film Inception slated for a summer 2010 release. There's another guy who can slip sometimes, but always finds a small patch to land upright. *** / ****; GRADE: B

Dead to Rights

I suppose I have to thank Michael Phillips for this review (that's twice in one week I've mentioned him in my reviews). I've talked about a lot this year about seeing films on pay-per-view that I didn't have the chance to see during their theatrical run, particularly the smaller films. But I finally got out to see this film in the actual theatre, and I really have Phillips to thank for that. On Friday, I read his mildly positive, but nowhere near glowingly, review for this film. Two days later, I took the hour and a half drive to Warrenville to see this movie at the AMC Cantera. Once again, I am really glad to acknowledge another small film that is begging to be recognized.

The film, which is loosely based on a factual book, centers around Martin McGartland (Jim Sturgess), a poor Irish guy in the late 1980s who's stuck in Ireland during the most violent parts of the British occupation and when the Irish Republican Army retaliated back with a brutal force. Slowly, Martin gets inducted into the higher ranks within the IRA. Throughout this, he's also working as an informant (which is given the slang term as a "tout") for Special Branch and reports back to the agent nicknamed Fergus, played by Ben Kingsley in another one of his roles that fulfills his need to take on every known accent in the world.

Sturgess has been an actor that has slowly gotten American audiences to get familiar with him, after noticeable turns in Across the Universe, 21, and Crossing Over. Of those three, I'd say Crossing Over, in which he showed great promise. This is the film I've been waiting for from him. His commitment to this character is really magnificent, and he pours a good amount of passion and energy into it. He keeps Martin a complex character, never allowing him to fall into caricature or simplistic stereotype. No matter what accent Sturgess is trying, he continues to show his ability as an actor. This is not just another pretty face in the movies; he can carry a dramatic lead to its fullest extent.

The rest of the cast is also on an admirable level, mainly due to the fact that they also never let their characters become cardboard cut-outs. The always excellent Kingsley can always deliver an interesting performance, and never lets Fergus become a de facto father to Martin, despite many temptations. He allows him to be kind and understanding, but still lets off the persona that he is here to do a job that is dirty and must get done. Other good additions are familiar faces Kevin Zegers as Martin's sadistic buddy in the IRA and Rose McGowen as a cunning IRA vixen. Both provide well rounded characters that can rely on one familiar trait these characters would rely on but at the same time shows another side that makes them real. The only exception to the cast would be Martin's extended family, as his mother and pregnant girlfriend seem like only fillers for the obligatory "concerned family member warning him about his life choices."

Director and co-writer Kari Skogland has a difficult time starting off the film, as the pacing of the film is a little uneven in trying to transition often times to somber, intimate moments between limited characters to racked up tension in dizzying chase scenes. Then she settles the frame, and allows the events to unfold in a natural way the constantly pokes at the audience. The film tends to fall a bit out of place at the end, especially when you can start to feel the wild embellishments taking place. However, even then, the characters, in particular Sturgess and Kingsley, make these scenes still watchable in order to find out where they will be next.

Fifty Dead Men Walking is not a perfect film, as it has some faults in the execution and the storytelling gets a tad winded in some parts. However, the fantastic acting from the whole ensemble, particularly from Sturgess, really makes this one of the year's best little gems. Once again, I am indebted to Michael Phillips for his fine wisdom, which I only hope will continue once he is on At the Movies starting in September. ***1/2 / ****; GRADE: B+

Review: In the Loop

Political Theatre

Whenever one views a movie no matter how many times, I always say that the optimal place to see that film is in the dimly lit theatre, preferably accompanied by the steaming bucket of warm, buttery popcorn with that indistinguishable movie theatre taste that is paired with an unnaturally large cup of some carbonated soda. I love that setting and try to grab it as often as I can. Sometimes, though, the experience eludes me, and before I know it, it's six months later and the popcorn is a microwaveable leftover from Orville Redenbacher, the soda's a Wild Cherry Pepsi hidden tucked under the sliced fruit, and the theatre is a compact living room with a high definition set hanging above the fireplace in the distance. However, this film has offered both opportunities to watch, since it is being simultaneously made available for viewing in theaters and on pay-per-view. Unfortunately, I experienced the film through the latter, but that doesn't mean that I didn't enjoy one of the funniest films of the year.

The film offers up a biting satirical perspective on how the political participants in the United States and Great Britain both engineered complacent involvement in the war in Iraq, even though the country itself is never specifically named. A British politician (Tom Hollander) mistakenly states that a conflict in the middle east is "unforeseeable". This attracts media attention and automatically he is flown out to Washington, along with his aide Toby (Chris Addison), to be a political catchphrase as the American politicians march towards war. However, a fellow Brit in charge, the foul-mouthed Malcolm Tucker (Peter Capaldi) is sent to overlook everything his meeker counterpart is involved in, constantly berating him, but always seem like the smartest guy in the room.

Admittedly, this movie might cause some to be disenfranchised with many of the moments delivered in those heavy accents that manage to fly by as quick as they can. It's a challenge to the ear, yes, but it is also when you get a real sense of the comedic timing that all these actors have. Capaldi, in particular, manages to steal every scene he's in and always knows what his character demands. Sometimes he'll rip out a brilliant comeback based on observational humor. Other times he'll rely on the obscenities. In both cases, he manages to find a place for them to work, and you'll be laughing equally at both. Hollander, whose mostly known as Beckett for the Pirates of the Caribbean sequels, captures that nervous energy quite sublimely, and his banter with Addison is always a refreshing bit.

However, it is not only the Brits that deliver in this film. James Gandolfini plays an American general working with an executive secretary (Mimi Kennedy) to dig out information about the war and present the evidence against it. Anna Chulmsky is her assistant, and her energy and timing goes well in hand with and love/hate affair with Toby as well as some really quick banter with her rival co-worker Chad which is so funny you'd think it'd have to be improvised. Then, there's David Rasche, a good actor who embodies the politician pushing for the war. He's not cartoonishly evil nor grossly incompetent. He is smart, quick, and decisive without ever fitting into a character type.

Nobody in this film, thankfully, fits into a neat little type. Director Armando Iannucci and his plethora of co-writers do a great service by stripping away any predictable plot points or overbearing political messages and instead have blanketed their canvas with really smart characters. There's a great kinetic energy in the film, and every scenes rolls deliciously into the other. In truth, there's so much energy that it almost feels like we would need more time to get to know these characters, such as in a TV show (which is fitting since the original concept was conceived as a BBC miniseries). You really get wanting more time especially at the end, which cuts off in a rather abrupt and unsatisfying way. As interesting as these characters were, it would have been nice to give them an ending that wound down a little more naturally. However, it's the only false note the story strikes.

I wish there were more comedies like this, because it is one that makes use of its surroundings for the humor. Not necessarily the plot, but more how the characters interact with one another. The plot really becomes more of an afterthought, which is not very insulting since we all know how the situation ultimately turns out. The cast is spot on, always delivering great timing and howling laughs, and the stripped down direction and story allows interests to grow and the one-liners to spit out. I don't care if you see this with a gigantic screen and the buttery fingers or in a small room with flat soda. This is an uproariously funny film, full of smart sophistication. ***1/2 / ****; GRADE: A-

Reviews: District 9 & Ponyo

Gerrymandered

First off, it has to be said that if anything, this movie has the distinction of possessing one of the year's best teaser trailers. I simply can't give high enough praises for what that little bit of footage did. I had absolutely no idea what this movie was about before I saw that footage, and after I saw it, well, I still didn't know much about it but I was totally interested in seeing it. To turn pure ignorance into hyped up excitement is truly something to behold. However, as is usually the case, a movie can almost never be as good as its trailer, particularly when its trailer is amazing. This film is a perfect example, which has to deal with a severe amount of faults before it can relish in its grand accomplishments.

I walked into this film knowing virtually nothing about the plot or characters in this movie, and I'm going to try and preserve that in this review because it does enhance the experience a bit. What I will say is that even the current trailers divulge that aliens accidentally landed on Earth almost thirty years ago over Johannesburg, South Africa. The government has placed these aliens in a refugee camp and is planning to evict them to a new facility. A mediator between the two species, Wikas (Sharlto Copley), is sent to give eviction notices. He's gets on the wrong side of the military and attempts to partner with an imprisoned alien named Christopher to help get out of trouble.

This movie has two major flaws going in, and one of them is the story. The film's script by director Neill Blomkamp and Terri Tatchell is a bit of a wild mess that preferences overwrought metaphors usually seen in science fiction rather than cohesive storytelling. Then, by the time the third act arrives, the film abandons its heavy themes in favor of an action set piece, which feels really out of place considering the film never once devoted enough time to get its leading man to transform into an renegade hero. There's a lot of ambitious things going on here, but it's all sprawled out without much cohesive sense.

Speaking of that leading character, it is difficult to root for him because at many times he is unsympathetic. He is not the lone voice that speaks out against the condition of the aliens' living environments. Instead he is the one who is willing to gleefully look on as the soldiers incinerate unborn alien fetuses, threaten to kill Christopher's son, and still insult that alien even when he is trying to help him. Even at Wikas's most vulnerable, the aliens still manage to posses more humanity and sympathy than him. I think they were stronger characters to deal with, and I wish the film didn't treat their storyline as it was only seen vicariously through Wikas.

Still, while his character is handled poorly by the script, Copley does do a credible job in this role, and he is more than capable to carry a film like this. He does put a lot of passion and energy into this character, and even when we the audience may want to abandon him because of his ethics, Copley makes sure he himself stays with him, continuing to bring out all the good, bad and ugly sides that this character can flesh out. That conviction is what really works. But, as I said, it does seem to shy in comparison to the aliens, and Christopher, who also carries around his young son, seems like a far more interesting character to want to know. Unless aliens look like E.T., there unfortunately isn't much room to have them become a central character. This could have been an exception, but it sadly isn't. Christopher is the film's best character that needed to be flushed out more.

Though, director Blomkamp does manage to keep the energy going with each scene, and he is able to rightly set up the mood in each moment. Even though you'll recognize how heavy handed the metaphors are, you can still appreciate the docudrama approach Blomkamp uses here to create that sense of relevant realism that goes on even today. When the film awkwardly slips into action mode, you also feel the energy in all of those scenes, and most deliver an effective job of entertainment. Blomkamp even stages the quiet moments well, and the emotions are felt even when the dialogue may not carry quite the same sharp punch.

There's always a soft spot in my heart for science fiction, but when it comes to combining that genre with action, instead of the operatic, it can become a missed opportunity. In a nutshell, that is what this film is, a series of missed opportunities. Starting from the beginning where the metaphors are too heavy, to the end where the action is misplaced, to the wrong character being at the center. Still, Blomkamp does have an ambitious vision here, and it is certainly interesting to watch them unfold. It certainly wasn't anywhere as good as the trailer, but it was an intriguing experiment to watch unfold. **1/2 / ****; GRADE: B-

Fisher King

Don't call Hayao Miyazaki the Walt Disney of Japan. It's not just because he has a history of saying that he deplores that title. It's not even because Miyazaki tries to steer clear of subliminal racism that past Disney films have been unfortunately guilty of. The real reason is because he is interested in more than just delivering an animated world that is heavy on the fancy. He wants one that also engages the audience in the beautiful canvas that is often times a very complicated story. His films are pure gems because they combine the striking animation with an intriguing premise that fleshes out equally valued characters. His latest film is one that goes for that once again, and it is an attempt that is fairly hit and miss.

The title of this film refers to the main character, Ponyo, whose American dubbed voice in theatres right now is provided by Miley Cyrus's little sister Noah. Ponyo is a type of fish/girl who aspires to escape the confined life under her strict sorcerer father (Liam Neeson). She eventually befriends a boy, Sosuke (Frankie Jonas, the absolute youngest of the Jonas Brothers), who takes a strong liking to Ponyo, even as she begins to sprout legs, arms and the command of giant waves that look like fish.

The plot to this movie is a paper thin tale concerning Ponyo wanting to permanently become a human, but that has some speed-bumps because the natural balance of the universe is being distorted by the moon. I think. I wasn't all that interested in the plot because it is really lacking in this film. Granted, this is meant for kids, but it still means that the adults brought into this movie will feel like the simplistic storyline will feel uninteresting and a bit slow. The last act in particular is a serious drag and makes the film lose major steam by the end.

But then, Miyazaki certainly has a beautiful canvas to to paint on. It is really magnificent how well detailed the scenery is, given that it is completely handrawn. His eye as a filmmaker is always one that knows how to draw in great dramatic energy in heart pounding scenes. Then, given the fact that they look incredible, the scenes really have a sense of kinetic life, helped greatly, but sometimes overpowered, by Joe Hisaishi's score. Those elements were lacking in Howl's Moving Castle, but it is present here.

I'm a big supporter of the necessity of foreign films being shown in their original language with the subtitles attached. Please, people, do not be afraide of the subtitles. This film is being released with a dubbed American cast, as most Miyazaki films are, and at times it isn't all bad. Even though Frankie and Noah purely got these roles because of Disney nepotism, they give their characters the right amount of innocent speech, though Noah seems like she's trying a bit harder than Frankie. Other voices like Tina Fey as Souske's mother Lisa, Cate Blanchett as Ponyo's mythical mother, and Lily Tomlin as a cranky old lady in the nursing home where Lisa works offer a real warmth in their characters and infuse them with a believable sense even among all the fantasy. However, two voices in particular, Neeson and Betty White, are very distracting. That fault isn't entirely theirs, but because their voices are so distinct, it is difficult to separate between the actor and the character

There is another reason why I think foreign films should be watched with subtitles. Often times, elements of films tend to get lost in translation, and the original intent of a film is not always felt. Sometimes this is the case of a line delivery that is a beat off from what the scene should demand, and other times it seems like a cultural rift doesn't gel well with an American audience. A specific moment is when a discussion on the origin of breast milk is brought up, and I'm willing to bet that those parents who brought their children to see this movie will have an awkward conversation afterwards. There might also be a cultural difference in education, since five-year-olds Ponyo and Sosuke can name gigantic fish from the dinosaur age. I don't know what's being taught in those Japanese kindergartens, but I think even adults could benefit from them.

I understand that this movie is meant for children, and I'm willing to bet that anybody who reads this is not in the target audience either. But the draw of Miyazaki is not only how well the pictures look but how much the dramatic story draws you in. Here, the picture is rich, but the story is severely lacking, particularly in the last act which ends on a horrific freeze frame. But, these characters can still be endearing while sometimes being difficult to totally believe. In the end, you'll wear a smile throughout most of this movie. This might be the one instance when Miyazaki could be called the Walt Disney of Japan because here has has taken the more fantastical route. However, I'm sure it's not a nickname that will stick. *** / ****; GRADE: B

Review: G.I. Joe

Army of None

Well, I thought there weren't anymore things that I could blame the Transformers franchise for. There was already reviving the career of hack filmmaker Michael Bay, the degrading of the once respectable star power of Jon Voight, making Megan Fox believe that people were actually interested in hearing her thoughts, and, of course, giving us the absolutely horrible Transformers sequel. But perhaps the greatest damage this franchise has done is giving Hollywood the okay to sign onto more films based on a line of toys, as if this is the latest, greatest medium to adapt into a feature length film. This film seems to be the first casualty of this new wave of toys to film, and I pray that it remains the last effort.

The elite fighting force known as G.I. Joe was originally a purely American team. Not so now, as the unit is an internationally comprised league of super men and women who fight against global tyranny. Channing Tatum and Marlon Waynes are the two newest recruits to G.I. Joe which is overseen by General Hawk (Dennis Quaid). The "Joes" are in a race with an evil conglomerate that holds technology to antagonizing microbots that can destroy cities in large amounts. The group behind this eventually becomes the infamous arch enemy Cobra (whose Commander will be Joseph Gordon-Levitt).

Now, you probably know that this is going to be a bad movie, but you cannot imagine how far below your expectations this will fall. First off, you'll notice that what these people are saying is horrific. The script feels like it could have been written by fourth graders because it is that bad. But the writing is not just bad; it's lazy. Every scene, every plot twist, every line of dialogue feels so forced and predictable that all of it becomes an effort to make sure not a single neuron in your brain fires at any point. The exposition is laid out by in long breaths and the dialogue is just corny, not to mention the script containing so many retrospective flashbacks that hit an uneven tone. Stuart Beattie can create great conversational dialogue (like in Collateral) but he does his career a great disservice.

Same goes to director Stephen Sommers. Some of his career has been on the same road of Michael Bay as his films generally aren't highly praised nor are they gigantic grossers. However, I thoroughly enjoyed his remake of The Mummy, and I proudly file Deep Rising and Van Helsing under guilty pleasures. But the great action scenes in those films work because Sommers finds a way still identify with the characters in battle, so we can feel for their plight amongst the explosions and swinging swords. He never lets those moments in here, and every action set piece is just an exercise in nauseating camera work, disorienting editing marks, and a numbing sound effects track that tries to give Transformers 2 a run for its money. There's one fight scene between two kids that Sommers stages very well, but it's about the only one to cling to.

I tried to stick up for Tatum in Fighting a couple months ago, but now I contend that he really is a bad actor. There is not an ounce of believability to his character as he delivers every line either like he's auditioning for a middle school play or playing a combat video game. Wanes does deliver a few laughs here and there and tries to bring the likability of this movie up a bit (making this one of the few movies that actually is improved by a Waynes credit). Still, Quaid is so serious work here that he never looks like he's having fun, which automatically transports him into the wrong movie. Sienna Miller shows up as a baddie, but she's as lame, half baked and forgettable as much as the rest of the G.I. Joe team, which, by the way, includes a cameo by Brendan Fraser that will immediately make you ask yourself, "What the hell is Brendan Fraser doing in this movie?"

Then, there's Gordon-Levitt, who finally gave a performance I didn't like. Not only is his role significantly small, but he's saddled with a distractingly bad voice that sounds like Dr. Claw from the Inspector Gadget cartoons and the film's absolutely worst dialogue. In fact, when you look at him, he comes off less as a frightful baddie but more like a cross between Darth Vader and Mr. Peanut. To be fair, it isn't totally his fault as it is a character that is more horribly written than horribly performed, but he's too good an actor to have one of the cheesiest movie villains around. If you decide to watch this movie, immediately seek out Brick and (500) Days of Summer so you can see his talent used in full effect.

But hopefully you won't have to suffer through this movie, which at its best plays like a bad Saturday morning cartoon. I also don't want to give the impression that this is one of those movies that's so bad it's good, because that would be an insult to movies like Never Back Down. This film takes itself too seriously to become a campy pleasure, but its also too silly for it to be seen as a legitimate action picture. The shallow acting and flat direction drag the movie down, but it's that incredibly lazy, predictable, uninspired, unoriginal, amateurish, undeveloped script that puts the heaviest nail in the coffin. Move over Bruno, because I've found not only the worst film so far this year, but the worst I've seen in a long while. Well, maybe until Hot Wheels comes out, and I wish I was joking about that project. 1/2* / ****; GRADE: D-

Review: Funny People

Funny Forum

I'm not exactly sure why this is, but the likable charm of writer-director-producer Judd Apatow has never particularly struck a chord with me. His two previous directorial efforts, The 40-Year-Old Virgin and Knocked Up managed to keep some smiles on my face, but I certainly believed the overwhelming support those two films received were more than necessary. As for the projects that have had Apatow as a producer, only one has really made me appreciate that particular brand of comedy, and that was Superbad. In fact, after I saw Pineapple Express, I had hoped that this film would have been the tune up he desperately needed to get the comedic ball rolling again (particularly after the abysmal failure that was Year One). So I pose the question to myself that I try to answer: Is third time the charm for me and Mr. Apatow?

To try and answer that, we look to where this story starts, and that is with George Simmons, played by Adam Sandler in one of his serious performances that he seems to do every once in a while. Simmons is essentially Sandler in an alternate reality, where he is a popular celebrity comic that has been bogged down by a slow career. However, his life takes a dramatic turn when he receives news that he has contracted a rare form of leukemia and with this news decides to try and get a new lease on life. He returns to his stand-up roots and contracts a younger comic, Ira (Seth Rogen), to assist and write jokes for him. The two form an inevitable bond and take their relationship to a test when George tries to win back the love that was lost (Leslie Mann) now married to Eric Bana (probably thanking Apatow for the compliment that Rogen got laid in Knocked Up because of Munich).

This is a movie that has a really good two thirds. This is where Apatow crafts a truly well rounded and complex allegory on life and mortality, all through the prism of a comedian's eye. Here is where his craft as a writer in creating stories that defy their conventional genres becomes well nurtured and matured. There is also grand kudos for him not allowing the film's personality to split in two, and the themes of comedy and tragedy are always in a healthy mix. Apatow's directorial hand still feels a bit flat, but it's a hand that only gets better when he allows his characters to guide the medium rather than the camera (speaking of, what is double whammy Oscar winner Janusz Kaminski doing lighting this movie?)

But then we get to that third act, and it is a drawn out affair. Don't get me wrong, the excursion at Mann's house while she attempts to rekindle the relationship with Sandler while awkwardly trying to steer away the suspicions of Bana are funny at times, but tonally doesn't fit with the rest of the film. In all honesty, it feels a bit tacked on and more like a plot to a cheery sitcom rather than a complex comedy. Not only that, but as with most of Apatow's projects, it takes a mighty long time to wrap up, and the film's nearly two and a half hour length starts to take its toll. I'd be lying if that doesn't bring down the movie too much, but the film fortunately has the first two thirds to make up for a rather bland third act.

Anybody who knows me is aware that when it comes to Adam Sandler, I am not the guy raising his hand to declare being a big fan. For most of his career I've despised his lazy brand of slapstick humor that has only occasionally translated to him delivering any believable dramatic work. Here is the perfect role for him because it allows him to become comfortable with this character's overtly comic personality while occasionally slipping into emotionally driven scenes that feel authentic. This is Sandler's best performance in his career, and I for one am very thankful to find one that I like. As for Rogen, I do feel like he's doing more of the same character he's been doing for Apatow since the beginning; it's very funny but not earth-shattering in terms of a range for an actor.

Fortunately, the entire ensemble delivers equally on comedic talent, something that is rare find in comedies that I have only recently seen in Sideways and Superbad. Leslie Mann, who seems to be the only female Apatow stock player (though I wish he'd invite Elizabeth Banks), is once again charming and sublime in a role that doesn't feel completely forced. Familiar faces Jonah Hill and Jason Schwartzman play Rogen's roommates, and both present the sly wit and great comedic timing to make them distinct and equally hilarious. Bana is also surprisingly endearing in this role and is never overacted into the stereotype category. Special mention has to be given to the numerous celebrity cameos that range from James Taylor to Andy Dick to Sarah Silverman and even to an extremely funny scene between an irate Eminem and a dumbfounded Ray Romano. The cameos are cheap, but God if I didn't laugh at all those cheap jokes.

So was third time the charm? Yes and no, I'd say. I appreciate that the ambition of this film is much larger than the Apatow projects in the past, and I was really surprised at how well this film was crafted and superbly acted in that first big chunk. But then it does fall apart at the end and loses steam before it crosses the finish line with only the continually funny actors to guide it through. This isn't the perfect Apatow comedy, but it is one that shows where Apatow is willing to take an audience and that is a good step for having me appreciate him on a level that seems to be socially acceptable. If only he gets his film's length under control, then he'd have me set. *** / ****; GRADE: B