Return of the Brodie... WITH LISTS!!!

Hello BrodieFans,

I've got a couple lists for you.


Top 10 Film Adaptations of Television Shows

1) The Fugitive
2) Serenity
3) Mission: Impossible
4) Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
5) The Untouchables
6) South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut
7) The Addams Family
8) The Blues Brothers
9) The Naked Gun
10) Wayne's World


Top 7 Brad Pitt Performances
1) Fight Club
2) Snatch
3) 12 Monkeys
4) Se7en
5) True Romance
6) Babel
7) Mr. and Mrs. Smith

Top 5 Val Kilmer Performances
1) Kiss Kiss Bang Bang
2) The Doors
3) Tombstone
4) Top Secret
5) Heat

Top 10 flicks of the 2000's... thus far...

I thought about writing a special blurb for each of these, sort of a justification or an "in defense of", pointing out the technical merits of as to why each film was included. But they all came out like mini-reviews of the flicks. And I didn't want that. Then I remembered what this and every list like it is... opinion. Rarely, if ever, does actual technical merit come into play when a critic, or a panel of critics come up with the "10 best" of anything. So I said fuck it. Write the list, provide some good clips (all courtesy youtube.com) and have people see for themselves why I thought the film was particularly deserving of the 10 best of this current decade.

So here it is...

1. Sin City
   

2. Donnie Darko
   

3. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang
   

4. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
   

5. Shaun of the Dead
   

6. Memento
   

7. Requiem for a Dream
   

8. 28 Days Later...
   

9. Ocean's Eleven
   

10. The Lord of the Rings Trilogy
    

Musings on the Simpsons

So here's the essay, it took me a few days, because, well, it's long. I'm not an essayist, so it probably sucks. But what do I care. Enjoy.

How easy would it be for me to come onto my blog and do a “Top 10 Simpsons Moments” or something like that. Sure I could slap together that list and would probably look a shitload like the one at MSN.com, which resembles the one at aol.com, which seemed to copy the one in last weeks issue of EW, and so forth, and so forth. I think for the most part we can all agree who the best celebrity cameo was (Johnny Cash in The Mysterious Trip of Our Homer), or what the best episode was (Marge vs. The Monorail seems to be a consensus, but I prefer She of Little Faith) or what season was better (season 7) or whatever, there are probably a hundred things we can debate upon concerning the the stellar 18 year run of the show. But that's not something I want to do.

Cause quite frankly, I just don't want to.

I would, however, like to offer up a few of my own thoughts, observations and reflections on America's family. These aren't nearly as profound or even well thought out as what can be found in the books “Philosophy and The Simpsons” and “The Gospel and The Simpsons”, hell, I'm performing literary improvisation with this essay. But a fan's perspective is the essence of what makes a good show. It's necessary. So... here goes.

I actually didn't get into The Simpsons till about 1999, maybe 2000. My parents let me watch Die Hard when I was 6, Clerks when I was 11, and listen to George Carlin since I was 5, but Bart Simpson was gonna be the bad influence on my life, go fuckin' figure. So once I hit 13 or 14, I said “Fuck it, I'm watching it.”And my whole perspective on comedy, on television, on cartoons, on pop culture, on life, it all changed.

I think the first episode I ever saw was Bart Sells His Soul. It sticks out in my mind to this day because it was so wickedly funny, yet at the same time, earnestly heartfelt and poignant. Because my dad had raised me on classic rock (which to this day, I thank him for, cause that's just good music), I got the “Ina-Gadda-da-Vida” reference, which is part of the hilarious opening sequence. Candles in the air like lighters. Because of Rev. Lovejoy, I refer to it as “rock and/or roll”, to this day. Just pure gold. And then Bart sells his soul to Milhouse, in an effort to prove that souls don't exist. Cut to later in the episode, Bart psychosomatically begins to believe in the existence of souls and embarks on a journey of Homerian (Greek playwright, not his father) proportions to reclaim his soul. And it got heavy, Bart broke down and cried and prayed for his soul. There was a touching brother/sister moment when Lisa bought Bart's soul back for him. And that's when I perked up and took notice. It was “alright, this is a fuckin' show I have to watch.

Until I saw this, and pretty much until this show came along in 1989, animated television shows were goofy parables, geared primarily towards kids. They had a simple lesson, or in the case of the Loony Tunes, it was just five minutes of zaniness. Not to say they were bad, but it wasn't until The Simpsons came along that mainstream audiences got an animated show geared towards adults.

I'm taking a lot of historical perspective on this, I know, but to properly get my thoughts on the show out, I have to give context.

In 1989, The Simpsons were the antithesis of the “family comedy” that was dominating the TV ratings in the late 80's. Growing Pains, The Cosby Show and Full House were moralistic, simplistic and carefree. All problems were solved by a good talk and a big hug. It was an idealistic view of the American family. But American families weren't perfect. Enter the Fox network. Granted Married, With Children came first, but it really was The Simpsons that changed the family sitcom at that time. And despite many knock-offs and homages since, it's still the gold standard for the functionally dysfunctional family.

Homer was the anti-Cliff Huxtable. He's not this successful man, who's all knowing and is lovey-dovey with his family. He's a common man, blue-collar, kinda dumb, but loves his family and is doing his best for them. When Lisa goes missing after taking the bus downtown to the museum, Homer goes on a frantic search for her, even praying to Superman for help. That's love. And he reflects a certain carefree attitude of Americans. This isn't an insult toward Americans but there is one Homer quote that sums up his character perfectly. I can't remember the episode, or even the particular situation he was in, but Homer proclaims “This is everybody's fault but my own.” Hasn't everyone felt like that at some point? I sure as shit have.

Marge was a great suburban wife. She was all about the image of the family. Even though they barely have faith, they still go to church every weekend, because Marge wants the community to think they're good people. On many occasions, she wonders aloud “What will the neighbors think?” In Scenes from a Class Struggle in Springfield she bought a Chanel dress at an outlet mall, and when she was accepted by high society, she went crazy altering the dress, just so she could fit in with the upper-crust crowd. Eventually she saw the error of her ways, but that showed her true character.

Bart and Lisa are both representatives of rebellious youth. Bart is a rebellious troublemaker, always causing grief for Homer, Principal Skinner, Moe or just about anyone he comes across. In the first episode ever, he says point blank to Santa (Homer in disguise) “I'm Bart Simpson, who the hell are you?” It came full circle back to Bart in the recent four hundredth episode in another perfect pop culture reference, with his phone call getting crossed with a secret agent's call, who promptly said “I'm Jack Bauer, who the hell are you?”

Lisa is the more passive rebel. She goes against the grain of society, much to the chagrin of everyone around her, only finding support in the various celebrities that wander through, but never from her family. The often mis-understood genius, yet still naïve as to the ways of the world. She makes the mistake of many a young rebel by jumping head first into a cause or belief, yet rarely checking the water below.

I don't want to get into Maggie, cause quite frankly, I don't understand babies. Let's just say she's the weird kid who never talks and leave it at that.

And that's what has cemented it's place in pop culture history. By changing the rules of television. Cartoons weren't just for kids anymore. Sitcoms weren't for washed up stand-up comics. It was this brand new entity, this force to be reckoned with, and Matt Groening proclaimed he was here to stay.

Saturday Night Live aside, no other show has been such a pop culture landmark, while simultaneously skewering it at every turn. And it's a lot of the little jokes that make the satire work. When Lenny and Carl refer to Richard Gere as the “world's most famous Buddhist”. When Homer realizes he's not “cool” anymore, he rattles off bands that weren't really all that cool to begin with. But the most significant mark of the greatness of The Simpsons, is three particular episodes. Brush With Greatness, She of Little Faith and Homer's Barbershop Quartet. What these three all have in common is that they all featured former Beatles.

In 1976, Saturday Night Live producer Lorne Michaels famously went on the air and offered John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr, the Beatles, $3000 to reunite on his show. It never happened, and four years later, Lennon was dead and it never could happen. But, I firmly believe that had Lennon not died, The Simpsons could have reunited the Beatles. Three episodes, just a few years apart, all featured a Beatle, as themselves, in small roles. But Matt Groening could have written an episode for the four of them. And they would have done it.

I'd be hard pressed to find someone who would disagree with that sentiment. And that right there, that power Groening has, to have been able to reunite the Beatles, that's huge. No one else has that much influence in pop culture. Not Michaels, not anymore. None of the power players in film and television have wield that kind of sword.

And it's not like Groening has desired that power, and it's not like he uses it. He just makes his show.

This essay has gone on a lot longer than I originally intended, so I'm going to wrap it up. And this is what's gonna get me, the closing. I always have trouble with closings. From essays, to short stories, to voice mail messages, I never know how to end it.

The Simpsons are not just a part of television history, or pop culture history. But really, it's a part of American history. It's such a landmark show, and so ingrained in our collective psyches, that, much like the aforementioned Saturday Night Live, it is really hard to imagine a time when it wasn't on the air. Even for people who are old enough to remember when it wasn't on the air. Groening doesn't show signs of stopping, and I for one, hope he goes as long as he's got the steam to do it. The show will end when it ends. No sooner. No later.

Good night, and good luck, I guess.

Harry Potter review

Ok... seriously, I promise to get on track with doing this daily. Really I do. And adhering to the schedule I set for myself. It's just a matter of doing so. I just have to get in the rhythm. But here's the review for Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. A contemplation on The Simpsons will come later today.

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

2 stars

It's hard to play a blame game as to why the fifth installment of the usually entertaining Harry Potter franchise has failed to live up to the standards set by the previous four films. The only thing that's really changed is the director. I guess it's not that hard to play the blame game after all.

Let me preface this in the same way I prefaced the review for Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire: I have not read the books. I read the first one, didn't care for it, haven't picked one up since. So my plot outline is based on the presentation in the film alone, not all the side plots from the book that didn't make the final cut. This is a film review, so I am reviewing the film. OK, here we go.

Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) has incurred the wrath of the Ministry of Magic after performing a magic spell in front of regular people, though in his defense, it was to ward of demons sent to kill him. Then he finds out about the Order of the Phoenix, a secret society formed to defend the world upon Voldemort's return, members include Harry's parents, Sirius Black, Snape, Dumbledore, the Weasleys, Lupin, Mad-Eye Moody, etc.. Then Harry meets before the Ministry to decide his fate at Hogwarts Academy. They let him stay, but prudish member of the Ministry Dolores Umbridge (Imelda Staunton) decides she's going to become a teacher there, to keep an eye on things at Hogwarts.

To explain everything as well as they did in the movie would be a practice in futility. It's one convoluted mess. It's like trying to listen to a goofy 50 year old Mid-Westerner try to tell a joke. “Oh wait, I forgot about this part, let me back up.”

The thing of the movies, and this goes for all cinematic adaptations of books, especially popular books, is that they are supposed to make people who have yet to read the books, care about the story, about the characters, as much as those who have read and loved the books do. Like I said, I haven't read the books. Not my cup of tea. But the first four flicks made me care. I liked the story. For the 2 hours or so that I was in the theatre, or watching it on DVD in my living room, I was pulled in, I was engrossed by the story. It was an enjoyable experience for me.

I didn't get that feeling from this one. And it's David Yates' fault. Or Michael Goldenberg's. Goldenberg's the screenwriter. Steven Kloves has done a fantastic job translating the previous four novels to the screen. And thank the god I don't believe in he's coming back for part six. Because Goldenberg's script was just a muddled mess. Unfortunately we're not spared Yates for the sixth installment.

I think everyone did their parts to the best of their abilities. They did the best with what they were given, and it wasn't much. There were no stand-out performances. But to the credit of the entire cast and crew, they aren't showing the signs of fatigue one would expect after six years and five movies. They go out and deliver with everything they've got, which is the mark of true dedication to the craft.

It was a convoluted mess of a movie that needs better writing, but above all else, a better director. Yates just wasn't the right man for the job. I think if the producers want to go out with a bang on the seventh flick (and I'm sure they do), go with Guillermo del Toro or Alfonso Cauron. Not Tim Burton.

DVD Forecast

A few new DVD's came out this week, let me guide you through them-

To be honest... I'm not gonna do one, mainly because of the three big new releases, I didn't see a damn one, because they all looked terrible. If you're interested, it's Factory Girl, Premonition and The Hills Have Eyes 2. All got bad reviews. Rent at own risk.

As for Wednesday's Random Film Post... well, I kinda did that on Sunday. So just keep an eye out for Thursday's.

Transformers

Give me a break on this one, I'm coming off a 2 and a half month hiatus from writing these things, so I'm a tad rusty. But it's finally up, 3 days late. Enjoy, fans!

Transformers

3 Stars

My job as a film critic is to essentially determine one thing: Was it a good movie? And for Michael Bay's new action epic, Transformers, the answer is yes. But could it compete on the same level of quality film making as March's Zodiac? Absolutely not. But it's a different kind of filmmaking.

Shia LaBeouf (Disturbia) stars in this big screen, live action adaptation of the 80's cartoon series, which in turn was based on a toy line of robots that turned into cars. LaBeouf plays Sam Witwicky, a high school loser who buys a junker of a car, which turns out to be Autobot Bumblebee, part of an alien race of robots from the planet Cybertron. The Autobots, led by Optimus Prime have come to earth in search of the Allspark, and keep it out of the hands of Megatron, leader of the Decepticons. Soon Earth gets thrust into the middle of an epic, centuries old battle between the Autobots and Decepticons.

Now, you can imagine the overall tone of the flick isn't all that serious. You probably felt a little silly reading that, I know I felt silly writing it. But it's this kind of film where Michael Bay (Armageddon, The Rock) tends to excel. The audacious, outlandish, cartoonish action flicks that dominate the summer blockbuster. I had no real great expectations for this movie. I knew it was going to be corny going in, but just amazing on the special effects and action sequences. And it was corny. But thoroughly entertaining.

I will say this about action movies today, they lack the linguistic spark that was predominant in the 80's and early 90's. While the plot-lines may have been low brow, the one-liners and wisecracks are the ones we still talk about today. And that's where the script fails miserably for Transformers. The dialog is overtly and overly cheesy. It degrades to soap opera level cheese. During the climax, the love interest Mikaela (Megan Fox) says to Sam, “I'm glad I got in that car with you.” Yes, it refers to a set of lines earlier in the film, but even with a frame of reference, it's just horrendously bad.

But bad actors delivering even worse lines is what these summer event movies are all about, right? I could do the round-up of the stars of the film: Vegas's Josh Duhamal, a decent enough TV actor still trying to follow in the footsteps of George Clooney and failing miserably at it. John Voight, who is familiarly mediocre. Tyrese, a former model turned actor, need I say more. Fox, whom you've never heard of and will never hear from again, at least not outside the pages of Maxim. The only ones really worth watching are the bit parts, particularly John Turturro as a shady government agent, or the voice over actors with Brian Cox and Hugo Weaving both lending their voices to the robots in disguise, and the under-utilized star, Shia LaBeouf.

A bit of career advice for LaBeouf: You've actually got some talent. Pick scripts that showcase that talent. Yes, any child of the 80's would jump at the chance to be in the Transformers movie. I know I would. But you'll never get your due if you don't earn it.

But acting and script aside, it was a great movie. It's an odd thing to say, really, when you think about it. Considering 90% of what is judged about a movie is the acting and the script. But, it did deliver the enjoyment, the excitement, and the escapism I look for in epic, bombastic flicks. I didn't go in expecting Citizen Kane, and I didn't get that. That's coming out ahead in my book.

Recasting Your Favourite Movies

I laboured long and hard over the intro, trying to figure out a way to best present this little idea of mine. They were all way too long, and I realized people would stop reading before they got to the point of the the blog entry. They included examples and shit and I kinda wrote circles around myself. So instead of a long diatribe, I'll just keep it concise, any questions or comments, just send them to me and I'll do my best to respond in due time.

This whole thing is a little project of mine. For the record I'm not advocating remakes of these films or film versions of these TV Shows. I enjoy speculating what it would be if the original had never been made, and it was being produced now, in 2007. Who would they cast? Scratch that, who would I cast?

Yes I do use the original as a point of reference on characterization only. Beyond that, I operate under the notion that the original was never made.

Just to restate, I am NOT advocating remakes for these flicks. This is just a fun game of speculation. I welcome comments, suggestions and criticism.

Without further ado... I present just a few of my favourite films, recast with today's talent.

The Godfather

Michael Corleone- Sean Patrick Flanery (Boondock Saints)
Fredo Corleone- Adrien Brody (The Pianist)
Sonny Corleone- Michael Madsen (Reservoir Dogs)
Tom Hagan- Denis Leary (Rescue Me)
Don Vito Corleone- Christopher Walken (Poolhall Junkies)
Kay Adams- Naomi Watts (King Kong)
Pete Clemenza- James Gandolfini (The Sopranos)
Cpt. McCluskey- Willem Dafoe (Spider-Man)
Virgil Solozzo- Gary Oldman (Leon)
Connie Corleone- Michelle Monaghan (Kiss Kiss Bang Bang)
Carlo Rizzi- Jared Leto (Requiem for a Dream)
Jack Woltz- Al Pacino (Heat)
Johnny Fontaine- John Travolta (Pulp Fiction)

I realize Flannery is Irish, but a good accent would hide it. The casting of Pacino as Woltz is not meant as some sly wink and a nod to the original. If you look at John Marley's performance in the original, it's similar to Pacino's in films like Glengarry Glen Ross, Heat and Any Given Sunday. I think this would be a good project for Matthew Vaughn (Layer Cake) or Joe Carnahan (Narc).

It's A Wonderful Life

George Bailey- Jim Carrey (The Truman Show)
Mary Hatch Bailey- Hope Davis (The Matador)
Mr. Potter- Brian Cox (The Bourne Identity)
Uncle Billy- Christopher Lloyd (Back to the Future)
Clarence- Ian Holm (Lord of the Rings)
Violet Bick- Rachel McAdams (Wedding Crashers)
Harry Bailey- Sean Patrick Flannery (Boondock Saints)
Pa Bailey- Alan Alda (M*A*S*H*)
Ma Bailey- Dianne Weist (Edward Scissorhands)
Mr. Gower- Bill Nighy (Love Actually)
Mr. Martini- Chazz Palmentari (The Usual Suspects)
Nick- Nicky Katt (Boston Public)
Officer Bert- Greg Kinnear (The Matador)
Ernie- Jason Lee (My Name Is Earl)
Sam Wainwright- Steve Carrell (The 40 Year Old Virgin)
Marty Hatch- Paul Rudd (Knocked Up)

I know I reused Flannery. And you know what? That will happen. He's a decent enough actor. And I thought he'd fit this role really well. I went with taller, lankier actors in Carrey, Flannery, Alda and Lloyd for the Bailey boys. There's a 10 year spread on the younger generation, mainly because they'd be playing characters from the age of 18 to mid 40's. Some of the smaller roles (Bert, Ernie, Nick) I thought it would interesting to use as cameos for certain actors. I could offer speculation on the kids, but really, kid actors are everywhere, and unknowns would be the way to go. Though I would imagine they'd go for Elle Fanning for ZuZu. Richard Curtis (Love Actually) would be perfect to direct this.

Taxi Driver

Travis Bickle- Clive Owen (Inside Man)
Iris Steensma- Evan Rachel Wood (Thirteen)
“Sport” Matthew- Heath Ledger (Lords of Dogtown)
Betsy- Hope Davis (The Matador)
Tom- Robert Downey, Jr. (Kiss Kiss Bang Bang)

Smaller cast than my previous two. Clive Owen has that look about him, and the way he carries himself. He's quiet, but definitely got a crazy streak to him. It was easy to cast the three leads. It was Sport and Tom that gave me trouble. Ledger really impressed me with his turn in Lords of Dogtown. He was playing a real person with a real character quirk, but he never seemed to be mimicking or imitating. So that proved to me that he actually can act. And Downey is just a fantastic actor in the midst of a career rebirth, following Kiss Kiss Bang Bang and Zodiac. I think Christopher Nolan should take this.

The Dick Van Dyke Show
They'd have to change the title, cause it wouldn't involve Dick Van Dyke, but it's that show that I'm using.

Rob Petrie- Matthew Perry (Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip)
Laura Petrie- Felicity Huffman (Desperate Housewives)
Buddy Sorrell- Steve Buscemi (Reservoir Dogs)
Sally Rogers- Jane Lynch (The 40 Year Old Virgin)
Richie- Go with an unknown here, says I
Alan Brady- William H. Macy (The Cooler)
Mel Cooley- George Carlin (Dogma)
Jerry Helper- Josh Charles (Sports Night)
Millie Helper- Jenna Fischer (The Office)

See, I'm using the TV show, as it's such a great show that would translate well to modern times (Aaron Sorkin's Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip is a good comparable show, hence I use Matthew Perry). It's tough to use the title, as if it never happened, it wouldn't be "The Dick Van Dyke Show". But to use it as a point of reference, we'd have refer to it as "The Dick Van Dyke Show". But the actual title could be one of the shows original working titles: "Head of the Family" or "All In A Day's Work", or you could come up with a new, original title. Aaron Sorkin could write the script. Stephen Soderbergh would be interesting in the director's chair.

That's it for now. Keep an eye out for more recasts (I have more ready to go) and more posts, as I do plan to use this blog more often now, for more than just reviews.

Remergence from the abyss. No, not that abyss

So for various reasons, I had to take a brief, 3 month hiatus from writing reviews. But I am back now. In thanks for being patient with me, I will offer you brief reviews of the Flicks I've seen since my last posted review. And in sort of a restructuring of my blog, this will no longer based solely on my reviews, I will post personal (yet still movie related) essays and musings, fun little things I've done (recasts) and anything else that strikes my fancy. More to come, but for now, reviews:

Disturbia: 2.5 stars

While it was an ultimately effective and uninsulting update of Hitchcock's "Rear Window", it's neither smart enough nor clever enough to avoid drawing comparison to it's classic predecessor. Mr. LaBeouf, though talented, doesn't have the moxy to carry his own flick quite yet, which is why his next major project stars giant robots.

Fracture: 2 stars

Well, Anthony Hopkins plays Anthony Hopkins in a predictable thriller costarring the always charming Ryan Gosling, who's playing a role that is more suited for Matthew McConaughey, than to Goslings understated talent. And raise your hand if you didn't see the end coming a mile away.

Spider-Man 3: 2.5 stars

It pains me to give this film such a low rating, as I've loved the first two "Spider-Man" flicks. But this one was a disservice to fans of the franchise. It lacked any real emotional punch that the first two had. A major alteration to the character of Peter Parker occurred, that changed the essence of the character. And with all due respect to Sam Raimi, but does he even know Venom? I mean really know the character? 40 minutes of a 3 hour film on a character whose history is so storied, so ingrained with the heroes, so beloved by fans is just a slap in the face. This really should have been two films. Spider-Man 3 should have been the personal struggle he went through with Harry as Green Goblin 2 and the Sandman saga, while Parker deals with his newfound relationship with Mary Jane (or possibly even a wedding), introducing Venom at the very end, setting up the 4th movie to be just about Spider-Man vs. Venom, with requisite side plots.

28 Weeks Later...: 4.5 Stars

It's such a rarity in the world of cinema, that I almost didn't believe it when I first saw the film. A sequel that is legitimately better than it's predecessor. I can't say fully, as "28 Days Later..." is such an amazing film, and I love it so much, but "28 Weeks Later..." was just so damn good, too. Not as subtle (I know what you're thinking, since when is a zombie flick subtle, but trust me, the Brits are fuckin' subtle), but intensely moving, with more tormented characters than a Batman book.

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End: 3 stars

Thankfully better than the second, but still worse than the first, At World's End fortunately helps the "Pirates" trilogy do what the "Matrix" trilogy couldn't 4 years ago: deliver a worthwhile ending. Though worthwhile isn't the appropriate word as it's two 3 hour long movies, a significant portion of said 6 hours are multiple long, unnecessary scenes (Keith Richards aside, the whole Council of Pirates thing- WTFuck?) But the end was nice, if completely foreseeable within in 10 minutes of the start.

Knocked Up: 5 Stars

People say that all Judd Apatow is making is a chick flick for guys. I disagree on the basis that chick flicks often revolve around the romanticized ideal. The ideal woman with the ideal job meets the ideal guy and hilarity/yawning ensues. But Apatow is creating the realistic view at relationships. Two averagely relateable people (not too relatable, one of them is Katherine Heigl, after all) hook up one night, and are thrust into a situation and make it work. On one level, it is romantically ideal, but the whole story, including the dynamics with friends and family could be ripped entirely from anyone's life, only with a happy ending.

Ocean's 13: 3.5 Stars

Of the threequels to come out this year, this one has been the most impressive thus far. A welcome return to the magic that was the original, but still just didn't quite have it. Ocean's 11 was more of a one shot type of deal, not an on-going saga. But it was a great apology for the disastrous second one

Live Free or Die Hard: 4 Stars

20 Years after the first one set the standard for action flicks, "Live Free" reminds us what action really is. That it's about the alpha male making the heroic save. It's not about some computer geek with high-powered software seeing exactly how high they can make the main character jump. It is an update for the franchise, this time fighting cyber-terrorists, who are just as dangerous as Hans Gruber and his crew, just not as menacing or evil. As villain Tom Gabriel (Timothy Olyphant) says to hero John McClane (Bruce Willis) at one point, "You're a Timex in a digital world, John." The franchise shows it's age by opting for a more low-tech approach to the stunts, but it's all the more enjoyable for it. However, if you watch the movie and something feels a bit off, that would be the PG-13 rating crammed up your ass. No blood. No violence. And no Yippie-ky-yay, motherfucker! WTFuck!?

That's all I've got for now. Like I said, more content coming soon.

Grindhouse... a double feature of reviews

Planet Terror

4.5 Stars

Robert Rodriguez pays homage to the B horror flicks of the 70’s, filled with gore, sex, violence and enough stars to make fanboys and casual admirers take notice and give it the proper due it deserves.

Bio-chemical engineer Abby (Naveen Andrews) double crosses Lt. Muldoon (Bruce Willis, in an uncredited cameo), a special ops leader, in the sale of a mysterious bio-weapon that turns most who come in contact with it into blood thirsty zombies. The survivors are to be used in experiments to find the antidote. When the bio-weapon is let loose on a small Texas town, those who survive have to fight off the undead and the cure thirsty military men. Mysterious super-fighter El Wray (Freddy Rodriguez) and his go-go dancer girlfriend Cherry Darling (Rose McGowen) lead the fight to survive.

There is a sort of, tongue-in-cheek attitude to this film, and Rodriguez wants to make sure that it’s not to be taken too seriously, which is the magic of Rodriguez’s flicks. A lot of movies that are put out today are what producers, writers and directors think we want to see. But Rodriguez makes films that he wants to see, because he’s a fan too, just like us. And he makes his own films. Very few filmmakers have that much creative control over their films.

One thing that’s undeniable about Rodriguez is that the guy has a flair, a certain panache, for the visual. Since his breakout hit “Desperado” in 1995, through kiddie flick trilogy “Spy Kids” in the early 00’s, and into the stylistic tour de force “Sin City” in 2005, he’s always exercised that meticulous attention to detail, to presenting a visual appealing movie, while still delivering on substance.

As part of that throwback to the grind house horror flicks, his heroes and villains are very distinct. He’s got the bad ass, sexy girls, always looking completely glamorous even in the most perilous situations. Cherry still pulls off her go-go dancer moves, despite losing a leg and having it replaced with an assault rifle. The heroes are tough as nails. El Wray fights his way through an overrun hospital with nothing more than a pair of butterfly knifes and his hand to hand training. And the villains are so delectably evil, you love to hate them. Dr. William Block (Josh Brolin) and Muldoon (both sporting the demonic goatee) are the classic examples of evil, always keeping their cool.

If I were to pick two leads for this flick, it would be F. Rodriguez (“Bobby”) and Marley Shelton (“Sin City”) as Dr. Dakota Block, who is on the run from her now zombi-fied husband. They each helm their respective subplots with such immense talent that they could almost be seen as character studies, instead of a flashy horror flick.

But as with any zombie/survival flick, it’s more about the ensemble, than it is about the supposed leader of the group. “Planet Terror” gives R. Rodriguez a chance to show off one of his other filmmaking talents- assembling a perfect cast. You get great performances from everyone involved, because of how well they all fit into the movie, like pieces of a puzzle. Everyone is just top notch.

While it’s nowhere near a great, classic movie that will be a landmark in cinema, and I doubt anyone will think of it come awards season, it’s still such an enjoyable experience highlighted by stunning visuals, fantastic performances and such a delightfully intriguing script. It’s just good.

Death Proof

4 Stars

Quentin Tarantino brings his trademark flair for dialogue mixed with bombastic action to “Death Proof,” his contribution to the “Grindhouse” double feature. Kurt Russell and the bevy of beauties Tarantino cast highlight the flick.

Stuntman Mike (Russell) has modified his car to be completely 100 percent death proof- only if you’re sitting in the driver’s seat though. And this is how he kills people. He makes nice with them in the bar or something, then tracks them down and kills them. He first goes after radio host Jungle Julia (Sydney Poitier, daughter of Sidney Poitier) and her friends, after soliciting a lap dance from one. After succeeding with them, he tries his luck with movie make up artist Abby (Rosario Dawson) and her two stuntwomen companions, Zoe (Zoe Bell) and Kim (Tracie Thomas), who actually give Mike a run for his money.

Tarantino has always been strong on dialogue. He’s great at mixing wonderful, almost lyrical dialogue with intense drama and action. They’re conversations you wish you could be smart enough to hold with your friends. The opening of “Reservoir Dogs” around the table at the diner is fantastic, and the Superman monologue in “Kill Bill, Vol. 2” shows how he can slow down the action but still keep you interested. Unfortunately he slows it down right away with “Death Proof”, offering up an overly long car ride scene (for which he’s famous) with mostly pointless dialogue. About halfway through the scene I got tired and let my mind wander. It didn’t come back till a full introduction of Stuntman Mike was made, nearly 15 minutes later.

That’s out of character for Tarantino. He’s usually right on the money, and can keep his scenes nice and tight. But I guess after 15 years and six movies, he’s allowed to falter a bit, but it’s just hard watching such an admirable and capable filmmaker falter like that.

Once he gets to the action, the first attack on Jungle Julia and her cohorts, the movie really gets going. Seeing Russell playing such an insanely demonic character is interesting, after his recent string of good guy roles. And he handles the villain role with an ease that makes it seem like a perfect fit. He breathes a certain life into the role of Stuntman Mike that makes me wonder why he wasn’t the first pick (casting rumors state he was the last resort).

The thrust of the film is the back half, with the film crew members. I wondered why that wasn’t the whole movie, the first half seems superfluous, considering the amount of time Tarantino has us invest in it. It’s almost pure action from the get go on the back half, which makes up for the dialogue heavy first half.

Tarantino has an infatuation with strong willed women. Almost all of his films feature strong female leads, and he punctuates that sentiment with a slew of heroines to fight off the domineering male villain. Dawson (“Sin City”), new comer Bell and Thomas (“Rent”) take their characters to a whole new level. The whole ordeal could have been a woman vs. man metaphor, playing it simple and safe. But these actresses kept it strictly victim and aggressor, and give vengeance a whole new meaning.

I can say for certain that this is in fact one of Tarantino’s worst films. But with six (including “Death Proof”) under his belt, all of them completely stellar, that’s not necessarily a negative. Because when making a list of one through six, something has to be first, and something has to be last. And despite the slow start, it becomes watchable around the halfway point.

Spider-Man 3 Trailer

The final trailer for Spider-Man 3 has been released.

Check it out here...

Spider-Man 3

Shooter

Shooter

3 Stars

Fresh off his Oscar nomination for “The Departed”, Marky Mark Wahlberg stars as a retired Marine sharpshooter framed for the attempted assassination of the president, and the successful one of an African Bishop in Antoine Fuqua’s new film, “Shooter.”

Bob Lee Swagger (Wahberg) lives in self-imposed exile in the Colorado mountains three years after a botched sharp shooting mission that resulted in the death of his spotter, Donnie Fenn. Col. Isaac Johnson (Danny Glover) goes to great lengths to find him, as Swagger is one of the very few sharpshooters who would be able to pull off a similar shot they believe will be used to kill the president (over a mile away). After being set up for the assassination attempt, Swagger’s only allies, disgraced FBI agent Nick Memphis (Michael Peña) and Fenn’s widow Sarah (Kate Mara), help him track down the organizers of the conspiracy and bring them to justice.

The film comes off as the second coming of “Die Hard.” Action flick centering on one man against the world with a somewhat interesting back story. And in that, it’s derivative. It’s an intriguing concept, and done well, but it’s the type of movie we’ve seen before in the action genre. It’s one of those flicks that you’ll be torn over. It’s good, but it’s familiar.

This film needed Wahlberg more than Wahlberg need this film. He can act, as he’s proven time and time again since “Boogie Nights” in 1997, right up to his aforementioned performance in “The Departed” last year. And he gives a fine performance in this flick. But he needs some career guidance. I mean really, Marky Mark, you’re so much better than this. You should do another comedy, like “I Heart Huckabees.”

Peña (“Crash”, “World Trade Center”) continues his rise to prominence as an actor. This isn’t exactly the best film to show off his talent, nor does he get to. But his talent is noticeable and being in a high profile flick will only help his career as a relatively unknown actor.

Fuqua became sort of a cinematic darling in 2001. He directed Denzel Washington to his Best Actor win in “Training Day” and the critics set the bar high for his next cinematic efforts. But unfortunately he fell victim to what I call the Shyamalan Syndrome. Fantastic film for their first major effort to get critical acclaim, and expectations were set too high and the following films, while good in their own right, just didn’t match those expectations. He can craft a good flick, but he has yet to really find his own voice, or stand out in anyway. But I’m rooting for him to do so.

I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad film that was given to us. It’s enjoyable, an entertaining way to spend a couple ours at the theatre. But you could really watch any other action flick and not really be missing out. It’s an ultimately forgettable movie that has little consequence. I can recommend it as a nice way to escape, but for serious cinema, you should look elsewhere.

Reign Over Me

Reign Over Me

4.5 stars

Adam Sandler and Don Cheadle give intense performances in Mike Binder’s beautiful and subtle ode to depression, “Reign Over Me”. And who would have thought that an Adam Sandler flick would bring a tear to my eye?

Charlie Fineman (Sandler) lost his family in the September 11 attacks, and has spent the last five and a half years grieving in his own way. One day his old college roommate, Alan Johnson (Cheadle), runs into him on the street and they start to reconnect. Though Charlie barely remembers Alan, they spend time together, with Alan using Charlie as an escape from his mundane life as a dentist and a married man. He eventually feels it necessary to get Charlie help, which he is reluctant to do. This culminates in a court case to determine what to do with Charlie.

Sandler has taken a crack at dramatic acting before in the little seen indie flick “Punch Drunk Love” and the even less seen major release film “Spanglish”, both to mixed reviews concerning his actual acting ability. But with “Reign Over Me”, he joins the ranks of fellow comedians turned dramatic actors, such as Jim Carrey, Jamie Foxx, Robin Williams and Bill Murray for turning out an engaging, dramatic and completely award worthy performance. His trademark goofiness is what enhanced the weight of his performance.

Sure Binder could have gone with a known dramatic actor to play a man barely living with grief, but it’s Sandler’s comfort with comedy and uneasiness in drama that really makes Charlie a relatable and sympathetic character. You can see the man he used to be aching to get out, but it’s repressed by the intense emotions he’s experiencing. Anyone can act. It’s tough to make it look easy. Sandler makes it look easy. He captures the spirit and the look of depression and you can tell he understands. And then you understand what he’s going through.

Cheadle and the rest of the cast all lend a different perspective to the essence of Charlie. Alan knew Charlie before the attacks, but didn’t know anything about his wife or daughters, aside from what he read in the papers following the attacks. This is why Charlie attached himself to Alan. Alan is Charlie’s most visible support system. The chemistry between Cheadle and Sandler makes for a great cinematic pairing, and I hope it’s not just a one hit wonder for the two.

Donald Sutherland, B.J. Novak (“The Office”) and Liv Tyler in their respective supporting roles are particularly engaging in their own ways, each giving something for Sandler to bounce off of.

I’m quite fond Binder’s recent cinematic offerings. “The Upside of Anger” in 2005 was a hidden gem, and this is just a beautiful peace of work. He has this way of crafting what could otherwise be a conventional, archetypal story and turn it into something new and intriguing.

As a critic, there are certain things you’re fairly certain you’ll never do. When I started out, I was certain I’d never sing the praises of an Adam Sandler flick, let alone his performance in particular. I’m routinely impressed by performers I had originally written off, but who would have thought Sandler would turn out to be one of those performers? I didn’t. That’ll teach me to write them off.

I Think I Love My Wife

I Think I Love My Wife

1.5 Stars

Good romantic comedies are hard to make. Good romantic comedies geared toward a male audience are damn near impossible to make. I can think of one good one, and it is not Chris Rock’s latest vehicle, “I Think I Love My Wife” (it’s “High Fidelity”).

In “I Think I Love My Wife”, Rock stars as Richard Cooper, a bored investment banker whose relationship with his wife, Brenda (Gina Torres, “Serenity”) has come to a stand still. Enter old college friend Nikki (Kerry Washington, “Ray”), who has come to him looking for help, first in getting a job, then in getting an apartment and it just spirals out of control from there. Thoughts of infidelity swarm through Richard’s head as Nikki tempts him throughout the course of their newly reformed friendship.

Rock is without a doubt one of the funniest stand-up comedians working today. But he’s a terrible actor. His background in stand-up is evident, he tells a joke on screen, then holds for laughs. This permeates through to the rest of the cast, and it drags everybody’s performances down. Even the great Steve Buscemi can’t escape this fate.

While Rock and fellow comedian Louis C.K. were able to construct a mostly funny strain of jokes into a somewhat coherent plot, it wasn’t enough. The writing was too all over the place. It wasn’t consistent enough.

Rock as a director has yet to impress me. His first film “Head of State” was a disaster, and this flick wasn’t much better. And it’s unfortunate, because he’s one of my favorite comedians, so I like to support him in what he does, but his other projects just don’t work. If he finds the right project, and I don’t know what that would be, but if he finds the right project, he could have a great movie. He just needs to find and do the right one.

This flick failed where “High Fidelity” succeeded. “High Fidelity” was a romantic comedy geared towards a male audience, and it was a group of guys talking about what guys go through in their love lives and it was something that guys could relate to. Maybe it was John Cusack’s “average guy” appeal that propelled that movie to a higher level. But Rock doesn’t have that. All the characters were basically stereotypes. The gorgeous forbidden fruit tempts the bored businessman away from his overbearing yet sexually disinterested wife, and his cheating business partner is rooting him on, yet telling him to be careful.

The only thing that I thought was smart or clever about the flick was the development of the Nikki character. She was always representing the forbidden, the taboo of our modern culture. When Richard and Brenda go shopping, Brenda buys plain under garments, while Nikki buys more risqué lingerie. Nikki is always shown smoking, with someone telling her she can’t. Richard has grown up, has responsibilities, and Nikki invites him out to the clubs one night. So she’s not just a sexual temptress, there’s more to her that could be seen as forbidden to Richard. I found it to be the cleverest thing about the movie.

Now, it certainly isn’t the worst romantic comedy ever made, it’s not even the worst romantic comedy this year. But if you want to laugh at other people’s love lives, one of my favorite pastimes, you could do much better than “I Think I Love My Wife.” Because I know I hate this movie.

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End trailer

Zodiac

Zodiac

4.5 stars

More about the obsessive search for the killer than about the killer itself, “Zodiac” is a slow moving, subtle thriller from the mind of David Fincher (“Se7en”, “Fight Club”). Its strong cast and compelling script make this the first great movie of the year, and hopefully one to watch in the far off award season.

In the late 1960s into the early 70s, the self-proclaimed Zodiac killer terrorized much of Northern California with his seemingly random shootings and cryptic messages to the press. San Francisco Chronicle crime reporter Paul Avery (Robert Downey Jr.) was assigned to the case and soon took cartoonist Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal) under his wing, after he offers a unique insight into the case. Working with Inspectors David Toschi and William Armstrong (Mark Ruffalo and Anthony Edwards), the case consumes the men as they try to figure out who the mysterious Zodiac is.

Star studded cast lists can really go either way, it can make a film really good, or the clash of the egos mentality on set could destroy a film. And luckily for us it’s the former not the latter. Gyllenhaal keeps getting better and better since his breakout performance in “Donnie Darko” six years ago. I hesitate to say “performance of his career” since we have yet to see all he has to offer, but I wouldn’t be surprised that at the end of his career, this performance is listed among his best. Downey, Jr. has been slowly making a return since his legal and substance abuse troubles several years ago, and with this performance he says “I’m back.” He channels his checkered past to play the broken down, chain-smoking, alcoholic Avery, and adds an air of intrigue and mystery to what could have been an archetypal and stale reporter character.

Keep an eye on the rest of the cast, including Elias Koteas and Donal Logue as cops in charge of other Zodiac related cases, Chloe Sevigny as Graysmith’s doting but frustrated girlfriend turned wife, and John Carroll Lynch as the prime Zodiac suspect. They all turn out great performances that pump up the caliber of the flick.

The story the actors tell is just as compelling as the performances they give. Based on Graysmith’s non-fiction books about the hunt for the Zodiac, writer James Vanderbilt scores a hit after a string of critical flops (“Darkness Falls” and “The Rundown” come to mind), and delivers a unique thriller. Where others may have concocted a sweeping fictional story about who the Zodiac is, and why he did what he did, Vanderbilt stayed with the real fear of the story- we don’t know anything about the Zodiac. We don’t know who he is, or what his motives were. And there is nothing more terrifying to humans than the unknown, especially the unknown that can and will kill you.

And what is great is that it totally redefines the “period drama.” That’s usually a designation applied only to grand epics set against the Civil War, or something similar. But why can’t a movie set in the 70s about a uniquely 70s event that captures the essence of the time period be considered a period drama? As we grow further and further away from certain distinct periods of time, and expand our capabilities of capturing the time period on film, the definition of a “period drama” becomes more and more broad.

It gets a little slow at points, but the drawn out cat and mouse aspect is one of the things that make it such a gripping film. I want to see more from everyone involved, as this is fantastic work, but no where near the pinnacle, from the entire cast and crew.

300

300

5 Stars

Zak Snyder’s cinematic adaptation of Frank Miller’s graphic novel “300” is operatic, beautiful, violent, visceral, emotional, gorey, poetic and just plain bad ass. I could go on and on with adjectives, but the best way to describe it is “Gladiator” on acid.

“300” is the story of Spartan King Leonidas (Gerard Butler, “The Phantom of the Opera”) and his courageous stand at the Battle of Thermopylea in 480 BC. At that battle, Leonidas led just 300 Spartan warriors against over one million troops under the command of Persian King Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro, “Love Actually”). He proved that it’s not so much how many troops you fight with, but where you fight that can be a deciding factor. As the battle progresses, it becomes clear that it wasn’t whether or not the Spartans won that mattered to them, it was what the battle meant, freedom, that was important.

It’s told as a myth, or a campfire tale. Exaggerated for effect, larger than life characters, stunning visuals emphasize the story, as told through the eyes of battle participant Dilios (David Wenham, “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy). Xerxes is portrayed as an eight foot tall behemoth, cruelly lording over his subjects and troops. The strange animals the Persians brought in to the fight (rhinos and elephants) are gigantic monstrosities that strike fear into the hearts of the Spartans. And the traitorous Spartan hunchback who betrays the Spartan weakness to the Persians is a grotesque monster who has no place amongst the chiseled, heroic Spartan warriors.

Zak Snyder showed so much promise with his take on “Dawn of the Dead” in 2004, and after a series of failed or struggling projects, including a remake of “Day of the Dead” and the long awaited “Watchmen” project (now slated for a 2008 release), he comes into his own with an adaptation of Frank Miller’s epic graphic novel.

Snyder took a page from the Robert Rodriguez (“Sin City”) book of digital filmmaking, and shot the entire flick against a blue screen. Where other filmmakers have failed to produce competent performances and a compelling story to match the stunning visuals (I’m looking at you George Lucas), Rodriguez and Snyder have been able to craft amazing movies with a visual style unparalleled by any of their colleagues, and are able to construct fascinating and wonderful stories to prove that it’s not just a complete orgy of effects.

When watching this style of filmmaking, I get mixed feelings. On the one hand, it’s beautiful, and a few practitioners have been able to do fantastic work with it. On the other hand, if it catches on we could get a bunch of overzealous young filmmakers who won’t take the time to actually craft a watchable movie, and then the style won’t be able to realize its full potential. Here’s hoping competent professionals like Rodriguez and Snyder take the time to perfect it.

Butler is the perfect Leonidas. He exudes the sheer masculinity of the Spartans. He breaks down the complex emotions of the Spartan mind to show the respect he has for his fellow Spartans and the utter disdain he has for the Persians. There’s a deep sense of honor and loyalty exhibited by the Spartan warriors that is heartbreaking when they’re at the final showdown. Dominic West (“The Forgotten”) as the backstabbing and conniving Theron was the perfect foil to that ideal set forth by Leonidas and his warriors.

“300” is a welcome departure from the standard “swords and sandals” epic that enjoyed a brief resurgence with “Gladiator,” but went awry with “Troy” and “Alexander.” It’s a re-visioning of the genre, and it’s a simply fantastic film, in every sense of the word. This is one to watch come awards season next year.

More Movie Trailers

Hey all you hooligans, got some more movie trailers for you... as usual, they're from Apple.com, so they're in Quicktime format. If you go to movies.yahoo.com, they're in both quicktime and Windows Media Player.

Grindhouse
Underdog
In The Land of Women
Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film for Theatres
First Snow
Fracture
The Ex
Lucky You
Across The Universe
Knocked Up

The Number 23

The Number 23

2 Stars

Oh what a tangle web Joel Schumacher weaves. And he almost gets too intricate with his new thriller, “The Number 23” starring Jim Carrey and Virginia Madsen.

“The Number 23” is a film about obsession and psychosis. Walter Sparrow (Carrey) is a dog catcher running late for a date with his wife (Madsen). While she waits for him, she stops by a late night book store and picks up an odd novel called “The Number 23” by an unknown author named Topsy Kretts. As Walter begins reading it, he finds an increasing number of strange coincidences between the book’s main character Fingerling and himself. This soon consumes him as he begins to explore the origin of the book, including the investigation of a 15 year old murder.

I couldn’t watch this film without films like “Se7en” or “Fight Club” (both directed by David Fincher) popping into my mind. It’s got that same sort of feel to it, a gritty psychological thriller with a huge twist ending looming on the horizon. And that’s the mark of faulty directing. I’m reminded of another director’s work, a particular director’s work. Schumacher didn’t leave an impression on me. I know he can handle the thriller. “Flatliners” was a fantastic film. But I can’t help but think this film would have been better under the direction of Fincher. Schumacher just could not get this film to work right for him. He didn’t leave his mark on it.

The script gets too smart for its own good. It wants to be clever in it’s revealing of the plot and the surprise twist ending, but this ploy is something we as Americans have become so accustomed to with the works of Fincher and M. Night Shyamalan, that we start to expect twist endings, and begin guessing them before the film is even halfway over. If it’s not done just right, then the ending will be very apparent. It wasn’t done right; I could see this coming halfway through, which was a detriment to the enjoyment of the movie.

Central to the flick’s plot is the titular number 23. It has this mystical connection to the life of Sparrow. Key dates in his life add up to be 23, or 32, 23 reversed. The number pops up on the signs, buses, jerseys and license plates he sees. It’s even hidden in the colour his walls are painted. The number 23 is just a myth. Like one character says in the flick, if you look for it, you’ll find it. Too many inconsistencies in the theory though. On some dates you have to add all the numbers, in some you exclude the year, in some you exclude the month and day, in some you exclude the day. How do you know which one you include? As long as you can get 23, it works. It’s stacking the odds in your favour.

So what elevates this film? Jim Carrey does. He’s grown so much as a performer since he hit it big 13 years ago with “Ace Ventura”. It’s curious as to why some critics and award shows are still unwilling to recognize his talent. This isn’t by any means his finest performance, but it is a damn fine one. I can only hope to see more of this sort of serious work from him in the future.

I thought it would have been funny or clever to include a hidden message in the review, maybe by circling every 23rd word in the review, you’ll get the meaning of life. But that would turnout just like the film I’m reviewing- utterly pointless.

Because I Said So

Because I Said So

1.5 Stars

Valentine’s Day is one of the many days of the year where the guy in the relationship gets the raw deal. Not only do we have to unload insane amounts of money on gifts for our significant others, but some of that money has to go to losing an hour and a half of your life to trite, glorified examples of so called romance. And this year is no different, as audiences are offered acting legend Diane Keaton wasting her talent alongside the likes of Lauren Graham (“Gilmore Girls”), Piper Parabo (“Coyote Ugly”) and Mandy Moore (“Saved”) in the clichéd romantic comedy “Because I Said So”, a movie which can coincidentally, given the day job of one of the stars, be described as “Gilmore Girls: The Movie!”

Keaton portrays Daphne, the overbearing, single mother to her married daughters Maggie (Graham) and Mae (Perabo) and the romantically challenged youngest daughter Milly (Moore). Daphne decides to take Milly’s personal matters into her own hands and posts a personal ad on an online dating service, and finds two potential candidates: Johnny (Gabriel Macht) who seems to genuinely like Milly, and Jason (Tom Everett Scott) who Daphne likes for Milly.

As I’ve already been cynically scathing, I’ll take a brief moment to highlight the positive aspects of the flick. It shatters the long held male archetypal characters and reverses it, with decent enough results. In a standard chick flick the hard edged musician with tattoos is supposed to be the jerk that the girl is with, and there’s the charming, mildly funny, successfully stable man who she’s supposed to end up with. They reverse the roles for us, showing us in the only moment of reality in the movie that the supposed “one” could be anyone; it’s not necessarily the classic prince charming.

Keaton has been proving to us for the past nearly 40 years that she has a phenomenal talent. Yet like most great actors, she’ll squander that talent every so often on meaningless drivel like this. This isn’t to say she’s particularly bad in the role; it’s just obviously beneath her. Though the collective talent of Graham, Perabo and Moore seem to march right instep with this kind of film, and I unfortunately expect to see more of the same from each actress.

Macht (“The Good Shepherd”) is one of those actors that I’ve always found myself wondering why he isn’t better known. He’s certainly got the talent, and paid his rom-com dues eight years ago with “Simply Irresistable”, so why hasn’t he moved on. He didn’t so much as phone in his performance, as it was almost just too easy for him to pull off.

The chick flick formula really needs to be refined. All the scripts feature striking similarities that it gets painful to watch. All four leading ladies have to do a song and dance to a Seventy’s pop staple. Someone spills an important food item all over themselves and the floor and it’s the funniest thing ever. And the standard ending of big revelation leading to big fight leading to big break up leading to tearful reunion is firmly in place, and clearly has no sign of going anywhere in the near future. And then there’s the “not-too-old for love” sub-plot they throw Keaton.

It really could have worked in the right hands, as far as the script is concerned. What “Field of Dreams” did for the father/son relationship, this one could have done for the mother/daughter relationship. Unfortunately it had the same air about it that “Gilmore Girls” does: insistent and annoying.

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End trailer