Land of the Lost

Released: 2009
MPAA rating: PG-13
Runtime: 1:41

Right off the bat, I have to say this was a tough one to get through. Being a Will Ferrell fan and old enough to remember watching the TV show on which it was based, I figured it had to be worth a shot. There were also some moderately funny moments in the trailer. What I found was a movie with almost no redeeming value whatsoever. The story was about what you expect, but the execution was way off the mark. I'm not sure how this may have looked on a script, but none of it worked on screen. One of the big problems I had with it was that this was based on a Saturday morning kids series and much of the humor was sort of raunchy and completely inappropriate for a younger audience. Yes, I am aware of the PG-13 rating, but the humor pushed the boundaries of that rating (I understand it was rated R at first pass and had to be trimmed down to make PG-13). I am certainly no prude and generally find my comedy tastes lean toward the inappropriate, but this just was not the forum for that kind of humor. Even with all of that, if it was funny, I probably would have even forgave that. Ferrell's sort of obnoxious "Ron Burgundy"-type character, which used to be very funny, clearly has run its course. In this movie, he brings along his usually very funny discovery Danny McBride (of HBO's "Eastbound and Down") along for the ride and may have managed to damage HIS career in the process. Yes, this movie was absolutely that bad.

Grade: D-

Trailer:

The Hangover

Released: 2009
MPAA rating: R
Runtime: 1:40


After watching a movie with moderately low expectations and being pleasantly surprised ("Knowing"), I come to a movie with pretty high expectations based on so many friends who hailed its praises. So, did this have the reverse effect? Did I have the opposite reaction, being let down? Absolutely not. "The Hangover", as you have probably heard, is a very funny movie. The basic premise does not sound all that special: Four friends make a bachelor party expedition to Las Vegas, where things go horribly wrong. I thought this might be some combination of "Bachelor Party" and "Very Bad Things", which had similar themes. This movie stands apart from those by taking that premise and giving it a very original twist. After setting up the characters and getting the Vegas visit started, the film jumps to the morning after, with only three of the guys present in the room with a baby and a live tiger. The comedy comes from the three guys trying to piece together how they got to this point and trying to locate their missing friend, who also happens to be the groom! Sure, as the night is pieced together, there are plenty of over-the-top shenanigans, but it all works beautifully and is very, very funny. The key here is the chemistry of the three leads. Zach Galifianakis, Bradley CooperEd Helms (from "The Office") really click together in this movie. Each one of them is brilliantly funny in their own right when they need to be and their interaction with each other is even better. Since comedy depends mostly on surprise, I won't even discuss the plot beyond what I already have, but it is definitely a good time. The cast is rounded out by the groom, Justin Bartha, and Heather Graham as the "stripper with a heart of gold". If you have not seen it yet, you are in for a treat!! This is quite possibly the funniest movie since "Dumb and Dumber" and "There's Something About Mary".

Grade: A

Trailer:

Knowing

Released: 2009

MPAA rating: PG-13

Runtime: 2:01

Considering some of Nicolas Cage's recent efforts, I went into "Knowing" with moderately low expectations. I would still say I am a fan of his, but not some of his movie choices. "Knowing" is the story of whether or not life is a series of random events or, instead, somewhat pre-determined. Cage plays John Koestler, a professor who strongly believes in the "S--t happens" philosophy (randomness) since the death of his wife. From a personal standpoint, I am right there with him. When a time capsule is opened at his son's school and his son receives a strange series of numbers from a student 50 years ago, Koestler begins to analyze the numbers and sees that this sheet accurately predicts just about every major tragedy of the last 50 years. Koestler, of course, is seen as reading too much into it and becomes obsessed with proving his case. The most concerning part is, like the Mayan calendar, this list of numbers has an end...and it is coming up very soon. Cage does a nice job playing a conflicted father who is trying to come to grips with what this all means for his son...and the rest of the world. The movie was interesting from the beginning and included some great effects sequences, especially a plane crash that was pretty amazing. However, this was not an overly effects-laden movie. The effects are there when they need to be there, but not at the expense of the story. As I watched the film, I did become concerned that the story only had one logical ending if you buy into the premise, but I was not sure Hollywood would go there. Well, they did allow the story to follow its logical conclusion, but managed to sneak in some surprises along the way. The ending itself is debatable as to whether it was silly (somewhat along similar lines as "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" silly), but I, personally, liked what they did with it. Overall, I found this to be a surprisingly good, riveting film.

Grade: B

Trailer:

Flash of Genius

Released: 2008

MPAA rating: PG-13

Runtime: 1:59

One of those things we all take for granted and really don't think of as having been "invented" is the intermittent wiper setting. "Flash of Genius" tells us the story of Robert Kearns (Greg Kinnear), the man who invented the technology and his battles with Ford Motor Company, which, in many ways, ruined his life. Kinnear is actually a fine actor and gives a great performance in this story. As the movie opens, Kearns is driving in the rain with his family and realizes that his wipers running constantly ruin the blades, but can't be completely shut off. This is his inspiration for what he calls the "blinking eyes" wiper motor. He begins to work on the idea at home and enlists a friend (Dermot Mulroney) to help him file the patents and get him meetings with major car manufacturers when he gets the invention working. After a meeting with Ford Motor Company, they verbally agree to buy his design and his only condition is that HE manufacture it. Ford is reluctant to yield any of the manufacturing to an outside vendor, but agrees. As he begins to set up his manufacturing plant, Ford stops returning his calls and then he sees ads for Ford's new car line with some models having an "intermittent wiper" system. He is left in the cold and decides to sue Ford for stealing his idea. The first third of the film sets up that part of the story, the second third takes you through his personal struggles as he strives to make his case. Being sort of a story about a legal matter, it is the final third that is the most riveting as he finally gets his day in court against Ford Motor Company. As you can probably tell by the subject matter, this is not the most exciting film, but it is a very interesting human drama. The courtroom scenes are the most intriguing part of the movie as Kearns is forced to represent himself and manages to hold his own against the heavy legal team from Ford. It is a classic "David vs. Goliath" scenario and it is pretty amazing to see all of the intrigue and anguish behind an invention that we use every day and spend little to no time thinking about.


Grade: B-

Trailer:

Martyrs

Released: 2008 (French)

MPAA rating: R (DVD is Unrated)

Runtime: 1:39

I don't even know where to begin with this one. First, if you decide to see this, I can guarantee you will be shocked, horrified, disgusted, but captivated. The basic framework of the story centers around Lucie (Mylene Jampanoi). Lucie, as a child, escapes a home where she is being kept bound and tortured. She is raised in an orphanage where she befriends Anna (Morjana Alaoui). As adults, they make it their mission to track down and punish the family responsible for the torture. This pretty much happens in the first third of the movie, making you wonder "What? What could be left of this movie?" Oh boy, do you learn what's next. As the second third deals with the aftermath of their revenge, it sets up the third act, which is basically someone being relentlessly tortured. This becomes extremely uncomfortable to watch and, while not as gory as I expected (it IS gory), it is much more upsetting and disturbing as anything you have ever seen. This is no mindless, senseless torture, however. It has a very definite purpose, with the perpetrators really believing they are serving a "greater good" (thus the title). As you watch this, you begin to explain it away. "There is no way you could get together a group of people to do this kind of stuff!!" Then, you remember Nazi Germany and Jonestown, etc. and your defense that this is unrealistic gets stripped away. A day later, I am still not sure I "liked" this movie. It is intensely powerful, deeply symbolic and a dark movie. I cannot, in good conscience, use the term "entertaining", but it is one of those movies that will stay with you as you try to analyze what you saw. What did it all mean? The ambiguous ending that purposely has you confused as to what the results of all that you have seen. I am going to give this a very good grade, mainly because I like films that make you think and keep themselves open for interpretation. Much time can be spent discussing the concepts and ideas raised and that is the making of a great film. However, this is NOT for everybody and certainly not for the squeamish. You WILL be disturbed!

Grade: B+

Trailer:

Frost/Nixon

Released: 2008

MPAA rating: R

Runtime: 2:02

A movie about a right-wing politician made by a solid left-wing director is always a recipe for controversy. Right-wingers would automatically see it as a biased attack against one of their own. "Frost/Nixon" actually manages to avoid that pitfall. Ron Howard's depiction of Richard Nixon (Frank Langella) is actually very sympathetic and he actually comes across very well. Horribly misguided, but not the "bad man" you would expect to see. As the movie opens, Nixon has just resigned the White House after the Watergate scandal. On the other side of the world, David Frost (Michael Sheen), a moderately successful TV host becomes fascinated with the look on Nixon's face as he departs. What is going through his head? What is that like to step down in disgrace from the most powerful office in the world? Frost decides it would be a huge coup to get an interview with Nixon. He makes a ridiculous and controversial monetary offer to Nixon and lands the rights to the interview. Frost soon learns that actually doing the interview is much harder than he imagined. He finds no major networks willing to back him and is struggling to finance the deal he made and the actual shooting of the interview. As the interview draws near, he finds most of the media think he is a joke, getting ready to do a puff piece with Nixon which will do nothing to expose him as the criminal he is. As the interviews begin, he finds himself faced with a master as Nixon manipulates and manages to turn every question around to his benefit. As the Watergate stuff approaches, Frost's own people feel he is overmatched and fear the entire project will be a failure. Several times throughout the film, characters use boxing analogies to describe the encounters. Howard did a nice job making you feel like you were actually watching a heavyweight title bout with the unranked up and comer facing the wily veteran. Although this is a matter of historical record, so I can not really "spoil" the ending, I will still refrain from discussing the "final round" here. One of my concerns early in the film was the casting of Langella as Nixon. He is so recognizable early on that I feared it would be a distraction. Instead, you get a masterful performance as you forget pretty quickly that this is Frank Langella and believe you are watching Richard Nixon, a powerful but tortured man, who finds he has risen to the highest power in the land, but no one really likes him. Michael Sheen also does a fantastic job as David Frost, portraying the always smiling confidence while still letting you see the anguish in his eyes. Ron Howard did an excellent and fair job of portraying a pivotal time in Presidential history. Highly recommended.

Grade: A

Trailer:

The Day The Earth Stood Still (PG-13-2008)

Going into this movie with diminished expectations certainly helped. I was expecting an "all-time-bad" movie, but what I got was, well, just a bad movie. The major problem with "updating" 1950s science-fiction Cold War films is that they were very much of their time. Most of them were
metaphors which tapped into the fear and paranoia of the era. Moving the movies to modern day loses that edge and replacing it with cooler special effects does not really make it. In this instance, they tried to carry over the "metaphor" theme of the original, but there is no subtlety to the theme whatsoever. For a third of the film, it was just sort of straight-ahead "aliens come to earth" science fiction. Then, this exchange happened:

Helen Benson: I need to know what's happening.
Klaatu: This planet is dying. The human race is killing it.
Helen Benson: So you've come here to help us.
Klaatu: No, *I* didn't.
Helen Benson: You said you came to save us.
Klaatu: I said I came to save the Earth.
Helen Benson: You came to save the Earth... from us. You came to save the Earth *from* us.
Klaatu: We can't risk the survival of this planet for the sake of one species.

I practically groaned out loud. Oh, dear lord, another Hollywood global warming propaganda piece. This perfectly illustrates how out of touch Hollywood has become. In the 50s, fear or nuclear war and the Russians was everywhere. It was a palpable tension that continued into my childhood. The global warming thing is not even remotely the same. It may be what they talk about in their circles, but the rest of us are not even convinced it is an issue. They also can't even commit to the issue in this movie. As stated in the dialogue above, Klaatu (Keanu Reeves) explains that his mission is the greater good to save this planet. After spending the rest of the movie running around with the beautiful Helen Benson (Jennifer Connelly), he suddenly decides "Wait, if I go through with this, this chick will also be gone" and begins to try to undo his mission. I think this is supposed to be some "power of love" thing, but it really comes across as a "Hey, I must save this piece of (shut your mouth)" gimmick. So, to summarize, this was not "as bad" as I expected it to be, but it WAS bad!!

Grade: D

Trailer:

Inkheart (PG-2008)

"Inkheart" is a somewhat more serious version of "Bedtime Stories", although the novel this was based on came first. Brendan Fraser stars as Mo Folchart, a "silvertongue" meaning anything he reads aloud can come to life. He is obsessed with finding the out-of-print novel "Inkheart", as some of the characters he brought to life need to be "put back". There are other reasons, but I won't reveal any important plot points here. At the same time. the villain of that book, Capricorn (Andy Serkis), is trying to find a silvertongue to help him read out the "Shadow", an evil smoke creature that can do his bidding (This will remind you of old Smokey from "Lost"). The movie is full of fantastical adventure as the two sides with opposite intentions race to find the novel and reach their ultimate goal. It is the classic storytelling them of good vs. evil. Brendan Fraser does a nice job with these types of films and this one is almost more of a "Mummy" movie than either of the last two sequels. His character in this is much more scholarly, but the effects and set pieces are very reminiscent of the "Mummy" series. It was definitely a fun family movie and a lot of fun seeing some classic literary characters come to life, several from "Wizard of Oz", as that is his daughter's favorite book. As this is sort of a genre film, it is definitely not for everybody. Some will find it silly, but if you enjoy fantasy films and have no problem suspending disbelief for a good tale, this is definitely a good movie to watch, especially for a family.


Grade: B-

Trailer:

Max Payne (UR-2008)

There is very good reason why translating video games to movies and vice versa does not work all that well. I may be stating the obvious, but it all comes down to interactivity. Video games, even those with great story lines, are mainly designed for interactivity, putting you in the shoes of the protagonist and having some of what happens be determined by your actions. Movies are geared more toward the linear storytelling. Now, as "video game movies" go, "Max Payne" is not awful, not at all. Mark Wahlberg actually does a decent job as the titular Payne, a New York City detective determined to find the people responsible for the murder of his wife. As he gets deeper and deeper, he finds himself in the crosshairs of a conspiracy that has ramifications in the pharmaceutical industry, the police force and even the mob. Early in the movie, it is a little off-putting when you see these huge "bird-people" attack some victims. However, they do provide a perfectly reasonable explanation for that. The story is pretty decently framed and the adaptation is pretty good, but there are several scenes and sets that just feel like it's a video game battle scene which have you reaching for a controller. That is what takes you out of the movie. Video game movies are "damned if you do, damned if you don't". You have a built-in audience with the people who played the game, so you need to be true to that, but if you adhere too closely, the movie can become disjointed and that does happen at times with "Max Payne". I was entertained while watching it, but did not feel like I would have missed anything if I didn't. What that boils down to is a passable, but mediocre movie.

Grade: C-

Trailer: