Up in the Air

Released: 2009
MPAA rating: R
Run time: 1:48

"Up in the Air" asks the question: Do people really need other people in their lives to be happy?  Ryan Bingham (George Clooney) is a man that lives on the road.  He moves from city to city, hotel room to hotel room and, as such, has no ties in any one place.  Sure, he has sisters, but he never sees them or spends any time with them. His job is to go into companies that are downsizing and break the news to the employees affected.  He is so happy with this lifestyle that he also runs a seminar called "What's in your backpack?", in which he explains that all of the people and obligations in your life just weigh you down.  Enter two women to shake it all up.  First, he meets Alex Goran (Vera Farmiga), another person who spends a good part of her time on the road and then, Natalie Keener (Anna Kendrick), a young up-and-comer in his company who develops a way to do the job via a webcam, eliminating the need for all that travel.  Both of these women shake up his world in different ways.  Alex is someone he strikes up a friendship with, but finds himself wanting even more.  Natalie's software threatens to completely put an end to a lifestyle that defines him.  The performances are all very good and the film is getting strong Oscar buzz. I'm not quite sure it is that good, however.  It is a very enjoyable film which is funny at times and still very warm.  This seems to be the trademark of director Jason Reitman ("Juno", "Thank You for Smoking"), who also co-wrote the screenplay. The story lives in the emotions of the characters and it is a completely dialogue-driven film, which I certainly enjoy from time to time.  It's a very good movie that, other than the writing, just falls short of all the Oscar-praise being heaped on it.

Grade: B+

Trailer:

Carriers

Released: 2009
MPAA rating: PG-13
Run time: 1:24

Here we have a fairly promising premise:  The world has been decimated by some sort of highly contagious virus and we follow four young survivors as they travel to someplace where they can get away from it all.   Along the way, they will meet up with other survivors and we get to see some of the darker side of the survival instinct.  Sounds like good stuff, but somehow it all ends up being just silly.  Chris Pine and Piper Perabo lead the cast as two of the traveling survivors and Christopher Meloni gives a strong performance as a dad just trying to find some way to help his infected daughter.  The performances are not the problem here as they are all very good.  The problem is the movie starts fairly strong with a road-side showdown with the aforementioned dad and the four survivors and then just ends up going nowhere.  We never really get a sense of what this virus does to you other than seeing a couple of rashes on people that are infected.  Obviously, it kills, but the horror of it is lost by the failure to see anyone actually dying from being infected.   Although I agree this is a major nitpick, even the title is mis-stated.  None of the main characters are "carriers", they just haven't been infected yet.  The one major plot hole that drove me crazy is that every time the group ran into an infected person, they douse the interior of their car with gallons and gallons of bleach.  While this may be some sort of disinfectant, it would also render the car completely unusable.  Can you imagine the stench of seats soaked in bleach in a closed vehicle?? The movie does have a couple of decent scenes, but overall, it just completely disappoints. If you want to see this kind of story done right, read or watch Stephen King's "The Stand".

Grade:  D

Trailer:

The Blind Side

Released: 2009
MPAA rating: PG-13
Run time: 2:08

"The Blind Side" probably fits under the inspirational sports movie umbrella, but the sports plays a very small part of the story.  In fact, the genius of this movie is that the filmmakers have figured out how to make a "football chick flick".  We follow the story of NFL player Michael Oher (Quintin Aaron) who is a homeless teenager taken in by an affluent white family, who help him get an education and to make himself a big-time football player.  Sandra Bullock plays Leigh Anne Tuohy, the matriarch of the family who decides to help this poor young man and make him part of the family.  Bullock has been getting lots of attention and is winning awards for her performance.  She is very good, but I am not so sure it is anything really ground-breaking or award winning.  She is actually playing the same part she played in "Crash", without the racism.  The movie details Oher's beginnings at a catholic high school and Touhy's discovery that he is homeless when she sees him walking in the rain to find a place to sleep.  She initially takes him in for the night and her family begins to see him as one of their own, leading to her and her husband (Tim McGraw) being named his legal guardian.  The movie is very well-acted and well-written.  It is funny when it needs to be funny and very heartwarming overall.  My only issue with the movie is Hollywood's need to make a great story even better than it is.  When Oher first begins to play football for the school, he has no concept of the game and needs Tuohy to talk to him like a three-year old so he can get it.  From what I have read, Oher was already playing football in his younger years and this scene was very much over the top.  While it is an amusing scene that marks a turning point in the movie, it just seems like this story is great enough without that embellishment.

Grade: B+

Trailer:

The Lovely Bones

Released: 2009
MPAA rating: PG-13
Run time: 2:15

"The Lovely Bones" held some real deep meaning for me as the film deals with the death of a child and the family's difficulty in dealing with it.  Added to that is the wrinkle that we get to also see that child trying to come to terms with suddenly finding herself in the afterlife.  This is a very creative film that runs from wondrous to creepy and often both at the same time.  Susie Salmon (Saoirse Ronan) is a 14-year old girl with her whole life ahead of her:  discovering romance and on the verge of true happiness.   As these things go, both in reality and fiction, she takes a detour through the cornfield on her way home from school and finds herself talking to her neighbor, George Harvey (Stanley Tucci), the last conversation in the world she will ever have.  At this point of the film, the story splits into two very different films.  We follow Susie as she learns what the afterlife is, but fights to stay close to this world until her killer is found.  The other story we follow is how her family struggles with her loss.  Her father (Mark Wahlberg) finds himself obsessed with breaking the case and finding her killer.  Her mother (Rachel Weisz) shuts down pretty completely, closing off Susie's room and leaving the care of her other children mostly up to her mother (Susan Sarandon), a smoking, drinking, somewhat irritating woman.  These two stories intermingle at times as Susie is trying to help her father to look in the right direction.  On the afterlife side, we have a dreamworld that is mostly beautiful and wondrous, but not enticing enough for Susie until her life's unfinished business is taken care of.  Stanley Tucci is getting a lot of award-season heat for his portrayal as the creepy, calculating serial killer.  While he is very good and worthy of the attention, I was very impressed with Saoirse Ronan, who puts this film on her shoulders and carries it perfectly.  The movie runs a little long and toward the end there is one sequence that just drags on and on in an attempt to create tension.  Directed by "Lord of the Rings" helmer Peter Jackson, I should not be surprised as he is a great filmmaker, but tends to make films that are longer than they need to be ("King Kong" any one?).  I really liked this film. It was very dark at times and deeply emotional, while still being very entertaining.  It just misses being a truly great film, but not by much.

Grade: A-

Trailer:

The Proposal

Released: 2009
MPAA rating: PG-13
Run time: 1:48

It has taken me a week to even start writing the review because I simply don't know what to say about a movie that is so bland, formulaic and utterly predictable.  By now, you must be familiar with the premise:  Publishing exec Margaret Tate (Sandra Bullock) finds her work visa expired and faces deportation to Canada.  She comes up with the genius plan to pretty much force her personal assistant, Andrew Paxton (Ryan Reynolds), to marry her so she can stay in the country and keep her job.  A better title might have been: "Sexual Harassment: Hey, it's not so bad if it involves two beautiful people!".  Most of the film is then spent on a trip to Alaska where they go to announce the engagement to his family, who insist they have the wedding that weekend right there in Alaska.  Of course, as movies like these go, the two of them start off the trip hating each other.  Hmm, wonder how that turns out.  Betty White almost steals the movie as Paxton's grandmother (I say almost because can you really "steal" a movie this bad?).  The movie ends pretty much exactly how you think it will end, making the audience all warm and fuzzy.  To be fair, I don't generally like "chick flicks", but do end up throwing one on now and again, usually to great disappointment.  Do I watch them to appease the wife? No, she actually hates them more than I do!!  The performances are good enough. It simply just brings nothing new or remotely interesting to the table.

Grade:  D

Trailer:

Avatar

Released: 2009
MPAA rating: PG-13
Run time: 2:42

Before I write yet another glowing view of this amazing motion picture experience, I will set aside some space to go into the problems I had with the movie.  First and foremost, the political overtones were very heavy-handed and not at all subtle.  Some examples:  When preparing an attack against the natives, the Colonel (Stephen Lang) says "We must fight terror with terror", followed shortly after by another character saying "They're going for some kind of shock and awe thing."  Earlier in the film, a character says "This is why we're here; because this little gray rock sells for twenty million a kilo." (Can you say "War for Oil" any one?)  Then, the final heavy-handed political dialogue:"See the world we come from: there's no green there. They've killed their mother, and they're going to do the same thing here."  Can I please see a major film without having environmentalism shoved down my throat?   One other minor complaint is occasional hack dialogue led off by "You're not in Kansas anymore!"  Now, leading off a review like that, you may think I was not a fan of this film.  The truth is actually quite the opposite.  I will caution that you absolutely do need to see this in a theatre and in 3-D.  It was shot that way and is absolutely meant to be seen that way.  Seeing it in 2-D or at home when it comes out on DVD will take away the majority of the magic and wonder that is "Avatar".   The 3-D imagery and the richly imagined world of Pandora just will not translate.  This is a film that was always intended to be seen in 3-D, so it really must be experienced that way.  The story itself is basically an allegory of the discovery of America and the native American plight, with a healthy dose of the Pocahontas legend thrown in.  Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) is a Marine who has lost the use of his legs and is given the opportunity to go to the planet Pandora, where he can operate an "Avatar", a creature made of the DNA from a human and the native Na'Vi.  He is essentially there to help the scientific team to gather data and find diplomatic ways to get access to a precious resource available on the planet.  When the Colonel meets him, he also sees this a chance to have Jake use his avatar to gather intelligence, a mission he gladly accepts.  Of course, in stories of this type, it is never that simple.  The Na'Vi are a peaceful people and Jake begins to feel he is one of them, while also falling in love with Neytiri (Zoe Saldana), his Na'Vi guide.  A large portion of the film is spent developing that relationship while also exploring Pandora through Jake's adventures.  This is where the movie is simply amazing and breathtaking.  This is not gimmicky 3-D, where they look for reasons to have things come out of the screen.  It just gives you an incredible depth of field to completely bring Pandora and its people to life.  In 3-D, there is nothing cartoony or fake-looking about the visuals.  You will believe you are there.  Despite my reservations with the plot, this is a movie you must experience.  James Cameron is a genius with this type of imagery and may be the best visual film-maker of all time.   I'll say it one more time:  Do NOT pass up the chance to see this on the big screen and in all of its 3-D glory!

Grade: A

Trailer:

Shorts

Released: 2009
MPAA rating: PG
Run time: 1:29

Robert Rodriguez is an interesting director.  One the one hand, he makes ultra-violent "Tarantino-esque" films like "Desperado" and "Planet Terror", which deserve their "R" ratings.  Then, when he had children, he went on a completely different path and started to make movies his kids could see and enjoy.  He began with "Spy Kids" and his most recent entry is "Shorts".  Rodriguez' kids movies tend to be fantastical and over-the-top whimsical and "Shorts" is no different.  It is a fable of the wishing stone which fell from the sky and wreaked havoc on a small town as people began to make their wishes.   In an interesting twist, Rodriguez uses the "Pulp Fiction" style of non-linear storytelling and chapters to tell the story.  It is an entertaining film, but is definitely geared for a younger (11 years and under) audience.  It is very colorful and the characters are simply defined.  When all is said in done, it is a morality play which builds on the phrase "Be careful what you wish for, you might get it."  The performances are good and Rodriguez is able to draw some  top-shelf talent for his projects.  In this case:  James Spader as the villain, Leslie Mann, Jon Cryer and William H. Macy are all along for the ride.  Our 9-year old certainly liked it more than we did, but that makes sense as she is right in the target demographic for this film.  Having said that, I've certainly had to sit through much worse.

Grade: C+

Trailer:

Trailer of the day: Legion

Trailer of the day: From Paris With Love

Could be a fun, mindless action flick, but could be a disaster.  Maybe a little bit of both.

Trailer of the day: The Karate Kid

I'm not sure how I feel about this remake, but I'll probably give it a shot.

Trailer of the day: Cop Out

The newest Kevin Smith project.  Kevin Smith directing Bruce Willis and Tracy Morgan?? I'm really not sure how this could possibly miss!!! Hope I'm right!!

Year One

"Year One" sort of follows the formula of "Monty Python's Life of Brian" and, to a lesser extent, "Mel Brooks' History of the World Part I".  Jack Black and Michael Cera play two cavemen who are banished from their tribe and find themselves on a journey through the Old Testament.  Although Black and Cera are the stars, the movie is pretty much stolen by David Cross, who plays the biblical Cain as a devious, manipulative man who would do anything (including killing his brother, of course) to further his own wants.  Directed by Harold Ramis (who also has a small role), this film does not quite match up to his previous work.  Jack Black's schtick, which worked beautifully in "The School of Rock", doesn't quite do it here.  In fact, Black can not seem to make his act translate as well in any other role. Perhaps it has just become a little tiresome.  The movie was not awful, by any stretch, it just didn't quite have as many laughs as you would hope from a talented director and cast.  Paul Rudd is under-used as Abel, a role which, you can imagine, is disposed of pretty quickly.  Perhaps that is all Rudd would sign up for as he has had a pretty full plate lately carrying his own films.  So, basically, what you end up with here is a film that is somewhat lesser than the sum of its parts, but does have some funny sequences.  Black and Cera are the stars, but, in many ways, David Cross is the real star of this movie.

Grade: C-

Trailer:

Trailer of the day: The A-Team

2012

Released: 2009
MPAA Rating: PG-13 for intense disaster sequences and some language
Run time: 2:38

I am overwhelmingly tempted to give this a simple one word review: Cluster%$#, but I won't.  When I saw the trailers for this movie, my initial reaction was "Wow, the effects are amazing, but still doesn't seem to be any good."  Those initial reactions and expectations were met perfectly.  The nicest thing I can say about this movie is at least it is better than "The Day After Tomorrow" (despite following the exact same blueprint).  As disaster movies go, nothing is more amazing to watch than this is as it piles on disaster sequence after disaster sequence relentlessly.  It is the attempt to fashion some sort of story around that where it fails miserably.  The premise, as you know, is the Doomsday scenario as it is believed to have been predicted by the Mayans centuries ago.  As the movie sets it up, shifts in the earth's core have massive repercussions on the surface globally.  Yet, somehow, they set this up so that the disaster starts in Los Angeles and then moves east until it eventually circles the globe.  Why?  Well, we need to watch Jackson Curtis (John Cusack) and his family narrowly escape each and every wave of disaster along the way.  When I say narrowly escape, I mean  NARROWLY escape.  Apparently, a limousine can outrun an earthquake, but only by a little bit.  Also, planes, who need runways to gain enough speed to get lift, don't really need runways at all if the star of the plane is aboard them and the earth is crumbling beneath them.  In its path of destruction, the movie liberally borrows from every disaster movie that came before it, starting with "Earthquake" right on through "The Poseidon Adventure".  It would be disingenous not to admit that I expected all of this stupidity, but I was still somehow surprised at how silly it actually was!  I found myself starting to wonder if John Cusack is having severe financial trouble because I don't understand why he would want to be in this movie.  He just doesn't seem the type.  I remember that reaction when seeing him in the trailer:  "Oh, no, John, what are you thinking??"  Woody Harrelson provides some comic relief early on and his scenes were probably the best in the movie.  At 2:38, the movie runs long, but it is my pleasure to say it does feel a lot shorter.  The movie and the story move very quickly (whatever story there is).  The most offensive scenes to me were not one, but TWO, sequences where a plane narrowly escapes destruction by flying and maneuvering through two collapsing buildings.  It is that type of sequence that makes Ron Bennington (Ron & Fez XM 202, Sirius 197) call these type of films "9/11 porn".  See it if you must for the effects and the wow factor, but don't expect anything more.

Grade: D-

Trailer:

Train

Released: 2008
MPAA Rating:  R for strong grisly bloody violence, disturbing images, sexual content and language.
Run time: 1:34


"Train" is another entry in the somewhat popular "torture porn" genre in which innocent, unsuspecting people are captured in some way and brutally tortured for various reasons.  The more famous examples of this genre are "Saw", "Hostel" and "Turistas", to name but a few.  Of course, each of those movies are better than this one (and "Turistas" was not particularly good).  In fact, "Train" seems to be a beat-by-beat copy of the plot from "Hostel".  In this case, a traveling college wrestling team misses their scheduled train and are invited to board another train going to the same place.  What they don't know is that this train houses a group of people who intend to capture them and mine them for body parts to sell.  That is actually the gaping hole in the plot.  Despite the parts being intended to use for people who need transplants, the villains do nothing to keep the removal process or the parts sterile.  Sure, I know it's no hospital, but the removal areas are beyond filthy and, at one point, an organ is put for storage into a disgusting metal container, making it pretty much unusable.  Here's another tip:  If you rip someone's eye out, you can't then transplant it into someone who needs it.  I think it will go much better if it is removed surgically!  The violence and gore in the movie were extremely brutal, to the point where I wonder why I watch these films.  Despite that, my biggest problem with the movie is that it just made no sense on any level.  I know I am asking way too much of a movie in this genre, but even "Saw" and "Hostel" had some sort of logical reasoning for what was happening.  




Grade: D


Trailer:

undefined
by undefined

Four Christmases

Released: 2008
MPAA rating: PG-13
Run time: 1:28

Well, the holidays are over.  All the decorations are put away.  What a perfect time to pop in a Christmas movie!!  "Four Christmases" follows Brad (Vince Vaughn) and Kate (Reese Witherspoon) as they are faced with spending their Christmas day with all four of their divorced parents separately.  Originally, they had planned to spend it in Fiji, but when weather shuts down the airlines, they run out of excuses and find themselves having the Christmas they have been avoiding for years.  The movie has a great supporting cast in Robert Duvall, Jon Favreau, Mary Steenburgen, Jon Voight and Sissy Spacek.  Disclosure alert:  I almost always like Vince Vaughn in his movies and, yes, I am aware he always plays....Vince Vaughn.  I am also a huge fan of Robert Duvall.  Having said that, the movie is neither better than I expected nor was it as bad as I have feared.  It's sort of a straightforward dysfunctional family Christmas movie that finds Brad and Kate directly facing the people that have made them decide they never want to get married or have children.  Of course, being a Christmas movie, you can imagine that agreement will get tested, despite the families being pretty much as bad as they imagined.  The movie has its very funny moments, some sweet family times and some intense relationship scenes, leading to a heartwarming Christmas tale.  As stated the cast is very good, the script is not awful, but there is really no new ground broken here.  I enjoyed it, but don't really see it being added to the annual Christmas movie rotation.

Grade: C

Trailer:

Star Trek

Released: 2009
MPAA rating: PG-13
Run time: 2:07


Any one who grew up with me would be shocked to find it took me this long to see this film.  I was a major Trekkie and would definitely be the kind of guy in a lawn chair lining up for the first midnight showing, but just did not get around to it.  Bias alert: As already stated, I am a huge "Star Trek" fan, but I am also a huge J.J. Abrams fan, so the combination of those two elements would have to go horribly wrong for me to not like this film.  The first brilliant move by Abrams was to include the "Kobayashi Maru" test in the storyline.  This is a simulation test where this is no possible winning move for the candidate: the "no-win" scenario.  As legend has it, Captain Kirk is the only one to beat the test, by "changing the conditions of the test".  The sequence works both as a nod to the history and mythology of "Star Trek" and as a metaphor for the film itself.  J.J. Abrams taking on this project was a "no-win" scenario in itself:  How do you reboot an extremely popular franchise with a devout fanbase and somehow make it fresh.  Well, he "changed the conditions of the test" by introducing a time-travel element that releases the shackles of being tied to an existing storyline to adhere to.  Brilliant move on his part.  Of course, until that is explained, the first third of the film is a little confusing for fans as changes in the mythology are introduced early on.  When it is explained, the movie all clicks and you realize what a brilliant move it was.  Abrams now has a clean slate to develop future films and storylines.  The movie itself is a winning combination of action set pieces and intelligent dialogue which makes it accessible for varied audiences.  The casting worked out perfectly with Chris Pine leading the charge as a fiery young Cadet James T. Kirk and Zachary Quinto nailing the role of a young Spock.  I was actually most impressed with Karl Urban, who channeled DeForrest Kelley while playing Doctor McCoy.  One minor critique was that the character of Uhura was given way too large a role in the film and her relationships with both Kirk and Spock just didn't jibe with what I would imagine a young Uhura would be like.  The compression of events was just a  bit unrealistic:  Kirk goes from cadet to Captain of the Enterprise in a ridiculously short amount of time.  I understand it is sort of necessary to get the franchise where it needs to be, however.  Bottom line, this was a magnificent effort by Abrams and everybody involved.  I am now looking forward to rediscovering the characters as they embark on a completely new timeline in the years ahead.


Grade: A




Trailer: