Kick-Ass

Despite such promising blockbusters as Alice in Wonderland and Iron Man 2 this year, Kick-Ass, adapted from Mark Millar's comic book series, topped my list of most anticipated films.  I haven't read the graphic novels, but the trailers and Chloë Grace Moretz's small but impressive performance in 500 Days of Summer were more than enough to have me chomping at the bit.

Kick-Ass is the story about an average kid - Dave (Aaron Johnson) - who gets mugged one time too many and decides it's about time someone became a superhero.  With nothing but a green costume and good intentions, he transforms into Kick-Ass.  A few chapters later, he's mixed up in some things far above his tousled head as he inadvertently pisses off the city's biggest crime lord (Mark Strong) and is introduced to two slightly more real and much more talented costumed vigallantes, Hit Girl (Moretz) and Big Daddy (Nicholas Cage).  A little down the road the mysterious Red Mist (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) enters the picture as well.

What follows is beautiful carnage.  Hit Girl totally steals the show.  She's like The Bride from Kill Bill in the body of Dakota Fanning, but even more awesome.  Her gymnastics put Jackie Chan to shame and her mouth is dirtier than the Thames.  Oh, and she's only eleven.  She's not all killing and swearing though as her acting shows a maturity and skill beyond most adults.  If she can avoid the traditional pitfalls of being a child star, she'd destined for great things.

Nicholas Cage as Batman-esque Big Daddy is surprisingly amusing, yet also, well, kick ass.  In fact, pretty much the only aspect of this film that isn't is Kick Ass himself.  Being dork with big dreams doesn't make Dave much cooler, though he does get a couple scenes near the end that are all kinds of wish fulfillment.  Mark Strong fits comfortably in the role of villain and Plasse plays up Red Mist's disturbed life decently.  The soundtrack too is rollicking good fun.  The scene set to Banana Splits is memorably fantastic.

Just in case the R rating got past you, this is not a film for children by any means, despite starring young actors.  This has been the cause of recent controversy with Roger Ebert calling it "morally reprehensible" and any number of bloggers calling into the question the appropriateness of having such a young girl as Moretz engage in such foul language and carefree violence.  Personally, the part of the movie I found the most morally objectionable was the teenage sex scene that felt a bit tacked on and a little tacky.  After all, the people they're killing have got it coming, and really it is a strong language kind of situation.  The actor's can certainly separate their roles and their real lives.  If parents are concerned about Hit Girl being a bad influence on their children, they should be more concerned about the fact that they're taking their children to R rated movies.

Controversy aside, I thoroughly enjoyed this movie.  I'm sure there are comic book purists upset at the changes to the material, but from what I've read, the changes were an improvement.  The parts that were changed or taken out would have elicited a "that's just wrong," and not in a good way.  Maybe if I had read the comic I would feel somewhat different, but I found this to be the most entertaining movie of the year so far.  Beware of strong language and ultra violent violence, but if that's not enough to stop you, see it, now.

***** (5/5 stars)

10 Things I Hate About You

This wasn't the first time I had seen this movie and as one of my wife's favorites, it probably won't be the last.  Good thing it's a pretty decent flick.

A modern retelling of Shakespeare's The Taming of the Shrew, Ten Things I Hate About You takes place in high school.  New kid on the block, Cameron (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is being shown the rope by new found allie Michael (David Krumholtz who will always be that elf from The Santa Clause).  He quickly espies Bianca (Larisa Oleynik) but woe is he to discover that she is forbidden from dating by her father (Larry Miller).  When the rules change on the stipulation that Bianca's older sister Kat (Julia Stiles) dates first, Cameron sees a glimmer of hope, despite the fact that Kat has no intentions of dating and is known as something of a shrew.  Wink wink nudge nudge.  Manipulating the despicable Joey (Andrew Keegan) who wants Bianca for himself, Cameron and Michael hire the only person deemed tough/crazy enough to take on Kat - Social outcast and bad boy, Patrick (Heath Ledger).  With all the schemes in place, the plot unfolds.  Even if you're not familiar with the source material, the outcome should be pretty obvious at this point.

For what the story lacks in originality - and really, how much originality do you want in a retelling? - it makes up for in charisma.  For most of the primary cast, this was their first movie.  They had some experience in television, but they were all relative newcomers.  For them, this was one big fun event and a new experience and it shows in how much fun they exude through the screen.  Heath Ledger especially shines, and it was his lunatic-like performance singing and dancing that convinced me that he could become a great Joker when everyone else seemed focused on him being a gay cowboy.

Throughout the story there are numerous nods to it's literary roots.  Whether it was direct (or direct sounding) lines of dialogue, or general references to Shakespeare.  Almost every character had a direct parallel to someone in the original as well.  This, along with the superb acting and general funness are what elevate this above a typical chick flick.  The inclusion of Letters to Cleo and Save Ferris is just icing on the cake.

Maybe not a masterpiece, but certainly worth watching.

**** (4/5 stars)

The Time Traveler's Wife

I'm a sucker for any movie involving time travel.  Even one under the guise of a romantic drama was added to my Netflix queue, no questions asked.  Yet another in the seemingly unending stream of novels adapted for the big screen, this movie, starring Eric Bana (who has had recent experience as a time traveler) and Rachel McAdams, is based on the book of the same name by Audrey Niffenegger.

Like Snakes on a Plane, the title tells you pretty much all you need to know about this one.  It is about Henry (Bana), who is a man who travels through time, and how he met his wife Clare (McAdams).  Suffering from a genetic disorder that is never explained beyond "something something electromagnetism" and that it can be triggered by alcohol (sounds like Lost to me), Henry inexplicably and uncontrollably catapults back and forth through time at random times, sans clothing.  No he is not a Terminator.  He meets a Clare as a woman who knows his future self from the past.  Having heard the story and read about things he was going to have done (future past - a new tense?) and then does them.  Confusing?  Actually not really.  Self fulfilling prophecies?  Coming out the wazoo.

I thought the movie would be exceedingly confusing, what with flashes to and from other time lines with alternate versions of Bana streaking (literally) across the screen, but it wasn't.  After some initial befuddlement, the movie settles out into a surprisingly logical sequence.  Maybe all the years of watching Star Trek have wired my brain for the intricacies of time travel, but for the most part, it all makes sense.

It doesn't feel like a romance with a gimmick tacked on.  If anything, it is a fantasy with some romance thrown on top.  A lot of romance.  The time travel aspect opens it up for a lot of interesting questions.  The film spends a lot of time exploring these, but only because there are a lot of them.  There isn't much dwelling on any one thing.  Sometimes that's a good thing, but not here.  Every time something got interesting, we changed gears.  Despite the frequency of shifting, the movie never accelerated much, and didn't go all that far.  The greatest sense of urgency in the movie was him trying to find some clothes each time he popped into another time.  Seriously.  It was interesting, and different enough, but not mind blowing in any way.

The Time Traveler's Wife tries to sneak science fiction to the chick flick crowd and succeeds.  Unfortunately, it doesn't succeed enough to be all that memorable.

*** (3/5 stars)

The Men Who Stare at Goats

The Men Who Stare at Goats is the film adaptation of  Jon Ronson's book by the same name.  Based on John Sergeant's research about the United States military's experiments in New Age and psychic tactics, it has its basis in actual events.  Being that many of the actual events are probably classified or exaggerated, it is impossible to know just what is true here and what isn't - it's up to the viewer to decide for themselves.

Ewan McGregor is small time reporter Bob Wilton who first learns about the "New Earth Army" when interviewing Gus Lacey (Stephen Root) about his missing stapler psychic abilities.  When his wife decides to leave him shortly after, Bob runs off to Iraq in a bid to prove himself as a wartime reporter.  It's there that he happens to run into Lyn Cassady (George Clooney), who Gus had mentioned as being the greatest psychic warrior of them all.  Determined to both get to the bottom of this strange tale, and get across the Iraq border by tagging along, Bob follows the eccentric Lyn into the war zone as well as into the past.  It's here that the story splits in two.  On one hand we have Bob and Lyn doing their thing, trying not to get killed by Al Queda or Robert Patrick.  One the other, we flash back to the forming of the New Earth Army by Bill Django (a very mellow Jeff Bridges) and are introduced to Lyn's nemesis, Larry Hooper (Kevin Spacey).

We're treated to the exploits of the "Jedi Warriors," both impressive and ludicrous.  I'm not sure if that term was originally in the book/script or not, but they certainly play it up in scenes such as the one where Clooney tells McGregor that there is a Jedi inside him.  No, duh.

The whole thing had a similar flavor to Clooney's recent comedy, Burn After Reading, though it felt a bit more cohesive than that curve-ball did. The two separate story arcs are told more or less through a series of vignettes (though the flashback more so than the present day) until the two more or less converge near the end.  Most of the movie stays pretty straight-faced despite the topic, and stays somewhat ambiguous as well as to never really say how much of their supposed powers were real or not (although the titular scene is pretty definitive).  The ending, however, resorts to some hokey special effects that I think that they could have easily done without.

The Men Who Stare at Goats is definitely off the wall running along the trail that splits from the beaten path.  It's fun, but never really ramps up.  It gets going, and then just keeps going at the same pace.  Slow and steady gets it successfully to the end, but it's not really that exciting of a race.  I would say it is worth seeing, but I wouldn't make it a priority.

*** (3/5 stars)

The Hangover

I don't tend to like a lot of today's comedies, so I steer clear of them most of the time.  I had heard from too many people, though, that The Hangover was pretty much the funniest thing ever so I gave it a shot.  If only to serve as a barometer for what people today think is funny.

The premise of The Hangover is simple enough.  Three guys, Phil(Bradley Cooper), Stu(Ed Helms), and Alan(Zach Galifianakis) take their buddy Doug (Justin Bartha) to Vegas for the most awesome bachelor party they can muster just days before the big one.  Not all goes as planned, however, and the three of them wake the next morning with little to no recollection of the night before and no idea where the groom-to-be is.  They proceed on a madcap detective adventure, trying to piece together the night before and find Doug before his wedding passes by with him still a bachelor.

The three of them use clues like a missing tooth, a hospital bracelet, and a baby left in their hotel room to retrace their steps.  The more they uncover, the more it becomes apparent just how crazy their night was.  It may have been one crazy night, but I was left waiting for the stupid crazy to become funny.  Being a comedy, it did have it's funny parts - most of which are in the (much more entertaining) trailers.  And I still haven't figured out why it's funny to see a bunch of ugly guys' cheeks and dongles if you will.  Galifianakis can't seem to keep his pants on for the life of him.

It is nice to find out that someone other than Judd Apatow is making comedies these days, but when Apatow recycled characters come out on top, you know you have a problem.  The mystery angle was interesting enough to keep me wondering what happened, though just barely.  Besides, hasn't it been done before?

Maybe I have to be able to relate to the protagonists to find it funny, but frankly I'm glad I can't relate to being so trashed out of my mind that I can't remember why there's a live tiger in my hotel bathroom and I'm a little worried if everyone who found it so hilarious can.

The movie ends with some sort of half-assed effort to provide a moral to the story.  Something about not getting married to a horrible person just because you might as well.  Ok.  Seriously the best part of this movie was realizing that Bradley Cooper is going to be great as the smooth talking Face in the upcomong A-Team.  I was tempted to give this one star, but there was some originality involved, and clearly a lot of effort put into this movie so I'll let it slide comfortably into one slot above the Star Wars abomination that makes Jar-Jar look like the work of Orson Welles.

If you like your comedies with plenty of ugly naked men, abusive baby jokes, an increasingly stupid plot and a character whose only purpose is to screw things up while making no sense every time he opens his mouth, by all means, check this one out in a hurry.

** (2/5 stars)

Where the Wild Things Are

Is it possible to make a movie out of a picture book that has ten sentences?  When that book crams every child's imagination into those ten sentences and accompanying artwork like Where the Wild Things Are by Maurice Sendak does, yes, it is.

It may be a children's book, and the imagination it portrays is that of a child, but this is not a children's movie - at least not a tame one.  Following the book almost line for line and frame by frame in the beginning, (though with much more filler as is necessary) we're introduced to Max (conveniently named, Max Records) who has just a bit too much energy along with emotional issues. Unlike the book, this behavior doesn't get him sent to bed without his dinner, but instead prompts him to run away after a fight with his mother (Catherine Keener) gets out of control.  The result, though, is the same as Max travels across a sea to a place "where the wild things are," which may or may not be (but probably is) in his imagination.  Once there, he becomes King and attempts to rule things his way.

The world Spike Jonze creates is a gorgeous one with creatures lifted straight from Sendak's illustrations.  Thankfully this was not another Scooby Doo or Garfield with cartoony CG creatures interacting awkwardly with live action.  Jim Henson's Creature Shop instead provided animatronic suits to be operated by real actors.  Facial expressions were later added with CGI.  This blend of physical and the physically realistic really brought the characters to life in a spectacular way.  The voices, provided by James Gandolfini, Lauren Ambrose, Chris Cooper, Forest Whitaker, Catherine O'Hara, and Paul Dano fit perfectly.  The setting, too, is wonderful.  Though some of it surely was not really there, everything blended together seamlessly and I never caught my self going, "oh, that's greenscreened," or "that's obviously CGI.

Jonze delves into the troubled mind of Max in a way that would make Freud proud.  He clearly understands what young imagination is like and captures beautifully the awesomeness that is a fort to a young boy.  As I said, this is not a children's movie.  As various aspects of himself and his life are manifested through the wild things, Max's story is dark and sometimes disturbing.  It becomes an obvious tale of a child's dealings with loneliness and divorce.  Despite reading so much into a simple picture book, it makes sense.  It was an interesting angle to take, and one that seems ultimately to be the cause of this film's box office failure.  It's not an easy thing to do, pitching a children's story as an adult movie.

Despite its lack of "success," I think that this film did succeed in telling the story it set out to tell.  I'm not sure I would call it enjoyable, per se, but it was good.  The lack of any substantial story arc and the darkness of Max's mind are a little offsetting, but still make a good film.  I would recommend seeing it, but only if you first know what you're going to see.

**** (4/5 stars)

The Proposal

The Proposal is a simple movie.  Queen bitch boss Margaret (Sandra Bullock) is going to be deported to Canada.  To remedy this she forces her hardworking assistant Andrew (Ryan Reynolds) to marry her.  To keep the charade up, Margaret finds herself meeting Andrew's family in Alaska for Gammie's (Betty White) 90th birthday.  Comedy and romance ensue.

There really isn't much in the way of surprises in this movie.  Mary Steenburgen and Craig Nelson fulfill their roles as Andrew's parents, and Gammie is a slightly inappropriate, wise yet kooky grandmother.  Andrew and Margaret have obvious chemistry, even if it is not immediately obvious to the two of them.  Really, as far as formulaic romantic comedies go, this one hits every scene on cue.

If there is a genre, though, that should be formulaic it is the romantic comedy.  Who wants to see a comedic romance that has an M. Night Shyamalan ending, or J.J. Abrams curve balls?  The Proposal fulfills the demands of the genre nicely.  It may be predictable, but it is enjoyable for what it is, and there are enough fun moments to make it worth a watch as long as what you want to watch is a romantic comedy.  It's not a masterpiece by any stretch of the imagination, but it is a solid entry in the genre and if you want a solid popcorn flick to easily enjoy with a significant other, you could do a lot worse.

*** (3/5 stars)

Ink

It's a rare treat to get an indie film that isn't just the product of a big studio's "indie division" like Juno, or something so indie that only people into indie will enjoy it - like anything labeled mumblecore - and is still a well done and enjoyable film.  Ink, starring Chris Kelly, Quinn Hunchar and Jessica Duffy introduces us to a world where those no longer of this life exist on a different plane of consciousness as storytellers, weaving people's happiest dreams.  Others are incubi, touching the sleeping with their nightmare shadows.  Some are lost souls, wandering about, not sure where they belong.

It is one of these lost souls, a deformed wretch by the name of Ink, who steals away the soul of young Emma(Hunchar) in a bid to be accepted into the ranks of the incubi.  While her father(Kelly) helplessly finds his daughter left mysteriously comatose, a band of warrior storytellers is in hot pursuit of Ink and his prisoner.  Led by a blind pathfinder named Jacob, delightfully portrayed by Jeremy Make, they are determined to rescue Emma.  In the meantime, Emma and Ink are joined by a mighty storyteller Liev(Duffy) who allows herself to be taken prisoner in order to try to sway Ink's plans.

This fantastical movie was filmed on an impressively shoe-string budget and in some ways that is painfully obvious.  The team behind it, however, do a wonderful job with working with what they've got and the captivating visuals and compelling story more than compensate for the somewhat amateurish feel.  The bane of low budget films - the subpar acting - is also, thankfully, absent.

I tried to come up with examples to compare this to, things like Dead Like Me, steampunk, and Miyazaki.  Though there are bits and pieces that reminded me of all three, and more, Ink is just too original for me to quite lay a finger on an easy comparison.  It's a little hard to follow at times, and if Hollywood is your only exposure to movies it may seem a bit strange.  That being said, this is one excellent story.  I'm forced to lower the rating a tad because it was a bit confusing at times, and showed its budget at others, but really, it was better than a lot crap out there with million dollar budgets.  See it.

**** (4/5 stars)

The Box

The three greats of televised paranormal - The X-files, The Twilight Zone, and The Outer Limits - all have a particular angle from which they often come.  The X-files often deals with the struggle of science vs. faith.  The Twilight Zone will toss ordinary people into bizarre situations, many times against their will, and in fact, the same story was adapted for an episode in the 80's.  The Outer Limits is many times fixed on the theme of technology, or something similar, coming back to bite you in the end.  As a full length film, The Box, starring Cameron Diaz and James Marsden, throws these three television shows into a Blendtec, adds the time requirements of a full length feature, and asks the age old question of "will it blend?"  The answer is, some of the time.

Based on the short story Button Button by Richard Matheson, The Box revolves around a young couple, Norma (Diaz) and Arthur (Marsden) who are apparently in financial woes even though Arthur works for NASA and drives a Corvette.  Ok, we'll go with it.  One day, a mysterious box shows up on their doorstep, followed by a visit from an even more mysterious man with half a face, Mr. Steward (Frank Langella).  Steward proceeds to put forth a proposal - open the box and press the button contained therein and receive one million dollars (even more money in the 70's when this movie takes place).  The one catch is that someone, somewhere, that they don't know, will die.  They have 24 hours to decide and may tell no one.  After much deliberation, Norma hits the button, whereupon Steward shows up with the cash and their lives spin out of control as they find themselves wrapped up in something much bigger than they could have imagined and realize that their own lives may now be on the line.

The premise of the film is what intrigued me.  The unusual ethical decision surrounded by the apparently paranormal quickly gives way to the increasingly bizarre.  The story moves quickly, adding layer upon layer to the story, though a few of the layers taste a bit like herring on an otherwise well constructed sandwich.  For a sci-fi thriller, this film was constructed on a relatively modest budget and shows quite painfully in the few sequences where CG is used.  While the story is quite compelling and doesn't need many effects to be so, the instances where it does feel, sadly, jarring.  The acting is not award worthy, but certainly average or above, and the tension never gives up, though it never quite builds to its full potential either.

Ultimately, this is a tale of morality and consequence, with ending I found both extremely satisfying as well as disappointing.  I would have liked to see a different decision made on the part Arthur and Norma, but the result of the decision was decidedly delicious.  I don't think Matheson has much faith in humanity.

The story is deliberately ambiguous about some things, perhaps a bit too much so in that there are some answers not given that should have been.  I get the feeling that there are no answers, which is why they weren't given.  It was a confusing ride that was a little wet and messy here and there, but you know what?  I enjoyed the ride anyway.  Not perfect, but if you like any of the television shows mentioned at the beginning of the review, I can almost guarantee that you will enjoy this tale.

**** (4/5 stars)