I'd been looking forward to this one since I first saw a preview for it several months ago. Between The 40-Year Old Virgin and The Office, Steve Carell has been comedy's "it" boy lately and I have been consistently impressed by his work. I figured that Little Miss Sunshine would be a chance to see more of his dramatic side since the trailer had a much bleaker outlook than most of his previous work. It came as a surprise, then, that this movie was so funny. In fact, I think that this may very well have been the funniest movie I've seen so far this year. Carell's role was much more subdued than fans of his may be expecting, but it worked well in two ways. First, it allowed him to show off more of his acting chops. Second, it provided space for Alan Arkin to really cut loose. You know, I don't think I've ever disliked an Alan Arkin performance. The man is just brilliant, equally comfortable with comedy and drama. I thoroughly enjoyed this film and, what's more, I think it may just have the potential to become this year's indie hit.

Viewed: 2006-08-16 | Released: 2006-07-25 | Score: B

IMDb Page

If you caught the previews for this one, the first thing you probably noticed was the fact that it's animated. More specifically, it's rotoscoped—live actors were filmed and then each frame was drawn over by a computer. And unlike other, older rotoscoped films, the animation in this one was highly stylized, using thick lines and very odd shading and colors. If you're anything like me, the idea would make you immediately skeptical. It works, though. The film, as well as the Philip K. Dick novel on which it's based, is set in a not-too-distant future in which a new narcotic called "Substance D" has escalated the war on drugs to truly dystopian proportions. The story is told from the perspective of an undercover narcotics officer—played by Keanu Reeves—who, in the course of his investigation, becomes addicted to Substance D. A good deal of the film is taken up with depictions of the drug culture, from the paranoia and inanity of the characters' conversations to the hallucinations brought on by the deterioration of the protagonist's brain. This is where the animation comes in so beautifully: the comic-book coloring and the constantly shifting lines produce a very unsettling feeling. Combined with the spot-on dialogue and performances—especially from Robert Downey Jr. and Woody Harrelson—makes the film feel quite authentic while still being intensely surreal. I might have wished that Reeves' and Winona Ryder's characters had been cast differently, but they didn't really do all that badly. I think I'm definitely going to have to check out the book.

Viewed: 2006-07-22 | Released: 2006-07-06 | Score: B

IMDb Page

Askaninja.com has a pretty funny review of this movie up. I can't say I entirely disagree with their assessment, actually. The crux of it all is that Dead Man's Chest is not a standalone story—it is the middle volume of a trilogy. In that light, the fact that nothing actually gets resolved during the entire two and a half hours is, perhaps, somewhat forgivable. What may not be forgivable, though, is that this episode really brought nothing new to the table. Nearly all of the comedy was just a rehash of stuff we already saw in The Curse of the Black Pearl. Even Johnny Depp's performance came off as pretty stale. I am going to see the next one, but it's more because I feel a need for closure than because I particularly liked this one.

Viewed: 2006-07-13 | Released: 2006-06-23 | Score: C

IMDb Page

I'm a little torn on the score I'm giving this one. You see, on the strength of the writing alone I'd have to say this deserved two stars, possibly even one. The plot was pretty thin, and didn't mesh well with itself. That is, there were two major components to the story: a character-driven story about a man coming to terms with a past tragedy and a quest story about a fairy creature trying to get home. The second is what the film pays attention to, but the first is what the story is really about, and I didn't feel that was done skillfully enough. On top of that, there was a lot of jarringly goofy comic relief that didn't match up well at all with the more fable-like tone of the rest of the movie. On the other hand, the performances taken by themselves would have gotten four stars. Paul Giamatti, especially, did some really amazing work in this movie. I don't think I can give his performance in the climactic scene enough praise. And I always like Jeffrey Wright—he always manages to bring a quirky realism to even the smallest roles. Even M. Night Shyamalan did a pretty good job, stepping it up a few notches from his normally wooden self. So I guess I have to split the difference and give it three stars, which I find quite unsatisfying for not reflecting either part well.

Viewed: 2006-07-20 | Released: 2006-07-20 | Score: B

IMDb Page

When D.C. Comics decided—back in '93—to kill off Superman, the response (among those who took notice of the event) seemed to fall into two general categories: those who found it tragic and moving, and those who thought it was just another ploy to get us to buy the comic. So, when I tell you that I was pretty solidly in the former camp, it should tell you something about the biases I have in approaching a movie like this. In any case, I loved it. In reading some other reviews, I've noticed that a lot of people are complaining that the movie wasn't fresh enough, that there wasn't enough of a new spin. But consider: Superman is quite possibly the single most iconic figure in the entire history of American pop culture. I have a hard time imagining a way in which a studio could "update" the story that wouldn't just be wrong. Director Bryan Singer seems to agree with me, since Superman Returns is so obviously reverent toward the source material. Not to say that it's exactly the same as the comic or the first two films (we can just pretend that the second two never happened)—there are some significant differences from D.C.'s established chronology. But in the important ways, especially with the characters and the overall tone, Singer stayed faithful to the film's roots. Lest you think I've let me fanboyism run away, I will say that the film was not without its faults. Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane was pretty flat, but even at that I noticed a lot of growth in her skills since Win a Date with Tad Hamilton. Brandon Routh drew very heavily on Christopher Reeve's work for the basis of his own performance, which had its ups and downs. On the one hand, he did a pretty good job of reincarnating Reeve's Superman, which appealed to my sense of nostalgia. On the other hand, Routh is not as good an actor as Reeve was, and it shows the most in the scenes where he plays Clark Kent. Reeve was so good that you could almost believe that Kent and Superman were different people. Not so much with Routh. He was also a little hurt by the fact that he looks so young. Reeve was the same age when he started working on the 1978 film—a mere 26—but somehow he still looked like a grown-up instead of a teenager. Finally, if my experience talking to some of my friends is any guide, people who aren't familiar with the genre may find it a little campy. I thought it had a good balance of comic relief and dramatic intensity, but your mileage may vary.

Viewed: 2006-06-29 | Released: 2006-06-20 | Score: A

IMDb Page

I'm actually a little surprised at this movie. The people responsible for marketing this movie have managed to promote a science fiction story as a romance so effectively that it managed to grab the number four weekend box-office slot. Yes, for those of you who didn't recognize it, a movie about people back and forth across a two-year time gap is science fiction. (If you want to be really nitpicky, I suppose it might be more accurate to classify this one as magic realism.) In fact, it's one of the most cliched science fiction ideas out there: the time travel story. Time travel has been done to death in the SF genre, from Robert Heinlein to Back to the Future. For me, the main problem of this movie is that it didn't do its homework well enough to avoid the rather huge plot holes. See, a person writing a time travel story has to make up his mind whether or not the past (and, therefore, the future) can be changed. He has to pick one and stick to it, otherwise the inconsistencies will eventually bother the attentive viewer enough to overshadow whatever may have been done right. That's where I'm at with The Lake House. Not to say there weren't other problems. Keanu still can't act. I mean, he's gotten much better over the past ten years or so, to the point where he's quite believable as long as he doesn't talk. And Sandra Bullock actually has much better acting chops than she gets credit for, which I largely attribute to the fact that she's so annoyingly typecast. The film also tended to drag in spots due to its over-reliance on voiceover and brooding close-ups of the leads—and the attempts of the director to get away from those elements were mostly quite clumsy. Despite all that, I still felt like there was some underlying heart to the film, some touching nugget of romance to it. And I felt like that for about 15 minutes after the end, at which point all of the "Why didn't she..." questions started occurring to me and Juliette. It really killed whatever good feeling I had about the film. Still, it does leave me hopeful for future forays into speculative genres, hopefully by better writers.

Viewed: 2006-06-15 | Released: 2006-06-15 | Score: C

IMDb Page

This movie is being marketed as a romantic comedy. I'm not sure that's very accurate. True, there are a number of very funny moments but, even so, I'm not sure I'd call it a comedy. Have you ever been present when one of your friends was fighting with his or her spouse? Then you'll recognize the feeling of discomfort I had through much of the first half of this film. More than that, though, it made me sad. It was just a little too close to home for me to find it funny. Now, before you go sending me recommendations for a marriage counselor, let me just say that Juliette and I are in no danger of breaking up. Like every couple, though, we do occasionally have fights. Of course, we communicate well and share responsibility pretty equally, so our fights are less consequential than the ones in this movie and get resolved relatively quickly, but the themes in the arguments between Gary (Vince Vaughn) and Brooke (Jennifer Aniston) were very familiar. I think they'd be familiar to a lot of people—in fact, I think that's something that the filmmakers were counting on. All this, combined with the palpable chemistry between Aniston and Vaughn, made it just too real for me. So, yeah, I can't really call it a comedy. I will say, though, that this movie featured probably the best acting I've seen out of either of the leads. And, as I mentioned before, there are comedic scenes. I thought Jon Favreau was hilarious and Juliette liked Jason Bateman. Anyway, I thought this film was good, but if you're looking for a nice, light movie to bring a date to, you might want to consider seeing something else.

Viewed: 2006-06-02 | Released: 2006-06-01 | Score: B

IMDb Page

This movie is definitely an example of an adaptation where familiarity with the source material can diminish your enjoyment. The previous two films made some significant changes to the Marvel canon—most notably the characters' ages and relationships. With that sort of setup, this one could hardly be different—in fact, the changes in this film are arguably even bigger. What was surprising was that although the film's overall storyline departs so radically from Marvel's chronology, some of the details were extremely accurate. For example, the scene at the lake with Cyclops and Jean Grey was directly lifted from the Dark Phoenix saga. In any case, some people will hate the changes and some will love them. As for me, I loved the comics but I also recognize that one of the truly great things about comic book universes is that they allow for real freedom to explore themes. In that respect, I think that even though the issues underlying this film—mutation as a metaphor for race or, perhaps, sexuality—are dealt with in a relatively crude manner, it's possible that films like X3 will be a stepping stone in the growth of speculative films. After all, the X-Men comic itself was also pretty heavy-handed and clumsy in its execution, but it was part of the movement that led to some of the more nuanced graphic novels we have today. As this review is getting rather lengthy, I'll go ahead and rush through the rest: the acting was mostly adequate with a few good moments and a few particularly bad ones, the effects and action were quite good, the dialogue was unsurprisingly mediocre, and the film was, overall, pretty good.

Viewed: 2006-05-26 | Released: 2006-05-25 | Score: B

IMDb Page

As I'm sure you know, Dan Brown's book was a huge bestseller, and more than a little controversial. I'm sure that the same will be true of the movie. The film has already made 77.1 million dollars, and I'm sure that the books popularity will carry it through at least three more weeks of huge box office sales. And it's already generating plenty of controversy buzz—on my way into the theater I was stopped by a guy who tried to give me a pamphlet about the inaccuracies in the film. Personally, I don't think it's all that great a story. I'm just not that into the whole conspiracy theory thing. I will say, though, that it works better in film than it does in print. You see, the main problem with the book was that the writing was mediocre at best. Movies get to avoid awkward prose by just showing you everything that's happening. And much of the acting was also quite good. Paul Bettany, Ian McKellen, and Jean Reno were all very good, which comes as no surprise. Audrey Tautou was OK, although I don't think that her part gave her much to work with. As for Tom Hanks, well, he did a fine job with his performance, but I think he was miscast. The thing is, I'm not sure who would have been better. Nic Cage and Tom Cruise have both done plenty of thrillers, but Cage isn't brainy enough and I haven't liked Cruise in a long time. Dennis Quaid might be another choice, but I don't know if he has the chops to do better than Hanks. George Clooney is too cocky, and Ewan MacGregor is too young (plus I would probably get hung up on his accent). But anyway, I'd say the movie was generally executed pretty well, and if you liked the book you'll like the movie.

Viewed: 2005-05-19 | Released: 2006-04-18 | Score: B

IMDb Page

I walked out of this movie feeling like I didn't really get it. Maybe I'm just a little too stuck in the traditions of American film. You see, normally when you go see a movie like this one, you expect that there will be some sort of crisis for one or more of the characters, things are or will become complicated, and somewhere in the course of the movie the character(s) will grow or change or have some sort of revelatory moment, after which the crisis is resolved. This movie really didn't follow that pattern. It certainly sets things up that way—three of the four "main" characters are at some sort of turning point in their lives—but nobody really changes in any meaningful way. That is, while all of them change their circumstances, there's no real personal discovery for any of them, no admittance of any fault or change in character. What resolution there is seems unsatisfying—to me, at least—because it's either accompanied by a revelation that seems insincere or because it's only accomplished by sheer dumb luck. My guess is that this was intentional on the part of writer-director Nicole Holofcener, that it's a sort of postmodern challenge to traditional film notions, an attempt to make art imitate life a bit more accurately. And in that respect I guess it succeeds—Juliette, especially, found it to be a very truthful story. It was pretty good in the execution as well—the acting and dialogue were very natural, and the pacing, if a bit plodding at times, seemed to fit the rhythms of real life pretty well. I'd say I liked the movie, but I didn't connect with it well enough to give it a fourth star. I had a similar reaction to Holofcener's previous film, Lovely & Amazing, but, despite that, I find her work intriguing enough that I'm curious to see what she's going to do next.

Viewed: 2006-04-28 | Released: 2006-01-28 | Score: 3

IMDb Page