Paul - 2011

"Paul" - 2011
Dir. by Greg Mottola - 1 hr. 44 min.

Official Red Band Trailer

by Clayton Hollifield

"Paul" is that movie with Simon Pegg and Nick Frost that's not part of their "Three Flavours Cornetto" series, even though Pegg and Frost wrote this one.  I guess it not being directed by Edgar Wright is the difference.  Also, they're in America this time, which is another difference.  But it's still pretty good.  It's not great; it's like a well-written version of a fairly thin idea.  So that means that whatever you think of the idea of two comics nerds coming across a genuine alien and engaging in a road trip, this is one of the best possible versions of whatever is floating around in your head.

Clive (Frost) and Graeme (Pegg) are a pair of British comic book fans who are fulfilling a life-long dream of attending ComiCon in San Diego.  Since it's quite a haul from GB to San Diego, they've also rented an RV, and are taking a road trip through the southwest, hitting up all the big alien-related hotspots, like Area 51 and Roswell.  Along the way, they discover a genuine alien, named Paul (voiced by Seth Rogen), who is trying to escape the clutches of the government.  Also, he's foul-mouthed and smokes weed.  Among the government agents trying to track down Paul are Agent Zoil (Jason Bateman), and Haggard (Bill Hader) and O'Reilly (Joe Lo Truglio).

One of the unusual things about "Paul" is that it's a movie with two straight-men.  Both Clive and Graeme aren't really the sources of the humor, unless you're really amused by the notion of attending ComiCon or digging alien stuff.  Instead, they spend a lot of time reacting to the people and the world around them.  To some degree, this is a political statement about the oddness of America, from a fish-out-of-water viewpoint.  It's also literalized through a pair of hillbilly bullies, Gus (David Koechner) and Jake (Jesse Plemons).  But this approach might be part of the reason why the cast is stacked, comedically-speaking.  I haven't even gotten around to mentioning that Kristen Wiig is in the movie, and pretty much steals the show whenever she's on-screen, and we're already something like a dozen deep of people who are funny every time out.

On the downside, Seth Rogen does pretty much exactly what Seth Rogen does every time in every movie he's in, but without the benefit of his physical acting and presence.  It's not so much that Rogen isn't funny, as it is that I'd like to see him do something against expectations at some point.  A genial, gravel-voiced little buddy is pretty much 100% what I expect out of him in this role, and a couple of "Observe and Report" moments would have gone far to keep audiences on their toes.  I'll admit this is a petty complaint; I've seen a lot of Rogen's movies, and I'm sure there are plenty of people that are perfectly happy watching him do his thing.

I'm happy I finally got around to watching "Paul."  It's not the best of the Pegg/Frost movies, but it's still pretty funny, and there's a near-infinite amount of really good comedians doing what they do.  And the entire run-time of "Paul" is worth it for the scene where Wiig's character breaks free from her oppressive religious father, and it dawns on her that she can do anything she wants, including cursing and fornicating.  Not only is her awkward pawing of Graeme hilarious, it sets her character down the path of learning how to swear for the rest of the film, which is one of the Rated-R highlights of "Paul."  I feel certain I'd watch it again, if I stumbled across it on cable, and I'd probably enjoy it just as much.

3 / 5 - TV (HD)

Foo Fighters: Back and Forth - 2011

"Foo Fighters: Back and Forth" - 2011
Dir. by James Moll - 1 hr. 41 min.

Trailer

by Clayton Hollifield

There's a big part of me that's a huge Foo Fighters fan; I saw them play on their very first tour, and I've got the t-shirt to prove it.  I would have been to one of their first couple of gigs, if I had only been over 21 at the time.  So I was pretty thrilled to finally sit down and watch "Foo Fighters: Back and Forth," to try to glean some insight into the things that have happened to the various band personnel over the years.  Although they're pretty much the face of alt rock for the last couple of decades (!), it hasn't been an entirely smooth ride.  I'd assume that's the case with any long-running creative endeavor, though.  I'm not sure you could find half a dozen people and expect that any fifteen year run would yield no problems over that span of time.

Plot recap?  Well...  The Foo Fighters were initially born out of the ashes of a pair of influential bands from the early 1990s (although the two bands were not equally popular), Dave Grohl and Pat Smear from Nirvana, and William Goldsmith and Nate Mendel of Sunny Day Real Estate.  They were an immediate success, band members came and went (Grohl and Mendel are the only two members who started and are currently with the Foo Fighters), and the band steadily grew to the point of playing sold-out shows at Wembley Stadium.  The last third or so of the film is devoted to the recording process of their seventh LP, "Wasting Light," which was notable for being produced by Butch Vig (who produced that Nirvana album that everyone knows), having former Nirvana bass player Krist Novoselic guesting on a song (as well as former Husker Du/Sugar frontman Bob Mould).

The big question all music documentaries must face is whether or not this could have been covered on an episode of "Behind the Music."  "Foo Fighters: Back and Forth" passes that test in a couple of regards.  First, there are no tearful reunions with jilted ex-Foos, although they are interviewed and have the opportunity to say their peace.  There's no ridiculous on-stage jam with all the Foos, past and present, no hugs, no tears.  Although there is a bit of a bow placed on the story by Grohl at the end, saying that he wouldn't change anything that had happened, the film is also honest about what happened with each of the members, even when it's not particularly complimentary to Grohl.  A prime example of this was Grohl's choice to re-record Goldsmith's drum parts for what would be the Foo Fighter's second album, without Goldsmith's knowledge.  That's the sort of thing that you can't really go back on; even though Grohl is considered one of the all-time great rock drummers, it's a pretty aggressive statement that someone's work isn't good enough.  The situation probably could have been handled better, but it still would have been extremely difficult to stay in a band when you've been deemed insufficient.

Another way in which "Back and Forth" passes expectations is in it's soundtrack, and use of performance footage.  Although I can't remember any instances of a full-song being performed by the Foo Fighters, the live footage is used very well.  One great example of this is, during a point where Pat Smear is talking about the drudgery of touring and playing the same material every night, there's a montage of Dave Grohl introducing the same song in the same way, probably a dozen times in a dozen different places.  Beyond the Foo's material, there is also a lot of their then-contemporaries featured, and there's actually examples of the other bands when they're being talked about.  All of this might seem minor, but I assure you it's not.  It adds up to a well-rounded musical picture of not only where the Foo Fighters' members come from (both in terms of the scenes that they came from, and the actual bands themselves), but what was going on around them at the time.

The Foo Fighters fan in me loved the movie, but the last third (and what's come after, for the band) had me shaking my head in admiration at the shrewdness of Dave Grohl.  It's important to know that with the specific personnel assembled for the making of "Wasting Light," expectations were extremely high.  The Foo Fighters have evolved into a very good arena rock band, drawing huge crowds wherever they go.  But when you get all available hands on deck from an album that changed the course of popular music, at least for a few years, that's a whole other deal.  The glimpse at the recording of "Wasting Light," which ended up being a very successful album for the band, both critically and popularly, trumps the usual mid-career magazine cover-article interview, but hits all the same points.  The band is in a good place, stronger than ever, and this is the best work of their career.  So you should buy it.  But watching what's come after for the Foo Fighters, like the "Sound City" documentary/soundtrack, and the upcoming HBO series "Sonic Highways," which documents the recording of the Foo Fighters' upcoming eighth album of the same name, Grohl has turned documentary film-making into a way to promote his albums, in a way that other bands haven't.

Obviously, one's enjoyment of a music documentary is going to hinge on how much someone likes the band in question (unless it's something like "Searching for Sugar Man"), so only you know if you care about the Foo Fighters.  For me, it's a no-brainer.  This isn't exactly re-inventing the wheel, but more like putting a wheel in an unexpected place, like those three-wheeled motorcycle things that kind of look like Transformers.

from motocircle.com

"Foo Fighters: Back and Forth" is a good documentary that doesn't ignore the rough patches for the band, but doesn't really wallow in them in pornographic detail, either.  There's no simple answers, other than that the Foo Fighters keep chugging along, and it seems to keep working for them.  This adds up to something that's worth your time, so long as you've got a favorable view of the band.

3.5 / 5 - TV

Tower Heist - 2011

"Tower Heist" - 2011
Dir. by Brett Ratner - 1 hr. 44 min.

Official Trailer

by Clayton Hollifield

I wish I could get over this, but I do hold it against a film when it's advertised as something a bit different than what it actually is.  Part of the issue with "Tower Heist" is the cast; when you have something that stars Ben Stiller and Eddie Murphy, there's going to be an expectation that you probably have a comedy on your hands.  That's not to say that either actor hasn't done dramatic work, but when the trailer cherry-picks the movies for the few jokes present, that's a promise that the full film can't deliver.  "Tower Heist" isn't a comedy.  It's not really a drama, either.  It's not really a good movie.  It's not a terrible movie, either.  It just sort of exists.

In a building called "The Tower," which is purported to be the most expensive real estate in the world, Josh Kovacs (Ben Stiller) runs the support staff, which is the real draw of the building.  They exist to make everyone's life run smoothly, and do so very well.  One of the tenants, Arthur Shaw (Alan Alda) is an investment banker on Wall Street, and runs afoul of the law.  Coincidentally, part of Shaw's Ponzi Scheme involved The Tower's staff pension fund, which has now been wiped out.  After Josh and a pair of co-workers get fired after confronting Shaw, the idea of stealing Shaw's as-yet-unlocated rainy day fund is drunkenly put in Josh's head by the FBI Agent in charge of the Shaw case, Special Agent Clair Denham (Tea Leoni).

So when I say "Tower Heist" isn't a comedy, I mean to say that it's not particularly funny.  There are a few decent exchanges, but Stiller's character is the main one, and he's a very earnest, straight-forward character (and even that trait isn't ever really put on blast).  If you put Eddie Murphy and Ben Stiller (and Tea Leoni, and Casey Affleck, and Michael Pena, and Matthew Broderick, and Alan Alda) on the screen in various configurations, there's going to be a few moments here and there, but the story is more of a timely, socially-conscious Robin Hood tale than anything else.  I can see the thinking behind this film - it's like trying to set up a situation where you could morally justify pulling an "Ocean's Eleven."  You've got the same colorful variety of characters (well, not the same exactly, but I think you know what I'm getting at), the "impossible" heist, a burgeoning love story, a ritzy setting.  But if you sat down and watched Steven Soderbergh's "Ocean's Eleven" and Brett Ratner's "Tower Heist" back-to-back, you'd see exactly what the difference in the two men are as filmmakers.

That comparison is going to be a rough one for Ratner, but he's not without skill as a filmmaker.   For as much as I felt like the plot (and characters, for that matter) weren't fleshed out as much as I would have preferred, Ratner will give you a smooth ride.  He's proven that over and over again, that he can make a big Hollywood action comedy movie, and even if you're not blown away by it, you're not going to be shifting in your seat and checking your watch.  Enough things happen with enough regularity that there aren't dead spots or lulls, it's more that all of it doesn't add up to much.  It never feels like any of the characters hit a real low (at least in the sort of way that you, as an audience member, would feel - it all feels like shorthand for bad times).  Even when one of the characters attempts suicide over having his retirement wiped out, it's skirted around, and when you see him in a hospital bed afterwards, he's not messed up at all.  He may as well have been taking a nap.  And since Ratner never really gets across the low times with any conviction, whatever successes occur don't resonate as hard-earned victories, either.  And beyond that, not getting an audience to feel anything real in the first place makes the logic behind suddenly deciding to steal TWENTY MILLION DOLLARS flimsy.  These are basic storytelling flaws, but it also fits with Brett Ratner's career.  Never too high, never too low, just a smooth ride.

Most of what's good comes from the cast of "Tower Heist."  Stiller and Tea Leoni have an easy, brusque chemistry that makes me wish this film had been a romance comedy between these two characters, with the big heist in the background.  Everyone who had more than a line or two made the most of them.  It just didn't matter a whole lot.  By the time we got to the actual heist, I wasn't really rooting for anyone, I was just hoping that something funny might happen.  The idea of pulling something over on one of the Wall Street jackasses is one that's ripe with potential, very little of that potential is on display in "Tower Heist."  But Heavy D did have a "blink and you'll miss it" role, and I was pretty happy about that.

1.5 / 5 - TV (HD)

God Bless America - 2011

"God Bless America" - 2011
Dir. by Bobcat Goldthwait - 1 hr. 45 min.

Official Red Band Trailer

by Clayton Hollifield

"God Bless America" is pretty much exactly what I hope for when I see an independent film - an audacious, possibly unpopular idea executed well.  If the idea of gunning down celebutards was a popular one, this wouldn't have to be an independent film.  Money-men would be lining up at the opportunity to get in on the ground floor and claim their chunk of the profits, and you'd have a big-budget, broad comedy that said nothing.  Maybe "God Bless America" won't get seen by as many people, but it takes a common refrain, turns it into the absurd, and sticks to its guns.

Frank (Joel Murray) is a divorced middle-aged insomniac, and his life isn't getting any better.  He spends his nights awake, channel-surfing, and getting no reprieve from his insomnia.  He works in a cubicle, surrounded by people who discuss American Superstarz (you know, "Idol"), his ex-wife is unable to control their increasingly bratty daughter, and his d-bag neighbor routinely boxes his car in every night.  When things take a turn for the worse, and Frank apparently has nothing left to lose, he arms himself and decides to take out his frustration on the teenage star of a reality show, Chloe (Maddie Hasson).  One of Chloe's classmates, Roxy (Tara Lynne Barr), begs to come along and for Frank to continue on this path.

"God Bless America" is a movie born out of frustration with popular culture.  Often people will tell you that if you don't like a TV program, simply not to watch.  The problem with that is that you can't also switch off the people who watch this stuff, nor switch off the people who base their behavior on the aggressive, dumb, and mean people on those shows.  It's not enough for you, yourself not to engage in this behavior, when you're surrounded by people who are aggressively rude.  Is it overreacting to gun down people who act like assholes in a theatre?  Maybe, but when people act in that manner, it's foolish to expect that there isn't going to be a reaction at all.  Frank is presented as the only sane man in an insane world, or at least the only person who seems capable of examining his own behavior, and then adjusting it accordingly.  Everyone else is either going along with a system, or simply isn't capable of self-examination in the first place.

All of that is not a popular message, that people should take a second look at how they affect the people around them.  It's a very pointed criticism, implying that people haven't even taken a first look at how they affect those around them, and one that's not likely to sit well with the sort of people who need to take a look in the mirror, possibly because some people haven't ever even considered that what they do isn't positive, and there are people who think they should be gunned down for being who they are.  Frank's stance is that spreading evil and being mean all the time is bad.  It's a very straight-forward stance, and there's even some dialogue between Frank and Roxy, talking about selecting their next targets, that makes this explicit.  It's not a matter of taste, as Roxy brings up people like NASCAR and country fans; that's just a matter of preference (and they feel the same way about people who sip lattes and blaspheme, so down that path lies mutually assured destruction).  It's a matter of lowering the bar for profit, which is evil, no matter your justification.

All that stuff is the message, but "God Bless America" is a comedy, and it's a pretty funny one.  Joel Murray was perfect for this material, like a more composed/less cartoony Milton from "Office Space," carrying a world's worth of frustration and anger on his shoulders.  And the Roxy character is a burst of energy, off-setting Frank's weariness.  Tara Lynne Barr is just right for that role, saving Frank's life (literally, which her character would be delighted to know that I'm using correctly here) and keeping him going.  This isn't a pretty, feel-good comedy, but if you're in a foul mood for whatever reason, you might find yourself agreeing with both the premise and how Frank chooses to deal with it, and in a way that might make you a little uncomfortable, and will require some self-examination to come to terms with.  That's why "God Bless America" is an indie film (in the best way possible); for a lot of people it'll come off mean-spirited, but for some people, it's going to feel just right.  This movie isn't for everyone, that's kind of the point.

3.5 / 5 - Streaming

Beats, Rhymes & Life: The Travels of A Tribe called Quest - 2011

"Beats, Rhymes & Life: The Travels of A Tribe Called Quest" - 2011
Dir. by Michael Rapaport - 1 hr. 37 min.

Official Trailer

by Clayton Hollifield

If you're not familiar with A Tribe Called Quest, I'm not sure you can call yourself a rap fan.  As Pharrell Williams himself states in the movie (whom you might know from songs like Daft Punk's "Get Lucky" or Robin Thicke's "Blurred Lines," to name two of a billion you've heard of), Tribe was the musical father to people like himself, J Dilla, and Kanye West.  If you're not into rap, Tribe is the kind of group that might change that. They were the first (for my money) to incorporate jazz into hip-hop successfully and sustain it, they didn't rap about clubs and cars.  Ah hell, take three or four minutes and watch their video for "I Lost My Wallet in El Segundo."

"Beats, Rhymes & Life: The Travels of A Tribe Called Quest" is the story of this group of musicians; Q-Tip (the charismatic leader), Phife Dawg (the second rapper, yin to Tip's yang), Ahi Shaheed Muhammad (the quiet DJ and sometimes peacemaker), and sometimes member Jarobi.  In the early 1990s, A Tribe Called Quest was a very big deal indeed.  They, along with other groups, were spearheading a new kind of hip-hop, one that still resonates today.  Of course, as with any group of musicians, things don't go as smoothly as one might think.  The main time-frame where director Michael Rapaport followed the band around was a particularly tumultuous one: they had reunited to headline the Rock the Bells tour in 2008, after a number of years had passed from their active days as a recording unit (their last album was released in 1998), but hadn't really addressed any of the issues that had come between them.

Every music documentary has to take the "Behind the Music" challenge: is there a reason for this to be a film instead of another episode of the long-running show?  In this case, I'd say yes.  First up, there's a lot of performance footage (although I don't remember any full performances, the movie wasn't unsatisfying in that way).  Secondly, it was necessary to establish the time and scene that ATCQ came out of.  They were big, and they were influential, but it's not as if they ever reached the level of Prince or Michael Jackson.  So some explanation is necessary.  Thirdly, how much (and how openly) does the movie address whatever caused their downfall?  Although all the members pretty much admit that they think the band ran it's course at the time, there was still some beef between Phife and Q-Tip.  It's tempting to delve into armchair psychology here, but one of the biggest issues was Phife's health (and not managing his diabetes as well as he could have).  It seems like Phife wishes that no one knew about it, but when an adult misses shows (at times, I don't think it was a big deal) and looks frail, questions are going to be asked.  Q-Tip seems not to be aware that Phife doesn't want people to know about it, and there is a ton of anger shown over the course of the interviews from Phife towards Q-Tip.  Tip, for the most part, seems content just to play music, whether or not it's with Tribe or own his own.  Like I said, armchair psychology is very tempting, but speaking as someone who's been sick, not having your health messes with everything in your life, including your relationships and your sense of self.

This movie fills an interesting niche - it's not like Tribe is unknown, this isn't the story of a band that's been overlooked unfairly.  Nor is it a glimpse at a band that dominated the world; I'm pretty sure that when Tribe's first album came out, Vanilla Ice and MC Hammer were killing it on the charts and in record stores.  It's just the story of a really good band, and if you're into them (or this brand of music), "Beats, Rhymes & Life: The Travels of A Tribe Called Quest" is a must see.  This movie also accomplishes what every good music doc must: it put this band's catalog back into my listening rotation.  It's not like I didn't listen to them (I have all of their albums, and if you're going to watch this film, you probably should too, or get ready to abuse your credit card on iTunes) previously, but after a quick reminder of how great they are, I need to hear their material all over again.  Even though the film does address the beefs that each member has with one another, it never loses sight of how great the music is.  There's a great, brief scene near the end of the film where Busta Rhymes pops into their rehearsal space, and they all just stand there, listening to one of Tribe's songs, bobbing their heads together.  That's the whole thing in a nutshell, right there.

3.5 / 5 - TV (HD)

The Chaperone - 2011

"The Chaperone" - 2011
Dir. by Stephen Herek - 1 hr. 43 min.

Official Trailer

by Clayton Hollifield

So look, I'm partially to blame for this.  I keep subjecting myself to these WWE movies, knowing full well that they're likely to be completely awful.  Usually, I'm pleasantly surprised by the fact that they aren't 100% awful, but "The Chaperone" is the first one where I actually question what the point of making the film is in the first place.  I get that they're generally low-budget filler, and that no one's aiming too high for the most part.  I get that.   I get that they're trying to cruise on the appeal of whoever the star is, and that wrestling fans might want to see a movie starring that guy.  But "The Chaperone" is the kind of movie that fails to deliver anything approaching what it promises, from any angle.

Ray-Ray Brownstone (Paul "Triple H" Levesque) emerges from prison a changed man, thanks to the platitudes of radio show host Dr. Marjorie (Lucy Webb).  Up first on the agenda is patching things up with the wife, Lynne (Annabeth Gish), and daughter, Sally (Ariel Winter), that he left behind, right after he convinces people to stop calling him Ray-Ray, and start just calling him Ray.  But they're bitter, and his ex-colleagues are pressuring him to take up his old profession, being the best damned getaway driver anyone in Louisiana has ever seen.  Due to a mix-up, Ray ends up chaperoning a trip to New Orleans that his angry daughter is on, and his crime buddies are after him, too, with evil intentions.  Will Ray reconcile with his family and escape the clutches of his nefarious colleagues, or will evil prevail and will Ray duplicate back into Ray-Ray?  Only one hour and forty-three minutes stands between you finding out the answer to that question.

Lookit, I don't aim to just pointlessly shit all over movies.  That's not really my "thing" here.  I try to give praise where praise is due, and I focus a lot on the mechanics of storytelling because that's the main thing that I pay attention to when watching movies.  I'd love to faintly praise this film and tell you that it was competently done, even if not all that exciting or surprising.  But I can't even do that, because there was a soundtrack mistake that was so amateurish and badly timed that it damns the rest of the film.  To be clear, I'm talking about a street sequence in New Orleans, where Ray is trying to return a duffle bag to two baddies, and the tense background music starts, but it starts with a drum hit that sounds like gunfire.  No one in the film is shooting guns at this point, but the drum hit is so confusing that it took me a few seconds to figure out that I hadn't missed some random street shooting, that no one had been shot, and that the reason no one on-screen was reacting to the apparent gunfire was because it was just the drums in the soundtrack.  In a movie where people are routinely pulling guns (even though it's a comedy), it took me completely out of the movie, and left me shaking my head that no one involved with this film had noticed at how it made it look like no one was paying attention at any point during the production and editing of "The Chaperone."  More things that back up my point: the fact that no one's clothes fit well, Levesque's prison beard, and Kevin Corrigan's hair.

But there are more reasons that I feel like no one was paying any attention whatsoever, at any point.  Chief among them is that I can't figure out who this film was supposed to please.  If you're a fan of WWE and of Triple H, are you excited to see Triple H deal with ex-wife bitter beer face and a teenager talking down to him?  Is that the film you want to see Triple H in?  There's hardly any fight scenes at all, and they're pretty perfunctory when they happen.  So there's no satisfaction there.  If you're just a fan of mindless comedies, this isn't funny enough, nor is Triple H a strong enough personality to carry things on that basis, unlike Adam "Edge" Copeland in "Bending the Rules."  If you're a fan of muscly men on a bus full of fourteen year-olds, you're probably a pedophile, and "The Chaperone" isn't going to satisfy on that account, either.  Even in the context of the film, Ray is billed as being a fantastic driver, and the closest we get to see of that is him driving a bus over a curb, and him letting his daughter steer his car in a flashback sequence.  Put plainly, there isn't enough "WWE stuff" to make wrestling fans happy, and the movie simply isn't good enough to warrant attention from non-wrestling fans.  And if there's another way to find interest in "The Chaperone," rest assured that you'll finish this film with the cinematic equivalent of blue balls.

So I don't know why "The Chaperone" exists.  It's filler, but even by WWE Studios standards, it's not particularly good filler.  I was unbelievably disappointed to find out that this film was directed by Stephen Herek, who's responsible for one of my favorite films of all time, "Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure," among other films.  I don't think it's impossible to deliver something mildly entertaining starring Levesque, and with this general concept, but things needed to get a lot weirder, and a lot quicker.  There seems to be no awareness that seeing a big-time professional wrestler get run down by a jilted wife and kid isn't a set-up anyone who would go see that wrestler in a movie wants (and that people who are fans of Triple H might like a couple of fun, awesome movies with him before we get to the "The Tooth Fairy"/"The Pacifier" stage of his screen career), unless it ends in Triple H pedigree-ing the crap out of everyone in sight.  And, although this might be considered a mild spoiler, Triple H does not Pedigree anyone at all.  So what's the point?  I couldn't find one, and I'm not sure anyone involved here could tell you either.

.5 / 5 - TV (HD)

The Big Year - 2011

"The Big Year" - 2011
Dir. by David Frankel - 1 hr. 40 min.

Official Trailer

by Clayton Hollifield

It's not that anything I saw regarding "The Big Year" looked like it would add up to a decent film, but I secretly held out hope that the stars could add up to something worthwhile, even if that didn't mean a good movie.  But I was wrong.  Not only was I wrong, but this movie gave me a nosebleed that took the last half-hour of the film to stop (true story).  While it's true that I might have looked upon the last third of "The Big Year" a little less favorably because I was watching it with a wad of toilet paper jammed up one of my nostrils, but it's not as if this was an all-time great film up to that point, either.

I don't know if this is based on reality or not (a little Google-fu reveals there is a book of the same name that focuses on this subject in 1998), but in this film, birders can engage in a competition to see who can spot the most species of birds (which runs on the honor system).  Kenny Bostick (Owen Wilson) is the current record holder, but feels like his record is beatable, so he decides to engage in another Big Year in order to protect his legacy.  This comes much to the chagrin of his wife, Jesse (Rosamund Pike), who is going through fertility treatments so that they can have a child.  Also engaging in a Big Year are Brad Harris (Jack Black), who is a divorced thirty-something office-bound slacker, and Stu Preissler (Steve Martin), who is retiring from the company that he founded and has made him wealthy so that he can finally do a Big Year, something he's wanted to do for his entire life.  And then they go look at birds.

Let's assume that the source material is, in fact, engaging enough to make a movie based on it.  What ends up on the screen ends up mirroring the goal of a Big Year, in that it's a hard-to-explain, pointless-to-many pursuit.  Except instead of bird-watching, what the filmmakers seem to have done is taken on the challenge of screwing up the story in the most banal, Hollywood way possible.  The characters' names are changed, which has the effect of turning the three leads into generic versions of the characters they usually play.  And these generic characters have only the most general conflicts.  Owen Wilson's character is the bad guy, but only because he's been the most successful person in this particular pursuit.  His villainy comes not through how he treats Brad or Stu (the worst he does is psych-out Stu into sea sickness, and later gives the pair bad directions, sort of), but because he doesn't place his wife first and foremost in his life at all times.  This character is bizarre, in the sense that clearly we're all expected to resent success and hate a guy because his first goal isn't putting a baby in his wife right when she demands it.  There's even a tearful scene where Jesse gets to throw Kenny's non-family pursuits in his face, because she understands that "no one remembers who comes in second place."  Her, of course.

Secondly, we're supposed to accept a CEO as an underdog in this story.  It's sort of in tandem with Brad (they end up teaming up), who is the truer underdog because he doesn't have the resources to pursue this endeavor, but what we end up with is Stu bankrolling Brad to go against Kenny.  The dynamics of this story are very off, not just because of how Kenny is painted (basically, there's a lot of resentment towards him, but not really because of anything that he does.  It's all tell and no show), but also because of how the story treats the pursuit of excellence.  It would seem that anything that doesn't result in a man (and this is a mostly male pursuit - the only women involved in birding here are Ellie (Rashida Jones), who is largely there to give a cute falling in love story to offset the story's ugliness between Kenny and his wife, and a freshly-wed bride who is honeymooning with her birder-husband, which seems only to be there to provide a fish-out-of-water character who also is supposed to serve as proof that these guys are tough for roughing it, and instead comes off as a tone-deaf "silly girl" who can't handle anything in the out-of-doors) being a constant 9-to-5er is nothing but strain and heartbreak for the women in their lives (Kenny and Brad are both divorcees, and Stu's wife has to give "I'll miss you dearly, but..." speech to show her sacrifice).

This is a shaky foundation to build a story upon.  If you're not going to treat the pursuit itself with some kind of respect (the best explanation that anyone gives as to why they do this is that it's "hard to explain"), and I don't consider having women constantly opposing what the men in their lives have chosen to do (sometimes tearfully), as treating the pursuit with respect, why even do the story in the first place?  Whatever comedic possibilities bird-watching offers is completely wasted here.  There's no real tension in the script between any of the characters, partially because Owen Wilson's character doesn't function as a villain unless you're a baby-crazed woman, so no one has any motivation for what they do, other than the people involved are good at what they do.  But rather than stress that Kenny is dogged in his pursuit (and make that a positive trait instead of focusing on his abandoned wife), and that Brad is some kind of savant in being able to recognize bird-calls, and that Stu is looking to open a new chapter in his life, even the importance these characters place on birding is treated as trivial.  And if nothing at all matters in the world depicted except getting your wife knocked up, why devote so much attention to the birds?

I just don't understand the point of "The Big Year."  It seems alienating to both men (in that their pursuits are regarded as completely trivial, and any success any of the characters might achieve is deeply resented and comes at a huge cost, which seems to be a persuasive argument of mediocrity as a lifestyle) and women (in that the only two paths here is being ignored by your men in favor of birds or to be Rashida Jones, who falls for Jack Black's generic slacktastic character).  It's a complete waste of a lot of comedic talent, and even the birds aren't well-explained enough to be fascinating (other than when Brad finally gets his dad (Brian Dennehy) interested in a small bird, which is the sort of thing that would have gone a long way towards making the subject matter more fascinating - and this is another problem: when your three main characters are experts in their field, and there's no noob involved, there's simply not enough explanation of why what we're looking at is interesting if you're not also an expert in the field of birding, which 99% of us fall into that category).

And then there's the matter of my nosebleed.  I'm not saying that "The Big Year" caused my nosebleed, but I was watching it, and then that happened.  There may not be a causal relationship, but there's no way that those two events are entirely unrelated, either.

1 / 5 - TV

A Good Old Fashioned Orgy - 2011

"A Good Old Fashioned Orgy" - 2011
Dir. by Alex Gregory and Peter Huyck - 1 hr. 35 min.

Official Red Band Trailer

by Clayton Hollifield

This is one of those movies that I had intended to catch at the three-dollar theatre, but it was there and gone in a week.  So I threw it on my Netflix queue, and was disappointed to see that there wasn't even a Blu-Ray version available (I guess they never released this film in that format, which I didn't think happened to actual theatrical releases these days).  But a month or so later, the HD version popped up on streaming, and I was saved from having to watch "A Good Old Fashioned Orgy" in (blech!) standard def.  Thank goodness!

Eric (Jason Sudeikis) and his thirty-ish friends seem to have passed their twenties by throwing epic parties at his dad's summer house (Don Johnson, but he's only around for one scene).  However, his playboy dad (I guess that's the right way to put it, he's got a much younger girl with him) has decided to sell the house, which leaves Eric with no playground.  So, in honor of the end of an era, Eric has to come up with the perfect theme for their last party there, on Labor Day weekend.  Eventually, he and his best friend, Mike (Tyler Labine) settle on the idea of an orgy amongst the inner circle of friends.  Some of the people need some convincing, but eventually everyone is down with the idea.

This isn't built to be a classic, five-star comedy.  It's a good basis for a funny R-rated comedy (and unrated home video release), and if you're down with the cast, you're going to have a good time.  My main problem was that it took me a little while to buy the chemistry between the crew (which also included Leslie Bibb, Lake Bell, Nick Kroll from "The League," Michelle Borth, Angela Sarafyan, and Martin Starr), but once I got used to the idea of this as a batch of long-time friends, the movie went a lot more smoothly.  It would be weird not to mention that while all the women in the film were absolutely smoking hot (seriously, take your pick, they all did their pilates to get ready for this movie), the guys were more comedically-built (and Labine was naked more than any other actor in the film).  I don't exactly have a problem with that; the women held their own in terms of comedy, and it's a completely different film to have the guys all ripped and cracking jokes (a little more, shall we say, bro-tastic.  Fraternity-sympathetic, in other words), and as a male viewer, that totally worked in my favor.  But ladies might be a little disappointed if they're hoping for equal quality eye-candy.

But this is a pretty funny movie, especially if you're in the mood for something like "Hall Pass" or "Horrible Bosses."  There are a few laugh-out loud scenes (particularly David Koechner's scene, playing Labine's uncle), and enough adult-oriented (read: dildos) stuff to back up the title.  The progression of events in the film and the inevitable wrinkle in the plot works and feels true; it may be a comedy, but it's not a complete caricature.  "A Good Old-Fashioned Orgy" is what it promises to be, and it goes by painlessly and quickly.  You should know if this sort of thing is up your alley or not.  I enjoyed a raunchy comedy from time to time, and I'm glad I finally got to see it (and not in yucky standard definition, either).

2.5 / 5 - Streaming

God Bless Ozzy Osbourne - 2011

"God Bless Ozzy Osbourne" - 2011
Dir. by Mike Fleiss and Mike Piscitelli - 1 hr. 34 min.

Official Trailer

by Clayton Hollifield

There is a fine line between making a documentary about a musician and creating an episode of "Behind the Music."  Since BtM has really nailed down a particular documentary format about the rise and fall of musicians, it can be very difficult to break free from not just that format, but the same sort of approach (particularly when you're dealing with people who have not lead squeaky-clean lives).  So the bar really becomes whether or not something was achieved in this film that couldn't be done on BtM.

The very beginning of this film states that the film-makers were able to spend two years (not in full, I'd assume) with Ozzy Osbourne.  You might only know him from the hit MTV series, "The Osbournes," which would be really weird, but he's also known as the singer of Black Sabbath, one of the hugest and most influential metal bands ever.  He went on to have a successful solo career, as well, and still tours to huge crowds wherever he goes.  Also, if you hadn't heard, he had a bit of a wild side (and if you hadn't heard of that element before, you should probably clear an evening and do some research about Ozzy's past).  But he's sober now, and chugging along nicely.

So that's the outline of this film, which is just as it would be on that TV show that you're probably already sick of me mentioning.  What are the positive differences in this film?  For one, no studio interviews.  Also, despite nearly always playing clips of songs instead of full performances, there is a lot of archival footage shown.  Sometimes, these kinds of films will tap-dance around having to license old footage, which is why you often see slow zooms on still photographs playing over music.  Not here.  There's footage (and photos) of Ozzy from every point on the spectrum of his career.  There are interviews with members of both of his families, and no one's particularly shy about letting everyone know exactly what effect Ozzy's substance abuse had on his ability to be a good parent.

But more to the point, "God Bless..." covers pretty much everything you'd want to know about Ozzy; how Black Sabbath came together, how he ended up with Sharon, details about his substance abuse, interviews with fellow musicians (Tommy Lee and Paul McCartney are among the peers interviewed), Sabbath band members, and possibly estranged family members, dirt of the filthiest variety, what was really going on during "The Osbournes," his friendship with and mourning of Randy Rhoads, it's all there.  This is a really watchable film, pretty much all the way through.

What's missing, though?  It's difficult to put my finger on it, but at almost no point does "God Bless..." show that it needed to exist.  The film-makers may have spent two years with Ozzy, but it doesn't really show up in the final product.  There may be the opportunity to see pictures of Ozzy holding zip-lock bags of cocaine, what this film does not have is any special insight into Ozzy.  He did drugs because he felt inadequate?  Dr. Drew would have probably guessed as much in five seconds.  People love Ozzy?  No kidding; why else would you make a movie about him?  Speaking strictly for myself, I would have killed for any kind of examination or explanation of his creative process, particularly during the Sabbath years.  I knew Ozzy did drugs and drank, but where the hell did "Iron Man" come from?

Focusing on the freak-show aspect diminishes his actual accomplishments, of which there are many.  The closest that "God Bless..." comes to this sort of thing is a late segment where Ozzy watches some of his old videos from the 1980s.  He's dismissive of them, but that's about as deep as any of this gets.  I'm not even going to pretend that I didn't enjoy watching "God Bless Ozzy Osbourne;" I'm a fan of his music, and on that level, this film gives fans something to enjoy.  But there's not enough going on to make this a must-see documentary if you're not already on-board.

2.5 / 5 - TV

Midnight in Paris - 2011

"Midnight in Paris" - 2011
Dir. by Woody Allen - 1 hr. 34 min.

Official Trailer

by Clayton Hollifield

When I saw the trailer for this film, it didn't really register.  I wasn't really aware that Woody Allen had directed it (and that wouldn't have necessarily been a selling point for me), and I don't really remember the central idea of the film coming across, either.  Could be that I wasn't paying attention, but there wasn't anything that made me jazzed to see this film until I had a bunch of friends tell me separately that it was really good.  Thank goodness they were right!

Gil (Owen Wilson) and Inez (Rachel McAdams) are an engaged couple, vacationing in Paris.  For Gil, a screenwriter who is working on his first book, there's no place else on Earth he'd rather be.  He's smitten with Paris, but he's the only one.  Inez and her family pretty much hate it there, and constantly get annoyed whenever Gil likes anything at all.  A couple of Inez's friends are there as well, Paul (Michael Sheen) and Carol (Nina Arianda), but they're too interested in themselves to provide anything more than eye-rolling companionship.  One night after a wine-tasting party, Gil over-indulges and gets lost.  Eventually, a car stops, and invites him along for a drink.  The car takes him to a party, where things are slightly odd.

The central idea of the film - a guy getting to explore what he considers his "golden age" - is a good one, but the execution and exploration of the idea is fantastic.  For one thing, it shows Gil's enthusiasm isn't dependent on a given situation.  He's genuinely excited about things in general, and wants to explore.  In the present time, it seems literally all of the characters are acting at cross-purposes to Gil's best interests, if they're taking them into consideration at all.  It's easy to see why a guy like Gil would romanticize another era, if only to escape the relentless negativity surrounding him.  And when he falls in with his artistic heroes, it's easy to see the appeal of that: being around people who are really into what they're doing is an energizing experience.

Beyond that, all of the performances are fantastic.  Not knowing how this cast of historical figures really were doesn't matter: they all function as fictional characters.  Hemingway (Corey Stoll) is almost laughably intense, Gertrude Stein (Kathy Bates) is focused on making art the best that it can be, Salvador Dali (Adrien Brody) is a lovable dingbat, Scott (Tom Hiddleston) and Zelda (Alison Pill) are a train-wreck of drama, and on down the line.  It's a bizarre cast of characters, but it all adds up to the literary Disney theme-park ride that you could only dream of.  The characters interact in a delightful manner, and if you know anything about their respective careers, you'll realize how clever this film actually is.

Not just for Gil, but for the viewer, this is like an entire vacation in an hour and a half.  Paris is beautiful, day or night, sun or rain. The conversation is captivating and witty, the company is great, there's a nearly-endless parade of beautiful people and ideas on display.  When Gil comes to his big realization, he (and I) is ready to face the future, make the most of his time, and do something great.  That's a beautiful feeling, and "Midnight in Paris" is a beautiful movie.

4.5 / 5 - Blu-Ray

Conan the Barbarian - 2011

"Conan the Barbarian" - 2011
Dir. by Marcus Nispel - 1 hr. 53 min.

Official Trailer

by Clayton Hollifield

In an ideal world, I suppose I'd have to judge a movie like "Conan the Barbarian" on it's own merits, regardless of any other version of the character that might exist in cinema or in print.  But I reject that notion; literally the only reason that you'd go see this Conan movie is if you were already a fan of some previous version of the character.  For me, that would be mostly because of the first Arnold Schwarzenegger film, and then because of some pretty well-done comic books by artists like John Buscema or Barry Windsor-Smith.  If you didn't already have some awareness of this character, I find it impossible to believe there's anything present at all that would pique anyone's curiosity.

Screw a plot recap; the plot's stupid.  That's not necessarily a barrier to a decent Conan film, but as I started to type up the plot, I had a sudden urge to kill myself.  I lived through this film once, and that's enough.  If you want to know what happened, you'll have to go through the same pain I did for one hour and fifty three minutes.

My basic problems with "Conan the Barbarian" are two; the first problem is director Marcus Nispel's inability to grasp basic visual story-telling, and the second is a matter of aesthetic taste.  To give credit where credit is due, there are a few good visual ideas within this film.  Unfortunately, Nispel doesn't have the slightest clue how to present them.  I'll focus on one scene, where Conan (Jason Mamoa) has captured an enemy soldier, Remo (Milton Welsh), who is after Conan's main squeeze, Tamara (Rachel Nichols) on behalf of the big baddie, Zym (Stephen Lang).  After finding out why Zym is after Tamara, Conan straps Remo into a chair of some sort, and literally catapults Remo at Zym's land-boat (don't ask).  The idea is good, and it's a visual that I haven't seen before.  But Nispel botches the scene on a couple of fronts.  First, he routinely gets the least mileage out of his ideas through his inability to build tension in any meaningful way.  Things just happen with no warning, which is the equivalent of some jerk coming up behind you, jostling you in the ribs, and yelling, "Boo!"  In this instance, it's not clear at any point until Remo is already in the air that Conan's strapped him into a catapult.  Rather than allowing the audience to anticipate the cool-looking thing that is about to happen for even a second, the event happens before it's even clear what's going on.

Nispel's inability to tease out tension plays out over and over and over through the film.  There are a number of exotic (fictional) locations presented, and they're all introduced the exact same way: cityscape shot with the name of the place as a subtitle.  Not once, and I mean not even once, does Nispel work any of these locations up into a functional reveal.  It's frustrating watching a film that, if handled with a little more respect for the ideas contained within, could have been pretty good.  I should have mentioned a third problem that I had with the direction of this film, but it'll have to settle in as problem one-b.  It seems that someone should have a better idea of what to do with the 3D technology by now, seeing as how it can give an enhanced illusion of depth.  Now, I'm not expecting "Conan the Barbarian" to lead the way, but the lazy shot that has come to define shitty 3D direction was on full, nearly infinitely repeated display here: stuff either pointed at or flying at the camera.  That's fine (if played out) if you're watching a film in 3D, but most people aren't going to see any given movie in that format.  It just looks dumb (and patronizing) whenever that shot pops up while watching in normal formats.  If you've got the ability to separate planes of depth, and all you do with it is point swords at the camera, it's an abuse of the technology.

My other big gripe is an aesthetic one.  And it also has a lot to do with the Schwarzenegger films that I enjoyed.  This entire movie looks like a computer crapped it out.  Everything from the monsters to the locations look digitally-clean and designed.  As a result, there's no definite sense of place present in the film.  I could gripe about how I like the grain of film better than high-definition pixels, it's a matter of preference.  But there's no excuse for doing a movie set however many hundreds of years ago and not having it look even vaguely plausible.  I know that there's a standard look for these kinds of movies right now, mostly gleaned from Zack Snyder's version of "300," but this movie looks like a really bad version of that, occasionally crossed with some "The Scorpion King" for flavor.

I don't know what else to tell you.  If you've seen any other incarnation of the "Conan" character, it's guaranteed superior to "Conan the Barbarian."

1 / 5 - Blu-Ray

Bucky Larson: Born to Be a Star - 2011

"Bucky Larson: Born to Be a Star" - 2011
Dir. by Tom Brady - 1 hr. 37 min.

Official Red Band Trailer

by Clayton Hollifield

You and I both know going in that "Bucky Larson: Born to Be a Star" is not going to be a "good" movie.  From the trailer, premise, and talent involved, there's nothing that suggests a surprisingly good comedy is even possible.  And I'm not going to suggest otherwise.  But once you've appropriately set the bar for your expectations (and un-clenched your anus, and accept that low-brow humor will forever be funny), this movie does clear that bar by an inch or two.

Bucky Larson (Nick Swardson) is a golly-gee Iowan, whose parents just happen to be porn stars from the 1970's.  Since Bucky has been fired from his grocery-bagging job, the discovery of this previously unknown fact about his parents gives him some direction: he's headed to Hollywood to act in "nude movies."  Once there, he befriends Kathy (Christina Ricci), a waitress who's slumming in a greasy spoon.  After a few failed attempts to make inroad in the nude movie industry, down-on-his-luck direction Miles Deep (Don Johnson) decides to give him a chance.  The resulting clip goes viral, launching Bucky into success.

So...  I laughed quite a few times.  The real problem that I have with this movie isn't the faux-naughty premise ("Orgazmo" did a different take on the same sort of situation), and it isn't with any of the people involved (I do like Swardson's stand-up).  My real problem with this movie is that the first act is weak, and that's tough for a comedy to recover from.  And the bizarre appearance of the main character comes off poorly in the first act, because there doesn't appear to be much effort or skill put into making things funny beyond a weird haircut and buck teeth.  And if that's supposed to sustain the entire film, it doesn't instill much confidence that the next hour or so is going to be any better.

Once Bucky is out of the Midwest and in Los Angeles, his no-nonsense earnestness plays off of the more jaded "industry" types, and the humor works a lot better.  I'm not going to lie, I laughed quite a bit once Bucky got to L.A.  Christina Ricci is likable, Don Johnson fills his role well, and Kevin Nealon has a one-note character, but that note is consistently funny.  I'm not sure what could have improved this movie (and if you say "not making it in the first place," you now have to go stand in the corner); the premise is funny, and the performances are decent.  If you accept that Adam Sandler and company are going to make this movie (regardless if you like it or not), then I think you have to accept that they made as much of the material as is possible.  There are a few good scenes present, the awards ceremony sequence and the scene of Bucky and Kathy visiting an oddities museum among them.

Swardson (and writers Swardson, Allen Covert, and Adam Sandler) take an interesting approach to Bucky - no apologies.  The character may be naive, but once he finds his direction he's committed and ready to do whatever it takes.  If there had been a hint of shame in either the writing or the performance, this film would have been unwatchable.  Even if the jokes sometimes fall flat, it's just a joke that didn't work.  There's nothing undercutting it.  But for the first twenty minutes or so, there was a much higher percentage of jokes that didn't work.  For instance, I couldn't tell if Bucky's friends were setting him up when they got together to play a stag film with Bucky's parents in it.  That completely undermined any humor for me - the other characters seemed surprised, but there was an undercurrent of maliciousness in the other characters that tipped the joke and suggested otherwise.

Again, this isn't the best movie I've ever seen.  I think Nick Swardson is generally pretty funny, and I've surely seen my share of Happy Madison movies over the years.  But people act like Adam Sandler murdered their parents or something every time he or his production company releases a film, as if his mere existence is too much to bear.  I wish I could muster up that much rage over a somewhat funny movie just because it didn't suit my tastes exactly.  Honestly, it's not like anyone had to go see "Bucky Larson: Born to Be a Star;" if this sort of film isn't your cup of tea, it's self-inflicted damage.  But if it is, it's definitely better than "Benchwarmers."

2 / 5 - Blu-Ray

A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas - 2011

"A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas" - 2011
Dir. by Todd Strauss-Schulson - 1 hr. 30 min.

Official Trailer

by Clayton Hollifield

What a disappointment.  There's no other way to sum up "A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas."  I'm speaking as someone who enjoyed the previous two films, and was looking forward to seeing this one.  And instead of getting another hazy installment in the "Harold & Kumar" franchise, I got characters that bore little resemblance to their previous incarnations and a general tone of joylessness.

Harold's (John Cho) married, and his in-laws are visiting.  They're headed up by Mr. Perez (Danny Trejo), who has an implausible obsession for Christmas trees.  Of course, something happens to the tree that Mr. Perez brings, and Harold has to replace it by the time the Perez clan returns from whatever the heck it is that they're doing.  Separately, Kumar's (Kal Penn) girlfriend has broken up with him because his life's fallen apart.  And it's Christmas-time.  The plot isn't worth much more discussion than that.

Here's one problem: the filmmakers seemed to put together a checklist of things that had been in the previous two films, and then jammed them all together, and set it on Christmas eve.  An irrational quest for a macguffin?  Check.  Graphic male nudity?  Check.  Those two guys that were in the first "American Pie" with John Cho?  Check.  White Castle cameo?  Check.  NPH sequence?  Check.  There's even a gratuitous claymation sequence when the two main characters are drugged, but nothing comes of it.  Nothing comes of any of it.  The characters' motivations are suspect, which undermines any sense of urgency the plot is trying to convey.

Let me put it this way: in the first film, Harold and Kumar had a hankering for some White Castle burgers, and would not be deterred.  I think everyone can relate to that.  In the second one, they had to escape Guantanamo Bay because of a mix-up that left everyone thinking they were terrorists.  If not relatable, it's at least understandable.  Here, Harold is trying to please his father-in-law's hard-on for Christmas trees.  Even though there's a "I genuinely want to make him and my wife happy" speech, it's kind of spineless.  A lot of the potential audience for this film is not going hope that Harold and Kumar can come through, they're going to want Harold to throw his middle finger in Mr. Perez's face and tell him to eat a bag of dicks.

But beyond that problem, both of the characters are off, tone-wise.  Harold has always been kind of neurotic and freaked out, but in this installment they throw in being beaten-down by a less-than-ideal family life.  And his replacement best buddy, Todd (Thomas Lennon), clearly irritates Harold.  Kumar is even worse.  Whatever charm and energy Kal Penn brought to the character is completely gone.  He's been bounced out of the medical profession by failing a drug test (which removes the possibility of a bright future), and he's introduced in this film mired in depression from his girlfriend breaking up with him.  He's not funny, he's not impulsive, and throughout the film, Kumar barely registers the environments that he's in.  It's fine to have the film start off with the main characters being estranged, but it takes entirely too long to for them to re-unite, and when they do, it's in an unsatisfying manner.  Even the NPH sequence isn't as good as the previous ones (although still pretty good), and even worse, it's not even a satisfying stoner movie, either.  Harold largely abstains, and Kumar seems to be smoking out of a compulsion rather than for any enjoyment it might bring him.  This feels like a betrayal, like the "Family Guy" episode where Brian manages to legalize marijuana, only to begin campaigning against it when someone essentially pays him to.  

I actually had to stop the movie when watching it about an hour in, I was so bored by the whole thing.  It didn't really feel like anyone was having a good time making this movie, and that showed up on-screen.  And I should mention that while it claimed to be a ninety-minute film, there's about ten minutes of credits at the end.  I can't remember being this let-down by any sequel of any film I've ever seen, and that's saying something.  Maybe part of the problem was seeing a Christmas movie in June (related point - why would anyone release a Christmas movie to home video in the summer?  That's psychotically bad scheduling), but I don't think seasonal appropriateness nor the appropriate lack of sobriety could help "A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas" out.  It's just a flat-out failure.

.5 / 5 - Blu-Ray

Jeff, Who Lives at Home - 2011

"Jeff, Who Lives at Home" - 2011
Dir. by Jay Duplass and Mark Duplass - 1 hr. 23 min.

Official Trailer

by Clayton Hollifield

I suspect that how much a viewer enjoys "Jeff, Who Lives at Home" depends highly on his or her tolerance for meandering in general.  There are a lot of movies like that, particularly in the indie realm, where a certain ambiguity is what defines a character's existence.  To put it another way, "Armageddon" would be a much different film if Bruce Willis didn't have a clear vision for his own life, and instead of acting decisively, liked to smoke weed in his mom's basement and try to work things out.  Not better or worse, but definitely different.

In "Jeff," the titular character is played by Jason Segel, who is a 30-year living in his mom's basement (literally), and we're introduced to him waxing eloquent on the merits of "Signs" on the john, and then smoking weed by himself, in the A.M.  It's his mother's birthday (Sharon, played by Susan Sarandon), and all she wants from him is for Jeff to go to the home improvement store, get some supplies, and fix a wood shutter in her kitchen.  She even drafts her other son, Pat (Ed Helms), saying that Jeff is "stuck," and could probably use some help from his brother to get unstuck.  Pat's mired in an unhappy marriage himself, and is kind of an asshole.  The general situation is a little more complicated than that, especially Sharon's, and thankfully so.  She's involved in a "secret admirer" flirtation at her office that has her at turns twitterpated and humiliated, and it's a meaty sub-role for Sarandon to bite into.

Jeff's real issue is that he does believe in destiny, and while he's open to following whims (a wrong-number phone call for "Kevin" sends Jeff off on what seem like tangents, at least at first), he just can't figure out what he's supposed to be doing.  So while it might seem like a simple task to take the bus to a Home Depot to get some wood glue, coming across another bus-rider named Kevin turns it into an adventure.  His brother is the opposite; always convinced that he's in the right, locked in an unhappy relationship, and having to deal with his idiot pot-head brother, all the while knowing that there's no help coming for him.  Part of that is his overbearing personality, part of it is just his situation.  As with any odd-couple story-line, at some point they're going to have to come to appreciate what each other has to offer, but it's a rocky road.

There are likely two vastly divergent opinions of what I have just described.  If you're a Pat, this probably sounds awful.  The idea of having to put up with a film (even as short as this one is) that just won't get to the fucking point, already is untenable.  And I'm not going to tell you that you're wrong on that point.  While things do happen, it's all in the service of navel-gazing, and you might find that uncomfortable (at best), but more likely boring.  Go ahead and pop in that copy of "Armageddon," to each his own.  But if you're more like Jeff (in temperament, the recreational drug use is completely optional), there are points that might definitely hit home.  For whatever reason, Jeff is out of friends and down to his family, whom don't really understand where's he's coming from.  He had hoped that something meaningful would have occurred to him by this point to point him in the right direction for his life, and despite the fact that he's actively trying to figure things out, it just hasn't happened.  That's a sentiment that I think a lot of people can empathize with.

Comparing movies to other movies is always unfair, but at the same time, necessary.  Nobody would listen to me go on this long about any movie in a conversation, but if I told you that this was kind of like "The Darjeeling Limited" without the scenery mixed with a bit of Richard Linklater's work, I think you'd be able to see the ballpark that "Jeff, Who Lives at Home" is playing in.  This isn't my favorite movie of it's ilk, but I'm partial to this sort of situation, and it's a quality addition to the Sibling Misunderstanding/Mired Adult section of your local video store.  But if you don't already look in that section, there are probably half a dozen reasons that immediately come to mind as to why you should probably just keep walking until you hit that Exploding Asteroid section.

3.5 / 5 - Theatre

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows - 2011

"Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows" - 2011
Dir. by Guy Ritchie - 2 hrs. 9 min.

Official Trailer

by Clayton Hollifield

There's something to be said for a well-done, fun franchise movie.  You can do so much worse at the multiplex to go see a couple of big stars do a big budget period movie.  As long as each installment delivers enough to have you smiling on your way out of the theatre, it doesn't need to be revolutionary or ground-breaking.  Every couple of years, you get to visit a character that you like again.  That's a fair bargain.

I don't really need to get into who Sherlock Holmes is, unless you're some kind of genius, Sherlock.  The characters are essentially the same as last time around, except Dr. Watson (Jude Law) is on the verge of getting married.  Holmes (Robert Downey, Jr.) doesn't look very positively on that development, but he's willing to stand by his friend.  Before that, Holmes interjects into a criminal plot being executed by Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams), at the behest of Moriarty (Jared Harris).  Irene is quickly written out of the film, and Moriarty refuses Holmes' request to leave Watson out of whatever mischief might pass between the two.  There is a stag party for Watson, shoddily organised by Holmes, where we are introduced to Mycroft (Stephen Fry), Sherlock's older brother.  Later, Holmes is forced to interject during Watson's honeymoon, as Moriarty proves that he's not interested in leaving Watson out of the equation.  From there, the larger mystery is a battle of wits between Holmes and Moriarty, sometimes literally, sometimes via physical confrontation, sometimes metaphorically.

I'm of two minds about Guy Ritchie's stamp on the Sherlock Holmes movies.  It's easy to see his visual flair and the trademark of his smaller budget films' story-lines: twisting heist plots with a large cast of real men who show a penchant for oneupmanship.  Even if it's coached in turn of the 20th century British language and mannerisms, Ritchie's Holmes is swaggering alpha male driven to success almost maniacally, and fueled by exotic substances to keep his motor running.  It's different than "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" or "RocknRolla" only on the surface.  But as much fun as those movies are, he seems very comfortable making this sort of big-time franchise film.  I wouldn't doom a director to make low-budget swear-a-thons for his entire career, so I suppose as much fun as those early films are, they'll always be available to go back and watch while Ritchie continues on this path.  Besides, it's not as if the Sherlock films are bad or anything.

I have some sympathy for people who worship the source material; a lifetime of reading comic books has put me in that category for more than my share of films.  I've never read a Sherlock Holmes novel, which is probably the best way to go into any given movie.  I couldn't tell you whether this was based on anything in particular, and I don't care to find out.  When someone is setting out to make any movie, the goal should be to make the best film possible.  So while I have no idea if there was a book partially set in a munitions factory, what shows up on screen is an excellent action sequence that goes from a violent direct, face-to-face confrontation between Holmes and Moriarty to a batch of rebels fleeing what seems like an army with that same munitions factory at disposal.  The actual fleeing is captured by very good editing and camera-work, and special effects that really do heighten the tension of the scene.  For a couple of minutes, we're taken from a crime version of a chess game into a war film, and it works.

And in a general sense, the film works.  It's better than the initial "Sherlock" film; it's still fun watching Downey, Jr. simultaneously border insanity and outsmart everyone, there's plenty of cleverness to the proceedings, and what's not clever can be pretty funny.  There's even a gag near the end that almost demands a repeat viewing (I, for one, am going to have to re-watch that scene at the minimum to see if there are shortcuts or if it's a matter of misdirection leading the viewer to not catch on earlier).  I'd have a hard time imagining that this will be anyone's favorite movie, but it's not supposed to be.  It's fun, it's a good sequel, and I'd show up for a third installment, should it come.

3 / 5 - Theatre

The Darkest Hour - 2011

"The Darkest Hour" - 2011
Dir. by Chris Gorak - 1 hr. 29 min.

Official Trailer

by Clayton Hollifield

Sometimes, I'm up for some brainless destruction and a kill-the-aliens movie.  There's a sort of perverse pleasure in watching Los Angeles (or wherever) get destroyed over and over again.  To reach the bar, all the movie really needs is to be loud, destroy stuff, and have cool-looking special effects.  No one sees these things for plot or character development, myself included.  So if you were going to include some sort of character development in a kill-the-aliens movie, it's pretty important that it doesn't detract from the more necessary elements.

So, what is relevant here?  A pair of American twenty-somethings are in Moscow for a business meeting.  Almost immediately, Sean (Emile Hirsch) is established as a self-absorbed dick, although I think that I was supposed to view him a little more charitably.  Although he's supposed to be kind of slacktastic, Hirsch immediately finds the wrong note for the character.  We're introduced to Sean and his business partner, Ben (Max Minghella) on an airplane flight, where Sean decides that's he's too cool to comply with the "turn off all your gadgets" decree.  I'm certain the goal to was to show him being a charmer, but instead of coming off as as a smooth talker he instead comes off as an entitled little shit, who is constantly being enabled by Ben.  And that kind of makes me hate Ben, as well.

So when the pair arrive at a business meeting to discover that a legal oversight has let their business partner, Skyler (Joel Kinnaman) rip off their surefire hit website idea wholesale, I was thinking that they probably deserved it in some karmic sense, even though Skyler was also a dick about it.  If you're keeping score, that's three-for-three on the dick-o-meter regarding the lead male characters.  And this presents a problem.  When the aliens show up (you can watch the trailer, I assume that if you're watching this film you're not doing so for a bromance between two tech start-up founders), I don't really care that much what happens to any of the main characters.  The aliens look cool, vacillating between an electric orange wisp and that sort of visual shimmer like in "Predator," and when they start turning people into grey packing peanuts, I'm not invested in the survival of Sean, Ben, Skyler, or the two random club chicks they hunker down with.  Sean's character arc sort of hints at a redemption from underachiever-dom story-line, but since the filmmakers botched their opportunity to get the audience to invest in the main characters (Sean in particular), I don't care who gets picked off and who gets the chance to lead humanity boldly into the future.

That begs the question, what is there of merit in "The Darkest Hour?"  The two biggest things is that the aliens are visually pretty cool.  Over the course of the movie, you get better glimpses of exactly what the characters are dealing with in an incremental manner.  I also liked the alien-vision visuals - it's a black and white sort of digital sketch where the people appear in orange.  That'll make more sense if you see it.  Also of interest: scenes of post-apocalyptic Moscow.  Whether or not they shot the movie there, I have no idea, but things like this are rarely set in Russia in American sci-fi films.

Perhaps my biggest quibble with this film (aside from the off-putting characterization) is the idea of bloodless deaths.  It's one of the biggest problems I had with "Sucker Punch," as well.  I fully understand that if you can come up with an excuse to divorce violence from it's trappings, you can do just as "The Darkest Hour" does and pull a PG-13 rating, thus allowing kids to see your movie without parental permission.  On the other hand, it's the single thing that pushes violent films (which I don't have a problem with) into a sort of violence pornography (which I do have a problem).  If you wouldn't allow a teenager to see a graphic death because of the bloodiness of it, you shouldn't be attempting to sell that scene to a teenager sans blood.  Actions have consequences, and being dishonest about the weight of those consequences is something that should carry a harsher rating.  I mean, that is if you intend the rating system to do any good and not just be a skirt to hide behind.

"The Darkest Hour" is not a good movie for about a dozen reasons.  You might have the same irrational affinity for these kinds of movies that I do for bonehead comedies, and I know we've all got our weaknesses.  So if this is the sort of thing that you're into, don't mind me.  I'm not going to make you sit alongside me while I re-watch "Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure" for the thirtieth time.  I get it.  But if that's not you, I'm microwaving some popcorn right now.  We can probably find something better (or vastly worse) to watch.

1.5 / 5 - Theatre

The Adventures of Tintin - 2011

"The Adventures of Tintin" - 2011
Dir. by Steven Spielberg - 1 hr. 47 min.

Official Trailer

by Clayton Hollifield

I feel like I need to preface everything that I'm about to say here about this movie: I'm not a fan of this style of animation.  As in, not at all.  As in, I usually refuse to see movies with the mo-cap/CGI combination.  To my mind, it misses the point and charm of animation, which is to simplify and distort for effect.  The idea of creating a photo-realistic world via computer animation is pointless; there's already a perfectly fine HD world that we're already all walking around in.  I spent many years as a cartoonist, so my opinion here isn't based on nothing.  And it's also not an opinion I'm likely to change.

Having said that, "The Adventures of Tintin" was actually pretty fun.  I spent most of the first ten minutes trying to remind myself to have an open mind towards the technique, and to just try to get lost in the story.  Thankfully, "Tintin" is a fast-paced, light-hearted, adventure movie above all else, so once I was in, I was in. Tintin, who I couldn't tell if he's supposed to be a small adult human or a big teenaged orphan (he has his own apartment, but his appearance suggests that he's not necessarily an adult), gets dragged into a long-running family feud by virtue of buying a much-desired trinket at an outdoor market.  Like any good adventure story, there are different settings (the high seas, a desert, exotic cities), lots of action, a plucky side-kick (Tintin's dog, Snowy) and a buried treasure.  Probably best of all, Tintin actually has a distinct personality, and isn't just a blank slate for the viewer to use as their doorway into the film.

The thing that makes "Tintin" the most fun is the light touch that director Steven Spielberg shows.  There's two great scenes that last less than a minute apiece that really show off that skill.  The first comes in the midst of Snowy trying to keep up with a truck that contains a kidnapped Tintin in it: Snowy takes a shortcut through a herd of cattle, eventually falling down to the ground.  Snowy raises his head right into a low-hanging udder, which causes the cow to raise it's head in surprise.  Then, rather than showing Snowy smacking into udders or zig-zagging through the hooves, the camera stays above the herd, where one after another, cows raise their head in surprise, indicating Snowy's path.  The entire chase is a lot of fun, but this particular detail was very clever.  The other scene comes in the middle of the movie, where Tintin is swimming in the ocean below the surface, his trademark poof of hair raised above water level.  It's a funny throwback to "Jaws," one that all the parents caught and chuckled at.  Those are probably the two best examples of the visual approach that Spielberg takes, but it's consistent all the way through the film.

I could nitpick the techniques used to make the film to death out of spite, but the truth is that the movie was good enough to make me forget about that aspect.  In a less sprightly film, the technique would have been a major turn-off for me as a viewer, but Spielberg managed to make it a non-issue.  That's probably as much as I could have hoped for.  I wasn't terribly impressed with the character designs (mostly, it seems that the extent of artistic license used was putting an exaggerated nose on otherwise sort-of realistic face structures), but that was addressed (sort-of) immediately in the film when we're introduced to Tintin as he's sitting for a portrait in an outdoor market.  The portrait is in the style of Herge, the cartoonist who created the character in the first place.  So what it comes down it that I enjoyed "The Adventures of Tintin" despite myself, and that I'd probably look favorably on a sequel, should it arrive (one was clearly indicated at the end of the film).

3 / 5 - Theatre

The Sitter - 2011

"The Sitter" - 2011
Dir. by David Gordon Green - 1 hr. 21 min.

Official Trailer

by Clayton Hollifield

Well, I've definitely seen worse movies.  If that sounds like faint praise for "The Sitter," then I have nailed the tone that I had set out to nail.  There are indeed a million movies less funny than "The Sitter," but there are also many, many films that are better as well.

If I had to explain it, I'd say that "The Sitter" is like the neutered cousin of "Cyrus."  It's the same set-up, sort of.  Jonah Hill plays Noah Griffith, a guy who has failed his way out of school and back onto his single mother's couch.  His mother (Jessica Hecht) even has a slight resemblance to Marissa Tomei, who played his mom in "Cyrus."  But instead of getting territorial about his mom, Noah gets pressured into babysitting a trio of kids so that his mom can try to hit it off with a doctor.  Everyone seems to know that this is a bad idea from the beginning, but they all let this happen anyways.  Despite the fact that the kids are comprised of a celebutante-wannabe (Landry Bender), a pyromaniac foster child (Kevin Hernandez) and a pilled-up bundle of nerves (Max Records), things probably would go smoothly if everyone just stays home and minds their own business.  Of course, that doesn't happen.  Noah's "girlfriend" (I put that in quotes, and it's apparent why from the opening scene of the movie) lures him out to buy her cocaine with the promise of finally having sex with him.  So Noah hits the town, kids in tow.

The main thing that handicaps this film is that while you're supposed to dread the idea of Noah babysitting your children, he's fairly likable.  Over the course of the one night, he basically fixes each of the children's behavioral problems.  This presents a problem: the usual story in this situation is that the kids eventually break through the toughie's facade.  But at no point did I feel like they went far enough to make Noah truly awful enough to make his eventual redemption worthwhile.  And he's not portrayed as being any kind of threat to the children, they all almost immediately get the better of him.  Even when Noah is doing genuinely bad things (like robbing a bat mizvah, for instance), the negative aspect of it is tampered by him re-connecting with a girl that he went to school with.  When he does bad things, it ends up well for him, which might make viewers jealous or envious, but it doesn't do much to establish that he's supposed to be the problem that needs solving over the course of the movie.

I just feel like this movie was afraid to take things to a place with genuine menace, which is bizarre, considering it pulled an R-rating anyways.  "The Sitter" earned that rating, but if you're already in that territory, why not really go for the jugular?  The one thing that was both awesome and oddly disturbing was Noah's initial meeting with Karl (Sam Rockwell), the coke dealer.  Between the roller-skating door-man and the bizarre collection of body-builders seemingly filling every corner of the building, it's a truly disturbing scene (and not for any specific reason - the whole thing is just bizarre, and really good comedy as well).  That's the one scene in the film that suggests that "The Sitter" could have been a much funnier movie.

I have a hard time getting mad about a film like this.  It's a missed opportunity, to be sure, but there are a few laughs here, and it really wasn't aiming to a very high bar to begin with.  It would have been better for everyone involved if it had been better, but what "The Sitter" is is a mildly-funny comedy.  If you like watching Jonah Hill, you'll get through it quickly and largely painlessly, and also with the awareness that he's done better work.  If you don't like Hill, what are you doing reading a review of one of his movies?  It's not like there's much else to draw people in, here.

2 / 5 - Theatre