Wall-E (Theatre) - Both

Pixar’s track record is something to be envied in Hollywood. They consistently create some of the most well rounded films in recent cinema. These films are humorous, touching, and beautiful, and Wall-e is no exception. The lovable robot tugs at the heart strings from the very moment you meet him. The film shines in its simplicity but this sheen is somewhat tarnished by a preachy message and sharp digs at an increasingly lazy public.

Wall-e’s brightest moments are uncomplicated bits played as classic Hollywood shtick. The first thirty minutes of the film contain no dialogue and a sparse soundtrack. The humor spills from a small robot that is left to clean up humanities mess. He happily goes about his job sifting through waste and collecting small items of interest: A lighter, a spork, a velvet ring box (Wall-e tosses the useless diamond inside the box away). This could have been the entire film. I would have watched it.

Eve, a newer slicker robot, comes to earth in search of plant life. She rudely rebuffs Wall-e’s curiosity and goes about her work. Slowly the two build a relationship and Wall-e is smitten. He shows her the fascinating things he has found while working and they marvel at these things together. This could have been the entire film. I would have watched it.

But, Eve then finds Wall-e has stashed a plant. Eve gets picked up by the ship that brought her to earth and as Wall-e attempts to rescue her he is taken to a spaceship floating in a far off nebula. This ship is an ark, so to speak, for humanity, and this is when the film stumbles.

Humans have become fat lazy slobs who haven’t walked in generations. Computers tell them where to go, what to eat, and when to sleep. Eve had been sent to earth to check if it was safe to come back. This raises questions, but I will hold off for a second. She delivers the plant, eventually, and the humans return to earth.

There were several problems I had with this film that stem from science. The first would be if humans had been inactive for generations it would be improbable that they would be able to use there bodies in any capacity, let alone walk off a space ship. Also, trash wouldn’t simply destroy all of life on a planet, and if it did, the damage would be irrevocable. And, I’m o.k. with pretending robots have emotions. It allows you to enjoy the film, but I find it very difficult to have a computer’s motherboard replaced, as Wall-e does at the end of the film, and have that robot retain its “memories”. Bah! Scrimshaw!

Additionally I hated that Pixar had Fred Willard live and in person in the film. Hated it! Pixar is animation. Period. Having a live actor in a Pixar film would be like if in Iron Man (2008) Pepper Potts was played by an animated character.

Despite these flaws I loved this film. I thought the humor in the film was simple and clean. The characters were as well rounded as two robots could be. And the first hour of the film was flawless.

7 out of 10 – Despite some tragic flaws Wall-e shines as a nod to classic comedy.

Fool's Gold (Dvd)

In our continued effort to see all the Blu-ray DVDs blockbuster has to offer I bring you Fool’s Gold. This mundane film wastes an hour and a half of your time by combining How to Lose a Guy in Ten Days (2003) and National Treasure (2004). McConaughey and Hudson just seem to be here to get a paycheck, and why not? If I couldn’t spend a month in the Bahamas flirting and swimming I would. There is some inexplicable violence. There are some inexplicable boobs. McConaughey inexplicably can’t keep his shirt on for more then ten minutes.
I’m not sure what draws studios to make films like these, but I have a feeling they turn a fair amount of profit in that they can’t take a lot of money to make, and I’m sure you get some kind of return on your investment.
I just looked this up and they made 100 million off this movie, and that aint countin’ the DVD sales/rentals, so there is your answer.
If I were to compare this to something like 30 Dresses (2008) I would say this was pretty good. But that is setting the measuring stick pretty low. Hudson and McConaughey’s character’s motivations seemed interesting and diverse enough, but the other two main character’s motivations, played by Donald Sutherland and some unknown tart, were thoroughly confusing. They paid for an expedition to search for gold, with only McConaughey and Hudson’s word for it. Why would an affluent man do this? I’m sure he didn’t make his money by throwing it at harebrained schemes. And the tart, at first, seemed motivated by the thought of the shirtless McConaughey, who, as always, was playing himself. But by the end of the film Hudson and McConaughey were together while her motivation evaporated into thin air. So, while motivations were confusing at points the playful banter between McConaughey and Hudson were what kept this film afloat. I’m sure we shall be seeing this combo again, soon enough.

3 out of 10 – Not the worst Romcom I’ve ever seen… though that aint sayin’ much.

National Treasure (Dvd) - Jennie

This should be brief. Jennie and I watched Nation Treasure 2 (2007) with her brother on Christmas break. She really enjoyed the story and the movie overall so I suggested that she would probably enjoy the original, and, since she had never seen it, we should probably check out Indiana Jones, as it is about a treasure hunting historian as well. As you know we watched the latest Indy flick and we weren’t too impressed with it, which inclined me to believe that perhaps I only loved Indy for nostalgia’s sake. This I have yet to confirm, though perhaps later this summer we will rent the earlier Indy flicks and cement my views.

As for National Treasure it was as good as I remembered it to be, which was only partially good. The film runs at a brisk pace till Gates is captured, but it quickly regains its footing after this slight tumble. The puzzles are somewhat fun and interesting, though somewhat historically inaccurate. I won’t argue with a film about a hidden revolutionary war era treasure though. Jennie enjoyed it a lot more than the recent Indy flick, and I have to whole-heartedly agree. This is what I wanted, or remembered, Indiana Jones to be: realistic, no aliens, no Mutt - fun. Maybe I remember Indiana Jones incorrectly, but as for recent adventures I choose Ben Gates over Indy anytime.

4 out of 10: A perfectly run of the mill adventure. Subtract one for Nick Cage being Nick Cage.

Resolved (HBO) - Both

Jennie and I often find the doldrums of summer are a catalyst to some of the worst television has to offer. Simply look at the lineup of the networks: Celebrity Circus, So You Think You Can Dance, and America’s Got Talent. This forces us to the barren wasteland of our digital cable as we search for something to watch.

Why don’t we do something active? Read books? Play strip poker? Something? Who knows, get off my back.

This particular night we stumbled upon a documentary that has been making the festival circuits. Now, I would be hard pressed to say that a documentary about policy debate garners any of my interest, but for some odd reason I stayed on the channel and Jennie and I were treated to a fantastic little film. You may have previously read my thesis on documentaries as of late, so I won’t go into the manipulation I’m sure occurred in the presentation, but I truly felt for these “characters”.

The documentary focuses on two sets of debaters, one from a highly prestigious Texas school and another from an inner city California school. The film at first focuses on how debate has mutated to its current state that is a speed read (sp-read) contest to see who can up the body count till one team proves the other team’s solution will cost more to humanity. The two teams the movie focuses on use vastly different strategies from this, now common, strategy and are successful in varying degrees.

Greg Whiteley, the director, uses cartoons and celebrities to push along the agendas and describe the action as it unfolds. This method is used by many of the new documentaries and I find it to be a perfect way to keep one's interest in a particularly dull subject. The team from the inner city eventually stands out as the true heroes of this film as they mount an attack on policy debate itself. They believe that just winning trough shear volume of arguments read isn’t true debate. Their noble attack leads to the climax of the film which finds them confusing debate teams across California as they deconstruct the very act of debate. We cheered as the bewildered opponents shuffled their stacks of paper and grumbled that they couldn’t understand what was going on. But, as the Clash have taught us, if you fight the law, the law will win. And in light of this inevitability the team eventually falls, but it works for the film.

6 out of 10: Whiteley turns policy debate into movie magic!

The Happening (Theatre) - Jennie

Halfway through this movie Jennie leans over to me and whispers, “This is supposed to be camp.” I thought about this for a second. In my mind this movie had been a train wreck: the horrible acting, the ridiculous dialog, the gruesome mutilations. And as Jennifer’s revelation washed over me I immediately got mad at the individuals responsible for this film’s advertisement.

The last film Shyamalan put out suffered from the same problem. Lady in the Water (2006) was fantastic children’s film. It was a little scary for the youngest set, but it was a new fairytale. The Grimm brother’s tales are just as dark and fantastic but we have heard them all many times. Shyamalan created the first true fairytale in years. I went into Lady in the Water expecting what was advertised, a film much like Shyamalan’s previous work, when I didn’t get it I turned on the film. Only after Jennifer and I were leaving the theatre did she explain what he was trying to do. And I realized what a great film and story he had created.

Fast forward a couple of years and Shyamalan’s new film is advertised as, “the directors first R rated film.” Dark stuff, right? Again, I went into the film expecting Shyamalan in his normal state, and again I hated it, till Jennie revealed the real twist. This is Shyamalan doing a 1960’s B movie. In the style of such B movies as They Came From Beyond Space (1967), The Terror (1963), or Attack of the Monsters! (1969) The Happening has a ridiculous horror attacking the protagonists. The advertising should have gone a little something like this:

(in a large flamboyant font each words spins in and spins out before the next word shows up)Horror!
Terror!
(woman shrieks)
Unimaginable Fear!
(show a shot of a massive crowd running and screaming)Voice Over: Stay indoors, keep close to your family, pray for mercy from
(the screen goes black)
The Happening
(pizzicato strings, close up on a woman screaming)

You get my drift. This film is over acted, Mark Wahlberg is hilarious. The dialog is completely over the top and comical. The gruesome suicides are frightening and entertaining. This is Shyamalan doing camp. And he does it well. After “getting it” I enjoyed myself thoroughly. Now, I know it is popular to bag on Shyamalan, but go into this film thinking it is camp and you will enjoy it. Shyamalan is original. In a summer filled with superheros, remakes, and adaptations The Happening is fresh. Enjoy it, because there aren't many originals out there anymore.

Spoiler Alert, there is no twist.

7 out of 10: I loved what Shyamalan was trying to do, he got me to like camp as much as I will, and that aint much.

The Mist (Dvd) - Both

This is the forth Steven King adaptation for Frank Darabont. His previous works include The Shawshank Redemption (1994) and The Green Mile (1999). This leads me to believe he just found out that Steven King actually writes horror novels, but better late than never I guess. Darabont does a pretty good job with his first horror film allowing the horror to be human drama and not just blood and guts, which most horror films rely on these days. He also altered King’s original ending opting for a much grimmer finale.

This film quickly gets to the point. Ten minutes in and we are at our main set piece, a grocery store, and paranoia is brewing. The film is set in a small Maine town where a mist is quickly approaching after a particularly bad thunderstorm. At this ten minute mark a man runs into the grocery store alerting the principle actors to an unknown danger in the mist. The crowded store huddles in fear as the mist surrounds the now barricaded building. There is no further explanation as to why anyone should be afraid of this mist, but everyone buys into it and we begin our standoff. The group realizes, through deadly trial and error, that inhuman beasts inhabit the mist and any attempt to leave the store results in mutilation. The hysteria builds as a religious zealot claims the end is nigh, and converts soon begin to follow her. The level heads begin to plot an escape and while doing so find out that the beasts in the mist are inter-dimensional beings brought to earth through a dimensional-door opened by the military. This sounds ridiculous, but, frankly, I didn’t care. I went along for the ride, and was happy I did so. (On a side note: Turn off your brain sometimes and you will be pleasently surprised.) Eventually a group tries to escape the store and drive hoping they may find an end to the mist. The gas runs out and the survivors, realizing a horrible death awaits if they leave the car, take the quick way out. Since they only have four bullets and five individuals the male lead quickly murders the rest and exits the car screaming for the beasts to come.

This particularly grim ending is just one of the fantastic choices Darabont makes in this adaptation. King’s story ends with the survivors hearing one word out of the scrambled car radio, “Hartford.” They then head towards Hartford and the story ends. Darabont’s ending feels more realistic as it is missing the glimmer of hope. Darabont’s design crew also does an amazing job of making the fantastic creatures that inhabit the mist. My favorite shot in the movie happens as the band of survivors drive towards the unknown and a massive beast the size of a 10 story building walks out of the mist ignoring the small vehicle at its massive feet. On the flip side of the fantastic coin is Darabont’s ability to focus on the drama and horror of mob mentality. The religious zealot is able to be just as horrific and diabolical as the inter-dimensional beasts that rip people limb from limb. This isn’t to say Darbont’s film is perfect. The religious zealot is verbose and boarders on annoying at times. The mob seems all to willing to turn emotionally on a dime. And while the designs for the creatures were intense the effects crew did a particularly crude job in their execution of said designs. As a fan of Sci-Fi take my recommendation with a grain of salt. If you can’t believe in the fantastic don’t bother with this.

6 out of 10 – A satisfying Sci-Fi horror film that uses both human and inhuman horrors to tweak your nerves.

Untraceable (Dvd)

Three to five years ago this would have stared Ashley Judd, but she has moved on to bigger and better things (like Bug (2006), I guess). So Diane Lane fills her sassy cop loafers to put away this particular bad guy, and this leads me to a discussion of the fate of 40+ actresses. They seem to be segregated to the waste bin of movies, left to play menopausal newly single mothers who need to learn to date again, over sexed fashionistas, or, as in this case, hard nosed cops. Other than the occasional role as Queen Elizabeth (any of them), or the portrayal of a mental disorder, the meaty roles are nowhere to be found. Hell, Cate Blanchett got nominated this year by playing a man! I posit this question, is it that no one wants to write these films? Or is it that no one sees these films? Or, is it something else?

Leaving that lofty question in the air I bring you down to this waste of marquee space. If you watched the trailer I’m sure you already know the entire plot sans one or two details. You already know Colin Hanks character dies, in what is an emotionally tough loss for the already frazzled Jennifer, played by Diane Lane. I’m sure you know that the killer is caught by his own hubris. I’m also sure you know that her family is somehow threatened, but ultimately o.k. This film is nothing new or even relatively interesting.

Why did we pick this up from Blockbuster then? Well, my wonderful wife got me a Playstation 3 for my birthday. If you are not familiar with these behemoths they are both a gaming system and a Blu-ray DVD player. When we went to the Blockbuster to pick out a movie this was one of the only ones in the meager selection of movies that we hadn’t watched in that format, and I wanted to see what the new system could do. Simply put, it can waste our afternoon with crystal clarity.

To continue, I also have a hatred for internet/computer films. I’m sure all professionals who see films about their professions think this, but they never get it right and end up sounding incredibly stupid.
“Oh no, the criminal hacked the kernel and concatenated hidden bits on the end of each program counter so the instruction cycle would print out to an IO and he would eventually be able to take over the assembly language!”
Guh. The writer of this script must have grabbed the latest copy of Interwebs For Dummies to type up this dialog. The movie going public doesn’t care; they wouldn’t know what you were talking about anyway. The only people that would know what you are talking about will hate you for failing to even get it close. On that note, the film also displayed a distinct hatred for the internet. It tried to make it look like a dark alley where predators stalk any who venture in.

I recommend that you quickly close this browser and shut down your computer. This movie thinks the web will kill you.

2 out of 10 – Thankfully, no one wants to watch this, so I don’t feel obligated to discourage you from watching it.

The Orphanage (Dvd) - Both

I had heard very little about this film. I just knew it was a horror film and had been out around Lansing playing somewhere at some point in time. Being that Jennie is a horror buff I figured we would give this a shot. By the time I popped it in the DVD player I found out that Guillermo del Toro was presenting this film (I’ve never been sure what that even means) and that it was Spanish language film. So my hopes had reason from interested to anticipatory.

I was greatly disappointed. The film is about a family who moves into a now defunct orphanage. Laura, the mother, was previously a resident of this orphanage and the first scene depicts her as a child playing with her orphan chums. After she is adopted the movie jumps thirty years to when she arrives at the house with her husband and child. She has adopted a son who has a group of invisible friends and a secret. He unknowingly has aids, a secret his mother keeps from him. I only point this out because the movie initially makes a big deal about this in the first twenty minutes or so, but then drops it all together after the boy finds out about it. The purpose of the young child having this disease was lost on me.

I’m sure you can figure out what happens simply by hearing this set up, but I’ll give you the nickle tour anyways. One of the boy’s invisible friends actually ends up being the ghost of one of the Laura’s orphan friends. This ghost friend supposedly kidnaps the boy and the mother is then forced to search for her lost son. After six months the father gives up looking while the mother swears ghosts have her child. In her search she finds out that right after she left the orphanage after being adopted the orphans accidentally killed one of their own. In an act of vengeance a worker at the orphanage kills all of the remaining orphans (the original murdered orphan was her child – I ask, then why was he at an orphanage? Who knows.). And, in my opinion, Laura surely would have heard of this massacre when she purchased the old orphanage but she seems unaware of it. Laura solves the decades old murder case and is then given the key to finding her lost son by the now happy ghosts.

I can’t tell you how much I hate this style of horror film. Do dead children always come back to have other people help solve their murder cases? There are so many movies out their like this, The Others (2001), Stir of Echoes (1999), the Ring (2002), must I go on? I figured since this was a foreign film this might be different. Maybe outside of America there is some originality.

3 out of 10 – Nothing here is original, it isn’t even that frightening. Though if your child is murdered fear not, he or she will eventually help solve their own murder case.

Lars and the Real Girl (Dvd) - Jennie

This quaint romantic comedy is propelled by a role that Ryan Gosling disappears in and some very dark comedy. It revolves around a small town’s acceptance of Lars’ new girlfriend who just happens to be a life-sized sex doll.

Gosling plays Lars as a joyful yet reserved hermit who has lost the ability to be comforted by touch. After a coworker introduces him to Real Dolls, which is a company that creates plastic ultra realistic sex toys, Lars orders one and begins a delusion that she is real and has come from a foreign local to be his girlfriend. His sister-in-law in a desperate attempt to connect with the emotionally and physically distant Lars accepts this delusion and forces Lars brother, her husband, to go along with the ruse. Gosling’s Lars seems genuinely delusional and as the brother accepts that he will have to live with Lars’ mental issue he begins to ask the town to play along as well. This acts as the meat of the plot and it plays like an episode of the Gilmore Girls.

The small town seems to love the crazy Lars and go so far as to give his fake significant other a job, cut her hair, and party with her. In one particularly foolish scene the man-made female sits in front of a gaggle of children with a tape player on her lap as she “reads” them a story. An on looking adult smiles pleasantly as the children stare at the expressionless sex toy. I say this plays like an episode of the Gilmore Girls because the whole town seems in on it without any animosity. They joyfully dance with her at a birthday party, they keep a schedule of her activities, and the doctor treats her ailments. The deceptively cute Kelli Garner eventually pulls Lars back into the real world and provokes the climax in which the town throws a mock funeral for Lars’ now deceased toy.

I was pleasantly surprised that Nancy Oliver, the writer, didn’t fall for the usual trappings that accompany plots like this. There was never any ill will towards Lars by some angry-for-no-reason punk kid. The brother, despite not liking the game, plays along the whole time and never forces Lars to quit. I feel these things were obvious roads to travel down, but she didn’t take them. It did take away from the realism, but that is a casualty I was willing to suffer. I also have to add that Paul Schneider, who played the brother, did a fantastic job and should be called on more often then I am aware of.

6 out of 10 – a relatively harmless romantic comedy that timidly breaks the mold.