Hop

Hop is an Animated film that is directed straight at kids for the Easter Break. Unfortunately, those are the only audience members that will love the movie. Unlike so many other recent animated films, there is basically nothing here for adults. The talent all went into designing the characters and the Easter Island factory of the bunny and that's as much effort as there was put into the movie. Rango which came out a few weeks ago, is so much better written and thought out that it is a surprise
that people are not still flocking to it and skipping this.

The story of an Easter Bunny that has a dream of being a rock star is a little conventional but could be brought off with enough invention. There is basically nothing more to the story than that. We are barely in our seats when the bunny runs away from his responsibilities and heads to Hollywood. There we get a mix of live action and animation. At first the main live character is shocked to find a talking drum playing rabbit. As it turns out, he is the only one shocked. Everyone else in the movie takes it as a given that a rabbit can talk. This is one example of the short cuts taken in storytelling in this film. Pixar movies get all the story details right before they seep into our hearts with character and plot. This movie tries to wriggle in on cuteness but can't quite pull it off.

Russel brand is the voice of E.B. but he gets no opportunity to play up his outrageous persona, so it is basically wasted casting. James Marsden is more effective as the human star of the movie, but he is so stuck playing double takes and exaggerated reaction shots, that we never get much chance to identify with him. Everyone else is in the movie for such a short stretch of time that it is hardly worth mentioning the veteran cast. Hank Azaria does another of his patented character accents, for no reason what so ever except the character is named Carlos. Gary Cole and Elizabeth Perkins are fine actors that disappear two minutes after we see them and pop up for one or two more scenes that have nothing to do with the plot.

The look of the movie is rich on the animated side and TV production level everywhere else. It is not badly made but there was not much care in putting it together to become an Easter perennial. The music cues are not that interesting and the big dance number set to "I Want Candy" is not very extravagant. There are some charming moments but not enough to recommend it to anyone except those with pre-teens who need some time out of the house during the Spring Break. It is not as dunderheaded as the Alvin and the Chipmunks movies, but it certainly misses the mark. We had hopes based on the visuals and the subject matter, but it turned out the egg was hollow.

Win Win

Sometimes you luck out and the word of mouth you hear is exactly right. I had not seen the trailer for this movie, and I knew very little about it. It's an independent film so it was not going to be playing everywhere, but a quick search found it at the Edwards Theater in West Covina, so off we went. Basically all I knew about the movie was that it starred Paul Giamatti, he plays a lawyer and he is also a wrestling coach. This does not really sound like a set up for a great story, but it turns out that if you know much more, it might not be as appealing. I don't want to go into depth about the story but I do have some opinions that I want to share, so I will keep it focused on theme rather than plot.

Life is hard. It is really hard for some people, and most of us who are lucky enough to be blogging at all, much less about movies, probably will never know the difficulties that two thirds of the world faces on any given day. We barely get a chance to know the hard truths that face people in this country. We have crime, and emotional betrayal and poverty and drugs. They are present in different degrees in most places in the world. We also have the problems that plague the average hard working person. Those include physical maladies, financial difficulties and self loathing of one kind or another. We do what we can each day to make it work. Some days are better than others. Most of us don't whine about the issues but they trouble us and we often need the release that comes from sharing those burdens. This movie is about the attempt to do the right thing, and sometimes failing. That failure does not mean that we are wrong or worthless but that this attempt did not work. So what are you going to do then?

I know that I saw Paul Giamatti in films before he appeared in "Sideways" but he was never a lead character and I can't say any of the parts he played were memorable. Since then he has been on a winning streak that any actor would love. He has starred in major films, independent cinema, television programs and cable movies and mini-series. Not to put to fine a point on it but he may very well be the least visually arresting actor on screen ever. He looks like your next door neighbor or the guy who works a couple of offices away. He is the most average looking actor that ever starred in a film. So it is abundantly clear that his appeal in entirely in his gifts. He can bring the characters he plays to life. We feel as if we know these characters because they are portrayed by someone who got the job because he could act not because his picture will look good on the poster. He is as good in this movie as he has been in anything. I think this is the kind of performance that gets by people because he turns them in so effortlessly they don't notice. His character is trying to make it through the day, the week, the month and the year like all of us are. Some days are so tough that it is hard to function physically, other days give you a sense of pride that will leave pleasure for weeks. Everyday decisions have an impact, and the law of unintended consequences suggests that the results will be very surprising at times. The advantage is that if you are trying to do the right thing, in the long run you can recover from those things that you did that are not always as savory as you think they are.

There is a kid in the story that comes into the main character's life. He is played by a newcomer named Alex Shaffer. This is the second performance I've seen in the last few months from a new actor, that really suggests that this is someone with some ability. Hailee Steinfeld from "True Grit" was a find who commanded the screen because her's was the starring part. This guy is memorable because he is so much the character he played and his personality meshes so well with the story arc. Nothing is ever over the top, but a real personable character emerges. The part is very well written because he acts like a kid in his situation might, if given a chance to be a solid human.

I don't know what Burt Young has been doing lately, but if you are a casting director in Hollywood, please remember him more often. This is another guy that is a natural when given a chance. In 1974 he played Curly in "Chinatown", a big lug that helps out Jack Nicholson's character, but we know he has also roughed up his wife who was cheating on him. In "Rocky" he is the self-pitying brother of Adrian, Rocky's friend who is prone to violent outbursts. Here, he plays a version of the same character, a guy who has had a hard life and may not have always been a good guy. Having lived with someone with dementia, I thought he was spot on with the underlying suspicion but also the docile charm that a person in that part of life can experience.

All of the actors do a solid job showing the daily struggles that make living a chore but also a gift. There is abundant humor in the story but it really is a drama in the end. We care about the outcome, and not just of the wrestling matches. Somewhere, years ago, someone found a way to make wrestling a part of Hollywood story telling. It seems an unlikely background for a film yet it seems to work repeatedly. Here, the reason is plain, it is about the struggle to get though the challenge and the question you must constantly ask yourself. "What are you going to do about it?" This movie has some good answers, they are not always the things we would hope for, but they do tell us about our true character.

Rubber 2011

If you have ever spent time at a college with a cinema department, you have probably seen some student films that have a clever idea and run just a few minutes. They can be frightening, hilarious or perhaps poignant. Those films usually benefit from a tight budget which forces creativity. They are also strengthened by a dedicated crew of film makers, that are anxious to show off what they can do. Some student films have been adapted to the big screen over the years as commercial projects, the most famous of which is probably George Lucas's THX 1138. The movie I saw today, feels like a student project, that has been fattened up and extended to make a theatrical film. It suffers from the same problems that any good idea is subject to, too much of a good thing.

Rubber is at it's heart a horror movie with a ridiculous premise. An old tire becomes animated and can kill with the force of it's concentration. Watch the trailer above and you will get the idea. There is inherent humor in the notion of a tire wandering across the desert, looking for meaning, but it is even funnier when the tire has a killer psychokinetic personality. There, that's your movie idea, and it can be done in a twenty minute or less film and have a great memorable impact. Here, it is almost ninety minutes, and it is undermined by a mixture of satire on movie going (maybe at the expense of the very audience that might embrace such a film), drama involving unrequited love, and then comedy featuring the cast from a minor league version of Reno 911.

I will be honest, I laughed several times. There are some good jokes in the movie and there are several actors that play their parts just daffy enough to get away with some pretty stupid stuff. The problem is that it is all an exercise in meaningless audience manipulation. As soon as we get set for one consistent idea, the movie veers off on another twisted loop and as the film makers themselves would say, "for no good reason." There are some movie conventions that are observed, and others that are subverted, but it is entirely arbitrary as to which one will be next. I can't say I hated the movie, it was not terrible and at times I was entertained. I can say I was frustrated by it because there are so many potentially great ways the movie could go, but it never follows up on any of them.

If you are a regular reader, you know that I like exploitation films as much as the next person. A little crap is a good way to clear the mind and remind yourself what makes real movies so valuable. I enjoy creativity, but the direct approach is often the better way to go and this is one of those places where directness would have succeeded more than what is finally given to us. "Drive Angry", "Snakes on a Plane", "Machete" or even "Sharktopus" tell us what we are getting and deliver on the promise. Sometimes those films get sidetracked and they lose something as a result. "Machete" is a good example, an exploitation picture that features gratuitous sex and violence, got bogged down by a pseudo-political theme that did not belong in the movie. Rubber is a horror comedy that makes the mistake of trying to break down the fourth wall between the film and the audience, and instead becomes less than it should be.


Not all of the parts fail, in fact taken on their own, they might make good ideas for other films. I got the impression that the film makers did not feel like they would get another chance at financing, so they went ahead with all the ideas they had, even though they do not go well together. If you are intrigued by the trailer and the poster, go ahead and see the movie. My advice though is to catch it this week on the free preview being offered on HD Net You don't have to pay for parking and if you hate the movie at least you did not pay to see it.

The Adjustment Bureau

The Adjustment Bureau - #1 Trailer by hawkbcn

We actually saw this movie yesterday, right after we had gone to "Battle Los Angeles". My daughter Allison is an English major, and she wants to do a dissertation on Phillip K. Dick when she gets into grad school. This is a story based on one of his many works and adds to the legacy of movies inspired by his writing. At some point Hollywood will run out of Stephen King and Phillip K. Dick, and then no more movies can be made. She was very enthusiastic about seeing this and I was not. This film was originally scheduled to come out back in September of last year. I saw the first trailer nearly a year ago. When a delay like this happens there is often a reason, and not a good one. While it did not turn out to be a disaster, I can see why they waited to release it,they needed to find a way to market a chase film without any excitement in it.

Allison quite liked the movie, but I was indifferent to it. As we talked after the film, I said that it seemed a little bi-polar, never sure if it believed in religion or was dismissive of the concept. Her answer is that a lot of Dick's work is about the uncertainty of whether there is a god or whether we have tricked ourselves into believing in God. (In fact according to her, Dick saw God but did not know if it was a real experience or a drug induced experience, thus inspiring a series of stories.) So, this film would be great for college theology or philosophy students, high on grass, to spend a late night speculating over. If you are interested in story or entertainment, seek out something else.

If you watch the trailer above, you have a reasonable grasp of the story. Everything else that happens, simply repeats itself. This couple, is not supposed to get together, and each time they do they get separated again. And then it happens again, and then again, and then again and.., while you get the point. Ultimately the climax of the movie is a series of chases through doors that take you on a tour of New York City, for no particular reason except the film makers have scouted some amazing vistas and architecture for the protagonists to run through. There is very little sense to it, and the point of the story is to challenge the ideas of determinism, and free will. I have determined that I will not see this movie again of my own free will.

Access to the inner sanctum of the agents of the universe, who are trying to manipulate our lead characters, is granted by wearing a hat while going through the right door. That's the secret password, wear a hat. One of the supporting characters, acts completely against the nature of their character, to cause events to change, for no particular reason. After it is all gone on for a long, long time, the unseen "Chairman", makes an arbitrary decision, that they should have seen coming two hours earlier. This story was a spinning hamster ball of nonsense that might be interesting to read for a few minutes as a short story, but goes nowhere as a movie.

The actors in the movie are fine, in fact Allison's main justification for enjoying the film is the love story that is going on in the movie. The leads are appealing, but every time they start to connect in an interesting or meaningful way, we go back to the metaphysical baloney that the film makers want to make the movie about. I saw "Billy Budd" on channel nine (KHJ TV), some time in the early 1970s and became a fan of Terrance Stamp. After "Superman", I would watch for him in other films and remember when he was so young. His best film was "The Limey" from a few years ago, where he gets to play a real person. I'm glad he works, and he makes most pictures better, but in this movie he is a piece of scenery, masquerading as a person. All of the "Adjustment Bureau" bureaucrats are interchangeable, so he is wasted in the movie as an actor. His face though is used very well with his solemn mouth and deep penetrating eyes, he is the epitome of determinism. He is the best thing in the movie when he shows up, but he could just have easily been a cue card or a book page with exposition written all over it.

I know I am giving the impression that I hated the movie, but I did not. I just did not care about anything that was going on in it and I was bored. I can enjoy some bad movies for what they are, if they are entertaining along the way. This movie made me want to put on a hat and walk out the door. Whatever was on the other side would be more compelling that the two hours I spent watching this.

Battle L.A.

I don't know how it is that this movie made it a week into it's run without me sitting in a theater somewhere sucking it down like a milkshake. This was exactly my cup of tea and I knew it the first time I saw the teaser trailer. This is a science-fiction action film that takes a completely different perspective from other Earth Invasion films of the past. "Independence Day" was all about the idea and the spectacle of an invasion, "War of the Worlds (2005") is a horror chase film which focuses on a big story though a small group. "Signs" is the same story without the spectacle but keeping the creep factor and asking big questions about faith. This movie is a traditional war story about a platoon of Marines, involved in fighting a space invasion. If I were a gamer, and played some of the popular first person shooter games that are now so ubiquitous, I might not have enjoyed it so much because it would seem familiar.

There are a lot of cliches in the movie, but it is important to remember that cliches get that way for a reason. Our group of Marines is lead by an untested Lieutenant, backed by a battle hardened but burnt out Staff Sargent. The platoon is ethnically mixed like an old World War Two movie, and there are brief back stories to help us identify with the warriors. The movie does have some plot elements that focus on conflicts between the Marines, but that is not what the movie is about. This film is an examination of the professionalism and dedication of our fighting men and women. There is some hoorah marine macho behavior, but is is only incidental to the job that each person is trying to do to the best of their ability. Some are more gifted than others but there was not a one that was not there to do the job, and each was well qualified. They are tired, and scared, and angry but most of all they are professionals. This movie was not a Patriotic exercise in America First, with flags waving and speeches about our heritage. It celebrates America in the best way possible, by showing real people, who have come together to do a job, and want it to be done the right way. They take responsibility and exercise it in an American way. They care about their team members, their mission and the civilians they encounter with the kind of behavior we all hope is a hallmark of our military.

There are a bundle of special effects, but they are never lingered over or meant to divert us from the story. This is not a CGI pile of junk like "G.I. Joe" a couple of years ago. This is an intense, Sam Fuller like war story, set in a Science Fiction parable. The alien threat is real, and it feels like the world is coping with disaster in the best way possible. Our marines have little knowledge of what they are up against, and they have to improvise along the way. My guess is that this is the way it is in real life warfare as well. You are well trained, but ultimately, the boots on the ground have to make the best decision they can and then live with the outcome. In our modern world, the rest of society gets to second guess them and judge their valor, this movie gives us a chance to see how that process works. I never had the honor of serving in the military, so I see this as someone who's primary exposure to this culture is vicarious. It requires huge sacrifice to serve in combat, and my appreciation for those who do is immense. I suspect they will see this movie as a tribute to their service. Last tear's "The Hurt Locker" is a more serious film with a better developed personal story, but it had many of the same qualities of professional pride that this movie did. There is tension and random mayhem and no one deserves the bad things that happen in war.

Aaron Eckhart is an actor that I have enjoyed but have never really warmed up to. Even in "The Dark Knight" I felt his performance was outside of the character. He strikes me as if he is playing at being an actor rather than playing the character. That was not true in this movie. He is really invested in the part and plays it with gusto and honesty. Even in the most cliched line in the movie, one that reminds us of the boiler plate characters we were given to start with, he sells us this person. Everyone does a fine job, but he is clearly well cast as a no nonsense leader in the right set of circumstances. Of course this is not the right set of circumstances, yet he manages to do the job anyway. Sgt Nantz is a good hero for our times.

I have often said in my comments on films, that a movie is successful to me if I am moved emotionally. This movie did that but not in the way most people would expect. Sure there are characters that don't make it and the emotions there are well created in the story. There is also a sense of dread, that people trapped in these situations would feel. My emotional reaction is to the courage and fortitude shown by everyone in the movie, but especially the military. To see how doing one's job is a part of a team process, that you take up the burden that is given to you and you simply do the best you can. That brought a tear to my eye, because I know that this goes on everyday outside of my experience. It is real and there are enemies that we must struggle with that are not from outer space, but feel like they could be. My friend John Yenny (Jr.) is about to graduate from Annapolis and join the Marines as an officer. I am proud to know a guy like him and all the other young men and women who are called to service in this way. My guess is the Yenny's will have this movie on a permanent loop on the TV for years to come. When the final scene of our marines is shown, I can't imagine how someone will avoid a lump in the throat and a tear of pride in the eye. "Retreat, HELL!"

A Stanley Kubrick Odyssey - A Tribute

I found this today and I enjoyed it quite a bit. You might well enjoy it also.

Rango

I have always liked animated movies. My earliest recollection of an animated film was 101 Dalmatians, which my parents apparently took me so see right before my brother was born. I was not quite four and I have only an image or two in my head, I know the movie more completely from seeing it years later. In high school and college my friends and I would go each year to the Tournee' of Animation, which would play at the Rialto Theater in South Pasadena. That is where I first saw "Bambi vs. Godzilla", and I have enjoyed weird animation ever since. This movie definitely falls into the weird category, but not in a way that should put anyone off. It is a very creative and extremely well designed film. It is also a satire, a western, a parody and a joy to behold. There are several sections that seem weary but the quirkiness saves it more often then it dooms it.

Ten years ago, Tom Cruise was the biggest star in the world, which is how he could get away with making fun of himself in an Austin Powers film. In the last ten years however, the crown has been transferred to a handsome, talented actor, who prior to his breakthrough commercial film, was best known as an odd-ball character with discriminating taste in movies. Johnny Depp, has since the first of the "Pirates of the Caribbean" movies, has alternated between big screen popcorn films and smaller movies with a little bit of class to them. I was not a fan of last year's "Alice in Wonderland" and his movie with Angelina Jolie last December got such bad buzz that I skipped it completely, and that is a clear indicator of something wrong, cause I'll see almost anything if it has some kind of hook to it. All is forgiven for those last two disasters because this movie is a gem, and it works in large part because Depp embodies the character Rango, even though it is a cartoon.

The movie this most reminded me of was "The Nightmare Before Christmas". These two films have almost nothing in common except an amazing and unique visual style and charming characters that are sometimes overwhelmed by the weirdness around them. In Nightmare, the biggest element that might put some one off is the music (not me, I love "This is Halloween"), it is sometimes overbearing in how much it takes over the movie. In "Rango" it is not the music but the maniacal comedy that means a frenetic pace and tone. It is interesting to note that both of these projects are the work of Depp's two biggest collaborators in the last ten years, Tim Burton and Gore Verbinski. This movie could easily be the Burton film that came out of the dark.

Nothing in this movie looks the way other movies have looked, and none of the story seems overly familiar, unless of course you have seen every Clint Eastwood spaghetti western and Chinatown. I don't think I'm giving too much away to suggest that this movie uses both the western genre and the classic L.A. Noir of Robert Towne's great screenplay, to create an unusual and interesting cartoon that adults will appreciate more than the kids will. Your kids will still like the movie because of the lovable lizard that Depp inhabits, but adults will adore it for hip references, funny homages, and irreverent use of character and scene. I laughed a lot and missed several jokes because there was so much going on in the movie. I will probably try to see it again, just to admire how clever the bits of business are throughout the tale.

Characters in the movie are often based on well known stereotypes and cliches, but they will not seem that way because of the performances and the way they have been visually rendered on the screen. The voice talent in this movie is deep as well as Depp. Ned Beatty's take on John Houston in particular is a hoot. I will not spoil the surprise, but Timothy Olyiphant, will tickle you with his version of ,...well I just don't want to say. Depp is silly and poignant at the same time. This is a performance that is more subtle that the work he did in the Alice film, and the movie is better for it. He can ham it up, but it usually goes better for us when he plays something resembling a real person (or lizard).

Like I said, there are times when the events get a little overblown, but the movie is rescued time and again by the character work that is going on here. The story does not come together as well as a Pixar film would, but the characters are memorable and the performances by the voice actors is solid. The references are pop oriented, but it is more like listening to Dennis Miller riff, then it is a Robin Williams ego stroke. The familiar can be tiresome, but the vaguely familiar can be really rewarding. This is a strong endorsement for this movie, go and see for yourself. If you don't enjoy it, get your funny bone looked at because there is something wrong with you.