Adventureland

K: Adventureland is a coming of age story set in 1987 as James graduates from undergrad, then faces the harsh realization that his parents can't afford to finance his summer trip to Europe or his graduate school even though he was accepted to Columbia. As a journalism major he's unqualified to do anything except work in a dumpy amusement park. Here he learns more life lessons than he ever learned in college, and he falls in love.

This is more of a 'dramedy' (sorry to use this word - I'm not a big fan of it) than a comedy. Much of the humor is in the horrible clothes, hair, make up, and music throughout the movie. The main 'soundtrack' is comprised of bands like The Cure, Husker Du, The Replacements, and, for some gawdawful reason, Lou Reed. But the film also gives a nod to the other genres of 80s music. For example, Rock Me Amadeus plays incessantly at the amusement park driving everyone crazy. (Feel free to admit to yourself that you owned the '45 back in the day - you know you did). And one of my favorite scenes was James running for his life from a dumb thug who wanted to beat him up while Breaking The Law by Judas Priest played in the background.

It was a good film that had more of an indy feel to it. It's worth seeing, especially if you grew up in the 80s, but it's not necessary to catch it in the theaters.

J: Ok! Enough already! I have had it up to there with adolescent male coming of age BS humor!

I have successfully managed to avoid cinematic dreck like “Superbad” and “Knocked Up” in much the same way as I avoid reality television, by treating it like an especially virulent version of bird flu! But this one kind of snuck up on me. My PIC suggested it as a comedy & it sounded like a great idea at the time. But even she was forced to use the dreaded sobriquet of “dramedy” & I agree with her assessment of that word.

This movie is the perfect reflection of what is arguably the most shameful & dimwitted decade to date. Everyone is screwed up in some way or another – exactly like the 80’s. Self-absorption is the byword & shooting down dreams is the favorite spectator sport. The adolescent coming of age guy in this movie, James Brennan (Jesse Eisenberg), has his dreams of going to Europe for the summer & then entering graduate school at Columbia upon his return crushed by the sad upper-middle class suburban hell of his parent’s circumstances; that being his alcoholic father’s demotion at work. With nothing as far as concrete experience & a REALLY useless degree in comparative literature (yet another hallmark of the 80’s) James is forced to work at the local amusement park, Adventureland – where great dreams go to die! Here he meets the requisite misfits & regularly gets the crap kicked out of him by someone who is allegedly a friend (you guessed it – the 80’s personified). Also, as required in this genre, he falls in love with an equally misfit female, Em played by a very surprising Kristen Stewart, who proves in this movie that she can do more than oogle handsome vampires.

At this point, I must give my props to the only thing that propels this movie beyond the horror of the sad comedies mentioned above. The characters in this movie really do have something to say & they say very well. The pathetic attachment that Em has to a married man, Connell (Ryan Reynolds – is he ever going to try his chops out on a really good movie? I bet he could do it if he tried!) gets in the way of a possible real relationship with someone who might be a sensitive good guy. Again, pure 80’s, Man! Been there, done that & threw away the T shirt! Sadly, Connell strikes me as the most accurate representation of the 80’s – not a sensitive rat on the sinking ship! Do I sound a little bitter? Well, how did you come through the 80’s? Yeah, that’s what I thought!

I do agree with my PIC about the indy feel of the movie. I wouldn’t have enjoyed it at all if it looked even remotely as slick & stupid as the other movies in this pseudo-genre. It does try very hard to have a heart & make a point. However, I have to disagree with her take on Lou Reed – one on my favorite artists. The misunderstanding of his music by Connell as he tries to impress the young girls with his claim that, as a part-time musician he has jammed with Lou is the ultimate nod to the 80’s – it doesn’t matter what you did, just lie about it. Just to prove the point, he misspeaks the name of one of Lou Reed’s best songs “Satellite of Love”. Here I must make a confession. I have (don’t we all?) a guilty pleasure – the music of the 80’s in all its trashy glamour. I would have loved to put together the sound track for this movie & so there is my shot down dream! Oh yeah – I LOVE “Rock Me Amadeus” – just ask my PIC how embarrassed she was as I sang along – out loud & proud!

I wonder when the female coming of age genre will start producing a new crop of movies. Oh, I forgot – women come out of the womb having already come of age – no assembly required!

Duplicity

J: Yippee, Yahoo and Hallelujah! FINALLY, a movie I can write about that is more than what I was expecting or hoping for. Please, if you have been as disappointed with the recent crop of films as I have been stop reading this, drop whatever you are doing and RUN don’t walk to see Duplicity!

Did I use enough Hollywood clichés? Well, don’t let that put you off because clichés go out the revolving door in this movie. Director Tony Gilroy (Michael Clayton) returns to the rich mine(field) of corporate shenanigans for his latest turn. This time rival pharmaceutical companies, headed by dueling CEOs Tom Wilkinson and Paul Giamatti, engage in the kind of corporate spy tactics worthy of any James Bond film and the spies in this yarn are, in fact, ex-MI-1 and CIA, played deliciously by Clive Owen (he of the lovely blue eyes) and Julia Roberts (she of the oddly indeterminate lips). To say these two have a complicated relationship would probably be the Guinness World Record of understatements. That relationship is fleshed out (love a good pun!) throughout the film, beginning with their meeting at a soiree at the US Embassy in Dubai five years prior to the beginning of the story, with a series of flashbacks. Now, I’m not normally a big fan of flashbacks particularly when they are as numerous as the ones in this movie, but these have been so well done that it’s pretty hard to lose the thread of action. And there are enough twists in this movie to make a bag of Rolled Gold pretzels jealous! You truly never know who is “zooming” who! Mr. Gilroy also delivers a surprise ending that is satisfying but a touch bittersweet. But, Glory Days, it was a surprise.

There are wonderful tech gadgets but they take a backseat to the story and character development. The opening scene is a very nifty slow motion Battle of the Titans and that’s about all I’m going to say because I wouldn’t dream of spoiling the fun of this film for anyone.

Thank You, Mr. Gilroy, for delivering one of my favorite movies of 2009 and for restoring my faith in the creativity of the movie business.

K: My PIC hasn't seen many of the recent Oscar nominated movies as I have, so I must disagree with her opening statements about stinky movies. However, I do agree that this movie was better than anticipated and I highly recommend it. It kept you on the edge of your seat while you were constantly reassessing everyone's motives, but it was light enough to allow the audience to get swept away in the fun adventure offered by Clive the sexy hunk and Julia the weird-looking. If you don't make it to theater, definitely add this to your rental list.

The International

J: Big Fat Heavy SIGH…for yet another movie, for which I had high hopes, that perked along nicely only to end up on top of the huge garbage pile of movies that ended badly – or at least left my PIC and I scratching our heads and wondering “What happened?”

What a great and timely premise – huge international bank run amok with world domination as their eventual end-game. What’s not to love about that? We get to boo the Euro-Trash bankers trying to take over the world and gaze at Clive Owen’s fabulous blue eyes. The only thing missing is a neat conspiracy theory involving the Bilderberg Group (no, I’m not going to explain that – look it up!). Nearly perfect, right? Not so fast!

This movie has a terrific plot and nonstop action, although the locations do move around quite a lot so, if you don’t keep up with the location titles, it can be tricky to know where you are. The cast is serviceable but clearly Clive Owen carries the movie – this is his vehicle. Oh yeah, Naomi Watts is in it too and manages to use all three of her expressions.

The highlight of this film is clearly the shoot-out in the Guggenheim Museum in New York City. But be prepared to exercise your suspension of disbelief muscles and try not to think too hard about how that many men with very big guns with lots of bullets managed to get past the security crew. Visually, however, it’s a very cool scene.

Now comes the problem and I will do my best to express my disappointment without giving too much away. There is a rule in playwriting that, if you show the audience a gun in the first scene, someone better get shot by the end of the play. Conversely, if someone walks up to the Bad Guy at the end of the movie to deliver the Coup de Grace (that is, shoot the bastard) it would be extremely helpful for the audience to know who the bloody hell he was and why he was doing it, which is not terribly clear at the end of The International. My PIC and I (with the help of her Rents) did kind of muddle through it, but I don’t go to movies to work that hard at figuring out how the damn thing ended. Lazy? You bet! That’s why I go see the movies I do – so I don’t have to think too hard, just to be entertained. So entertain me – preferably with a good ending to a potentially great movie.

K: The movie was decent, but not great; you can wait for DVD. Naomi Watts was exceptionally bad in this flick. Clive Owen is a great actor which is evidenced by him carrying this whole movie. And he's a nice piece of eye candy.

Underworld - Rise of the Lycans

J: Ok, Rant Alert! This is the first time that my PIC and I have gone to see a movie like “Underworld – Rise of the Lycans” together, even though we both seem to agree this is a favorite genre – that being variously known as sci-fi, fantasy, and/or horror. Now, here comes the rant. I have always felt this genre should never be reviewed by mainstream critics. With the exception of the rare acknowledged blockbusters such as “Iron Man” or “The Dark Knight”, if you are going to see a movie like this expecting an Academy Award winning performance with deep meaning and pathos, GO SEE ANOTHER MOVIE! I have read so many reviews containing words like “gratuitous violence” and “graphic gore” followed by an admonition to avoid said film for those reasons, and to those people I say “What do you blockheads think we go to these movies to see?” So please, I beg you, go see whatever movie Meryl Streep is currently starring in AND LEAVE US ALONE!

Well, I feel better – how about you? As a fan of the “Underworld” franchise I was eager to see the back-story for some of these characters, even though flashbacks in the previous movies gave a hint about how the war between the Lycans and Vampires began. It was nice to see it fleshed (oh yeah, pun intended) out a bit more. And I think it speaks volumes about this maligned genre that well respected actors like Bill Nighy (Viktor) and Michael Sheen (Lucian) take parts in movies like this and enjoy the experience. Who wouldn’t? It gives the actor a chance to really let go and be a little over the top. I was also impressed with the effort that director Patrick Tatopoulos put into the character development, of course that was the point but it could have been easily lost in gore, which can often be the case. It was fun to see how some of the secondary characters, particularly Kevin Grevioux as the warrior Lycan, Raze, came to the story. However, it is here that I have my one minor complaint – if memory serves, Viktor exiled Tanis (Steven Mackintosh), at least according to the second installment, “Underworld Evolution” but I was left with a conflict here that I would like to see addressed – sorry, saying more than that would be a spoiler and in this case I won’t do that to my fellow fans. That, of course, will entail an additional prequel, which is ok by me because I’m pretty tired of Selene. More chain-mail and less Pleather, please.

Once again, I enjoyed seeing Bill Nighy and Michael Sheen work their magic. I always had a problem with Elrond the Elf also being Agent Smith, but somehow I have no problem with David Frost as a werewolf – something about the 70’s maybe? Also, one universal criticism I have of this genre is that sometimes the cinematography can be too dark but not in this case. The sets and the CGI blended seamlessly and were extremely well done. Will I see this movie again? You bet! Vampires, werewolves and the sexiest Lycan on the face of the planet? Are you kidding? SIGN ME UP!

K: Underworld 3 rocked! Michael Sheen and Bill Nighy are such incredible actors that they elevate this good action/sci-fi movie up to just plain old good movie period. I was a little concerned that this, being a prequel with the basic story already explained in the first movie, would be a little boring. I was so wrong. Where the first two movies focus more on action and plot, this one focused on the characters, which is why these excellent British actors absolutely shine in this movie. Fans of the first two movies will enjoy this one as it nicely fills out the overall mythology while following the characters through their story of love, power and betrayal.

My dad gave me flack about seeing this movie. J and I were originally going to see The Wrestler with Oscar nominated Micky Rourke but opted for this one instead and he couldn't understand why. But last night I was vindicated when I forced him to watch the first Underworld movie, and now I have created another convert to the series (so there). Also, this was the second time I watched it and I enjoyed it much more this time around than the first. I was able to pick up so many subtleties and details that I missed during the first viewing, which just further proves what an awesome movie it was to begin with. If you haven't seen any of the Underworld movies I highly suggest that you run right out to your neighborhood movie rental store and pick up the first one. You will next in my line of U converts... *heh heh heh*

Frost/Nixon

J: It was a very strange experience to watch a movie based on an event and time in history that I actually lived through. It was something akin to having a really bad acid flashback – or so I’ve been (ahem) told. But leave it to Ron Howard, truly one of the most gifted directors when it comes to this genre, to take “Frost/Nixon” in a direction that was unexpected.

I have always been a firm believer in using the same actors for their parts when a play is turned into a film, even though the wisdom of the Hollywood Machine is to put, often miscast, big box office stars in a play-to-film effort to boost the take. Case in point (this is an oldie but one of my Top 10 gripes), who in the world got the bright idea that Marlon Brando could sing the part of Sky Masterson in “Guys and Dolls”! Fortunately, Ron Howard has enough power, and talent, behind him to get the original primary cast members of “Frost/Nixon” to reprise their roles in this extremely well done adaptation. Frank Langella embodies Richard M. Nixon in a way that is close to frightening. He is, by turns, affable, scary, self-loathing, arrogant, and extremely confused – exactly the Nixon I remember. Not to mention he looks just like him….sorry, just had to suppress a chill! And, frankly (no pun intended), I think David Frost ought to get up every day and utter a sincere “thank you” to Michael Sheen because the David Frost I remember NEVER looked that hot! And Michael wears the 1970’s very well, both in his “period costumes” if you will, but also inhabiting the wild, anything goes attitude of the era. Hard to believe he is a werewolf on his days off! But, appearances aside, each actor personifies each person right down to their mannerisms and quirks.

The supporting cast does a wonderful job and all stay true to the time period. By the way, Clint Howard better hope his brother NEVER stops making movies! But then again, we should all hope the same. Beginning the movie with each of the characters in an interview format was a neat treat and what I mean by an unexpected direction. It took a minute to figure out that I was watching the characters and not the actors portraying them. All worked very hard to breathe life into what could have been a deadly boring story line.

In addition to the awesome acting and directing, I couldn’t help notice how the lighting was made to play around Frank Langella as Nixon. He was always moving from light into shadow, a wonderful metaphor for this particular president. Far from being a dry retelling of history, this film holds the viewer with all the emotions and machinations that went with this strange period in our history. Yes, you know the plot but you don’t know the back-story and for that reason alone I would recommend this movie. Loved the movie but I have to say, I’m certainly tired of living through rotten presidents!

K: I had put off seeing this movie because I thought I wouldn't be able to follow all the political intricacies of the period since I was a toddler when all of this happened in real life. But I was thrilled that this movie wasn't like that at all. I could just relax and let myself get sucked into the story (the best quality of a good movie, imho).

I would say that the best part of the movie was that Nixon wasn't painted in the flat and predictable colors I was expecting. The depth of his character was fabulously acted by Frank Langella, who really brought to life the insecurities that seem to have been the driving force behind all the mistakes Nixon made.

Obviously, Michael Sheen is an excellent actor and Ron Howard certainly knows how to make a great movie. Everyone should spend two hours to watch this one. It's definitely worth the time.

The Day the Earth Stood Still

J: Heavy Sigh! Once again, after eagerly awaiting a movie, I have to confess a bit of disappointment with “The Day the Earth Stood Still”. While my issues with this remake of not only one of my favorite sci-fi movies but also one of the first of that genre I remember seeing as a kid are small, they are significant.

This movie is about 15 minutes short of being brilliant. I have no problem with the necessary change of plot focus in this version. The original version was made during a time when most “flying saucer” movies were thinly disguised treatises about the paranoia surrounding creeping Communism and fear of the atom bomb. Since that’s somewhat passé I agree a different focus was necessary and the one chosen was ultimately the right one. More about that in a minute because it is at the crux of my biggest issue with the movie.

Keanu Reeves is the perfect Klaatu. He has the textbook deadpan delivery for someone tasked with Klaatu’s mission, as well as being alien to both his human body and the emotions that come with it. This ability has usually been the critics’ target for his past performances, however, in just the same way a director would want Dustin Hoffman or Al Pacino to chew through his scenery, Keanu’s gift for understatement serves most of his characters extremely well.

Naturally, this movie just begged for the kind of outstanding special effects and computer enhancement the original missed; no surprise there. And may I say Gort was awesome! Totally high-tech and very scary. In fact, one particular scene has the robot clearly staring at its protagonist – without the benefit of an obvious eye. You know how creepy it is to be in a room with a picture whose eyes seem to follow you? Same effect! And leave it to the military, in its usual Evil Empire-esque supporting role, to turn the robot’s name into an acronym. Unfortunately, there wasn’t much interaction between Gort and Klaatu, which created a kind of disconnect because Gort was there to do Klaatu’s bidding. This movie definitely needed more Gort!

Another nice touch was the introduction of a character ostensibly from Klaatu’s planet who had already been on Earth for some time and had become somewhat attached to us pathetic Earth creatures. This interaction was a step in the direction that I wanted to see the movie take. However, it was only a baby step.

Jennifer Connelly as Helen Benson was compelling enough in the part but the real standout in this pairing was Jaden Smith, of the Will and Jada lineage. He added a nice dimension as Helen Benson’s son with a great twist on the original family dynamic. Kathy Bates, as the President’s stand-in (he was in a “secure location” – does Cheney know this Pres was in his secret digs?), was not given much to work with in her scenes but did a good job with what she had.

All things taken into account, I wasn’t terribly disappointed and certainly don’t feel cheated out of a couple hours time. That said, here is my big issue and why I say this movie was 15 minutes too short. The plot of this movie is based on the fact that humans have failed in their stewardship of the planet; certainly the right tone to take. However, Klaatu only shared that fact with Helen Benson and Dr. Barnhardt (a very restrained John Cleese). In order to properly bring this film to a close, Klaatu needed to share that message with the entire planet, as he did just prior to departure in the original. Without that definitive punctuation mark, the entire point of the movie fell flat. I certainly wasn’t looking for a lecture here or anyone on their soapbox but if you’re an alien who has travelled through that much space and time to make a point, you need to make it to more than two people.

Oh yeah, one more thing and one that really cheesed me off. No, please don’t regurgitate as many catch phrases as possible when doing a remake but, for Heaven’s Sake, if there is an iconic statement such as “Klaatu Verrada Nicto” in an original movie then you damn well better put it in the remake! At least Keanu Reeves didn’t have to say “Whoa” in this flick – bet he enjoyed that.

K: I mostly agree with my PIC's review above. However, I think I was slightly more disappointed than she was. I still enjoyed the movie, but the plot seemed to lack some cohesion. If Klaatu gave his big speech at the end (as he did in the original) I would have felt that the movie was complete. I think this is the 15 minutes to which my PIC was referring. Short of doing that, they maybe could have put in more Gort doing kickass Gort things. Gort totally rocked! Gort! Gort! Gort! Overall, it's a decent movie worth watching if you're a sci-fi fan. If you're not a sci-fi fan this might be too risky for you.

Twilight

K: I was impressed by the Twilight movie. It stayed true to the book and successfully carried the characters we all know and love onto the silver screen. Before the movie I wasn't sure if I liked Kristen Stewart as Bella; Kristen seems so aloof in interviews it didn't seem like she had enough energy to put into a major movie role. But soon after the movie started I knew the casting crew got the absolute perfect actress. She got Bella's disaffectedness as well as her desperate need to break through it.

I was also afraid that Robert Pattinson was just a pretty face and didn't have the acting chops to pull off the depths of Edward's character. I'm so pleased to have been so wrong! Robert got all the little nuances of Edward and made it fun to watch his character's transformation. Also, a nod to Robert for writing that nifty piece of piano music for the movie. I will be looking on line for the sheet music in the very near future.

Much of the book, especially the first half if I remember correctly, takes place in Bella's thoughts. The movie makers didn't seem to have any difficulty in getting everything across to the viewing audience. I like the first scene in biology class where we see wings behind Edward from a stuffed bird, which was a nod to Bella's description of Edward in the books as an angel. The choice to cast all unknown actors made it easier to slip into the world of Forks, Washington and the secret subculture that lurks beneath the surface. And, of course, I love all the Cullens - even snotty Rosalie. They made me want to be a Cullen vegetarian vampire too! Ok, I wanted to be one since way back when I was reading the books, but now I want to be one even more!

It's a good movie. If you have any interest at all, and can maybe stand a few giggles and gasps from fan girls during the movie, I recommend you see this one.

J: First, in the interest of full disclosure, I have to admit that I am a “Twilight Virgin”! These books have been floating around just off my radar while every tween-age and young teenage niece I have has spent the summer with them tucked securely under their arms. Very possibly because I am now old and cynical and haven’t believed in young love since, well I guess since I was young enough to think about it but not yet old enough to know it doesn’t really exist! While I was growing up, little girls were still told that Prince Charming would come riding up on his white steed and whisk them away. How fascinating that the 21st Century’s Prince Charming is a vampire! But I guess in a way it fits perfectly. Who better to appeal to a generation of alienated young people than a vampire! How dark and wonderfully Goth. After all, isn’t Dracula the original Goth?

I have always been a horror fan – both book and movie genres work for me. So I’m not unfamiliar with all the vampire lore; historical, literature, and cinematic. And I think for me that was the most entertaining part of the movie. I liked the spin Stephenie Meyer put on the vampire mythology. The consideration that vampires could live along side humans somewhat peacefully is fascinating. Yes, there would be “bad” vampires just like there are toughs and hoodlums in bad neighborhoods. But I thought the Cullen family was charming and very pretty; albeit a bit pale!

What I found most pleasing was the way she chose to explain why they wouldn’t go out in the sunlight. Because these vampires can go out in the day, no coffins in the basement of the beautiful Cullen home. I won’t say more than that because if there happens to be another poor human out there for whom this is a first taste of “Twilight” then I won’t spoil the moment. I also loved the baseball thing – it’s nice to know vampires think about something other than sucking blood.

The only downside of this movie would be the overly long longing glances between Edward Cullen and Bella Swan, which amounted to the cinematic version of overwrought prose. I had to keep reminding myself this book and movie was definitely meant for a more giggly type of movie-goer and when I forgot, there were plenty of giggly tweens in the audience to remind me.

What interested me, however, was the number of women around my age that were doing a good deal of giggling and sighing – and they weren’t in the theater enduring the movie for their daughters. Maybe, secretly, they wish that pesky Prince had been a bit darker too. I can make no pronouncements about faithful storytelling or taking scenes from other books to bulk up the action – virgin, remember? But I can say that I did enjoy this movie for what it was. And if I wake up in the middle of the night and briefly think that Edward Cullen is watching me sleep, well all the better for me. By the way, Edward, do feel free to stay!

K: I would like to disagree with my PIC about her so-called downside of "overly long longing glances." This is a very passionate relationship that's fairly puritan in nature. They barely touch and there's only one brief kissing scene - forget about anything even loosely related to sex! This is due to Edward's extreme attraction to Bella's blood and his willpower to control himself. She is his exact brand of heroin after all, and how many of us could resist our own exact brand of heroin? There really isn't any other way to portray this kind of intense love (not lust) on the screen except through the longing glances. So there.