Weekend Bites: "Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs"

- Posted by Ace



The ACESTER is back in the game. Sorry for the long hiatus, I had some personal matters to attend to. But now it’s back to work.

Since there was absolutely NOTHING good that opened this past weekend, I decided to check out something that opened LAST weekend, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, which opened at No. 1 for the second straight weekend. So now I have the great fortune of reviewing a food themed movie on a food themed movie blog.

Overall Rating: 2 ½ bites [out of 5]

For those of you who don’t know, the film is an adaptation of the well-known children’s book, written by Judi and Ron Barrett. The basic plot summary is about the town of Chewandswallow where it precipitates food and beverages three times a day. It’s been FOREVER since I’ve read the book, but I remember it being featured on Reading Rainbow, back in the day, and honestly, who didn’t love this book as a kid? Who didn’t love the idea of food raining down from the heavens? Or school being closed because a giant pancake smothers it?

But I digress.

Naturally, I was curiously excited about this film. Based on the trailer, I thought there was genuine ingenuity behind the adaptation of turning a twenty page children’s book into a full-length feature film. And to my surprise, it was in 3-D. I don’t think I’ve seen a 3-D movie since Captain Eo at Disneyland, so I was actually pretty excited about it. But to my disappointment, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs was kind of mediocre. Don’t get me wrong—I’m not being cynical because this is a kid’s movie. I’m a kid at heart and still love watching cartoons. But this one just wasn’t up to par.

The film’s adaptation of the book revolves around Flint Lockwood (voiced by Bill Hader), an aspiring inventor whose inventions usually end in disaster. He finally finds success with the invention of a machine that can create food out of water. Through one disastrous turn of events, his machine is launched into the upper atmosphere over Swallow Falls (later Chewandswallow), causing the food-based weather anomalies.

So here’s the good—Mr. T. His character was probably the coolest and funniest of the cast. And it’s glad to see, or rather, hear Mr. T in another acting gig. Secondly, the Gummi Bear fight scene was the only moment that made me laugh out loud. I don’t want to spoil anything, so I’ll just leave it at that. Lastly, it was great to see that the directors captured a few of the iconic moments from the book, for example the pancake crushing the school, and of course, the split pea soup fog. At least for me, those illustrations in the book stand out in memory to this day.

And now onto the bad news… it just wasn’t funny. It tried really hard to be funny, but the jokes all fell short of hitting its mark. I was sitting in a movie theatre full of kids, and there were very few moments when even the kids laughed out loud. It honestly felt like they were pitching a thousand different jokes, in hopes that at least one of them would stick, rather than letting the comedy come naturally. I can’t recall one other funny moment in the film, other than the Gummi Bear scene.

Some people may think that I’m being a little harsh, but I think that today’s audience has become accustomed to some great animated feature films, all of which possess mass appeal to all audiences. But Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, which had so much promise and the nostalgia factor, failed to meet its potential.

Image courtesy of Columbia Pictures and Sony Pictures
Read more!

What's on the Menu: 9/25 - 9/27

- Posted by Rusty


A huge amount of stuff is opening this weekend—there are two big releases, but a few of the smaller films might be worth checking out. Let's see what looks good...



1. “Surrogates” - I like the concept, and I’m a big fan of Willis and the supporting cast (which includes Ving Rhames, James Cromwell, and Radha Mitchell)…but something about this movie is just not clicking with me. Based on a respected graphic novel, this takes place in the not-too-distant future where human beings interact solely through robot avatars, all controlled from the safety and comfort of their own homes. But, then, a mysterious murder occurs, and it’s up to Bruce Willis (both the young-looking avatar and the real-life model) to get to the bottom of it. So, yeah, we get shades of The Matrix and I, Robot, all put together in a shiny, conspiracy-thriller package by director Jonathan Mostow and his Terminator 3 screenwriters. I think Terminator 3 is unfairly hated—I know it’s the weakest in the series, but its goofy charm made it pretty fun to watch, and Mostow certainly knows how to up the energy and explosions. The posters for this one are also pretty clever (showing beautiful models with robotic parts), and I think there are some good ideas in the premise, especially our complete obsession with technology. But, all in all, the trailers and the late-September release date suggest a pretty mediocre, generic sci-fi movie to me—something along the lines of Schwarzenegger’s action-heavy The 6th Day, and a more self-serious (and thus less fun) film than Mostow’s Terminator 3. I hope I’m wrong, but I think I’ll catch this one when it hits DVD.


2. “Fame” - I have a soft spot for these inspirational, follow-your-heart dance flicks (ie, Take the Lead, Step Up 2—they always remind me of Jon Heder’s “If you can dream it, you can do it!” pep-talk voicemail in Blades of Glory), but I think they’re best saved for catching on cable over paying 12 bucks to see in theaters. This is based on the beloved 1980 film of the same name, as well as the long-running TV show (with a killer, catchy theme song!) starring Debbie Allen, who cameos here as a principal. The plot’s a blended version of many other dance movies—we got a special Performing Arts school, kids with undiscovered talent, stubborn parents who just don’t believe in their kids, snotty, rich people who need to learn humility, you name it. I have a feeling it’ll still be entertaining, and the dancing and singing will be quite impressive—overall, it just looks like clean, harmless entertainment to tide audiences over until the bigger releases in October. The reviews are mostly average, and I’m guessing the final film will be just that.



3. “Brief Interviews with Hideous Men” - I’d see this just to support John Krasinksi, so good as the loveable Jim Halpert every week on The Office. This is Krasinski’s writing/directing debut, and it’s based on a collection of essays by the late David Foster Wallace. I saw an interview with Krasinksi a while back, and he seemed so passionate about Wallace and his work—it looks like he earnestly tried to make a film that honored the material and the late author. I didn’t read the book (although I’m planning on catching up on Wallace one of these days), but I wish Krasinki well—he seems like a great guy, and I’m rooting for him to have a strong behind-the-camera debut. Brief Interviews is basically what the title says—after a surprise breakup, one grad student (Julianne Nicholson) interviews a bunch of men, including Krasinki, Will Arnett, Timothy Hutton, and SNL’s Will Forte, on relationships, life, and everything in between. The trailer’s pretty fun, and props to Krasinki for choosing some offbeat, tricky material to adapt. However, the reviews are pretty mixed, and I think the extra-talky subject matter has a risk of coming across as flat and uncinematic—I could see it going either way, but, at the very least, it will be an interesting first directing effort. It’s opening in limited release and might be worth checking out, especially if you’re looking for something that skews a bit different and edgier.



4. “The Boys Are Back” - This is high on my must-see list. It’s another limited release, but, like last week’s Bright Star, it sounds like it’s worth tracking down. Inspired by a best-selling memoir, this is the story of Clive Owen’s widower father, and how he and his boys cope with the loss of their mother. Luke and Ace make fun of me, since I seem to be a fan of almost every handsome Brit…but they tend to be dependably good, and Owen is no exception. Clive Owen could probably read me a pizza menu, and it’ll still come out with his patented brand of Intense—he’s the King of Unshaven Cool, and lately he’s perfected his image as the all-purpose, scruffy, brooding badass. That’s why this is such a great change of pace for him—a welcome return to straight-up, emotional drama, and I think he’ll deliver a very wining performance. The movie’s already attracting Oscar buzz for Owen, and this sounds like powerful, very moving material if done right. It’s from the director of Shine (a heartbreaking, beautiful film that won Geoffrey Rush a Best Actor Oscar), the reviews are strong (although they're more enthusiastic about the acting than the script), and, as a fan, it’s good to see Owen flex some different acting muscles—I have very high hopes for this one.



5. “Pandorum” - I saw the trailer for this a while back, and it doesn’t look half bad. It won’t touch the likes of Alien, but it might just be an entertaining, semi-smart sci-fi/horror flick. Dennis Quaid and Ben Foster play two astronauts, who suddenly find themselves on a spaceship with no recollection of who they are…or what’s on board with them. What was their original mission? What’s the secret to their being there? Interesting questions, and there’s good stuff to be mined from this premise. I love claustrophobic suspense films (The Descent, Alien, Pitch Black), where it’s all about the acting and the escalating tension—could be an under-the-radar, pleasant genre surprise. Then again, the mostly negative reviews suggest it falls apart by the third act, by which point it turns into your run-of-the-mill monster-attack movie. It still looks more promising than Surrogates to me…but I’m also the guy who sees every Resident Evil movie in theaters, so take my view with a slight grain of salt.



6. “Paranormal Activity” - This is actually the best-reviewed movie this week—a tiny-budget, haunted-house movie that’s getting favorable comparisons to The Blair Witch Project and Cloverfield (it uses the similar device of the entire movie being “found footage”). The premise is simple: a couple keep having strange disturbances in their house, so the husband installs some hidden cameras…and creepy chaos ensues. I like moody horror films, those all about atmosphere, subtle scares, and believable characters (and not hot people that get naked…and then die) much more than the gory, slasher kind. This could be something interesting—the cast is full of unknowns (which could help sell the “authenticity” of the premise), and the fake “true story” angle worked wonders for Blair Witch—could be a breakout hit if it catches on with people, especially as we move closer to Halloween.



7. “Coco Before Chanel” - An import from France, this one’s also getting a limited release before it slowly rolls out to more cities. Starring the luminous Audrey Tautou (The Da Vinci Code, Amelie), it’s the biography of fashion icon Coco Chanel, and her rise from humble obscurity to worldwide recognition. It’s a good subject, and I’m sure it’s a sumptuously filmed, well-acted biopic—it’s just not something I’m particularly jumping to see. I can picture this getting Oscar love for its costumes, and Audrey Tautou lights up the screen in any movie she’s in, so maybe this will get her some awards recognition too. Looks like a good movie—it's well-reviewed, and while it’s not something that interests me directly, it looks like a quality film worth catching, especially if the subject matter strikes your fancy.



8. “Capitalism: A Love Story” - I’m not a fan of Michael Moore (Bowling for Columbine, Fahrenheit 9/11), but I have to give him credit: he brings up good points, and he definitely gets people talking. With this movie, Moore tackles the current economic crisis, from both the business and everyday-person side. I’m sure it’ll have lots of over-the-top moments, but this is important subject matter (stuff like the AIG bonus-checks incidents and our country’s unemployment rate) and the reviews are mostly positive. So, if you’re in the mood for a topical, (more or less) informative documentary, this will do the trick nicely.

And that's it for this week's new releases. What do you guys think? Do any of these sound interesting, or like something worth seeing this weekend?

Me? I think “The Boys Are Back” looks like the best new movie, but I have a sneaky feeling I’ll end up seeing “Pandorum” one of these days (and sadly might just enjoy it).

-- And on a quick side note: I’m also really curious to see Megan Fox host SNL this weekend (11:30 pm, Saturday on NBC). I know “Jennifer’s Body” underperformed, but I still think she’s more talented than it seems—this could be a great chance for her to show some range, and prove once and for all if there’s more to her than just amazing looks (just look at Justin Timberlake’s now-classic SNL stints…although I don’t think Megan Fox will hit the genius heights of “Motherlover”!).

Images courtesy of Touchstone Pictures, MGM/United Artists, IFC Films, Salty Pictures, BBC Films, Miramax Films, Overture Films, Paramount Pictures, Dreamworks SKG, Haut et court, Warner Bros., Sony Pictures Classics, Dog Eat Dog Films, Paramount Vantage, and the Weinstein Company.
Read more!

The Daily Munchies: Could "Percy Jackson" be the next "Harry Potter"??

- Posted by Rusty

Ever since the one-two punch of Lord of the Rings and (especially) Harry Potter (man, that was a great year), studios have been trying hard to find that next, great fantasy family-franchise. Did you guys notice this? It seemed like every possible kids' fantasy book, all with potential to be a series, was optioned and made into a movie…most with pretty spotty results...

And, so, we got stuff like Eragon, The Seeker: The Dark is Rising, The Water Horse, Inkheart (which had potential, but sadly fell apart), City of Ember, and The Spiderwick Chronicles. My pick for the best of these was The Golden Compass—a tricky piece of material (based on a very good book, even if its sequels didn’t live up to it) that, at the very least, had some magic and moments of wonder. And it was one of the few that seemed to love its source material, and not just trying to hit that fantasy money-making sweet spot.

Which brings us to Percy Jackson and the Olympians. Apparently, it’s another very popular children’s book series, tracing the great destiny of Percy, the son of Poseidon, and his adventures with the Greek gods in the modern world. I like that concept a lot, and I’m crazy about Greek mythology—we have far too few films tapping into that sprawling, epic, very fun world (I’m psyched for next year’s Sam Worthington-led, Clash of the Titans).


This movie will be based on the first book in the series, The Lightning Thief. And I have to give the filmmakers credit—they’re really trying for this to be a hit. They got Chris Columbus to direct (the guy who gave us the first two Harry Potter movies), hopefully getting that lightning to strike twice, and a hell of a cast—Pierce Brosnan (who was in Columbus’ Mrs. Doubtfire), Sean Bean (Lord of the Rings, Troy…and great to see him back in ancient-Greece territory—now can they just give him his long-deserved Odyssey movie?), Uma Thurman, Catherine Keener, Rosario Dawson, and Steve Coogan (Tropic Thunder, Octavius in the Night at the Museum movies) as the underworld god, Hades (brilliantly voiced by James Woods in Disney’s Hercules). The lead role falls to Logan Lerman, a talented young actor—he was really good as Christain Bale’s son in 3:10 to Yuma.

You can see the brand-new teaser above. I like some of the imagery (even if Mt. Olympus evokes a little too much Hogwarts), and I love this cast, but I still don’t have a solid grasp on the film. Could be fun…or it could be a star-filled, expensive, bland movie that will never see a sequel (after all, Eragon had an amazing cast too)—there’s far too little footage here to get a good feel for the the movie. Columbus made two good Harry Potter movies (although, in retrospect, he’s probably the weakest director to take on that franchise), and he does have a great eye for casting (as he showed by finding Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, and Rupert Grint). The material sounds ripe for some visual, epic fun…so let’s wait and see. I doubt it will be on the level of Harry Potter, but I’m certainly interested to see more.

How about you guys? Like the concept, or intrigued by the trailer?

And has anyone read the series it’s based on? This hits theaters February 12, 2010, so I’ll try to read a few of the books by then. If anyone’s familiar with it, shoot your thoughts in the comments below.
Read more!

Late Lunches: "State of Play"

- Posted by Rusty


Review: State of Play

My rating: 4 bites [out of 5]

I showed this movie to my parents a few days ago, and during a moment of Russell Crowe-investigative-reporting awesomeness, my mom turned to me and said:

“You want to be a reporter?”

I shook my head, just as Crowe did something badass again.

“Good. [Pause] Because you’d make a terrible one.”

That was meant in the nicest way possible...and I couldn’t agree more. I never wanted to be a reporter (if I do go into Journalism, I’d be much happier commentating from the side…preferably about movies, books, and TV!), but, man, I would never have the guts for what Russell Crowe does here. If I worked with him, I’d just be the worst possible partner—I’d nicely ask people for interviews, make jokes all the time, take “no” for an answer…and then Crowe would come along and rightfully beat me up (maybe he’ll even scream, “Are you not entertained?!” while doing that).

But that’s one of the reasons I loved State of Play—it was a fascinating glimpse into the lives of reporters—something I know very little about, despite wanting to be in that world. We see the tolls to your personal life that accumulate through the years, the consequences of publishing the truth about the people you care about, and just the choices these guys face on a daily basis, especially in the name of a good story. It’s not the main focus of the movie, but these details add life to the material, and raise it above what could have been just a standard mystery movie.

State of Play is a very strong film—the kind of well-thought-out story where lots of people with different agendas come together, the secrets come out, twists and turns happen at every possible moment, and loyalties and friendships are tested. This is smart entertainment—very well-acted, tightly plotted, and, despite little action in the traditional sense, it’s more exciting than what usually passes for “thrillers”. And it’s headlined by some of our best actors—all working in top-form, and giving us one of the best ensembles of the year.

I won’t get into too much of the story, since watching it unravel is a big part of the fun. So, here’s the basic set-up: Russell Crowe is seasoned Washington D.C. reporter, Cal McAffrey, and he stumbles on a strange shooting case. Meanwhile, his old college roommate, Congressman Collins (Ben Affleck), comes under fire for a possible affair, a story that falls to Rachel McAdams’s newbie blogger, Della Frye (and believing Crowe and Affleck as roommates is the only real stretch in the movie). As the twists pile up, Cal and Della start working together to unlock what might just be a wide-spanning conspiracy.


Once the main mystery kicks in, the story moves at a clip, tossing out rewarding plot twists left and right (especially one near the end, which viewers might figure out if they pay close attention). But I really want to give the filmmakers credit for making the movie as much about character as the overarching conspiracy. Crowe, especially, seems to be relishing playing Cal McAffrey—sure, he’s the never-back-down type when it comes to an important story, but the script (and Crowe) makes him a genuinely good guy—one who believes in the power of the truth, that newspapers could (and should) do more than entertain, even at the expense of making a profit. I also like that Crowe’s carrying a little extra weight here—he’s not in Maximus shape, and I think he uses that to his advantage. Cal’s a bit pudgy, loves to eat some second helpings of chili dogs (the mischievous smile on his face when he orders that is priceless), and that’s all a natural part of his character—he’s not the kind of guy who commands the attention of the Colosseum, but more the type who sneaks in on you with charm, his sense of humor, and his unthreatening, always-messy locks of hair. Crowe’s one of my favorite actors, and I like his lighter, playful roles (A Good Year, 3:10 to Yuma had glimpses of this too) just as much as the powerhouse-actor ones (like A Beautiful Mind, Gladiator, etc). He’s got a Robin Hood movie coming out next year, from Gladiator director, Ridley Scott, and I can’t wait to see what he does with that.

Rachel McAdams does lovely work here as well—in fact, it’s the relationship between her and Crowe that really makes the movie for me. Her Della Frye is a good writer, but a completely inexperienced reporter. Still, she’s got spark and tons of determination (she would have made a terrific Lois Lane), and Crowe’s character takes her under his wing—it’s a sweet notion, and how Cal pushes to bring out her inner-great-reporter are some of the movie’s nicest touches. There’s also a scene with the two of them near the end, playing off a running joke in the movie, and it’s just a treat to watch—just two fine actors breathing life and energy to some great writing. McAdams is one of our most talented young actresses, so kudos to her for continuing to pick quality projects like this one.

I also want to single out Ben Affleck as Congressman Collins—Affleck’s another one of my favorites, and it’s especially nice to see him put in such strong character work (I also hear his hippie stoner in Extract steals that whole movie). After all the Giglis and Surviving Christmases, I know his name has become a bit of a joke, but Affleck has been on a major roll since his “comeback” with Hollywoodland (which should have gotten him a Best Supporting Actor nomination). Watching his interviews, he’s definitely a clever and talented guy, and one with a wicked sense of humor about himself (really, listen to some of his DVD commentaries—no one makes fun of his own films like him)—he would be the first to admit that he made awful film choices in the past, but he’s well on his way to correcting that. This is a tricky role, and casting the likeable Affleck is a smart, extra layer to an already interesting character—see what I mean when you watch the film—it’s easily his best work since Hollywoodland.

The supporting cast is also excellent, including Robin Wright Penn (The Princess Bride), a deliciously smarmy Jason Bateman (the very missed Arrested Development), and Oscar-winner Helen Mirren (The Queen, National Treasure 2) as the tough-as-nails editor of Crowe’s newspaper (if anyone could stand toe-to-toe with Crowe…and intimidate him, it’s her). Some great writers pitched in to the script, most notably Tony Gilroy (the Bourne trilogy) and Billy Ray (Shattered Glass, the best movie about journalists, in my opinion…and proof that Hayden Christensen can actually act!), and it’s all confidently directed by Kevin McDonald (The Last King of Scotland).

The movie also comments on the current newspaper woes—mainly, the slow death of print and the domination of online material. I’m not too knowledgeable on that, but I thought the movie handled the issue with subtlety and quite a positive, intelligent outlook. I actually feel the same way about books, with the steadily building argument that Kindles and portable electronics will one day replace them. That may be the case…but, for now, I think people will still flock to read a good book in print, exactly the way it was intended (Harry Potter and Dan Brown’s new book—which I’ll do an “On the Bookshelf” for in a few days—are perfect examples of that).

If I had any quibbles, it’s that the pacing lags a bit toward the end (although you forgive it on second viewing, since it’s vital for the final twist). There’s also one confrontation with Affleck and Crowe that feels too overwritten—the forced, “I thought you were my friend!”-type of outburst, where Affleck has to scream out exactly what the Conflict is for the audience—it’s one of the very few false notes this movie hits. Like I said, these are minor quibbles—little things like that could have been taken out, but their presence didn't hurt my enjoyment of the movie.

Overall, along with Adventureland, this is my favorite film that I got to review here, so this is a very easy recommendation. Great suspense, an interesting story, and some fantastic acting…and you learn a little about journalists (which I found very cool)—I think there’s a little something for everyone here. And, let me just add: for a rental, it’ll be cheaper and a whole lot better than some of the films currently in theaters.

…and here are some fun facts to close this off:

Fun Fact 1: This movie was originally set to star Brad Pitt and Edward Norton (as Cal and Congressman Collins, respectively) in their first, legitimate post-Fight Club reunion (they co-produced a documentary since that movie), but that fell through as the script underwent some changes. Great actors, both of them, and the resulting film would have been just as interesting…if totally different.

Fun Fact 2: This movie’s based on a BBC miniseries starring James McAvoy (who was also in director McDonald’s The Last King of Scotland) and Bill Nighy (Davy Jones in the last two Pirates of the Caribbean movies)—I love both McAvoy and Nighy (man, I have way too many favorites), so I’ll be sure to check it out and let you guys know how it compares. The filmmakers here did an admirable job condensing 6 episodes worth of story into 2 hours, but if anyone’s curious, I’m sure a more-detailed version of this could be pretty interesting to see.


Images courtesty of Universal Pictures, Working Title Films, and BBC
Read more!

The Daily Munchies: Emmys 2009 Recap

- Posted by Rusty

Anyone watch the Emmys last night? I love award shows in general (I think Luke and I are the few dudes I know who religiously watch the Golden Globes and Oscars), and I thought this one was just an overall good time. “30 Rock” and “Mad Men” took top prizes (and one of these days I’ll start watching and probably get into both shows), as expected, and the whole evening was emceed with tons of charm by Neil Patrick Harris (you go, NPH!). Here are some great recaps online:

Entertainment Weekly’s Best and Worst Moments

MSN Highs/Lows Recap

And here are a few of my own favorite moments...

Jon Cryer’s Acceptance Speech

Yeah, I was upset that NPH lost too (although it led to a hilarious bit later in the show), but I think Cryer is still a deserving candidate. I don’t really like “Two and a Half Men,” but Cryer’s always funny whenever I tune in, and his acceptance speech was priceless.

“I used to think awards were meaningless trinkets of momentary popularity…but now…I know they’re the only measure of your true worth as a human being.”

Fantastically done—there’s a reason everyone’s been in love with this guy since Duckie first fell for Andie.

NPH’s “Meltdown”

This was perfect—NPH was trying hard to not make the night “awkward” after his loss, but then huffily tore up his stage notes, and “interviewed” Cryer on how it felt to win. Both guys were obviously having fun, and Cryer had the last laugh again, when he described what went on in his mind when they called his name at the podium: “Suck it, NPH!”

The Celebrity Introductions

This was a really nice touch from the show writers—Neil Patrick Harris had to introduce every presenter, but instead of the typical, lofty “The star of ‘Man Men’”-type intros, we got to hear each celebrity’s embarrassing, way-down-on-IMDb credits, such as "Additional Voices in ‘Deer Hunter 2’”. It made the entire night feel more relaxed—like a comfortable shindig with some friends as opposed to a stuffy awards show with lots of awkward banter.

Michael Emerson’s win for “LOST”!

Michael Emerson plays Benjamin Linus on “LOST,” and, in my mind, that character is one of the very best things about an already amazing show. Emerson’s Ben is one slimy, shifty, bug-eyed, can-never-guess-what-he-wants dude, always playing with someone’s mind, and the master manipulator of all that goes on on that crazy Island. It really is the performance of a lifetime, and Emerson did the most unimaginable thing with it: he made that main Other, a genuine bastard and a classic, murderous villain in pretty much every way, likeable. He’s such a fascinating character to watch, and that look on Ben’s face when his daughter’s fate did not go the way he “planned” was one of the best bits of acting on that entire show. Kudos to him for a most deserving win, and for a gracious, very humble acceptance speech. “LOST” also won the Best Drama Series Emmy its first year out (another much deserved win—its first season really was its best), and got a statue for Terry O’Quinn (a.k.a. the incredible John Locke) in 2007. I like that it’s coming back into the critical fold, and here’s hoping the upcoming final season will end my favorite show of all time (and arguably one of TV’s best ever—certainly one of its most interesting) on just as high of a note as it began.

Ricky Gervais

Gervais is comic gold when he comes onto any award show. I love his laid-back, say-whatever-the-hell style—when he won the Golden Globe for his original version of “The Office,” he riffed on stage and admitted to just wasting time until the camera light told him to go away. Last year, he made fun of Steve Carrell for “stealing” his Emmy for “Extras”—he wanted it back, for it was the least Carrell could do after Gervais “sat through ‘Evan Almighty’”. And this year, Gervais went on a hilarious tangent, saying he loves the Emmys over all other award shows because there’s no “film stars” here—no chiseled good looks in this auditorium, so now he could feel “above average”. He capped this off by ribbing his “Office” double, Steve Carrell:

"We’re in a place where Steve Carrell is considered good-looking. And Rainn Wilson…like I said, [I’m] above-average”.

I love this guy—he’s got a biting wit, an infectious, mischievous giggle, and he’s just one of the funniest people alive. "Extras” was a brilliant show (especially in its second season—I really recommend it), and I’ve been meaning to check out the original “Office” for a long time now. I’ll definitely do it soon—after all, it’s only 13 episodes—I really have no excuse anymore. His brand of squirming-awkward humor is a bit tough to stomach at first, but the more you watch, the more you appreciate the genius and honesty of the writing.

On a quick side note, Gervais has a new film coming out (that he co-wrote and co-directed), “The Invention of Lying,” co-starring Jennifer Garner, Rob Lowe, Jonah Hill, Tina Fey, Jason Bateman, and supposedly some great, big-star cameos to add to that ridiculous, overstuffed-with-funny cast. I’ll do a Trailer Time feature on it in a bit, but the premise is ripe for great comedy: it all takes place in a world where everyone can only tell the truth…until Gervais’ character discovers lying, and uses that newfound power to woo Jennifer Garner, a woman way out of his league (and one who’s brutally honest with Gervais about his awful, “pig-nosed” genetic prospects). It looks fantastic, and check out the trailer right HERE—I’ll post it again later this week, with a bit more detail. It opens in theaters October 2nd.

There were lots of other great moments, including Justin Timberlake’s (who makes SNL instantly better whenever he stops by now) quick ad-lib on Sarah Silverman’s fake mustache, the always classy, quippy, and sharp Tina Fey (who squeezed in a dig at NBC for devoting a giant chunk of primetime to the new “Jay Leno Show”), Jon Stewart’s gracious win for “The Daily Show,” Conan O’Brien’s very funny, but too brief Facebook skit (I’m always up for more from my favorite host with a killer ‘do…who also did the best job hosting the Emmys a few years ago), and much more.

Gripes?

I only have two. As much as I respect Bryan Cranston (and hear great things about his show, “Breaking Bad”) this was Hugh Laurie’s year to win. Every year, he gives us more and more powerful work as the curmudgeonly, genius Dr. House, and last season was no exception—the finale episode alone should have gotten him that statue. Well, there’s always next year…they can’t ignore the brilliant Laurie forever…

Also, where was the award for Best Individual Performance in a Variety Program? It looks like the category was cancelled this year, and that’s pretty disappointing—I would have loved to see Hugh Jackman win for this showstopping turn at the Oscars! (for a little silver lining, Hugh Jackman already has an Emmy for his Tonys hosting gig a few years back)


And that's my wrap-up. I know I’m missing tons of other good stuff, so what were some of your favorite moments? Were you as psyched as me for “LOST’s” pretty cool win? And what did you guys think of Neil Patrick Harris’ first (and I’m pretty positive, not last) hosting stint?

Images courtesy of CBS Broadcasting Inc.
Read more!

The Daily Munchies: Trailer Time

- Posted by Rusty

Two big trailers came out this weekend. Let’s see how they stack up…

“Valentine’s Day”

Remember the cast for “He’s Just Not That Into You”? Between Jennifer Connelly, Bradley Cooper, Ben Affleck, and Jennifer Aniston, I thought that was probably the best group of people ever assembled for a romantic comedy. Well…I think that’s about to be blown away completely by this movie. A quick list: Julia Roberts, Bradley Cooper, Jessica Biel, Jennifer Garner, Jessica Alba, Ashton Kutcher, Topher Grace (great to see him as always!), Patrick Dempsey, Anne Hathaway, Shirley Maclaine, Jamie Foxx…and, many, many more. Yeah, this movie’s a guaranteed hit—with the people involved, chances are you’re a fan of at least one person in there, and it’s from director Garry Marshall (“The Princess Diaries,” “Pretty Woman”), who has a light, entertaining touch with almost all of his movies. Now the bad news (for me at least): it’s from the guys who wrote “Never Been Kissed” and “He’s Just Not That Into You”—neither movie was great, and I’d hate for this to be another case where you like some of the stories, but can’t stand a good chunk of them. Still, the trailer looks cute (I like how Bradley Cooper is becoming the rom-com master—take that, McConaughey!), and I’m hoping this could be like our very own, all-star, American “Love Actually”. This one opens (you guessed it) next Valentine’s Day weekend—February 12th, 2010.

“Everybody’s Fine”

I like little movies like this, where it’s all about the good acting and the writing. Here, Robert De Niro is a widower who never quite connected with his kids as closely as his wife did. So, when they all cancel for a weekend get-together, he decides to go out and visit every one of them…oh, and his grown-up kids are played by Sam Rockwell, Kate Beckinsale, and Drew Barrymore. Another solid cast, and the whole trailer has a warm and friendly feel to it—it reminds me a lot of Steve Carrell’s “Dan in Real Life”—another dramedy about family, which was just a well-acted, lovely all-around package. De Niro is in fine form (as always) as the aging father, and the rest of the cast looks spot-on, particularly Barrymore. It might not win many awards, but I think it'll be a pleasant diversion from the Oscar heavy-hitters. “Everybody’s Fine” hits theaters December 4th.

What do you guys think? Curious to see one or both of these?

I'll see "Everybody's Fine" for sure, and I’m looking forward to “Valentine’s Day”—here’s hoping that it won’t turn into a bunch of likeable stars and great actors in a mediocre movie.

Trailers courtesy of Trailer Addict [end of post] Read more!

What's on the Menu: 9/18 - 9/20

- Posted by Rusty


Lots of stuff coming out this weekend. Let's dig in and see what looks good...



1. “Bright Star” - This is getting a limited release, but it sounds like it’s really worth hunting down. From director Jane Campion, it’s the story of the poet John Keats’ relationship with the love of his life, Fanny Browne (played by Abby Cornish, who’s earning non-stop raves for this performance). I read a little bit of Keats in college, and I liked him quite a lot—plus, Writers-on-the-Brink-of-Inspiration movies (like “Finding Neverland”) are some of my favorites—the English nerd in me is just instantly drawn to them. It looks like a quiet, moving film—maybe not the best thing when you’d like some entertainment, but a good change of pace, and a chance to learn something new about a great poet (I know really little about his life, so this sounds really interesting to me). Cool fact: “Bright Star” is actually the title of one of Keats’ poems, and, supposedly, his best work came during this particular period of his life, when he was genuinely inspired by love. This could be an Academy Awards darling by year’s end.



2. “Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs” - This looks cute. Maybe not “rush-out-and-see-it” cute for me (although the 3D is a tempting argument), but some pleasant and hopefully funny entertainment for the family. Apparently the original children’s book is a beloved property (my friend totally geeked out earlier this summer, telling me all about the town of Chewandswallow!), and it’s nice to see something like that resonate (same with “Where the Wild Things Are”). This will be the story of a kooky inventor, and how his machine helps (and then hugely overburdens) his hungry town with food falling from the sky. Bill Hader, Anna Faris, and Andy Samberg lead the voice cast—that’s a hell of a good line-up of funny people, and the trailers look like a whole lot of fun. If it doesn’t dumb down the material for kids (a stupid practice to begin with—do kids love Pixar’s stuff and “Shrek” because they talk down to them?), we could be looking at a new family favorite—expect some big business in theaters and tons of “Cloudy” DVDs worn out at home by next year. The mostly positive reviews are a good sign too.



3. “Jennifer’s Body” - Ah, Megan Fox… You know, I’m still not sure where I stand on her (like that’s such an important issue—it requires major thinking!)—she’s undeniably gorgeous (maybe “too hot,” as my friend argued for not liking her), but, so far, we haven’t seen much from her as an actress. Then again, I like her ballsy, no-fear attitude in interviews—check out some of those—she’s not afraid to speak her mind, and she was the only “Transformers” cast member to admit that the sequel makes barely any sense. She might be stuck-up and overexposed like crazy, but I think she’s smarter than she lets on—at the very least, she’s definitely aware of her own image, and “Jennifer’s Body” could be a good way to play with that.

Well, if Fox wants to expand beyond “Transformers,” this might be a good start, with her first real leading role. From “Juno” writer, Diablo Cody, this horror-comedy mishmash follows Jennifer, a small-town high-school queen bee who, through some pretty creative circumstances (involving Adam Brody’s guy-liner-wearing rock star), becomes a man-eating demon. I have no idea how this might turn out—the reviews are all over the map—it could be clever and fun, or it could be an absolute, tonally bizzare mess. It does look original, and I’m a fan of Cody’s quirky, pop-culture-literate teen-speak. The trailer is pushing hard the “Megan Fox is hot” angle, but I have a feeling this movie has more to offer—Cody strikes me as too smart a writer to give us a by-the-numbers horror movie—she would relish the chance to skew the horror-movie female stereotypes, and the usually pretty stupid, have-sex-and-you-die conventions.

A friend of mine actually called me up a few days ago, and gave my favorite proposition to see this: “Dude, we should see the new Megan Fox movie…for your blog, of course!” Aha…thanks, man—appreciate the “professional” support! If I do see it, I’ll let you know right away—I’m actually pretty curious what the final product will be like.


4. “Love Happens” - Man, does this look corny…yet, sadly, I still kind of want to see it. I'm a big fan of Eckhart (the unsung hero in "The Dark Knight"—he was fantastic as Harvey Dent!), and Jennifer Aniston could do this kind of “supportive love-interest” role in her sleep (even though I wish she’d do more interesting projects by now). Eckhart’s a motivational speaker with Issues (Hollywood loves this: a man who can solve other people’s problems…but not his own!), and Jennifer Aniston is the troubled soul he connects with. Really, it just looks like two likeable stars falling in love, and I’m always a sucker for something like that. I don’t think it’ll be too big of a hit, but it looks like the type of movie that will thrive on DVD and cable. I’m guessing there will be tons of clichés and sappiness with jackhammer-like-subtlety, but, all in all, it feels like a perfectly harmless date movie. Reviews are middling, so maybe this one is best saved for a rental.



5. “The Informant!” - I loved the trailer for this one, and director Steven Sodebergh (“Out of Sight,” “Ocean’s 11”) is always interesting in my book. Based on a true story, Matt Damon plays a pudgy, maybe not-too-bright (or is he?) corporate snitch, with major secret-agent delusions and a way-too-bloated sense of importance. I like that Sodebergh is going for a more outright funny tone here—“true story” movies tend to be heavy and “important”…but it looks like the cast and crew are giving us something more creative and original here. I’m really looking forward to this—I might not catch it this weekend, but it’s a must-see for me. I’m guessing Matt Damon will get a lot of awards love for his totally committed turn (and the Oscars love it when good-looking people dirty up their looks somehow), and, judging by that entertaining trailer, “The Informant!” has a small chance of being a mainstream hit.

How about you guys? Are you planning on catching any of these movies this weekend?

Images courtesy of Apparition, BBC Films, Sony Pictures Animation, 20th Century Fox, Universal Pictures, and Warner Bros. Pictures.
Read more!

The Daily Munchies: Trailer Time

- Posted by Rusty

Sorry, you guys--I haven’t done one of these in quite a while. But, to make up for a bit of lost time, here are some of my favorite recent trailers...

“The Men Who Stare at Goats”

I’m digging this trailer a lot—this movie tracks a top-secret division of the U.S. government, devoted to paranormal missions…and, yes, these guys are so good, they can stare down any goat! I like the offbeat sense of humor, that crazy cast (always great to see Jeff Bridges!), and the fact that it’s all supposedly based on true events. Clooney’s a lot of fun when he’s slightly unhinged (best seen with his Coen Brothers’ work, like “O, Brother, Where Art Thou?” and “Burn After Reading”), and it’s the directing debut of his longtime creative partner, Grant Heslov (you might remember him as the young agent under Schwarzenegger’s wing in “True Lies”)—this could be a quirky sleeper hit to go alongside Clooney’s more serious, likely Oscar-nominated turn in “Up in the Air,” out later this year too. Genius poster too, by the way—about time a goat gets its Hollywood due… Catch these crazy dudes on November 2nd. (and thanks for the heads up on the poster, Kristal!)

“Up in the Air”

I should just call this column the Clooney edition, huh? This movie comes from director Jason Reitman (son of director Ivan Reitman…who gave us “Ghostbusters”!). With just two films under his belt—the biting “Thank You for Smoking” and the quite lovely (if a bit overrated) “Juno”—he’s proving himself to be a major talent. This is a really creative trailer too—I can’t quite tell you what this is about, but I like the way it slowly draws us in. We know Clooney’s character is some kind of corporate speaker—one of those guys who travels so often that it becomes a way of life. And that’s it, really—the trailer is a quick series of scenes, all set to Clooney’s monologue about life on the move, what it takes to succeed. His speech is all cutthroat, business-people stereotype—these people are “sharks,” never stopping, never settling down. And yet look at the images—the empty apartments, the bare-bones connections, the people breaking apart, the quiet desperation. This is subject matter that could be jammed down our throats in the wrong hands, but I like the subtle, melancholy tone of the trailer—I think we’re looking at one of this year’s potential best films. Also, while Clooney’s one of our biggest stars, I think we tend to forget how good of an actor he can be—this could be a solid reminder of that. The reviews coming from the Toronto International Film Festival are nothing short of glowing, so I think this will be well worth checking out. This hits theaters November 25th.

“A Christmas Carol”

Director Robert Zemeckis gave us “Back to the Future,” one of my favorite movies of all time (I’m psyched every time someone gets a “Hey, McFly” or “Great Scott!” reference). He also gave us “The Polar Express” and “Beowulf,” both using his beloved motion-capture technology—simply put, it’s the technology that helped bring “Lord of the Rings”’ Gollum to life—capturing every detail of a live-action performance, and then transforming that into anything imaginable. I get why Zemeckis is attracted to it—the possibilities really are endless—any world can be constructed from the ground up, and actors are free to play whoever (and whatever) they want, minus all real-world restrictions—it’s a gift to actors who are game to experiment. It’s a fantastic concept…but I’m not crazy about the results so far.

All that blabbing aside, Disney’s “A Christmas Carol” is probably the best showcase yet for Zemeckis’ new style—if he really wants us to love this motion-capture filmmaking, this is probably the movie to do it with. Charles Dickens’ story has been adapted seemingly every single year...and why not? It’s timeless and charming—an adventurous, perfectly-constructed morality tale for the ages, all delivered with a tiny hint of Gothic-y horror goodness, and a huge, infections helping of Christmas spirit. Victorian London is a gorgeous setting, and, here, Zemeckis could really show off what motion-capture could do—you can even see it in this trailer. Big Ben Tower, which is just being constructed, Ebenezer Scrooge flying through the sky, the slightly exaggerated features of the characters—it honestly looks great, and I’m curious to see more now. (The animation is still a bit jarring, though, but hopefully the story will overpower that). I also like the designs of the Three Ghosts (of Christmas Past, Present, and Yet to Come)—the individual looks are imaginative, and they seem more organic in this world than they would in a live-action setting. All in all, the clip has a fun spirit, and I hope that will translate to the final movie.

Plus, Zemeckis has Jim Carrey playing roughly 8 different roles—we all know Carrey’s a gifted physical comedian, but he’s a hell of an actor too (as “The Truman Show” and “Eternal Sunshine” showed us)—this is the ideal platform for him to go crazy, and show us just how much of a ridiculous range he has. There's also quite the cast playing along, including Gary Oldman (playing Tiny Tim!), Colin Firth, Robin Wright Penn, and Bob Hoskins (reuniting with his “Who Framed Roger Rabbit?” director). Disney’s releasing this November 6th both in regular theaters and in IMAX 3D—I’ll try to catch it in 3D for sure. I want to like Zemeckis’ new approach (his next film will be filmed the same way—a remake of the Beatles classic, “Yellow Submarine”)—he’s too gifted a filmmaker, so I hope this is the movie that finally makes me a convert.

Now, if he could just get that rumored “Roger Rabbit” sequel off the ground…that I would see in a heartbeat!

What do you guys think? Do any of these movies look interesting or worth checking out? If I had to pick one, I think I'd go for "Up in the Air"--it looks like the kind of smart, powerful film Hollywood likes to give us around Oscar time (ie, "Brokeback Mountain," "Almost Famous," etc).

I'll be back with some more cool trailers (and one crappy one, but it's worth talking about) next week, along with my much-belated review of "State of Play", one of my favorite new films.

Clips courtesy of Trailer Addict.
Read more!

The Daily Munchies: “Pirates of the Caribbean 4” in 2011!

- Posted by Rusty


(Found via Cinematical and Comingsoon.net)

The first “Pirates of the Caribbean” is my favorite movie, hands down. I used to pick something more “classy” to pose as my favorite, like “Lawrence of Arabia” (which I still love), but there’s just no denying it. I saw it when I was 16, and it was just the best time I ever had at the theater. The characters, the visuals, the laughs, the swordfights, the adventure! It was magic like only the movies could deliver. (It was also the movie that made me want to be an actor—“of course I could do characters like Johnny Depp—it’s easy!”—ah, forgot all about that dream…)

“Pirates” deserved a sequel (and many at that, as long as Johnny Depp was willing to don the mascara and that iconic, boozy walk and accent)…and while I liked watching both of its sequels, I think the filmmakers took the wrong approach with them. After digesting both “Dead Man’s Chest” and “At World’s End” (and letting the hype—and my own giddiness—die down a little bit), I can safely saw that there was a good story in there—Davy Jones is a terrific villain, and many details, such as Will’s father, Bootstrap Bill, and the threat of the East India Trading Co., were interesting touches. But, in my view, undertaking such a massive, two-movie-spanning epic was not the right way to go. I love pieces of both films (and the 3rd one comes very close to equaling the 1st for me), but the story became unwieldy, leaving us with the too-much-filler “Dead Man’s Chest” and the cluttered, overlong “At World’s End”—in the end, none of the sequels could match the clever charm of the original.


Plus, I might be alone on this, but I didn’t love the first “Pirates” because of its supernatural angle—I thought the undead pirates were immensely clever—a neat, modern twist to the adventure genre, but it only added to the experience, not defined it. So, it was a bit disheartening to see the sequels embrace that element so much, losing the old-fashioned stunts and suspense (and maybe even some good character moments) to a parade of special effects. I still enjoyed both movies (and I watch the 3rd one almost as often as “Curse of the Black Pearl”), but there is a lot of room for improvement.

With that, I’d still go for another movie—let Disney make a stand-alone sequel—one movie to recapture the magic of the first, and leave the franchise on a high note. Up the swashbuckling, up the high-seas romance and adventure, and let’s just see a simple, inventive story (much like the first one was). Captain Jack Sparrow is a beloved character—I know lots of people had mixed feelings about the sequels (even though they made bucket loads of box-office gold), but I’m pretty sure they’ll turn up to see Johnny Depp take one more crack at quite possibly his best creation.

And why exactly am I rambling about “Pirates”? Well, because, in 2011, another “Pirates” movie is just that we’re getting! Just announced the other day, “Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides” is hitting theaters in the summer of 2011. Johnny Depp is officially signed on, (and Geoffrey Rush is expected to return as well), and while plot details are mum, we’ll probably see Sparrow and Barbossa (SPOILER ALERT) try to find the Fountain of Youth, like the last movie suggested.

As for Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley, it sounds like they’re sitting this one out, which (MINOR SPOILER ALERT) actually makes sense: their storyline was wrapped up pretty nicely in the end-credits scene of “At World’s End”, and they should only come back if they could be naturally tied in to this new adventure—I’d hate to see them shoehorned in just for recognition value. They’re both good characters, but I doubt there’s any more that can be done with them.

This could be really great—if Disney takes its time, and the writers give us a fresh, exciting story, we might just get the movie I’ve wanted to see since Jack Sparrow dove off the cliffs of Port Royal and asked for “that horizon”. Maybe Jack could finally get a love interest too? How awesome would it be to have Zoe Saldana come back as AnaMaria—those two seemed to have a great spark. Lots of possibilities, and with Depp and Rush front and center, I have very high hopes for this. “Drink up me hearties”…well, you know the rest! Cue that awesome “Pirates” music.


Images courtesy of Walt Disney Pictures
Read more!

R.I.P.: Patrick Swayze (1952-2009)

- Posted by Rusty

My greatest memory of Patrick Swayze was not “Dirty Dancing” (which I will see one day, I promise!) or “Ghost” or even “Point Break” (although I’m always up for watching him rob banks with a surfing Keanu)…but actually “Donnie Darko.” “Darko” is a weird film—I’m not entirely sure it makes sense (and some of its backlash is earned), but Swayze’s performance was something extraordinary. He had maybe 20 minutes of screen time, but he made the most of it as a local inspirational celebrity/hidden pervert. It was a gutsy role, and, more than anything, it showcased a true actor, not just a movie star. There’s one scene near the end, with Swayze breaking down, crying with guilt over his own depravity—it’s a beautiful, heartbreaking bit of acting, and a testament to how great a talent Swayze really was.

“Dirty Dancing,” of course, made him a household name (my mom and my sister still rave about his amazing dance scenes!), and “Ghost” was the work of a confident movie star working at the top of his game, but I like that you couldn’t pin Swayze down. He might have been prolific in the 80’s and 90’s, but I respect him like crazy for laying low, being with his family (he’s been married to the same woman, one that he met at his dance studio when he was 18, for over 30 years), and churning out knockout performances like “Donnie Darko” every now and then. I heard very good things about his performance in his last project, the TV show, “The Beast,” and his SNL Chippendale's-dance sketch with Chris Farley is guaranteed to make you smile, if not laugh outright (it's a bit hard to find now, but you can find a sadly-over-dubbed version HERE). Swayze always struck me as an all-around cool guy, one who’s not afraid to mess around with his image (look no further than his cross-dressing comedy, “To Wong Foo”)—in fact, he had a reputation for being one of the nicest people in Hollywood…and it shows.

It’s tragic news that he died at 57 from a long battle with pancreatic cancer, but I think he left a terrific legacy behind. I have a feeling a lot of “Dirty Dancing” and “Ghost” DVDs will be dusted off and played this week, now with a bittersweet feeling to add to the whole experience. And me? I’m gearing up a “Point Break”/”Donnie Darko” double-feature, thus getting both sides of Swayze—the great entertainer and the killer actor. I liked both sides, and I liked the one guy a hell of a lot.

My thoughts and condolences go to his wife, family, and loved ones.


Swayze with Keanu Reeves in 1991's "Point Break"




Swayze in 2001's "Donnie Darko"

Images courtesy of 20th Century Fox, Newmarket films, and 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment.

Read more!

Weekend Bites: "9"

- Posted by Rusty


Review: “9”

My rating: 2 ½ bites [out of 5]

“9” isn’t a bad movie…but it’s the kind of thing where you walk out of the theater and say, “Yeah, that was all right” or “Not bad—it looked cool, and was pretty entertaining.” It doesn’t inspire enthusiasm, but just calm indifference. And that’s too bad—“9” looked like it was going to be something truly special. The brainchild of some great imaginations, the movie has a lot going for it: the back-story and set-up is actually pretty interesting, the voice acting is really well-done across the board—sincere, emotional, and never over-the-top, and the visuals are some of the most beautiful and memorable that I’ve seen this year (if ever in an animated film—really, the effects and details of the post-apocalyptic setting rival some of Pixar’s best stuff). But “9”, running at just a scant 80 minutes, has a story too weak to give any of those elements their due, and we’re left with a film that just can’t live up to its amazing potential.

If you watch the original short this movie is based on, it puts “9” (and its problems) into much sharper perspective (I embedded it below—check it out if you have the chance—it’s definitely worth your time). Shane Acker (who directed this movie as well…and was a UCLA student!) wrote and directed it, gaining the attention of movie giants like Tim Burton and Russian crazy-effects-wizard/“Wanted” director, Timur Bekmambetov—it’s basically one long scene set in a post-apocalyptic world (we don’t know any of the background yet), and revolves around a silent ragdoll and his attempt to stop a mechanized, soul-eating beast. Very cool stuff, and a very impressive achievement for a young animation student. And I’ll give Shane Acker major credit here—he did expand upon his short. The movie tackles similar ground, but with much more detail—after the destruction of the human race, nine dolls (brought to life by mysterious means) band together to survive and take down the source of the world’s demolition, led by the stalwart 9 (Elijah Wood).

It’s a fantastic set-up, and Acker brought out some great mythology, carefully explaining why every human has died out and the landscape fell into the hands of sentient ragdolls and malevolent machines. But Acker, along with his screenwriter Pamela Pettler (“Tim Burton’s Corpse Bride” and “City of Ember,” which fell apart too, story-wise), came up with an interesting short story to supplement the original idea, not a feature-length movie. Really, if you write down what happens in the film on paper, there’s probably 20 minutes of story here at best. True, the filmmakers fleshed out the short, but only in a very limited way, and so we’re left with a movie that tries to stretch a good idea across 80 minutes, offering tons of action, but few characters who grow and develop in the process.


And the resulting movie goes something like this: the characters talk about the plot. They fight a monster. They talk some more about the plot. They fight an even bigger monster. And Repeat, all the way until they fight the final, biggest monster and learn the final secret of the plot. And the characters, all animated with such care and attention to detail, never become the fleshed-out heroes they should have been. It’s fitting that all the ragdolls are named 1 though 9—that’s pretty much the amount of personality they get too—just one or two identifying features per doll, and that’s all they have time to show. Thus, we have characters like 1 (the always stately Christopher Plummer), who’s pompous and cowardly, 7 (Jennifer Connelly), who’s fearless and action-hero-like (a quick kudos to the filmmakers for making a girl the film’s only action hero), and, of course, 9 (Elijah Wood), who’s curious, brave, and is the crucial character for the Future of our world.

Then there’s a character like 6 (Crispin Glover)—my friend and I had the toughest time deciding what his purpose was to begin with. Everyone else contributes in some way—9 leads the resistance, 7 fights, and 6…well…he prophesizes…and sometimes draws stuff to help him prophesize. There’s actually a stretch of the film where 6 goes away, and it only hit me at the end that he was even missing from the group. You see what I mean? A film this well-made, that attempts to give us an original, thought-provoking story, deserved better characters—we needed well-rounded, interesting personalities, those that grow and change through the experience, and not simply move the plot along while we admire their designs. There's a lot more story here to explore, far more details into these characters' lives that are left untouched, and maybe one day we'll get that in a sequel...but for now, "9" needed a more complete narrative, and much less reliance on its fantastic action sequences.


On that note, the action really is something spectacular. These bits are thrilling and brimming with inventive energy—if anything, these scenes prove than Shane Acker is going to have good, long career after this. He stages his action well, and he has a sure hand with delivering the suspense and scares—especially as we meet the bigger machines, with all their whirring parts and endless ways to try to kill our heroes. As an action fan, the film worked great for me on that level, but, after a while, the action started to feel like a time-filler before the final reveals.

Still, as said before, this is one amazing-looking film. Every detail of this world is gorgeously constructed—the ruins, the endless wasteland, the smattering of everyday objects transformed to do something else (Martin Landau’s 2 is a very clever bit of animation and design), and even the ragdolls themselves—all similar-looking, but each composed of minor differences, be they different types of cloth or the inclusion of zippers. It’s clear that a lot of hard work went into this film—Acker obviously has a lot of heart and affection for his vision, and he’s a major talent from just a stylistic perspective. It’s actually kind of fitting that Tim Burton is a producer here—Burton was always visually interesting, but it took him years of experience to become as confident a storyteller as he is today (and it still took the occasional stumbles like “Planet of the Apes” and “Mars Attacks” along the way). I think Acker is following a similar course—his film-storytelling instincts just aren’t there yet—he can wow an audience, but he hasn’t quite cracked the need for the proper amount of emotional investment to compliment those amazing visuals. But I think he’ll get there—that short you see below shows a strong command of story and tone. Now Acker just needs to learn to sustain that momentum—to make the action feel organic to the plot, and not just a way to delay the development of the narrative and characters.


And, so, I’m really on the fence about recommending “9”. It’s very entertaining, and it should satisfy those hoping for some escapist action…but the lack of solid characters and the rather thin storyline might prevent it from being a satisfying experience (like it was for me). I wasn’t upset that I watched it, but I expected something much more moving and powerful. And, so, a fair warning: “9” is partly worth seeing, but it won’t live up to its amazing previews—as it stands, it’s a dazzling piece of work, but it’s more of a missed opportunity than the respected sci-fi classic it could have been.

Shane Acker's original short film, "9":

Images courtesy of Focus Features.
Read more!

What's on the Menu: 9/11 - 9/13

- Posted by Rusty



Lots of movies are coming out this weekend, but I think only one might be worth your time. Check out my predictions after the jump…

1. “Whiteout” - Ace said it well—Kate Beckinsale is too talented to keep making movies like this. I’ll give this one the benefit of the doubt, though, since it’s based on a supposedly pretty good graphic novel…but it’s not looking too promising. It’s been delayed a couple of times, and, for the life of me, I still can’t tell what this movie’s actually about. Is Beckinsale’s U.S. Marshal dealing with a supernatural force in Antarctica? Is it a straight-up murder mystery? Plus, the trailer seems way more interested in Beckinsale taking a shower than explaining what the premise is. Could be entertaining, and I love a good thriller, but I have a feeling this one might be really disappointing (the 2% Rotten Tomatoes score is pretty discouraging too).


2. “I Can Do Bad All by Myself” - I haven’t seen any of Tyler Perry’s movies (although I loved his cameo as a Starfleet Admiral in J.J. Abrams’ “Star Trek”), so I honestly can’t judge how they stack up. But he’s got quite the following, and this will probably do well anyway. It’s the story of Taraji P. Henson’s (so good in “Benjamin Button”) irresponsible lounge singer, and how she learns to love and take care of her young niece and two nephews. Yeah, I think it looks cheesy and clichéd as hell, but who knows? Plus, Tyler Perry’s most popular character, Madea, makes an appearance in this, so I think he’s looking at another hit, whether this one’s any good or not.



3. “Sorority Row” - Really simple premise: a prank goes terribly wrong, a bunch of hot sorority sisters cover it up, and then they get picked off one by one, by an unknown killer. We’ve seen slasher plots like this before, and it looks way too much like “I Know What You Did Last Summer” (not exactly a great movie either). The reviews aren’t terrible, and it’s actually getting a lot of kudos for its snappy dialogue, but the general consensus seems to be that it’s predictable and not scary at all. Despite that, I heard the Carrie Fisher cameo rocks, and Leah Pipes apparently gives us the best bitchy queen bee since Rachel McAdams. It honestly could go either way, but I don’t think it will hit the creative heights of “Scream.” Maybe a rental at best…



4. “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” - Have you guys heard about this one? I first saw a glimpse of it on TV yesterday, and it’s got a pretty good cast: Michael Douglas, Amber Tamblyn (from “Joan of Arcadia” and “The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants”), and “John Tucker Must Die’s” Jesse Metcalfe. Here, a writer plans to expose a corrupt district attorney, but apparently lots of twists and turns happen along the way. It could be decent, but its pretty much zero publicity isn’t a good sign. Great to see Douglas back on screen, though.



5. “9” - I’m seeing this tomorrow, and, to me, this looks like the most promising movie of the bunch. Following the death of the human race, nine sentient rag-dolls go on a mission to try “save our world” and find the secret of their existence. Sounds pretty cool—the visuals look striking (check out the trailer HERE if you missed it, along with my gushing over it), and I have a lot of faith in producer Tim Burton. However, the majority of the reviews say the story doesn’t live up to those amazing effects, so this might be a bit of a hollow spectacle. Still, I like the talent involved (the voices include Elijah Wood (Frodo’s always the man!), Jennifer Connelly, Christopher Plummer, Crispin Glover, and John C. Reilly) and the post-apocalyptic, evil-machine-dominated concept has a lot of potential, so I’ll check this out for sure. It actually came out this Wednesday, so if anyone saw it, let us know—I’m really curious!

And that’s the batch for this weekend. What do you guys think? Are you interested in seeing any of these?

—Oh, and on a quick note: if you don’t feel like going to the theater, I’d really recommend renting “State of Play,” the twisty, Russell Crowe thriller/mystery that just hit DVD. I’ll review it next week probably, but I have a feeling it’ll be much more worth your time than some of the above choices…

Images courtesy of Warner Bros. Pictures, Lionsgate, Summit Entertainment, After Dark Films, Foresight Unlimited, RKO Pictures, Signature Pictures, and Focus Features.

Read more!