Introduction

As those who know me, and if such a person exists, cyberstalk me, know I created this blog after writing on another site, which shall remain nameless, for a while. The point is, I have material sitting around waiting to be re-used on occasion I will re-post them here. Some of those articles or reviews may have been extemporaneous at the time but are slightly random now, hence the new title and little intro, regardless enjoy!

The Tooth Fairy (2010)

The Tooth Fairy is a predictable and poorly executed family comedy which leaves everyone uncomfortable, including a majority of the cast and the audience who is asked to try and sit through it without squirming. It’s the kind of film that even if you give your intelligence or critical faculties a holiday you’d have a hard time enjoying.

The film takes a brash, arrogant athlete knocks him down to size, he rebels then embraces the changes that have come into his life then rebels again before living happily-ever-after. It’s the old template tried and true except it is not handled with any precision whatsoever.

The writing of this film seemed to borrow generously from the Big Book of Clichés in assembling the story: you have a single mother, musician kid, a fantastical world to which our protagonist is whisked away, a guide, a mentor, a moral and redemption. All that is well and good but the execution issues are what make those things fall flatter than they should. Too much of the comedy in this film is based on puns, which is one of the lower and least tolerable forms of comedy. There is also the Moment of Apparent Defeat which is written more like an Irredeemable Act, meaning had our hero acted this way in real life there’s no way anyone would have forgiven him.

Sports are often turned into a shell of what they really are and bastardized in film to no end. Ice hockey usually suffers the most because it has a bad reputation in the U.S. and is being written by writers who don’t know the game. The writer’s familiarity is something that yours truly cannot testify to but it is without question the worst depiction of the sport ever put on celluloid to those who know the game. A depiction so bad that it might be worthy of a second article, however, it is dubious whether writing about such a film a second time is justified for any reason. More confusing than the poor depiction is that both ESPN and anchor Steve Levy would agree to appear in such a project when one would assume they read the script before saying yes.

The cast was underutilized and not put into a position where it could succeed. Dwayne Johnson, who I enjoyed in Escape to Witch Mountain and other action roles, was asked to play an occasionally goofy, arrogant jerk and his usual steadiness shares screen time with some embarrassing and unfortunate moments and readings. It’s rather unfortunate that both Billy Crystal and Julie Andrews not only were in this film but likely spent multiple days working on it. Crystal’s scene with the amnesia powder is the worst thing he’s done and is hacky – a word one thought might never be associated with him. It would be better if Julie Andrews didn’t take this part as well it’s better to not see her than see her in this. Then there is Ryan Sheckler, who really isn’t an actor but rather a skateboarder who has appeared in a handful of films. Not only is he horrible but he adds to the denigration of the sport of hockey in this film by playing a hot-dog rookie who cops the kind of attitude usually reserved for the NFL and NBA. Stephen Merchant was occasionally funny as Derek’s caseworker but more often than not he was trying too hard. Typically in a film like this the only people who escape unscathed are the kids that is true in the case of this film as well, Destiny Whitlock and Chase Ellison are both quite good especially Whitlock.

The most confusing casting question was actually, “What is Seth McFarlane doing in this film as the counterfeit fairy accessory dealer?”

This film isn’t immune from issues outside story though. The score sounds as if it was pulled from stock and had been recycled on many family films in the past.

The effects work, specifically on the popped out tooth and stretched face sequence were weak.

Those who may be forced to watch this film by their kids do note that in spite of the previous comments this film was still nowhere near as bad as expected. There are a few laughs despite the poor writing style and it is not too painful an experience.

The first thing that needs saying about Easy A is the following: I for one am not the kind who is off-put by listening to dialogue that is so witty and on point that it seems too good to be true. Unrealistically rapid, witty dialogue is part of what made Film Noir and many classic films work.  Lip service need only be paid to reality when absolutely necessary to preserve suspension of disbelief. Especially when dealing in the comedy genre dialogue will be unrealistic in one way or another what matters is, is it good? The dialogue in Easy A is fantastic from beginning to end and is the best I’ve heard since Whatever Works, which is saying something because Woody Allen can talk circles around most.

Part of what makes this seemingly sitcom-style dialogue work is that this film is never, not even for a moment insincere, whether about the points its trying to make or its characters. The parents in this film played brilliantly by Patricia Clarkson and Stanley Tucci are oddball, California liberal stereotypes, however, even when consoling their daughter and actually playing parent they do not suddenly change persona but rather do their variation of this person being sincere which is still a little offbeat.

The bottom line is that this film is hysterical an that is what matters most when it comes to comedy. It may not quite be up to snuff with The Hangover, which would need to be re-viewed but now there have been two comparisons made to the two best comedies of 2009 so you get a sense of the quality of this particular film.

What helps to elevate this film is the performance turned in by Emma Stone. While Stone already has many credits to her name this is indeed a star-making turn and it’s little wonder that her name is already being bandied about for two very high profile roles now. Her performance in this film is nothing short of a revelation. Her delivery and reactions are always spot on and when she needs to get emotional, even in the context of this tale, you believe it.

While playing a high school tale which is essentially a self-conscious and modern day retelling of The Scarlet Letter the film still manages to avoid didacticism which is quite a feat. This is likely due in part to the influence of John Hughes which can be felt in this film not only in the dialogue but the usage of music throughout including blatant The Breakfast Club references.
There is through the jokes also a reverence for cinema particularly the classics there is also quite a bit of adherence to the comedic rule of three. One particular example comes to mind but it’s best kept a surprise. The film is also told in a frame of a webcast. While frames are a classical technique the webcast is a current/forward-thinking.

 Easy A, if you’ll excuse the cheesy critical pun, earns an Easy A as one of, if not the, funniest films of the year and one of the better most complete comedy experiences you’re likely to find in contemporary cinema combing intelligence, heart and laughs.

10/10

Avatar is probably the most amazing piece of eye candy that moviegoers have been allowed to unwrap in quite some time. It includes fantastic vistas, wonderful conceptions, phosphorescent and vibrant images that are always intriguing and some are downright awe-inspiring. As just a film to look at it may be the most amazing film this critic has ever beheld.

The effects are truly tremendous in every way. The creature-work done in this film is unparalleled. There is a very unique and enthralling ecosphere created on the fictional planet of Pandora which is just incredible. All the creatures are fascinating, effective and memorable which cannot be said for all sci-fi films.

The sound design was also fantastic in helping to create the world’s animals but also in making the battle scenes hit harder. There is creativity in conception and excellence in the edit.

As any good sci-fi tale does it comments on our society, our world, through the subterfuge of a far off place. Sometimes the commentary is subtle or nearly non-existent. What was surprising about Avatar was how very present the commentary was.

There is an aspect of colonialism to the way humans displaced from earth now occupy this planet in a very uneasy equilibrium. The people from earth are after a precious mineral and looking to get the Na’vi, the natives of the planet, to abandon their land so it can be excavated.

In the mineral lies the only issue of the film’s construction and plot. Firstly, the mineral is called Unobtainium. Really? This is a film that from what we can tell created a people and a bestiary but this is the best name they could think of for the rock? The other issue is that we never find out what purpose it serves except that it’s valuable. Is it just precious like gold or can it be harnessed as a fuel – what is the attraction?

That all being said the hunt for the Unobtainium brings other things to light. Giovanni Ribisi’s character, although it is never made clear, appears to make an unspoken comment on the Military-Industrial Complex. He seems to be there just urging the army to obtain it by any means necessary and is never addressed as a dignitary so it seems his power is inferred and not one of rank.

Some have commented that this is a Pocahontas type tale and while the parallel can be drawn from the Native-outsider relation in this film there is a very distinct difference. In relationships between Native Americans and Europeans it was the native who would leave with the other, here it is the outsider who literally becomes a member of the tribe. The tribal commentary seems very general and shouldn’t be interpreted wrongly whether you read it as an African or Native American tribe the point is this: the people belong to the land and vice versa, they treat it with respect and they care for it due to the abundance it gives them and that ought not be taken lightly, and certainly not destroyed, by so-called civilized peoples.

Minor vague points aside this film is an incredibly enthralling experience that does build slowly but it uses that added half-hour of running time to its advantage. The battle scenes at the end are also very well-executed.

This is one of the top 15 films of the year based on its technical merit, advancement and engaging story-line alone. There are some head-shaking flaws that just make you wonder but it does not taint the overall experience.

9/10

The main objective of a documentary is to inform and illuminate subject and bring it to a larger public’s attention. More often than not the subjects of a film’s investigation will be one that is greatly unknown. It is generally in learning new things and in examining difficult questions that the best documentaries are made.

Killing Kasztner is just such a documentary as it brings to light a largely unknown, suppressed and unexplored chapter of the history of World War II and the infancy of the Israeli state. It examines the polarizing figure of Rezso Kasztner a Hungarian Jew who negotiated with Adolf Eichmann for the release of more than 1,600 Jewish prisoners. It investigates the controversy that exists surrounding the negotiation itself, the postwar implications, a trial Kasztner faced in Israel and his subsequent assassination at the hands of a young extremist Ze’ev Eckstein. Even walking into the film knowing all this beforehand you will still learn a great deal and it will provoke much thought and emotion throughout.

The film is an interesting one in as much as you not only hear the director/interviewer, Gaylen Ross, ask certain questions but also see the director on occasion, typically accompanying voice over she wrote and performed. It is most definitely an auteur’s approach to documentary film wherein the director is not an invisible hand but is to an extent involved and invested in the tale being told not unlike Werner Herzog is in some of his works. This involvement, however, is never obstructive and both sides of the story are presented and certain questions asked are never answered because they have no answers and so one could leave the film with either opinion of the man based on the facts presented. Moreover, this involvement works to the benefit of the film as just getting a little taste of what the story means to the person behind the camera raises the stakes for us as an audience a bit.

It is a film that tackles its subject matter from as many different angles as possible talking to many people on all sides of the tale from Kasztner’s family to his assassin, from the son of the man who tried him to the survivors who were saved by him and also journalists who covered him and were against him. A very full picture, in terms of participants, is painted of this very intricate story.
One of the truly great things about watching this film at Theatre N was that there was a Q & A with director/producer Gaylen Ross via Skype after the screening, where I was able to ask her about her handling visually of some of the interview footage with the assassin Ze’ev Eckstein. There was a different visual approach to him than all the other interview subjects. The shots were more close-up, sometimes extreme-close up on his mouth or eyes. Ross said she didn’t want him looking too “natural or dramatic” and that she wanted to “separate him from the others in the story as just a force that’s present.” Thus, he’s differentiated from both those for and against Kasztner but he is not commented on by the filmmaking process itself, which is preferable.

It’s a fascinating and thought-provoking film that brings to light a story which should be part of common knowledge regarding the holocaust. The change in attitude regarding Kasztner even as Ms. Ross was in production is rather impressive. It is a well-crafted and well done documentary. It is also one with an evocative, haunting and moving score which is well-placed throughout.
It’s a sprawling tale that does deserve our full attention it uses just about all of its two hour running time to its advantage. It also deftly avoids sensationalizing potentially combustible confrontations and renders the situations with calm, insight and art.

To keep tabs on where this film is playing next please visit their official website.

9/10