Comedy | The Movie Rat

Spielberg Sunday- E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial (1982)

Posted on March 11, 2012 by bernardovillela

E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial (Amblin)

Owing to the fact that I have decided to honor Steven Spielberg this year with my version of a Lifetime Achievement Award I figured it was an appropriate time to dust off some old reviews I wrote when I took a course on his work. The remarks still hold true, he is an amazing filmmaker.

When a movie is a hit it’s sometimes called “home run.” But Steven Spielberg doesn’t hit home runs he hits Grand Slams. If there is any film that absolutely defines Spielberg in my mind it’s this one. This film is a complete and total success both as entertainment and within the framework of the director’s objectives.

It’s very odd to look at these films in retrospect after most of them have already gone on to become world-wide phenomena and see that many studios rejected not only this film but many other successful Spielberg ventures. Oddly enough Hollywood insiders have always viewed him as a risk-taker. This film’s success, however, shouldn’t have surprised anyone at all. In E.T. we have a wonderfully structured story that seamlessly crosses over from fairy tale to comedy to drama without ever missing a beat. It always keeps you emotionally involved both through the story and with the assistance of the score.

One of the most impressive things about this film is the dialogue. It is often humorous and insightful. The thing that makes it stand out is how succinct it is and how perfectly adept to the situation. A prime example of this is during the emotional good-bye between E.T. and Elliot. They meet each one points to their heart and says “Ouch” then they exchange pleas “Come” and “Stay.” Four lines of dialogue, four words exchanged between the two of them yet that says it all; can it get any tighter than that? The best part is that it works so brilliantly. The comedic dialogue is just as effective Elliot is asked, “Did you explain school to him?” and in response Elliot says “How do you explain school to higher intelligence?” There have been entire films on the subject of how futile public education is and in that one line everything has been said.

Another great detail in E.T. is the use of inside jokes. First, we see Elliot introducing E.T. to the characters from Star Wars and later in the Halloween sequence we see an homage to that film as well as to Night of the Living Dead and The Creature from the Black Lagoon. One thing that makes E.T. special is that it uses situations that all of us can relate to from our own childhood even if it’s only there for a second. There’s bickering amongst siblings, the use of comics, adults that just won’t listen to what you have to say, Halloween, being caught daydreaming by a teacher and many others. Spielberg implemented enough shared experience that even if we didn’t feel that Elliot was a snapshot of our past we could identify enough to get lost in the story. What also aids the story a great deal is the almost supernatural connection that E.T. and Elliot form. It’s akin to what identical twins are supposed to have according to parapsychologists. The connection of their emotional and physical states leads first to some very comedic moments with Elliot sharing E.T.’s drunkenness and also the magical mimicry of the John Wayne film. Later on it leads to some of the most emotionally wrenching scenes where E.T. and Elliot are sharing an illness. Everything is so beautifully set up in this film that you might even stop and consider, “Hey, didn’t that come out of nowhere?” but upon examining the film you’ll find there really are no holes in the narrative. An example of this being the bike flying one of the most brilliant moments ever recorded on film. It still catches me off guard but it was set up when E.T. levitated the balls in the kid’s room to demonstrate where he came from.

To measure a film’s impact it is probably best to look at landscape of the entertainment industry a few years later as opposed to just looking at initial box office returns. In both regards E.T.’s impact was enormous. There was a cheap copy-cat film a couple of years later called Mac and Me along with a very successful television series that took a different angle called ALF. Even scenes in E.T. had an impact, for example, the anti-dissection episode is now another staple in the sitcom book of ideas. The reason that this film epitomized Spielberg so well is not the emotional intensity although that has a lot to do with it and it’s most definitely not the fact that there are aliens involved. What makes it such a trademark in my mind is that it is such a resounding success.

This film is also timeless, it will never, ever, ever seem dated no matter how much magic computers can conjure up you’ll never be able to put aside a story as involving and touching as this one, it’s a classic and it’s quite hard to imagine someone making a film this beautiful, one of the best films ever made.

10/10

The Perfect Subplot in The Sitter

Posted on December 13, 2011 by bernardovillela

Attention Dear Reader,

Prior to reading any further I feel it only fair to warn you that a narrative thread in the film The Sitter will be discussed in detail herein and not a portion of it will be left unspoiled. If you have yet to see this film please do so. If you have seen it let us begin…

Landry Bender, Jonah Hill, Max Records and Kevin Hernandez in The Sitter (20th Century Fox)

In the critical lambasting this film has received, that I noticed both via its Rotten Tomatoes score and the encapsulated consensus that the site offers, what is missing is an insight. Granted a majority of the issues that critics have with the film are questions of taste. This is true of many comedies. Perhaps nothing is more subjective. However, I will not seek in this space to convince you that the film is funny, though I did find it to be very funny. Some also call out the film for not being very original. I cannot claim that this film re-invents the wheel.

What this film does brilliantly, which I will argue with any and all comers, is fold in a completely unexpected subplot based on the fact that it’s a comedy and the type of comedy it is. The term fold in is picked specifically to borrow the cooking term. In that vernacular it has a much more homogenizing context, somehow, in film it seems like it applies to putting something other where it does not belong.

In The Sitter Noah Griffith (Jonah Hill) is your typical slacker and atypical babysitter making it kind of a typical setup. A ne’er-do-well who in many ways has arrested development will see the truth of these children’s lives and connect with them in ways their parents cannot. Furthermore, these insights he has into their personalities and lives will better him.

The surprise comes in Slater’s subplot, it’s by far the most well-executed and most subtle of them all from start to finish. Slater, played with stunning adroitness by Max Records (whom you may know from his pitch-perfect performance as Max in Where the Wild Things Are) and countered beautifully by Jonah Hill’s usual potty-mouth with a heart of gold, not to sound snide but that’s how many of his characters can be pigeon-holed.

How does this all unfold?

We meet Slater as Noah does. He is arriving at the kids’ house and sees him in the living room lounging watching TV. The programming is a shirtless male gymnast set against a woodlands background. The thought that Slater is gay occurred vaguely to me but I dismissed it simply because the image on screen was so odd and because “that sort of thing just doesn’t happen in films of this kind.”

The second step in the progression of this subplot is the introduction, at the time as a literary ghost, of Slater’s best friend Clayton. He is merely identified as his best friend and someone who Slater is texting incessantly. Again no bells really sound at this revelation because two assumptions are made by me and likely the average audience member: One, kids text a lot and two, he’s getting responses.

The third step is where suspicions start being aroused. Slater isn’t getting responses and he’s distressed by that. However, the filmmakers deflect this for many by having it play into Slater’s myriad partially self-diagnosed manias. So we move on…

The fourth step is where it likely clicks for most audience members. In their wild night about New York Slater runs into Clayton (Alex Wolff) at a Bat Mitzvah. Slater catches him in a lie and with another friend. This creates the need for Clayton, prodded by his friend, to blow Slater off to his face and tell him he’s acting “weird.” Slater, of course, is devastated. Here is where I jumped the gun and finished the equation.

However, many times in a film you’ll know a certain event is going to happen and it’s how it unfolds that really matters. That is evidenced by this film.

What occurs in the 5th and penultimate step (The Sixth being Slater being at peace in the denouement) is just flat out brilliant. In a confrontation with his adopted brother, Rodrigo (Kevin Hernandez), Slater’s meds are thrown out the car window. He freaks out and makes Noah stop the car. He looks for them and shouts that he needs them because he has problems. As is the case with all the “Remedy Scenes” Noah doesn’t act out of character at all but wisely. It’s truly a tribute to Jonah Hill and his abilities that he can play a scene wherein his dialogue is flat-out blunt, button-pushing and confrontational but yet delivered sensitively and is precisely what is needed to get a desired reaction from his scene partner/opposite character.

Slater is told to his face he’s gay and in a film of this nature the magnitude of those two events alone is incredible. Firstly, the fact that another character recognizes it and points it out to him allows for the allusions to the It’s-not-a-choice aspect to be made naturally. Also, it allows the character in question to deny it before confirming it. The singular most moving moment in a film where anyone in their right mind would expect their to be none is when Slater, protesting too much, shrieks “I don’t wanna be a faggot!”

It’s also precisely this kind of scene that proves the point that I’d rather have society police language rather than the movies. The F-word in real life has become intolerable in the 21st century. That does not, however, mean that it’s been eradicated, which is precisely what makes it such a powerful choice here.

Not only that but you have in one short coming out scene, in a movie you’d never expect to see one in, the vocalization of so many truths about homosexuality and being closeted that it’s staggering.

Namely: No one wants to be gay, no one chooses to be gay, when one is closeted you almost want to be called out to relieve yourself of the burden, you and others around you think there’s something wrong with you, it’ll make your life more difficult, you’ll go through very hard times but it gets better and people get over it, coming out to your parents is the hardest thing you’ll ever have to do and so on.

I belabor the point about the kind of film it is because these kind of talking points are typically that they’re reserved for so-called Gay Cinema. The only problem with Gay Cinema is specifically that, it’s too much of a niche. There’s a lot of preaching to the choir. Even a mainstream hit like Brokeback Mountain can’t carry this message as well because first it’s about homosexuality and moreover it’s about repression thereof and the gay characters don’t receive the liberation that Slater does in this film. So many of his fears are allayed that you do hope somewhere a conversation like this is really happening between a parent or guardian and a child.

The sensitivity with which David Gordon Green, Jonah Hill and Max Records convey this scene is to be applauded long and loud. Typically, films branded as important are so because of their overall theme or their impact on cinema as a whole. While I enjoy it, this film may end up on neither end of the spectrum in time but what ought not be overlooked in an age when many with a social conscious are flat out saying that “It’s OK to be gay” and “It gets better” and other well-meaning statements that can be construed as platitudes by some, it is vitally important that the youth of this country are shown clearly and irrevocably that these things are true.

Fiction does not diminish a truth but rather can echo and amplify it more so than anything else. The true importance of The Sitter then cannot be measured in either category listed above but the reason it has importance is that it perfectly, in a social and aesthetic sense, includes a message in a film made for mainstream consumption and for they all need to be congratulated.

Thankful for World Cinema- Le Petit Nicolas

Posted on November 1, 2011 by bernardovillela

When looking for a theme in which to select films from the start of November until Thanksgiving being literal is not the best option. Films centered around Thanksgiving tend to be overly obsessed with dysfunctional families. So in thinking about the nature of the day which was initially a celebration of survival in the New World, I thought why not focus on foreign films.

Le Petit Nicolas

Maxime Godart, Vincent Claude, Victor Carles, Germain Petit Damico, Charles Vaillant and Benjamin Averty in Le Petit Nicolas (Wild Bunch)

Firstly, I must say that the availability of this film in the US is virtually non-existant. I managed to acquire a Canadian DVD (Also a Region 1) on Amazon. The film didn’t really see distribution here because it is based on a book series by René Goscinny that doesn’t have tremendous cultural impact in the US.

His other major contribution is as one of the architects of the Asterix series of books, which some here do know so the terrible first cinematic adaptation did come here. All this is brought to the fore because its non-distribution in the US really is confounding. The adaptation angle needn’t be used to sell the film. The humor and themes of the film really are universal.

While being familiar with the book, I’m sure, helped some appreciate it. It is a delightfully simple and accessible story that can be enjoyed by audiences of all ages. There are little treats for those in the know like, for example, the boys get inspiration for a scheme from an Asterix strip but it isn’t necessary to enjoy it.

This film is also very funny and while it does test your suspension of disbelief it should pass. Much of the film hinges on misconceptions that Nicolas has about his home life, which could be clarified if he talks to his parents but a child’s fears aren’t always relayed to his parents especially these.

This was a wonderful discovery and hopefully there are others in the offing as the series of books is quite lengthy.

10/10

61 Days of Halloween- Tremors

Posted on October 27, 2011 by bernardovillela

Most holidays worth their while encompass entire seasons, such as Christmas, for example. However, as you may have noticed there is a corporate push every year for us to think about the next holiday even sooner. While this has many negative side effects I figure I may as well embrace it.

Since Labor Day is really only good for college football and movie marathons cinematically it is as significant as Arbor Day, which means the next big day on the calendar is Halloween and we can start looking toward it starting now.

Daily I will be viewing films in the horror genre between now and then and sharing the wealth. Many, as is usually the case, will not be worth it so for every disappointment so I will try and suggest something worth while as well.

Tremors

Michael Gross and Robert Jayne in Tremors (Universal)

Tremors is without a doubt a very surprising and very fun film that is likely to be enjoyed by a wide variety of filmgoers. It’s an hour-and-a-half of escapist cinema that is both funny and engrossing at the same time. Upon first glance this might seem like the kind of film you’ve seen a thousand times before but it is definitely worth a closer look.

The first few minutes of the film seem to set a tone of a schlocky take off comedy that isn’t going to offer much in the way of content. However, the groundwork for the forthcoming events are laid very well during the comedy-dominant portion of the film. The rest of the film is an intricate balance between humor and science fiction elements. When the inciting incident occurs the old man is found perched high about the desert on power lines the movie starts to move quicker. The pace of this film from there on out is fantastic and then the beginning no longer feels out of place.

A great asset to this tale is the ensemble cast which is often preferable in such a tale as this but rarely well utilized. In this group of characters we definitely have our central characters defined and in the forefront. While the secondary characters are sketched in broad strokes they are each individuals and do not seem like stereotypes. However, an ensemble of unique quirky characters would be nothing without a good cast and Tremors boasts that as well.

Kevin Bacon and Fred Ward play best friends who appear to be quite similar and therein lie their conflicts. These two carry the film throughout but whereas with many films the two lead actors wandering through the plot complications may get bothersome they get help along the way. Michael Gross formerly of Family Ties is great and absolutely hysterical in a supporting role and Reba McEntire always seems to be a service in a small and over-the-top part not to mention that she adds quite a catchy tune to the closing credits.

This film draws upon a few cinematic techniques to make it effective. Firstly, the use of the subjective camera along the ground to represent the “snakeoids” worked very well to create suspense and tension. For quite some time the filmmakers also decided not to reveal the creature knowing that the fear (if it in fact caused fear) of the unknown was the greatest fear of all. Those involved in making Tremors made the unusual decision to have most of their action take place during the day time in which it is very difficult to create an effective horror film but the way in which they used the ingeniously simple concept of being trapped makes all the suspense elements work.

Aside from being tremendously funny and having an amazing score at the climax along with an equally interesting climax Tremors succeeds in two very interesting methods both illustrated by the way these creatures attack. First, in a very unique way I felt this film took the fear of being buried alive and elevated it to new heights by blending it with ghoulishness and at the same time without being grotesque allowing the thought to stay in the imagination. It’s a very interesting concept which I would like to see a straightforward horror film take on sometime. Aside from dealing greatly with the concept of being trapped which is always a great premise to go with in the horror/sci-fi genre. Tremors also deals with a seemingly insurmountable opponent which has an unstoppable method of attack, the snakeoids being sensitive to seismic vibrations would obviously eventually kill these people it seems.

It is a perfect setup for A Nightmare on Elm Street-type ending but the original filmmakers didn’t go for the sequel (at least an obvious one, as there have been sequels) and truly came up with an ingenious way for out heroes to be victorious which is sure to please.

While Tremors is undoubtedly based and inspired on the science fiction films of the 1950s I think it’s no accident that it was produced and came out towards the end of the Cold War. It is never affirmed what makes these creatures the way they are but the idea of residual radiation at the end of the arms race is something that may also have been an implied message from this film.

Tremors is, however, a film you take away whatever you brought to it there is no heavy-handed attempt at a message and if you just want to have fun you most definitely will, although considering that the sci-fi films of the 50s always had some sort of message it’s something to consider.

One notable deviation I noticed from the 1950s Sci-Fi formula is that although Tremors is a film about fun but it did seem that Bert (Michael Gross) and Heather Gummer (Reba McEntire) were exaggerated to fit the liberal interpretation of countryside conservatives as card-carrying NRA members with an artillery in their basement. Any commentary in this regard and/or rebuttal against it is veiled in humor and is used to serve the plot and doesn’t seem to be an unnecessary catechism about socio-political norms. This film never takes itself that seriously and it’s all the better for it. Whether it’s a spoof or an updating, thriller or comedy you can’t help but love Tremors. Whatever it takes its inspiration from it manages to be a film that stands alone and is unique in its own way. It’s definitely worth seeing.

10/10

61 Days of Halloween- Masters of Horror: Family

Posted on October 7, 2011 by bernardovillela

Masters of Horror: Family

Masters of Horror: Family (Starz Productions)

The Masters of Horror series, when it was on the air, was a valuable and important addition to the horror genre. It frequently employed those who had made their name in the genre and subsequently had made it better. It also allowed them through these tales running approximately an hour to push the envelope, explore new ground and to pack quite a punch in this odd little running time that sits just past the feature film mark.

John Landis’ film Family is a perfect example of how this series allowed those who worked on it to excel. This material finds the director in top form. The material is two-sided allowing Landis to explore both the humor and horror of a situation. It tells the tale of a loner (George Wendt) who has a very strange way of building a family.

The film cuts well and uses audio creatively to help bring the world playing out in the protagonist’s mind out into the open so we can all see it. A world which is convincingly conveyed by George Wendt.

The film like a few in the series has an interesting twist at the end which is carried out with some panache and a few scares. The effects work is decent if inconsistent they do drive home the sick process this character goes through.

This series as a whole is worth checking out if you are unfamiliar with it and John Landis’s Family should be one of the first films you look for.

8/10

Review- Our Idiot Brother

Posted on September 30, 2011 by bernardovillela

Paul Rudd in Our Idiot Brother (The Weinstein Company)

Our Idiot Brother through its marketing gives you the impression that it’s just going to be a laugh-a-minute-comedy about a slacker brother and his more well-off family’s interactions, while it is funny there is more than meets the eye with this film. That can go both ways but it truly ends up being a good thing in this case.

First and foremost this is a showcase for the comedic talents of Paul Rudd, who rarely finds a vehicle like this where he can really showcase what he can do. From beginning to end in this film Rudd is in top form and there are exchanges whether it’s scripted or he went off-book that only he could make that funny. One of his confrontations with his ex-girlfriend (Kathryn Hahn) comes to mind.

Not to say this is a one man show, quite on the contrary. The aforementioned Kathryn Hahn is hilarious in this film as is her new beau, the good-natured Billy (T.J. Miller). In the family there are strong performances that show a good deal of range from Emily Mortimer, Zooey Deschanel, Elizabeth Banks, Rashida Jones and Steve Coogan. While playing a relatively simplistic character on the surface Rudd displays a different side of himself with each of the aforementioned characters as well as with Jeremy (Adam Scott), his sister Miranda’s (Banks) neighbor/potential love interest, they both share an affinity for Sci-Fi and with River (Matthew Mindler), his nephew, he can see what it is he really wants but never tells his parents.

This film toes the line of drama and comedy very well and in doing so manages not to be overly long. It keeps things funny but also keeps real world consequences involved but doesn’t let the bad things that can and will happen to people put a damper on things. The film like life goes on and it chooses to laugh at it.

Having said all that it is a very funny film indeed and you will likely walk away from it quoting one or two things there are some very good exchanges and some memorable, witty dialogue.

It also has one of Those Scenes. Meaning one of those great scenes by which you will remember the film and Paul Rudd’s performance. I refer to it as The Charades Scene and it is a perfect calling out of all the characters in the film without being too heavy-handed it shows just enough restraint and achieves brilliance due to the writing and performance of it. Naturally, it is also a crucial scene.

The film takes all of its narrative strands and subplots and deals with them rather neatly. Then at the end it meanders a bit and you don’t quite know why. When you find out it’s good for a laugh and a truly happy ending but you’re left wondering if that was truly needed.

Our Idiot Brother is a good comedy with some very good dramatic moments thrown in. Though in the end the results a re bit mixed in some areas, not just the very end, it’s very much worth viewing.

7/10

Review- Shark Night 3D

Posted on September 22, 2011 by bernardovillela

Sara Paxton and Dustin Milligan in Shark Night 3D (Relativity Media)

Shark Night 3D, oh boy. I have to admit I did go into this one with a healthy dose of skepticism. However, this is why you go out to see movies because you hope you’re surprise on occasion. Shark Night 3D definitely caught me off guard and I’m very glad of it.

In a nutshell Shark Night 3D is the kind of film that we (meaning those who were disappointed by it) expected Snakes on a Plane to be. There is a self-awareness about the film that stays jut beneath the surface but pops up to make us chuckle throughout this film. However, it also creates quite a few jolts and got some pretty big reactions from the audience at the screening I was at.

Although the set up is rather conventional (college students heading off for a weekend in the country) the film does create a situation that couldn’t have been anticipated (sharks in a lake). It also comes up with a rather smart and logical way to try and explain it away.

Shark Night 3D also does enough to build its characters up just enough so that we get to at least like them if not know them before things start to go down and works on them as things get more mysterious. So while there is some levity to a lot of it there is also some gravity to it all.

What you also have here that you don’t usually find in a horror film is decent to good acting, which really does help the film quite a bit. Firstly, there’s Sara Paxton who does very well, there’s also Donal Logue who is awesomeness personified, the supporting cast is also buoyed by Joel David Moore who is always funny and has appeared in many films in the genre.

Here’s another film that had good 3D and used it to great effect and got buried recently. I personally see no point in making a film 3D if you’re not going to be self-conscious about it from time to time and use obstructions and fling things at the lens/audience.

While it’s by no means perfect and silly it’s aware of both those things and plays off that to great success. And if you do see it be sure to watch the credits for a hilarious bonus at the end.

6/10

Review- Fright Night (2011)

Posted on September 22, 2011 by bernardovillela

Imogen Poots and Anton Yelchin in Fright Night (DreamWorks/Disney)

Here’s another case of full disclosure is necessary, there are two things that bear mentioning with regards to Fright Night: first, I am in no way a fan of the original Fright Night, it has some strong elements but overall I was not entertained in the least. Therefore, I walked into this version with an open mind as it with this remake I actually felt there was a need for it.

This incarnation of Fright Night does absolutely wonderful things with the aspect of disbelief in the horror genre. Typically and you get very weary of this if you’re a fan of the genre. You are therefore used a long struggle were characters doubt the supernatural elements of the story. The modern notion respects the audience enough and is just reflexive enough that this part of the story is quickly addressed but sped through. Never has it been so quickly and intelligently handled as in this film.

This, of course, lends itself to much comedy. Comedy in a horror film can be a precarious thing. Many people do need that release valve for their nervous energy but many horror films veer too heavily towards comedy. This one does something odd in as much as it keeps the horror subsumed and allows it to bubble to to the surface and take over when necessary.

Not to say that those who like their horror in a more classical style will necessarily walk away disappointed from this film. You get in this film very well-done gore and perhaps what I was most grateful for good, old fashioned scary vampires. The horror elements are there in spades.

Another way in which this film is a kind of throwback is that its a horror property that was able to attract talent to it. First, you have your protagonist in Anton Yelchin, who may not be a household name yet but has certainly done his fair share of films and should be recognizable to most. You also have the ever-versatile Toni Collette as his mother. Then there’s Christopher Mintz-Plasse as his friend. Then perhaps the most important duo is the vampire (Colin Farrell) and the vampire hunter (David Tennant).

It’s truly a shame that the 3D backlash came at a time when good films with effective 3D work was released. This is one of them. Yes, there is an over-saturation of 3D but this film should not have fallen victim to our general malaise with it.

The pace of this film as intimated earlier is fantastic. Due to the fact that it deals with the niceties quickly, effectively with great dialogue it allows the film to move quite quickly and still manages to build suspense while doing so. There are quite a few memorable sequences in this film.

It’s quite easy to look at Fright Night and say “Oh, look, another remake and another vampire movie at the same time,” however, this one gives both a good name and is worth seeing.

9/10

Mini-Review Round-Up #5

Posted on September 18, 2011 by bernardovillela

This is something I’m going to do periodically. Basically, I will employ many means to qualify films for the BAM Awards be it either seeing the film theatrically acquiring a DVD either through purchase or on Netflix. This could lead to an influx of several new titles being seen in a short span of time which would be difficult to write full reviews for. At least this way the film gets some of its deserved attention and you get some notion of my thoughts on them.

If you have questions or comments feel free to respond. I always get back.

As always please refer to My Rating Scale for an indication of what the scores mean and if you’re curious where these films might make a dent in my personal awards please check my BAM Considerations.

The Beaver

Riley Thomas Stewart and Mel Gibson in The Beaver (Summit)

One of the quirkiest films I’ve seen this year. It’s a bit inconsistent towards the latter half of the second act but overall it’s effective and all the laughs about the situation are intended. Mel Gibson does a fantastic job in this film. It’s perhaps Foster’s best directorial turn but not her strongest story. The tightness of the cast, few ancillary characters, helps this film connect.

7/10

Super

Ellen Paige and Rainn Wilson in Super (IFC Midnight)

A truly odd little film that can’t escape comparisons to Kick-Ass. While it never does metamorphose fully into a superhero film (and that’s fine) its quirk never really clicks as well as it should and the resolution (meaning the denouement not the climax) is a bit unsatisfying. A very good performance by Rainn Wilson but the film could’ve been much better.

6/10

Tucker & Dale vs. Evil

Alan Tudyk and Tyler Labine in Tucker & Dale vs. Evil (Magnet)

This is one of the few true horror/comedy films because of the very simple and ingenious use of perception and knowledge. We know everything that’s going on therefore we can laugh despite how horrific it is that Tucker and Dale and the college kids never understand one another. It also works like horror film with a classic and funny backstory. It’s truly a treat that ought to be seen by fans of both genres.

10/10

Red State

James Parks in Red State (SModcast Pictures)

I’m sorry but I just do not understand all the vitriol about Kevin Smith. You can say what you like about his P.T. Barnum act with taking this film on the road and the rest of it but I think this is solid stuff and very different than all his prior works. It has a horror aspect, occasional laughs, political overtones and some darn solid acting from James Parks, Kyle Gallner and Michael Angarano. Most of them being involved plus hockey makes Hit Somebody something to look forward to indeed.

9/10

Bereavement

Brett Rickaby in Bereavement (Crimson Films/Anchor Bay)

It’s hard to know where to start (or to stop) talking about Bereavement. It is quite simply a symphony of horror. Though I take back nothing I said about Insidious or Hatchet on Twitter this is the most blown away by a horror film that I’ve been since I first saw Frailty. Spencer List’s dialogueless but significant role in this film is strong enough to make me reconsider my Creepiest Kids in Supporting Roles list. For Stevan Mena as an auteur this is a true tour-de-force as he directs, writes and scores this film brilliantly. It’s one of the deepest casts in a horror film I’ve seen in a long time and one of the few I’ve seen after reaching my Age of Cynicism regarding horror were nothing feels safe or sacred.

10/10

Review- Crazy, Stupid, Love

Posted on August 15, 2011 by bernardovillela

Steve Carell and Ryan Gosling in Crazy, Stupid, Love (Warner Bros.)

Crazy, Stupid, Love is for lack of a better word a film that isn’t receiving a lot of love but more important than that it is a film that breaks free of a few molds, works on a few levels and does so exceedingly well. It’s funny, heartfelt, dramatic and a truthful family story. It has pretty real and rounded characters that we meet in isolation and learn about more so when they interact.

Now I know that many of you are asking “Hey, isn’t this a RomCom and therefore sucky?” The answers to those questions are it’s not that easy and most definitely not. The problem with most romantic comedies is not just the formulaic nature but the lack of dimension, which they have. They too often tend to be all about the relationship and the obstacles two people face in trying to be with one another and reach that ultimate pinnacle. What separates a film like this is first it’s about its characters’ struggles and not a relationship but in each serious relationship it builds it does things a bit unconventionally and unexpectedly. The main relationship is a marriage of 20+ years that is falling apart, which is not your usual recipe for one of these films. Similarly, the secondary relationships don’t follow the typical patterns.

There’s also a lack of schmaltz, contrivance and other kinds of BS you’re usually saddled with in a film of this kind. I’d call this film the best of its kind since Love, Actually (In part because few make me want to see them and few are any good) but what this film does better than Love, Actually is it doesn’t need the pretense to tell several kinds of love stories, they’re all intertwined in much more organic way. I’m not sure it’s better than that but if it is we might be looking at perhaps going all the way back to French Kiss for something as good.

I could go on for quite a bit about the performances in this film, however, I will attempt to reach some semblance of balance. First, there’s Steve Carell, which brings to mind another apt comparison for this film is that this is kind of like what Dan in Real Life yearned to be, both in terms of his arc and performance but it just never got there. I’ve seen a lot of Steve Carell in the years since he left The Daily Show and this may just be his next great performance the only stronger being Little Miss Sunshine. Then, of course, you have his wonderful counterpart Julianne Moore, who is so consistently brilliant as of late it may be easy to overlook her contribution to this film.

Ryan Gosling has no simple task in this film either. He has to be equally convincing as the can’t-miss-womanizer and also a guy who lets his guard down and falls for the one girl who can crack through the facade. Similarly, Emma Stone has a deceptively simple job; she has to bring her comedic chops and feminine wiles to the same part so she needs to be equal parts sarcastic and smart and lovable. Her persona is infectious but as Zookeeper proves your aura does not guarantee the elevation of a film.

The third pairing features perhaps the most surprising turns. First, you have Jonah Bobo as Robbie. Bobo has been infrequently seen since his debut performance in Zathura. His character is refreshingly written in certain regards and very well interpreted. Bobo exudes an intellectual maturity and emotional naivete that are essential to this part. Conversely, Analeigh Tipton poignantly captures an essentially young girl with a woman’s desires and makes it a third strong combination.

This is a film, as the genre-related discussion above implies, is also a comedy, if not primarily, and it most definitely delivers in terms of laughs. There are laughs to be had in this film and in good quantity. Since I viewed it it’s already proven rather quotable but also it packs a wallop in terms of dramatic emotional content. This balance along with a sizable portion of it being funny is what places it head-and-shoulders above most films of its kind. This makes the film quite moving as well as funny in the end.

As if it was out to disprove many notions I typically find annoying this film also includes a twist which works to great effect and like a good one does it elevates the film and it’s helped by the fact that it’s not too close to the end and doesn’t have the whole film hinge on it.

Crazy, Stupid, Love is an old kind of film done in a more modern way. It takes some 21st Century notions and mixes it in with tried and true storytelling techniques that are executed here better than you’ll find in most films regardless of genre. Typically, the amount of value you get out of you admission price is not a barometer I use but this film makes itself worth the price of admission in many ways. It’s well worth it.

10/10