Category: Comedy

Warner Bros. Pictures And Legendary Pictures Are Ready For Another HANGOVER – May 24, 2013

Warner Bros. Pictures and Legendary Pictures are reteaming with Todd Phillips for “The Hangover Part III,” the third installment in the record-breaking comedy franchise, which is slated for release on May 24, 2013. “The Hangover Part III” will star Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms and Zach Galifianakis, who will reprise the roles of Phil, Stu and Alan, collectively known to moviegoers as “the Wolfpack.” In the previous two films, the three friends’ attempts to plan a celebration have resulted in disaster for them, but led to a combined billion-dollar success at the worldwide box office.

Phillips said, “I’m so excited to embark on another ‘Hangover’ film with Bradley, Ed and Zach. We’re going to surprise a lot of people with the final chapter we have planned. It will be a fitting conclusion to our three-part opera of mayhem, despair and bad decisions.”

Phillips is writing the screenplay with Craig Mazin, who also collaborated with him on the screenplay for “The Hangover Part II.” Phillips is again producing the film under his Green Hat Films banner, together with Dan Goldberg. Thomas Tull and Scott Budnick will serve as executive producers.

In making the announcement, Jeff Robinov, President Warner Bros. Pictures Group said, “We are extremely pleased to have Todd Phillips and the guys back together again for another ‘Hangover,’ and we look forward to collaborating with them on another great movie.”

Production on the film is projected to begin in September 2012.

A presentation of Warner Bros. Pictures, in association with Legendary Pictures, “The Hangover Part III” will be distributed worldwide by Warner Bros. Pictures, a Warner Bros. Entertainment Company.

ASHLEY/AMBER (2011) – The Short Review

“What does it take to get America’s attention?”

The perfect tagline for an introspective short film about American politics and a skewed sense of morality. Written and directed by Rebecca Rojer, ASHLEY/AMBER is a 22-minute short film starring Diane Guerrero as Ashley, an attractive young woman who recently lost her boyfriend to the war. Heartbroken and conflicted by her loss, Ashley struggles to reconcile her boyfriend’s duty and commitment to fighting for his country with her pain and sadness, even a little anger over losing her loved one.

Ashley is also struggling financially, so following a current American trend (and let’s be honest, a global trend), Ashley responds to an ad to make some quick cash performing in a fly-by-night, amateur online sex video under the assumed name of Amber. Now, not only is Ashley conflicted by her boyfriend’s death, combined with the constant pressure from her anti-war activist friends to protest with them and speak publicly about her own experience of loss, she now has the added weight of having sold herself to pay the bills looming on her conscience. Ashley will soon discover just how volatile, fickle and hypocritical society can sometimes be about sex, war and free speech.

ASHLEY/AMBER is a small, independent project, as are most short films. This drama is gritty and honest, but the pacing is decidedly slow and methodical. At times, I do feel the editing lingers just the tiniest bit too long, leaving the camera to linger just beyond the point of comfortable observation, but I also feel that perhaps this is intentional, hoping to convey a sense of relentless voyeurism. In a society obsessed with reality TV and celebrity gossip, ASHLEY/AMBER also touches on these themes indirectly, even if unintentional. As Ashley comes to terms with her situation in life, with the circumstances she is both forced into and entered into by choice, she takes a chance and reaches out as an anti-war activist but finds that instead of her outspoken message of peace making a positive impact, the two-sided Internet proves to be the curse that subjects her life to further ridicule.

Diane Guerrero does a fascinating job, portraying an emotionally scarred woman stunted by her confusion and pulled apart by a society that deems sexual freedom far more morally reprehensible than a controversial war and the corrupted comfort we have developed for violence in general. Her emotions are reserved, but dwell just beneath the surface of her skin. ASHLEY/AMBER has some very minor production flaws, but the message and direction of the film on display from filmmaker Rebecca Rojer are of a respectably high caliber. This is an intelligent film, even subversively, darkly humorous film on a subconscious level. ASHLEY/AMBER plays as a smarter, far more poignant counterbalance to the trend of mindless, frivolous reality programming that clogs the bandwidth of television and the Internet. Rojer clearly has a strong vision for storytelling and encourage her to follow this path and discover in what direction this compass will lead her.

ASHLEY/AMBER was nominated for a Golden Berlin Bear award for Best Short Film in 2011 and can be purchased in Europe as part of a DVD compilation titled BACK TO POLITICS.

Filmmaker’s Background:

Originally from Maplewood, NJ, Rebecca produced her first short films and animations as a student at Columbia High School. In 2004 she was selected to participate in the William H. Cosby Future Filmmakers Workshop at NYU and the Innerspark-CSSA Animation Program at CalArts.

Rebecca currently studies film production in the Visual and Environmental Studies department at Harvard University. She also illustrates for the Harvard Lampoon. Her most recent film, Beauty Machine, received an Award of Merit in the Accolade Film Competition and has been selected to screen at Anthology Film Archives in New York as part of the New Filmmakers Program.

FRIENDS WITH KIDS – The Review

Can a single guy and a single gal be best friends without romance ( and perhaps sex ) messing things up? This question was probably best explored many years ago with WHEN HARRY MET SALLY ( and countless uninspired rom-coms since the 1989 classic ). The new film FRIENDS WITH KIDS puts the conflict right up front. Yeah, these two are BFFs and yeah, they procreate. Now, Harry and Sally did hook-up, but it was not part of a well thought-out, negotiated plan.  These modern New Yorkers want parenthood without romantic committment. Can they really pull it off, or will they go down the path from 23 years ago?

Well, let’s meet these friends prior to the kids. Julie ( Jennifer Westfeldt ) is a gorgeous thirty-something who’s hesitant about jumping back into the old dating pool after a bad break-up with an old beau. Jason ( Adam Scott ) is having a great time splashing about in the deep end of said pool. He’s not exactly a ” player ” , but his relationships don’t last from weeks into months. The two live on different floors of a swanky Manhattan apartment building and are friends with two married couples. Leslie ( Maya Rudolph ) and Alex ( Chris O’Dowd ) are squabbling ( well, more  like teasing ) long-time married, harried parents. Missy ( Kristen Wiig ) and Ben ( Jon Hamm ) are newly marrieds who have a tough time keeping their hands off each other ( lotsa’ risky public action! ). After a group dinner, Julie and Jason hatch a plan. They both want to experience parenthood while still young, but don’t want to commit to a life partner. They’ll make a baby, and commit to taking care of the tot, trading off duties and time. But once the child is past infancy ( and Julie’s back in club-shape ), they’ll both start dating again. The other couples are perplexed by the plan ( some more than others ), but offer their support. Soon Julie hooks up with a hunky single dad ( Ed Burns ) while Jason finds his dream gal in a shapely Broadway star ( Megan Fox ). Things seem to be going great for both new parents, but can these buddies really keep their parenting separate from their new relationships?

For most of its running time FRIENDS WITH KIDS is a smart, witty Big Apple relationship romp that’s more Nora Ephron than Woody Allen. The main problem is that it’s being marketed almost as a BRIDESMAIDS reunion with Wiig, Rudolph, Hamm, and O’Dowd featured predominately in the ads. Sure there are a couple of baby excrement gags ( a tired staple of baby rom-coms now ), but that’s as close as this film comes to the raunch of last Summer’s smash flick. And there are only three or four scenes involving all the couples. The majority of screen time is devoted to Westfeldt and Scott. Both are talented actors ( with Westfeldt pulling triple duty as screenwriter/director/star ), but they have little chemistry together ( as opposed to Scott’s TV job on ” Parks and Recreations ” where he sizzles with Amy Poehler ). It’s tough to accept Stone as this great ladies’ man, while Westfeldt’s character comes of a tad whiny in many scenes. As for those other two couples, Hamm is given little to do until a big confrontation in which he channels a bit of the Don Draper arrogance and insensitivity. Wiig is given even less to do besides drink and glare at Hamm. Her wild, zany comic persona is in small supply. The more interesting couple may be Rudolph and O’Dowd. They have an easy rapport and great comic timing. His character is six years her junior and often is in the child role ( like a goofy adolescent ) with her in their scenes. Rudolph’s a great big sister to Westfeldt- supportive with a great B.S. detector. Fox tries to shake her big movie diva ( rhymes with witch ) persona and gain some indie film cred, but comes off as her usual stiff screen self especially in her scenes with the ensemble. You just can’t buy her and Scott together. Speaking of indie film cred, Burns has that in spades, but his dream guy dad just seem to be a good-natured doormat. He’s there mostly to be supportive of Julie. The NYC location work is great, as is a jaunt to the slopes. Unfortunately all the sparkling dialogue comes crashing to a halt after a big holiday gone bad and the film marches into rom-com cliche-land. The ending is almost cringe-worthy. Ms. Westfeldt is a talented film maker. Let’s hope her next effort can avoid some of these pitfalls. She and her fellow actors are deserving of a better, less predictable screen story from start to finish.

Overall rating: 3 Out of 5 stars

PROJECT X (2012) – The Review

PROJECT X is not an off-shoot of the TV talent competition or a remake of the Matthew Broderick chimp thriller, but the latest in what seems to be an endless entry in the found footage / hand-held video genre, a film subset ( or conceit ) that is quickly wearing out its welcome at the multiplex. I suppose it really exploded with the box office smash over ten years ago with THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT and continues today with the horror series PARANORMAL ACTIVITY. Just weeks ago the format was used in the super-powered fantasy CHRONICLE. Now the shakey-cam is utilized for this new ” party ” comedy ( not the first found comedy – THE VIRGINITY HIT was a 2010 dud ). Will X fire up lots of big screen yucks or go down like warm stale beer?

The plot ( to be it loosely ) centers around the 24 hours of the eighteenth birthday of Thomas  played by Thomas Mann ( who starred in IT’S KIND OF A FUNNY STORY, one of this film’s few movie veterans ). His parents are headed out of town to celebrate their anniversary ( hmmm, really? ) and have left son Thomas with many strict rules for use of the home (oo-kay). The birthday boy’s best pal Costa ( Oliver Cooper ), along with JB ( Jonathon Daniel Brown ) decide to help throw the party to end all parties all while being video documented by the mostly silent ( and more than a bit creepy ) Dax ( Dax Flame ). We follow them at school as they invite their classmates ( who don’t really know Thomas ), purchase some herb in a shady part of town, and pick up party supplies. Soon the sun sets and the guests arrive. And arrive. And ( … well you get the picture ). Thanks to Dax ( and other video devices and TV news feeds ) we’re in the middle of this raging, out-of-control, endless night.

But is this party worth attending? Well it would help to have some interesting characters involved. Thomas, Costa, and JB are a riff on youthful comic trios used in films since THE LAST AMERICAN VIRGIN all through the vastly superior SUPERBAD. The hero Thomas is the really, nice guy who gets swept up into bad boy behavior ( ala’ RISKY BUSINESS ). JB is the bespectacled uber-nerd, who might just get lucky despite his cluelessness. And then there’s the ringleader, the crass motor-mouth Costa. When he’s not waxing nostalgic on the glories of Queens, he’s going out of his way to be crude and crass to everyone he meets. And he’s playing to the camera constantly ( he favors himself a future viral video superstar ). At least we can hope this little weasel gets his comeuppance. I did find their security team ( two over-eager junior high age guys in bright yellow windbreakers ) a bit amusing. The producers try to shoe-horn a romance subplot into the fracas. Thomas lusts after super hot brunette bad-girl Alexis while not appreciating best pal, blonde gird-girl Kirby ( almost literally the girl-next-door ). Or maybe he will go past the buddy stage. It’s the classic ” Archie-Betty-Veronica ” triangle once again! But without the complexity of those comic book icons. I don’t know when I’ll felt so ancient watching in a movie theatre. The twenty-something target audience was erupting in roars during the wild party scenes while I was using my interior calculator to add up the quickly mounting property damage. PROJECT X is an ode to excess, irresponsibility,and destruction. When the camera not zooming in on the revelers mugging into the camera as they dance and imbibe, we’re treated to random acts of cruelty ( blowing pot smoke in the lil’ pup’s face then tying it to helium balloons-calling PETA! ). I guess we’re suppose to laugh at the old squares in the neighborhood trying to get some sleep. Most of the guys here are selfish pigs while the girls ( except for Kirby ) are there to shake their stuff and drop their tops. One of the main marketing points for the film is the involvement of Todd Phillips as one of the producers. Well, this film made his Hangover flicks look subtle and subdued. It’s tough to laugh when the film makers glorify antics that get ‘ spring-breakers ” killed every year. In that aspect, the movie veers from sloppy to contemptable.There’s little consequences to anything here! Although the film clocks in at 90 minutes, it more than wears out its welcome. PROJECT X goes from party mode to gruelling endurance test. Shut out the lights and call it a night! And stay off my lawn, you darn movie!

 

Overall Rating: 1/2 out of 5 stars

WANDERLUST – The Review

Sometimes film makers can unknowingly tap into a certain public movement or trend when making a piece of entertainment. This can be even more surprizing considering the long gestation period of movies ( usually scripts can collect dust on a desk or shelf before the cameras roll ). The trend I’m referring to with this flick is the recent occupy movement that took root in many cities across the country this past Fall and Summer ( the expanded trailer for this coming Summer’s THE DARK KNIGHT RISES seem to be picking up on those protests, too ). Well, before Batman leaps into the economic battlefield, here comes the new comedy from David Wain ( WET, HOT AMERICAN SUMMER and ROLE MODELS ) called WANDERLUST. In this, a young married couple decide to stop their quest for the ” almighty dollar ” and return to a simpler time of communes ( when hippies walked the Earth! ). Of course they’re not the only movie big city duo to get back to basics ( THE EGG AND I  and LOST IN AMERICA are great examples ), but this film taps into that 60’s spirit that was floating through those make-shift tents and towns that sprung up in city parks late last year. And this film shows the lighter, flip-side to last year’s commune flick, MARTHA MARCY MAY MARLENE. So it’s riding a recent a wave of sentiment, but does it deliver the big laughs with the relevancy?

Linda ( Jennifer Aniston ) and George ( Paul Rudd ) are upwardly mobile young marrieds in Manhattan. Suddenly their city life crumbles ( their jobs go down the drain ) and George hatches a plan to work with his brother Rick ( Ken Marino ) down in Atlanta until they can regroup and return to the Big Apple. Desperate to pull off the highway for the night, they encounter a bed and breakfast deep off the trail, in the wilds of Georgia run by the odd, mature flower child Kathy ( Kerri Kenney ). Soon the couple find that the place is part of a sixties-style commune started by Carvin ( Alan Alda ), but really run by the group’s enigmatic guru Seth ( Justin Theroux ). After a wild, but restful night George and Linda resume their journey and arrive at the sprawling suburban home of brother Rick and his family. Quickly George clashes with his obnoxious sibling and he decides that a return to nature at Carvin’s may be just the thing for himself and Linda. Can they really change their lifestyle and fit in with the commune’s free spirits ( and wild eccentrics )? And what about the plans of an evil developer to turn the Carvin’s land into a big, ugly casino ( pave paradise, put up some slot machines )?

Once again Wain has assembled a group of terrific comic actors, many from his previous films and his superb TV work ( from ” The State” to ” Childrens Hospital ” ). Co-writer Marino scores big laughs as the insensitive idiot Rick while SNL vet Michaela Watkins is funny ( and a bit sad ) as Rick’s frustrated, numb wife Marissa. Besides Kinney the commune is filled with terrific talent like Lauren Ambrose ( ” Six Feet Under” ) as Earth-mother Almond, ” MADTV” vet Jordan Peele as her old man Rodney, and Kathryn Hahn ( OUR IDIOT BROTHER ) as annoyed feminist Karen. Malin Akerman is the ultimate sexy hippie chick Eva, while Alda is his usual sly, delightful self riffing on his left-leaning rep. Many readers of the tabloids and gossip site may flock to this flick to get a better look at the new Anniston beau, Mr. Theroux. Well Mr. T scores many big laughs as the pretentious, blowhard leader, whose tech knowledge ended a decade or so ago. He and Aniston work well in their few scenes together, but newstand mag fans don’t get a chance to see the new ” it ” couple sizzling up the screen. Most of Aniston’s romantic scenes are with her movie hubby and they crackle with energy ( as does an early scene with some TV execs ). With this film, and the recent HORRIBLE BOSSES, she solidifies her status as one of our top comic actresses. They’re all superb, but the film really belongs to the endlessly charming Mr. Rudd. Whether he’s doing slapstick farming schtick or delivering a very R-rated pep talk to himself at a mirror, Rudd effortlessly brings home the same kind of big laughs he did as OUR IDIOT BROTHER. He’s a great, goofy leading ( every ) man for our times. The movie itself goes on a bit too long and its ending can be seen all the way up Highway 75, but it’s a pleasure to see this talented group tweak the noses of the 1% and the 99% ( I’ll raise my hands and rub my fingers together, since clapping is too aggressive, man ).

Overall rating: Four Out of Five Stars

THIS MEANS WAR – The Review

So, Valentine’s Day was a few days ago. Doesn’t mean it’s too late for another romantic comedy. Now this one hedges its bets by trying to appeal to adrenaline lovin’ guys. No simple hearts and flowers stuff like THE VOW are going on here. Action director McG injects some Bond and MISSION IMPOSSIBLE style thrills into the genre with THIS MEANS WAR. But can he rescue the wounded rom-com after recently being roughed up by the likes of SJP, Heigl, and Kutcher?

WAR starts up right at the end of a dangerous Hong Kong adventure. CIA agents and best pals Franklin AKA FDR ( Chris Pine ) and Tuck ( Tom Hardy ) are there to break up some dirty deal instigated by Heinrich ( Til Schweiger ). After much mayhem the guys return to LA HQ where they’re called on the carpet by their boss Collins ( Angela Bassett ) and assigned desk duty. We then meet adorable product tester Lauren ( Reese Witherspoon ), who’s great at her job but unlucky in love. She keeps running into her ex and his new gal all the time! After much prodding by her best pal, harried married mom Trish ( Chelsea Handler ) Lauren goes on an internet dating site. Back with the spies, Tuck’s got the blues. He’s still not quite over his divorce and misses his little boy. One night he decides to go online. And what do you know? He finds Lauren’s profile! FDR ( no internet dating for this “player” ) volunteers to shadow their meeting. Oddly enough ( not really ) FDR bumps into Lauren after her drink with Tuck and they exchange sparks. Soon Lauren is dating both guys and they discover their mutual new flame. They agree to behave as gentlemen ( like that’ll work ). I mean with all those cool spy gizmos at their disposal? C’mon! In addition to all the one-upmanship, that nasty old Heinrich is heading to the states to get revenge on the two buds. Can FDR and Tuck stay BFFs and keep Lauren from finding out about their agreement and their line of work before that angry German catches up to them?

It’s strange for this to come out so closely on the heels of the brutal spy thriller SAFE HOUSE. In that film , the Agency’s full of ruthless backstabbers and cruel torturers. The CIA in McG’s film is a fun place with cool toys and co-workers that don’t mind helping you out with a new gal. The offices are plush and slick like Ari Gold’s offices in TV’s Entourage. Then again the LA shown here is a fantasy fun park where you can run into the ex and show him up with your new fella. McG shoots the town with a golden glow, but can’t seem to bring a lot of life to the plot until the obligatory fight scenes and car chase. He edits those so frantically that you can barely tell who’s doing what to whom ( do you really needt o cut every two seconds? ). The actors can only do so much with this predictable script. It’s tough to believe that Witherspoon’s Lauren would be such a disaster in the dating pool. The clueless character is a waste of her considerable acting talents. Lauren’s more of a prize than a person. For a rom-com she doesn’t have much chemistry with her leading men. Hardy’s Tuck is too quiet and sullen for this light fare. Pine seems to be still in Captain Kirk mode, but can still throw out a funny line or gesture. These are two fine actors, but they don’t really gel as pals. Pine’s a Roger Moore type of spy while Hardy’s in the Daniel Craig vein. Speaking of chemistry. Witherspoon has that in spades with Handler’s Trish, who seems to be living vicariously through Lauren. Handler’s deadpan delivery makes a terrific contrast to the flighty Lauren character. A movie about those two very different woman would be much more interesting than this sophomoric cloak and dagger,dating farce. Everyone ( including the locations and vehicles ) are very attractive, but very forgettable. And shame on the producers for invoking Mad Magazine’s classic Spy Vs. Spy in the advertising. Now those spy guys are really funny!

Overall Rating: Two and a Half Out of Five Stars

DON’T WORRY WE’LL THINK OF A TITLE – The DVD Review

Big kudos to the fine folks at MGM Limited Edition DVD-R! They’ve dug deep in the vaults for a true oddity in the world of cinema and television ( sitcoms, to be more precise ) ! I will tell anyone who asks that my absolute favorite TV situation comedy of all time is that early sixties gem ” The Dick Van Dyke Show” ( desert island, only one TV comedy, no hesitation! ). Well one of the few people with even more admiration and affection for this bit of comic perfection is comedy writer and pop culture master Mark Evanier. One of the sites I’ve bookmarked ( and if you love entertainment  you should too ) is his website/ blog newsfromme.com . In 2007 he alerted his readers to DON”T WORRY WE’LL THINK OF A TITLE was airing on the Turner Classic Movie cable channel. He had seen it with his family while they were vacationing in Pismo Beach in 1966. It was playing on a double bill with WHAT DID YOU DO IN THE WAR, DADDY? He says that unlike that film, TITLE  did not have a professional studio printed poster, but was promoted with a hand lettered sign! That should’ve been a clue to the film’s quality.

This is quite an oddity. I was shocked that Morey Amsterdam and Rose Marie had made a feature film toward the end of their time as Buddy Sorrel and Sally Rogers, and I had not heard of it. Well, it’s probably because it’s a tough slog to sit through. What little plot the film has concerns a group of Eastern European spies ( one of those made up, cold war spots ) who believe that Morey’s character is a defecting astronut. The film was shot in 1965 near the end of the Van Dyke series, and dates itself not only with the spy antics, but with a scene set at a college beatnik ( ! ) party. It begins with a caricature of Amsterdam ( maybe drawn by the multi-talented Dick Van Dyke? ) as part of the logo for Courageous Cal Productions ( ? ).The film has the flat look of a one camera sitcom of the era ( the end title says it was shot on the legendary Desilu Studios ) and even employs that wacky sped-up effect that many shows used to balance out some the old, groaner jokes in the script from co-producer/star Amsterdam. The film’s main interest is as a time capsule of TV comics of that era. Morey must have called on many of his pals to stop by for quick cameos, and it’s amazing who he got to show up. We get to see Van Dyke co-stars Richard Deacon ( in a double role as a diner owner and policeman ) and Carl Reiner along with Forrest Tucker, Moe Howard ( solo, sans stooges! ), Cliff Arquette ( as Charley Weaver ), Nick Adams, Milton Berle, Steve Allen, and Irene Ryan ( in her Granny outfit and driving the Clampett truck ). Comic actor Henry Corden ( who soon took over as voice of Fred Flintstone ) shows up as a clumsy spy and an actress named January ( ! ) Jones ( not the “Mad Men ” actress, but perhaps a relative? ) plays Morey and Rose’s diner waitress pal who inherits a bookstore.

The DVD-R is bare bones. Not even a trailer ( was one made?). I was hoping for either a commentary track with the still active Rose Marie, but Evanier reports that she has no fondness for this big screen misfire. Picure and sound quality is sharp and crisp. It’s not a cinema treasure, but if you’re an affeciando of sixties TV ( and of the Van Dyke show ) then you’ll want to add this to your DVD library.

THE ARTIST (2011) – The Review

So far this holiday season we moviegoers have seen Martin Scorsese’s magical tribute to cinema’s infancy, HUGO. In that film he uses all the 3D CGI modern movie marvels to recreate the ” flickers” of the early twentieth century. And now from French director Michel Hazanavcius comes his loving homage to old Hollywood, THE ARTIST. But this film differs from HUGO in that it attempts to completely emulate those golden classics. No 3D or CGI used here. Or color. Or sound (there’s a great musical score, but no spoken dialogue-just title cards). You may think that this is just a gimmick, while some movie fans may roll their eyes at having to read the film. Ah, but it’s no gimmick and the title cards do not make viewing the film a chore. On the contrary, I believe this enhances the whole movie experience. It helps to immerse you into this quiet, stylized, alternate universe. If this is your introduction to the wonders of silent cinema, then you are a lucky film fan with many more wonders to explore.

Well, let’s first get back to THE ARTIST. It begins in 1925 at the big premiere of matinee idol George Valentin’s (Jean Dujardin) new big screen action epic. Outside the theatre as George talks to the press, a young flapper film fan, Peppy Miller (Berenice Bejo) accidentally gets past the barriers and is photographed with the screen star. Back at this home, George’s unhappy wife (Penelope Ann Miller) is not amused by the newspaper photos of him with his fan. The next morning, with the paper in hand, Peppy, joins the hopeful actors at the extras casting station inside Kinograph Studios. Peppy and George are re-united as she lands a bit part in his new movie. The two’s paths will cross many times over the next few years. Her star is on the rise as she becomes Kinograph’s new screen sweetheart. George’s star is on a different course. The head of the studio (John Goodman) tells him that sound is the future of motion pictures. George laughs this off as a fad and refuses to join in on the “all-talking” craze. He decides to swim against the tide and produce (and write, star, and direct) his next screen all-silent saga. Can George somehow get his career back on track and perhaps team up with Peppy once again?

Most film fans will recognize that set-up as a riff on A STAR IS BORN (at least three big screen versions) with the “talkies” panic subplot of SINGING IN THE RAIN tossed in. Like a great dish, it’s what the master chief does with these familiar ingredients. And write/director Hazanavcius is quite the cook. I’ve enjoyed his two OSS 117 sixties spy spoofs (OSS 117 : CAIRO, NEST OF SPIES and OSS 117- LOST IN RIO) with star Dujardin, but here he really goes beyond these parodies. He’s really given us characters that we’re emotionally invested in while not ignoring the comedy. Dujardin is not the buffoon-ish secret agent, but a very complex actor who’s at once child-like, gentle, egotistical, romantic, and in the depths of despair. He also really looks like a classic screen star (Valentin resembles Douglas Fairbanks, Sr. with more than a touch of the sound-adverse Charles Chaplin) and has an infectious grin. He may be the happiest movie Frenchman on screen since Maurice Chevalier. Bejo has great energy as the big, bright-eyed beauty who truly enjoys every aspect of her back lot adventures. She and Dujardin have terrific chemistry just by the way they look at one another. Miller goes from being an awe-struck fan of Valentin to his screen equal and eventually his protector. These two get great assistance from the several American-born stars. Goodman’s wonderful as the big, blustery poppa bear of a studio boss (a combination perhaps of Louis Mayer, Jack Warner, and Harry Cohn) who tries to project a hard-nosed business exterior, but really loves his staple of stars almost like his children. James Cromwell is also a nurturing fatherly figure as Valentin’s devoted, loyal chauffeur. Besides his work with the human actors , Dujardin also has a special screen bond with a gifted canine performer, a scruffy terrier that is his constant companion. Havzanavcius makes excellent use of the old Hollywood locations and glorious vintage automobiles. The gorgeous black and white cinematography gives the actors a glowing, silver sheen like the movie icons of the golden age. Now, the movie’s not completely silent . There’s a musical score that ranges from a bouncy, comedy theme to a big, brassy jazz number to a great Bernard Herriman piece from a another movie classic. I hate to sound like a film Grinch and say that the film could’ve trimmed eight or ten minutes of Valentin’s downward spiral, because the movie’s strengths far outweigh this minor quibble. For want of a better word, THE ARTIST is charming. Completely, disarmingly charming. This may be the best present we’ve gotten from France since Lady Liberty.

Overall Rating: 5 out of 5 Stars

YOUNG ADULT – The Review

Why is it that some people never grow up? Unfortunately, I do not have the answer to this question, but it does serve to explain the premise of YOUNG ADULT. This most recent screenplay written by Diablo Cody (JUNO, JENNIFER’S BODY) is directed by Jason Reitman, the man who brought us films including JUNO, THANK YOU FOR SMOKING and UP IN THE AIR.

Mavis Gary (Charlize Theron) is a struggling author of a once popular series of young adult fiction. Think something along the lines of the “Wimpy Kid” series, but for high school girls, rather than Harry Potter or the Twilight series. Mavis is currently writing the last book in her discontinued series, but is experiencing writers block. As an adventure, or more accurately as she sees it, as a calling of fate, Mavis returns home to her small hometown to win back Buddy Slade, played by Patrick Wilson (INSIDIOUS). Buddy was Mavis’ high school sweetheart, but he’s now married with a new born child.

One thing we learn about Mavis early on is that she’s not exactly a role model of being a responsible, well adjusted adult. YOUNG ADULT as a title refers both to the genre of fiction she writes, as well as the state of mind within which Mavis is perpetually stuck. However, when it comes to winning Buddy back, Mavis proves as unstoppable as a Juggernaut. The first person Mavis runs into upon returning home is Matt Freehauf, played by comedian and actor Patton Oswalt (BIG FAN). Matt is what you might easily define as a grown up nerd. He lives with his sister, reassembles and paints action figures as a hobby along side running his own home whiskey distillery. Matt also has an unfortunate handicap, the story of which plays a crucial role in defining his relationship to Mavis.

YOUNG ADULT has Mavis and Matt become the unlikeliest of friends. Matt serves as Mavis’ unwanted and questionably successful conscience, while Mavis serves as the closest Matt will ever get to having something special with the popular, attractive cheerleader type that never occurred in high school. The chemistry between this odd couple is wonderfully awkward, but natural. Both are damaged goods, but Matt realizes and accepts the truth. Mavis fantasizes about what her life is supposed to be versus what it has become, leading her to pursue a self-destructive path of volcanic proportions.

The dialogue is clearly Diablo Cody’s, sharp and quick, but more refined than in JUNO. This is a dark comedy based in ordinary life. The eccentric edge, or the wackiness factor of YOUNG ADULT is also a bit more restrained than we saw in JUNO or THANK YOU FOR SMOKING. Reitman’s direction is continually finding a more “grown up” edge – if you’ll permit the cliché – a shift which began with UP IN THE AIR. While the humor and tone in Reitman’s first two films are more playfully over-the-top, his last two films are more reserved and more focused on specific character development.

YOUNG ADULT also scales back quite a bit on the star factor. Sure, Charlize Theron is a major star and talented to boot – possibly even worthy of an acting nomination come Oscar season – but Patton Oswalt – as much as I love that little funny man – is still a relative unknown for most people outside of the geek culture. Aside from this, Patrick Wilson and a brief role from veteran Mary Beth Hurt, this does not feature the ensemble cast that Reitman’s previous films are known for. YOUNG ADULT is a comedy that may taste slightly bitter on your tongue at first, but given time to savor after seeing the film allows for the sweetness to emerge, as well as the fiery kick of the film’s ending.

Overall Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

NEW YEAR’S EVE (2011) – The Review

 

 

Seems that not that long ago holidays were almost the exclusive domain of horror flicks ( thanks in no small part to John Carpenter’s 1978 classic HALLOWEEN ). This extended to other calendar dates like certain Fridays and even birthdays. With the release last year of VALENTINE’S DAY the “rom-com” has decided to horn in on the cineplex action thanks to TV sitcom master ( his trifecta being ” Happy Days “, ” Laverne and Shirley ” and ” Mork and Mindy ” ) turned movie comic kingpin ( PRETTY WOMAN ) Gary Marshall. Now Mr. M has decided to take on another big ( usually romantic ) holiday with NEW YEAR’S EVE and once again he’s assembled another gang of big stars ( with two returnees from last year ). We’ve haven’t opened our presents under the tree yet ( some of us haven’t even begun shopping ), so is this early cinema offering a gift that we’ll revisit again and again?

 Like the previous holiday flick, this is several stories intercut over the running time ( some share characters and settings ). Speaking of settings, this time NYC replaces LA ( a very mild winter Big Apple ). Let’s check them off! Hilary Swank is a city worker in charge of the big Times Square celebration ( including the dropping of the big ball ) who’s aided by good pal, policeman Chris ” Ludacris ” Bridges. One of the entertainers there is Jenson, played by real life rocker Jon Bon Jovi, who’s also singing at a big record company party catered by Katherine Heigl and her assistant Sofia Vergara. A put-upon worker at said record company, Michelle Pfieffer, quits and offers tickets to the big party to messenger Zac Efron if he can help her check items off her ” things to do list “. Zac’s brother is a cynical, New Year’s-hating cartoonist ( Ashton Kutcher )  trapped in his building’s elevator along with perky singer Lea Michelle, who’s on her way to sing back up with Jenson. At a hospital young parents-to-be Seth Meyers and Jessica Biel compete with another couple to collect the cash prize for the first birth of 2012. On another floor, nurse Halle Berry tends to a dying Robert DeNiro, who just wants to live long enough to see the 2011 become history. Sarah Jessica Parker is a harried single mother trying to track down teenage daughter Abigal Breslin who hopes to share her first kiss with that special boy at midnight in Times Square. Also racing into town in order to share a midnight kiss is Josh Duhamel, who encounters many obstacles ( and wacky characters ) on his way back from a Connecticut wedding. Whew, what a night!

 Marshall does his best to juggle the many stories. Unfortunately he has to cut away from many plots just as the momentum starts building. And many of them would’ve been better left on the editing room floor, particularly those agonizing attempts at pathos. The DeNiro/Berry scenes really seem to slow things up while a turgid,televised speech by Swank grinds things to a complete halt ( really, the Times Square crowds are completely silent? Really? ). The script is very TV “sitcomy” with many obvious set-ups and punch lines. The big star list may be more a testament to the good will that Marshall engenders rather than the quality of the material. Still several of the more seasoned comedy pr0s wring some laughs especially SNL’s Meyers and Vergara ( her character here is an even more ethnic and hot-to-trot variation of her Gloria from TV’s ” Modern Family ” ). Many pairings just don’t have much of a spark ( the Kutcher/Michelle pairing is a bit creepy ). I was really disheartened that Pfieffer was saddled with a frumpy brown wig and doing another take on the pre-Catwoman Selina Kyle. Fortunately the film moves to another location and pairing very quickly. I breathed a sigh of relief that Heigl and Parker shared no scenes. I feared that the two queens of awful romcoms on-screen together might create some sort of cinema black hole. There is great use of NYC locations, but it’s not enough to recommend this cliche-ridden, cloying mess. Stick around for the end credits bloopers-they’re a lot funnier than what’s in the main film ( maybe you’ll get to be that funny in a comedy soon, Mr. DeNiro! ). Let’s hope this is the last holiday to get this big screen desecration from the Marshall gang ( I’m sure Hector Elizondo will still get plenty of work! ).

 

Overall Rating: One and a Half Out of Five Stars