Review: "Birdman (or The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)"

Director: Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu
Runtime: 119 minutes

Mexican director Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu has always displayed gifts as a storyteller and as a director of actors. His key weakness, largely due to collaborations with writer Guillermo Arriaga, is that he wants to stretch his vision over far too much. His 2006 drama Babel, though beautifully photographed and acted, was a manipulative and contrived mess. The intersecting stories felt like attempts at making something capital I important rather than authentically compelling. Even after parting ways with Arriaga, Inarritu fell into the same trap with 2010's Biutiful. Once again, strong visuals and powerful acting held back by an exasperating amount of plots and subplots. 

Only four years later, however, Inarritu has finally shed his attempts at creating a sprawling game of narrative connect-the-dots. Working with three other credited writers, the director's latest, Birdman, finds him taking on a script actually worthy of his skills. Straightforward, lively, and devoid of narrative flab, Birdman is a bravura work of directing topped off with excellent performances (welcome back, Michael Keaton) and thrillingly ambitious photography.

With the globe-spanning finally laid by the wayside, Inarritu confines nearly all of Birdman in and around a prominent New York theater. It's there where, after a brief and cryptic opening, we meet aging star Riggan Thompson (Keaton), meditating in nothing but his underwear. Oh, and he's levitating about four feet off of the ground, or at least that's what his mind has him believe. 

Riggan, as realized here, smartly incorporates Keaton's actual status as an actor, without going overboard with the parallels and references. In the late 80s and early 90s, Riggan was the star of the mega-successful Birdman superhero franchise. That is, until he declined to star in a fourth film, and promptly sent his career into a tailspin. Now, he sits in his dreary looking dressing room watching Robert Downey Jr. rake in obscene amounts of money in the wake of Hollywood's current superhero obsession. 

The star dressing room for the Broadway stage is a dream for so many actors, including Riggan's costar Lesley (Naomi Watts). For the former lycra-clad superhero, however, it's much more; it's a chance to put it all out there for the world to see, and bring some credibility back to the faded glory of his name. From the moment that Riggan starts talking about his play - an adaptation of a Raymond Carver story - it's clear that his trip to the stage as writer, actor, and director is all that he has left in himself. 

Despite the talented ensemble that fleshes out Birdman's insular world, and the strong moments they all have, one thing is clear: this is Keaton's movie, and it's going to live or die by what he delivers. He succeeds. I've started that short and simple so as to prevent myself from exploding with hyperbole. Electrifying is an easy word to throw around, but Keaton surely earns it. His casting (combined with the part's writing) gives him something to tap into, but it's more than that. In the two hours we spend with Riggan, Keaton captures all of his guilt, frustration, desperation, and rage with the precision of a tightrope walker. 

The tightrope comparison applies not only to Keaton or his castmates, but Birdman as a complete entity. Filmed and edited to appear as if 95% of the movie occurs in an uninterrupted shot, Birdman's near-constant movement keeps the storytelling and performances consistently on edge. As it turns out, technical ambition works much better for Inarritu than narrative ambition.

But even though Inarritu has enlisted the great Emmanuel Lubezki (The Tree of Life, Gravity), the camerawork is always kept in service of the story and, more importantly, the characters. With the camera turning and circling and prowling all over the place nonstop, the early sequences of Birdman are unusually buoyant. It captures the frazzled, hypersensitive state of Thompson's mind as he's met with everything from stage disaster's to a hilariously difficult new cast member (Edward Norton). Better yet, the impressive technique on display ends up actually being in service of the film's endgame, rather than a mere bit of cinephile fan service. 

Birdman is, for all the flourishes, a story about the art of saving artistic face while reasserting one's cultural relevance in the increasingly over saturated world of modern celebrity. Riggan does his best to care for his daughter Sam (Emma Stone), but his best involves hiring her as an assistant. He gets to technically spend time with his daughter, but still get use out of her as he prepares to take the defibrillator to his reputation.

Everyone else is merely a means to an end, though that doesn't mean that Inarritu and his writers have left the other headliners without anything to work with. Norton is especially fun as a pompous stage veteran Mike, providing the perfect external antagonist to drive the film's first half. And he's not just a grotesque caricature of a jerk. His interactions with Riggan contain their own cruel grains of truth, even if they've been distorted by Mike's own pretension and ego. Watts, meanwhile, is nervy and vulnerable, and brings sincerity (or at least the illusion of sincerity) to Lesley, a woman on the verge of finally having her break as she's entering a stage in life where good parts start to vanish. And, as Riggan's former and current partners, Amy Ryan (ex-wife) and Andrea Riseborough (friend with benefits) each lend their own valuable contributions to Birdman's tale of ambition in the face of dashed hopes and dreams. Lindsay Duncan also leaves her mark as the formidable New York Times critic out for blood, and able to deflect each and every verbal blow Riggan throws her way.

All of the above performers have their time to shine, but none impresses quite like Emma Stone. Sam's status as a former addict is never belabored by the writing or directing, leaving Stone room to tap into her character's past while still be able to forge her own future. As good as everyone is here, Stone's interactions with Keaton are the ones I was left desperate for more of when the lights came up. Too often type cast as sassy, cutesy romantic leads, she slips into this damaged, no-bullshit psyche beautifully. Finally, with room to do something truly different, Stone takes charge, and comes closest to matching Keaton in commitment to every unpleasant little detail doled out by the script. Mike presents an artistic challenge, and the booming voice in Riggan's head is a psychological challenge, but only Sam is the real deal when it comes to affecting legitimate reflection in Riggan's life. Everything else, despite all the fuss about reviews and box office intake, is secondary, regardless of what Riggan tells himself.

There is a deep sadness at the core of Birdman, but Inarritu and his collaborators have kept the whole enterprise such a dynamic, spontaneous atmosphere that there's little room to get mired in existential woe. Lubezki's camera demands that, even in the most painful confession, Riggan - and therefore, the audience - keep moving forward. Accentuated by a soundtrack composed of rapturous classical pieces and Antonio Sanchez's drums-only score, and Birdman takes on the movements of a piece of experimental jazz. It's always going, always searching for whatever happens next, thrilling you with its next camera movement or powerful feat of acting, only to go somewhere totally different at a moment's notice. Under Inarritu's firm hand in the director's chair, that vivaciousness is under tight control, yet maintains the feeling of being executed off of the cuff. 

Many filmmakers, even great ones, struggle with the balance of style and substance. Inarritu, unlike many of his similarly-afflicted contemporaries, has both of them down. Yet on the matter of substance, he's only succeeded in investigating the emotional core of his stories and characters. The methods of investigation are where the problems show up. After Biutiful's false start at new beginnings, Birdman delivers the great film that Inarritu has had in him ever since he debuted Amores Perros nearly 15 years ago. Birdman's eventual, visceral impact is the direct result of this long-delayed artistic growth. Inarritu has spent his career swinging for the fences and tossing off foul balls. The difference, due to his newfound narrative focus, is that this time he's finally able to get the bat and the ball to connect at the sweet spot.

Grade: A

Review: "Magic in the Moonlight"

Director: Woody Allen
Runtime: 100 minutes

A movie may show a character acting in an unpleasant manner without being unpleasant itself. It's a lesson you'd think Woody Allen would know by now, given that he's made nearly 50 features. Everyone has been twisting themselves into knots wondering if they can separate Mr. Allen's personal life from his art. This is an important conversation, but it's one that's been taking place for months now. It shouldn't be brushed aside; it's far too sensitive a matter to simply be ignored. Yet rather than continue wringing hands over the separation of art and artist, it's now time to look at how badly Mr. Allen has blurred the lines between character and tone in his latest offering, Magic in the Moonlight.

The character in question is Stanley (Colin Firth), an acclaimed stage magician (albeit one who performs in yellow face as Wei Ling Soo) who enjoys debunking mystics and mediums claiming to be the real deal. From the moment Stanley removes his disguise backstage, he is demanding and off-putting. He has just as little patience for psychics as he does for missed music cues, and he wastes no time in berating those who fall short of his standards. 

At the behest of his old friend Howard (Simon McBurney), however, Stanley decides to take some time off to debunk a new arrival on the psychic scene. Her name is Sophie (Emma Stone), and she's currently in the progress of trying to sneak her way into the vast fortunes of a rich family in the south of France. What follows is an expected series of developments, mostly built around Stanley's questioning of his faith in science and logic. 

Yet even at his lowest point, Stanley remains a thoroughly obnoxious figure, and the film around him starts to sour quite early as a result. Stanley seems to have been modeled - intentionally or not - on the personality of Richard Dawkins, which is so militant in its insistence on science that it manifests as condescending rudeness towards anyone not 100% on the same wavelength. Yes, he's right, but does he have to be such an ass about it?

Firth and the rest of the cast are, at the very least, not sleepwalking through their roles. No one's going to win awards for this one, but everyone seems like they're trying to put some actual magic into what is ultimately a blah story. Despite the almost 30 year age gap, Firth and Stone have a few nice moments together (which is helped by them being at odds almost the entire way through) and a few exchanges here and there are amusing. Eileen Atkins ultimately walks away with the movie as Stanley's aunt, even as she's mostly used as a wry sounding board for her nephew's ranting. 

Where Magic in the Moonlight finally sinks itself is when it refuses to give Stanley any legitimate comeuppance. There's a point in the third act where the movie seems ready to end with Stanley where he deserves to be, but then another 15 minutes roll along and the "charming" ending we're supposed to smile act comes (literally) knocking. Stanley's arrogant bluster is often too caustic to find humorous, and he changes so little that he (and the film) don't come close to earning what happens at the conclusion. 

Though I understand why some are now uncomfortable watching Allen's movies in light of the past few months, even the absence of such scandal would do little to help here. With Magic in the Moonlight, one can separate the art from the artist or bind them together warts and all. Neither position will change the curmudgeonly quality that pervades this lazily directed romp that lacks even an ounce of magic.

Grade: C-

Review: "The Amazing Spider-Man 2"

Director: Marc Webb
Runtime: 142 minutes

For a movie as jam-packed with incident as The Amazing Spider-Man 2, it's frustrating how little any of it lingers once the lights go up. Coming off of 2012's decently received Spidey reboot, this sequel goes for the bigger-is-better approach, and ends up doing very little. The cluttered script and awkward tonal shifts keep the web-slinger's new outing grounded, despite the barrage of VFX-heavy stunts.

With two sequels already set (for 2016 and 2018), Spider-Man 2 feels like nothing more than empty set-up for future installments. Worse, neither the villains nor the personal drama has any weight to it until the final minutes. Main villain Electro (Jamie Foxx), a timid scientist who is transformed into a being of pure electricity, is as half-baked as they come. Additional villains Harry Osborn (Dane Dehaan) and the Rhino (Paul Giamatti, used for bookends rather than plot), follow suit.

And as much as the writing and directing deserve blame for the failure of the story's villains, the quality of the acting isn't doing the film any favors either. Foxx starts as a cartoonishly mannered nerd (one obsessed with Spider-Man), before evolving into a flashy stock character with a digitally altered voice. The idea that hell hath no fury like an adoring nerd scorned is alright, but the execution here pales in comparison to, say, Pixar's The Incredibles. 

Even more disappointing is DeHaan, who doesn't have the right charisma or presence to capture whatever the script wants Harry to be. DeHaan's mannerisms suggest a damaged, yet cocky, emo kid, yet the writing gives him a persona that seems more in line with a WASP-y jock. This results in some truly baffling acting choices that only further the idea that the script had no idea what it was really going for with its characters. As for Paul Giamatti and a cameo performance from Marton Csokas as a German scientist, the less said, the better. 

The saving grace, though just barely, are the interactions between Peter Parker/Spider-Man (Andrew Garfield) and Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone), as well as those between Peter and Aunt May (Sally Field). Though Peter and Gwen's exchanges sometimes clash with the drama around them (they often stammer as though in a parody of indie rom-coms), the actors remain charming to watch as they play off of each other. Despite still being wasted as the hero's girlfriend, Stone emerges as the film's MVP, and proves that she deserves better than the mess around her. 

Only at the climax does Webb's film really come alive. Despite the heavy reliance on VFX stunts, the final battles are actually engaging, though this has more to do with Garfield and Stone's presence than the conflict between hero and nemesis. In the only noticeable improvement from the previous Spidey entry, the effects and overall sense of movement of the digital action figures has much more fluidity. The big moment at the end also packs a genuine emotional punch, at least ensuring that the film (more or less) ends with its best foot forward. 

Yet, like the previous "amazing" Spider-Man flick, the whole enterprise still feels wholly unnecessary other than as a reason for Sony to hold onto the rights to the title character. Aside from one major moment, this bloated sequel accomplishes remarkably. It feels like an attempt to re-do the previous film (the revelations about Peter's parents), while also pushing forward with its own world-building (future villains). It's a film at odds with itself at every turn, and that's something that all of the flashy effects and high-flying stunts can't conceal. 

Grade: D+

Review: "The Amazing Spider-man"

With only 10 years separating Marc Webb's The Amazing Spider-man from Sam Raimi's Spiderman, and only five years between Webb's film and Raimi's last Spidey flick, it's easy to understand complaints regarding Sony's decision to reboot the character so quickly (origin story and all). Despite the crashing disaster that was Spider-man 3, Raimi's first two films were both big hits and popular with the public (and even the third made bucket-loads at the box office). Even if the reboot was good, there was still one critical question: was another stab at the origin story necessary so soon? The answer remains 'no,' but in fairness, Webb's reboot is mostly a success even as it's forced to hit so many of the same story beats. 


Having made his name with (500) Days of Summer (2009), Webb wasn't the most obvious choice for the job. However, his skills with emotion and his surprising flair with action set pieces make me hope that he'll stick around for the rest of this Spider-man series. Even when Peter Parker/Spider-man (Andrew Garfield) is battling the hulking Lizard (Rhys Ifans) in close quarters, Webb and his camera team nimbly capture both figures (and their CGI avatars) with a herky-jerky sense of movement that proves surprisingly effective and actually allows you to see what's going on. Webb also deserves credit (though I suppose some of this belongs to the script as well) for giving audiences the best obligatory Stan Lee cameo, working it fluidly into an action scene in a way  that proves hilarious.


And speaking of humor, that's another thing this Spider-man has going for it. Raimi's films were never devoid of humor (or attempts at humor), but much of it felt somewhat like pandering. Here, Peter Parker/Spider-man himself is allowed to either be funny or be in funny situations, and it pays off. Whether he's quipping while battling a carjacker or satisfying some spider bite-induced munchies, the sense of humor feels more organic, built more out of the situations than in some desperate attempt to keep the proceedings from becoming "too grown up."


Of course, funny lines or scenes can exist on the page, but can be horribly botched if the person involved in them on screen isn't pulling their weight. Thankfully, Garfield carries the humor off with great skill, using his spindly frame to perfect effect. Like Webb's film, Garfield is generally adept at both drama and comedy, though it has moments where it falters. Emma Stone as love-interest Gwen Stacy remains as engaging as ever, even though she's technically not given much to do despite abundant screen time. Sally Field and Martin Sheen also give nice, albeit limited, turns as Peter's aunt May and uncle Ben. Rhys Ifans is certainly convincing as Dr. Connors, the man who eventually becomes the Lizard, even though the script's developments with him are among the film's weakest.


The script, unfortunately, provides the film with its best and worst elements, particularly when it comes to the story elements that are being redone. The changes to Peter's personality work wonders, but other aspects, like the demise of uncle Ben, feel so much weaker. The staging of the robbery that eventually leads to Ben's death in Raimi's film had enough separation in it so that it really hit home when Peter discovered what happened. Here, the scenario feels contrived, with Ben trying to chase down Peter to talk to him, only to have him run into the robber who delivers his untimely death sentence. On the super hero front, the script often seems completely unconcerned with the general reaction of New York City to Parker's web slinging alter ego. Yes, the NYPD puts out a warrant for his arrest, but other than that, one never gets a sense of the masked hero's developing notoriety. 


The same can also be said for the developments regarding the Dr. Connors/Lizard, who seems to lurch from one big moment to the next. And when the two collide, things get even shakier, with Peter's realization that Connors is the Lizard feeling like a minor development when it should be so much more. Webb generally controls the tone effectively, but there are scenes where it all feels a little too casual considering the stakes. Even the vastly better romantic subplot with Parker and Stacy occasionally becomes too forced and cutesy, with both of them awkwardly/adorably stammering at each other to the point where you want to shake their lines out of them. And for all of Garfield's good scenes on the dramatic front, there are a few where his emoting feels distressingly weak. 


Thankfully, these are problems that get better as the film progresses. Webb has crafted a slick, emotionally engaging film, one that would have been so much better if it hadn't felt the need to cover the origin story again. It's the familiar that keeps The Amazing Spider-man from reaching its full potential, which is a shame because of the strengths clearly on display. One can only hope that the inevitable sequel will, like Spider-man 2, significantly raise the bar for this new series.


Grade: B-/C+

Gosling + Stone Round 2: "The Gangster Squad" trailer

For a few weeks about a year ago, set photos of The Gangster Squad, Ruben Fleischer's follow-up to Zombieland (yay!) and 30 Minutes or Less (...um) lit up the Internet with glimpses of cast members Ryan Gosling, Emma Stone, and Josh Brolin in costume. Yet nothing about those initial pictures indicated anything close to the look that the finished product appears to have, which certainly adds an element of surprise to Fleischer's next project. Based on Paul Lieberman's novel, the film chronicles the LAPD's fight to keep east coast mob members from claiming territory on the west coast. Incredibly stylized, Squad at least has a capable (if not terribly proven) director who has proven he can deeply immerse himself in a genre, and a really strong cast. All the same, there's a certain spark missing that would otherwise make this look like a must see, in spite of those involved. With John Hillcoat's Lawless already set to hit in August, Squad could come off as redundant. At the very least, Gosling's presence is a plus, not only because of his talent, but also because he has an eye for good projects, which many actors near or at his level lack, leading to less consistent filmographies. Hopefully he's right on the money here, and this isn't a rare misstep for him (and everyone else). And let's hope the marketing team re-cuts this trailer with a better choice of background music. It's a movie with machine guns, you don't need modern music to somehow 'connect with' modern audiences.


Trailer Grade: B- 

Reboot Central: "The Amazing Spiderman" and "The Bourne Legacy" Trailers

When Sony first announced that it would scrap Spiderman 4 in favor of a series reboot, I thought it was one of the dumbest big studio decisions in quite some time. Spiderman 3 wasn't exactly, er, good, but it wasn't bad enough to kill the Raimi-helmed franchise. Sony continued with the plan, and after months of on-set photos and a brief teaser (featuring some bizarre first person footage), a proper trailer has arrived, and it's pretty solid all around. I have to admit, I really like this more sarcastic, humorous Peter Parker/Spiderman; not all heroes need to brood and sulk in existential crisis 24/7. And as much as I love this cast and the inclusion of the Lizard (Rhys Ifans) as a villain, there's a certain punch that's missing from the action shots. Part of this is likely due to the fact that the film is still in post-production, where additional sound mixing and VFX work will be done. Even so, what we're given here looks like more of the same, and still brings up that initial question: why do we need to start this story over, despite the different characters? While I'm glad that the trailer doesn't focus on the origin story part of the film, part of the result is that one simply wishes that Raimi had been given the chance to make another good Spidey film, one free of the studio meddling that sank Spiderman 3 (critically/fan-wise, at least).

Trailer Grade: B

Also being given a major make over: the Bourne franchise. No, Jeremy Renner isn't the new Jason Bourne, but his character - Aaron Cross - is part of the same story. In fact, many characters, including those played by Albert Finney, David Strathairn, and Joan Allen, are all back along with new faces like Edward Norton and Rachel Weisz. Though the trailer itself doesn't have as much footage, I like how this one pulls out its reveal gradually, and builds an intriguing set up: Jason Bourne's story was only the beginning. So even though Damon and director Paul Greengrass are gone, the smart and talented Tony Gilroy (who wrote the first three Bourne films along with writing and directing Michael Clayton) is a comforting replacement in the director's chair. Renner is another plus, a strong actor who can be the character actor or the leading man (or both), as well as a convincing thinking man's action hero.

Trailer Grade: A-

[Short] Review(s): "Rise of the Planet of the Apes," "The Help," "The Devil's Double," & "30 Minutes or Less"

Rise of the Planet of the Apes dir. Rupert Wyatt: You'd think that a franchise like Planet of the Apes was long past its expiration date. Despite the original's status as something of a science fiction classic, the subsequent films seemed all-too-eager to jump down the rabbit hole into absurdity. If ever there was a series that needed to be retired from the silver screen (aside from Transformers), it was this one, right? Well, not exactly. The latest entry, a prequel/origin story, takes audiences back to where it all began, with surprisingly successful results.

Opening with a PETA approved scene that demonstrates the EVIL nature of man, we follow a captured primate who is taken to GenSys, an American drug company currently on the threshold of a cure for Alzheimer's. Here we get a rather cliched set up, involving two different men in the company. Will (James Franco) wants the cure to go through for science/humanity, while Steven (David Oyelowo), wants it to succeed for the money (guess which one gets his comeuppance by the time the film's 105 minute run time is up).

But even though there are plenty of obvious elements in the latest Apes flick, Rise does manage to create a mildly compelling story, never letting itself be overburdened by its we-know-where-this-is-going plot. The human characters may be plain, but thankfully, the film has a secret weapon: the ape Caesar, motion-captured/played by Andy Serkis of Lord of the Rings fame. The more that Rupert Wyatt's film focuses on Caesar, the stronger the story becomes. The ape's interactions may be near-wordless, but they resonate on deeper level, thanks to Serkis' excellent work and the outstanding visual effects work. In an age where so many movies are sunk by their over-reliance on VFX, Rise may be that rare film that benefits (and is saved by) the strength of its computer-captured/generated imagery.

Grade: B-


The Help dir. Tate Taylor: While this adaptation of Kathryn Stockett's best-seller may lack in terms of subtlety, it is, at its core, an effective piece of social-change cinema. Led by Emma Stone, the ensemble is filled with any number of strong performances from Viola Davis (the film's MVP), Octavia Spencer, Jessica Chastain, Allison Janney, Bryce Dallas Howard, and Sissy Spacek.

So even though it runs quite long, and resorts to quite a bit of 'telling,' the film does hit home in the right places, even though it takes longer than expected for the main plot to kick into gear. The Help may indeed be schmaltz at its core, but it never feels like it. There's no overbearing, sappy score or soundtrack, nor are there an overabundance of melodramatic scenes (it's actually laugh-out-loud funny in many places). And with such a talented ensemble to lead you through the story, smaller elements of the plot (like Stone's budding relationship with an oil rig worker played by Chris Lowell) don't seem like too much of a nuisance, even when they appear and then vanish from the rest of the film.

But perhaps its greatest strength may be that, while it's full of hopeful and uplifting moments of personal triumph, The Help never tries to overextend itself. The film's final scene, which took me by surprised when the credits started to roll, certainly holds the promise of tomorrow, but only after one character is confronted with a bitter dose of revenge courtesy of the story's antagonist. By keeping this balance in place, and by not pretending that its characters accomplished more than they did for the Civil Rights movement (it is a work of fiction, after all), The Help is able to simultaneously inform and entertain without shooting itself in the foot.

Grade: B


The Devil's Double dir. Lee Tamahori: It's not every day that an actor is given a chance to play dual roles on screen, so the opportunity has to be taken seriously (see: Nicholas Cage in Adaptation, Sam Rockwell in Moon, etc...). Now it's Dominic Cooper's (Mamma Mia!, An Education) turn to play the double game, in the form of Uday Hussein, and Latif Yahia, the man forced to become his double. But even though his efforts in the two roles (he's on screen as one or the other for almost the entire run time) are admirable, he's undermined by a script that isn't quite on the same level.

Latif's (admittedly incredible) story may be true, but director Lee Tamahori and screenwriter Michael Thomas seem more concerned with turning it into a modern day, Arabic Scarface (albeit with significantly less crazed shouting). In doing so, they've made the film consistently entertaining. The unfortunate by-product is that it renders the story a surface-only historical thriller. Cooper is certainly giving it his all as the increasingly frightening Uday, the trapped Latif, and as Latif pretending to be Uday. In many scenes the characters share the screen, and Cooper plays off of himself quite well. But despite his efforts, he can't quite overcome the shallow writing. Cooper is rarely given much to work with other than "be wary and uncertain," and "be a murdering/raping pyscho"; the roles are played well, yes, but there's absolutely no depth for Cooper to work with as an actor.

This is not to say that the film doesn't tell a compelling story. That much it accomplishes. The problem is, especially considering the story's real-life origins, that The Devil's Double never makes any attempt to go deeper with the material at hand. Thomas' script plays it safe, and keeps the story simple, never raising any larger questions outside of "what comes next for Latif?" So even though Cooper may be working his hardest, The Devil's Double winds up being something of a missed opportunity, as enjoyable as it is.

Grade: B-


30 Minutes or Less dir. Ruben Fleischer: The idea of Jesse Eisenberg reteaming with Ruben Fleischer was definitely appealing on paper. The pair first worked together on Zombieland, one of the great hidden gems of 2009. Sadly, lightning hasn't struck twice for these two. 30 Minutes or Less isn't a terrible movie, but it is vastly inferior to the duo's last collaboration, and barely even memorable.

Based loosely on real events, the film centers around Nick (Eisenberg) a slacker pizza delivery boy who gets roped into a scheme by two idiot criminals (Danny McBride and Nick Swardson). With a bomb strapped to his chest, Nick is given nine hours to rob a bank, lest he be blown to smithereens by his captors. What follows is an appropriately crazy story, filled with car chases, stand-offs, and yes, a bank robbery. Some of the banter (between McBride and Swardson or Eisenberg and Aziz Ansari) is entertaining, and occaisionally worth a good laugh. The problem, though, is that the characters are underwritten from the start, and given the plot, never have time to develop. That Nick is something of a jackass during the first act doesn't help matters.

Fleischer certainly hasn't lost his flair for fun, at the very least. The car chase is well staged and shot, and a scene involving McBride's father creeping through his own home to find and intruder is surprisingly effective in creating some low-key tension. Michael Pena also gets a few laughs as a crazy hit man with a bizarre accent. Other characters, however, aren't so effective. A prostitute who leads McBride to Pena is a complete throwaway, while Dilshad Vansaria (as Ansari's sister) is there strictly to function as a plot device. They feel like flab, which is distracting considering the film's short run time (83 mins). So even though Fleischer's latest is pleasant enough to sit through, it's also proof that less doesn't always mean more.

Grade: C+/C

[Short] Review: "Crazy, Stupid, Love"

There's plenty of love and craziness involved in Crazy, Stupid, Love, the latest from directors Glenn Ficarra and John Requa (I Love You, Phillip Morris). And, thankfully, there's also not much that's stupid, even though it awkwardly flirts with cliches in the last scene. Despite its plain set-up (ladies man helps divorced man get his mojo back), Crazy, Stupid, Love rises above the increasingly awful pack of romantic comedies hitting theaters by assembling a fantastic cast (led by Steve Carrell and Ryan Gosling). The script itself, while avoiding the obnoxious characters or plotting tedium so many other rom-coms, is not brilliant, or filled with non-stop laughs.

It is, however, filled with sincere charm, and enough funny moments thanks to the excellent ensemble (rounded out by Julianne Moore, Emma Stone, Kevin Bacon, and Marisa Tomei's perfectly timed laughs). Carrell finally gets to play a role that uses his likability, without resorting to any Michael Scott-isms, and Gosling exudes sexiness in spades, all while pulling off his character's snarky side with ease. The trio of women, each wildly different, all have their moments to shine as well, though it's a shame that Moore isn't given much to do comedy-wise aside from her excellent delivery on that Twlight joke. And even though it's a bit long for a romantic comedy, it doesn't feel nearly as drawn out as, say, a Judd Apatow comedy (*whew*). If it does need some trimming though, it's in a subplot involving Carrell and Moore's son (Jonah Bobo) and his crush on his babysitter (Analeigh Tipton). The adult relationships are handled so well, that inclusion of this plot thread feels like an extra. It's not that it isn't funny, it's just that it detracts from the stronger portions of the film, which are what make the movie such a pleasure to watch (including, but not limited to, Ryan Gosling's near-nudity in several scenes).

Grade: B/B-

Teaser Trailer: "The Amazing Spiderman" (2012)

Summer 2011 sure is taking a lot of time preparing us for summer 2012. Whether it's the teaser for Pixar's Brave, the build-up movies for The Avengers, or the just-released The Dark Knight Rises teaser, Hollywood can't wait for next summer. Joining that roster, after months of shooting and only a few publicity stills, is Marc Webb's The Amazing Spiderman, which recasts Andrew Garfield in the role of Peter Parker/Spiderman. Though it could be a nice, fresh start after the dismal Spiderman 3 (2007), the biggest obstacle Webb's film has is that it's taking us through the origin story AGAIN. I understand the desire to create a new universe and atmosphere, but couldn't it have been done without hitting the reset button? Still, the cast is intriguing (Emma Stone and Rhys Ifans basically ensure that I'll see this), and I'm curious about the last segment of the trailer, which takes us into first person mode. Even if Webb's Spiderman isn't quite 'amazing,' at least it looks like something different from the Raimi films.

Spiderman: Turn On the Reboot

Spiderman has been receiving a lot of press as of late, both good and bad. On the Great White Way, Julie Taymor's U2-penned musical "Spiderman: Turn Off the Dark" has suffered delay after delay after delay (delay could also be switched out for 'disaster'). Cast members have been injured or have left all together, and despite good notices for the stunts (when they, y'know...work), the production has been troubled to say the least.

Thankfully, not all is bad for the famed web-slinger. After months of collective head scratching over the decision to reboot the franchise instead of create a proper 4th film, the first still of our new Spidey, Andrew Garfield, in costume has emerged.

Garfield is certainly lankier in frame than Tobey Maguire, but despite my initial doubts, the suit actually looks convincing on him. Judging by the state of the costume and the downcast look, it's safe to assume that this shot comes from a rather dark moment in the story (unless this turns out to be nothing more than a publicity still). But the real test Marc Webb's (500 Days of Summer) will face will be whether it can make audiences go back to the beginning with Peter Parker for a second time. Granted, Batman Begins had no problems doing this, but in that case, the Batman films had become a complete joke. Despite the lackluster reception of Spiderman 3, the film made bucket loads of money, unlike Batman & Robin.

And even though this is a reboot, the film won't be exactly the same story. A look at the cast list reveals that Rhys Ifans is Dr. Curt Connors, AKA the Lizard. This is somewhat appropriate seeing as Dr. Connors (played originally by Dylan Baker) was rumored to become the Lizard in the 4th Spidey film before it fell apart. In fact, looking at the cast list, there's no one listed as playing Harry or Norman Osbourne, the roles inhabited by James Franco and Willem Dafoe in the original trilogy. And as far as love interests, all we have now is Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone), with no one cast as Mary Jane Watson.

So even though the there's obvious that plenty will be different, there's bound to be uncertainty about this project until it finally hits screens...or until the first fan-boy reviews leak from any test screenings conducted by Sony. Either way, we'll have to wait until 2012 to find out exactly what Marc Webb and Garfield have come up with. Just please, please don't let it be even remotely like 3. We can't go through that mess again.

Two Gentlewomen of 2010: "Made in Dagenham" and "Easy A"

In most years, there's likely to be at least a handful of articles bemoaning the lack of strong roles for women. Thankfully, 2010 was determined to not become such a year, and on the large part has proven successful in both awards contenders and the unrecognized. And last night I was able to see two more films headlined by well-received leading ladies to add to the roster. Unfortunately, one was quite good, and the other was simply alright:

Made in Dagenham dir. Nigel Cole:

In 1968 the 187 female machinists at Ford's plant in Dagenham went on strike to protest for wages equal to their male counterparts. This is the set-up for Nigel Cole's film about the women who fought for equal pay, as led by Rita O'Grady (Sally Hawkins), a married mother of two. And while the story at its center may be compelling from a civil rights standpoint, Cole's film is slightly lacking, largely due to the screenplay. Outside of Rita, many of the other women in the factory come off as rather one-note, and even Rita herself doesn't feel fully formed. There are a handful of angles to be worked in, but the film doesn't ever appropriately settle on one, which leaves us with four strands battling it out for various degrees of importance: Rita attempting to lead the strike, Rita trying to keep her family together, the behind the scenes discussions among Ford execs, and the increasing importance of the recently-elected Labor government. The result it that it's hard to feel much connection to the strike, which give the film the feeling that it is simply going through the motions to cover all of the major angles of the story.

That said, the performances are solid and watchable enough to almost make you care. Sally Hawkins does the best she can as Rita, and she's certainly likable enough, even though most of her struggle is only given surface exploration. This trait seems to define the cast's work: talented people making the most of what precious little they've been given by the script. Geraldine James as co-worker Connie and Miranda Richardson as Barbara Castle add some spark as two women stuck in two very different situations, and Rosamund Pike nails her handful of scenes as a wealthy, educated women whose husband treats her like a bimbo. Others, like Andrea Riseborough as mega-beehive-d Brenda feel more like cutouts rather than charmingly colorful ensemble roles.

What it all boils down to is a film that is inspiring in subject matter, but not in execution. The performances and production values are nice, but nothing to write home about. Similar to Agora, Made in Dagenham wants to both examine the larger picture of a story while also creating a compelling look at a central female figure. Unfortunately, like that film, this one struggles to maintain its balance, and the result leaves little worth discussing, good or bad.

Grade: B-/C+

Easy A dir. Will Gluck:

And now we come to (surprisingly) the better film of the two, even though it's *gasp* a high school (fake) sex comedy. Starring rising star Emma Stone, Easy A tells the story of Olive Pendergast, a California high school student who, in order to make herself noticeable, allows boys (mostly nerds) to tell people that they either slept with or fooled around with her in exchange for gifts. And for the most part, what could have been either tedious or overly reliant on crude humor, Easy A succeeds thanks to its humor and Stone's extremely fun turn as Olive. And for most of the film's 85 minute run time, it's actually quite funny, and benefits from having a talented cast (including Patricia Clarkson and Stanley Tucci as Olive's parents) to deliver the dialogue. Even in small roles like her breakthrough in Superbad, Stone has displayed good comic timing, and her first major lead role doesn't disappoint.

Unfortunately, other aspects can't quite measure up. Olive's often bitchy friend Rhi (Ali Michalka) doesn't work right from the beginning; she's too aggressive from the get-go, and the friendship never feels really convincing. Other aspects, like Bible-thumping students who serve more or less as antagonists, are too broadly drawn and feel like a cheap way of attacking holier-than-thou attitudes, and Olive's love interest (Penn Badgley) is a barely-there presence.

And yet despite the flaws (many of which start surfacing around the 1 hour mark), Stone holds it together with effortless charm and comedic skill. The movie around her isn't quite Mean Girls, but Stone herself certainly deserves an 'A' for her work.

Grade: B/B-