Alice In Wonderland

The first thing to know is that this is not the original Alice in Wonderland story. Director Tim Burton has said that he was never able to feel an emotional connection with previous versions because it's a girl just going from one strange character to the next, not really a story. So this isn't exactly a sequel or re-imagining, but a sort of extension. And this will likely disappoint, frustrate, or confuse some people.

Once Alice gets into Underland (yes, Underland), I found the film really enjoyable. It's not as whimsical or playful as I might have hoped, but that can be expected when the story is put into a framework and not allowed to just go randomly. You can probably argue that giving this story a grounding goes against the point because part of the charm of the original story is that randomness. But, again, this is something different and new. And it's not a bad thing to give the story an emotional grounding. It helps to give it a more full experience.

I really like that they actually did something new and different with the story. It makes it fresh and gives more a feeling of involvement because you're not quite sure where it's going rather than going through the motions because you already know what's up ahead. One of the most common complaints is that Hollywood doesn't do anything new or original and needs to stop re-making movies or re-adapting books, but this is a clearly a very new take, so that's good, right? Yes.

My only real problem with what they did is give it a sort of Wizard of Oz type of story framework (which is ironic since Lewis Carroll's original Alice stories can likely be pinpointed as an influence in L. Frank Baum's The Wonderful Wizard of Oz – young girl gets whisked to a strange, magical land and meets various strange characters). While it works for Oz, here it just feels cheap. Does there really have to be character's in Alice's real life that mirror those found in Underland? No. Especially when you want to believe that Underland actually is real, this just suggests it's her imagination. A bit of a let down.

As to be expected from a Tim Burton film, it's visually stunning. Very unique set and character design. But it doesn't distract from what's going on. Unlike other visually powerful, CG-heavy, 3D movies, the setting and all of that does not take center stage and is not the only real reason for the film. In 3D, the movie looks good, there's a few unfortunate instances where they obviously chuck things at the screen for the effect, but the movie just looks full (in a good way, not a distracting way).

Major kudos to Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter for their performances as the Mad Hatter and the Red Queen, respectively. The film is unquestionably theirs. They bring real character to the roles, beyond just being 'mad' or shouting 'off with their heads!' There's emotion in these characters as well. And they play them superbly well and it's a delight to watch them work. It's also somewhat humorous to contemplate the level of weird to have two actors known for taking, and portraying, very eccentric roles and characters in Johnny Depp and Crispin Glover sharing the screen in a Tim Burton film.

The film is very good and a visual treat. It's a joy to watch. Great? No. But so much fun and interesting.

3 stars out of 5

Cop Out

For the past 15 years, Kevin Smith has been making his living writing and directing independent movies. Some very good (Clerks, Chasing Amy, Dogma), some not so good (Zack and Miri Make A Porno). Cop Out is his first foray into the studio system, making a movie which he did not write. It made me uneasy when I first heard about it, a director whose work I really enjoy, for the most part, cashing a check and, from the sound of it at the beginning, playing it very safe. And the trailers and commercials didn't instill any confidence in the film.

So I'll start out by saying this – the trailers and commercials don't do the film any justice. They make it look like a very different, far inferior movie. It's a pretty funny movie. And it's good fun. Unlike the extraordinarily dumb movie the trailers and commercials paint it as.

The film has problems. The story is just good enough. It doesn't bring anything new to the table (not that it has to, or is supposed to, for this kind of movie). It's nothing to write home about, but at the end of the day, that's fine. Some of the characters don't seem to really serve a purpose or add anything to the story, and that kind of is not fine. As nice as it is to look at Rashida Jones, playing the wife of Tracy Morgan's character, in the end you ask yourself if the movie would lose anything if she wasn't in it and the answer is 'no.' The subplot involving her doesn't add anything to Morgan's character or the story. There's quite a bit of time devoted to Jones' character and her possible affair with the next door neighbor, the thing is, we see it affect Morgan's character, but we don't really feel anything or feel that it actually has any effect on anything...it's just kind of there. Without her in the movie, he'd still be exactly the same. It's just a distraction. It's the same with Seann William Scott's character. He's a lot of fun, but just a distraction who doesn't really factor in to the story enough to justify his screen time (which isn't a lot, despite what the commercials make it appear). If they don't bring anything, why are they there?

The cast is fantastic. There are times when Tracy Morgan mugs a little too much for the camera or acts a little too goofy, silly, or dumb for the character, but for the most part he does a fine job. Bruce Willis is, well...Bruce Willis. He has the tough guy, action thing, and he also has the comedy chops. The two of them work well together. And I really enjoyed the supporting cast. The already mentioned Jones and Scott (while their characters may not be essential or matter at all, both their presences are welcome, Scott especially), but Kevin Pollak and Guillermo Diaz are both make very good turns as an antagonistic detective and a baseball obsessed gangster, respectively.

It looks like a movie and feels like a movie, which is not really Kevin Smith's trademark, so he did a good job with that. A movie with something resembling a real plot, not just characters talking about movies and comics. And so I have to commend Smith, by maybe taking a safe step into the studio system, he actually ended up challenging himself a little more than he would most likely have, otherwise. And there's action...Kevin Smith directing action. There's no real big laughs, but the laughs are there and frequent enough to be fun.

That's basically all there is to say...the characters and story leave a little something to be desired, though the actors all do fine jobs. It's not a movie that I'd run out and tell everyone they need to see and it's the funniest thing ever, but I'd definitely say it's worth a shot if you're looking to watch a fun movie.

2 1/2 stars out of 5

The Book of Eli

In film, as well as literature and theater, we become involved and interested in a story because we've come to be interested in the main character who has an emotional involvement in the story. The main character is our guide. They are who we identify with. We care because they care.

So I have a question for the Hughes Brothers, directors of the Book of Eli, and Gary Whitta, the writer: when the main character is uninterested and uninvolved in the conflict and story, how and why are we, the audience, supposed to be interested and involved?

Eli, played by Denzel Washington, walks around the entire movie with the basic attitude of 'whatever, just don't touch my book.' He's not interested in anything other than taking the book west. He only cares when someone tries to take the book. And, honestly, it's hard to feel attached to a book. Especially when even we the audience are kept at a distance from the character and the book.

Gary Oldman as the villain, Carnegie, is the best part of the movie. And his run and control of the town would be the most interesting part of the movie, if it was actually a part of the movie. Instead, Eli doesn't care and just moves on. Carnegie wants the book though. So he goes after Eli.

Carnegie wants the book (the Bible) because he knows it has the power to control people. Eli is righteous, but he has no interest in trying to make things right...which feels odd. How can a man who feels he is being guided and protected by God not try to right wrongs? Selective righteousness I guess.

I wanted more of the world in which the movie takes place. We get a little taste of it, but it'd add so much more to the movie if we could really see the world, see how the people live, and to find out a little more about what exactly happened and how they got to this point. Again, we get a little, but then, of course, Eli doesn't care, just moves on, and so do we.

So, basically, all we get, and all we have to hold our interest, is fight scenes and shoot outs. Which is fine for the few minutes they last.

And, here's some spoilers so if you care, skip ahead. We spend two hours watching Eli not let anyone get near his book. Protecting it with his life. He will kill to protect it. And he definitely doesn't want Carnegie to get it. Two hours of this. Only for him to then give up the book without a second thought. Because he has it memorized and it's in Braille so no one can read it anyway. So what did I just spend two hours on? The movie could've been 30 minutes long had he just been willing to show Carnegie the book is Braille and can't be read by him, refuse to read it for him, kill Carnegie when he tries to force Eli, and be on his merry way. It's an unnecessary complication. There has to be a better way to create and tell this story.

Anyway, there's some cool action here. I guess that's the real point of it. Though it's funny that throughout the movie people wonder whether the gun Eli has has bullets in it, almost as though bullets are some rare commodity, and then there's this huge shoot out with tons of ammunition spent. Why wouldn't his gun have bullets? Go for the action, don't expect to be blown away by story or character.

2 ½ out of 5

Avatar

Has any movie been hyped as much in recent memory as Avatar has? Not likely. Film industry people raving about it being the future of film. Critics seem to be equally eager to hail it as a masterpiece. And the special effects are outstanding. And when you read about the innovations director James Cameron made in motion capture technology, they sound pretty fantastic...for filmmakers. The results on screen don't appear to be any different than anything else that's been released before. That really doesn't do anything for those of us who likely won't ever make a movie with digital characters or digital settings.

And, unfortunately, great special effects do not a great movie make. A great movie also requires a great story and great characters (it does not require great special effects). And, well, Avatar is missing those two aspects. The story is so extremely basic, it might as well be a paint-by-numbers drawing. (Insert evil corporation) seeks resource found only in (insert exotic location) inhabited by the peaceful (insert natives) who sends in (insert hero) to work from inside but falls in love with (insert native love interest) and turns against company and (insert battle). The story is unoriginal. James Cameron spent a decade on this film, apparently most of it was spent on the technology and not the story. Too bad.

And the characters are likewise uninspired. The corporate guy just sees everything as dollars, 'they're just trees!' The military man just wants to destroy everything and achieve his mission. The Na'vi are just innocent and good, though distrustful for good reasons. Nothing is really developed regarding any of the characters. The main character, Jake Sully, is a crippled former Marine, who is taking over the spot on the mission for his dead scientist brother. We never find out how he became crippled, how his brother died, and neither of these two facets of his character add anything to him or the story. He could just as well not be crippled and never have had a brother, it wouldn't change anything. These characters are pure walking, talking stereotypes. Characters with no depth work when they're robots (Cameron's Terminator) or malicious aliens (Cameron's Aliens), but people and humanoid aliens don't work so well without it.

And here is where you start to get into the argument that it's just escapist entertainment. But I've said it before and I'll say it again, that is never an excuse to not put any effort into creating a more original story or interesting characters. An original story and good characters will always make a film better, it doesn't have to be deep or thoughtful and make the audience think, but the filmmakers should put thought into it. And while there really are no truly original stories, there are new and interesting ways to tell them. And simply moving the story to an alien planet doesn't cut it.

The special effects are some of the best ever seen, no doubt. There's incredible amounts of detail. The alien planet, Pandora, looks amazing. But the characters still don't look quite as real as they want us to believe. The motion-capture work is great, their movements and facial expressions are excellent. But to me the eyes give it away, they look incredibly false still. And there's still just not enough details in the skin – there's millions of imperfections on our faces with pores, wrinkles, creases, etc, and they still haven't been able to re-create that. But these are nit-picky things.

Don't get me wrong, it's enjoyable and fun and the technical skill behind the making of it is almost unparalleled. But there are a lot of technically well-made, enjoyable, fun movies out there. I wanted something more from the story and characters (not in the sense that I want a sequel, but in the sense that it just wasn't good enough). And so there's really nothing setting this film apart from your average popcorn flick, when you get right down to it.

3 stars out of 5

The Fantastic Mr. Fox

No, I will not go with the obvious and use the word “fantastic” to describe Wes Anderson’s adaptation of Roald Dahl’s book The Fantastic Mr. Fox. But I will say that it’s fun, enjoyable, and excellent.

I have to say that I loved the look of the film – from the character design to the setting to the animation style. The look is very much in keeping with Wes Anderson’s other films and the rather rough animation (in contrast to the smoother, more polished look of Coraline, another stop-motion animated film from earlier this year) gives the film a certain charm. It gave the film the feel that this was something done for fun and helped bring the audience in to just really enjoy it and have fun as well.

Anderson does a good job of keeping the film friendly for kids but also enjoyable for the adults. It’s cute and fun, good for the kids. There’re a few dark moments – Mr. Fox getting his tail shot off and the villain wearing it as a tie – but I don’t think that it’s anything that can’t be handled by a kid, though of course, I only have hypothetical kids.

And I think Anderson and co-writer Noah Baumbach find a rather elegant way of dealing with the language, making it natural but safe for children. Instead of swear words, the characters say “cuss” as in “are you cussing me?” or “this is a cluster cuss.” It’s safe and gives a little chuckle for the adults who get the meaning. At first it’s a little confusing, you think to yourself ‘did they just say “cuss”?’ but then you get it.

I’ve seen some criticism of the way the film is shot – mostly using static, wide shots. Quite frankly, I didn’t even notice. I didn’t even realize until afterwards when I saw some comments regarding it and thought about it. I was too busy enjoying the movie to notice. And when you start reading into some of Anderson’s influences, it’s understandable why he’d shoot it this way – reminiscent of the old stop-motion animation specials of Rankin-Bass. It’s his way of paying homage to his influences. It’s not always necessary to use moving cameras and tracking shots and things of that nature all the time. There’s something nice about the simplicity. And as a friend of mine said, and I’ll steal it because it’s more elegant than anything I could think of – it gives it the feel of a diorama, which, in essence, it is. It’s a rapid series of dioramas.

The film is dry and witty, which is to be expected from Anderson who has made his career in that style. If you like that sort of humor, then you should enjoy this film. If not, then you should probably skip it because you’ll probably just be annoyed at the dryness and wit and not try to enjoy anything else the film has to offer. And kids shouldn’t and, from what I’ve seen and heard, been bothered by it. And, oh, ok…the film is pretty fantastic.

4 out of 5

I Love You, Beth Cooper

Now, I Love You, Beth Cooper was never intending to be an extraordinary movie. And it’s not. It’s very ordinary. It’s exceedingly ordinary. It’s neither good nor bad. It just is. It’s the kind of movie you don’t love and you don’t hate. There are some decent moments in there, but nothing to stick with you longer than a couple minutes afterwards.

It’s a fairly standard square gets caught up with a free-spirit and craziness ensues story. And it’s not bad. But it doesn’t really add anything to the table to make it interesting or stand out. Earlier this year we had I Love You, Man which had a similar square meets free-spirit type premise but just worked better - it gave the story a different twist and interesting, good characters. The characters here are paper thin and we have no real reason to be attached to them.

The movie also fails to really be funny. It’s not painfully unfunny, but there’s no real laugh out loud moments. There are just a few chuckles here and there. And it doesn’t seem to really put too much effort into trying to make you laugh. I can’t really think of anything that felt like it was supposed to be a joke or make me laugh hysterically but just missed or fell flat. And this is supposed to be a comedy, isn’t it?

The only thing that felt as though it was meant to be a running joke is that apparently everyone can see that the main character’s (Denis) best friend (Rich) is gay and implores him to admit it, but he refuses. The thing is…he doesn’t really do anything or say anything or even act in any way to make you think he is. So when people look at him and tell him it’s ok if he’s gay, it feels weird because, aside from a flashback to something he said years ago, it seems like you’re missing something. While it’s good that they don’t make him a stereotype that makes you go ‘he is so gay,’ they fail to even give subtle hints – no sidelong glances, no Freudian slips. Apparently, the fact that he’s in drama club and quotes movies is a sign that he’s gay because, you know…no heterosexual male quotes movies compulsively. Movies like Easy Rider and Scarface. Not chick flicks and he doesn’t sing show tunes. So it feels like this is supposed to be a running joke, they just forgot the joke. If you’re going to make a point of this, make sure there’s a point.

The best moments are when Beth begins to realize that her life, as she knows it, is over. She never looked past high school, she never gave any thought to what she would do afterwards. While Denis, the class valedictorian, will be going to Stanford and, very obviously, has his best days still ahead of him, she’s looking forward to a life in which, it’s quite possible, her best days have just ended. These are the best moments because they feel the most real and heartfelt. It’s this honesty that’s missing from every other part of the movie and keeps the audience from connecting and feeling anything.

It’s not a bad movie. It’s not good. It’s enjoyable to some degree, but not a huge degree. I don’t think director Chris Columbus (of Home Alone, Home Alone 2: Lost in New York, and the first two Harry Potter movies) has the storytelling chops to do something a little more mature like this justice. There’s no edge to give the movie flavor or make it stand out, when there should be. I think in the end, that’s what keeps it from being something better. I can’t say to avoid this movie, but I’d suggest looking for something else.

2 out of 5

The Fourth Kind

The Fourth Kind has a promising idea. It also has an interesting storytelling concept. The film purports to have actual case-study footage regarding alien abductions which it interweaves with the dramatic “re-enactment” of the events - sounds good so far. However, in the end, the promise isn’t paid off and the concept doesn’t work.

The problem is that the credibility of the “case-study footage” gets undercut by the dramatic re-enactments. I’d imagine the idea is for the “case-study footage” to add credibility to the dramatic re-enactment. Your ability to believe this, since this is presented as a true story, is greatly diminished by the dramatic re-enactments because we are conditioned to treat them as fake. Even in movies which we know to be based on true stories, we know that the movie itself is, more often than not, not so much true.

The movie is also hurt by the fact that, unfortunately, it’s just not that interesting. It should be. It very well could be. This idea, this material, should be loaded. Instead, it’s dull – painfully so. The shocks that are supposed to be there do not come. We don’t see anything. We get distorted, unwatchable video when we should be seeing something to freak us out of our skin. That may be the greatest fear of filmmakers, but it doesn’t do anything for us, the audience.

These two problems are fatal to the film. And if the filmmakers were smart, they should’ve been able to see this coming. These could easily be taken care of early on in the process of making this. It’d be so very easy for the filmmakers to make this a better, more effective movie. So, they either couldn’t figure out that these would be problems or just didn’t care.

The fact that we don’t see any aliens is not a problem. That’s about the one thing the filmmakers do right with this movie. If they had shown the aliens, it’d likely just be a cheap gimmick. The film is merely supposed to be objectively portraying the “facts” of the case, if none of the characters see aliens (and they don’t) then we shouldn’t either. At least they get something right.

Some of these problems could be overlooked if the film were actually scary. There is nothing scary, nothing that freaks you out (except that the woman playing the ‘real’ Abigail Tyler looks, herself, an awful lot like an alien, but I doubt that’s the kind of freak out they intended). There’s very little tension. There’s certainly no real connection or empathy with these characters. There’s just nothing to make us care about anything here, unless they think that we will just because we’re supposed to.

I wish this movie were made by more capable filmmakers because it could’ve been very good. Or, at least, it could’ve been a decent enough scary flick. But it tried too hard to be something it isn’t (thought provoking, scary, serious, documentary, drama) that it failed massively to do any of it. And that’s too bad.

1 out of 5