The Box Office is Closed

Posted on by

I’ve never been a big fan of the melodramatic farewells that accompany the closing of a blog. In fact, I’ve always pictured the end of this site coming about almost accidentally, like maybe I’d get busy for a week that would carry over into a month and suddenly this space would have been silent for long enough that it would seem foolish to write a post-dated goodbye. But since that didn’t happen, I’ll keep this short.

I started The Soap Box Office just over three years ago over at Blogger. I had been writing some movie reviews and film content off and on for the better part of six years but chose at that point in time to put all of my writing energy into this world exclusively. In that time, I’ve written somewhere around 300 film reviews, a few dozen editorials, a handful of lists, and countless movie news pieces that have reached literally tens of people all over the world (if you define “world” as people in my every day life that I hounded into reading my work). I’ve tried to treat this work as an actual job rather than a passing hobby and at times I believe that devotion has come through.

Subsequently, of course, the time spent here took away from time that could have been spent elsewhere. I’ve been fine with this and I believe I’ve always done a good job of keeping myself in balance but when you spend as much time on something like this as I have, you begin to focus more and more on the audience, and more importantly the size of the audience (or at least I did). When I first started, a good day might bring me 25 viewers and I was thrilled. Recently, however, I’ve felt a need for more viewers to justify the time I’ve spent here and quite frankly, that need hasn’t been met. The result has been that I haven’t been all that enthused about the writing lately and I think that has shown through a bit here and there. I’m an all or nothing kind of guy so this sort of wishy-washy, lukewarm dedication has grated on me. I thought about setting this space aside a few months ago but two things kept me from giving in:

1.) I really do love movies. I love going to the movies, I love talking about the movies, and I love encouraging other people to get out to the movies and guide them towards the good ones. To leave that behind forget would legitimately leave a small but not insignificant hole in my life.

2.) I really do love writing. I have been writing in some form or another for my entire life (minus those first few pesky years when humans can’t, you know, write much of anything let alone a cohesive piece of criticism) and it’s nothing something I ever want to give up.

Two things have come to pass recently that have pushed me in a new direction. First, some friends and I started a podcast called Mad About Movies. We’ve been rolling strong for over three months now and I must admit that the show is pretty stinking good. Maybe not “Marconi-winning” good but certainly “you can definitely waste an hour listening to us” good. I’ve gotten my fill of movie discussion from that outlet and look forward to our weekly recordings even more than I’ve ever looked forward to writing a review, honestly.

Secondly, and much more importantly, my life has taken a decisive and undeniably large turn. On Thursday my wife and I will welcome our first child into the world and, as literally every human being who has said two words to me in the past eight months has pointed out, “everything is about to change.” (Literally EVERY HUMAN IN MY LIFE has made note of this.) With less time to watch movies and more time needed on the homefront, I’ve spent the last few months considering what this space was going to look like and whether or not it was worth maintaining. I’ve been kind of bummed about the prospect of setting this aside, to be honest. But over the last couple of weeks the KIA hamster in my brain has been cranking at a rapid pace and the idea for a more well-rounded site, geared around stories of my inevitable idiocy as a parent and the vague notion of leaving something educational behind for my son, has taken root. Having another purpose to write has made the decision to leave The Soap Box Office behind significantly easier and I’m legitimately excited to have something different to write about.

I’ve spent the last few days building a new site and the launch will coincide with the shuttering of this space here. I hope you will join me occasionally over at canbabiesdrinkredbull.com where I will continually ask the hard questions about parenting and tell tale of my inevitable shortcomings as a father. I will also continue to post movie reviews, albeit in a much shorter format, as well as other pop culture and real life-related pieces that warrant a bit of my time. Basically, I’m just planning on attempting to be relatively humorous in a relatively short form relating to a relatively wide range of topics. Relatively speaking. We’ll just see what happens.

Before signing off, I’d just like to extend a tremendous “thank you” to all of the readers who have found their way to this site over the years. Many of you are people I know in real life but there are a number of people here who I have gotten to know (at least on some level) simply through our shared love of the cinema. Thank you for your comments, your shares, and most importantly, your time over the last three years. I would never have lasted this long without your support and I truly appreciate your presence here. I appreciate any prayers and good thoughts you might extend to my family this week and hope you will find your way over to my new digs.

The Box Office is Now Closed,
Brian

Farewell to Roger Ebert

Posted on by

By now you have no doubt heard about the death of legendary film critic Roger Ebert. After a long, valiant battle with cancer, Ebert finally succumbed to his illness (somewhat abruptly) at the age of 70. There are many better, more eloquent farewells making the rounds on the Internet and I will link to some that have caught my attention at the end of this post. But I would be embarrassingly remiss if I didn’t add a small, insignificant entry into the outpouring of reflection that has broken out over the last 24 hours. So let me start off by saying that, for me, Roger Ebert WAS film criticism and if it wasn’t for him, The Soap Box Office would not exist.

There is a moment in the life of every film critic, whether professional or horrifically amateur, in which he or she suddenly understands that movies can be more than just simple entertainment. For me that moment came during my first viewing of The Shawshank Redemption. I was probably 13 years old and it was the first film that I understood to be truly significant. That is a story for another day but I bring it up now because it was also the moment when Roger Ebert came into my life. Before that revelation, I went to see the movies my parents allowed me to see and I didn’t spend much, if any time, considering the merits of films that weren’t the kid-to-pre-teen-oriented blockbusters that rolled through every couple of weeks. Shawshank changed all that as it opened me up to a world I hadn’t been aware of before, a world where somewhere between three and seven new films came to theaters every week and while some of them were the big movies I was used to seeing previews for, some were completely unknown to anyone within my general sphere of influence. With the Internet still in its infancy, however, (and I’m not sure if we even had dial up at that point), there weren’t a whole lot of outlets for film discovery. But there was At the Movies.

Shortly after my Shawshank epiphany, I became aware of a late-night program that focused entirely on two men debated, talked about, and even fought over movies of all shapes and sizes. It was a little slice of heaven that became must-see TV for me at a time when I hardly watched any TV that wasn’t Boy Meets World or sports-related. I didn’t get to watch it every week (and for the life of me I can’t remember if it was broadcast on Saturday nights or Sunday nights) but any chance I got I soaked up the immense power of At the Movies. The chemistry that Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel had was the sort of thing that even the best romantic comedies can only dream of creating. They respected each other but at times you weren’t sure that they actually liked each other. It was a complicated relationship that at times got personal but never lost sight of the thing they both loved so deeply: the cinema. Both Ebert and Siskel were unequivocally passionate about film and would hold to their varied opinions about a given film to the very end. There have been a thousand talking heads/debate shows to come down the chute in recent years, particularly in the sports world, but none have been nearly as natural as At the Movies was because none of them displayed genuine passion the way that show did.

The impact of this was tremendous for me and about a billion other movie fans because that passion rubbed off on us in a manner similar to a wildfire. Ebert (Siskel, too, but since I always leaned toward Ebert’s side of things, his influence was greater) taught me that it was not only acceptable to think critically when it came to pop culture entries but that it was important to do so. That’s not something that I’d ever been exposed to. I was taught to think critically about the important things in life (school, faith, etc.) but to apply that mentality to movies, sports, music, etc. was a new concept to me (or at least I was only then able to grasp it). I watched At the Movies and was vindicated in my child-like understanding of that Shawshank was good and Anaconda was bad, while simultaneously exposing myself to a wide world of new films that never would have piqued my interest previously. I suddenly and desperately needed to see White Squall for some reason and there were plenty of other movies that came along in the coming years that fit the same bill: they weren’t the sort of blockbusters I had drooled over before and they weren’t the movies my friends wanted to see but I had a great desire to digest as many films as I possibly could.

Soon thereafter I started doing everything I could to get my hands on Ebert’s written work. I found one of his collections of reviews in the library and read them all, the Internet evolved and some of his work could be found online, etc. and through his writing, Ebert became even more appealing to me. In the infancy of my new fascination, I sought out the reviews written by local critics in our newspapers and immediately soured on the idea because they never liked ANY of the movies that I liked. At 14 or 15 years old, my movie taste may not have been as developed as it is now but I could still tell that these critics were not interested in granting the possibility that a big budget film could be just as good as a tiny indie film if they were both crafted correctly. Ebert never shied away from major films and his reviews often coincided with my own opinions. And on the occasion that we disagreed, Ebert’s reasoning was laid out in such a knowledgeable yet unpretentious way that I could accept his ruling even if I couldn’t come around to his side of the argument.

That is, of course, one of the major reasons people like myself flocked to Ebert over the hoard of voices that clogged the criticism game even before the advent of blogs and digital news outlets. If you go back and read an Ebert review from 1975, a review from 1998, and a review from 2010, you’ll hear virtually the same voice presented in the same manner: always intelligent but never condescending, derivative, or pretentious and moreover, everything Ebert ever wrote was deeply personal. He contended that criticism at its very core was personal and subjective and to pretend otherwise was foolish. Ebert’s reviews were his views and as such his own life got mixed into the batter. And above all else, he loved film. A fellow blogger noted on Twitter that while many critics require a film to earn a good rating, Ebert always seemed to start with a five star review and go from there. That’s where the aforementioned passion comes into play and that’s a big part of what I, and many like me, have tried to do with our own “careers.”

Since the beginning of my film criticism career (I have dabbled in the medium for a decade now to varying degrees of non-success), these were the principals I have lived by:

1.) Express my own love for film (whether the film I’m currently reviewing or the medium in general) and try to spread that affinity on to others;
2.) Write from a personal perspective;
3.) Present everything in the most straight-forward, honest manner possible without venturing into the Land of Pretension or pseudo-intellectualism.

That’s it, really. Love or hate my views on a film, any film, I hope my appreciation for cinema comes across in a personal, “regular guy” way and that the door is left open for conversation. That’s what I strive for, anyway, and I learned all of that from Roger Ebert.

I never had the occasion to meet Ebert personally or to interact with him online as many of my writing and blogging colleagues have. (By literally all accounts he was one of the most genuinely kind people the world has ever had to offer and he went out of his way on tens of thousands of occasions to lend a helping hand or encouraging word to fans, critics, and aspiring writers the world wide.) Nevertheless, the impact he had on my life is no less profound and in a strange way he is a not-so-insignificant part of what made me the person I am today and he certainly is the reason I have devoted so much time to the hobby of film criticism. He was a pioneer, a legend, and a true believer in his craft and for that influence on my life, I will be forever grateful.

Thank you, Roger. You will be greatly and heartbreakingly missed. The balcony is now closed.

Paste Magazine collected a number of responses from celebrities to the news of Ebert’s death.

Will Leitch of Deadspin talks about his long history with Ebert.

Richard Roeper, who replaced Gene Siskel on At the Movies, wrote about Ebert’s place on the Mount Rushmore of movie critics.

Dana Stevens of Slate shows us the letter Ebert wrote her when she was a child. This is one of the more touching tributes I have seen yet.

And if you’ve never read the Esquire piece written about Ebert back in 2010, it’s worth your time as well.

In Home Viewings: Rise of the Guardians

Posted on by

Since the day he awoke with no memory and a powerful ability to manipulate winter weather, young Jack Frost (Chris Pine) has felt like an outcast. No one knows him, no one thinks about him, and most importantly, most kids (the target audience he most wants to please) don’t believe in him. But when a dark being known as Pitch (Jude Law) begins terrorizing the world’s children, Jack’s role in the world shifts from mischievous prankster to a member of the Immortal Guardians, along with Santa (Alec Baldwin), the Easter Bunny (Hugh Jackman), the Tooth Fairy (Isla Fisher), and the Sandman. The Guardians must pool all of their talents to foil Pitch’s evil plan and prevent his reign of terror from spreading before the world is literally thrown into darkness.

For all the faults in the production of this film (extreme budget issues, confusing marketing, etc.), Rise of the Guardians is actually a smart and highly enjoyable children’s movie that stands above almost every other animated film 2012 had to offer (behind only Wreck-It Ralph in my book). The characters are remarkably fresh given their familiarity and I found Santa being represented as a tough, tattooed Russian to be a cool change of direction. Likewise, the voices behind the characters are all excellent and they blend seamlessly with their onscreen counterparts. The casting director for this film deserves a bonus because truly, Rise of the Guardians is nearly perfect in this regard.

From a narrative standpoint, Rise of the Guardians is fairly uninspired but first time director Peter Ramsey keeps his film on track throughout while getting the most out of the script. The freshness of the characters doesn’t quite translate to the plot, though, and the film definitely could have used a touch of that. One of the big plot points in the waning moments definitely seemed forced and the conclusion itself felt a bit rushed. In the grand scheme of things, however, these are relatively minor issues. The animation is strong and the visuals compelling which made me wish I had made the time for this one in a theater. Moreover, the tone of this movie is such that it allows for the exploration of the dark corners of a villain like Pitch without becoming too intense or scary for younger viewers. All told, I found Rise of the Guardians to be incredibly entertaining and wholly enjoyable.

Rise of the Guardians
Director: Peter Ramsey
Cast: Chris Pine, Alec Baldwin, Jude Law
Rated: PG (occasionally intense themes)
Recommended For: Any viewer ages 4 and up

Trailer Spotlight: 2 Guns, Wolverine, A Single Shot

Posted on by

2 Guns (August 2) – Denzel Washington, Mark Wahlberg, Bill Paxton

How is this not directed by Michael Bay?! I’m not in love with director Baltasar Kormakur but I must admit this looks far more entertaining than Contraband ever did. More importantly, it’s the sort of film that Denzel needs to make right now. Sure, I’d love to see him return to something significant like The Hurricane or Training Day but if he’s not going that route, I’d like to see him do a fun action movie rather than another Safe House. 

The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones (August 23) – Lily Collins, Jamie Campbell Bower, Lena Headey

You know, the concept behind this film intrigues me but it’s all so very Twilight-y that I don’t think there’s any way it could be good. Pity.

The Wolverine (July 26) – Hugh Jackman, Famke Janssen, Wil Yun Lee

Of all the X-Men characters that made their way into the Saturday morning cartoon series I loved so much, Wolverine is the one I have the most interest in. And yet, with X-Men Origins Wolverine turning out to be a real flop, and this reboot-ish entry about to make its debut, I have come to accept that this is an itch that will never be scratched. This doesn’t look good at all and in fact, it could be downright disastrous. Why is this so hard to get right?

Grown Ups 2 (July 12) – Adam Sandler, Kevin James, Chris Rock

You know what, no. I refuse to post this trailer here. If you’re such a glutton for punishment that you need to see this trailer, you can find it for yourself. Curse you, Sandler.

Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters (August 16) – Logan Lerman, Alexandra Daddario, Brandon T. Jackson

Bad books usually turn into bad movies, as was the case for the first cinematic foray into the Percy Jackson universe. I honestly thought this series was dead until a few weeks ago and I can’t imagine that there are too many people who are just dying for a sequel. If this one doesn’t go well it’s likely to be the end.

White House Down (June 28) – Channing Tatum, Jamie Foxx, Jason Clarke

Of the two movies concerning an attack on the White House that 2013 brings with it, I’m far more interested in this one than last month’s Olympus Has Fallen. I’m not expecting it to be a great movie but when Roland Emmerich is at his best, he is capable of making a very entertaining film. I’ll give it a whirl.

A Single Shot (unknown) – Sam Rockwell, William H. Macy, Jeffrey Wright

I have no idea what’s happening here in this trailer but I know it looks like Paul Thomas Anderson making a Coen Brothers movie (or a knockoff of such a collaboration). I’m intrigued.

Review: The Croods

Posted on by

At the end of the age of cavemen, one little family known as the Croods still inhabits their once fruitful land. Led by Grug (Nicolas Cage), the family’s patriarch whose extreme caution keeps them safely locked away in their cave, they have carved out a place for themselves when most other cavemen have become extinct. But Eep (Emma Stone), the oldest of Grug’s children, has a strong desire to see the unknown and one night this curiosity gets the best of her, leading to a fateful encounter with Guy (Ryan Reynolds), a more evolved human with big ideas. Guy implores the Croods to head for high ground before the earthquakes that have been ripping the land apart get to them and when their cave is destroyed, the family embarks on a journey that will truly take them into a brave new world.

For me, most DreamWorks animated features find a place in the proverbial same boat: they’re usually acceptable, harmless family films that don’t bore but rarely excite and stay far away from the ambitious, inspired work of Pixar (and the better Disney films). Most of the time, I watch the movie with relatively few complaints, give said movie a “B” or “B-“, and then immediately forget it. (See: Puss in Boots, Monsters vs. Aliens, the Madagascar sequels, etc.) To be honest with you, dear reader, I expected this feeling to be the best case scenario for The Croods. A mid-March DreamWorks cartoon with somewhat unattractive characters with a voice cast led by Nicolas Cage…not really something I would usually hang my hat on. But rather than the typical ho-hum fare I expected, I was treated to a much smarter, much more enjoyable animated romp than I could have ever imagined.

First of all, let me comment on the stunning visuals that dominate the majority of The Croods. While the characters themselves are (purposefully) a bit less than aesthetically pleasing (they are cavemen after all), the world surrounding the Crood family is beautiful and filled with incredibly vibrant colors. The flora and fauna created for this film are imaginative and unique, which only adds to the gorgeous landscape that serves as the background. As an ardent opponent to the 3D movement, The Croods stands as one of the very few films that actually made me wish I would have sought out a 3D showing. Even in 2D, however, the colors jump off the screen and the contrast between the Croods and their surroundings is a notable bonus.

In addition to the visuals, however, the talent of the voice cast is not only substantial but also very well utilized. To say that this is Cage’s best performance in a decade or so seems a bit absurd but if truth be told, it probably is. When you’re not staring into the man’s creepy eyes or focusing in on his receding hairline, Cage’s presence works quite well in this role. Stone and Reynolds mesh quite well together (Reynolds steals the show more often than not) and the additional voices added by Catherine Keener, Cloris Leachman, and Clark Duncan all hit their respective marks. In short, this feels like an actual cast of actors working together rather than the assemblage of voices that seems to the DreamWorks M.O.

Perhaps the best aspect of The Croods is the sheer simplicity of the narrative. Some reviews I’ve seen have pointed to this simplicity as a negative but in my opinion, it serves the film quite well. There are only one or two themes in play here (it mostly boils down to the family dynamic, especially the father-daughter relationship, and the struggle to survive) and as such, the movie stays ever on its course, never straying from the path and allowing for a full immersion in the world, just like the Croods themselves. From the opening credits on, The Croods has a vintage feel to it that carries over to the very end. I felt like I was watching an old school Disney movie heightened by relevant animation pushed forward by a gloriously subtle score that adds a playful tone to the entire affair. There are hearty laughs, emotionally impactful moments, and a few remarkably gorgeous scenes, all of which makes The Croods one of the better animated films of the last few years.

The Croods
Directors: Kirk De Micco, Chris Sanders
Cast: Nicolas Cage, Emma Stone, Ryan Reynolds
Rated: PG (some dramatic themes, one utterance of the word “sucky” but otherwise completely clean)
Recommended For: Families with kids of pretty much any age

Review: GI Joe Retaliation

Posted on by

A few years after the events of Rise of Cobra, Cobra Commander has been stored away in secret prison and the Joes have come under the leadership of Duke (Channing Tatum) and his right hand man Roadblock (Dwayne The Rock Johnson). But after completing a mission overseas, the Joes camp is attacked and almost all of our heroes are killed. The president of the United States, who literally does not have a name (Jonathan Pryce), tells the world that the Joes were responsible for a number of treacherous acts and calls for the global eradication of nuclear weapons. But the president isn’t who he says he is and the task of stopping him falls to Roadblock, Lady Jaye (Adrienne Palicki), DJ Cortona (Flint), and Snake Eyes (Ray Park).

I’ve decided to keep things fresh around here by coming at GI Joe: Retaliation from a pros and cons standpoint. Now, I’m about to take this movie out back and beat it with a shovel until I have exacted my revenge for the 110 minutes it took from me, but in the interest of fairness, let’s start with the positives.

PROS
1. The Rock is pretty solid. He does his dead level best to raise the material he was given to work with and he does a more than adequate job of dressing this proverbial pig up with a pretty bow. Some of the best parts of the movie involve the back and forth between Johnson and Tatum.

2. I find Adrienne Palicki extremely attractive and perhaps because of this (or my blind loyalty to anything related to Friday Night Lights) I didn’t think her performance was horrible.

3. There’s a five minute fight scene between Snake Eyes and Storm Shadow (Byung-hun Lee) that is ninjatastic and highly enjoyable even if it is almost immediately ruined by the following sequence.

4. Any time Walton Goggins shows up, your project jumps up a notch.

5. GI Joe Retaliation is not quite as bad as Rise of Cobra, due entirely to the aforementioned presence of The Rock.

CONS
NOTE: This list is basically the scratching of the surface of the issues I had with this movie but I’ve lost track of some of them due to the lobotomy I gave myself upon walking out of the theater.
NOTE TWO: There might be a tiny spoiler in here somewhere. I think it’s pretty obvious from the trailer but if you don’t want the suspense of such a terrific film ruined, then turn away now.

1. There are approximately 756 plot points within GI Joe Retaliation that make absolutely no sense. Now I am aware that it’s not like this film was made out to be Schindler’s List and I can look past some holes in the interest of enjoying an action movie but this goes far beyond the acceptable level of what a man can overlook. My favorite was when the Joes essentially allow London to get blown to bits in order to out Cobra Commander. Hey Britain, I know you’ve been our ally for years and all, but we’re betting you probably won’t miss London.

2. Director Jon M. Chu has NO IDEA how to shoot an action scene. Most of the sequences are too fast and blurry for the eye to keep up and half the time I literally couldn’t tell what was happening on screen. I don’t know what I expected from the man who directed not one but two Step Up movies.

3. Ray Stevenson’s accent is appalling.

4. While Cobra Commander is ostensibly the main villain, the focal point of the film is Pryce’s president and the character ranks up there with the worst villains in a blockbuster movie ever. I think he was supposed to be a sort of sly, cool bad guy but instead he just comes off as cheesy and cliché riddled. Some of this is the writing but let me be frank: Pryce does NOTHING to help the situation.

5. Speaking of the script, it’s bloody wretched. Not only is the plot a total mess, the dialogue is (as expected) cringe-worthy, and perhaps most importantly, it’s extremely dated. I know this film was pushed back by a year but it goes far beyond that. GI Joe Retaliation feels like it was written by an 8th grader who was sent to the future from 1999. So many little things jump off the screen as out of place because it’s all so antiquated.

6. The scuttlebutt around the Internet was that this movie was bumped from last year to allow for some reshoots that would play up Channing Tatum’s role. Well…not so much, as his character dies within the first 15 minutes. A year ago I never would have imagined I’d write something like this but if you’ve got Channing Tatum in your movie, you probably want to play his character up rather than kill him off.

7. Speaking of Duke, his death is so nondescript as to lead to immediate speculation that he’ll make a remarkable comeback for the inevitable third film. I’m calling my shot now!

8. Throughout the movie, the characters seem to have knowledge that they shouldn’t have. It’s almost as if the characters were given copies of the script before they were thrown into these trying situations.

9. There’s an inherent stupidity to much of what happens throughout this movie. I didn’t expect it to be overly cerebral but it’s like Chu and his cronies go out of their way to make sure the characters do and say idiotic things. The satellites Cobra uses to destroy the world doesn’t launch or shoot its missile but rather it simply “drops” the projectile from space and allows “gravity” to do the rest. Nope.

10. There’s just about nothing that any of these actors could have done to bring GI Joe Retaliation up from the dregs that the script and direction place it in, but it’s possible that no actor has ever given a worse performance in a big budget movie than what RZA has to offer us here. As the sensei for Snake Eyes and Storm Shadow, he serves as a sort of narrator over a particularly worthless tangential storyline and the excruciating pain that his portrayal brought on is akin to one of the lesser levels of hell. STOP TRYING TO ACT!!!

All that to say, GI Joe Retaliation is the worst movie I have seen in this young year and it should be avoided at all costs. I mean that. If someone breaks into your house and demands that you either give him your life savings or watch this movie, you should hand over your valuables and consider yourself lucky.

GI Joe: Retaliation
Director: Jon M. Chu
Cast: The Rock, Adrienne Palicki, Jonathan Pryce
Rated: PG-13 (cartoon violence, some mild language)
Recommended For: Pre-teen boys and Guantanamo prisoners

In Home Viewings: This is 40

Posted on by

Not too long after the events of Knocked Up, This is 40 takes us back into the lives of Pete (Paul Rudd) and Debbie (Leslie Mann), a regular couple who are barely hanging on. Pete’s business is failing while Debbie is struggling with middle age and they have both settled into a rut, individually and in relation to one another. With a myriad of real world problems surrounding them, Pete and Debbie must find a way to keep their family afloat while rekindling their relationship.

If you read that description of This is 40 and thought, “Wait, I thought this was a comedy” then you have stumbled upon one of the two HUGE problems with the film: it struggles mightily to be funny. Now, consider that carefully. I did not write that the film is unfunny which is why it fails; I wrote that it struggles to be funny. As a drama, This is 40 would be fairly effective and relatively realistic look at marriage and middle age. But since Judd Apatow insists on his film working as a comedy, it spends far too much time trying to flesh out the funny. As a result, the authenticity of the drama aspect is rendered devoid of any pop. Apatow seems to want his film to be an accurate representation of his subject matter but he also desperately wants you to laugh at the world his characters operate in and the two parts of the film do not blend naturally.

The second big issue that This is 40 has working against it is the extreme bloat that inhabits virtually every second of the film. Apatow’s unwillingness to edit his films is widely known but in many cases I have found the extra content, the fat that would have been cut in a normal film, to be appealing even if the result is a much too-long runtime. Case in point: in the hands of most directors, I think it’s fair to say that the Pete and Debbie characters would have been cut down to the bare bones in Knocked Up and yet their added screentime made them popular enough to warrant a spin-off/sequel. In this case, however, the fat needed to be trimmed oh so badly. In fact, if Apatow had cut out literally every other character beyond Pete and Debbie and replaced them with background actors with limited lines, it would have been for the better. Some of the side characters are decent enough (shockingly enough, Megan Fox’s portrayal might have been the best of the bunch) but Apatow crams in about a dozen of his buddies whose characters have LITERALLY no bearing on the film in any way. For about 15 minutes it’s fun to play the, “Oh, look! It’s Jason Segel!” game but that allure wears off quickly and as the film drags on (and on and on and on) you start to hate these little asides that only serve to stretch the film toward the two and a half hour mark.

The only truly redeeming qualities of This is 40 (and the reasons why I consider it a passable film) are the portrayals by Rudd and especially Mann. I loved Pete and Debbie in Knocked Up and as long as they are on screen here, the film works (to varying degrees). They have a natural chemistry and they work off of each other quite well even when the sequences are uncomfortable. But the second one of the ancillary characters steps on to the screen your attention begins to wane and you lose focus on what the movie is about in the first place. All in all, This is 40 is not a complete waste of time but unfortunately it’s much closer to that level that it needs to be.

This is 40
Director: Judd Apatow
Cast: Paul Rudd, Leslie Mann, every other actor in Hollywood
Rated: R (strong language, nudity, some drug use)
Recommended For: Very strong-willed Apatow loyalists

In Home Viewings: The Odd Life of Timothy Green

Posted on by

Synopsis: After being told that they will never be able to conceive, Jim (Joel Edgerton) and Cindy Green (Jennifer Garner) return home with heavy hearts. To deal with their grief, the couple starts describing their perfect child and dotting down their hopes on post-it notes which they ultimately collect and bury in their garden. During the night, a freak storm rolls by their house and the Greens awake to find a 10 year old boy named Timothy (CJ Adams) in their home. After the initial shock wears of, Jim and Cindy begin to realize that Timothy is the embodiment of their hoped-for child and come to understand that his purpose is much greater than it initially seemed.

What I Liked: I initially stayed away from The Odd Life of Timothy Green because, with my wife and I having gone through a miscarriage earlier in the year, the material hit too close to home. When I finally got around to checking it out, I was impressed by the direct but sympathetic tone the film took in regards to the struggles of the parents. It isn’t overdone nor does force feed fake emotions to the viewer and instead these issues are presented in an honest, natural way from the beginning and that carries over through the rest of the film. As such, Edgerton (of whom I am quite fond) and Garner bring their characters to life with strong subtlety, striking the right balance of hurt, wonder, and determination to make their family work. While both provide solid performances, I felt Edgerton’s was the driving force of the film, though my bias toward him as an actor may have swayed that opinion. Adams, too, gives a strong portrayal and handles the somewhat difficult material with skill beyond his years. The narrative of Timothy Green is generally sweet and appropriate for the overarching story.

What I Didn’t Like: While not the main focus of the film, one of the secondary subjects of Timothy Green is the way in which Timothy affects the lives of those around him. That’s all well and good but in the process of painting the picture of what kind of help the supporting characters are in need of, the film grinds to an absolute halt. Virtually every character outside of the three leads is a one-dimensional, borderline unbearable caricature of a given trope that needs to change. The overbearing, often absent father/grandfather (David Morse); the obnoxious aunt (Rosemarie Dewitt) who brings everyone around her down in order to build her kids up; the lazy boss (Ron Livingston) who tries to steal ideas from the Green family. It’s nice that Timothy tries to help those around him but all of these supporting characters are insufferable from the very beginning to the point that you honestly don’t want to see them improve as people. If Timothy could have helped his parents realize that everyone around them is a miserable jackwagon and that they should move to another state and never look back, I would have enjoyed Timothy Green far more.

Verdict: It’s not flawless and there is a certain oddness to the story as a whole that might turn off some viewers. But overall (and in spite of the BRUTAL supporting characters), I found The Odd Life of Timothy Green to be a touching family film that is worth your time.

The Odd Life of Timothy Green
Director: Peter Hedges
Cast: Joel Edgerton, Jennifer Garner, CJ Adams
Rated: PG (mildly adult themes, possibly a little language)
Recommended For: Families with kids 6+

Review: Oz the Great and Powerful

Posted on by

When determining what sort of grade I will bestow upon a given movie, I go through the following process:

1.)    I weigh my initial reaction as to whether I liked or disliked the film;
2.)    I consider the rewatchability of the film (unless it’s a film like Schindler’s List that is clearly one of the greatest movies ever but I never want to watch it again);
3.)    I run through the pros and cons of the film and dig deeper than just the general “like” or “dislike” feelings I mentioned before.

It’s far from a science (which is why the grades I give initially are sometimes changed by the time my end of the year list makes its debut) but more often than not, I can talk myself into a greater appreciation for a film that left me cold initially (Beasts of the Southern Wild) or into a lower grade for a film that dazzled me originally but won’t hold up long term (Avatar). Sometimes, however, I run across a film that defies my less-than-scientific process and forces me to give a grade I really don’t want to give. So it is with Oz the Great and Powerful, a film that has about a quarter million flaws to work around that I still managed to enjoy quite a bit more than I thought I would.

We open (in black and white, of course) on turn-of-the-century Kansas in the midst of a traveling circus. It is here that Oscar “Oz” Diggs (James Franco) plies his craft as a small-time magician who dreams of becoming the next Houdini. When Oz runs afoul of the circus’ strong man, he makes a grand escape in a hot air balloon, only to be sucked into an otherworldly tornado that deposits him in the colorful land of Oz. Here he is met by Theodora (Mila Kunis), a kind witch who informs Oz that he represents the fulfillment of a prophecy that will install him as king. In order to stake his claim to the throne (and the vast piles of gold that go with it), however, Oz is informed by Evanora (Rachel Weisz) that he must first defeat Glinda (Michelle Williams), a wicked witch who is running amok around the kingdom. But Oz’s journey to destroy the witch takes a turn and soon he finds himself in the midst of a civil war that threatens to rip the kingdom apart.

Right off the bat, let me tell you that I was not, in any way, excited about Oz the Great and Powerful. I was intrigued when Robert Downey Jr. was signed on for the lead but by the time Sam Raimi got down to Franco (at least his third choice), my interest was completely gone. The trailers have done nothing to raise my anticipation, instead bringing to mind memories of Alice in Wonderland which I despise. Moreover (and I’m well aware that this opinion is uncommon), I’m not all that much of a fan of the original Wizard of Oz. I completely understand its greatness and the lofty status it holds with most film fans; it’s just not a film that I personally love or care enough about to desire a sequel/prequel. These issues didn’t exactly put Oz the Great in Powerful in a great place with me going in and readily admit that these feelings played a part in my reception of the movie.

Still, the first 30 minutes or so of Oz did absolutely nothing to change my mind. Franco annoyed me a bit and certainly didn’t do much to bring me over to his side, which is basically the same feeling I get in just about every one of his movies. I never can pinpoint exactly what it is I don’t like about the guy, especially in a leading role, but there’s simply something about him that bothers me. (Dave, if you’re reading this, maybe we could grab a coffee or something so I can figure out why I don’t like you. Call me.) He gets better but in the early going I was unimpressed. Likewise, the basic setup of what transpires within Oz is a jumble of half-baked clichés. Just once I would like to see a fantasy film that doesn’t rely upon a prophecy or the discovery of the chosen one. I’m not saying that’s not a viable plot point but it has become a massive crutch in Hollywood (and literature for that matter) that seems to find a place in almost every one of these films whether it fits or not. The dialogue is BRUTAL in the early going and often times it is delivered in the most robotic, uninspiring way possible. I think this is a bad script but the leading cast members (Franco, Kunis, Weisz) could have and should have brought more life to the words, even if at times the lines read like they were written by a fourth grader.

In the second and third acts, however, Oz finds a groove and while there are still a lot of problems to contend with, the film was enjoyable enough to win me over. The visuals are spectacular and vastly superior to those of the aforementioned Alice in Wonderland that might have been this film’s inspiration. It really is a beautiful film for which Raimi and his team deserve a great deal of credit. Oz also holds true to the spirit of The Wizard of Oz and at least in this way pays appropriate homage to that beloved film. It’s not always lighthearted but it manages to touch on the tougher angles of its subject without reveling in the darkness, a quality that is shared by the original. It also benefits from some excellent ancillary characters who often supersede the merits of the leads. This applies particularly to China Doll (Joey King) and Finley (Zach Braff), both of whom are memorable and extremely likeable even when Oz and the various witches are not.

To be clear, it’s not as if the final two acts of Oz are perfect or that the flaws fade away once the setup is complete. There are a ton of plot holes, the lengths to which Raimi goes to play to the 3D gimmick will sicken haters of this technology, and quite honestly Kunis’ performance is a mess. She’s all over the place, much too muted in the early going and WAY over the top in the back half and at no point did her I feel like her character was on the right track. But the last two thirds are enjoyable and satisfying enough to make one look past the stink of the first third and make Oz a relatively worthwhile venture.

Oz the Great and Powerful
Director: Sam Raimi
Cast: James Franco, Mila Kunis, Rachel Weisz, Michelle Williams
Rated: PG (dramatic themes)
Recommended For: Moviegoers with responsible expectations ages 7 and up

Trailer Spotlight: Iron Man 3, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2 and More

Posted on by

Erased (May 10) – Aaron Eckhart, Olga Kurylenko

So basically The Bourne Identity minus Paycheck. No thanks.

Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2 (September 27) – Bill Hader, Anna Faris, Andy Samberg

The first Cloudy has grown on me since my first viewing and I know the book is extremely popular. I’m not sure how well the material translates to a sequel but given how lackluster 2012′s slate of animated movies was (minus Wreck-It Ralph of course), I’m excited to see this one on the docket this fall. Should be fun.

The Reluctant Fundamentalist (April 26) – Riz Ahmed, Liev Schreiber, Kate Hudson

This one has my interest and it’s too bad that it will apparently only receive a limited release though I’m guessing the material isn’t universally appealing. Solid cast here and a story that could be incredibly engrossing. Hoping The Reluctant Fundamentalist gets a decent release at some point.

Iron Man 3 (May 3) – Robert Downey Jr., Ben Kingsley, Don Cheadle

Um, you guys, Iron Man 3 looks better and better with each new look. The marketing behind this movie has been stellar from the start and with each trailer, teaser, set picture, etc., my anticipation meter (which was already quite high) jumps another level. I. Can’t. Wait. For this movie. Get here soon, if you please.