Crimson Peak (2015)

Sometimes it's easy to figure out why you don't like a movie. I often don't like lazy characterization or a lack of female characters. When I didn't like Black Mass last month, I didn't like it because the centre didn't hold. It didn't make sense to me that anyone -- anyone at all in that movie -- would be loyal to a guy like Jimmy. Despite excellent performances across the board, Johnny Depp wasn't as magnetic or as menacing as he needed to be to develop the kind of over-the-top loyalty that, say, John Connolly (Joel Edgerton) displayed. And, if you can't buy that, what can you buy about the rest of the movie? (Benedict Cumberbatch making eggs, as it turns out).

But not liking Crimson Peak ... that's been a little harder to put my finger on. 

I didn't like Guillermo del Toro's last outing, either. Of course, I don't remember all the much about Pacific Rim or why I didn't like it. The only thing that really stands out to me two years on is that all the fight scenes took place at night in the rain, and I couldn't tell the aliens and the humans apart. We kept cutting back to the boring people (so boring) swooping their arms around in the Jaegers, and I was like, "My kingdom for a daylight fight!" 

My initial reaction was to label Crimson Peak as shallow. Everyone's motivations are on the surface, and it takes nanoseconds to figure out what's "really" going on (hint: exactly what you think). 

I started to compare it to The Woman in Black in my mind (a movie which starred Daniel Radcliffe's sad eyes and some shadows), and then I realized what I really didn't like about Crimson Peak: it's not a haunted house movie.

Bear with me because I know that sounds like a YP. BUT! The movie's called Crimson Peak and the ghosts are all like, "Beware of Crimson Peak", and Tom Hiddleston warns that the house "starts holding onto things... keeping them alive when they shouldn't be", so you'd think that the very place presents a clear and present danger. 

I am here to tell you: it does not. 

Sure, there are ghosts, but they aren't even malevolent ghosts. Despite being black or bloody skeletons whose clothes go up in evaporating wisps (make no mistake - this movie looks wicked cool), those ghosts are simply trying to save Mia Wasikowska from getting her silly self murdered. Which makes them Caspar's creepy cousins. 

So even though the house is -- and again this is visually stunning -- oozing blood from the walls, the house is actually just a house. Jessica Chastain is a crazy killer, and Tom Hiddleston is her somewhat unwilling accomplice, and there you go. Run away, Mia! Run away!

Here's what I imagined, though: that Jessica Chastain and Tom Hiddleston were, in fact, centuries-old supernatural beings that are kept alive by ritually sacrificing young girls to their spooky demon house. But with the advent of, I don't know, modern detection, it's getting harder and harder to marry ladies, take them away, and kill them every couple of years. Jessica Chastain thinks they should just keep going, Louise, but Tom Hiddleston -- 'cause he actually likes Mia Wasikowska -- thinks they should just throw in the towel. Mia, however, has other plans (agency!). She's been having encounters with ghosts her entire life, and she is not about to leave these poor tormented souls trapped in this hell house. She's going to put them to rest!

Not to get all choose your own adventure (although they do, briefly, discuss choose your own adventure books), but that five minute treatment I just dreamed up is easily more entertaining that the movie I saw. 

Fun alternative: Hiddleston is so anemic looking in this movie that you can pretend he's still Adam from Only Lovers Left Alive and is mere seconds away from biting these ladies, then writing an opera about it.   

Dare to dream, self. Dare to dream.

UPDATE: I just realized that, like the story Edith is initially peddling, this isn't a ghost story, but a story that happens to have ghosts. Nicely done, del Toro, but also no.

The Lincoln Lawyer, Paul, and Limitless (all 2011)

The Lincoln Lawyer

© Lionsgate Films

I'll admit, however much I should be embarrassed about this, that I was most excited to see The Lincoln Lawyer this weekend. I'm no Matthew McConaughey fan. Heck, I'm not even a McConaughey apologist. But I do remember a time when there was a chance McConaughey might make a good movie instead of, say, The Wedding Planner, and that chance was roughly 15 years ago, so it's good to see that guy back again.

Because, between this and A Time to Kill, is there anything he does better than lawyer? He's so damn charming as a unscrupulous defense attorney because, hey, even scum deserve the full measure of the law that you root for him. You root for him because McConaughey makes it clear that there's a man behind the charlatan. Of course, he doesn't keep his shirt on the entire time (the 80s are making a comeback), but it's a step in the right direction.

Sadly, Ryan Phillippe took a step in the wrong direction, away from acting and toward smirking, as did the ad department by including a near final scene in the trailer.

Still, the movie deserves full points for the way everything, just everything, comes together in the end (even the walking 50s anachronism), and for the way this is not a redemption story. Don't get me wrong -- McConaughey's Mick struggles to put right an injustice over the course of the film. But he doesn't turn into a better, decent, pro-bono for the poor lawyer or any such thing in the end. He deals with the specifics of this case and moves on. I like that. I didn't like the spiny camera of insanity, but I liked that. B

Paul  

© Universal Pictures

I wasn't sure entirely what to expect from Paul except that Pegg + Frost - Wright would never be as good as Pegg + Frost + Wright. No offense to Pegg and Frost, who are delightful, but Wright's visual wizardry not only adds panache to the proceedings but mines every aspect of comedy so that the visual isn't just a delivery mechanism. Director Greg Mottola, whose work I liked for Superbad, doesn't bring it in the same way here.

I don't know how to put this except to say that it's just not that funny. It is funny, there are laughs, but there's no hysterical "did you see/hear that" arm-clutching action. There's more like smiling, guffawing, nodding funny. Part of it is that the script is smart without being particularly clever in its ribbing (fundamentalists = broad side of barn, but the devil's in the details on that one), and the other part is the direction/cinematography/editing doesn't fully support it.

What surprised me was how much I liked Seth Rogen's voice work, especially after The Green Hornet practically threw me into fits. His anger is toned down, and, without the teddy bear exterior, a greater nuance of emotion gets through. It's very sweet, really, how this goofy, fun-loving, chain smokin' alien just wants to get home. And can't drive. B

Limitless 

© Relativity Media

There's a time and a place for that bane of my movie existence, narration, and Limitless is almost entirely it. It's hard for us to understand exactly how NZT functions just by watching Eddie (Bradley Cooper), other than knowing it's Adderall times a million, without him explaining that he's not wired, just focused. Stop for science: you already use all of your brain (just not consciously), and being able to cut down distractions wouldn't necessarily give you the ability to understand everything. Science break over.

Cooper is perfectly cast as a smugly handsome overachiever, though he starts out in sad-sack Will mode: a struggling, scraggly writer who bumps his ex-brother-in-law (Johnny Whitworth, aka A.J. from Empire Records, who's apparently been in other things I've seen over the years without my noticing) during a particularly low moment and naturally gets hooked on a drug that, at the very least, makes him feel limitless. When said ex-BIL ends up with a bullet in his head, Eddie grabs the drugs and gets out, but it's really only a matter of time before the same fate catches up to him.

Of course, how he gets there involves some camera work and murky storytelling I could have done without, so it's not perfect. It's fluff: well cast fluff but fluff nonetheless. A little more emotional heft, and we could have gotten there. Ah, well. At least I like Abbie Cornish now. B-

Kick-Ass (2010) & The A-Team (2010)

I think casting directors of the world and I need to have a little talk. During this little talk, we will discuss the hows and whys of casting far more compelling and talented actors as villains instead of in the lead roles. I get why you would want someone compelling in the bad guy role, I really do. But when you put them up against vacant spaces (Kick-Ass) or smug bastards (The A-Team), it's hard to want to see the good guys win.

Really, was there any single relationship in Kick-Ass as well drawn or fun to watch as Chris (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) and Frank D'Amico's (Mark Strong)? Sure, Chris sets Big Daddy (Nicholas Cage) up, and Frank shoots some random teenager in the street. But Frank takes Chris to the movies and makes sure he gets his Twizzlers! They watch TV together! Really, are you going to root for the guy who buys his 11 year-old a butterfly knife for her birthday and lets her use the saltiest language I've ever heard this side of Deadwood? Actually, I'm kind of confused as to where she picked up this stuff give the 1950s turns of phrase her father favours. Did Marcus speak to her this way? Point is, Mintz-Plasse makes Chris sparky and fun and lonely and weird in the best, most honest teenage way, so why would I care if boring Aaron Johnson saves the day? Also, there is no scuba suit in the world that flexible. C

I know it's standard now to make the first movie in what's meant to be a tentpole series an origin story, but let's go ahead and stop doing that now. Unless, of course, you wanted to see a 30-second opening narration turn feature length yet still make no sense at all. I mean, I do get it to an extent. If you wanted me to sit down and sketch out the basic plot, I could probably get it right. Of course, half of that's only upon reflection and discussion. But if you wanted me to sit down and sketch out the enjoyable parts of the movie, they would focus on Patrick Wilson's Lynch almost exclusively. Maybe Brian Bloom as Pike. But that's it! I'd much rather see Wilson have his silly little freak out in the car than pretty much anything involving Liam Neeson, Bradley Cooper, Sharlto Copley, and Quinton Jackson. Wilson plays a lot of straight-laced and dim characters, so maybe he's just excited to let loose. He's having fun, which means we're having fun watching him. It's either that or an overload of smug characters cracking up at I don't even know what because I have yet to hear a joke. I hear catchphrases, and I hear smugness. Liam Neeson, I expect more from you. C-

The Twilight Saga: Eclipse (2010)

I put nearly every thought I ever had about the story on the table in Book vs. Film: Eclipse, so I've decided not to go for anything in the way of a review here but just collect my stray observations instead.

Stray observations:

• Xavier Samuel as Riley might be the hottest vampire we've seen in the series. It's not that the others couldn't be hot (the actors underneath are); it's just that the movies seem committed to styling them in the least attractive way possible.
  
  
• He's also quite charismatic! Too bad Riley's a one book wonder.
  
  
• Remind me again why they replaced Rachelle Lefevre with Bryce Dallas Howard? I was previously under the impression that Howard had at least some acting ability. Does she just not get the character? Whatever, she's dead now (Victoria, that is).
  
  
• Oh, sweet fancy Moses, some one save me from all these close ups. I can't imagine what that was like in IMAX. OME! girls must have been thrilled.
  
  
• Intentional jokes! Billy Banks! Two great tastes that taste great together.
  
  
• What is with Von Pattinson's sideburns? Were they always this out of control?
  
  
• His eyelashes, on the other hand, are fabulous. I want that mascara.
  
  
• I've forgotten her name and IMDb doesn't list it, but the wigmaster is this movie's MVP. Bella's hair looks so lush and shiny!
  
  
• Has Nikki Reed lost 20 pounds or so? Not that I thought that she needed to lose the weight (because she didn't), but she looks decidedly thinner, particularly in the face, this time around. She looks good either way, just something I noticed.
  
  
• I think Kristen Stewart might have been a little worse this time around. I did not think she was all that concerned with Jacob going off to die. If Von Pattinson's default setting is "pained," then her's is "forgot how to breathe." I sort of think I like her as an actress, though, so I hope she pulls it together.
  
  
• Taylor Lautner's a sweet kid, but things I would not put him in charge of include wishing people were dead, threatening people with suicide, and use of the word "bro" (c.f. Humphrey, Dan).
  
  
• Man alive is Julia Jones (Leah) beautiful when she's not so angry. Which is exactly how Stephenie Meyer described her. Casting coup!
  
  
• Why are these olde tyme vampires so ugly?
  
  
• Em pointed out that Jackson Rathbone appears to be playing Nicholas Cage in Con Air and to a certain extent that's true, but there were also moments when genuine emotion broke through instead of ham mixed up with the accent, which makes me kind of sad for him over all. Also, why does he have different hair every time? And why are his contacts the exact same colour as his hair? He looks extra freaky!
  
  
• While I appreciated the attention to detail of giving the Cullens dark contacts at certain points in the movie to show that they need to hunt (and I'm pretty sure that these lined up with the novel), did anyone else find their golden eyes freaky this time around? Actually, you'd think that would be something the other students would gossip about: how come everyone in this adopted family has the exact same (non-human?) eye colour? You'd think some Cullens would wear contacts to blend in/mix it up.
  
  
• I bet Justin Chon's glad he showed up for his one line.
  
  
• When Carlisle and Billy shook hands, I was reminded of the time I was talking about Twilight the Movie with a co-worker, and she said that she thought that the adults' performances were better than the teens'. I started to say something like, "Well, of course, they're all better actors," but I ended up just confessing that I would totally watch a spin-off show about the dads. Picture it! Dr. Acula, Sheriff Swan, and wheelchair-bound Quileute Chief Billy Black? Admit it, that sounds totally cool.
  
  
• Re: the tent scene. Everyone was thinking, "Kiss! Kiss!" right? What is with these movies and how easy they make it to root for non-Bella and Edward coupling?
  
  
• I like how they left in imprinting but cut out the precedent-setting Quil-imprints-on-a-two-year-old stuff. Probably for the best.
  
  
• Or how pretty much everyone but Jacob imprints.
  
  
• Or how Edward likes to invade their wolf-base hive mind.
  
  
• Which later bites him in the ass when they all feel the pain of Jacob's attack.
  
  
• Ha.
  
  
• The Cullens wear matching outfits in the scene where they first try to catch Victoria. Oh goodness. Way to emphasize the fact that they are a cult.
  
  
• Seriously, what was the point of hiring Howard Shore? I'm not a huge Shore fan, but he's definitely done some cool stuff while working with David Cronenberg. They really need to get Carter Burwell back.
  
  
• I wasn't even much of a fan of Bella's lullaby, but now I kind of miss it. It's one of the two repeated elements in the books that pretty much doesn't exist in the movie (Edward's favouring of blue on Bella is the other).
  
  
• The soundtrack's a little better than New Moon but still not as rad as Twilight.
  
  
• How come no more Von Pattinson on either, come to think of it?
  
  
• I like how Seattle's vampire army wears a lot of flannel.
  
  
• Actually, there's a lot of plaid in this movie. What's with Bella and plaid?
  
  
• Dakota Fanning is good as Jane, but I miss Aro. Michael Sheen rocks.
  
  
• When the Cullens were just standing around waiting for the newborn army (seriously, they just stand there, I believe in matching outfits again), I wondered why they can't get poor Emmett a jacket that fits.
  
  
• Von Pattinson's chest hair is still in place. Check that chest hair on Peter Facinelli! And one of the other ones (Jackson Rathbone, I think)! The Cullen men are working it.
  
  
• Edward's graduation party outfit struck me as perfect. Actually, it was really only Alice who looked oddly dressed at that party, which is the exact opposite of how Alice should look.
  
  
• I sometimes forget that Edward, and all the vampires really, should look freaky and non-human in comparison to the rest of the cast, but I saw it here a few times in a good, not obviously undead way.
  
  
• I hate narration, so I'm glad they barely used, but it's even more distracting when used so sporadically. It sounds like something you keep forgetting to do and then suddenly throw in to say, "Oh, yeah! Narration!"
  

That's all I can think of right now, but I reserve the right to add more observations as they come back to me. Massive improvement over New Moon. Probably the best in the series. B

And if you're in need: A Guide to Recognizing Your Vampires

The Last Airbender (2010)

Hey, have you watched Avatar: The Last Airbender, the Nickelodeon cartoon series on which this movie is based? No? Me neither. Apparently that's a crying shame, but let me tell you something: maybe that shouldn't be the main criteria critics should use to judge the film.

Perhaps that's an odd sentiment coming from a purveyor of Book vs. Films, and I know I've hated on movies before because of how poorly I felt they represented the source material. I've also thought that I would have liked certain movies on their own merits if I hadn't already experienced the source.

In essence, I think that's what happened here. The story, at the very least, is cool: the earth is divided into eight kingdoms, north and south for each of the four elements: air, water, earth, and fire. Within these kingdoms, there are people who can "bend" or control their element (kind of like those kids on Captain Planet, only without the goofy heart stuff). To each generation an Avatar is born: a child who can bend all the elements and maintains the balance between the kingdoms and between the Earth and the spirit world.

About 100 years ago, the Avatar went missing, and the Fire people took over the planet, forcing benders into prison camps. The world's lived in topsy-turvy chaos ever since. Until now, that is, when a Southern Water Kingdom hunter (Jackson Rathbone) and his undisciplined bender sister (Nicola Peltz) find Aang (Noah Ringer)/the Avatar trapped in a bubble/suspended animation. When Aang realizes what happened when he shirked his duties, he sets out to complete his training and bring order back to the world.

Alright, so maybe I wouldn't have let writer/director/producer M. Night Shyamalan write his own adaptation. We don't need Dev Patel (with a credible American accent) to repeat his motivation every single time he's on screen. I promise to remember who he is. And maybe I would have looked a little harder before settling on Ringer for Aang. I know quality child actors are hard to come by, but this kid didn't bring it as the role requires.

All that said, I do think the movie looked cool (I gave up on 3D a few movies back, and I doubt this one is worth the extra money given that it was added after the fact), and I may have gotten a little misty eyed during the montages of the Earth people liberating themselves from their Fire overlords because apparently team work gets me right here. So what if it doesn't live up to the cartoon? It's good summer fun, and I'd much rather see it again than or The A-Team or Clash of the Titans. Isn't that enough? C+

I am going to have to watch the cartoon, though. There's no way this movie is going to do well enough at the box office to develop into a trilogy.

The Short Take: Neglect 2009 - Part V

Only four movies left. I think I just overheard someone recommend 2012.

Jennifer's Body (2009)

It's Jacob's favourite movie of the year, and you can actually see the Jacob-reality disconnect when you watch it. The ideas underneath are as powerful a statement as you can imagine about the nature of feminism and the role of sex in trying to present woman as person. Despite what others may tell you, Megan Fox is actually kind of awesome (or at least awfsome) in the this movie. She's well suited to the role, and she brings a lot of energy to it. So it's too bad that a) someone wants me to believe that Amanda Seyfried is plain and b) this movie does not have the courage of its convictions. The opening narration makes a stronger point than anything follows in the movie. At least Kyle Gallner continues to be amazing. Too bad he only seems to be in horror movies lately. D

Fame (2009)

It's always funny when you can compare newer movies to older movies and realize how much more ballsy people used to be. If not in subject matter, certainly in the things they would say to one another. Basically, it's a lackluster remake of a movie that was, despite its fluffiness, far braver the first time around. And I still like the original theme song better. C

Cirque du Freak: The Vampire's Assistant (2009)

Depending on your point of view, this was either a lackluster attempt to cash in on the current (and forever) vampire craze or delightful departure therefrom. While it's not a perfect movie, the relish with which John C. Reilly and Willem Dafoe approach their roles almost makes up for any deficiencies. Yes, it is obviously just a set up for a (yet to materialize) sequel. But it's cute and sweet, and the second act set at the camp is actually the movie's best. If I had to choose which Weitz brother vampire saga adaptation I'd rather watch again, it would be this one. C

Inglourious Basterds (2009)

I need someone to explain to me when and how I turned the corner on Quentin Tarantino. It's not like I didn't like him before just to be contrary. I have tried, several times over, to watch Pulp Fiction and the apparently underrated Jackie Brown. I have never successfully sat through either one once. But man, do I groove on Death Proof (though not the full director's cut) and now Inglourious Basterds. It seems weird to compare them, but I'll do it anyway: despite the massive, obvious differences, Basterds has got the same joyous, freewheelin' vibe and man on a mission plotting as Fantastic Mr. Fox. I bet a double bill, if you've got the stomach for both, would make for one helluva night. Though it's overly and unnecessarily long, it's also well-acted and well-plotted. Who knew revisionist history could be so fun? B+

Aside from a movie title-less Bytowne ticket stub from Sunday, January 10, thus concludes by 2009 clean up. Hurrah! On to the top 10.

The Short Take: Neglect 2009 - Part III

Dinner = eaten. Saved by the Bell = watched.

The Men Who Stare at Goats (2009)

The movie is overall too shaggy to amount to much, though it does deliver excellent doses of George Clooney, Jeff Bridges, Stephen Root, Stephen Lang, Robert Patrick, Glenn Morshower*, and Kevin Spacey. Yes, Ewan McGregor also in this movie, but his whole point is react like Clooney is kind of bananas and eventually sort of fall in love with him, i.e. to be the audience. It's not exactly demanding. But Clooney dancing or Spacey inducing a terrible trip? That's good stuff. B

*Has he graduated from Hey! It's That Guy! College? I see him in stuff all the time now.

2012 (2009)

2012 is a) bloated, b) so boring that I went to the bathroom for something to do, and c) ridiculous. I sort of love how cheesy it is. It hits absolutely every trope you could possibly think of and then floods them. People have a right to fight for their survival, Chiwetel Ejiofor? Against a worldwide deluge? Okay, we'll get right on that. I mean, John Cusack's son's name is Noah, for pity's sake. D

Gamer (2009)

Cool trailer, endlessly gross and terrible movie. Doesn't even have the good sense to let the bottom fall out and embrace how truly terrible it is. Michael C. Hall sure seemed to be having fun, though. D

Moon (2009)

It's funny that someone didn't think to multiply Sam Rockwell or make Kevin Spacey a disembodied voice sooner. Those are both exactly the right choices to make. It's not a perfect movie, but it's haunting and beautiful and occasionally very funny. It bodes well for Duncan Jones' career. B+

9 (2009)

A very cool looking movie that isn't that exciting to watch. Shane Acker expanded it from his award-winning short, but the story almost seems better suited to a graphic novel than a feature film. Both the philosophic arguments and pulse-pounding chases that make up the movie make for amusing diversions, but it culminates in a rickety finish. B

The Time Traveller's Wife (2009)

Read my Book vs. Film. Better yet, read the book.

The Soloist (2009)

I never thought of Robert Downey Jr. as an actor in need of direction, and I'm not entirely convinced that that's the problem here. His character is ill-defined, but I doubt we should lay that at the feet of Downey exclusively. I'd sooner say that the problem is director Joe Wright, specifically the relationship between Wright and the material. He also made the lush, passionate, tragic Atonement, so it's not like he can't direct. But he doesn't know what to do here. He puts Jamie Foxx in a room with real life afflicted people. He attempts to show make music looks/feels like to Nathaniel through colour. None of it sticks. I do like that the movie makes it clear that Steve can't ever "fix" Nathaniel, that things just aren't like that, but I'm not sure you should hang a movie about the relationship between a journalist and a schizophrenic musician on the strength of any one's narration even if it is Downey. C

Time to move to couch.

Avatar (2009)

Weighing in on Avatar is entirely unnecessary at this point, aside from saying that I've seen it. There: I saw it. I saw it in magnificent IMAX 3D, where the kid at the door gave me and my viewing companion glasses with different coloured arms than the people around us. Perhaps because they had to go over our regular glasses?

"Unnecessary" seems the best word to qualify much of writer-director-HMFIC James Cameron's approach to dialogue, characterization, and plot. We played a little game called "I've seen this movie already" and came up with The Last of the Mohicans, Pocahontas, and FernGully: The Last Rainforest. There's nothing surprising about what happens in the movie, nothing that isn't telegraphed well in advance, no character who comes close being as 3D as Pandora itself.

And that's fine, in its own way. Obviously a lot of though and work went into imaging this lush new moon, and it is truly awe inspiring from the seeds of the soul tree right on up to the floating mountain range. But it's also insanely, excessively long. I grew tired hearing Giovanni Ribsi whinging about unobtanium (legit science term though it might be), Sigourney Weaver demanding for cigarettes, or Stephen Lang war-mongering like he was on the verge of war-starvation (limit of one character trait per actor!), as well as James Horner's overblown score. To be honest, the movie would have been a lot better if we cut out almost all the human stuff and just watched the Na'vi (especially Zoe Saldana's fierce warrior poses) for an hour and a half. C+

The Lovely Bones (2009)

My Book vs. Film came out today, but it's not one of my long, detailed ones (phew?). It's more in line with Time Traveler's Wife, under a 1000 words because I have so little to say. When the credits rolled, I remarked to one of my viewing companions that I felt like I saw half a movie.

I wonder how I would feel if I wasn't familiar with and attached to the source material. I read it years ago during a period of unemployment when I was devouring books. Best of all, all I knew about the book was that it was popular and well liked by a handful of my peers. I knew nothing about the plot, and, since I'm not much of a book jacket reader either, I was completely surprised and shocked by what followed. Moreover, there are bits that have stuck with me over the years: Lindsey borrows something from Susie's closet to wear to the memorial service, but it was something that Susie had borrowed from her best friend Clarissa, who opens her mouth to say something but decides against it. There are other, more germane to the plot elements of the book that I remember as well (including the metaphysical WTF that appears late in the story), but things like that -- the details that don't need to be included -- are what make books memorable and reading worthwhile.

I mentioned in the book vs. film Mark Wahlberg's hyper-earnest performance, which is a drag, but not Stanley Tucci's, which is so over the top that I briefly wondered if it were a joke. To be honest, there's not a lot of sense and coherence behind the casting of the adult characters. Rachel Weisz is underused (I really feel like she could sell me on why Abigail leaves, but the movie doesn't give her a voice), and Grandma Lynn is so reduced that Susan Sarandon (great though she is) comes off as misplaced.

Saoirse Ronan, on the other hand, is so expressive and available as an actress that it's impossible to imagine anyone else in a role once she inhabits it. She's funny and beautiful as Susie, and you just want to give her a hug long before anything happens to her. If the entire movie were Ronan, the quietly strong Rose McIver, the sensitive Carolyn Dando, and the impossibly adorable Reece Ritchie, it might have been something. The rare moments of emotional impact (Susie's attack, Lindsey's break-in) are so few and far between and the rest of the movie so fussed over, that it doesn't live up to the promise of its star. C

Pop Culture Round Up: January 9 - 15

“Oh, I’m chasing this guy? No, he’s chasing me.” 34 essential uses of voiceover in film
Knowing my opinion of voiceovers, this list contains a few of my favourites.

U.K. Unveils First-Ever Double Prince Portrait!
So cute!

Marilyn Manson has proposed to his actress girlfriend Evan Rachel Wood
WTF? What happened the last summer's rumour that she was banging the Viking?

Watching TV shortens life span, study finds
I'm effed.

Spider-Man 4 Unravels as Franchise Moves On Without Tobey Maguire, Sam Raimi
At first I was annoyed, but I've started to come up with some pretty cool reboot ideas.

UseMyAccent Helps Actors Talk Like an Egyptian

Mystery at the Philharmonic: Who Was That Clarinetist?

Jeff Bridges's 10 greatest performances
Everyone's going to pick The Dude, but what about Seabiscuit?

Depp gets life-sized statue in Serbia

Anxious or sexually competitive? Try God

James Cameron rejects claims Avatar epic borrows from Russians' sci-fi novels
But what about Pocahontas?

Up in the Air (2009) and Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009)

I feel almost guilty about how much I dislike Up in the Air. I went into it initially thinking I might not like it, and perhaps that sent me down the wrong path. The performances are terrific, particularly Anna Kendrick, who was so funny in her one scene in New Moon, and now gets to chafe and struggle as a bright upstart confined by her work and her workplace. There's something about her you just want to love even when her character is maddening.

George Clooney and Vera Farminga are also lovely and positively glowing together. But this being co-writer and director Jason Reitman's third feature length film, I've noticed a pattern: Thank You for Smoking, Juno, and our current entry all have third act twists that don't line up with the movie that came before. There is one scene of foreshadowing, and poof! Massive character change! It's neither shocking nor realistic, so it ends up feeling empty. Change for change's sake, like someone in the editing room suddenly remembered that there should be a plot, and it should go somewhere.

There is the additional problem that -- and I know I'm going out on the limb here -- Clooney is miscast. He's not bad in the role in any way, so don't think that. He's great. It just that he's so convincingly satisfied with his life before his spiritual awakening, and his life is in no way made better after it that you are left with the feeling that maybe he was right all along. Maybe moving is living. Maybe this is a rebirth. Maybe . . . I don't know, exactly. The movie's ambiguous ending might just be the best part. B

It doesn't help that Wes Anderson's Fantastic Mr. Fox might just be the perfect deployment of Clooney. Three movies out this fall, and the one where he's an animated character from a Roald Dahl novel might be his best work ever. Somehow without the olde tyme good looks he's extra-charming, as well as vain, generous, loyal, cunning, smart, and sneaky. There's even a gentle waft of self-mockery. The whole thing just feels like so much fun.

Of course, it helps that the movie around him is so wonderful. The setting and colour palette might be autumnal, but the movie feels like a burst of refreshing springtime air. Anderson's fussy compositions get new life when filmed to deliberately resemble Rankin-Bass holiday specials (think Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer).

All the old Anderson cronies are there -- Owen Wilson, Jason Schwarztman, Bill Murray -- as well as delightful new voices like Meryl Streep's subdued take on Mrs. Fox. For a movie that had to be carefully fussed over to be created at all, Anderson achieves a magical sense of joy and freedom in his proceedings. Subsequent viewings may prove Fox his best film yet, but for now we'll have to agree that it's simply fantastic. A-

Zombieland (2009)

My review of Zombieland went live today over on (Cult)ure as part of Horror Week. Because it's a review and not whatever it is that I do here (or don't do here, given how little I've posted in the last year), there are things I left out. Nitpicky things, naturally; some spoilery things, and you know how spoiler adverse I am. But since that's the review and this is the blog, and since the movie came out almost a month ago, let's discuss those things here, shall we? Consider this the annotated review.

• Eventually they meet up with two resourceful sisters, Emma Stone and Abigail Breslin.

Stone and Breslin are both winning as a pair of grifters, although the fact that they were grifters was so obvious from the word "go" that I was a little surprised at how stupid Eisenberg and Harrelson would have to be to fall for it. Also, because Stone is hot and approximately Eisenberg's character's age, there's a romantic interest there. Harrelson's character alternatively encourages Eisenberg or obliviously cockblocks, which is funny either way. I found it hard to believe, however, that a man who has obviously been alone and celibate for several months wouldn't even notice an attractive, prospective partner. Not that I wanted to watch an Eisenberg-Stone-Harrelson love triangle or to see Harrelson get creepy on Stone, but still, a throwaway "I'd hit it" is all I ask in the name of realism. Yes, zombies = not real, but the best of these movies put believable characters in extraordinary circumstances.

• Though the narration is oppressive early in the film -- when Eisenberg is the only character on screen
  

By "oppressive," I mean damn near omnipresent. In the PC round up I just published this morning (again, whoops), I link to an AV Q&A entirely because of Steven Heisler's answer. The one cliché he would do away with? "Almost all narrators or voiceovers in films." Ah, a kindred. When you only have one character, do you really need a non-stop monologue to go with him? Do you think viewers are incapable of interpreting what they see? I recommend you watch the first seven minutes of season four of Supernatural, which were nearly dialogue free, entertaining, and even suspenseful.

• Eisenberg's performance consists largely of his best Michael Cera impersonation.

I feel kind of bad for Eisenberg as he's older than Cera and quite possibly invented that particular comic delivery (props Madison for pinpointing who Eisenberg reminded me of), and, while there is a small novelty of seeing someone other than Cera do it, it's started to wear thin for even him. Hope he finds some other hook.

• Harrelson makes a delightfully badass roughneck.

He's the ninja version of a roughneck. It's completely silly, but it also suggests that would make an excellent action hero in the John McClane mold (more ordinary guy than super agent).

• The movie derives a surprising amount of mileage from [Harrelson's] ingenious killing techniques.

What the movie does not do is explain why each killing implement is abandoned as soon as it is used. It's always distracting in movies and on TV shows when someone uses a weapon and promptly tosses it while running away since that all but guarantees that the weapon will be needed again. Obviously that's not the case here (zombies stay dead), but it's still distracting. It could be that the zombie blood will infect Harrelson, but that's never made clear enough to know the reasoning for certain.

• It's not the performances, however, that make the movie so good.

I specifically wrote this line because my editor initially added a line about how the performance made this movie good despite the thin plot. While he was right that the initial draft needed rewriting, he was wrong about that point. The performances are good -- the movie overall is well cast -- but that's not why it's so laugh out loud funny.

• It's the off-beat "rules" Eisenberg's invented for survival and particularly the movie's illustration of said rules.

No, seriously. Not only is the soccer mom running from little girl zombies, they're little girl zombies dressed as princesses. That shit is priceless. And, as you can see, unrelated to the performances of the main players. It's all about direction (including set and art direction) and writing here.

• First time feature director Ruben Fleischer owes a debt to Shaun of the Dead (which he sort of acknowledges)

Which he also sort of makes fun of in having Eisenberg explain not to be stingy with bullets (the double tap) by cracking that it's not a cricket bat. They had to improvise!

Nitpicky as I am, I enjoyed the hell out of this movie. It's funny as all get out, and, though I am not good with horror, I do love a good dose of GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORE! B+

The Short Take: 2008 Round Up

It's not 2008 anymore, I know, but I still have quite a few 2008 movies that I have yet to tell you about. It seems obvious at this point that they're not going to get full reviews. I still want to acknowledge them, though, so they get the paragraph treatment instead. Hurrah!

Blindness (2008)

Bearing in mind that Julianne Moore and Mark Ruffalo are pretty much always going to be good, this has to be one of the worst movies I have ever seen. A metaphor for the break down of communication in modern society, huh? How does that work, exactly? Let's go back to grade five and remember that a metaphor is a comparison not using like or as. So everyone loses their sight and only one seemingly ordinary woman (Moore) can still see but pretends to be blind in order to stay with her husband (Ruffalo). Okay . . . still waiting for someone to explain to me how the metaphor works. I'll give José Saramago the benefit of the doubt and guess that it works in the novel, but it doesn't come across in screenwriter Don McKellar and director Fernando Meirelles adaptation. Basically, this movie has an overlap of self-consciously arty crap (it's white blindness, so the theatre would occasionally fill with bright white light from the screen, which achieved nothing so much as taking the audience directly out of the film) and over attention to gritty details (people stopped using the washrooms and just used the hall, and not a single scene that involved walking down the hallway failed to include someone slipping in shit. I'd like to say points for continuity, but We. Get. It). We also got it when you stayed on the stray dog eating a dead person in the street for two minutes. Shut up, moive. D

Passchendaele (2008)

This movie had a lot going for it. The opening sequence was shocking. Then the movie zigged when you thought it would zag, taking you back to Alberta and focusing instead on an older officer (Paul Gross) wooing an emotionally unavailable younger nurse (Caroline Dhavernas). This part I liked. It was a little boring at times, but you could understand why he kept at it even as she pushed him away. But the movie's called Passchendaele, so you knew they had to get back to the front eventually. It was at this point, the third act, that the movie got bad. Out of nowhere, a small, well developed, character driven story became a sweeping war movie in the worst way. Now it was about CANADA, and CANADA deserves to have its story told. I'm not saying that that's not true; I'm saying that it didn't jive with what came before and was done in something of an embarrassing manner. Oh, well. I suppose writer-director-star Gross isn't perfect. C+

Zack and Miri Make a Porno (2008)

I'll just tell you how it is: I don't really get Kevin Smith. I don't dislike him or want him to come to any harm, but when I'm watching his movies, it's sort of a big meh. Part of it is that people just don't talk like that. Not in that Sorkin way where we wish we were all that erudite but in that "If I hear the words 'make love' or any derivation thereof one more time, I'm going to lose it" way. I don't believe that Zack would talk that way, and I wanted to stop such things from coming out of Seth Rogen's mouth. He's a good actor; they would sound ridiculous no matter what. And that's all it is, really: that two best friends would think making a porno is the best way to solve their financial crisis, that having sex could reveal deeper feelings, that it does, it's a workable premise. But then you throw all these other layers of shit (sometimes literal) on top of the thing, and it becomes shallow. There's humour there, but the fundamental lack of emotionality prevents the movie from ever being more than okay. B-

Changeling (2008)

Remember when Angelina Jolie got really skinny back in there? See this movie if you need a refresher. Not only does her collarbone practically cry out "feed me!", but all the veins in her hands stand out, giving her the effect of seeming fragile. Which is great when you are playing a character like Christine Collins. The trailer may give you the impression that this movie's about a lady looking for her lost son, but it's really about a lady learning to toughen up. She just also happens to be looking for her lost son. Jolie's great, but her out sized public persona prevents her from ever really disappearing into a role. It's hard to believe that she wouldn't start kicking some ass. John Malkovich is cast fantastically against type as Reverend Gustav Briegleb (I think you could get a solid short film out of him just saying that name), a firebrand so intent on taking down the corrupt police department that it's possible he only sees Christine as a means to an end. This, unfortunately, is all the nuance any character in the movie is allowed. Jeffrey Donovan, as the captain who gives Christine the wrong boy, gets all of fifteen seconds to register any doubt or remorse. No one else gets even that much. It gets the point where you want to tell the nice detective (Michael Kelly) to go easier on these kids. This just isn't it, Clint. C-

Australia (2008)

This not so much a movie as a child's fever dream of what an epic movie should be. It's bookended by a movie about the Stolen Generations, turns into a fish out of water love story about an Englishwoman (Nicole Kidman) who inherits a cattle farm in the outback and the Drover (Hugh Jackman) who helps her save the place from financial ruin, and then turns into a war drama. While there's plenty of material there, it's not convincingly much of any of these movies. Kidman's really got to stop doing whatever it is she's been doing to her face (woe is the day when I go back to The Others to discover that it was like that all along), Jackman's Jackman (he seems an affable, gregarious fellow, and you can pretty much take it or leave it with him), and they have some lovely friendship chemistry but not much else. And if I were Brandon Walters, he of that lovely mane, I would turn tail and run before I ever took on another Magic Aboriginal role like that again. A child who refers to his adoptive parents as Boss and Mrs. Boss? Where do we draw the line? For a man who has supposedly left his red curtain trilogy behind, Baz Luhrmann is awfully fixated on a literal swinging one. It's pretty, but there's not much else to this one. C

Forgetting Sarah Marshall (2008)

I've said it before, but it bears repeating: one of the problems rom-coms is the tendency to demonize the love interest the audience shouldn't want the lead to end up, and this problem tends to be ratcheted up when said love interest is a woman. So you can imagine my surprise writer and star Jason Segel remembered happy, funny times with his eponymous ex (Kristen Bell) and even allowed her valid points about the difficulties in their relationships (I'd balk at someone wearing the same sweatpants everyday for a week, too). When he starts to remember the downsides to their relationship (a montage of events where he stood back and held her purse, for one), it feels earned and as natural as it would in any break up. Everyone knows from the outset that he'll end up with the lovely Mila Kunis, but it's a pleasant surprise that Bell feels like a contender. At least until a couple of reveals undo all that nice work, but you'll forgive the movie it's only real misstep. It's still got hilarious turns from Russell Brand and Kenneth the Page, after all, and you totally would go see a Dracula puppet musical. A-

Made of Honor (2008)

I watched this as a double bill with Marshall, and, while it's the worse both by comparison and in point of fact, it's not as bad as you might think. It is what you think, a sex-reversed My Best Friend's Wedding, and the sex reversal guarantees an ending reversal as well. Because I stopped watching Grey's Anatomy several seasons back, I'm free to find Patrick Dempsey, all floppy hair and twinkling blue eyes, charming again (Fun fact: I started watching Grey's for Dempsey, kind of like how I started watching House for Robert Sean Leonard. There are a handful of early 90s movies that mean a lot to me, okay?). I like Michelle Monaghan as well, and they are pretty cute together. Nothing about this movie is fresh or interesting, but sometimes being middling isn't the worst thing in the world. C

Tell No One (2006)

It's all in the tagline: "8 years ago, Alex's wife was murdered. Today, she emailed him." This French thriller, adapted by writer-director Guillaume Canet from the novel by American Harlan Coben, is exactly as exciting as you find that premise. At the very least, it's mildly intriguing, right? François Cluzet goes on the hunt for the truth about his wife's murder, loosening the foundations of several people's lives in the process. Though neither the direction nor the writing are perfect (particularly egregious is the music video early on that disrupts the flow of the movie), Cluzet is fantastic as the still grieving widower, and Kristin Scott Thomas (perhaps practicing her French for I've loved you so long) is particularly welcome as his only supportive friend. Having never read the novel, I can't speak to the adaptation, but, as a movie, it's pretty good. B

Stop-Loss (2008)

While I'm certain that there's a story to be told about soldiers who get stop-lossed (that is, called back to duty just when they are set to be discharge based on the needs of the service) and Kimberly Pierce may even be the director to do it, Ryan Phillippe and Abbie Cornish aren't the actors for it. Cornish's attempts at an American accent and her man voice do nothing to alievate her lack of affect, and Phillippe's never been the most expressive actor (although he does seem the right type to solider). Perhaps subing out Phillippe for Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who handles the film's most compelling plot with the aplomb we've come to expect, would have produced better results. Aside from her imperfect leads, Pierce's film tends toward the obvious, but it's also smart, patriotic, and occasionally quietly moving (the digital collages made by the soldiers themselves are perhaps the movie's pinnacle). B+

Kung Fu Panda (2008)

I probably wouldn't have seen this at all if we weren't already at the theatre and all in the mood to see another movie, but there you have it. What all the celebrity voices bring to the table I couldn't tell you (will a six year old even recognize Jolie, much less David Cross?), but it's fun and funny, necessary components for any worthwhile kids' flick, as well as beautiful to look at, smart, and just a little smart-mouthed. It's got a simple message (boiled down, you could call it "be yourself") that it handles with a fair amount of subtlety. In short, if your niece or nephew wants to rent it, you could do worse. A lot worse. A-

Drillbit Taylor (2008) could be one of those worse things. My hopes were briefly raised after my nephew put it on when I saw both Stephen Root and Danny R. McBride's names go by, but they petered out shortly thereafter. They scored their sole laugh from me in a cameo from Adam Baldwin that surely went over every head but my mother's. There's just something unfunny and downright creepy about a homeless man who tries to swill abused teens out of their money. It could be darkly funny, but the movie doesn't set that tone, and it's all downhill from there. C

Milk (2008)

Premise: Harvey Milk (Sean Penn) leaves New York with his boyfriend Scott Smith (James Franco) for San Francisco. He opens a small camera shop on Castro. Little by little, he becomes more political involved, fighting for gay rights in the city. Eventually, he wins a seat on city's Board of Supervisors, making him the first openly gay politician in America.

I think I might see this again.

Is there a word for the movie version of a memoir? You know how the movie version (not adaptation, mind) of a biography is a biopic? What's the word when it's just a memoir? I sense a linguistic gap here.

I love that director Gus Van Sant and writer Dustin Lance Black chose to focus on less than a decade of Milk's life. We don't need to know what Ma and Pa Milk were like. All we need to know is what got Milk to San Francisco and what happened once he got there. That's the story: the Mayor of Castroville. He picks up Scott in the subway, he offers to show him New York's gay scene (which bars to hit, which bars to avoid). Scott tells him to quit living in the closet, and -- just like that -- he does.

If you're not already a little in love with Harvey and with Harvey and Scott together by that point, I don't know what to do with you. There's something so sweet and innocent and daring about a man who can look at his life at 40, thinking nothing of it, and decide to do something about that. All of that comes across in Penn's full-bodied performance. As good as he is, for years we have been suffering under the weight of his Big Performances, all mannered and brooding, full of actorly tics. When he breaks free of that, allowing himself to childlike, passionate, and, yes, gay, Penn gives us the performance we never realized we were waiting for all along. It's exactly who he was always meant to play.

Everyone else seems equally well cast from the dedicated but tenuous Franco as Scott to Diego Luna as Latino drama queen Jack Lira to Alison Pill as Milk's tough as nails lesbian campaign manager Anne Kronenberg. The scenes in their ramshackle campaign office (Milk's camera store, which was never much of a store to begin with) flow like quicksilver, and it's hard not to get caught up in the heady rush of just trying to make a change. But then they do (finally, finally), and we run smack into Dan White (Josh Brolin).

Brolin's been a revelation in the last year or two (Goonies never say die), and he's another walking miracle here. He takes White's little boy haircut and carries it right on down into every element of his performance: an easily angered young man who tried to steadfastly hold on to tradition when the tide decidedly turned against him. It's the kind of thing that would be noble if it weren't so evil.

All that, and it was actually Emil Hirsch's big hair, big glasses, and adorable little twink walk that captured my attention. Cleve Jones must be a force of nature.

The combination of Van Sant and Black is a special gift: in the midst of telling this deeply person-specific story, they find time for sympathy for White and room to develop the minor characters. Most of all, they make narration seem not only necessary but also right. It's Harvey's story. Why shouldn't he be the one to tell it? A-

Vicky Cristina Barcelona (2008)

Brief: Two friends, Vicky (Rebecca Hall) and Cristina (Scarlett Johansson), are invited by Vicky's aunt (Patricia Clarkson) to spend the summer in Barcelona. There they meet Juan Antonio (Javier Bardem), a painter who takes an instant liking to them. The return of Juan Antonio's ex-wife, Maria Elena (Penélope Cruz), complicates matters.

There's been a lot of talk about how if this movie had come out before Match Point, it would have been heralded as writer-director Woody Allen's return to form and that one would have been considered the retread. I'm not sure I agree. For one, I'm not sure that there is such a thing as a "return to form" for Allen. I've been operating under the assumption that there is no form, or at least no one form, for him. For two, I didn't see the classics first. I saw movies like Everyone Says I Love You and Small Time Crooks long before I ever set eyes on something like Manhattan, so my view of what makes a Woody Allen movie a Woody Allen movie is somewhat skewed. That said, while I may not know whether this movie is more or less Woody Allen (whatever that means) than Point, I do know that I don't think this movie is better than the former.

There are some good points, though, chief among them Bardem and Cruz. I read in an interview with Allen that Barcelona could have been pretty much any city, and that Barcelona happened to work* (I guess that means that we have cinematographer Javier Aguirresarobe to thank for the architecture porn). I wonder whether Vicky Cristina Rome really would have been the same. What Italian actors would he have found that would have brought the star wattage and sex appeal that those two bring? Bardem's devilish matter of fact delivery saves a number of clunkers (why so literal, Allen?), and Cruz's manic combination of comedy, sensuality, and pathos keeps the scenes buoyant. I think I may have turned the corner on Cruz. This is by far her best English language performance.

I think I may have turned the corner on Johansson as well. I think I'm over her. There came a moment late in the film where Johansson didn't quite gel for me, and I wasn't sure if the problem was that Cristina, acting, didn't sell it, or Johansson, actor, didn't sell it, or if it was a combination of the two. The fact that I can't tell the difference is problematic. It's easy enough to apply narration over a silent Vicky that makes her seem more complex (the problem was never that I thought that her portrayer was empty-headed), but that can only take you so far. It's up to Johansson to go the rest of the way, and I don't think she does.

Yes, narration. I realize that I've got a well documented mental block when it comes to narration, and I doubt I am going to ease up on that anytime soon. It works well enough when Allen wants to drop in bits of exposition without having to stick any unsightly dialogue in his characters' mouths, and there is one scene where we honestly wouldn't have known that a mistake was being made unless someone told us. Okay, I was going to expand that to "scenes," but then I thought of something that he could have shown us that would have done away with the need for narration and, in doing so, thought of a later scene that does away with even the narration in the one scene where I originally thought it necessary. So, good for exposition in this case and not much else.

I realize I have yet to say anything about Hall, and I have been remiss in doing so. Though the American accent trips her up little bit, everything else she is doing (her mannerisms, her body language: there's an excellent kinesthetic sense that Hall brings to Cristina) is spot on. I definitely want to see more of her.

The sun-dappled vistas are a nice contrast with the pessimistic view of love that Allen presents here. It may not be all it could be, but it is very good. B+

*Then I stopped reading, as it seemed to be a spoiler heavy interview.

Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (2005)

Premise: After a small time heist goes wrong, Harry (Robert Downey Jr.) accidentally stumbles into an audition and gets shipped out to L.A. to screen test for a movie about a heist gone wrong. His producer (Larry Miller) hooks Harry up with Perry (Val Kilmer) for some detective lessons. Then the bodies start piling up, and Harry's childhood crush (Michelle Monaghan) shows up in need of a real detective.

I realize that I am a little late to this party. I recall positive reviews when this movie was released November 2005, but I don't remember what stopped me from seeing it at the time. I just skipped through my archives for that month, and I can see only one real distraction. Maybe no one else was interested? Maybe it didn't open here? Actually, that's a distinct possibility.

And why haven't I see it since? Dunno, really. I have a feeling that I forgot all about it. Then Iron Man kindly reminded me that I love Downey Jr., and Scott Tobias did his part, reminding me that this movie exists and that I should see it. So I did. I didn't Zip it and wait for the next few years for it to arrive. I walked down to the video station, directly to the Ks, and picked it up.

Thank goodness I did. I can't believe I've been going through the last few years without ending conversations with, "What do I know? I suck the heads off fish!"

I can't believe I haven't been enjoying Kilmer and Downey in concert this whole time. Harry pretty much spends the entire movie freaking out and trying to seem like he is not freaking out. This is fun enough to begin with, thanks to Downey, but it's downright hilarious as he becomes more and more accustomed to his new, bullet riddled life. It's the kind of character and performance that could only, it has been shown, be balanced by Kilmer as Gay Perry (just go with it). Although he is smart and sarcastic, there's an extent to which Perry never gives you the full story, and he never will, so you just have to take everything he says at face value. It's oddly freeing.

Naturally I have to thank former golden boy writer and first time director Shane Black for all of this. Where would we be without him? No one does action buddy comedies better, and it turns out that we really did need his barbed, meta-take on his own experiences in the genre. It's insider-y without going too far down the rabbit hole, but it's greatest success is the way that, even when you are provided with a somewhat unreliable narrator, you are still expected to keep up and follow along. It's a nice change.

Also, props to John Ottoman's sleek, playful score, and to whoever I have to thank for the animated opening sequence. A

The Short Take: the unexpected edition

Live Free or Die Hard (2007)

Perfect St. Valentine's Day movie: heavy on the explosions and eye candy, light on pretty much everything else. It's delightful popcorn fare that offers little besides Timothy Olyphant's steamy good looks and Bruce Willis and Justin Long getting into silly tiffs. It's everything you want in an action movie. B

Definitely, Maybe (2008)

I think this movie may even been slightly worse than I was anticipating. At least I know that Abigail Breslin's mom isn't dead or out of the picture. In the face of her parents' pending divorce and as the result of her first sex ed class, Maya asks her dad (Ryan Reynolds) how it came to pass that her parents got married and had a child. For reasons that only make sense in as much as they are necessary for the plot to occur, her dad opts to tell her the overlapping story of the three most significant romantic relationships in his adult life and let her figure out which one he ended up marrying. During this time he tells her terrible things about her mom (like how she cheated on him), about himself, and convinces her that he was secretly in love with another woman all along. Aside from a teary-eyed moment, this apparently has no lasting damage on the poor child's psyche. Too bad the entire movie wasn't about Kevin Kline's character. That I'd like to see. C

Being Julia (2004)

This has to be one of the most charming movies I've seen in a long while, and Annette Bening's breathtaking performance as an British stage actress taken in by young American man makes it all the more frustrating that she just can't beat Hilary Swank. I love seeing a woman scorned come out on top. Between Bening and Jeremy Iron's giggling make up scene and Bening's final drink, you pretty much want to pull up a seat and have a beer with her. Plus it's got Bruce Greenwood and Michael Gambon as a ghost. Who can argue with that? A-

The Dreamers (2003)

If I never see this movie again, it will be too soon. It's not that it's that bad, really, but, like The Other Boleyn Girl, it can never seem to make up its mind as to what it wants to be. Why have Matthew (Michael Pitt) narrate much of the story only to show scenes of which he has no knowledge? It's weird sticking point, I know, but it can be easily rectified by not putting so much emphasis on Matthew, Protagonist. The best part of his narration (and his character for that matter) are the monstrously idiotic things he says, and how believable it is that this 20 year old American in 1968 Paris would say or think such stupid things. Even better than that is Eva Green playing Isabelle as a deranged child instead of an adult. If only the movie could stop being so gross and start being as cool as it seems while "Hey Joe" plays over the DVD menu. C

Undertow (2004)

I could not for the life of me figure out why I rented this one not even after I watched the trailer. Do I really like Jamie Bell enough to seek out his movies? That would mean that I have to go see Jumper, so I am guessing not. Having seen it, the only thing I can figure is that a) I read a positive review somewhere (perhaps claiming that it is underrated?) or b) I wanted to hear Philip Glass' sparse and sadly underused score. Director and co-writer David Gordon Green's feature has a groggy, underwater quality to it that draws you in, but it also makes it difficult to connect with the story at large. It focuses on familial overreactions that could benefit from a little more background and exposition. On the other hand, the scene with Dermot Mulroney telling the story of the gold coins has a lasting quality far beyond the rest of the movie. B-