In Good Company (2004)

There's nothing like a good RE-view to get me through my days. Of course, you could easily title today's post "April's Adventures in Pay Per View."

Normally I don't spend money on PPV, especially since I have a steady supply of DVDs from Zip.ca. Of course, two things have encouraged a recent "spending" spree with my remote:

1) I get $50 dollars of free PPV movies/events (that's about ten movies worth) with the set up of my new Star Choice system.

2) I've started getting DVDs that I don't exactly remember when I put them on my Zip list or why/I no longer want to watch them. Mind you, I edit my list everyone once and awhile to avoid this problem, but at 157 titles - and that's just today's count - some still fall through the cracks.

Sadly, this is how I end up wasting time on things like National Treasure or Birth (scroll down).

So you can imagine my pleasure when something light and delightful falls across my path. Hurrah!

Very quickly for the new/extremely slow: There are no holds barred in a RE-view. None. Whatsoever.

I just re-read my initial review, which you should to do too, and I noticed that I missed a couple of things.

1) Topher Grace (Carter) plays his character in this movie, and, while I thought before that it was better than p.s., I think rewatching the latter movie will soon reveal that it should be the other way around. See, there's this thing Grace does, and I think he does it better than anyone. His character is this overly confident goofball who manages to also be lovable because all that confidence is a front for a very deep well of insecurity which all the bluster in the world never quite manages to cover. Whoa, that's a long sentence. Just listen/watch to him deliver a one-liner, and you'll hear/see exactly what I mean.

Okay, I appear to have only missed one thing. I found Scarlett Johansson's character just as annoying this time around, although it was really obvious that Alex intended to break up with Carter at the exact lunch that Dan (Dennis Quaid) and his fists show up at. Not that I think it was right for her to carry on behind her dad's back. Also, I think she's right that Carter isn't really in love with her.

Still . . . Carter rocks! He's too good for you, anyway.

Oh, I remember the second thing now. I never mentioned the soundtrack before, which I really enjoy and recommend. It's filled with artists I have fallen in love with on other soundtracks: Iron & Wine and The Shins via Garden State, Damien Rice via Closer, and Peter Gabriel's Salisbury Hill via Big Fish.

Weitz lost me toward the end with having Quaid switch to endless sermonizing. I get it - you are against giant multinational conglomerates. Good for you. Now stop talking.

Not that his last scenes with Grace aren't sweet. Aw.

Original assessment: B+. Good call, me.

Bewitched (2005)

Short: A washed up actor, Jack Wyatt (Will Ferrell) gets a second chance with a television remake of the sixties sitcom, Bewitched. Thinking it will make him look better, Jack pushes for the show to be centered around Darren and casts unknown Isabel Bigelow (Nicole Kidman) as witch-married -to-mortal Samantha. Also unknown to Jack is the fact that Isabel is a real witch.

April is stuck once again in a bit of a crappy movie rut. Life's just tough like that sometimes. Especially when you consider the fact that I do nothing five days a week, you would think I could just get out of it. But it's never that simple, is it?

Also, in my defense, 2005 is no 2004. By the end of June last year, I had reviewed six films that I had seen in theatres, four of which I thought were pretty good. Now I only think two were good, but that's hardly the point. This year, five movies in the same time period, two of which were good. They'll still be good by this time next year, though.

I have a million things to say about this movie, but none are all that flattering. I'll try to keep most of them to myself.

The impeccably coifed and clad Kidman proved her self a sharp comedienne in Moulin Rouge, but Nora Ephron (director and co-writer) wastes those talents. Kidman isn't even playing a character in this movie - she's playing a mix-match of an actual 60s TV housewife and Meg Ryan in earlier, more enjoyable Nora Ephron comedies. What gives? Kidman throws herself fearlessly into her other screen roles, but I don't know what she was thinking here.

Ferrell, and I don't want to give away too much about myself here, can pull laughs out of thin air, but even he can't save this disaster.

The problem you may wonder? Well, it's a pretty cute premise. It it holds water for the first act. The further you get into the movie, though, the worse it gets. Why, oh why, oh why, has Ephron and her sister Delia written a heroine who is so ridiculous? Why in the world does Isabel want to be with this man? Why is she a throw back to pre-Second Wave 1950s housewives? I found myself looking around at all the younger girls than I there and praying that they never look to Kidman as a role model because of this film.

And then they had the fantastic Shirley MacLaine as Iris/Endora resort to magic to hold onto the womanizing Michael Caine. Don't you see, ladies? Men are evil pigs, so the best you can do is hope to manipulate them through deception!

Don't get me wrong, I still laughed. Emily and I laughed a fair deal more than everyone else there. I was in hysterics when Jack was interviewed by James Lipton as a nod to Ferrell's hilarious James Lipton impersonation from SNL.

Even so, the film fell flat and nothing could be done to revive it. So it goes. C-

There was one redeeming factor, though. I got the see the Rent trailer before the movie. That's right, my friends, the trailer. Get excited. Get very, very excited.

It's the DVD cover!

A Gentleman's Game (2001)

I'm sure you had that figured out by now anyway.

Outline: One summer, Timmy Price (Mason Gamble) decides to take up golf, and his dad (Dylan Baker) decides that he would learn a lot more about the game and Fox Chase (their golf/country club) by caddying. Timmy demonstrates an excellent swing, so a respected club member (Philip Baker Hall) recommends Timmy take lessons from Foster Pearse (Gary Sinise), an one-time amateur champion turned horticulturalist.

If you think that there's something very strange and circular going on with all the F's and P's in the names of people and places, you're not wrong.

This, my friends, is a quiet movie. A quiet movie can only be viewed in a certain state of mind, and it is often an acquired taste. A quiet movie has a few points, makes them, and moves on without bothering itself about what kind of impact it will make. I have half a mind to compare this movie to the game of golf itself, but I really have no idea, having never played myself. A putt-putt movie, on the other hand, I'd be all over that.

I'd like to say good things about this movie or to say bad, but it's all relative in this case. The plot's your garden variety adults-learn-from-the-lessons-of-children with a little this-is-too-heavy-for-kids coming of age business mixed in for good measure, but it's nothing you've never seen before. Co-writers J. Mills Goodloe (who also directed) and Tom Coyne (who wrote the novel) seem to disregard the obviousness of their storyline to concentrate on the individual scenes instead. Naturally I liked that idea.

They also assembled a handy team. Sinise is the ultimate in the "actors who just act the hell out of everything they are in" category. Heck, he's the reason it exists. I've never seen him in anything where I felt he was out of his element.

Gamble's probably got a nice future ahead of him in movie's. I've only seen him in Gattaca and Rushmore, and you know how I feel about those movies. What can I say? Gamble seems to already be taking a page from Sinise's book, and that's not a bad way to go.

The movie probably could have done better if it hadn't been held back by an R rating, but I can see why they gave it one. It also adds to the bittersweet quality of the picture - Timmy must learn who he can look up to and for what reasons, and that's never fun as a kid.

Of course, if you really want to learn about a boy growing into adolescence when he already thinks he's got it figured out, you're better off reading Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. C+

Later Bale

Batman Begins (2005)

Premise: After his parents' murders, Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) travels to the ends of the earth to understand the criminal mind. In Northern China, Wayne is released from prison by Henri Ducard (Liam Neeson) and Ra's Al Ghul (Ken Watanabe), who train him and teach him to channel his energies. Later, Wayne returns to Gotham to fight injustice and restore the city.

Or, to quote whomever at IMDB, "The story of how Bruce Wayne became what he was destined to be, Batman."

Quite possibly, for the first time ever, I am more giddy about a movie after I've seen it than I was in anticipating it. I know that sounds bizarre, but you'll see what I mean.

After about a year of anticipation, it's finally here. The movie that is supposed to reinvigorate the franchise after a slow and painful death. The movie that is to provide a shot of imagination that had only existed with the delightful Tim Burton at the helm.

Oh, what to say, what to say. I joyously pronounce this fifth installment the best of them all. The best!

With Christopher Nolan, master of tension, co-writing and directing, I was both eager and anxious. Eager because I know how expertly Nolan can pace a movie, how telling his shots can be, how provocative every frame of his work is. Anxious because I was wary of him possibly selling out all those things and more with a bigger budget at his disposal. Also, how would a pitch perfect thriller director handle an action movie/comic book adaptation?

My anxiety was completely quieted in the first act. Nolan is a force to be reckoned with, Hollywood. His Batman was as sleek and stylish as a matinee idol but with the polish and grace of a true box office star. Nolan's interpretation of the story held true to the Bob Kane original with the kind of embellishments that demonstrated his respect for the subject. Nolan and David S. Goyer's (co-writer) Batman didn't just pay lip service to his chilling past, he embodied it. They had my chin trembling (take that, Claire!) on at least three separate occasions in the first twenty minutes.

Also, the story throws its familiarity out the window by presenting as many as three timelines simultaneously. Even though a lot of the in-between of Wayne's life (i.e. between the murders and Batman) is new for this version, I really felt like it explained a lot. Wayne is too literal (occasionally with hilarious results)! Of course he's a ninja! And of course that other's guy's not.

And to my especial delight Wayne's enemies were not necessarily the same as Batman's. I truly appreciated watching him fight battles on all sides.

The thanks goes, in large part, to the brilliantly cast Bale, using two accents of instead of his usual completely new one. I recently added Bale to my list of actors who just act the hell out of everything they're in, and he has once again proven no exception. Bale powerfully played the way Wayne's patrician upbringing and totally disillusionment in adulthood would result in his self-tortured soul. Wayne is a man searching for the meaning he lost at so young an age and is completely unable to accept it until he can find it in himself, until he can find his own forgiveness. Only Bale's quiet and rage fuelled performance could lead me to all these conclusions.


Neeson and Bale

Of course, there are no slackers in the supporting cast, and you're often distracted by spotting other Nolan alums. Neeson's one goal is to steal every scene he's in, turning in a deviously paternal performance. Michael Caine as the new Alfred is never short of a one-liner, a teary-eyed remembrance, or a harsh glare exactly when Wayne needs them. Gary Oldman proves once again that he is not only the man of a thousand faces but also a thousand characters as the not-quiet-yet Commissioner Gordon. Cillian Murphy rocks his mad scientist villain, his American accent, and he rocked his glasses hardest of all. Morgan Freeman has fun as Lucius Fox, as Wayne Enterprises' answer to Q. Tom Wilkinson works it as an improbably cast Italian Mafioso. Rutger Hauer proves wonderfully underhanded, if none too bright, as Earle, the CEO of Wayne Enterprises.

My only regret is the tacked-on romantic subplot with the unfortunate Katie Holmes. Although I despise that show that launched her, she has done some work that I have enjoyed. Here, however, she exists solely to annoy me. A more credible actress could have made this tedious plot contrivance work to her advantage, but all Holmes did was fail to act appropriately frightened.

Clocking in at 141 mins, I can honestly tell you that it didn't feel anywhere near that long. I knew that it had to be, but I still felt like I could have kept watching.

As another plus, I have always believed that Gotham more aesthetically resembled Chicago than the Big Apple it is more frequently likened to. I found it immensely gratifying that some of the film was shot on location in Chicago and none of it in New York.

Nolan and Bale have captivated me separately more than once. Together, they should prove an unbeatable combination.

I know that you are sitting here waiting for my seemingly inevitable A+. But you are mistaken, gentle reader. And that's where my giddiness comes in. That's why I'm bouncing in my chair, rubbing my hands together with glee. That's why I was concerned that a day later, I still shouldn't be writing this review because I haven't quite absorbed the whole thing. All the pieces, you see, were there, but it still hasn't come together. It's forced me to anticipate a sequel, if you can imagine, that will be better than the first. So, for now, A.

Being There (1979) and Birth (2004)

Plot 1: After the death of his employer, Chance the Gardener (Peter Sellers) is turned out of the estate, which he has never left before. Through series of happy accidents, he falls in with a wealthy family (Shirley Maclaine and Melvyn Douglas) and gains the ear of the president (Jack Warden).

Plot 2: At her engagement party, Anna (Nicole Kidman) is approached by 10 year old boy, Sean (Cameron Bright), who claims to be Anna's dead husband.

No pictures today, folks. These movies aren't worth the effort.

Inspired by two recent contests on Slate, I finally found a way I can blog about these two movies. Here goes.

Have you ever been so thrown off by the premise of a movie that you can't possibly buy a single thing that follows? As a dutiful movie goer, I've swallowed down many an questionable pill to make it through an otherwise palatable movie. I've also suspended my disbelief when the films were premised around something as bizarre as a six foot talking rabbit.

But these two films pushed my limits. Both came highly recommended by two very different sources, so I gave them each a go. I shouldn't have.

Forget about what happens to Chance after he leaves the estate because it didn't matter to me one bit. The trailer tells me that Louise (Ruth Attaway), the housekeeper, is the only person Chance has ever known besides the old man. She raised him, she didn't teach him how to read and write, she cooked his meals, she did his laundry, she somehow instilled the virtues of gardening in him.

So how I can be reasonably expected to believe that Louise would simply leave Chance at the estate to fend for himself? She just leaves him there. "I'm going to leave now, Chance," she says, and she does! What is that? What does she think is going to happen to him?

After this happened, I could barely tolerate sitting through the rest of this off-kilter comedy. I just kept waiting for Louise to realize how stupid, selfish, and cruel she was being and come back for Chance, but she never does. Sorry, but nothing on this earth could make me get into this movie after something so implausible occurred.

The second equally unreasonable premise is easier to sum up: She believes him. Anna tries to deny it, but she believes Sean as soon as he opens his little mouth.

To which I say, are you kidding? I could have gotten into it if she was all, "You're a crazy kid!" from the get-go but then Sean won her over, but this? WTF, mates?

Also, Anne Heche with long brown hair threw me off a bit, too. Not as much, though.

I suppose I should give both these movies a rating since I watched them all the way through. I can't. I didn't believe anything about them because I couldn't see my way through the first twenty minutes of either one. I had a complete disconnect from the movies from the word go.

Feel free to throw out any movies with implausible premises that you couldn't deal with either.

Redford and Dafoe

The Clearing (2004)

Short: Executive Wayne Hayes (Robert Redford) is kidnapped by ex-employee Arnold Mack (Willem Dafoe), who demands a $10 million ransom from Wayne's wife, Eileen (Helen Mirren).

And that's what happens. Sounds pretty exciting, right? Three talented leads with an interesting premise to work with.

It is, unfortunately, complete forgettable. Within an hour of watching it, I recommended it to my then roomie Eileen. A day later, I couldn't remember why I wanted her to see it. Regardless of my short term memory flaws, movies tend to stick with me. In such a case as this, The Clearing had absolutely no staying power.

I can't pin point the reason why, but Justin Haythe's screenplay and Pieter Jan Brugge's direction are just so boring. Wayne and Arnold's story is intercut with Eileen's story. Eileen's story, however, takes place over a few days while Wayne's is merely one day. This device should have added to the tension, but it just made it all the more confusing.

Also, much was made in the initial reviews about the "psychic connection" between Wayne and Eileen, which manifested itself not the least bit in my viewing.

Plus the trailer has a scene from nearly the end of the movie, so I found myself impatiently waiting for that one scene to somehow fit into this mess.

I've been sitting here wrinkling up my nose at the screen, trying to find something in particular to talk about with this movie. But nothing exists! It's almost as though there is no movie because of the way it only exists in shadows in my memory. C-

Lovely Clive

As I said I would, a very special shout-out goes to the person who could told me where to find The Hire on-line. This one's for you, Pierre Belanger.

Premise: I'm not going to sit here and type out premises to all eight shorts, but there is a general plot to them all. The Driver (Clive Owen) is hired, and he internationally chauffeurs various celebs around through helicopter and machine gun fuelled car chases.

Okay, there aren't helicopters every time.

Last night, my professor put the final nail in the coffin of my dislike for his grandstanding ways by showing us Ticker and leading quite the involved discussion about whether and how this advertising method works.

One girl pointed out that producing these short films (all under 10 minutes) allows BMW to attract bigger names like Owen, Don Cheadle, F. Murray Abraham, Dennis Haysbert, and Ray Liotta (all in Ticker alone) as well as directors like Tony Scott, Guy Ritchie, John Woo, and Ang Lee. Okay, she really didn't know half those names, but she caught Ridley Scott as a producer and Owen, so bully for her.

Of course, if the girl had done her homework (not that we were assigned homework about BMW Films), she wouldn't have bothered opening her mouth with stupid points like this one. Although we know my love for Clive began some time ago, it wasn't really until Closer that he became a household name. The shorts started long before that movie.

In fact, BMW approached Owen after Croupier, which no one saw. Well, lots of people saw it, but it took forever to turn a decent profit in the box office. It did, however, turn the industry's eye to Owen, and BMW snapped him up before he commanded astronomical salaries and the fantasies of women worldwide.

As for the directors, I've already turned my eye to the startling number of major players at the helm of TV spots, which are shorter and vastly different than The Hire.

Some theorists argue that television shows are built solely to showcase commercials. Outside of TiVo and PVR, they say, you have to watch the commercials in order to get the content you want. So why would BMW place their ads solely on the internet, away from your TV and annoying pop-ups?

BMW says that 85% of their purchases are researched on the internet before hand. A guy in my class pointed out that the shorts don't tell you anything about the car you are seeing. He's right - you are free from seeing a car drive across the desert/salt flat/deserted highway/empty city while a voice over tells you all about the command seating or five-star crash rating or whatever minor improvement a given car company happens to be touting at this moment. No one ever references the car, never mind the make or model.

So you have to go the website to download or stream the shorts, and they still won't try to sell you on the benefits of the Z3. Hmmm. . .

BMW isn't selling a car at all. Commercials sell cars, test drives sell cars, word of mouth sell cars, ratings sell cars. Short films, on the other hand, are about branding - they sell a lifestyle. Obviously you'll never be as sexy, cool-headed, and upright as the Driver, but, when you drive the car, you'll be the next best thing. You'll get to shift the gears (nary a film without at least one shot of the gear shift). You'll hear the engine roar live and in person, and everyone will look at you and what you are driving.

See, when you buy an expensive car, when you really love an expensive car, it's a crime to keep it locked up à la Cameron's dad. All you really want is to see what she can do.

Plus, these films represent a huge opportunity for Owen. He gets to sample the work of internationally acclaimed directors and actors outside of the watchful eye of the press, allowing him to gather what's potentially decades of experience in a few short years.

Above all, for BMW, the consumers come to you. They aren't zipping through your commercials or blocking your pop-ups/behinds. And you don't have to pay like you do every time a commercial airs.

It's bloody brilliant. A+