Your Highness (2011)

Your Highness (2011)

What a refreshing film. No seriously. That isn't some subtle attempt at pot humour. Though this film was advertised as stoner comedy meets Camelot, this film has a lot going for it. Yes there is T&A, yes there is stoner humour, and yes there is crude humour. But for all that, it actually is a pretty fun film. 

The film stars Danny McBride (Eastbound and Down, The Foot Fist Way, countless other movies), James Franco (who I really don't like despite liking a lot of his films), Zooey Deschanel (the latest "it" girl despite the fact she is rarely ever funny, and her quirkiness is more irritating than not) and Natalie Portman (interesting choice for a followup to Black Swan). 

Franco is the heir to the throne in this magical kingdom, and McBride in turn is the second son who just can't hold up against how fantastic his brother is. McBride's turn as the brother, is a slacker stoner type, who can't be bothered to make an effort in life, and is essentially shunned by the world over and is really quite hapless. Meanwhile, his elder brother and heir-to-the-throne is rescuing maidens, vanquishing monsters and completing quests. Not that it is terribly spoilerish, but Franco's rescued maiden (Deschanel) gets kidnapped by an evil wizard on their wedding day, and long story short, Franco and McBride hit the road to rescue her, meeting other characters along the way. 

Sounds familiar right? No real new ground broken. That is probably what works so well for the story to be honest. It is familiar territory. We know the conventions, we know how the world is supposed to work, and despite the "modern" humour the reality offered is accepted right away and we don't have to establish superfluous exposition. And further to that, the reality shown on screen is actually quite beautiful. This could have been a quite visually entertaining movie played serious and not suffered at all. The makers wanted to clearly show their love of fantasy and despite low-brow humour, still take us, the audience, on a wild adventure. 

You know the story, you know how it is going to end, but if you watch this film, just rememberit is meant to be fun. The stoner humour is thankfully kept mostly to a minimum, and while there are crude moments, there will definitely be times you find yourself laughing inspite of yourself. 

The good: McBride is great as non-conventional everyman. He is probably more indicative of most geeks in the world than the archetype of some acne covered basement dweller. He's boastful, self-involved, a little overweight, and at the core a dreamer but just can't escape his slacker nature. Franco is sufficient, and if anything a little sympathetic as the naive innocent older brother, who despite being the worldly adventurer, doesn't quite see the world for what it is. Again, the real standout moments are the world itself. The snake creature is genius, the minotaur hilarious (ashamed to admit that), and at the end of the flick you'd be hardpressed not to find yourself rooting for the heroes.

The bad: Zooey Deschanel. I just don't understand her appeal and her stupid bangs. Her only remotely good turn was in Elf. In a weird way she and Natalie Portman are "eye-candy" in this film, which is odd unto itself. 

Final Thoughts: There is no denying that for as dumb as this movie was it was fun. A shame it didn't reahc a broader audience but I blame the marketing. It was too stoner-centric. You should definitely give it a gander if you are sure you have a sense of humour that doesn't take itself too seriously. The makers of the film clearly had fun, enjoy the ride. 

Add to the vault? You know what, I have felt like I have been a bit of a negative nancy lately. If I were to be gifted this film in hard copy, I would be honoured to add it to my collection. There is repeat value for sure. 

Crazy Stupid Love (2011)

Crazy, Stupid, Love (2011)


Wow, what a film that had so much more potential then what the final product was. I think I went into this wanting more of a drama with a romantic angle, than a romantic comedy with some dramatic elements; so it may be more fault of my own than the film's for not living up to expectations.

Don't get me wrong, it was still a reasonably enjoyable film, just some really disjointed moments that I feel detracted from the film rather than add to it.

So what's it about? Well, it is a pseudo-ensemble film about a loveless marriage between Steve Carell and Julianne Moore, their kids, Ryan Gosling's terrible life as a playboy bachelor who just wants a hug, and the peripheral characters loosely connected to one another; somewhere in all that is also Emma Stone. I am avoiding spoilers obviously, but that is the gist of it. Ryan Gosling's character Jacob, essentially serves as foil to Steve Carell's cuckolded Cal Weaver. Oh and pretty much every reason to have Ryan Gosling nude or shirtless is explored.

The film does explore the complex emotions of separation and divorce between a middle aged couple, but skimps on the complex relationships of how separation really affects family.
Instead the film falls into familiar romantic comedy territory, making leaps of logic for the sake of situational irony and comedy. All the drama goes out the window in favour of grandiose scenes of eye-rolling farce.

But I still grudgeonly chuckled, so I guess it wasn't too bad.

The good: First and second acts, where you thought you may have a Love Actually, type Dramedy - Romance. Baby goose will undoubtedly be worth the price of admission alone for majority of people out there (male and female I am sure). Steve Carell's everyman schtick is finely honed and his brief stint with debauchery is sufficiently cathartic for all the pent up frustration he undoubtedly has in his character.

The bad: Marisa Tomei, Kevin Bacon are wasted here. The flimsy "plot twists" were painful at times, and I am sorry, but the antics of Cal Weaver's son, requires an impossible degree of suspension of disbelief, as there is just no way any remotely normal teenager would do the things he does for "love".

Final thoughts: Watch the film with the expectation of a romantic comedy in similar ilk to any classic Meg Ryan movie, and you may be pleasantly surprised. Go into it with expectations of a smart dramatic Love Actually type flick, and well... just enjoy Ryan's abs.

Add to the Vault? Man I am harsh on movies or what? Unless you are so enamoured by Ryan Gosling that you must own the film, I would say this is suffice as a one off.

The Human Centipede (2010)

The Human Centipede (2010)

You've all heard about it, but have any of you actually seen it? Well, in order to rattle things upa bit around this blog, I figured I would actually sit through it and see what all the fuss was about.

And.. believe it or not, I was pleasantly surprised. Was it disgusting as all hell? Sure. Was it as bad as your imagination is? No, not even close. For all the hype I expected a much much worse film. Something in similar ilk as as the Hostel or Saw movies, and their torture porn spin-offs.

What the film actually was, was a graphic throwback to a sub-set of horror, that hasn't really been explored in mainstream film for many many years. This film has more in common with the Island of Dr. Moreau than it does with Hostel. In the genre that has come to be known colloquially as "torture porn" films try to out-do deaths of hapless forgettable protagonists, and that in and of itself is the primary draw for audiences that seek to watch those films. I will go on record that I am not those audiences. I liked the first Saw for breaking the trend in horror and trying to mix things up a bit for what was essentially a independent film. The sequels and the hundreds of crap movies to follow, dropped substance of narrative for gore. 

This film, reminds me of the classic horror movies, right up there with Frankenstein, or The Fly, and the aforementioned sub-genre of "mad scientist" horror. Instead of a diabolical borderline omnipotent manipulating bad guy, the mad scientist genre is driven by a genius reclusive type. Horrible, evil? Sure, but also fallible and disctinctly human. The elaborate scenario driving the plot of the film is accepted if the "mad scientist" falls within the established conventions. Was not the first visual depiction of Frankenstein's monster throwing the little girl in the lake "shocking"? Or our first time seeing the Brundlefly close to vomit inducing? Well those same experiences are evoked here as well, if only by the sheer audacity of the project this "mad scientist" (Dr. Heiter) is seeking to accomplish.

The premise (for the handful of you who really might not know) is that Dr. Heiter, a former brilliant surgeon, top in his field for surgically separating conjoined twins, seeks to create a conjoined set of 3 people, surgically rendering them co-dependent by way of derriere-to-bouche stitching. 

Yep.

Does he do this for fame? Fortune? Because he is evil? Nope. He does it because it is research, and the only thing that could keep a former brilliant surgeon occupied post-retirement. Me? I'd probably choose golf, but C'est la vie.

So you have the gist of the project, what about the protagonists? Well, I will say that as actors, aspiring or otherwise, this was an incredibly brave venture to undertake. The film is easily an S&M fetishists ideal horror movie. The horror the protagonists are subjected to is more cerebral than you'd ever think for a movie like this. The humuliation, the grim realisation that there is no hope, it is tough to watch at times. It isn't graphic violence. It is just circumstantial. That being said, do we care for the protagonists? Yes and no. They are forgettable as individuals, and even trope-centric in how they find themselves in their unfortunate situation, but the fact that they are brought together, is why we care about them. They have next to no lines (for the females) and the japanese male, is sad by feeling completely alone, not knowing english or german.

The good:

Dr. Heiter is a sufficiently good vilian, a true homage to the forgotten mad scientist genre. The audacity of the project should be commended as well. Any aspiring filmmaker essentially wants their work to be known, and well... people have heard of the The Human Centipede. The ending is actually pretty dark even for a horror film like this. Too easy would it be to dismiss this film outright based on the ridiculous premise, but the fact that there is a lot going on below the surface puts points in its favor. The fact the film didn't make it about sexual exploitation either, is commendable. More than can be said for the sequel. 

I also enjoyed the reality the film established. Dr. Heiter's place was sterile like a hospital, not dungeon like, or crude torture devices lying around. The lack of gore and lack of visual depictions of what you "expect" to see, also do more for the film than you'd expect.

The bad: The lead up to the Dr. Heiter. Standard horror film cliches. You'd think Germany is nothing but creepy pervs based on the lead up. I briefly tried to watch the sequel, but everything that was good about the first was absent, and it was standard torture porn fetishistic crap. 

Final thoughts: Don't judge a book by it's cover. That being said, the sequel sucks. Do keep in mind  though that this is a horror movie, and people are surgically joined to one another. Don't come crying to me if you watch it and lose your lunch.

Add to the vault? No, it is more of a one off. A test of endurance and a notch in your belt as a film buff. Something to talk about at parties and watch as people cringe. 

Tree of Life (2011)

Tree of Life (2011)

Some films are made for audiences to escape. Some try and tell an engaging story. Some are mindless. Some are meant to affect, and some are something all together different. Which film was this, you ask? I feel this is a film Terrence Malick NEEDED to tell, but I don't believe it was meant for anyone but himself.

Allow me to explain. Tree of Life is a 2+ hour "story" told through fragmented glimpses into the past, present, and future, of both the universe, life and the protagonist Jack. The loose way of describing it would be to say it chronicles the impact of Jack's "daddy issues", grief over his deceased brother, existential crisis, all undercut by symphonic (at times operatic) and borderline preachy themes of religion.

Does that do the film justice? No, not by a long shot, but it is the gist of the "plot" of what is essentially a film that needs to be experienced in order to remotely understand it. 

So how is it meant for Terrence Malick? Given the history of the film (several years to film, petproject, no real commercial release, etc) this was a labour of love for Terrence. One need to only look at his wikipedia page to know he is drawing upon his own personal experience as the basis for the film. I believe that he needed to find catharsis in this film from the experiences he had unresolved still affecting him. Including deeper philosophical issues, his perception of the cosmos and the afterlife. Is it happy? Is it sad? Is it dark or is it light? In a word, no. As personal as this was for him, it is ambiguous (albeit poetic and frustratingly at times pretentious and self indulgent) enough for each to derive their own meaning. 

In another sense it is clever and cruel, because it is impossible to review, as no two audience members (who sit through the whole thing) would ever have the same opinion about what transpired on screen. 

So for a film, not meant for the movie going public, or for myself, how did I feel about it? Well, as you may have seen it alluded to above, it isn't positive. To do this though I will have to break it up into a few different categories.

Visually/Audibly: In this sense, the film is beautiful. For roughly half the film, we are treated to wondrous musical scores (each carefully selected and poignant I am sure) and beautiful scenes of the cosmos, nature and more. Each would make for amazing screen savers. Truly a great film to enjoy in HD.

Narratively: Narratively terrible. I am fine with fragmented narratives, I don't need a direct line from point A to point B, but this was way to indulgent on menial elements that I know serve to encapsulate the quiet moments of Terrence's past (sorry I mean Jack) and the raucous. But like any home movie you watched of someone else's family, you can't really care as they are not YOUR exeriences. Was it dramatic? Oh yes. Was it engaging though? Not terribly. Not to undermine terrible losses such as suicide in a family, but without directly tackling those issues, and starting the film off with glimpses into the grief process BEFORE fleshing out the characters, you lose interest in them. So much are we in Jack's version of his life and thoughts, that the characters around him become two dimensional. Even the pivotal character of Brad Pitt as the over bearing hypocritical father, felt dangerously close to just being a caricature. The mother is too idolized and innocent that she never feels real, and the brothers (one of whom's death is supposed to affect us so) just feel like shadows in the background to Jack. Wait, Jack is the one we are supposed to care about right, you ask again? True, but this is where the narrative really falls apart. At no actor's fault, the character of Jack as the elder brother is just not a person I could care about. His troubles, his cries for attention as a youth, his daddy issues and frustration at life, all just made me think of him as an unsympathetic whiney momma's boy. Hate to break it to you Terrence but the issues you put forth on screen for the most part are what most people call being a teenager and puberty.

But maybe it was an earlier time, and you really were the odd one out. I feel for you. Suicide in the family is tragic, but that isn't depicted in this film, despite many parts echoing a symbolic grieving process. As such, a troubled youth being angsty, doesn't make for great pathos.

Philosophically: Well the bigger picture is the religious allegories and such right, you as? (Who are you anyway?) Sure, that could be argued, but when juxtapositioned next to angsty Jack's childhood, and the 15 minute shot of the cosmos, it is more likely to lull you to sleep, than evoke any greater philosophical thought. If anything, seeing such magnificent imagery, it renders the parrallel narrative even more trivial and mundane. The voice over thoughts questioning god allude to nothing more than agnostic/atheistic freshman debate. Purposefully inconclusive, I doubt anyone watching the film will be so moved to question or be invograted by whatever beliefs that they had before.

The good: Visually amazing and the score is great. Really though nothing you couldn't get by finding a peaceful screensaver and putting on some spa music.

The bad: Nothing is bad, per se. Self indulgant and clearly a labour of love, the target audience for this film is Terrence Malick and devotees of Terrence Malick. It isn't as profound as some articles try and suggest it to be, and at the end of the day you won't be any better or worse off than you were before. So "the bad" maybe could really be "the indifferent".

Final Thoughts: I can see this film being predominantly used in the film studies classes I took in University. Students can expect to be bored to tears and lose a few nights on the inevitable essays. Otherwise, unless you really want to see pretention on film, do not see this. Might even give Lars Von Trier a run for his money.

Add to the Vault? Nope.

If I have not convinced you yet, here is the trailer for Terrence Malick's Tree of Life:

Midnight In Paris (2011)

Midnight in Paris (2011)

Well I have to disclaimer in that I am not really a fan of Woody Allen, nor have I been the biggest fan of Owen Wilson. His nasally way of acting like he is always on the perpetual verge of whining, I tend to find irritating.

That being said, this film was more enjoyable than I had ever imagined. I think in truth, it is the whimsical, unabashedly indulgent reality that is never questioned, that really won me over. Or perhaps it is my latent love for France (see French Kiss), hard to say. 

The premise is unique enough, and lo it sound spoilerish, it revolves around a wannabe writer, disillusioned with being a cog in the Hollywood machine, finding inspiration in Paris while on a trip with his overbearing fiancee. In what is the unconventional angle for finding inspiration, he begins his self-discovery via travelling back in time to 1920s Paris every midnight, but before you lose interest, this is not some science-fiction take. 

Instead Wilson's character Gil Pender, rubs shoulders with literary and artistic giants like Hemingway, Dali, Bunel, and many more.  It is through these travels that he learns a bit about writing, a lot about life, and even more about himself. 

It is really an enjoyable film and I grudgeonly liked Owen Wilson, despite still being the same type of character he generally is in most films.

I won't discuss much more about the plot, because while enjoyable, it is simple enough of a concept that the sparse details already provided are suffice to get a bearing on if this film may or may not be for you.

The Good: Owen Wilson, if only because this film felt like it was written exactly for him, and I hope that post-suicide attempt, he found the renewed love of life that his character did. Marion Cotillard, Carla Bruni, and the veritable who's who of Hollywood emulating icons of history were also enjoyable albeit all to briefly at times. Michael Sheen looking like a young Aidan Quinn was also enjoyable as a unforgiving douchebag. 

Also, all things french. I would never have guessed Woody Allen adored France so much, but this film reads like a love letter to France, and French history. 1920's Paris felt real and beautiful that you can understand wanting to get lost there.

The Bad: Rachel McAdams' character. I like Rachel McAdams as an actress, but her character was just unrelatable as a self-obsessed bitchy fiancee. If we were meant to be somewhat involved with her as a character it was way off mark. I doubt that is the case though, but when a character is purely 2 dimensional in terms of depth, it is never a strong point. 

Final Thoughts: I am glad I didn't write off this film as another one of Woody Allen's contrived pseudo-intellectual commentaries on society. There are definitely moments of Woody Allen-isms, that mark this film as still part of his auteur portfolio, but I am glad he remembered to tell a story this time through.

Add to the Vault? I feel so conflicted these days about wanting to buy movies. I don't know if it is because video stores have gone the way of the dodo, and the digital age makes physical copies nigh on irrelevant; or if my standards are just too darn high, but I don't think this one makes the cut. I know, i said I loved it, but I am content to have loved it and let it go. Maybe another time?

Here is the trailer, which really tells you nothing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atLg2wQQxvU&feature=youtube_gdata_player