Zombieland (2009): All about the twinkies

Directed by Ruben Fleischer and styled, in some ways, after Shaun of the Dead, Zombieland is a comedy/horror hybrid that epitomizes mindless entertainment. That’s not to say it’s not engaging in a B-movie way, but those expecting anything beyond a few good laughs and a campy adrenaline ride, may be disappointed. The plot is barebones, with the film’s title serving as a fair summation of the story.

As its title suggests, Zombieland is about a version of earth overrun with flesh-eating zombies. The handful of remaining normal people are constantly running for their lives, trying to avoid being eaten by gangs of ravenous, blood-thirsty monsters. The film never explicitly explains why most of earth’s population has turned into zombies, but only makes vague references to a devastating virus that spread to its first victim via an infected cheeseburger.

Jesse Eisenberg and Woody Harrelson play a pair of plague survivors named Columbus and Tallahassee, respectively. The film opens with a voiceover by Columbus as he provides background on both Zombieland and on his life before and after the plague. Columbus has always been a loner and that fact, combined with his above-average intelligence, has helped him remain uninfected; he’s also developed several pragmatic rules for surviving Zombieland, the most important of which are amusingly illustrated in the opening minutes.

Those rules include: maintain good cardiovascular fitness (anyone too overweight to outrun zombies doesn’t survive long); always wear a seatbelt (sudden stops and crashes are common); 'double tap' every kill (verify each by shooting/stabbing/pummeling/crushing twice); don’t be a hero; be wary of bathrooms (zombies love to catch you with your pants down), and a host of others, which are continually alluded to throughout the film.

Columbus is working his way from Austin, Texas—where he attended college—through the wasteland the world’s become, to Columbus, Ohio, where he hopes to find his parents alive. Early on he meets Tallahassee, a cantankerous, savvy southerner with a dark sense of humor who gives Columbus a ride but insists that neither reveal his true name; relationships in Zombieland tend to be extremely fleeting and Tallahassee wants to avoid unnecessary attachments. As a result, everyone is named based on their destination.

Tallahassee is so good at killing zombies that he sees it as his true calling, the one pursuit in life he's truly good at that his momma always said he’d discover. And indeed, watching Harrelson tear through the landscape, dispatching zombies with one creative, gruesome method after another is a large part of the film’s charm. Tallahassee’s also on a personal quest to find and consume the world’s remaining edible Twinkies, another amusing detail effectively incorporated into the story.

Along their journey, Tallahassee and Columbus meet Wichita (Emma Stone) and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin), two sisters who initially dupe the pair out of their ride and weapons and leave them stranded. A little later, fate bring brings the foursome back together though, and forces an uneasy alliance that gradually evolves into a familial-type bond. After learning that Columbus, Ohio is destroyed, the four change course and head for Los Angeles so Little Rock can visit a theme park there she’s always dreamt of experiencing.

Beyond being a horror/comedy hybrid, at its heart, Zombieland is also a road-trip movie that, at times, feels as directionless as its characters’ odyssey. However, although it wouldn’t stand up to serious critical analysis, Zombieland isn’t built to resonate on any deep intellectual level. This film is all cartoonish violence, gallows humor, adrenaline and visceral thrills. To those ends, it’s reasonably effective.

Harrelson’s fun to watch; his goofy, hammy presence alone is worth the admission price; the rest of the cast is solid too.  For all its comic ambitions though, Zombieland’s best laugh comes from a hysterical cameo by Bill Murray. Ultimately, although Zombieland doesn’t break new ground in the zombie genre, it’s moderately entertaining and is best appreciated as a visceral, comedic thrill-ride.

Score: 6/10

Starring: Woody Harrelson, Jesse Eisenberg, Emma Stone, Abigail Breslin

Directed by: Ruben Fleischer
Released by: Columbia Pictures

Capitalism: A Love Story (2009): Repeat Performance

Although he covers new ground in Capitalism: A Love Story, director Michael Moore falls short of the resonance of his best work. There are, in fact, tell-tale signs here that Moore may be running out of fresh ideas. Anyone familiar with his previous films will detect a fair amount of reiteration; reiteration that, at times, makes this film feel slightly uninspired, if not bordering on retread. That’s not to say Capitalism isn’t thought-provoking, but Moore has presented much of this material before—with much greater impact.

Capitalism opens strongly enough. In the first few minutes, Moore interposes footage from an old documentary about the rise and decline of the Roman empire with scenes from the last decade or so of American history. Drawing parallels between America and the Roman empire is hardly new, but Moore argues his points with a fresh and convincing perspective.

From there, he moves on to the housing bust and to the underhanded Wall Street maneuvering that helped create it. The problem, Moore ultimately argues, is collusion between government and business. Players from both spheres have intermingled to the point that government has become little more than an extension of corporate America, functioning not for the good of the people, but to enhance the bottom line of big business.

To support his arguments, Moore offers compelling statistics regarding the Wall Street credentials of government’s most influential players. He mixes these with interviews of government and business players sympathetic to his cause and with interviews of average citizens affected by the bust. He also intersperses footage that directly illustrates the corrupting power of big business on government. The most effective of said footage may be old video of former Secretary of the Treasury Donald Regan commanding then-President Ronald Reagan—while speaking on Wall Street—to ‘hurry up.’

Moore also goes directly to Wall Street, soliciting random interviews (all of which are ignored) and attempting to make a citizen’s arrest of AIG’s top executives. His adventures there, as well as the dirty corporate secrets he exposes, are vintage Moore, by turns funny, inspiring and infuriating. Wall Street, he concludes, has been intentionally structured with concepts and business tactics so complicated and convoluted, that they undermine the system and circumvent existing government regulations—what few of those remain.

The most interesting, most striking new information offered here relates to the average pay of airline pilots; anyone not familiar with the issue (as I wasn’t) may be shocked to learn that average pay for beginning pilots is so low that many work second jobs to pay the bills. To support this contention, Moore offers pilot interviews and video from the congressional testimony of pilot Chesley Sullenberger. Sullenberger is the hero who crash landed USAirways flight 1549 into New York’s Hudson River, thereby saving the lives of all 150 passengers. Sullenberger testified before congress in an attempt to prompt legislative action on behalf of pilots.

Moore’s most important function as a filmmaker may be to stir debate; to motivate viewers into action and into investigating his claims for themselves. As with all of Moore's work, this film also reminds that, despite America’s flaws, we remain one of the most ideologically free and vocal countries on earth; there are many places where Moore would be imprisoned—even executed—for his work. Additionally, his ultimate conclusion that capitalism is evil rings a bit hollow coming from a filmmaker who’s grown wealthy from that wicked system. Moreover, in some ways Moore ignores the notion that it’s not capitalism, per say, that’s evil, as opposed to those who corrupt and abuse the system.

Capitalism: A Love Story offers two hours of fact, opinion and ideology that likely could have achieved greater impact with a bit of trimming. Moore himself seems to recognize that he’s begun repeating himself when, in the closing seconds, he says he doesn’t know how much longer he can “keep doing this” if more people don’t take action, as opposed to merely watching his films. He sounds tired and a little discouraged. We understand though, that Moore’s discouragement is temporary. He’s unlikely to quit making films, unlikely to leave America, unlikely to quit advocating on behalf of society’s less fortunate. And though I’m glad for Moore’s voice, I can’t help hoping that, with future work, he can return to the innovations of earlier films as opposed to merely repeating himself and thus reducing his overall effect.

Score: 6.5/10

Starring: Michael Moore and various

Directed by: Michael Moore
Released by: Overture Films

Love Happens (2009): The lonliest number

It’s hard not to like Jennifer Aniston. Her presence, along with Aaron Eckhart’s—who is likeable in his own right—help lift Love Happens into the realm of interesting diversion. Granted, it’s not a diversion I’d recommend seeing in theaters, but the film has its charms.

Eckhart stars as Burk Ryan, PhD, a widower three-years-past who writes a self help book as a means of coping with his wife’s death. The book unexpectedly becomes a bestseller and turns Burk into a celebrity self-help maven.

As the film opens, Burk has just arrived in Seattle to conduct a self-help course; after the first lecture, he bumps into Eloise near the elevators by happenstance and then runs into her again in the hotel lobby.

Eloise is a single young florist with a penchant for making bad decisions in her love life. She is at first unimpressed with Burk, even feigning a handicap to elude him. Burk however, is smitten from the start, even after discovering Eloise’s ruse. After catching her rock-singer boyfriend cheating and, following another chance, decidedly hostile encounter with Burk, she begins warming to him.

I’ve read complainants that Aniston and Eckhart lack chemistry but, to my thinking, the problem isn’t a lack of chemistry but a lack of quality screen time between the pair. Audiences may be surprised that the true focus of Love Happens isn’t the relationship between Burk and Eloise. Instead, the film centers more on Burk’s personal struggle with grief, more on his self-delusion and dishonesty in dealing with that grief.

There are also a few subplots involving the group of attendees to Burk’s self-help seminar and although those are interesting, this is really Eckhart’s film. He’s a fine actor (as demonstrated in The Dark Knight), but the film suffers for its one-sided focus. Though Love Happens presses all the right emotional buttons in all the right places, it’s difficult to create good romantic drama with just one character; for Love Happens, one is indeed the loneliest number.

Score: 4/10

Starring: Aaron Eckhart, Jennifer Aniston, Dan Fogler, Judy Greer, Joe Anderson, John Carroll Lynch, Martin Sheen

Directed by: Brandon Camp
Released by: Universal Pictures

District 9 (2009): Overrated from outer space

District 9 is an intriguing work of science fiction that, while cleverly imagined and well acted, has become more of a critical darling than it deserves.  To be sure, first-time director Neill Blomkamp (who also co-wrote the screenplay) has crafted a decent entry into the genre.  Based on its reviews however, District’s 9’s overall entertainment value falls short of expectations.

When a gigantic alien spaceship runs out of gas and becomes stranded over Johannesburg, South Africa (coincidentally enough), the government places the insect-like aliens--labeled prawns--into a large camp in Johannesburg dubbed District 9. When that camp disintegrates into a slum, military contractor Multinational United (MNU) is hired to maintain order and to eventually relocate the aliens to a new camp called District 10, located outside of Johannesburg.

Sharlto Copley plays Wikus Van De Merwe, the MNU agent overseeing the relocation to District 10.  The first 20-30 minutes of District 9 are presented in the style of a documentary, with Wikus hamming it up for the documentarian’s cameras, happily describing the relocation and gleefully leading the imaginary film makers into District 9 to film the first waves of forced evictions.  Wikus comes across as a generic bureaucrat, the proverbial company man who’s unintentionally funny and rather clueless; he's also a bit of a bigot.  Because of the documentary-style opening, District 9 plays almost like two separate films and feels slightly uneven as a result.  The documentary footage is not particularly compelling and the movie drags a little until shifting into a more traditional narrative.

Through a chance encounter with one of the aliens--given the human name Christopher by the South Africans--and partially due to his own incompetence, Wikus is inadvertently exposed to an alien chemical that begins restructuring his DNA into alien DNA.  This makes him infinitely valuable to MNU, as until now only aliens have been able to operate their advanced weaponry. With his transformation however, Wikus can suddenly operate alien weaponry and he’s eventually whisked away by MNU to a secure location.

While in MNU’s custody, Wikus begins to realize the nefarious lengths to which the government and MNU will go to unlock alien technology.  They plan to literally dissect Wikus into pieces, using the bits to create some technology for unlocking alien weaponry.  While on the operating table, Wikus uses his new alien strength to escape and makes his way back to district 9, where he seeks out Christopher.  Christopher agrees to help only after realizing that Wikus has been exposed to the alien chemical, which was actually a type of fuel painstakingly concocted by Christopher over a 20-year period.  Christopher had intended to use the fuel as a means of repowering the alien mothership and transporting his fellow aliens home.  But the remaining fuel is with MNU and Christopher will only help Wikus reverse his transformation if he agrees to help retrieve it.

Complicating matters is a human gang of illegal arms dealers operating within the slum, whose leader (Eugene Khumbanyiwa) wants to eat Wikus’ alien parts to gain the ability to use alien weaponry.  In addition, Les Feldman (John Sumner), Wikus’ father in-law, is working with MNU against Wikus.  For his part, Wikus only wants to reverse his transformation into an alien, reunite with wife Tania (Vanessa Haywood), and resume a normal life.  He gradually begins to realize however, that, for better or worse, his life will never be the same; his evolution from bumbling, sycophantic bureaucrat into victimized, conflicted man of conscious is one of the film’s highlights.  Wikus and Christopher break into MNU and, following much carnage, retrieve the fuel; hardly anything goes as planned from there however.

District 9 is moderately original and well-written, with solid direction and good performances.  The film’s use of allegory is both a strength and a weakness though.  The symbolism here is blunt and stark, bordering, in some ways, on overkill.  Allusions to apartheid, to racism and to the injustices of classism and segregation are prominent throughout--so much so that, at times, one questions the film makers’ confidence in the material or their faith in the audience’s ability to grasp deeper meaning.  These film makers seem to have little use for subtlety.  I was also bothered by the clicky, snappy, indecipherable alien language, which is interpreted onscreen with subtitles; the human beings of the film, however, understand the alien language without using futuristic, sci-fi translators or other devices.  The reason for that comprehension is never addressed.

District 9, while certainly not the best film of the year--as many of the reviews suggest--may qualify as the best science fiction film of 2009.  The reason for this film’s hype might lay in its originality; there’s so little of that from modern Hollywood.  In any case, though uneven in places, District 9 has decent eye-candy (especially for its meager budget) and is involving and well-made, if only moderately thought provoking.  If nothing else, District 9 is certainly an example of relevant science fiction.

Score: 6/10

Starring: Sharlto Copley, Jason Cope, David James, Mandla Gaduka, William Allen Young, Vanessa Haywood, Kenneth Nkosi, Devlin Brown

Director: Neill Blomkamp
Produced by: Peter Jackson
Released by: TriStar Pictures

Surrogates (2009): Popcorn in autumn

Based on a graphic novel of the same name and directed by Jonathan Mostow, Surrogates achieves mixed results from a terrific premise. Headlined by Bruce Willis, the film boasts solid performances with a story that offers mad scientists, military conspiracies and a global corporation bent on world domination using a product that renders people little more than sheep.

In the near future, after the creation of advanced, life-like automatons, human beings rarely venture outside their homes. Instead, using a neural interface that directly channels brain waves, the majority of the population live vicariously, hooked into custom-made, real-life robots that are tailor-made to resemble the user. Through these avatars—called surrogates—users remotely access and interact with the world, experiencing all its sensations, including sight, sound, hearing, touch, smell and more. Surrogates are the ultimate form of virtual reality and, best of all, have failsafes that protect the user against damage to the surrogate.

But surrogates may not be so safe as advertised. After some brief exposition, the film opens with the killing of a surrogate by an advanced weapon that shatters the eyes and fries the CPU. Soon after, it’s revealed that the weapon also killed the user, something not previously thought possible. FBI agent Greer (Willis) and his partner Agent Peters (Radha Mitchell)—both hooked into surrogates themselves—are assigned to investigate. They’re stunned to learn the victim’s identity: Jarod Canter, son of Lionel Canter (James Cromwell), the scientist credited with inventing surrogates.

The case leads Greer to the isolated, slum-like settlement of a group known as the Dreads, who’ve rejected the use of surrogates as an abomination. Their leader, a man simply called The Prophet (Ving Rhames), is somehow involved and has knowledge of the unusual weapon used. Greer needs to find that weapon quickly, as it poses a terrible threat. In the course of the investigation, Greer’s surrogate is destroyed, forcing him to unhook and directly interact with the world for the first time in years.

During his readjustment, Greer experiences profound claustrophobia and disorientation. Worse, his wife Maggie (Rosamund Pike) is so addicted to her surrogate that she refuses to unhook. Here the film draws an intriguing parallel to our own hyper-connected, ultra-wired world. The automatons of Surrogates could easily be equated with the internet, with cell phones, email, Ipods and other addictive technologies that depersonalize even as they make life easier.

There are some entertaining plot twists too, most involving the facts that surrogates don’t always resemble their users and that multiple users can access the same surrogate. Ultimately though, Surrogates is hampered by both a script that is, at times, hammy and by protracted action sequences, causing it to fall short of the emotional resonance it aims for.

The film’s pretty to look at though, with glossy special effects and appealing production values; the surrogates themselves are duly creepy too, with a synthetic look that’s far too perfect for human, constantly reminding that surrogates are little more than high-tech appliances. The film held my interest throughout but, perhaps most telling of all, it felt longer than its 89-minute runtime. Overall, Surrogates amounts to decent popcorn entertainment that arrived about a month too late. It’s an enjoyable, mostly disposable film that won’t linger long in memory.

Score 6/10

Starring: Bruce Willis, Radha Mitchell, Rosamund Pike, Boris Kodjoe, James Cromwell, Ving Rhames, James Francis Ginty

Directed by: Jonathan Mostow

Released by: Touchstone Pictures

DVD in focus: State of Play (2009)

Directed by Kevin Macdonald (The Last King of Scotland), and set in Washington DC, State of Play aspires, in some ways, to be this generation’s All the President’s Men—albeit in fictional form. The film stars Russell Crowe as Cal McAffrey, a hard-edged, seasoned reporter at The Washington Globe newspaper and Ben Affleck as Stephen Collins, an influential congressman. The two are old friends, having met in college. Rachel McAdams is Della Frye, a newly-hired blogger at The Globe trying to break her first hard news story.

The film opens with the murder of a homeless teen by a dark, ominous man using a silenced handgun. A random bystander on a bike happens by and is also shot. McAffrey arrives on scene the next morning as police investigate, assigned to the story, but there aren’t many clues.

The setting then shifts to a young woman standing on a subway platform waiting for the train. That woman, we later learn, is Sonia Baker, a top aide to Collins. She is also the lead researcher on Collins’ investigation into PointCorp, a private military contractor with several huge, questionable Defense Department contracts; moreover, she’s also Collins’ mistress, further complicating matters. The camerawork suggests something ominous is about to befall her on that platform, but before it does, the scene again shifts and we learn in the next scene that she’s fallen into an oncoming subway train and died.

Collins is inconsolable when he finds out. Her death is ruled a suicide, but he knows better and turns to McAffry for help proving it. McAffrey, after being paired with Frye, is assigned by his editor, Cameron Lynne (Helen Mirren), to cover this story too. With Collin’s assistance, the pair slowly uncover evidence to suggest that Baker’s death and the murder at the film’s beginning are connected. As clues pile up, they lead to evidence of a conspiracy to marginalize anyone endangering PointCorp's lucrative government contracts.

State of Play is glossy and slick, with an ample budget and an A-list cast that earns every penny. There’s nary a weak performance and the actors create a strong dynamic amongst themselves that elevates the overall effect. Even among this strong cast however, Helen Mirren is a standout in her supporting role as the Globe’s editor and chief. Robin Wright Penn is also good in her small part as Congressman Collin’s stand-by-your-man wife, who isn’t quite as forbearing as she appears. Jeff Daniels and Jason Bateman are both good in supporting roles and Russell Crowe reminds why he’s one of Hollywood’s most in-demand leading men.

Despite the strong performances however, State of Play borders on overly mechanical, with its perfunctory plot twists and an overall quality that, at times, feels generic. That likely owes to the fact that, like much A-list fare, it strives to appeal to as vast an audience as possible. The film is engaging but the final plot twist, for me, felt unnecessary, like an afterthought tacked on simply to wow the audience one last time. The twists that come before are believable, but State of Play could have been stronger with a more streamlined narrative, focusing less on gimmick and more on advancing the story in its logical direction. That final twist renders much of what comes before meaningless and, despite a minor plot point involving the Watergate Hotel, echoes of All the President’s Men are mostly forgotten. In addition, the opportunity to explore traditional print media's evolution into the internet age is mostly ignored. Overall, though State of Play is well-acted and nicely paced, it seems to lack faith in both its story and its audience. Moderately recommended.

Score 6/10

Starring: Russell Crowe, Ben Affleck, Rachel McAdams, Robin Wright Penn, Jason Bateman, Helen Mirren, Jeff Daniels, Josh Mostel, Michael Weston, Barry Shabaka Henley, Viola Davis

Directed by: Kevin MacDonald

Pandorum (2009): Asleep in space

To call Pandorum dull isn’t quite adequate.  A more sufficient description might be excruciating.  I’ve rarely sat through a less entertaining film.  In a way, that fact seems almost unjust, as Pandorum has a passable, if somewhat clichéd story, compelling visuals, and a capable cast led by the likable Dennis Quaid and Ben Foster.  The pair play Lt. Payton and commander Bower, respectively, two astronauts who are part of a deep-space mission to send some 60,000 souls to propagate a far-off, earth-like planet called Tanis.  The earth, it seems, has been ravaged by overpopulation and war.  These 60,000 people represent ‘humanity’s last hope.’

As the film opens the pair are reawakening from deep hyper-sleep and can’t remember much—a side effect of hyper-sleep.  The ship is dark, seemingly abandoned and without power; the two must struggle through amnesia to recall the mission as well as their identities and pasts.  Their identities come first; the remainder unfolds in a boring, strung-together narrative that's rife with rip-offs of several other sci-fi hits, including Aliens, Resident Evil, Battlestar Galactica and others.  Bower and Payton aren’t alone on the ship after all.  Not only are several people still alive, but the ship has somehow become infested by cannibalistic albino monsters with black eyes and razor teeth.  Oddly enough, these monsters have a fashion sense that recalls the film The Road Warrior.

Turns out, those monsters are actually former ship passengers who’ve evolved from technology designed to help propogate Tanis—or some such nonsense.  Ultimately, the film becomes a ‘race against time’ to repower the ship, keep it from exploding and reach Tanis before the monsters eat everybody.  By the time the ending rolled around, with its yawn-inducing twists, I was too asleep to care.  I was tempted to walk out of this film but the sheer badness kept me glued in place.  See this film at your own peril; it's memorably bad stuff.

Score 2/10

Starring: Dennis Quaid, Ben Foster, Cam Gigandet, Antje Traue, Cung Le
Directed by: Christian Alvart

The Tale of The Trailer: The Book of Eli (2010)

The Hughes Brothers haven’t directed a movie since 2001’s From Hell, a film I liked a lot. Their latest release, The Book of Eli, stars Denzel Washington and Gary Oldman. I’ve never been a huge fan of Washington, though I’m usually game for almost anything Oldman does (almost—I have so far avoided The Unborn). From the trailer, the film looks promising; though admittedly, the fight clip, in which Washington’s silhouette can be seen mixing it up with five equally silhouetted postapocalyptic baddies, looks cliché—if not bordering on unintentional parody. The film’s being released mid January too, frequently an ominous sign. Considering how much I enjoyed From Hell though, I can’t help being optimistic about The Book of Eli. If nothing else, it looks like it might serve as an interesting comparison piece to this Fall’s Cormac-McCarthy based The Road. In that film, humanity looks pretty much doomed. Let’s hope that, with The Book of Eli, Washington can not only save humanity’s future, but give us a few hours of worthwhile entertainment too.
The Book of Eli hits theaters January 15, 2010.

The Tale of The Trailer: Carriers (2009)

Carriers is either an ill-treated gem we’re mostly not seeing at the multiplex or a stinker worthy of its blink-and-you-miss-it limited theatrical run; chances are, Paramount Vantage will do the DVD release with little or no publicity. Either way, such treatment is somewhat surprising considering that the film’s star, Chris Pine (Star Trek), is hot right now. Based on the trailer, the film looks potentially creepy and suspenseful; the handful of online reviews I’ve seen have been mostly positive too. As of this writing, no DVD release has been set. It’s probably best to forget about catching Carriers at your local theater though; you’re probably more likely to catch swine flu first. The DVD will likely hit rental and store shelves sometime before the end of 2009.

The Tale of The Trailer: Daybreakers (2010)

Daybreakers is the upcoming film by directors Peter and Michael Spierig. This is another film that looks to have potential, but is being released in Hollywood’s early-January dumping ground. Worse, this film’s been completed since September 2007, meaning it has sat on the shelf nearly two and a half years—never a good sign. Still, I’m a sucker for well-done vampire flicks (cheesy pun unintentional, but I’m leaving it in anyway) and hold out hope this will be the next great entry into the genre. The story revolves around a world where almost everyone is a vampire; the world has become so overpopulated with bloodsuckers in fact, that there’s not enough blood to feed everyone. In answer, someone invents a cure for vampirism with the intention of using the newly cured as a food source. Intriguing idea with lots of potential for social commentary, but who knows if the film will live up to its promise. I guess come January, we’ll find out.

Daybreakers, featuring Ethan Hawke and Willem Dafoe, arrives in theaters January 8, 2010.

500 Days of Summer: The days the romance died (2009)

 

I tend to agree with popular consensus on most movies; however, this summer there’ve been a handful of critical and audience favorites that I’ve found less than compelling (Up)—or, in the least, not as compelling (District 9). Alas, 500 Days of Summer fits into these categories as well.

There are reasons to like this film, I suppose. The writing is solid and the performances are okay and I laughed out loud more than once (there’s a brief written preamble in the credits that’s one of the funniest moments). And yet, I just didn’t like this movie much. Worse, my reasons for not liking it may reveal something paradoxical about my own tastes in romantic comedies. Maybe.

500 Days of Summer certainly stands out from the genre in that the boy doesn’t get the girl in the end. But that was part of my dislike. Yeah, I know; one of the biggest knocks against this genre is its predictability and over reliance on formula (this summer’s The Proposal comes to mind as a prime example). But while I would give 500 Days of Summer high marks for avoiding genre clichés and conventions, I would give it extremely low marks for the likeability of its characters.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays Tom Hansen, a young man trained in architecture who instead works as a writer for a greeting-card company. Joseph is a hopeless romantic at heart, an idealist whose skewed outlook on love has been shaped, in large part, by a ‘misinterpretation’ of the movie The Graduate and various other pop culture elements. Joseph believes finding the right person in life is a matter of destiny; specifically, he thinks the right girl will simply step into his life one day and he’ll instantly recognize her.

One day Tom meets Summer Finn (Zooey Deschanel), his boss’ new personal assistant, and everything’s exactly as he always envisioned; Summer’ the one; Tom just knows. Although Summer tells Tom from the start she’s not looking for a boyfriend, the pair fall into a strange, confusing relationship that includes everything except an official acknowledgement they’re a couple. Summer tells Tom she wants to take things slowly and doesn’t want the unnecessary pressure and expectations of a relationship; she really just wants to be friends. Although Tom’s deeply attracted to Summer, he tries to do what she asks. But this is where things get confusing and extremely frustrating for Tom.

At almost every turn, Summer seemingly contradicts herself. For example, at one point, while hanging out at Summer’s place, the pair discuss their expectations and just being friends and Tom goes to the bathroom. When he comes back, Summer’s laying in bed naked waiting--anyone might assume--for the nasty to commence; which it does. Hence begins a long, difficult relationship that will end with Summer marrying a man Tom didn’t even know existed.

Summer’s contradictions make her—at least for me—unsympathetic. She doesn’t want to be in a relationship but has no problem leading Tom on, enjoying all the benefits of a romantic relationship one minute, being warm and affectionate, spontaneous and intimate—acting like a girlfriend—and then shutting down, becoming cold, aloof, distant and outwardly perplexed by Tom’s desire for more. The pair have obvious chemistry and yet, Summer seems only to appreciate Tom as some sort of entertaining diversion, a diversion that she easily discards when she grows bored or disinterested. Tom’s in love and Summer seems not only to realize it, but to take advantage of it.

It’s never really explained why Summer treats Tom like a doormat. Is he a rebound relationship? Does he remind her of an old boyfriend that broke her heart? We never know and the character’s under development makes her come across as a sort of ghost, an incomplete shadow; I was never wholly convinced that Summer felt any real emotion toward Tom and wasn’t merely emulating them instead.

Tom's also underdeveloped though and not much more likeable. He’s whiny and naïve, bordering on spineless. Instead of picking himself up and working to move on, he wallows in the pain, constantly lamenting over lost love. Such pathos may be the sign of a true lover, but it doesn’t make—at least not in Tom’s case—for a very compelling character.

My other big gripe with the film lies in its narrative style. The story is told in non-chronological, non-linear fashion, with each segment introduced onscreen as representing ‘day 1-500’of Tom and Summer's romance. The film jumps nonstop; day 5, for example might be followed by day 395 and that by day 22. The progression seemed mostly arbitrary and unnecessary. Whereas the use of non-linear storytelling works in some cases (Pulp Fiction being the gold standard), here it’s just distracting. Sometimes art for art’s sake is not enough.

But maybe my expectations for romantic comedies are unrealistic. On the one hand I want a film that’s fresh and original, that’s funny, witty and well written but not overly predictable or formulaic. But I want the boy to get the girl. Sickening, I know. But I want the happy couple--after surviving and enduring the many hilarious pitfalls along the twisting road to true love--to ride into the sunset against the backdrop of an uplifting pop song; cue the end credits. That's an exaggeration of course, but it is nice to see true love to win the day.

I just threw up a little in my mouth, but there you go.

In any case, 500 Days of Summer provides none of that. To be sure, there are some funny moments here (the dance sequence following Tom and Summer's first sexual encounter is hysterical) but they weren't enough for me. There are also some interesting insights regarding dating and the expectations people bring into relationships; in the end however, 500 Days of Summer was deeply disappointing.

Starring: Zooey Deschanel, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Clark Gregg, Minka Kelly, Matthew Gray Gubler, Rachel Boston, Geoffrey Arend, Chloe Moretz



Directed by: Marc Webb

Released by: Fox Searchlight Pictures

 

DVD in Focus: Duplicity (2009)

 

Directed by Tony Gilroy (Michael Clayton) and starring Julia Roberts (Charlie Wilson’s War) and Clive Owen (Children of Men), Duplicity is a twisty, convoluted spy caper that mixes genres with only moderate success. The story revolves around two corporate spies, Ray Koval and Claire Stenwick. When the pair first meet in the film’s opening sequence, which occurs five years prior to the central story, they are both government agents, with Koval working for MI6 and Stenwick working for the CIA. They meet at a cocktail party at the US consulate in Dubai. Koval doesn’t know Stenwick’s a CIA agent though—a CIA agent who is, in fact, assigned to steal the briefcase full of Egyptian Air Defense codes he has stored back in his hotel room. Following a sexual romp, she drugs him and steals the codes, completing her assignment and disappearing.

Five years later, seemingly by coincidence, they both work for Equikrom, a mega-diversified, mega-powerful multinational conglomerate; she’s an assistant director of counterintelligence, a corporate spy who’s worked her way into the inner security circles of Burkett & Randle, Equikrom’s main competitor; he’s a handler, a go between who manages field agents and channels information between spy and company. Stenwick, as it happens, is his latest assignment. On her first drop, she delivers a secret speech that’s soon to be presented by Burkett & Randle CEO Howard Tully (Tom Wilkinson).

Dick Garsik (Paul Giamatti), CEO of Equikrom, receives that speech with deep apprehension; although lacking in specifics, the speech hints at some revolutionary product soon to be released by Burkett & Randle. Garsik decides it imperative to know what that product is and assigns his security team to finding answers. Further upping the stakes: Burkett & Randle and Equikrom aren’t merely corporate rivals; their respective CEOs despise each other, intensifying commercial competition to a personal level.

Shortly after Tully delivers his speech, the film again backtracks, this time shifting to two years before the central story to Rome, where we learn that the relationship between Koval and Stenwick isn’t quite what it appears to be. Ultimately, although the pair doesn’t completely trust each other, neither is actually working for the good of Equikrom, but rather for personal profit. As the film unfolds, winding its way through a series of twists and double crosses, it becomes less and less clear who’s playing who. Not until the end, can the audience clearly differentiate the con-artists from the marks.

On one level, Duplicity is too clever for its own good; it’s complicated and, at times, confusing, employing flashbacks that both detract and distract from the overall impact. On the other hand, one can easily imagine the high-stakes corporate world functioning in the ways depicted; that fact makes Duplicity sporadically intriguing. The performances further elevate the film past its more muddled elements. Giamatti and Wilkinson are both compelling and believable as the CEOs of their respective companies; there’s an early scene where the two characters confront each other on an airport tarmac that amusingly sets the tone of their relationship. The supporting players are equally good.

Duplicity’s main appeal, however, lies in the relationship between Roberts and Owen. While their chemistry isn’t spectacular, it’s fun to watch the pair struggle for the upper hand and work to one-up each other. Are they true partners, really in love and working toward a common goal or are they simply gaming each other? And who will ultimately win the battle of CEOs? Which corporation will come out on top?

Duplicity is a good film that could’ve been better had it employed less subterfuge. It’s well written if somewhat muddled; it’s also well acted and decently paced. It’s certainly worth the rental price, but be warned: Duplicity may necessitate multiple viewings.

Score 6/10

Starring: Julia Roberts, Clive Owen, Tom Wilkinson, Paul Giamatti, Dan Dailey, Lisa Roberts Gillan, David Shumbris, Rick Worthy, Denis O'Hare, Tom McCarthy

Directed by: Tony Gilroy

Released by: Universal Pictures

Focus on Blu: The Departed (2006)

The Departed is much more mainstream than some of Martin Scorsese’s other work—especially his early stuff—but it’s no less entertaining. This is an engaging, riveting and involving crime thriller fueled by outstanding performances by the lead actors and slick, fast-paced direction, with a touch of comic relief sprinkled throughout.

Matt Damon plays Colin Sullivan, a fatherless kid who happens to live in the same neighborhood as notorious organized crime boss Frank Costello (Jack Nicholson). Costello takes Sullivan under his wing at an early age and becomes a father figure of sorts. He helps Colin keep food on his family’s table and helps keep him mostly out of trouble; when the time comes, he forces Colin to join the Massachusetts State police and serve as a mole. Colin excels at the police academy and quickly rises through the ranks to join the Special Investigation Unit, a division assigned to organized crime.

Meanwhile, at around the same time, William Costigan Jr. (Leonardo DiCaprio) is about to finish his time at the police academy. Just before he graduates, he’s approached by Captain Queenan (Martin Sheen) and Staff Sergeant Dignam (Mark Wahlberg) for a deep undercover assignment to infiltrate the Boston Mob. Costigan is chosen because his father’s ties to the mob make him a more believable criminal. He’s imprisoned on a phony assault charge and, upon release, uses both his father’s name and his own phony criminal record to infiltrate Costello’s organization. Costigan rises as quickly as Sullivan, becoming one of Costello’s most trusted lieutenants.

Soon both the mob and the police realize they’ve been infiltrated; both informants are tasked with helping to find the traitor in his respective organization. What ensues is a race by each informant to discover the other’s identity. Complicating the issue is a love triangle that inadvertently develops between Costigan, Sullivan and a police psychiatrist (Vera Farmiga). Further complicating things is the fact that only Queenan and Dignam know of Costigan’s true assignment; he’s so deeply undercover that there are no official records of his involvement in the case.

The Departed is crime drama elevated to Shakespearean-like tragedy. Everyone in the cast is very strong and certainly no one is eclipsed; for my money though, DiCaprio gives the most impressive performance. Until this role, I couldn’t help still viewing him, to some degree, as Hollywood’s ‘Teen Beat’ cover boy. Say what you will about not believing him as a thug, the man can act. Plain and simple. Alec Baldwin provides the comic relief here and Matt Damon is terrific as Sullivan, a mob mole who’s far from in control of his destiny. Sullivan is a mildly sympathetic figure, but in the end, he proves little better than the thugs he works for and most will likely be hoping for his comeuppance. Mark Wahlberg is also good as Dignam, a police sergeant with an attitude and a decided dislike of both green cops and Costigan in general. And Jack Nicholson is, well, Jack Nicholson. He's demented and edgy and menacing as mob boss Frank Costello.

There are some issues here with the plot and the love triangle seems a bit contrived, but I hardly noticed any of that. The Departed is fun, involving, true edge-of-your-seat entertainment. Highly recommended.

Score: 9/10

Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Matt Damon, Jack Nicholson, Vera Farmiga, Martin Sheen, Mark Wahlberg, Ray Winstone, Alec Baldwin

Directed by: Martin Scorsese
Released by: Warner Bros.

The Informant (2009): Not as advertised

The Informant stars Matt Damon (The Bourne Movies) in the true story of Mark Whitacre, a high-level executive at Archer Daniels Midland who, at the insistence of his wife Ginger (Melanie Lynskey), turned whistleblower against his company in the early 1990s. The youngest Corporate Vice President and Officer in ADM history, Whitacre is also, to date, the highest-ranking executive ever to become a corporate informant. During Whitacre’s time as an FBI mole, he wore a bug for almost 3 years, recording high-level meetings between ADM and its competitors as they colluded to illegally set worldwide lysine prices, a ubiquitous food additive.

All of this is detailed in the film, with Damon giving a quirky, nuanced performance that paints Whitacre as a random-minded, bipolar scatterbrain—albeit a brilliant, successful, highly-educated scatterbrain. The rest of the film’s performances are also quite sound. The highly-likeable Scott Bakula (Star Trek: Enterprise) plays FBI agent Brian Shepard. Shepard inadvertently becomes Whitacre’s handler when Whitacre approaches him following the conclusion of an unrelated, baseless FBI probe of commercial spying against ADM.

The information Whitacre offers reaches into the highest levels of both international business and world economics, and Shepard and his partner, agent Robert Herndon (Talk Soup’s Joel McHale), eagerly accept. What they don’t count on, however, is Whitacre’s idiosyncrasies and strange, illogical behavior as the investigation intensifies. Before one of the recorded business meetings, for instance, when the listening device in his briefcase malfunctions and starts vibrating, Whitacre opens the case, exposes the strapped-in device, fixes it and closes the case, all while the meeting obliviously proceeds.

Whitacre’s eccentricities don’t end there either. During the course of the film, he inappropriately confides in a number of people within ADM about his FBI cooperation and frequently talks as if the entire affair will prove a terrific career move, ultimately catapulting him into ADM’s highest echelons. Worst of all, during his FBI cooperation, Whitacre secretly engages in criminal behavior, embezzling company funds and forging documents. And although Whitacre’s cooperation ultimately leads to hefty fines for ADM ($500 million including a class action lawsuit) and prison sentences for three top-level executives, his own criminal activities merit a 10 1/2-year prison sentence—more than three times the sentences of the people he gathered evidence against.

Although the story behind The Informant is undeniably compelling, the film is not nearly so entertaining as might be expected. The humor in Whitacre’s situation seems obvious, but the laughs are far too sporadic. This owes, in part, to director Steven Soderbergh's (Ocean's 11-13) pacing.  He moves at a pedantic clip, bogging things down, causing the audience to anticipate narrative acceleration instead of the next laugh or plot development. And Damon’s performance, though award-worthy, never reaches the comedic heights hinted at in the trailer. The funniest moments come during voice-overs by Damon that reflect Whitacre’s wandering thought patterns, with his mind spiraling from one wacky aside to the next. Those asides include contemplation of a fishing trip with his FBI handlers, the evolutionary disadvantages of polar bears having black noses, and others.

As portrayed in the film, Whitacre is a borderline compulsive liar too. He seems to have trouble differentiating his own falsehoods from reality. As one of his lawyers point out in one of the film’s more insightful moments, Whitacre is an untrained civilian, working undercover for almost 3 years. He’s emotionally unprepared for the strains of such work and his bizarre behavior can be readily explained by the immense pressure. As played by Damon, it's easy to believe Whitacre as a man teetering on emotional instability, a man whose anxiety and agitation manifests itself as bizarre, sometimes grandiose, sometimes inappropriate and counterintuitive behavior.

Overall, I can neither overwhelmingly recommend for or against The Informant. Although this film boasts noteworthy performances and a number of scattered laughs, a high percentage of the audience—if not the majority—will likely find major disparities between the film advertised and the film presented.

Score: 5/10

Starring: Matt Damon, Scott Bakula, Joel McHale, Melanie Lynskey, Tony Hale, Thomas F. Wilson

Directed by: Steven Soderbergh
Released by: Warner Bros.