Movie Review: Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides

In the 4th installment of the action/adventure series, “Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides”, Captain Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) is reunited with an old lover: a feisty pirate named Angelica (Penelope Cruz). He catches her impersonating him in order to build a crew and mount an expedition in search of the Fountain of Youth. After being taken prisoner by her father, the evil pirate Captain Blackbeard, Jack is forced to guide the pirates to the location of the Fountain. Unbeknownst to them, there is a rival group, led by Captain Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush), who are looking to capture Blackbeard and bring him to justice. Along the way there are adventures involving zombies, mermaids, and the Spanish army, who are also looking for the Fountain.

The original “Pirates of the Caribbean” was one of the great entertainments of the last decade! A pirate movie in which the pirates had to return a treasure (because it was cursed), instead of taking it, was a refreshing twist on the pirate movie genre, which had walked the plank a few years earlier with the box office disaster “Cutthroat Island.” In addition, there were also great actors like Depp & Rush willing to lend their respectable acting crafts to a big-budget Disney movie produced by mega Hollywood producer Jerry Bruckheimer (“Crimson Tide”, Armageddon”, & “Black Hawk Down”), which gave the movie an even classier edge (despite being inspired by a Disneyland theme park ride.) After the astonishing success of “Pirates”, it was inevitable that there would be sequels. The sequels, while not as good as the original, still had their moments and now we get the 4th movie, which is, admittedly, the weakest entry in the series. Having said that, in its own harmless B movie way, I kind of enjoyed it.

A significant reason why I enjoyed it was Depp’s performance as Jack Sparrow, arguably one of the most popular movie characters of the last 8 years (so good he received an Oscar nomination for the 1st one.) Sparrow is the kind of hero with far more personality & humor than most modern action movie heroes, and Depp still seems to enjoy playing him. Also fun is Geoffrey Rush, who continues to enjoy himself as he chews the scenery with real affection as Barbossa. There are also some new characters this time. Cruz brings plenty of fetch & fight to her role (she was also pregnant when she shot her scenes), and it’s interesting to see Depp & Cruz as lovers again (the last time was in 2001’s electrifying drama “Blow.”) Also very good is Ian McShane as Blackbeard. He brings a truly menacing presence to the legendary pirate, but one of this movies great failings is that it doesn’t make much use of him. After he is established early on, he is saddled as another supporting character and consequently keeps the movie light on a having a good antagonistic force.

This brings me to my biggest problem with the movie: there doesn't seem to be any real stakes for finding the Fountain of Youth. Sure, everyone has their motives, but none of them really creates enough momentum to keep the story engaging. Instead, I found myself entertained mostly by individual scenes involving the characters, rather than being too caught up in the plot. There is plenty of action to be sure; some well choreographed sword fights, precipitous leaps off cliffs, and an opening chase involving horses, carriages, and a funny cameo by Keith Richards, who utters one of the movies best lines ("does this face look like its been to the Fountain of Youth"?) My absolute favorite action sequence, though, involves a suspenseful attempt to capture a mermaid. This turns into a sexy, but scary, sequence in which a group of pirates are ambushed by mermaids who make Ursella in "The Little Mermaid" look like Daryll Hannah in "Splash." It’s the only action sequence in the movie where there appears to be any real threat to the characters, which is another reason why it works so well.

Director Rob Marshall ("Chicago") fills in for Gore Verbinski, who directed the first three “Pirates” films, and he does a competent job. The movie looks very good, mostly because he chose to shoot much of it on real locations in Hawaii & Puerto Rico. He doesn’t quite have the knack for strong imaginative visuals that Verbinski has (see “Rango” for a more recent example of Verbinski’s brilliance), but he fills in nicely and keeps the tone light & fun. It is also a nice touch that he chose to shoot the movie in 3D, rather than post-convert it later. The 3D is is good, mostly because it’s noticeable, unlike most of the post-converted cash-ins we’ve seen post “Avatar.” There is a cool spatial depth between the foregrounds & backgrounds (vines in the jungle literally seem to hang right in front of your face) and there are even a few “sword-in-the-eye” moments (but the movie wisely doesn’t overuse them.) The drawback to the 3D is that the darker scenes are harder to make out because of the tinted 3D glasses. This is a repeating problem with 3D glasses and the most common complaint I've heard from fellow moviegoers & critics.

Overall, despite its many flaws, I enjoyed the new “Pirates." However, one of the more unforgivable flaws involves a love story between one of Blackbeard’s pirates & a mermaid. Every time this subplot reared it’s misshapen head the movie dragged to a complete stop. The entire time I kept asking: why would these two fall in love? They have absolutely no conversations of any depth beyond “are you all right?” I guess the man just wanted to get it on with a mermaid. Maybe my problem was with the actor who played the young pirate; he plays a fairly bland character while surrounded by far more colorful pirates who would've eaten this man for breakfast had this been the real thing! However, despite all of that, I had a good enough time, once again, in the company of Jack Sparrow & Barbossa, as well as most of the new cast of characters. Also, a special shout-out to composer Hans Zimmer who, once again, elevates all of the visuals with his amazing musical themes, old & new (his Blackbeard theme, in particular, stands out as my favorite of his new ones. Sample it on Itunes.)

Movie Theater Experience:

I saw “Pirates” at the midnight sneak preview on Thursday, May 19th. It was a lot of fun! My friends Matt & Tonny came dressed as pirates and they looked very cool. Overall, despite the projectionist starting the wrong movie (the mighty THOR almost intervened), it was a good experience. However, Marcus Theaters have just implemented a new policy in which all future midnight sneak previews must be reserved seating. Meaning, if you want to see the movie while sitting next to your friends, you’d better all buy your tickets at the same time! I am still not sure how I feel about reserved seating in movie theaters; on the one hand, it is nice to know you can show up whenever you want and still be assured a good seat. On the other hand, what if your reserved seat ends up right in front of the obnoxious person who feels the need to vocally share their every observation of the movie with everyone around them? All I can say is then the theater best be handing out blow-dart guns tipped with a sleeping agent.

Have you seen "Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides" yet? If so, what did you think?

Movie Review: Bridesmaids

In the comedy, “Bridesmaids”, Kristin Wiig stars as Annie, a person so down on her luck that her own mother mistakes her of hitting rock bottom long before she finally does. She has just lost her baking business, is about to be kicked out of her apartment by her bizarre sibling roommates, and the man she is seeing (played wonderfully by Jon Hamm as a woman’s worst nightmare) is not interested in pursuing anything more with her than the occasional bedroom visit. On top of all of that, her best friend (played by Maya Rudolph) has just gotten engaged and wants to make Annie her maid of honor in the wedding. Unfortunately, Annie finds herself incredibly jealous of Maya’s other friend, a beautiful and rich party planner named Helen (played by Rose Byrne, who has a lot of fun being slimy), who seems to be making a move toward Annie’s maid of honor duties. Also, the movie wouldn’t be called “Bridesmaids” if there were not three other women who also get caught up in the raunchy shenanigans, which involves everything from awkward sexual positions, drinking, and a very messy run-in with food poisoning.

Now, I know what a lot of you guy readers are thinking: “this sounds like a chick flick! No way am I going to see that!” I understand that thinking but, I completely disagree with it. What separates “Bridesmaids” from most romantic comedies is the talent involved, on-screen and off. The movie is produced by Judd Apatow (director of the “40 Year Old Virgin” & “Knocked Up”), whose distinct brand of raunchy humor, awkward situational comedy, and heart, is stamped all over this movie. Also, it's directed by Paul Feig who, prior to this, had directed some television (“Arrested Development”, “The Office”, ect), but his real claim to fame was co-creator of the cult favorite “Freaks & Geeks.” Feig, and Wiig as co-writer, are not afraid to let an uncomfortable situation play itself out into shocking hilarity. Yet, they also understand when to pull back on the mischief and focus on making the character real.

“Bridesmaids” also boasts an impressive cast of leading ladies, all of whom go above and beyond, especially when it comes to the hilarious no-holds-barred comedy. I have been a fan of Wiig’s for a long time (her wacky brand of humor on “SNL” has always made me laugh) and, despite only playing bit parts & supporting roles in other comedies (my favorite being her bit part in “Knocked Up”), this movie positions her as a terrific leading actress. She is funny, charismatic, and also able to be quite vulnerable in the more dramatic scenes. Also hilarious is Melissa McCarthy who steals every scene that she’s in by playing one of the bridesmaids as a tough talking woman whose antics left my jaw on the floor! “SNL’s” Maya Rudolph is also charming & funny as the bride, as is Chris O’ Dowd who plays a nice police officer who becomes interested in Wiig’s character.

Overall, “Bridesmaids” has a lot of great laughs! It is not merely some “Bride Wars”/”Hangover” clone. Instead, it strives for a lot more than the usual mindless humor by focusing on its characters and making them all feel like believable people. It is also not really a love story about romantic relationships. At its heart, “Bridesmaids” is a touching story about how true friendship can stand the test of time between people who, as they grow & embark down different paths, can still maintain that special bond that they always had. It is also genuinely hilarious, well cast, and quite endearing. Despite being only 2 hours, my only complaint is that the movie does begin to feel quite long. This might have to do with the fact that certain gags tend to go on for quite awhile (although, far more of these gags hit than miss.) However, I still really enjoyed “Bridesmaids” and I cannot wait to see Kristin Wiig in her next leading role!

Movie Theater Experience

I saw "Bridesmaids" with my awesome Mom at the Marcus Oakdale theater. I've said this before, and I'll say it again: this is my favorite movie theater, hands down! The popcorn is always good, the staff is courteous, the theaters are clean, and the film projection always looks and sounds great. My Mom & I went to the 4:45pm show on Sunday and I was reminded why I love seeing comedies with a packed theater audience. When everyone is laughing, it can be truly infectious. 

Movie Review: Thor

In the Marvel comic based action/adventure, “Thor”, there is a world that exists beyond Earth’s “realm.” This world is called Asgard, and it is ruled by King Odin (Anthony Hopkins) who, along with his sons Thor (Chris Hemsworth) & Loki (Tom Hiddelston), maintain their world as a peaceful kingdom. That is, until an unprovoked attack from an old enemy propels the arrogant and mighty Thor foolishly into a battle that sends Asgard to war. For his reckless behavior, his father strips him of his powers and banishes him to Earth to learn about controlling his anger. On Earth, he meets a cute scientist (Natalie Portman) and her team as they try and retrieve Thor’s weapon (a hammer containing the source of all of his powers) before sinister forces threaten to destroy both Asgard & Earth.

I realize that if you are not familiar with the Thor comic book (created by Spider-man creator Stan Lee) this movie might look kind of, oh lets just say, cheesy as all getup! The image of a Viking warrior swinging around a hammer while Anthony Hopkins chews the scenery in his gold-plated armor made me unsure what to expect (I was also not familiar with the comic book.) Having said that, “Thor’ is a LOT of fun! Sure, it has its cornball moments (hearing Oscar winner Anthony Hopkins warn about the dreaded “freeze giants”, the sworn enemies of Asgard, is quite comical) but what really makes the movie sizzle is director Kenneth Branagh’s (known for his Shakespearean epics & for playing Gildaroy Lockheart in “Harry Potter”) ability to find just the right tone in mixing action & spectacle with a surprising amount of heart and humor.

There are a lot of genuinely funny moments in this movie, particularly Thor’s fish-out-water behavior when he gets to Earth. He finds himself truly surprised as, being a mighty warrior like himself, he is taken down by an Earth-bound taser. In addition to the humor, there is a love story between Thor and Portman’s characters in which Thor slowly begins to understand the nature of human compassion but, don’t fret! There is still plenty of room for him to smash his enemies with his hammer all the while flashing a devil-may-care grin as he prepares to battle hordes of bad guys (wait till you see him take out a giant death-ray firing robot!)  And ladies, & gentlemen too, wait until you get a look at Chris Hemsworth when the armor comes off! Even a hereto-sexual male like myself had to admire (and reconsider that Lifetime Fitness gym membership.)

Branagh is also given some nice assists from a good cast. The aforementioned Hemsworth as Thor does a great job portraying what could’ve been a very silly character. One can only boast, "I am the mighty Thor!" with a straight face for so long, but Hemsworth manages to bring a real warmth and humor to the role (in addition to making him truly badass in the action sequences.) He is a hero that most men will want to be & most women will just want! Also, Tom Heddelston does an excellent job as the villainous Loki. He portrays a man whose jealousy of his brother inspires a scheme to rid Thor from Asgard so that he may take his place as the King. His deceptive nature doesn’t stop there, either! Throughout the movie, I was never quite sure what he was up to; this is a testament to Heddelson's ability to bring both subtlety and grandeur to the role. In addition, Portman, Kat Dennings, Stellen Skarsgard, Idis Ebra, and Clark Gregg all bring something to the table as well. 

Overall, I had a great time at "Thor"! It has everything I love in a good popcorn movie: action, spectacle, humor, and, most importantly, heart. When all of the hammers and swords have been swung (and the “freeze giants” and robots have been fought), “Thor” is a story about a young man who refuses to let his reckless temper be his downfall. Only when he discovers the value of compassion and wisdom, through love and honor, is he then able to unlock his true potential as a leader, and successor to his father’s throne. Unlike a lot of big action adventures, in which sparks ignite during the action, but not the human interaction, the dramatic sparks in this movie are allowed to fly between lovers, brothers, and a father and his sons. "Thor" is a lighthearted action/adventure that should please kids of all ages. Finally, it is no secret that Marvel Studios is planning an "Avengers" movie for next summer which will team up Iron Man, Captain America, the Hulk, and Thor (among others.) After seeing "Thor", I cannot wait to see how Marvel pulls that off! If you are also anticipating the upcoming “Avengers” movie, be sure to stay through the end credits!

Movie Review: Fast 5

“I think what keeps it going is that it’s not really about cars. At the core, Fast and the Furious is about family and how to create them.” – Justin Lin, director of “Fast 5.”

The fifth installment of the “Fast and the Furious” saga, “Fast 5”, opens with stars Vin Diesel and Paul Walker as fugitives on the run from federal agents (led by a shiny biceped super cop played by Dwayne Johnson.) Together, Diesel & Walker lead an elite team of street racers (which includes series returnees Tyrese Gibson, Sung Kang, Ludacris, and the very sexy Gal Gadot & Jordana Brewster) as they prepare for “one last job”: a high-stakes heist in Brazil that involves stealing a vault, literally, out of a fortified police station. If they can accomplish this seemingly impossible mission, they can use the money in the vault to buy their freedom (and completely stick it to a corrupt business man who set them up in a train-car heist that, literally, goes south earlier in the film.) That is, if they are not first captured by Johnson, who mounts an all out assault through the slums of Rio De Janeiro to apprehend all of them. He even gets to utter that direst of commands “…NEVER let them near cars!”

Now, I know what some of you are thinking: "why do we need a 'Fast and the Furious 5'?! Did they not say all that needed to be said in the first 'Fast and the Furious'? How about '2 Fast to 2 Furious'? 'Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift'? How about plain ol' 'Fast and Furious' (not a reboot, but the 4th chapter!) What is the appeal of this series, anyway?” I highly doubt it is the family dynamics Linn mentions in the above quote (can you see any of these guys choosing a family station wagon over an American muscle car? Don't think so.) For some, it might be to see if all of the blatant bromancing will lead to more than just that (judging by the way Diesel & Johnson are looking at each other in the above pic, you could cut the sexual tension with a spork!) All kidding aside, maybe much of the appeal can be attributed to one thing: eye- candy. This is a series that sells eye-candy better than most commercials sell it. When a ticket is purchased for “Fast 5”, here is what is guaranteed: cool guys, sexy babes, badass attitude, and enough absurdly cool stunts to make me want to get in my little Chevy Impala and “Tokyo Drift” out of the movie theater parking lot. Although, a disclaimer in the end credits prevented me from realizing this fantasy: "the following stunts were performed by professional stunt drivers. Please, do not try this at home." OKAY, ya talked me out of it!

The franchise seems to be making a fast dash away from the street racing and car culture that has come to characterize the franchise up to this point. Instead, they seem to be heading in the direction of the heist genre (think "Oceans 11"). Why change a franchise that has currently grossed almost a $1 billion worldwide? Maybe the previously successful “Furious” outings were just too limited in their box office reach and Universal Pictures felt like they needed to expand the franchise into something more. Whatever is made of it later (a "Fast 6" is already being planned) the heist aspects worked for me. Where most series are winding down at the 5th entry (tiresomely repeating the same shtick over and over again) the "Fast" series gets points for at least trying to mix in some new genre blood (although, there is no shortage of car action!) It also helps to have a pretty good returning cast: Vin Diesel's chisled biceps and charisma continue to command the screen, Tryrese Gibson brings some much needed comic relief, and Kang, Brewster, Gadot, & the sexy Elsa Pataky (as one of Johnson's cops) are all serviceable; meaning they deliver exactly what is required of them. Though a special kudos to Dwayne Johnson, who fully embraces his cheesy character by playing it completely straight, yet also permitting himself a goofy smile every once in awhile; he seems to be genuinely having fun! And those oiled biceps of his, I mentioned earlier, never appear un-glistened! I was surprised he never tried to blind anyone with them while in one of his many fights scenes (his muscles should really be credited separately; let's put it this way, his biceps are so big they have their own gift shop!) 

Overall, I really enjoyed "Fast 5"! It's big, loud, & dumb fun that goes really good with a large soda and popcorn (the more butter, the better!) Director Linn deserves an especially big bucket of win with his truly audacious flair for action (especially the final car chase which manages to top, in sheer mass destruction, the chase in Michael Bay's "Bad Boys 2") and it is always refreshing to see real cars being employed in stunts (as opposed to obvious CGI.) Also, if you ever wondered what a fight scene between Diesel & Johnson would look like, then look no further; Linn stages a brutal Clash between these Titans which left me exhausted by the end of it (and also wanting to work out!) Yes, the plot is total nonsense, the dialogue is simplistic & cheesy, and the action sequences make the expression, "over-the-top", sound subtle. Yet, "Face 5" kept me entertained for 2 hours with a big silly grin on my face throughout. Side note: if you are at all a fan of this series, stay through the end credits!

Blu Ray Review: The Cable Guy

The macabre dark comedy, “The Cable Guy”, stars Jim Carrey as a wacky cable TV installer who, one day, meets Steven Kovacs (played by Matthew Broderick) on a “routine installation.” Steven thinks that by offering him $50, the cable guy will in turn give him all of the movie channels for free (“even the dirty ones!”) Of course, the cable guy (who calls himself Chip Douglas) is happy to oblige, and even does it free of charge. What Steven doesn’t realize is that he has just entered a pact with a desperate, lonely, and twisted (did I mention pathologically unstable?) man who very carefully insinuates himself into every aspect of Steven's life. He is a complete nightmare of a friend: he leaves dozens of phone messages (daily), shows up randomly when Steven is out with other friends, and even buys him elaborate gifts ("...a big screen TV, deluxe Karaoke machine, and THX quality sound that would make George Lucas cream in his pants!", Chip proudly declares.) Eventually, Chips sinister motives become clearer as Steven realizes that Chip is a man who will stop at absolutely nothing to a have friend.  Thus begins the incredibly dark and funny rollercoaster ride infamously known...as “The Cable Guy.”

For some context, I want to pause for a minute and allow you, the reader, to accompany me back in time to the year 1996. This was the year that Al Gore was doing the Macarena, Alanis Morissette had the #1 album in the country, and “E.R.”, “Seinfeld”, and “Friends” were the top shows on TV. Also, of course, the biggest box office star on the planet (indeed the universe) was funnyman Jim Carrey. Carrey previously had starred in an impressive succession of blockbusters with “Ace Ventura: Pet Detective”, “The Mask”, “Dumb and Dumber”, “Batman Forever”, and “Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls.” Because of his proven track record, Carrey became the first actor to be paid $20 million when he signed on to star in Ben Stiller’s “The Cable Guy.” Yes, I said, BEN STILLER. Yes, THE Ben Still from “There’s Something About Mary”, “Zoolander”, and “Tropic Thunder.” Many of you may not know that Stiller directed “The Cable Guy” (also produced and co-written by Judd Apatow who would later direct the “40 Year Old Virgin” and “Knocked Up”), but he did. Anyway, the film was released in the summer of 1996 and was the subject of a lot of hype and publicity (mostly surrounding Carrey’s record making salary which set a precedent in Hollywood's deal structuring with future stars.) It was a summer that also touted blockbusters like “Twister”, “Mission Impossible”, and “Independence Day.” Carrey even hosted Saturday Night Live for the first time in his career, and to highly rated success. Yes, “The Cable Guy” was being positioned as the motion picture comedy event of the summer.  Why, just look at this trailer:

Some of you are probably thinking, “It looks pretty wacky; like a Jim Carrey movie usually does.” Yes, the Columbia Pictures marketing team did their best to sell this movie as another slapstick comedy (in the vein of Carrey’s other hits.) However, “The Cable Guy” was not really in the vein of those films at all, instead adopting a much darker tone (with Carrey playing less a loveable goofball and more a creepy stalker); instead, it was something much more unique. It was a dark satirical attack on how watching too much television could lead to violent anti-social behavior. Yes, the above trailer does not suggest even a HINT of that message, but it is pretty clear by the end of the movie. Carrey’s Chip Douglas is revealed to have been a person for whom the TV was always a babysitter. We see him as a child asking his mother when he will get a brother to play with. She responds (while dousing her hair with hairspray), “That is why Mommy is going to Happy Hour!” Not being adjusted to a normal family life (or even socializing with other kids) leads Chip down a dark path of social alienation, so troubling that…his real name isn’t even Chip Douglas!  He makes up names for himself (based, no doubt, on the TV programs he consumed as a child) whenever he meets a potential new friend.

The new friend that he wants so desperately to possess is Steven, a man whose girlfriend has just dumped him and who also finds himself watching a lot of TV. At first, Steven can sense that Chip is a little odd (on their first “Date”, he takes him to see how the giant cable satellite works.) Over the course of their several adventures (including jousting at a Medieval Times themed restaurant and having a karaoke party where Chip covers “Somebody to Love”, by Jefferson Airplane) Steven realizes that Chip is far too clingy and may be causing more trouble than he is worth (especially in the scene where he finds out that the woman at the party that Chip sets him up with…was a prostitute. “You think a girl like that would hang out with us if we weren’t paying?” Chip asks matter of factly.) Chip desperately tries anything to keep from losing Steven, even violently assaulting another man interested in dating Steven’s ex-girlfriend (played by a hilariously smarmy Owen Wilson.) Eventually, Steven tells Chip “I just don’t have any room in my life for a new friend.”  Steven parts ways, leaving Chip alone in the middle of the pouring rain (rain always being a visual metaphor for somber feelings in the movies.)

Soon, Steven’s life is turned completely upside down as Chip orchestrates a series of schemes that successfully get Steven fired from his job, thrown in jail, and even made to look like a complete jackass in front of everyone who cares about him most (including his best friend played by Jack Black, in a very straight role.) Finally, Steven must confront Chip once and for all (in an action climax comically inspired by “Goldeneye”) if he is ever going to get his life back to what it once was. One of the most interesting aspects of “The Cable Guy” is that the plot could be something out of any number of obsessed-stalker thrillers which were very popular in the 90’s ("Cape Fear", “The Hand That Rocks the Cradle”, “Single White Female”, “Unlawful Entry”, ect.) Yet, this film is still able to successfully incorporate dark comedy, and some darker thematic elements, into it's thriller plot. The whole film seems as if Carrey, Stiller, and Apatow were intentionally, and courageously, trying to go against everything we, as the audience, had come to expect in a Jim Carrey movie (at that time.) Carrey brilliantly plays a character that couldn't be more different than any he had played before (Even Ace Ventura would find Chip Douglas to be an obnoxious pest.) Carrey’s performance paints a sad portrait of a man so lonely and consumed by television media that he is almost pathologically incapable of grasping what is considered acceptable human behavior. That he does this while also keeping the character funny, albeit darkly, is a testament to his brilliance as an actor. This performance would later pave the way for his best performances: Truman Burbank, Andy Kaufman, and his character in “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.”

It’s really unfortunate that the initial reception of this movie was so bad. Maybe it was the expectations most people had for what they expected from a Jim Carrey movie; maybe some thought it was just too soon to make the biggest star on the planet play such a deeply troubled & unpleasant character (is this what they pay stars $20 million to do, some asked?) It was a minor box office success (but still coming no where near the numbers of Carrey’s previous hits) but was met with mostly negative critical reviews (Roger Ebert called it one of the years 10 worst movies! Although his partner, Gene Siskel did like it.) I’ve always concluded that “The Cable Guy” was a vastly underrated film; a film with a great cast (in addition to Broderick, Black, and Wilson, there is also Leslie Mann, Eric Roberts, Janeane Garofalo, and even Still himself) accompanied by a wildly courageous performance from Jim Carrey and a strong offbeat visual style in Stiller’s wonderful direction. Yes, It’s dark; its thematic undercurrent, satirizing the evils of watching too much TV, is troubling. But it is also a sharp, edgy, manically funny, & wickedly subversive comedy whose satirical targets also include the media's seemingly never-ending coverage of celebrity scandals, popular TV shows & movies, and finally, the wisdom of turning off the TV once in awhile, and reading something. 

Blu Ray Details:

"The Cable Guy" looks and sounds terrific on Blu-Ray! Yes, there's going to be a little graininess (it was made in 1996!), but it is not distracting. There are some very interesting special features including:

-Deleted Scenes

-HBO First Look

-Gag Reel

-Rehearsal Footage

-A Jerry Cantrell Music Video

But the best special feature is an audio commentary recorded by Judd Apatow, Ben Stiller, & Jim Carrey. These three guys need to do more commentary's because they are equally hilarious and informative. Not only do they talk about the movie, but they also talk quite openly about the notorious backlash that came afterwards. Needless to say, they remain proud of their work. This is an excellent commentary and worth the price of the Blu Ray, especially if you are a fan of this movie!

Movie Review: Scre4m

The fourth installment of the horror francise,“Scream” (spelled Scre4m), picks up 10 years after the events of “Scream 3” (spelled 3cream?). Survivor Sydney Prescott (played by Neve Campbell) returns to her small town of Woodsboro only to find herself wrapped up in yet another bloody massacre, orchestrated again by a demented man (or woman?), wearing a black robe and a ghost face mask, who likes to call their victims and taunt them with movie trivia questions (preferably of the horror movie kind) before dissecting them quicker than they can dissect the horror genre itself. David Arquette & Courtney Cox also reprise their roles as Dewey (now the town sheriff) and Gale Weathers, former hard nosed journalist turned wife of Sheriff Dewey. There is also a whole new assortment of characters, fresh for the filleting, and a new generation of horror movie rules that most be followed in order to survive.

There is a word being thrown around a lot these days in the movie blogger world; it’s called “meta.” This is not exactly a new word but it’s used to describe any kind of movie that is so self-aware of its very being that it seems to transcend the idea of simply being a movie itself, and becomes more of a commentary on the idea of being a movie. Well, “Scream 4” takes this definition to its logical conclusion by being a movie that is SO self-aware that at times it feels more like a parody of itself, rather than a horror movie. Every step of the way, characters (including the killer) make numerous references to horror movies (even the idea of reboots and sequels that go on far too long) that it is very difficult to really give this movie much of a review because it has already premeditated the criticisms.  It already knows that it is a sequel merely cashing in on the success of the previous films (11 years later); it already knows that when characters say, “I’ll be right back” in a horror movie, they won’t be right back. And that is the problem with “Scream 4”: It is so savvy about the rules of the game that there never really is a game. It’s just one long running commentary about…itself.

The original “Scream” was something of a rarity in 1996. Before that, horror movies seemed to have run their course. They had recycled just about every clichéd scare while also repeating them in an endless string of sequels. Horror movies began playing in emptier & emptier theaters (Freddy & Jason were “dead” and Michael Myers would soon be) until “Scream” came along and proved that there was still some fresh blood left in the genre. Unlike a lot of what came before, this one had a fresh take: what if the characters had all seen every horror movie and were aware, not only of all of the clichés, but also how to use this knowledge to outwit a killer who was patterning himself on horror movie conventions.  What could be more “meta” than a horror movie about a cast of characters who know they are in a horror movie?  Also, what could be more unsettling than a horror movie that dared to ask the question, "can movies be blamed for violence in our society?" But the difference between the original "Scream and "Scre4m" is that it actually took itself (and that question) seriously enough to work as a scary horror movie. "Scre4m", most of the time, takes itself as seriously as a Mad magazine parody of itself which all but kills any semblance of horror. 

To be fair, a lot of the dialogue is very clever (more than most horror movies even) as characters dissect the conventions (or the ‘rules’) of horror movies and apply them to their current situation (being the latest victims of a deranged psychopathic murderer who is patterning themselves after a killer from the previous movies.) There are discussions here that comment on torture porn, “Asian ghost horror”, remakes, reboots, and even the “found footage” genre that has inspired recent films like “Cloverfield” & Paranormal Activity.” The movie does away with the slickness and gritty realism of recent horror movie reboots (notably “Halloween”, “Friday the 13^th, & “Nightmare on Elm Street”, which this movie also comments on) in favor of a jokier and more self-referential tone. At times this works great (particularly in the opening scenes which, while not scary, are quite funny!) Also, it is fun to have the original cast back; Neve Campbell & Courtney Cox seem to be the only ones acting as if they are in a horror movie (while David Arquette comes off having less fun as the bumbling sheriff; Maybe his recent separation with Cox had affected his mood. Although, his "Axel F." cell phone ringtone is a nice touch.) Other notable standouts include Rory Culkin (as a cinema geek who knows the new horror movie rules) and Hayden Penettiere as a fellow cinema fan, but far to gutsy to just be a geek.  

Yet, for all of its wit, "Scre4m" is completely devoid of anything scary. The movie seems far more interested in commenting on itself than it does providing anything closely resembling the frightening opening sequence in the original “Scream”. In that, Drew Barrymore played a teen that gets a frightening phone call asking that immortal question, “What’s your favorite scary movie?” before she is brutally attacked for getting the question wrong about who the killer was in the original “Friday the 13th.” In "Scre4m", there is never really any suspense because the characters never seem to act like they are in any real danger; they aren’t in a horror movie so much as in a horror movie ABOUT horror movies. They constantly comment on it as if they were providing their own running commentary of the movie. But maybe this is the movies point: have we, the horror movie audience, become so familiar with this genre that we have also become numb to its tricks? That “Scream 4” works so tirelessly to stay ahead of an audience so savvy of it may be why it completely fails at being scary or suspenseful. If this series is going to continue, they’d better pull back on the self-awareness just a bit and take the scares a little more seriously (or at least have the characters pretend that they are in a horror movie.)

Overall, “Scream 4” had enough fun moments to make it an all-around decent flick. It is a lot smarter and more interesting than most films in this genre. Also, the ending brings the 90’s franchise into the modern world with a savagely perverse twist that effectively skewers our whole media-obsessed culture. I just wish the movie had a couple of decent scares! It is inevitable that the long-running horror franchises devolve into self-parody; the more familiar with them we become, the less scary Freddy, Jason, & Michael Myers become. The last really scary movie I saw was “Paranormal Activity” because it relied, not on stylish filmmaking or special effects, but on good ol’ fashioned mystery for its scares. One rule of franchises that “Scream 4” did not point out would easily apply to itself: with all of the great horror franchises, that element of mystery is there in the beginning. However, that mystery is eventually diluted by a parade of never-ending sequels and reboots that render our most frightening movie monsters no scarier than a cheap rubber Halloween store mask of their likeness. 

. 

Movie Review: Hanna

The action film “Hanna” tells the story of a 16-year-old girl, Hanna (played by Saoirse Ronan), who lives in hiding with her rouge government operative father (played by Eric Bana.) Together, the two live off the grid in a harsh Finland arctic environment where Bana teaches his daughter to speak several languages, hunt with a bow and arrow, and to defend herself when that inevitable day comes when her growing curiosity about the world (informed largely by an encyclopedia and some Grimm fairy tales) finally inspires her to leave home. When she finally does leave, she discovers that the real world can be a bit harsher than her fairy tale version of it led her to believe as she finds herself being pursued by other government operatives (led by Cate Blanchett) who will stop at nothing to apprehend her (for reasons she will learn later.) In order to survive, she becomes a full-on killing machine who proceeds to decimate any operative scum who threatens to get in her way.

If the plot feels like a familiar mash-up of “Leon: The Professional”, “La Femme Nikita”, the “Bourne” movies, and “Kick-Ass”, it is, but only on a surface level; but it is not what a movie is about, it is about how it goes about it. Joe Wright’s “Hanna” goes about it in all of the exciting ways. It has a surprising amount of sophistication, particularly in how it reflects the Grimm fairy tales into aspects of its plot. But at its heart, the film is really a coming-of-age story about a young woman who must rely on her wits, and her ability to adapt to changing environments ("adapt or die" her father instructs her), in order for her to, not only survive, but to continue to grow and invent herself as a young adult (to survive the sometimes harsh realities of life, in general.) It's not exactly John Hughes, but the movie is thematically much richer than it's mash-up plot would lead one to believe. 

“Hanna” was directed by Joe Wright (director of “Pride & Prejudice” & Atonement”) and this time he leaves his period costumes at home in favor of a big bucket of buttered popcorn genre movie excess! In “Pride” & “Atonement” he displayed a beautiful visual style (there is an awesome long continuous take camera shot that explores a post D-Day battle field in “Atonement”!); now, he takes that visual style and uses it to energize his action sequences with a tremendous amount of style. He also finds a way to employ more of those long-continuous takes in the action scenes (a great example is Bana’s fight with several men in an underground parking garage.) In addition to his great visual style, Wright also brings a warm human touch into how he handles the complexities of a character like Hanna. Unlike a lot of modern action directors who would've had her in a skimpy outfit firing machine guns before the end of the first reel, Wright seems to have far more respect for his character than that. Yes, she does kill a lot of people in various ways, but she is also allowed to possess real intelligence, particularly in her curiosity for the brand new world she is inhabiting.

"Hanna" also boasts an impressive cast: Saoirse Ronan does a terrific job balancing a starry eyed innocence for the world around her with a savage ability to dispense brutal violence without any sign of remorse (disturbingly, she has probably been sheltered from this emotion as part of her training.) She also has some very nice scenes in which she discovers electricity, boys, and friendship. Eric Bana also does a good job balancing the sweet, caring father with a penchant for dispatching anyone who might threaten his daughters life. Cate Blanchett continues her streak of great character performances by playing a truly cold villain; one with a smooth southern charm and a frightening lack of humanity. At times her performance seems to be chewing the scenery. However, it is such tasty looking scenery! 

On the heels of two amazing musical scores from fellow industrial/electronic artists Trent Reznor and Daft Punk (“Social Network” & “Tron: Legacy”), the Chemical Brothers bring their own unique musical style to their original score of “Hanna”, and it is quiet brilliant! Their music works wonderfully with the amped up visuals and even brings a surprisingly playful tone to some of the non-action scenes. I downloaded it last week and it has continued to play in heavy rotation on my IPod.

Overall, I really liked “Hanna”! Like Kevin Smith’s “Red State”, this is a genre film that took me by complete surprise. It proves that a solid action movie can still be made without it having to be completely mindless. Also, like Hailee Steinfeld showed just a few months ago in the Coen Brothers' "True Grit, Ronan proves that a young actress can still hold her own in a genre typically dominated by male action heroes. Not that there is anything wrong with showing off the physical assets of very attractive people, but it is nice to see an action movie starring a young woman whose sole function is not objectified as just eye-candy with a hand gun.

Movie Theater Experience:

I saw “Hanna” at a 2pm show at the AMC in the Eden Prairie Mall. This would have to be one of my favorite movie theaters! It includes a long, long hallway full of beautiful illustrations of movie icons, and also crisp and clear digital sound & projection. I highly recommend a visit to this theater!