Thunderbuck Reviews

Sandy Wexler (2017)

I did NOT think Sandler had it in him anymore...

[8/10 · 18 April 2017]

Easily the best movie Sandler's made in... well, a long time.

Sandy Wexler is an utterly abrasive loser, and if there's a problem with the movie at all you spend the first half hour wondering if you can actually stand to hear that nails-on-chalkboard voice for the duration. The movie really IS too long and might have had some time trimmed from the setup, but once you get past that? Well...

Jennifer Hudson is fantastic. She's funny, and charming, and classy, and the songs she sings in this Hollywood fable are very, very good. There are some funny bits, and some clever twist casting and cameos.

It's a bit uneven, but fun and totally worthwhile.

La La Land (2016)

Yes, legitimately great

[10/10 · 18 February 2017]

Okay, big deal, they've made an original Hollywood musical for the first time in decades, and the music is okay, and it's all a big L.A. love-fest. Ho-hum.

BUT... La La Land really IS that good, even if it doesn't immediately present itself as anything more than a fluffy confection. This takes its place comfortably with "An American in Paris" (to which it pays considerable homage).

To me this is kind of a "guerilla musical"; most of the shots seemed to source from hand-held cameras. It's a low-budget production that frequently uses lighting effects that would be at home in a high school musical. There's little in the way of purpose-built sets and heavy use is made of locations with showbiz-themed murals and the like.

The movie is set in present-day Los Angeles, and fits the classic romantic comedy rags-to-riches template. Neither lead is either a great dancer or a great singer, but the characters are engaging and they're having so much damn fun that it's easy to get pulled in.

This is a sticky-sweet L.A. love story, presented without a whit of irony, and its sincere cheer is infectious. The original music is nice and catchy and both Gosling and Stone present fun, relatable characters.

***SPOILER*** Where La La Land goes from escapist confection to truly great is in the final number, a bittersweet composition that re-imagines the story of Nia and Sebastian with some crucial differences. It's an expression of regret and longing and somehow makes a meaningful comment about the ways we want to reshape reality. The ending is note-perfect.

Lovely movie. Worth the hype.

A Face in the Crowd (1957)

Powerful, chilling, and still utterly relevant

[9/10 · 20 January 2017]

Great. Really great. Deserves wider recognition, because as a study of power and populism it's up there with "Citizen Kane".

No, Elia Kazan didn't have Orson Welles' dazzling technical brilliance (though there's a wonderful natural feel of being onstage with the performers throughout), but he was very much an actor's director and brings some spectacular performances to the screen here.

I'm a child of the early '60s, so I grew up with The Andy Griffith Show, Mayberry RFD, and Matlock. I'd experienced many, many stories on TV with Andy Griffith, and he was a comfortable, familiar presence. Maybe the best compliment I can pay this film and his performance in it was that I quickly forgot he was Andy Griffith at all.

Griffith's character of "Lonesome" Rhodes is honestly a performance for the ages. He's by turns charming, pitiful, and terrifying as he quickly ascends from an Arkansas county drunk tank to become a powerful media presence. The story is plotted conveniently but Griffith is utterly believable through the entire climb.

Though Rhodes is the focus of the story, there's a great surrounding ensemble, too. The great Walter Mattheau has a strong supporting role as one of Rhodes' writers who eventually becomes disillusioned, and Patricia Neal is fantastic as the reporter who brings attention to Rhodes to begin with and tries to follow him all the way up. The performances are all amazing.

Some personal speculation: I understand that Kazan was very demanding on Griffith during shooting, and that Griffith's experience on set was dark and difficult. His subsequent, more prosaic television career may well have been shaped by a desire to atone for his performance here.

Kazan did this movie following his classic "On the Waterfront", and perhaps it's overshadowed unfairly. It's a great story of power, populism and corruption and deserves to be known more widely.

Gone Baby Gone (2007)

Yes, a genuine great

[9/10 · 20 January 2017]

I'm writing this review long, long after my original viewing of the film, and that's significant in itself: it's stayed with me this long.

Ben Affleck did such a good job on this movie I could hardly believe it was him directing. The gritty settings, the bang-on performances, the solid pacing... It flat WORKS just on a cinematic level. It's a good detective story with really compelling characters. Notably, Casey Affleck's performance is magnificent. Deadpan, absolutely, but it's a character that demands it.

What elevates Gone Baby Gone to true greatness, though, is the moral question posed in the course of the story. It's a great movie to see with other people, because it's sure to raise discussion.

Room (I) (2015)

Surprisingly entertaining, even life-affirming

[9/10 · 6 March 2016]

Given the disturbing premise of "Room", I was expecting emotional intensity, a fairly static plot, and a generally dark tone, so I was surprised to find this movie to be an engagingly-told story of resiliency.

Both Brie Larson and Jacob Trembley are outstanding. Playing mother and son, their characters and relationship are completely convincing, and while the story starts fairly quietly (perhaps to reflect Joy's and Jack's captivity), the story gains intensity as Joy realizes the need to escape, and prepares Jack to help in the attempt.

This is a story about trauma, survival, and resiliency, told very quietly and carefully. I marvel at films that find the significance in the everyday, without having to warp it for dramatic effect. "Room" achieves it beautifully.

Deadpool (2016)

I don't even LIKE the Marvel movies...

[10/10 · 2 March 2016]

...but DEADPOOL was awesome! It was great to find an action-comedy that assumes I'm an adult.

It's dumb, it's profane, it's utterly silly, and I loved every minute of it (literally, right from the opening "credits"). Is there a story in there? Yeah, I guess, but it's really just secondary to Deadpool's constant smart-alec riffing. If anyone was considering writing a Marvel spoof screenplay, don't bother; "Deadpool" frequently bites the hand that feeds it and skewers the label as thoroughly as anyone could hope.

Deadpool "breaks the 4th wall" frequently, and even parodies that device by breaking the 4th wall in a flashback WHILE breaking the 4th wall ("That's like, 16 walls!").

Do NOT take kids. This movie revels in gratuitous violence, graphic language, and juvenile humour, and makes no apologies for any of it. This is an "R" rated movie and comes by it honestly. If you're good with that, though, the odds are good you'll laugh your butt off.

The Interview (II) (2014)

Not sure what people were expecting...

[9/10 · 27 December 2014]

For what it is, "The Interview" is fine. It's an adolescent comedy with moronic slapstick humour, in very much the same vein as the previous Seth Rogen/James Franco movie "This is the End". It's vulgar, raunchy, and contains no pretence of social responsibility.

Personally, I laughed my butt off. The jokes worked for me, and in fact I wound up seeing it twice this weekend and found many jokes I'd missed on the first viewing.

You can really look at "The Interview" as kind of the 2014 version of the old Crosby-Hope "Road" movies. No substance, fun chemistry, doofy plot. Rogen is actually very funny as Franco's straight man.

I like the generosity of these guys that they give lots of laughs to their supporting cast, too. Randall Park's role as Kim Jong Un didn't strike me as terribly convincing, but he winds up covering a pretty fair emotional range.

Again, vulgar, raunchy, and no pretence of social responsibility. Or really any responsibility. If you're good with that, you have a better-than-average chance of liking this movie.

The Object of Beauty (1991)

Worth seeking out

[9/10 · 26 March 2014]

There's a genre I like to call "little English comedy" that really traces its roots back to the Ealing studios in the late 40s. The movies didn't have high budgets (they couldn't afford them), but frequently had clever scripts that made them eminently watchable (Alec Guiness got his start there in movies like The Man in the White Suite and The Horse's Mouth).

The Object of Beauty fits this category nicely. It's a little puzzling that it didn't do better, actually, with two American leads and rave reviews from Siskel and Ebert. Their review, in fact, is the only reason I happened to be on the lookout for this one.

It's an elegant, witty comedy of manners. It's carefully, quietly scripted, and rather subtle. Totally worth seeking out.

Synecdoche, New York (2008)

Long... Weird... Kind of amazing.

[10/10 · 23 March 2014]

Synechdoche, New York is nothing if not ambitious. It's about mortality, love, loss, creativity, and fear. It's a 2 hour comedy that doesn't have a single full-out laugh but countless sly observations, from the mundane to the profound.

This is an art film, and it makes no apologies for it. It's remarkably confident and does little to explain itself. That alone makes it kind of wonderful.

It's challenging. I'd watched the first 20 minutes and had to abandon it because I wasn't "getting" it. Catch it with the right set of expectations, though, and it becomes one of those stories that kind of flows around you like a dream. When I went in for a second attempt, it worked a lot better.

The length works in the movie's favor. You follow secondary characters from the beginning, and the way their lives unfold (and end) are meaningful (SPOILER: The scene with Caden at Olive's deathbed is a brilliant summation of the gaps between parents and children).

It's cinematic absurdism. Pretty accessible as absurdism goes, but it's not going to be for everyone. I "got" it, though, and I'm very grateful.

Brigadoon (1954)

My favorite of MGM's classics

[9/10 · 19 June 2013]

I adore Brigadoon.

Won't quibble about the authenticity of the story, the sets, or the choreography. However inauthentic the movie may be, it WORKS. For me, it works better than any of MGM's other classics.

The production is beautiful. The sets (however artificial) are beautiful. Kelly's choreography is beautiful. Cyd Charisse is BEAUTIFUL (honestly, my favorite woman in any musical, ever--masterful dance if I've ever seen it).

"Heather on the Hill" is a highlight of musical cinema, period. Lovely song, spectacular dancing and choreography.

The ending, however preposterous, still ranks among my favorites.

Looper (2012)

Thoughtful, character-driven...

[9/10 · 10 February 2013]

First thing to get out of the way about "Looper"; time travel is a plot device, and nothing more. The movie is much more about the characters and the implications of their actions. It's kind of a philosophy treatise wrapped up in an engaging action plot.

There are multiple holes and inconsistencies in the plot. Honestly, they don't matter. This is a character-driven story, and a rather good one.

There's a neat, "noir-ish" tone to the movie. There's some exposition in the first half-hour that helps us understand the rules of this universe. A great many of these rules are explained in an early sequence where a friend of central character Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) fails to "close his loop" by killing his future self. The results are gruesome, but not in any way we see explicitly.

Great sci-fi doesn't actually have to be believable. It just has to provide a setting for a story that wouldn't make sense in our own world. "Looper" turns out to be a very interesting contemplation of what makes people "good" and "bad" and does it with some smartly-conceived action and better-than-average writing.

The Descendants (2011)

Payne's best

[9/10 · 6 May 2012]

Alexander Payne has a fantastic eye for characters, and his movies are completely driven by them. "About Schmidt" has been high on my list of favourites for a long time, and it really has almost no story at all, but Jack Nicholson's performance in the title role shows an amazing balance between the ridiculous and the sublime.

"The Descendents" might just rank as Payne's best, because the whole film is populated by characters that are as well-written. Clooney is great in this, showing a vulnerability and at times even an awkwardness that is not what we typically expect in his performances.

I find some of the creative choices here interesting; some of the most important events happen off-camera, leaving the movie to focus not so much on what happens, but on how everyone reacts to it. I found this movie to have some of the most memorable, authentic characters I've seen in years.

...and I love the way Hawaii is filmed in this movie. It isn't any deliberate attempt to show it badly, but you see things like suburbs, and freeways, and skyscrapers that don't normally make it into a "Hawaii" movie. Not to say that there aren't other, more scenic shots, and I liked the balance. In this way, Hawaii itself becomes something of a character.

The Princess Bride (1987)

So many perfect elements... Where to begin?

[10/10 · 10 December 2011]

In '86 I was lucky to find an old paperback copy of William Goldman's "The Princess Bride" at a yard sale. I had already read some of his novels, and while I hadn't heard of this particular one, I quickly consumed it, enjoying it tremendously. It was a very clever, but ultimately affectionate, parody of fairy-tale conventions with an equally clever and complicated narrative. It was a fun, memorable book, and when I heard not long after about a film adaptation, I wondered how much of the book's clever tone would translate to the screen.

Quite a bit, as it turned out. Rob Reiner's movie version is an outstanding movie, and one that I was pleased to see holds up incredibly well, even a quarter-century later.

The brilliance to this movie is in its tone. As I said, it's a parody of fairy-tale conventions. Goldman's characters start out as cardboard-cutout stereotypes, and the events of the story itself are outlandishly improbable (up to and including resurrection), but even as the story gently mocks those conventions, it ultimately still depends on them in the end.

The characters are marvelous. Vizzini and his outbursts of "Inconceivable!!", kind-hearted Fezzik with his rhyming, and Inigo Montoya, with his graciousness, honor, and drive for revenge. Carey Elwes' Wesley is a great balance of clever humor and chivalry, and Robin Wright's Buttercup is a smart, strong fairytale princess. All the performances are note-perfect.

And the script is brilliant (as well it should be, with Goldman adapting his own novel). The dialogue sparkles, with enough memorable lines to fill a book. We get to love these characters, and care what happens to them (when Inigo finally gets the chance to avenge his father's death, it's surprisingly dramatic and emotional).

The story in the film is simpler than that of the book. Among other things, the book goes WAY further into Vizzini's, Fezzik's, and Inigo's backstories, and it's absolutely a worthwhile read, but there was no way it could have all been translated to the screen. As I say, it's an unusually good adaptation.

I enjoyed it even more than I did on its original release. That's an easy definition of "classic".

Cars 2 (2011)

I don't know where to start...

[3/10 · 19 November 2011]

I can't believe I'm saying this about a Pixar film, but "Cars 2" is a monumental waste of talent and technology. And what concerns me most is that what this movie gets wrong is the most important thing Pixar has always gotten right.

The storytelling is a massive letdown, for a few reasons. The first is that I think they tried to stretch the anthropomorphism of the cars too far; in an early suspense scene secret agent Finn McMissile (voiced by Michael Caine) sneaks around on an oil platform in ways that make him seem well-nigh invincible, and another character who arrives later is able to sprout wings and fly... Why would a car want to roll when it could fly, anyway? The espionage angle didn't have to fall flat (and I actually really liked the way McMissile was executed as a character), but it took these characters to a place they really didn't seem to belong, a fairly brutal murder just being one instance. We also learn somewhat more about the toilet habits of cars here, which starts to beg the question of how they fulfil other biological needs. In the first movie we didn't even START to go there, and I'm not sure it was a great creative decision here.

The characters are flat, which is an unusual Pixar failing, too. There is a cardboard kind of friendship between Lightning McQueen and sidekick Tow Mater that seems mailed in from a '70s after-school special, and verges on creepy. Poor 'Mater is the subject of a great many jokes, few of which are really terribly funny.

The "new-enviro-fuel-threatened-by-evil-big-oil" is okay, if a little over-simplified, and I "got" the film's notion that it's the "lemons" of the world who hold us back, but I was a bit conflicted over the ending (and, yes, the SPOILER ALERT goes here). Sir Miles Axelrod (Eddie Izzard) is an older Range Rover oil baron who has supposedly seen the light and converted to greener technology, though in the end he turns out to be the mastermind working to discredit his own alternative fuel, as he has since found a massive sub-ocean oil deposit. On one hand, this twist seemed to discredit the notion of alternative fuel entirely, but I also have to admit that such corporate "greenwashing" actually exists. Frankly, "Monsters, Inc." had a similar message, but it was much clearer there.

Story and character are pretty important, and Cars 2 fails miserably on both counts. Technically? Well, that's a brighter side there, as everything LOOKS fantastic. And I'll confess that I enjoyed many, MANY in-jokes. The movie is FILLED with Easter eggs for both car nuts and Pixar fans.

One of the best little "inside baseball" moments came when an American agent who had infiltrated the bad guys disguised as an old Gremlin took off his disguise to reveal himself as a new Dodge Challenger; Chrysler bought AMC back in the 80s, and this scene almost seemed a symbol of its renewal. Unfortunately, this and many other moments suggest that Pixar may have worked fairly closely with Chrysler in a rather subversive form of product placement. A race that takes place in a very Monaco-like locale was actually moved to Italy, I suspect as an excuse to feature many Fiat models; Fiat, of course, now owns Chrysler.

Clever in-jokes can't be the basis for a movie on their own. Particularly when many of them seem to be motivated by marketing. Even that MIGHT have been forgivable with decent characters and story. Lacking these, "Cars 2" is Pixar's first unqualified failure.

Killer Elite (2011)

For what it is, actually pretty good.

[8/10 · 28 September 2011]

I don't recall seeing a movie like this in a good, long time. It's a macho-action-thriller that didn't have an A-list budget, but probably didn't really need it, either. You used to see more of this back in the 70s and 80s; these days this kind of movie usually has a much bigger budget, with the requisite special effects and massive action sequences such a budget buys. Here, though, it's a little different.

Good action, intriguing setup (definitely no good-guy/bad-guy here; nobody is completely innocent by any stretch), and pretty good characters. And a story that's somewhat better than you usually find in this particular kind of film.

Don't know that Jason Statham's a great actor, exactly, but he's definitely a presence and he's got others to do the acting around him, and he performs in a several action scenes that come right up to the edge without getting silly. And I liked the basic plausibility in most of the scenes.

I'm a guy, and Killer Elite is a pretty decent "guy" movie. You could do worse.

Crazy, Stupid, Love. (2011)

Nothing earth-shattering, but cute

[8/10 · 18 September 2011]

"Crazy Stupid Love" is nice. Possibly the perfect date movie, since it explores relationship pitfalls without getting lost in them.

Nice performances. Ryan Gosling plays a great "player" who decides to take Steve Carrell's character Cal under his wing and help him learn to talk to women about something other than his failed marriage. And Emma Stone is her usual delightful self.

Entertaining, funny, and occasionally poignant. Frankly, the level of insight isn't much greater than some sitcoms, but it's still sweet.

Dating? Or, married and on a "date night"? Worth a trip to the theater. Otherwise, perfectly worthwhile as a rental later on.

Drive (I) (2011)

No. Just, no.

[3/10 · 17 September 2011]

This is an awful movie. Perhaps all the more so because there were the ever-so-slight hints that it might have been good.

Watch the first half-hour. Gosling's (unnamed) character, when spoken to, takes ridiculously long pauses--upwards of 10 seconds--to respond.

>>>Spoilers ahead The story is, um, flimsy. Porn-movie flimsy. There is a central crime to this story that never really IS explained very well (sure, it looked really cool when that other car showed up, but... wwwhy was it there, exactly?), and is really the product of a monumental coincidence. Think about it: Gosling just happens to be the driver for a holdup where his neighbor is robbing cash from a pawn shop in a heist that's really been masterminded by... the guy who's bankrolling his race car? Huh? (and, no, the story makes absolutely NO effort to explain this).

As much as I love Ryan Gosling, he's just plain bad here. Maybe not "just plain" bad; spectacularly, pretentiously bad. I know what the creative intent was, that the character was just something of a "blank canvas" that others project their wants and needs on to. The biggest problem here is that Gosling can't tone down the smart and charming enough for us to believe that he's as socially isolated as his character really should be. And, again, he tends to try to substitute blankness for intensity. It doesn't work.

Carey Mulligan is okay, but her character is pretty one-dimensional as well. I got zero chemistry off of the combo of her and Gosling. The kid is basically a prop. I'm sorry, I got absolutely nothing to say why this guy develops an attachment to these two.

When Mulligan's husband appears, there's actually a little tension for a bit, and I began to hope for some substance (especially since he has considerably more chemistry with Mulligan than Gosling does). Sadly, "Standard" is killed off fairly quickly.

There's no shortage of great performers in this movie, and they're mostly wasted. Ron Perlman is so awesomely menacing! And so completely under-written! And what's there is clichéd! God, what were these people thinking? Bryan Cranston has a supporting role as Gosling's partner/boss. A huge opportunity is wasted when his character's interest in the stolen money is just casually discarded. That might have actually GONE somewhere. As a "Breaking Bad" fan, I know just how good he can be, but the writing here is nowhere near as good, and his character, as well, is left adrift.

And Albert Brooks. Who I've loved since "Lost in America". It breaks my heart, because he's actually awesome in this movie. One of the most compelling cinematic criminals since Brando, I kid you not. Thoughtful, emotional, utterly believable, but since he's the only character that we develop even the remotest sympathy for, he's not quite enough to redeem this mess.

I was hoping for some action, at least. And there really isn't much. For a movie about a driver, there honestly isn't that much driving. The movie opens with a not-bad robbery getaway, but there's only one more serious chase later on, and even IT isn't especially noteworthy. Did none of these people even WATCH "Bullitt"? And, speaking of car action, there's one scene where Gosling's character repeatedly rams another car. Hard. Hard enough to send it rolling off a small cliff. And yet, afterwards, we see the front end of his car, seemingly undamaged. Are mid-70s Chevelle parts really that hard to come by? There are legitimate flashes of creativity in "Drive". There are some genuinely original scenes of violence (and, to be fair, well-executed). Had the story and characters risen to a level where the audience might have cared, well, this might have been a different movie.

This is one of those "emperor's-new-clothes" things the movie industry pulls on the public every once in a while. Don't fall for it.

Paul (2011)

A standout, even in a year of great comedies

[29 August 2011]

2011 has seen more than its share of great adult comedies, including "Bridesmaids", "Horrible Bosses", and, yes, even "The Change-Up". And now we have "Paul", which went from theatrical release to home video in what seems a matter of weeks. I wondered how it would stack up.

I'll admit, my expectations for "Paul" were kind of mixed. Nick Frost and Simon Pegg have already done two of my favourite parodies, "Shaun of the Dead" and "Hot Fuzz". These were both unusually smart, and rather reverential in tone ("Hot Fuzz", in particular, almost worked just as a straight buddy-cop story). But when "Paul" faded from the box office standings so quickly this past spring, I assumed it must have paled in comparison to the previous Pegg-Frost collaborations.

I can't explain that poor box office, frankly, because I'm pleased to say that "Paul" doesn't just hold up to the other two Pegg-Frost movies, it might just be the best of the bunch.

Pegg and Frost are something of a throwback, an old-time comedy team like Martin and Lewis or Abbot and Costello. Pegg is the clear lead, but Frost is such a reliable foil and the pair has classic comic chemistry. It also helps that Pegg has a fantastic range as an actor, managing to walk that fine line between the earnest and the ridiculous.

The script for "Paul" is the best sci-fi pastiche/parody I've seen since the brilliant "Galaxy Quest". There's a wealth of movie references both subtle and obvious. LOTS of "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" references (explained through a brilliant cameo by Spielberg himself). There's also a couple of clever nods to John Carpenter's "Starman", including a scene that I would swear was shot in one of the original locations. What I think I loved best about this script, though, is the relationship that Pegg and Frost established between their own characters, which I understand draws a lot on their real-life friendship (and self-admitted "nerddom").

I think it also says something about how confident these guys are to see that they've surrounded themselves by a host of the funniest people in show business today. Seth Rogan voices the CGI titular character and while he might have been just a little TOO wise-ass, it was still a great performance. SNL standouts Kristin Wiig and Bill Hader are both hilarious, especially given both of their performances were unusually restrained. Jason Bateman seems to be showing up in EVERYTHING these days, and he's great here, too.

It's funny. It works. It doesn't even have to resort to the same level of gross-out as a lot of other current comedies have gone to. TOTALLY worthwhile.

Trust (I) (2010)

Flawed? Sure, but...

[11 August 2011]

When I saw the opening scene, with its upbeat music and breezy (though convincing) portrayal of the central character's online dialogue with her friends, I found myself looking forward to an original portrayal of a subject that--as the father of two pre-teen daughters--represents one of my greatest nightmares.

"Trust" didn't QUITE fulfill the promise of that opening scene, but I will give it credit for almost making it.

The biggest strength: a great screenplay. I didn't look up the writing credits until after I'd viewed the film, but it didn't at all surprise me to see that it was co-written by Robert Festinger, who collaborated on the similarly-mature "In The Bedroom". The characters are mostly presented intelligently and sensitively, particularly the central character of Annie, the victim of an online sexual predator.

I found two problems with "Trust", unfortunately. First, while there are frighteningly plausible elements seen in the relationship between Annie and her predator "Charlie", I don't think we get a clear sense of why she continues with the relationship even when she clearly understands she's being lied to. Annie is pretty and seems confident enough to walk away when her online boyfriend confesses that he's really 25 rather than 16 (and in fact turns out to be much older than that when we finally see him). Even so, Liana Liberto's performance is excellent, and even with this lack of plausibility she presents a moving and at times unpredictable portrayal.

Clive Owen's performance as Annie's father is a little more problematic. Yes, we see that his grief and desire for revenge interferes with his ability to actually tend to his daughter's emotional turmoil, but beyond that we don't get a lot. He's not bad, but his character's a little underwritten and maybe a bit over-acted. I'd say this represents the biggest weakness in David Schwimmer's direction.

And in the end, even if the characters are a little unpredictable, the story is pretty much a point-A-to-point-B vehicle, right down to the obligatory feel-good ending. Not to say that it's not worthwhile; I liked it overall and intend to have my girls watch it when they're older, but it's a little too uneven to rate an "excellent" out of me.

Horrible Bosses (2011)

Yes, another VERY adult comedy...

[12 July 2011]

...and maybe not outstandingly memorable, but completely worthwhile.

The movie's a little scatter-shot. Kevin Spacey is fantastic as Jason Bateman's psychotically-narcissistic boss, but his character is pretty much recycled from any number of other Kevin Spacey movies.

Even so, most of the gags work very well (I was especially amused by how unsympathetic Charlie Day's friends were as he described the sexual harassment his boss was wreaking on him). There are some very funny farcical set-pieces.

Don't know if Jennifer Aniston went outside her "comfort zone", exactly, though her character was a lot raunchier than what her "Friends" fans might expect. She likely had tons of fun doing this movie; the rest of the cast certainly seemed to.

It's a grown-up movie that earns that R-rating with graphic language and some significant drug references.

Comparisons? Almost as funny as "Bridesmaids" (though not as strong a story). Definitely worth seeing in a theatre.

The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert (1994)

Improbably great

[9/10 · 5 July 2011]

...and I don't say "great" lightly. This isn't merely some tired road comedy in drag, it's a fun, at times surprisingly moving story.

Part of my immense surprise comes because I'd never really understood the appeal of drag shows. While I'm not sure I'm any bigger a fan, I definitely found myself drawn into the little universe created here.

The central characters are real people who manage to play to stereotypes without succumbing to them. I was frankly amazed by Terence Stamp, an actor who has made a career playing dangerous, macho types, and made a surprisingly compelling and believable ageing transsexual. The novelty quickly wore off; it was one of those rare performances that was just totally without affect. Honestly, one of the best performances I've ever seen.

Fun, as I expected, but there's a genuine affection and depth here. A very pleasant surprise.

Hop (2011)

More "Flop" than "Hop"

[4/10 · 3 April 2011]

I feel bad rating this movie so low, because I suspect there was a lot of good intent. There was certainly good casting; the most amusing aspect of this movie is the sly cameo stunt-casting. Hugh Hefner does a voice cameo that's pretty funny, for instance.

And then there's Hugh Laurie as EB's dad. While it may seem at odds with his nearly-amoral Dr. House, once upon a time Laurie provided the voice for Peter Rabbit in the animated Beatrix Potter stories. He reprises this voice here. It almost qualifies as an in-joke; I was certainly amused by it, but it didn't really do anything to advance the story.

I also feel bad for the performers in general. They're good, and they're stuck in the most cynically-written movie I've seen in a long time. There's NOTHING original here. At all. James Marsden is likable enough, as is the near-ubiquitous Russell Brand's EB. The scenes are all pretty much lifted from old Disney movies and Christmas specials (even an incomprehensible nod to "Back to the Future"). We don't really learn a lot about the bunnies and their world, and we don't get anything but the sketchiest motivation for anyone. And while David Hasselhoff's cameo in the Spongebob movie was clever and self-deprecating, here it was just kind of sad.

Yes, I realize the response to this will be "aw, give them a break... it's cute..." The trouble is, there have been tons of genuinely GOOD family movies made in the past several years. Back in the bad old 80s this tired script might have been forgivable. Universal Pictures is making a lot of mileage out of "Hop" coming from Illumination Studios, the same people who did "Despicable Me", because THAT movie was genuinely GOOD. I'll grant that technically, "Hop" is pretty good. But all the technical brilliance in the world won't make up for a poor story.

In all fairness, I'll admit that my 7 year old enjoyed it. My 10 year old, though rates it at about a 3 on the 1-10 scale, so the bar's pretty low. Wait for video.

Gnomeo & Juliet (2011)

Probably better than it should have been...

[8/10 · 20 February 2011]

When I first saw trailers for "Gnomeo & Juliet", I groaned at the thought: Romeo and Juliet as told by garden gnomes? Really? Aside from the obvious absurdity of the concept, I wondered exactly how faithfully they'd stick to the story. The ending of Shakespeare's original story would prove awfully dark for the young audiences that would be naturally drawn to this.

So, with these reservations in mind I saw the film last night with my 7 and 10 year old daughters, and found myself enjoying the movie much more than I expected to. Is the concept absurd? Sure, but the writers made plenty of clever use of that absurdity, with some great sight gags and setups.

I won't go into detail on the issue of the original's dark ending, but the writers here found a sly way to acknowledge that original ending without having to actually incorporate it in this loose remake.

Elton John is credited as an Exec Producer (and his partner David Furnish has a Producer credit as well). The movie makes liberal use of EJ's music, generally to good effect.

And my daughters both loved it. Great family fare.

The King's Speech (2010)

Brilliant and surprisingly entertaining

[10/10 · 9 February 2011]

For once, you can believe the critical buzz and put your money down at a real theatre. Is "The King's Speech" a masterful, well-acted period piece about King George VI and the friendship he builds with his speech pathologist? Sure. And for many, that's going to get in the way.

Period films about British royalty don't appeal to everyone, and that's a crying shame in this case. David Seidler's script is surprisingly witty and insightful; the warmth and good humour of this movie are infectious.

Colin Firth's performance is fantastic, and not just because of the speech impediment he adopts in his portrayal of Prince Albert. The warmth, dignity, and vulnerability are all evident and believable.

The Brits in particular seem to have a knack for producing quiet, smart little movies that wind up staying with you for years. This is definitely one of them.

Megamind (2010)

It's...okay

[6/10 · 8 November 2010]

Megamind is actually kind of a neat idea, and might even be taken as a contemplation on the nature of good and evil ("can there BE evil without good?"), but it's a victim of its own timidity.

The great cast is pretty much wasted here. Will Farrell shows uncharacteristic restraint in the way he voices Megamind, and while Tina Fey, David Cross, and Jonah Hill are all very funny people, the script doesn't give any of them much to work with.

The funniest scene is probably the one where Fey's Roxanne has been kidnapped by Megamind, who eagerly anticipates Metroman's rescue effort. Except Megamind has done this so many times that Roxanne is not only not afraid, she's actually bored, and challenges Megamind to be more original. It's cute. The trouble is, this is an early scene, and nothing in the rest of the movie really gets back to this level. The other BIG problem is that the best gags from even THIS scene were used in promos for the movie.

Yes, there's an irresistible urge to draw comparisons. I spent much of my time watching this movie lamenting on how good Pixar's The Incredibles is. And, yes, a comparison is valid, considering that the story in The Incredibles covers a lot of the same territory. I felt remarkably similar feelings about Sony's Despicable Me, too, but part way through that movie at least took an odd turn into improbable family comedy and actually went somewhere.

Perhaps most unfortunately, I'd just seen How To Train Your Dragon earlier that day on DVD, and Megamind seemed phoned-in by comparison.

Dreamworks can do better, and has, many times.