WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE - The Land of Emotionally Damaged Monsters

WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE was my favorite book as a child. I like Dave Eggers' writing a lot, and Spike Jonze previous two films are highly imaginative and well-executed. So like most people, I was greatly looking forward to the film version.

LET THE WILD SPOILERS START

I cut Jonze and Eggers some slack in adapting a kids' picture book with minimal plot into a feature-length film. But they ripped that slack right out of my hands and then raped my childhood. Maurice Sendak's book is the sweet story of a wild kid who runs away in his imagination to a world where he can do anything he wants. But he comes to realize that he needs limits and that those limits are part of his parents' love. It's a simple story, very well told.

The movie version is another beast entirely. It does get some things right. Among them:

It looks beautiful

The callbacks/linkages/echoes between the stuff that happens in the real world -- Max's boat on bedsheet waves/the real boat and waves; the snowball fight and the dirt-clod fight; the similarities between Max's problems and Carol's

Little details, like Max's wolf suit, or the fact that the beasts pull the scepter and crown out of a pile of bones.

Max's performance -- the kid is great

But the film makes several unforgiveable missteps.

First, it's scary as hell, particularly for a kids' film. While there's nothing wrong with having SOME scary bits in a kids' movie (the tunnel/boat scene in the original WILLY WONKA come to mind), this film has way too much of that, including a highly disturbing bit in which Carol rips Douglas' arm off and dust comes out.

Second, there's almost no plot to speak of, and there's certainly nothing driving the story. Max gets to the land of the Wild Things, becomes king, then builds a fort, has a dirt-clod fight, and leaves. There's very little conflict, no goals, no tasks. No nothing.

Adapting a slight, thirty-page book is tough. But it would've been easy to do something like (this is off the top of my head, so it's rough)

Max lands on the island of Wild Things, the W.T.s take his boat, he's about to get eaten

He lies in order to become king and forestall death

He tries to get to his boat to leave, the WTs provide obstacles

He builds a fort, becomes leader

Has a good time doing whatever he wants

The WTs always do what they want, this gets tiresome

And he misses home

He wants to leave

They won't let him, particularly Carol, who becomes obsessed with him

With the help of KW and/or someone else, Max tries to escape

Carol and the rest of the WTs try to eat him

He escapes

Makes it home, has tender moment with his mom

That way, Max is always trying to do something, instead of just aimlessly walking around or building forts or screwing around.

Finally, perhaps the biggest problem is that Jonze and Eggers have created new material that isn't in the book and not even hinted at by it. Namely that the WTs are all moody, emotionally troubled monsters with problems ranging from rage issues to severe depression. I don't think that's what anyone envisioned when reading the books.

The monsters feel more like mopey suburban teens in a psychiatric facility than wild beasts running free in a strange land. They fight, anger each other, and tear down everything they've done before in a pathological, cyclical, depressing, co-dependent relationship. Not only is this not fun and not child-friendly, it's just plain weird.

Other weird touches include the addition of two freaky looking owls that squawk (everyone understands them except for Max and Carol) and a giant dog wandering the desert.

Someone said of the film that it's the first art film for kids. It feels a lot like that -- it's material intended for kids that instead forgoes plot and accessibility for an odd, forlorn tone and mood.

Kids movies don't have to be just for kids. Pixar is a particularly good example. Their "kids' movies" have masterfully tackled everything from parents learning to let their children go (FINDING NEMO) to learning to overcome loss/the greatest adventure is in your own backyard (UP) to how exceptional individuals learn to fit in in society (THE INCREDIBLES). They've all made a fortune and are all great films, largely because they take kids' material and elevate it with great characters and fantastic scripts.

WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE aims high, but collapses instead in its own weird hipster universe of mopey monsters. As the tagline says "There's one inside of all of us." Unfortunately, most people are going because they're hoping "one" refers to the fun wild things of the book and not the ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST beasts we get in this film.

LAW ABIDING CITIZEN - Perfectly Serviceable Thriller

LAW ABIDING CITIZEN is the tale of an ordinary man who was wronged taking his vengeance on the system that wronged him. Written by Kurt Wimmer and directed by F. Gary Gray, it stars Gerard Butler (a pretty nice guy and a great actor) and Jamie Foxx.

LAW ABIDING SPOILERS BELOW

Butler plays Clyde, a man who suffers a break-in at his home, getting stabbed, and being forced to watch his wife murdered in front of him and his daughter hauled off into the next room to be killed. When he awakes, she is indeed dead. Jamie Foxx is the ambitious prosecutor who, not willing to risk his high conviction rate, accepts a plea bargain that will execute the wrong man (the accomplice) and let the murderer serve a short term. Ten years later, Clyde sabotages the accomplice's execution equipment, killing him in excruciating fashion. He then goes on to abduct and brutally dismember the killer, before leading police to his house to arrest him.

From then on, he plays a cat and mouse game with Foxx and the police, blaming them for not bringing his killers to justice. He also starts killing off the sleazy defense attorney, the judge handling the case, and the prosecutors. Foxx eventually learns that Butler is a former CIA wetwork specialist, who figures out imaginative ways to kill people. And that everything he's doing is part of an elaborate scheme to bring down the justice system from the inside.

Here's what the film does right. It sets up Butler's character well, and spaces out the revelations of who he really is and what he's capable of. It has some imaginative and tense killing scenes, and some good heads-up dialogue driven scenes between Foxx and Butler. Much of the action is suspenseful as well. The reveal that Butler has been acting alone, having tunneled into the prison before being sent there is a genius touch.

Weaknesses include the fact that Foxx's character is a bit of a dick. Setting him up as someone who blows off justice for his conversion rate makes him not very likeable. And he never really comes around to realizing the error of his ways. The closest the film gets is when he confronts Butler and tells him he'd do it differently next time; but this is a bit muddled in the heated context of the scene.

The next weakness is that the legal aspects of the film seem a little far-fetched. Butler witnesses the killer stab his wife to death; even if he didn't see his daughter die, his testimony would be enough to convict the killer. This could've been avoided by a little better scene-turning and direction, such as Butler passing out before his wife actually died. The film also could've shown how Jamie Foxx's decision was more about not letting a murderer go free by including a short scene between Foxx and the scummy defense lawyer where the defense lawyer picks apart the prosecution's case and shows how his client probably will go free.

Butler's revenge plan seems a little off as well. First, the accomplice (who really seemed shocked with the murders) gets brutally killed, and this seems a bit excessive. He was going to die anyway, so why torture the guy for being in the wrong place at the wrong time? Then, Foxx goes after some people who had nothing to do with the case at all. Like the judge. She didn't let the killer get away with murder -- she just presided over the case. And having Butler get pissed at her for almost granting him bail due to legal precedent is ridiculous -- that's her job. He's a smart guy and should realize that a first-time offender with no priors who isn't a flight risk SHOULD be granted bail. It also felt weird that Butler's ultimate goal is to destroy pretty much all of City Hall, since the mayor and other officials have literally nothing to do with his wife and daughter's case.

Similarly, Foxx doesn't have much of an arc, unless it's learning not to make deals with murderers. That's not a particularly large or important thing for a prosecutor to learn, so it can't really anchor the movie in terms of character growth. There's a smaller bit about Foxx learning to spend more time with his family, but again, that's not really a major thing and seems inevitable.

The ending, in which Foxx tricks Butler by bringing his napalm bomb into his cell and locking him in there, leaving Butler to call the bomb and blow himself up -- is patently ridiculous. While it makes for a snappy movie ending, in reality, a prosecutor just firebombed a prison and killed someone. Which would make him the most irresponsible prosecutor of all time.

Finally, since the film is largely about a man trying to get revenge for his wife and daughter, and since it spends a fair amount of time setting up Foxx's wife and daughter, it feels like a major oversight that Butler's plan didn't involve putting them in danger or at least making it seem like they were in danger. If he's trying to teach Foxx a lesson about protecting your family or the lengths you'll go to in order to do so, this is a major omission.

PARANORMAL ACTIVITY - The Scariest Movie Ever?

In a word, no. That's hype, in the same way that BLAIR WITCH wasn't the scariest movie ever. But PARANORMAL ACTIVITY is very scary and very effective.

NORMAL SPOILERS BELOW

PA is very simple -- a young couple have been experiencing strange things in their condo. The woman's had them happen to her since she was a child. The fiancee doesn't really believe in ghosts and whatnot, but he buys a fancy video camera to document the happenings. Like BLAIR WITCH and CLOVERFIELD, 100% of the film is shot POV-style from the camera, often hand-held, sometimes locked-down in their bedroom.

PA really excels in scaring folks because almost all of the scares come from the unknown. Most of them are simple things -- unexplained noises, lights turning on by themselves, a door opening and shutting by itself. PA's greatest strength is it never shows its monster, leaving it up to the audiences imagination with mostly noise and the occasional powdery footprint to give it some dimension.

PA also sets up the rules of the haunting cleanly and elegantly -- it's a demon, not a ghost; there's a guy who can help, but apparently he's on vacation the whole time; and the demon follows the girl, so leaving the condo won't help.

You get enough of the couple's relationship to buy that they're a real couple. The fights that they have over their varying approaches -- she wants to leave the demon alone because she's scared shitless; he thinks it's cool to document it and wants to taunt the creature to get better footage -- is also entirely believable.

And setting up a recurring situation with the camera locked-off in the bedroom sets an appropriate air of dread each time we return to that setup. Even if it's just odd noises, we know we're in for something scary. And when the film breaks the pattern by having a haunting in the daytime, it works very well.

The movie's biggest flaw is that the fiancee comes across as a moron in not wanting to get some outside help for their obvious haunting. He has documented proof of the supernatural going after him and his woman and yet rather than call in the demon expert (or the police or scientists), we're supposed to believe that he'll just try to solve the problem himself.

And the CGI shot at the end is a bit unnecessary. Practically the entire film works through suggestion and subtlelty; and the last shot undoes a lot of that for a cheap shock and some gore.

But it's still pretty damn scary.

WHIP IT - Whip It Mediocre

WHIP IT is another odd beast of a film. Drew Barrymore's directorial debut is an underdog sports movie and the story of an outsider learning to fit in. A little bit of both and not enough of either.

SPOILERS SKATING AROUND BELOW

Bliss (Ellen Page) lives in a dinky town in Texas, where her mom, a former pageant queen, pushes her to enter beauty pageants. After stumbling across roller derby, Bliss lies about being old enough to play. She finds a new family in her team, the Hurl Scouts, and discovers she's really good at -- and enjoys -- roller derby. Eventually, her mother and father discover her lies and a rival discovers she's not old enough to be playing.

And you can figure out what happens from there.

There are two major problems with the film.

First, roller derby isn't that great of a sport. There's a reason why it hasn't really experienced much of a renaissance outside of hipster cities like Austin and LA. It's fun to go to and watch girls beat each other up while you drink some Pabst Blue Ribbon. But in the way of athletics, it's pretty much the same thing each time -- girls skating around a track trying to pass each other to score points. Even having coach Razor (a hilarious Andrew Wilson) obsess over doing "plays" doesn't really liven up the sports action; it's still just women skating in a circle. This removes almost any stakes from the sports scenes.

Second, the film's big dramatic highs aren't particularly high. Take for example Bliss's age being discovered by a rival. Okay, she's seventeen, and not old enough to play. Movie over. Except not, because she can play with one of her parents' permission. Not much of an obstacle. What about Bliss' friend Pash getting arrested for underage drinking? Will that screw up her chances of attending an Ivy League college? Apparently not. How about Bliss losing her virginity to a young musician who turns out to be a jerk? Well, she'll just burn his jacket and then slap him in the face.

Since nothing's particularly at stake, there's nothing rooting the viewer's interest in the film. What happens if Bliss can't play roller derby? We don't know. The film could have set a lot of this up better by making a bigger deal of the folks stuck in the town, particularly Bliss' mom. it would have been nice to see another girl, a little older than Bliss, who tried to go away and make something of her life. But she didn't and is now stuck there in town in a crummy job (like the one Bliss has at the BBQ joint). Some contrast would have highlighted the drudgery of small-town life and given Bliss something to aim for and some consequences if she failed.

It's a shame, because the movie is certainly fun, and has a great cast, from Page to Alia Shawkat, Kristen Wiig, Barrymore, Juliette Lewis, Daniel Stern, and Marcia Gay Harden. But not Jimmy Fallon, who's as mugging and annoying as he was on SNL.

ZOMBIELAND - Zombie-Killing Fun

I had almost no expectations entering ZOMBIELAND. Which was a good thing.

SPOILERS STUMBLING FROM THEIR GRAVES BELOW

ZOMBIELAND is a fun movie. It doesn't take itself too seriously, introduces a funny, scary world overrun with the undead, and gives us four characters we can care about populating it. It pulls smart moves almost every step of the way, from pairing up a guy afraid of everything with one who knows no fear to having them meet up with two wily women to giving us truly imaginative zombie kills (including dropping a piano on a zombie and lopping off zombie parts while riding a roller coaster). It even features an awesome and spot-on cameo by Bill Murray.

Most importantly, ZOMBIELAND shows that you can take a truly played-out genre like zombie movies and do something new with it. It also shows that imagination and solid characters can elevate even the most hardened genre material to something much more.

I don't really have any complaints or suggestions for the ZOMBIELAND script -- it does what it sets out to do, with a lot of humor and some heart.

THE INVENTION OF LYING - I Wish It Was the Invention of Humor

As is often the case with these blog posts, let me first state that I think Ricky Gervais is a brilliant writer and performer. I enjoyed the hell out of the original OFFICE and EXTRAS, and I even liked him in GHOST TOWN. So when I saw that he co-wrote and -directed a film, it was one of the tops on my list to see.

INVENTION OF SPOILERS BELOW

TIOL isn't a very good film. It has an interesting premise -- in a world where everyone tells the truth, one man is able to lie, with intersting consequences.

The main problem is the same one that plagues GHOST TOWN and BRUCE ALMIGHTY -- a lack of ambition. You have this great big idea -- one man in the entire world is able to lie and it's going to change the world in major ways. And the execution of that idea is about as small and unimaginative as you can get. Although Gervais does inadvertently create religion, which winds up having good and bad effects, mostly he uses his lying for small things -- getting his job back and attempting to woo a girl. The way in which he does both those things is also small and uninspired. For example, his jerky colleague Brad (Rob Lowe) tells him they'll never be a successful film about the Black Plague. After Mark invents a fictitious historical manuscript about an alien war during the Black Plague, he names the film "The Black Plague."

You could have had Mark tell Brad literally anything -- the President called and needs him to kill himself for national security; he has to move to a desert island for the rest of his life in order to save humanity; or he should strip off all his clothes and run screaming down the street. Because people believe anything Mark says, he has all the leeway in the world.

The film also doesn't bother to have Mark do anything that could make him unlikeable. The obvious character arc in this movie is that Mark goes from a complete loser to a guy who has everything going on, and in the process becomes a bit of an asshole. Then he learns that he should tell the truth instead of lying. This is the same basic arc that powers films as diverse as LIAR LIAR, GROUNDHOG DAY, and ALADDIN. But Gervais and co-writer Matthew Robinson are so afraid to make Mark unsympathetic that they bail on having him make any bad choices. He lies to a hot woman and tells her he needs to sleep with her or the world will end; she goes along with it, but he bails before actually bedding her. He steals money from a bank and a casino, then moments later steals more money to give to a homeless man. He wants to get with Anna (Jennifer Garner), but avoids lying to her when it counts (about his genetics changing with fame and fortune).

In order for Mark to learn any sort of lesson, he has to do the wrong things first -- lie and enjoy the consequences, until later on in the film when he realizes lying isn't making him happy.

The film also doesn't give Mark a clear goal. I assume it's wooing Jennifer Garner. But all we get in the way of servicing that goal is some bald exposition ("I had a date with a girl I've had a crush on for years") and Mark chasing after her all movie long. The film/script should have shown this instead of telling us. There's also nothing particularly special about Garner's Anna other than she's hot.

The film also seems to confuse brutal honesty with surface appearances. Garner can't be with Mark because his genetics would make their kids short and fat, and she thinks he's a loser because he's short and fat as well. In fact, so does everyone else in the world. Well, being short and fat certainly doesn't help anyone out in life; but it doesn't necessarily make you a loser, either. Even once Mark is rich and famous as the man "the man in the sky" (i.e. God) talks to, people still think he's a loser. This flies in the face of everything anyone knows about rich/famous/and or powerful people. I'm sure even in a world of no lies, there are plenty of rich, fat old men with trophy wives.

Finally, the film misses some opportunities. Particularly, it sets up how advertising is different in a world of brutal honesty, which creates the expectation that Mark will also inadvertently invent advertising (as he does with religion). At the very least, it could have made for a good running gag. The film similarly doesn't explain why Mark is the only person who can lie in the whole world. Since the movie makes so much of genetics, it would have been a simple explanation to have something on the order of -- Mark's short and fat, which are recessive genes; similarly the ability to lie is a recessive trait. This would not only explain Mark's lying, but how he passes it along to his son.

Off the top of my head, a better version of the film would be:

Mark wants to be rich and famous

Mark starts to lie

His lies are big ones, including that God talks to him; but he gets everything that he ever wanted and becomes President of the world with the wife and respect he wanted

He inadvertently invents everything concerned with lying -- advertising, psychics, religion, etc.

Other people start to lie as well

The world starts to go downhill

Mark feels bad -- he has everything he wanted, but it's not what he really wanted

Mark's put in some climax-driving situation that pits lying against telling the truth; preferably involving the love of his life; he opts for the truth

Mark has to give up a lot of his power and prestige, but gains the woman he loves; people learn lying is a bad thing