AN EDUCATION - It Sure Is

AN EDUCATION, adapted by Nick Hornby from Lynn Barber's memoir, proves that your film doesn't have to have high stakes or amped-up drama to be engaging. It tells the story of Jenny (Carey Mulligan), a bright young British student with dreams of going to Oxford. She finds her plans in turmoil when she meets rich, charming, David.

AN EDUCATION OF SPOILERS

Eventually, with the blessing of her won-over parents, Jenny turns her back on school and decides to marry David. Which is a bit of a problem, being that he's already married. Having screwed up her shot at university by alienating a favorite teacher and mouthing off to the headmistress, Jenny is at a total loss for what to do.

The script does a fantastic job of painting these characters, from bright, eager, bored Jenny to her stick-in-the-mud father who wants the best for her to sleazy/charming David to her teacher (Olivia Williams) to the headmistress. They feel like real people with real problems, which helps sell the romance and allow us to be taken in by David just like Jenny.

Conflicts are natural and arise from the characters and the situations, rather than anything tacked on from the outside.

The film does a great job of showing Jenny's "education" in living life -- going to the symphony, fancy restaurants, art auctions, and Paris. We're seduced along with her and we feel like with David, she has a shot at an interesting life, instead of winding up a drone in academia or the civil service.

If the film has one small flaw, it's that at the end, Jenny tries to get back into school after dropping out, only to find her plans screwed up because she insulted the headmistress. So Jenny enlists the help of her favorite teacher to get her back on track. It's not clear what the teacher did (did she write Oxford? Convince the headmistress to let Jenny back in? Get Jenny whatever the British equivalent of a GED?) to restore Jenny's shot at Oxford and it seems very clear that the headmistress (a great Emma Thompson) isn't going to allow her back in after insulting her.

However, because there's tremendous goodwill for Jenny and her plight, and it is the last few minutes of the film, I was willing to overlook it.

So if you can, go check out AN EDUCATION, as it's a great little film.

THE STEPFATHER - Another Useless Remake

I saw the original STEPFATHER when it came out, so perhaps my memory's a bit hazy; but I recall it being good. And I was looking forward to the remake, despite my general reservations towards remakes. A crazy new dad who kills when his family disappoints him? Sign me up.

The new version feels more like a Lifetime movie than something that should get a theatrical release. The characters are all completely generic, from trying-marriage-a-second-time Sela Ward to her eldest son who keeps getting in trouble.

The biggest flaw is a fatal one for thrillers -- despite David Harris (Dylan Walsh) killing a slew of folks to protect the secret that he's a serial killer who's murdered before -- the film's just not scary for most of its length. There's nothing wrong with having a deliberately paced film with a slow build. That is, as long as it's scary once it gets going. But STEPFATHER doesn't. Walsh kills a neighbor, Sela Ward's ex-husband, and Sela's lesbian sister, none of which are particularly terrifying. This is due to a combination of factors -- one, we don't care about the characters, so we're not concerned when they die; and two, the scenes aren't particularly gripping in their shot selection or editing.

The film also misses a big opportunity by having the main character Michael (Penn Badgeley) start off sympathetic to David. Instead, the filmmakers should've opted for troubled Michael coming home from boarding school and immediately being suspicious of his new dad-to-be.

Similarly, Michael's girlfriend Kelly (Amber Heard) is the obsessively minded voice of reason, pooh-poohing all of Michael's suspicions. This is fine for a bit, because initially, Michael does seem a little crazy in what he's saying. But eventually, it gets ridiculous when Kelly comes up with every excuse in the book to explain away David's increasinly erratic behavior.

If you're going to remake a film, it has to do something different than the original or there's no reason to produce it in the first place. Here, the only difference is that the new version isn't very good.

GENTLEMEN BRONCOS - This Horse Needs To Be Put Down

The team behind NAPOLEON DYNAMITE fucked me again. I should've known better, but the trailers for GENTLEMEN BRONCOS showed two things that gave me hope it'd be a fun movie -- Sam Rockwell in dual, ridiculous roles, and a baked-in conflict that could drive the story (in a young writer finding his novella stolen and publicized to much acclaim by his author idol).

Unfortunately, GB is pretty much the same film as NAPOLEON DYNAMITE, down to the lack of plot, goofball characters (including a schmuck with a weird haircut, an annoying girl, and an odd Mexican guy), and impoverished/70s setting.

It tells the story of Benjamin Purvis, a teen who lives with his mom in a geodesic dome house (for some uknown reason), and who aspires to be a professional author. He attends a literary festival/workshop, where he meets his favorite author, Dr. Ronald Chevalier. The festival has a contest where a winning book will be published. Chevalier steals Benjamin's work and publishes it as his own. Meanwhile, Benjamin's friends Tabatha and Lonnie make an indie film version of his work. Benjamin eventually finds out Chevalier stole his work. A snake shits on Mike White, there's some unrelated gunplay, and that's about it.

The only funny parts of the film are the various versions of Benjamin's book in which Sam Rockwell variously plays Benjamin's version of the hero and Chevalier's much, much gayer version.

The premise -- that of a young author finding his work stolen and published by his idol -- is an interesting one, and it's full of conflict and potential drama. Sadly, Jared & Jerusha Hess opt for oddness instead of milking this conflict. We get two scenes with Benjamin and Chevalier post-plagiarism. In the first, Benjamin punches him in the face. In the second, the situation is resolved by Benjamin's mom -- she registered all his work since he was seven. The main character doesn't even solve his own problem -- it's solved for him.

The film also fails to set up Benjamin as a person with a goal. Why does he want to be published? What does that represent? This lack means that once Benjamin's story is stolen, we're not sure why that matters so much to him (other than the obvious reasons). With one simple bit of dialogue, Benjamin could've explained to his friends what being a published author represents; then, when we saw his book getting that acclaim for someone else, it would resonate more.

There are some more oddball characters, including a truly grotesque version of Pedro from ND, as well as Mike White's odd Big Brother-type character, who serves no real purpose in the film.

The biggest moment of dramatic tension comes during a bit of gunplay that's tacked on for no apparent reason and doesn't even come from the main story. Benjamin's mom (played by a sadly wasted Jennifer Coolidge) goes to a rich man's house to show her horrible line of dresses; he hits on her and Benjaim sticks up for her; then the guy starts shooting for some reason.

The film also fails because we see Benjamin's story and it's horrible. So to see it stolen and published is weird -- it's just as crappy (if not more so) than when he wrote it. And I'm not sure what Hess & Hess were going for in having it adapted into a bad video as well; having his story stolen/ruined once would be sufficient if they bothered to play it out properly.

For some reason that still escapes me, NAPOLEON DYNAMITE made a ton of money, really resonating with pre-teens and teens despite its annoying characters and complete lack of a cohesive narrative. GENTLEMEN BRONCOS follows the same formula with even less returns than ND.

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.