Quad Blogs

 Random Musings from the Entertainment Desk

“Leap Year” ain’t half bad

            “Leap Year” isn’t likely to win any Academy Awards this year when the big ceremony rolls around. I hope you were sitting down for that. Sorry, I should have provided adequate warning there.

            That being said, “Leap Year” isn’t a bad movie. It’s basically cinematic cotton candy. It’s sweet, fluffy and it will make you sick if you eat too much of it. Honestly though, who doesn’t love cotton candy?

            Sure you may not fess up to liking it when you’re around your health nut friends, but you know that somewhere, perhaps buried in your breadbox behind the wheat bread with “Flintstones” vitamins crushed up in it, is a bag of cotton candy. A wonderfully guilty pleasure.

            Some of the snobbier movie goers out there may turn their noses up at a romantic comedy like “Leap Year,” preferring instead to lavish praise on foreign films about people’s houses or fairy tale characters killing each other in the woods but there is nothing wrong with the movie. It’s an unpretentious, funny and entertaining bit of escapism that doesn’t try to pretend to be anything else.

            No identity crisis here.

            The always great Amy Adams stars as Anna Brady, an ambitious staging expert who is looking to settle down with her long time boyfriend Jeremy (Adam Scott). For those out there who don’t spend their free time immersed in the wonders of HGTV, allow me to explain what a staging expert is. Basically, they doll up your house to help you sell it faster. Think of them like Avon representatives, but for your house instead of your face.

            Anyway, it turns out that Jeremy, a cardiologist by trade and a jerk by nature, isn’t all that keen on popping the question. After he heads to Ireland for one of those cardiologist conventions that are so big there, Anna decides to try and take advantage of an old Irish tradition that allows women to propose to men once every four years on Leap Day, Feb. 29.

            She secretly follows Jeremy to Ireland, intending to surprise him with the proposal, but her plane is forced to land due to turbulence. And so begins an epic struggle with a bout of luck so bad that it would make a black cat seem like a rabbit’s foot by comparison. She hires a charming and ruggedly handsome local barkeep named Declan (Matthew Goode) to drive her across the country to her would be groom and surprise, surprise their initial horrible incompatibility soon reveals itself to be massive compatibility. I don’t think I’m stepping on too much by telling you that, unless you’re an absolute newbie when it comes to the romantic comedy formula.

            Sure “Leap Year” is a bit conventional, but the cast is just so darn likeable. Adams is absolutely bewitching as Anna, who has gotten used to applying her staging skills to her personal life, covering up what is actually going on with her. Adams has impeccable comedic timing and handles the physical gags and pratfalls like an old pro.

            Everything about Matthew Goode in “Leap Year” can be adequately summarized in the scruffy perfection of his beard. If you need more then that, well, he pulls off the mysterious and appealing Irish lad, even though he himself is in fact English-born. His onscreen chemistry with Adams makes for a very believable twist on the old “I don’t like you, ok now I do” cliché.       

              “Leap Year” is also served well by its supporting cast, which includes cameo appearances from some of TV’s better known and remembered talents, including Scott who made a name for himself as Griff on “Boy Meets World.” At this point in his career, I’m pretty certain that he could play a scum bag in his sleep, he’s done it so many times but he’s just so good at it.

            Cinematographer Newton Thomas Sigel deserves a ton of praise for stunning shots of the Irish countryside that populate the film. He takes an already gorgeous country and showcases it to perfection. Cheers.

            There’s absolutely nothing wrong with a bit of cotton candy every now and then. A great example of “it is what it is,” “Leap Year” won’t expand your mind but, thanks to its ridiculously charming leads, talented supporting cast and gorgeous locations, it’s still worth the price of admission. After all, you can only have your mind expanded so many times anyway. Too much of that nonsense will make you sick.

Verdict: B   

Random Musings from the Entertainment Desk

“Avatar” unlike anything you’ve ever seen but you’ve heard it once or twice before

After the mega-success of 1997’s “Titanic,” James Cameron dubbed himself “the king of the world” and honestly after $7 gazillion in worldwide box office and hundreds awards— who was going to argue with him?

            For the next decade or so, Cameron contented himself with directing documentaries and the occasional fictional aquatic blockbuster on TV’s “Entourage.” Things were good but this calm before the directorial storm couldn’t last forever. 

            And so now, as his latest, the reportedly-budgeted $300 million “Avatar,” storms towards his own box office records, one can only wonder— what should we call Cameron if he surpasses his own king’s ransom? I propose: Universal Overlord James Cameron. All hail and fear his cinematic money-making power.

            “Avatar” is set in the very distant future and plays like a jumbled up version of “Return of the Jedi,” “Aliens” and “The Matrix” with some “Pocahontas” tossed in for good measure. Humanity has set its sights on the lush tropical planet of Pandora, which is home to an extremely valuable mineral conveniently called “unobtanium.” It is also home to a host of dazzling creatures, including huge hammerhead/ rhino things, majestic flying lizards and the Na’vi, a strange humanoid yet cat-like race that is very in tune with the natural world. Very.

            Of course, not all humans greedily want to strip mine Pandora and leave. Some want to live with the Na’vi and study their ways. It’s this conflict that paralyzed Marine Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) finds himself thrust into the center of. Sully travels to Pandora to operate the avatar, a genetically engineered hybrid of human DNA and Na’vi, of his recently deceased twin brother. Think “Matrix” but with tall blue aliens on the other end of the connection instead of leather and cool shades. Eventually Sully gets caught up in the world of his avatar, learning the ways of the Na’vi from the chief’s daughter (Zoe Saldana) and begins to lose his grasp on which body is really his.       

            “Avatar” is a visual wonder, a sight to behold created using photo-realistic CGI technology that Cameron created specifically for the film. The 3-D effects are absolutely seamless. I’m not normally huge on this gimmick, not for any purist or artistic argument, but simply because it gives me a headache. Usually around the 30 minute mark, I’ll just pop off the glasses for a bit and imagine that is what movies must look like to Mr. Magoo.

            Not the case with “Avatar.” I actually forgot that I was wearing the bulky plastic glasses and even once flinched at the sight of a burning ember that I thought was going to land on me.

            From a strictly visual sense, “Avatar” is a movie that you can’t miss. This is the “Toy Story” of its time. The technology pioneered here will forever change the way movies are made. It’s also a theater operator’s dream. Not just because it is making money hand over fist thanks to those jacked-up 3-D prices, but because no TV, no matter how expensive, no matter how plasma-y it is can truly recreate the experience of seeing “Avatar” unfold on the big screen.

            James Cameron, Universal Overlord, Maker of Moolah, the Savior of Theater Chains Everywhere.

            As much fun as “Avatar” is to look at, it does suffer a bit in the story department. It’s a rather straightforward story of greed and exploitation of the natural world. Big corporations are bad. Humans? Well… we kinda ruin everything. Intentionally or not, we suck. The major beats of the story have all been hit before and repeatedly.

            Question: Are you directing a big budget sci-fi action film? Need a broodingly handsome leading man? Scared of Christian Bale? Hire Sam Worthington, who is rapidly ascending the ranks of Hollywood leading men. He is the human center of “Avatar” and continues the personal hot streak he started with this past summer’s underrated “Terminator: Salvation.”

            The rest of the cast is just as strong, with my personal favorite being the typically underrated Stephen Lang as the tough-as-nails Col. Quaritch, who is about as intimidating and psychotic as they come while manipulating the situation on Pandora to suit his own wants.

            Also in the greed and manipulation corner is Gianvani Ribisi, who essentially reprises Paul Reiser’s “Aliens” role of corporate stooge.

            On the other end of the spectrum are the tree hugging scientist portrayed by the always great Sigourney Weaver and the Na’vi princess Neytiri played excellently by Zoe Saldana. Weaver’s exchanges with Ribisi are a kick, especially if you loved “Aliens.”

            “Avatar” is an eye-candy heavy fairy tale of sorts. Not only does it transport you to a far off world that seems as real as the sticky floor of the theater you’re sitting in, but it takes you back to a time when those 3-D images on the screen seemed real and there was still a sort of magical quality to the gimmick. When you thought you could reach out and grab that snowflake and accidentally wacked the guy in front of you in the head. Forget the hullabaloo surrounding the film and just go see “Avatar” expecting to be ferried off to the realest-looking fake place you’ve ever seen.

Verdict: B+

Random Musings from the Entertainment Desk

Stars shine in ”Invictus” while story falters 

            Clint Eastwood’s latest effort, “Invictus” tells the true story of life in South Africa immediately after the fall of the apartheid system as new president Nelson Mandela (played by Morgan Freeman) attempts to forge healing in the racially divided country with some help from a fairly unlikely source— the country’s rugby team, the Springbok, lead by captain Francois Pienaar (Matt Damon) as they compete for the 1995 World Cup.

            Or maybe the Springbok were actually the perfect place to begin healing. For years they were seen as a symbol for apartheid, so much so that black South Africans would root for whoever the Springbok were playing against just to see the team and their predominantly white fan base be disappointed. Mandela ignored his advisors who thought that he was crazy, not only for associating himself with a symbol of the old ways, but because the country had much bigger issues to contend with then with then a sports team.

            The film, based on the book “Playing the Enemy” by John Carlin, opens with a shot of apartheid in action. On one side of a road a group of black children dressed in rags play soccer on a dusty and barren plot of land, while directly across the street a team of white kids are practicing rugby on a beautifully manicured field, all dressed to the nines in flashy uniforms.

            In Eastwood and Freeman’s hands, Mandela is treated as a human being rather then a deity. He is a “man with man’s problems” as one character says in the film. He works too hard, he can be single minded, but he is still a great man because great men, like all of us have their faults.

            For Freeman, this is the role that he was born to play, which is nothing to shake a stick at considering the shear volume of unforgettable parts he’s played throughout his career. Going further then just appearances or recreating a voice, Freeman manages to exude the grace and dignity of the man he portrays.

            Damon holds his own opposite Freeman, as a man caught up in something much larger then himself. Each actor immerses themselves in their respective characters to the point where it becomes easy to forget that you are watching two of the biggest performers in Hollywood.   

            With each movie that he makes, Damon is becoming more and more of a chameleon. For last year’s role in “The Informant!” he packed on the pounds and grew a sweet moustache. For “Invictus” he lost the belly and the ‘stache and replaced them with a whole lot of muscle and an even sweeter South African accent. The trade-off is more then acceptable.

            The only downside to the film? Well at the end of the day, “Invictus” is a sports movie and if you’ve seen one sports movie, you’ve basically seen them all. Underdog team up against the world. In this case that last part is actually true, not the cliché that so many athletes are fond of throwing around. I mean, it is called the “World Cup,” after all.   At times it seems that the only things keeping “Invictus” from turning into “Any Given Rugby Match” are the top notch performances by Freeman and Damon and Eastwood’s fantastic directorial eye. 

            Another problem is the matches themselves. Now, I know nothing of rugby, so I won’t even pretend to try and criticize the film’s depiction of the game. As far as I can tell, it is essentially football with a bigger ball, no pads and a sprinkling of “American Gladiators.”

            My grudge with the matches is the crowd. Yeah, that’s right here comes the nitpicking. Now I’m not new. I know that Eastwood and company aren’t going to hire 60,000 extras to fill up the arena, but did they have to crib their crowd graphics straight from “FIFA 10?” Every time the stands were shown, I instinctively groped for the start button on my imaginary controller to move things along and get back to the action. I’m sure that Clint Eastwood doesn’t spend a ton of his free time dabbling in sports videogames, but for those of us who do, the crowd shots are absolutely painful.

            “Invictus” runs a comparatively brisk 134 minutes but somehow still manages to drag in certain places. This is especially true during the last act when the genre clichés are on full display.

            If you see one movie about apartheid this year, make it “District 9,” Neill Blomkamp’s stellar sci-fi blockbuster about segregated aliens. If you are in the mood for a more history book friendly approach to the topic— as if somehow aliens aren’t historically accurate— then “Invictus” is the movie for you. Outstanding performances and an iconic director almost manage to fully make up for a slow and at times generic storyline.

            And of course the shoddy FX.

Verdict: B  

LOST: The Complete Fifth Season

The Journey Back-Expanded Edition

One of Many Reviews: Audio Commentary for “Because You Left.”

I know I promised the season two would be up next; however, what I declined to mention is that only pertained to the next season I’ll write too many words about. Anywho, it’s time to give my thoughts on the commentary Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse recorded for the fifth season premiere “Because You Left.”

–This is an epic, detailed commentary. They discuss the major points of Season Five, how they got there. In sum, they summarize the entire writing process of the fifth season from mini-camp to the finale.

–With that said, they let slip a few things about the final season. It’s barely anything but it’s enough that I can write many words about it. The first thing I’ll mention is their use of the word paradox when discussing what Faraday will attempt to do by season’s end. The reason why the word struck me is because, since they recorded the season three podcast for Flashes Before Your Eyes, they’ve advocated the no paradox rule. I’m sure I’ve written about this using different words and phrasing months ago but I’m ready to advocate ‘time will not reboot’ during the final season full time. I’m open to anything that actually happens. But yes: paradox absolutely stood out to me.

–Damon quips about the teaser of the episode, saying “Because You Left” begins as the other seasons doe: not knowing where the hell you are or you are with. I got a kick out of that.

–Desmond is discussed. The Desmond discussion takes place at the end of the episode (you know…when Desmond appears) and Lindelof and Cuse jump ahead to what Ms. Hawking tells him: The Island is not done with him. Apparently, The Island is not done with Desmond at all. The discussion is very interesting not because they say a certain character’s story is not done, it’s HOW they discuss it. They used words like significance as in the viewers will learn Desmond’s significance to the WHOLE story. But it is the final season. We’re going to learn about where every character fits in to the grand scheme of things. In the recap before ‘The Incident’ aired in May, Damon and Carlton give a brief summary of where the characters were left at the end of “Follow The Leader” and then say that they are really excited to be at this point where they can begin really telling the final chapter of how these characters are more intertwined than they ever imagiend. Oh man I can’t wait.

-I really enjoyed the discussion about how season five was constructed and crafted, even the first episode alone. Damon and Carlton discussed the mistakes they made in past finales (not involving all of the characters) and how they wanted to account for every character in the premiere. They discussed how to pay each character the time they needed in a 42 minute window. The discussion provides valuable insight into the inner-workings of the LOST writers room and how an episode is broken (the most famous episode break is for “The Constant”).

-During the scene in which Locke is treated by Richard for his bullet wound, Damon and Carlton talk about how (the viewer now knows) Future Locke and Ben are watching the scene from the jungle. Carlton simply says ‘Locke is basically a different person” and Damon then says “You can say that again!” Oh those wacky dudes. Should I have written Future Locke or Not Locke there? Hm. They have a lot of fun messing with the audience. Speaking of that, there’s a worthwhile quote from Damon from a GQ interview with Bad Robot. It’s about the final season. Suffice to say, I will be using this quote again when I write the final part of this preview on February 1, 2010.

But it makes you understand why some people go to church every Sunday and some people are atheists. Some people need Lost to have a scientific explanation for everything, and that’s why our viewership now is what it is—because the people who needed there to be a scientific explanation for everything stopped watching. They were like, “Okay—the show has now proven my theory wrong.” This is another joke masking a true terror for us—we’re doing the last season of the show now, and this season is where you get your answers. And we’re not waiting until the last episode—the answers start coming fairly fast and furious right out of the gate. But in a lot of ways, the storytelling this year is just us telling people that they were wrong. They’ve built up theories for five years. When a show like this gets to a certain point and then it’s “Oh, man, we were cancelled,” people get to bring their theories with them to the grave. With us, it’s basically like, “No—you’re wrong.” And some people may have been right. Who knows?

-Back to the commentary: they spend some time emphasizing thee motif of the season which is The Hatch. They wanted to set up the importance of the Hatch again because they knew that would be the key thing by season’s end. They wanted to establish the rules of time-travel because they wanted the viewers to question whether or not the characters would try to change anything. This led into a discussion about the overall story of the show and how free-will is a very important theme. Eventually, the characters do try to change things and those episodes are really, really good.

-There could be a part two to this because I might be leaving things out. But this is the end of this LOST entry.