Random Musings from the Entertainment Desk

Oscar Night Preview

Alec Baldwin, Steve Martin and a nakked guy named Oscar. Like I needed anymore convincing after the first two. I mean they’re no Hugh Jackman, but they should be pretty good. Here are my picks for this evening’s affair. Fingers crossed that I don’t embaress myself too much. My picks will appear in bold and if I happen to have a personal favorite in a certain category, well that shall appear in italics. I’ve left off any category where I’ve seen less then half of the nominated films or honestly have no idea about it (i.e. Art Direction). Buckle your seat belts boys and gals! 

 

Best Picture

 

Avatar

The Blind Side

District 9

An Education

The Hurt Locker

Inglourious Basterds

Precious

A Serious Man

Up

Up in the Air 

Best Director

 

 Avatar- James Cameron

The Hurt Locker- Kathryn Bigelow

Precious- Lee Daniels

Inglourious Basterds- Quentin Tarantino

Up in the Air- Jason Reitman

Best Actor

 

 Jeff Bridges in “Crazy Heart”

George Clooney in “Up in the Air”

Colin Firth in “A Single Man”

Morgan Freeman in “Invictus”

Jeremy Renner in “The Hurt Locker” 

Best Actress

 

 Sandra Bullock in “The Blind Side”

Helen Mirren in “The Last Station”

Carey Mulligan in “An Education”

Gabourey Sidibe in “Precious”

Meryl Streep in “Julie & Julia” 

Best Supporting Actor

 

 Matt Damon in “Invictus”

Woody Harrelson in “The Messenger”

Christopher Plummer in “The Last Station”

Stanley Tucci in “The Lovely Bones”

Christoph Waltz in “Inglourious Basterds”

Best Supporting Actress

 

 Penélope Cruz in “Nine”

Vera Farmiga in “Up in the Air”

Maggie Gyllenhaal in “Crazy Heart”

Anna Kendrick in “Up in the Air”

Mo’Nique in “Precious” 

Best Cinematography

 

 Avatar

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

The Hurt Locker

Inglourious Basterds

The White Ribbon 

Best Screenplay (Adapted) 

 

District 9

An Education

In the Loop

Precious

Up in the Air

 

Best Screenplay (Original)

 

 The Hurt Locker

Inglourious Basterds

The Messenger

A Serious Man

Up

 

Best Animated Feature

 

 Coraline

Fantastic Mr. Fox

The Princess and the Frog

The Secret of Kells

Up

Best Visual Effects

 

 Avatar

Star Trek

District 9

Best Sound Editing

 

 Avatar

The Hurt Locker

Inglourious Basterds

Star Trek

Up

Best Sound Mixing 

 

Avatar

The Hurt Locker

Inglourious Basterds

Star Trek

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

 

Best Film Editing 

Avatar

District 9

The Hurt Locker

Inglourious Basterds

Precious

Random Musings from the Entertainment Desk

Great idea but poor execution ends up sinking ‘Big Fan’

 

            Every now and again, a movie comes along that has an incredible, absolutely can’t miss concept. An idea so brilliant that even if you tried to do it poorly, you wouldn’t be able to.

            Then you watch the thing and somehow they managed to mess it up.

            A movie that immediately jumps out to me is the original “Texas Chainsaw Massacre.” I still remember when I was a kid wandering aimlessly through Blockbuster and finding the box for the VHS copy of “Texas.” It sounded like the most horrifying thing ever put on film. Then I watched it and it was a sort of funny, sort of creepy movie but nowhere near the nightmare I had envisioned.

            Sadly, “Big Fan,” is one of those kind of movies.

            “Big Fan” is the directorial debut from Robert D. Siegel, who wrote the outstanding “The Wrestler.” The film targets the world of the rabid sports fanatic. The type of person who calls in regularly to radio shows, gets in fights with fans of rival teams and all in all allow their lives to be dictated by the outcomes of children’s games.      

            Even though these people very obviously have an addiction, they never get called on it. In fact, the world just kind of laughs along with them as they paint themselves from head to toe with the colors of their favorite team. On the addiction scale, I guess that sports falls somewhere around porn in terms of severity. It likely won’t kill you but it can make it so that people won’t want to come over your house all that often.

            In the case of “Big Fan,” the addict in question is Paul Aufiero (Patton Oswalt). Along with his side kick Sal (Kevin Corrigan), Paul eats, sleeps and breaths New York Giants football. Things are so bad that the two actually drive down to Giants Stadium on Sunday just to sit outside of it and watch the game on a portable TV. They just want to be near their team, even if they can’t get inside the building.

            Paul works nights at a parking garage and spends his time there scripting out the phone call that he plans to make to the local sports talk radio station once he gets back home. He, of course, still lives with his mother because he has spent his entire life worshipping at the alter of pro football and couldn’t spare a second to buy a place of his own, let alone settle down and start a family.

            Paul’s entire world is built on this shoddy foundation and eventually everything comes crumbling down when a sort of chance run-in with his favorite player leaves him in a hospital with a black eye that has gone past black and into yellow.

            “Big Fan” isn’t a bad movie, it’s just that the concept is so good and the film’s budget is so small and the script could have used a little bit of tweaking. Really, it was only another draft and a marginally bigger budget away from being great.

            The problem is that Siegel struggles to balance the comedic and dramatic aspects of his film. Sometimes he veers too far into comedy and other times he plays things too safe. Also, he misses a perfect opportunity to turn Paul into a Steve Bartman-esque pariah in the wake of the yellow-y/ black eye incident. He toys with the idea, but never really commits. My guess is that it was the low budget that caused this, but that’s only me.       

            The movie is at its best when it’s lampooning our sports-crazed culture. It falters when it tries to be too funny or too cute. Things really fly off the rails during the outrageous third act, which culminates in a conclusion that is anything but.

            “Big Fan,” is saved by its brilliant cast made up of actors best know for their work on TV. Oswalt and Corrigan are both fantastic in the film. Oswalt really carries the movie, but as far as second bananas go, Corrigan is one of the best. Each infuses their character with just the right amount of depth, elevating them above your average wackos. You can’t help but feel bad for Paul and Sal, who are both so blissfully ignorant to the sorry state of their own existence.

            Michael Rapaport, another TV veteran stops by for a quick turn as Paul’s radio nemesis, “Philadelphia Phil.” The sarcastic and at times grating role is right in Rapaport’s wheel house and he nails it.  

              As a director, Siegel does just fine for his first time out, but his script is just lacking. The concept is definitely there, but the execution isn’t. Not funny enough, not sad enough and the conclusion is frustrating. The whole point of a movie is to make a character go somewhere and not just in the physical sense, something Siegel seems to forget.

Verdict: C+

Random Musings from the Entertainment Desk

J&J= A-OK! or How I Learned to Watch A Movie Where People Cook and Nothing Blows Up

It seems that the term “bromance” has latched itself firmly onto our culture these days, like a barnacle onto the hull of a ship. If you’ve some how escaped this formerly funny, now very overplayed concept, allow me to explain and also apologize for ruing your blissful ignorance.

            A bromance is a powerful emotional relationship that it shared by two guys. The best examples of this meaningful connection can be found on TV’s “Scrubs” or in the film “I Love You, Man.”

            But what of women? Things like “Sex and the City” have prominently featured the platonic relationships between women, but there doesn’t appear to be a term that accurately defines such things.

            I propose “wo-mance.” It’s easy to remember, it rolls off the tongue. Look, don’t take my word for it, but just try it out over the next few days and I’m sure you’ll agree that this is the way to go here.

            The aforementioned “Sex and the City” certainly falls into this category, but a more recent— and in my humble opinion better— example is “Julie and Julia” which features a Golden Globe Award winning and Academy Award nominated performance from Meryl Streep and another winner from the great and still underrated Amy Adams.

            Streep plays the legendary cook, author and TV show host Julia Child, while Adams is Julie Powell, a phone bank worker by day and a talented cook and aspiring blogger by night/ early morning. The two women are worlds apart, so much so that they don’t even share a second of screen time together and yet are still able to bond thanks to a shared passion for cooking.

            Now I won’t lie to you— this is NOT a movie that I should like. I don’t have any interest in cooking, I’d never heard of Julia Child before seeing it, I have no real opinion on Streep one way or the other and absolutely NOTHING of any real value blows up during the entirety of the film’s two plus hour run time.   

            All of that being said, it’s really impossible not to enjoy “Julie and Julia,” it’s just so darn likable. It’s funny, engaging and even heartfelt.

            As the film’s title indicates, the relationship between its two leading ladies is the center of the story. As I mentioned, the two don’t appear together in even a single scene, but Adams does a remarkable job of depicting fandom at its core. She lives her life trying to emulate Julie Child, even chastising herself for doing things that Julia may disapprove of.

            Think of the way that a teenage girl who wears entirely too much eye makeup and shops exclusively at Hot Topic looks at Robert Pattenson. This is about the same level of obsession that Powell has for Child, but thankfully with much less screaming.

            The film follows Child’s life after moving to 1950’s Paris with her wonderfully supportive husband Paul (Stanley Tucci) as she tries to figure out just what to do with herself there. After a failed go at hat making she takes up cooking and viola! A legend is born.

            Meanwhile in 2002, Powell is stuck at a job she hates, handling customer service for the company charged with creating the Sept. 11 memorial. Basically, she splits time between being screamed at and providing a shoulder to cry on over the phone. Her friends are mostly high-powered business types and she feels left behind. Eventually she decides to start a blog detailing her adventures cooking her way through her idol Child’s famed cookbook “Mastering the Art of French Cooking.” Naturally, she does this all with the help of her wonderfully supportive husband, Eric (Chris Messina). 

            The film is essentially made up of two separate stories, but it meticulously details the parallels, not only between the two women, but between their wonderfully supportive husbands as well. It also cleverly tackles the notion of hero worship and the disappointment that comes with realizing your heroes aren’t perfect. The film systematically uses the scenes with Child to poke holes in Powell’s vision of her as a perfect creature without any faults at all.

            Across the board, the acting in “Julie and Julia” is incredible. Streep received a well earned Golden Globe for her channeling of Child, while Adams continues to prove herself a force to be reckoned with in Hollywood. Tucci and Messina’s characters are sure to have women casting angry eyes at the men in their lives for not being more like those two. Neither is perfect, but their hearts are always in the rightest of places.

            It’s painful but undeniably appealing.

            “Julie and Julia” is a great example of the “wo-mantic comedy.” Sure, in this case the love is sort of one-sided, but it’s easy to get swept up in Powell’s fantasy world where she and Child are a crime-fighting, culinary super duo. It’s delightfully funny and engaging, but guys should brace themselves for the “why can’t you be more like (insert Tucci or Messina)” speech that is sure to follow fast on the heels of the film’s credits.

Verdict: B+

 Random Musings from the Entertainment Desk

“Hurt Locker” a thriller you won’t soon forget

         

  It is my solemn vow to you that I will go this entire review without resorting to horrible puns like “explosive” or “incendiary” to describe “The Hurt Locker,” which chronicles the exploits of one of the US Army’s elite E.O.D. (explosive ordinance disposal) squads operating in Iraq circa 2004.

            After all, that would be just too easy and just a smidgen insulting to your intelligence. After all, it is a movie about bombs right? So the very subject matter calls for it to be explosive does it not?

            Clichés aside, “The Hurt Locker” just happens to be one of the year’s best thrillers, and if it wasn’t for a little ditty from Quentin Tarantino, it would be the year’s best war movie. I suppose you could say it is the year’s best war movie that won’t make history professors wag their fingers in shame and outrage.

            As I mentioned earlier, it follows a group of E.O.D’s as they make Iraq safer, one road side bomb and improvised explosive device at a time. Think of these guys like a souped up bomb squad. Not only do they have to disarm bombs, but they have to do it deep inside enemy territory, under constant threat of enemy fire, riots and worse. You think your job sucks? Not so much.

            The E.O.D. team is lead by SFC William James (Jeremy Renner), a hot shot adrenaline junkie who actually gets off on risking his life on a daily basis. He regularly ignores protocol and common sense in an effort to get his fix of life on the edge. SFC James’ nonsense doesn’t fly well with fellow team members Sgt. JT Sanborn (Anthony Mackie) and Spc. Owen Eldridge (Brian Geraghty), neither of whom takes too kindly to James constantly risking their lives in addition to his own.

            “The Hurt Locker” does an incredible of depicting just what living in an almost constant state of danger can do to different people. Every decision they make just may be their last, every order they give could be the last that someone else obeys. The situation is not pretty, but each member of the E.O.D. team gets by in their own way, whether it be clinging to a set of principles or dreaming of the life that could await them as their deployment winds down.

            Or in the case of James, he just doesn’t give a damn what happens to himself. He just does things, not thinking of the consequences or possible repercussions. He constantly acts. Perhaps somewhere inside he fears that reacting might just be the thing that ends up killing him.

            Director Kathryn Bigelow actually manages to up the ante in terms of the devil may care attitude that flowed through one of her biggest successes, 1991’s “Point Break.” With “The Hurt Locker” she has created an unbelievably tense thriller that will have even the most jaded and cynical movie goers on the absolute edge of their seats. She even manages to turn audiences’ knowledge of movies against them at certain key points so effectively that it will likely keep Wes Craven up nights.

            Her film is a down and dirty look at the lives these men lead and what compels them to do the job that they do. At times it becomes easy to forget that you’re watching a work of fiction and not a straightforward documentary.

            For the most part, Mark Boal’s script barrels along like a tank, until the third act where it briefly loses a tread and gets bogged down in a character’s misguided attempt at revenge. The delay is only momentary and the film manages to shake it off with ease and finish strong.

            I could say that Jeremy Renner is dynamite as PFC James, but I won’t. What I will say is that Renner is fantastic. He’s able to convey both James’ lose cannon nature, while still allowing the character to feel like a real person. It would have been easy to turn him into a cowboy caricature, but in Renner’s skilled hands, James is a living, breathing person. Chances are good that you’ll be seeing a lot of this guy over the next few years and rightfully so.

            The film boasts an incredible supporting cast headed by Mackie as Sgt. Sanborn, who must learn to coexist with James for both their sakes. It’s easy for the audience to find themselves in Sanborn’s shoes, wondering just which higher up they pissed off to be saddled with a crazy man like James.        

            A stellar cast and razor sharp writing and directing make “The Hurt Locker” one of the best modern era war films ever made. It’s a movie that will embed itself in your head long after the end credits have finished rolling and is an absolute must see.

            Verdict: A-

 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  

Random Musings from the Entertainment Desk

“Paranormal Activity” makes horror interesting again

A wise man once said, “Don’t believe the hype.”

            “Paranormal Activity,” isn’t the scariest movie of all time, it won’t change the face of filmmaking forever and it likely won’t cure what ails you.

            Unless of course what ails you is a powerful sense of anger at the sorry state of the horror genre these days. If that happens to be the case then guess what? You’re in luck! Rise up and be cured! Hallelujah!

             It may not scare your pants into the next county, but “Paranormal Activity” is still the best horror film I’ve seen in years. It is a wonderful breath of fresh air for a genre that has been suffocating under the weight of an avalanche of remakes, sequels and reimaginings.

            Written, directed, produced and edited by rookie filmmaker Oren Peli, “Paranormal Activity” follows two 20-somethings, Katie (Katie Featherston) and her boyfriend Micah (Micah Sloat) as they record the umm… paranormal activity taking place inside their home.

            Peli stretched his $10,000 budget a tremendously long way. Despite having only one location and the fact that huge chunks of the film are shot through the same camera angle, it never once looks cheap.

            The comparisons to “The Blair Witch Project”— a brother in shaky-cam holding arms— are inevitable, but the two films have little in common outside of the technical similarities and the fact that they were both made on shoestring budgets. In terms of plotting, “Blair Witch” played its cards close to the vest, never quite letting the audience in on its secrets, while “Paranormal Activity” reveals its hand more and more as it progresses. The fact is that “Paranormal Activity” doesn’t stack up well against “The Blair Witch” in terms of screams. It’s more unnerving than it is scary.

            It seems that one of the characters has a… well… history of this sort of otherworldly interference. The film takes the time to explore this back story in order to show the gravity of the couple’s present situation. The Achilles heel of the haunted house subgenre has always been: “Well, why don’t they just leave the darn place?” “Paranormal Activity” puts that notion to bed almost immediately.

            There is a distinct air of hopelessness surrounding the plight of the characters. The film seems to take a sadistic pleasure in severing each and every thread of hope that they have and before long it becomes apparent that they are completely and utterly on their own.

            The success of “Paranormal Activity” hinges heavily on the likeability of its lead characters, as at least one of the two is in every scene, or at least talking over it as they hold the camera. Featherston does a solid job of eliciting the audience’s sympathy as the girl targeted from beyond. Sloat, on the other hand, is a bit more of a mixed bag. He doesn’t quite get you to feel sorry for him until near the film’s conclusion. Until that point he spends his time goading on the entity, challenging it and basically doing the exact opposite of what Katie wants. He may drive you nuts, but he is an interesting characterization of how different people react to something that they can’t comprehend. Katie is scared to death of what’s happening, while Micah seems to be more scared of not being in control of what’s happening.      

            Sloat’s incessant taunting of the entity is one of the movie’s strongest sources of humor, but it is the deadpan appearance of Mark Fredrichs as a very, VERY over- matched psychic that almost steals the show from the supernatural goings on. Fredrichs only has a handful of scenes in the film, but he makes the most of them, simultaneously building and reliving tension. His second appearence will likely garner a few chuckles until you realize the weighty implications of what he tells Katie and Micah.

            At one point in the first “Pirates of the Caribbean” film, a main character describes a town by simply saying: “it’ll linger.” In this era of cookie cutter plots and forgettable remakes, “it’ll linger” may be just about the best compliment a film— and not just a horror film, mind you— can get.

            “Paranormal Activity” is a wonderfully minimalist effort. It strips the horror genre down to its bare bones, dropping many of the tired clichés that the genre relies on so heavily. Gone are the screeching orchestral outbursts and the cats jumping out of closets. All that’s left is an abundance of white knuckle tension orchestrated to near perfection by a first time director with a bright future.    

            While it isn’t likely to have you screaming in the aisles, “Paranormal Activity” certainly will get under your skin, push its way into your dreams (read: nightmares) and give you a sleepless night or two.

GRADE: B+

Random Musings from the Entertainment Desk

Weekend Box Office Round Up/ Prediction results

You know something? Major league baseball sucks. Why the heck is it after midnight and the playoff game that I’m watching is only in the bottom of the 5th inning? Keep in mind that this playoff game is NOT being played in Nagano, Japan but rather DENVER, Colorado.

The almighty dollar is a harsh, harsh misstress. Way to think of the fans Bud Selig and co. You scum bags may just win the Gary Bettman Award for d-baggery this year. It will be a nice change of pace for Gary Bettman, who has won the award every year since its inception in 1929.

Don’t worry about the math involved there. Just take my word for it and let’s boogey on.

So, I was real close to being VERY right last week. I picked “Couples Retreat” to finish in the top spot. It did. I also picked it to make OVER $30 million dollars. It did. I picked it to make EXACTLY $31, 275,000. It did not. Sadly for me, but happily for the film’s cast and crew it made a bit more then that.

TW	Title (click to view)	Weekend Gross	% Change	Average	Total Gross	Week #
1	Couples Retreat	$35,340,000	-	$11,780	$35,340,000	1
2	Zombieland	$15,000,000	-39.4%	$4,937	$47,801,000	2
3	Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs	$12,000,000	-24.1%	$4,011	$96,251,000	4
4	Toy Story / Toy Story 2 (3D)	$7,674,000	-38.6%	$4,380	$22,676,000	2
5	Paranormal Activity	$7,066,000	+1,227.6%	$44,163	$8,280,000	3
6	Surrogates	$4,115,000	-43.2%	$1,375	$32,573,000	3
7	The Invention of Lying	$3,370,000	-52.0%	$1,933	$12,327,000	2
8	Whip It	$2,800,000	-39.8%	$1,611	$8,766,000	2
9	Capitalism: A Love Story	$2,700,000	-39.3%	$2,714	$9,095,000	3
10	Fame (2009)	$2,556,000	-44.8%	$822	$20,042,000	3

Courtesy of boxofficemojo.com

How about “Paranormal Activity” jumping up an astounding 1,277.6%? See? This is what happens when studios are cut out of the picture. A movie, one that I’ve heard is great, gets made for next to nothing inside the director’s house and goes on to make millions. When studios get involved, things like “Transformers 2″ or “Saw 42: The Beginning” happen. Studios must be stopped!

I, for one, am absolutely psyched to see “Paranormal Activity.” Now that’s its getting a wide release, I’ll be there with bells on. Of course, I’ll be seeing it in the afternoon because, God willing, there will be less kids there. Is this what I’ve become? A complaining, crotchety old man, shouting to the heavens or anyone who will listen about how things were better  back in his day?

Who am I kidding? I’ve been that guy for years.  Back to my original point— there is nothing worse then seeing a horror movie in theaters. Especially a popular horror movie. In addition to the acceptable screams and shrieks, you will also be treated to fits of giggling, texting, announcing what a character should or shouldn’t do and— best of all— the inside-the-theater phone call.

I had this last part happen to me a few months back whilst I was being subjected to Rob Zombie’s “Halloween 2.” The best part? The inside-the-theater phone call was in Spanish. When I glanced back at the lady, I realized, much to my chagrine, that she was accompanied by two kids who were no older then eight. This is what the world has come to, my friends. A mom takes her two small children to see the latest gore fest from Rob Zombie, but I get more upset over the fact that she is taking on the phone. 

This is why I don’t like people, I suppose. Oh well. C’est la vie.

In any case, I will be there, bright and early next weekend for “Paranormal Activity,” with my fingers crossed that all the area teenagers will be off terrorizing someone else. I do believe that THAT is the American Dream in action, my friends.

Vaya con dios.

Random Musings from the Entertainment Desk

Hitting the Silver Screen

             Everyone needs a vacation some time. Arnold Schwarzenegger knew it at the end of “Terminator 2,” The Go-Go’s knew it, heck even Jack Nicholson’s maniacal character in “The Shining” realized the importance of taking it easy. All work and no play after all…

            That said, fall break is fast approaching for West Chester University. Professors head my warning! Do not bother assigning work! It will not be done! Not by me anyway, I intend on entering the basement of my parent’s house on Saturday afternoon and not emerging until I venture out to a Bruce Springsteen concert o Tuesday night. No sir, fall break is not the time for working, it’s the time for playing. And relaxin’.

            Sing it again Jacky boy!

            So in the spirit of vacation, Hollywood is releasing only ONE major new movie this weekend, “Couples Retreat,” which stars Vince Vaughn, Jason Bateman and Jon Favreau, among others in what looks to be a hilarious ensemble comedy.

            Take a group of gifted comedic actors (and Malin Akerman) and send them to a beautiful tropical island to iron out the wrinkles in their collective relationships. The movie looks like a lot of fun, apparently so much so that other studios have decided to avoid it like the plague.

            The only other new release hitting the big screens this weekend is a limited engagement called “Bronson,” which I presume is about Charles Bronson. Sadly, this one is about the British prisoner, notthe star of the “Death Wish” franchise. This is unfortunate because any mention of him always calls to mind the episode of “The Simpsons” where they travel to Branson, Missouri. Look it up, its hysterical.

            Anywho, on to my predictions. I’m going to do something new here, something that virtually guarantees that I won’t have any success doing this. Oh well, keep in mind that these rankings are for entertainment purposes only.

            1.) “Couples Retreat”- $31, 275,000

            47.) “Bronson”- $10,000

            Ok, well we will see how that goes. Basically, I’ll pick where the new films finish and how much they will make as opposed to just the top three each week. This makes perfect sense as I was barely at .500, picking much easier results. Oh boy! This will be fun.

            Vaya con dios.