Cut Print Review » ★ ½ http://cutprintreview.com Australian Movie Reviews, Film News & Competitions Wed, 08 Feb 2012 15:56:59 +0000 en hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 Ages of Love [Manuale d'am3re] (Review) http://cutprintreview.com/reviews/1-12-stars/ages-of-love-manuale-dam3re-review/ http://cutprintreview.com/reviews/1-12-stars/ages-of-love-manuale-dam3re-review/#comments Sun, 04 Dec 2011 02:30:29 +0000 Tom Clift http://cutprintreview.com/?p=19629 Ages of Love is the third part in the Italian “Manuel of Love” trilogy, and is itself made up of three separate chapters. These segments, christened “youth”, “maturity” and “beyond”, overlap and intertwin, as men and woman all over the Italian capital flirt and fornicate under the sparkling eyes of a taxi-driving, vest-wearing cupid. And it is truly appalling. Styled by its Australian marketers as an Italian Love, Actually, and [...]]]> Ages of Love is the third part in the Italian “Manuel of Love” trilogy, and is itself made up of three separate chapters. These segments, christened “youth”, “maturity” and “beyond”, overlap and intertwin, as men and woman all over the Italian capital flirt and fornicate under the sparkling eyes of a taxi-driving, vest-wearing cupid. And it is truly appalling. Styled by its Australian marketers as an Italian Love, Actually, and sold primarily on the presence of out-of-place Hollywood actors Robert DeNiro (Little Fockers) and Monica Bellucci (The Whistleblower), Ages of Love is a bloated film loaded with unsympathetic leads and woeful attempts at both romance and humour.

In the first story, our supposed hero is Roberto (Riccardo Scamarcio), an ambitious young lawyer with a beautiful, kind and devoted fiancé. Roberto is sent to a small town by his heartless property developing employers to con an old couple (with a mentally challenged son, depicted with an astounding lack of taste) out of their lifelong home. However, not long after he arrives in the quaint little village, Roberto spots the beautiful town flirt Micol (Laura Chiatti), and before you know it his feelings for his fiancé are out the window. Director and co-writer Giovanni Veronesi  provides Scamarcio plenty of opportunities to gaze wistfully over the ocean and muse about the power of love, but his characters behaviour is reprehensible no matter how hard you try to sugar-coat it.

The second tale also centres around an adulterer, although at least this time his actions are not presented as quite so romantic. Fabio (Carlo Verdone) is a veteran news anchor, married with an adult daughter. At a party he meets the vivacious Eliana, and from then it’s only a few short scenes until they’re in bed together. What Fabio doesn’t count on is that Eliana is certifiably insane, and is determined to be with Fabio – or at the very least, to have a child by him. This second story is a lot lighter and intentionally sillier than the first, but the comedy – all pratfalls and goofy expressions – is cringeworthy.

One compliment that can be payed to Ages of Love is that the stories get progressively better. In the third tale, Adrian (De Niro), an American history professor living in Rome falls head over heels for the attractive daughter (Belluci) of his best friend (Michele Placido). There is tenderness and a few laughs to be had in this final story, and De Niro gives a fun Italian language performance that, truth be told, is far more impressive than any of his recent work in Hollywood. But Adrian’s behaviour towards his friend is dodgy at best, and as the film ticks over the two hour mark, it’s hard not to get fed up with the way the film continually tries to justify base sexual desire  with sentimental romanticism.

Despite its name, this film has very little to do with love. No matter how many Italian’s croon along on the woefully cloying soundtrack, this is a film about lust; about horny men who think with their privates far more than they do with either their heads or their hearts. It’s difficult to care about a film where the men are stupid and unfaithful, and the women they chase – all younger and much more attractive – are alternately psychos, hookers, strippers and shrews. Of course it’s easy enough to brush off this films jaw-dropping political incorrectness with remarks about “those whacky Italians”, and I’d be lying if I said I was ever actually offended by Veronesi’s movie. Were it not so inept and idiotic, maybe. As it stands, Ages of Love is not a sinister film. It’s just a bad one.

Ages of Love is now playing in select Australian cinemas.

]]> http://cutprintreview.com/reviews/1-12-stars/ages-of-love-manuale-dam3re-review/feed/ 1 Tiny Furniture (MIFF Review) http://cutprintreview.com/reviews/1-12-stars/tiny-furniture-miff-review/ http://cutprintreview.com/reviews/1-12-stars/tiny-furniture-miff-review/#comments Wed, 31 Aug 2011 02:54:06 +0000 Tom Clift http://cutprintreview.com/?p=18488 Eurgh. That is my overwhelming reaction to Lisa Dunham’s Tiny Furniture, a directorial debut that I can acknowledge does a lot of things right, but I still found absolutely unbearable to watch. A story about a directionless college graduate who moves back in with her mother and sister, it’s a tale based, one suspects, on Dunham own life experience, even to the point that she casts herself and her family [...]]]> Eurgh. That is my overwhelming reaction to Lisa Dunham’s Tiny Furniture, a directorial debut that I can acknowledge does a lot of things right, but I still found absolutely unbearable to watch. A story about a directionless college graduate who moves back in with her mother and sister, it’s a tale based, one suspects, on Dunham own life experience, even to the point that she casts herself and her family members in the leading roles. That being said, one hopes for the sake of the people that know them that she and her relatives aren’t actually like this in real life, because Tiny Furniture is populated by characters so obnoxious and selfish that you want to do them, or, barring that, yourself, some very serious bodily harm.

Dunham makes lots of good choices. Casting her real life mother and sister across from herself playing the lead, the natural quality to their interactions more than makes up for their occasionally unpolished performances. It’s also refreshing to see a – how shall I put this – less photogenic woman in a starring role; Dunham’s characters schlubbiness would have seemed a lot less realistic were the part played by an Ellen Page or Zooey Deschenal (to name some indie darlings of the moment). Her direction possesses somewhat less personality – I’m not convinced the camera moved once in the entire film, which demonstrates not so much a lack of confidence as it does a lack of creativity. Or I don’t know, maybe panning is just too mainstream.

Tiny Furniture’s script has received an enormous amount praise. And I suppose it is impressive, in the sense that people this grindingly annoying and unduly self-impressed do exist. As a portrayal of over-privileged hipsters who think they are smarter, funnier and more important than they really are, Dunham is dead on the money. But it doesn’t make a difference whether it’s accurate or not, because listening to these characters talk – and that’s literally all they ever do – is one of the most agonising experiences I’ve had all year. I don’t want to spend five minutes in real life with people this irritating, so why on earth would I want to watch a movie that – if not exactly celebrating – at least asks me to sympathise with them?

By the way, yes, I do understand that Dunham is sending these individuals up. But I hate them so much – their toneless cynicism, their pointless literary references and their brazenly unimportant first world problems – that I’m incapable of finding then funny in even an ironic way. Get a job. Stop complaining. And stop wasting my time.

—

Tom Clift is a web-based film journalist from Melbourne, Australia. Visit his website here: http://reviewsbytom.blogspot.com.

You can read all of Tom Clift’s coverage of MIFF 2011 here.

]]> http://cutprintreview.com/reviews/1-12-stars/tiny-furniture-miff-review/feed/ 3 Just Go With It (Review) http://cutprintreview.com/reviews/1-12-stars/just-go-with-it-review/ http://cutprintreview.com/reviews/1-12-stars/just-go-with-it-review/#comments Mon, 28 Mar 2011 11:43:28 +0000 Anders Wotzke http://cutprintreview.com/?p=16957 ‘Happy’ is a lovely, jovial word that becomes something quite vile and abhorrent when followed by the word ‘Madison’.  If you didn’t know, Happy Madison is Adam Sandler’s very own production company, an amalgamation of Sandler’s 90s hits Happy Gilmore and Billy Madison. The company ostensibly came about in 1999 when Sandler began to observe the rising success of spam emails, realising that the very same distribution model and quality [...]]]> ‘Happy’ is a lovely, jovial word that becomes something quite vile and abhorrent when followed by the word ‘Madison’.  If you didn’t know, Happy Madison is Adam Sandler’s very own production company, an amalgamation of Sandler’s 90s hits Happy Gilmore and Billy Madison. The company ostensibly came about in 1999 when Sandler began to observe the rising success of spam emails, realising that the very same distribution model and quality standards could be profitably applied to cinema. So Happy Madison was born, specialising in films of the inane, unpleasant and unfunny variety such as, but not limited to, You Don’t Mess with the Zohan and Grown Ups. Certainly, Happy Madison is the reason why humourless people such as Rob Schneider and Kevin James still have careers. Heck, Happy Madison is the reason why humourless people such as Adam Sandler still have a career.

This brings us to HM’s latest triumph Just Go With It, or as it should be titled, Just Avoid It. Based on the stage-adapted 1969 film Cactus Flower, which won Goldie Hawn a best supporting actress Oscar, Just Go With It had the potential to be an amusing farce about a man’s attempt to court a younger woman using an elaborate, snowballing lie. But alas, that was before the Happy Madison logo reared its ugly head during the opening credits, a sure sign that this was going to be just another dumb Adam Sandler movie in which a poo joke is inevitably followed by a swift crotch kick. And wouldn’t you know it, there’s also a gay jibe to boot!

just go with it021 e1301311744202 600x256 Just Go With It (Review)

Sandler stars as plastic surgeon Danny, who despite being unmarried, wears a wedding ring to clubs and lies to gorgeous women about how his drug-addicted wife beats him, hoping that it’ll result in a one night stand. Being the terribly chauvinistic movie this is, it usually does. But when Sandler meets The One – defined, of course, by the depth and breadth of her knockers – in 23-year-old Palmer (Brooklyn Decker), the ring has the opposite effect and scares her away. In order to win her back, he does what he does best and blatantly lies to her, saying that he is currently getting a divorce from his (faux) wife. To sell the lie, he persuades his office assistant Katherine (Jennifer Aniston; The Bounty Hunter) to play the role of his bitchy ex-wife for a dinner date with Palmer. But when Katherine accidently lets it slip that she has two young kids, Palmer naturally assumes they’re also Danny’s, causing the lie to grow out of hand.

Sadly, hilarity does not ensue. At first, I struggled to differentiate between moments of intended satire and moronic screenwriting gaffes, such as when the initially astute Palmer sees straight through Danny’s first lie, yet in a later scene, barely raises an eyebrow when he can’t name his own children. We’re also told she is a sixth grade school teacher, which is a terrifying thought considering she’s the kind of gal who’d confuse Iran for a shoe store. Could this be a commentary on America’s flawed education system (a la Waiting for “Superman”), or is it just lazy writing? Considering this was co-written by The Dilemma’s Allan Loeb, and limply directed by I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry’s Dennis Dugan, it’s almost certainly the latter.

But the issues with Just Go With It don’t end there. Like last year’s Dinner for Schmucks, this is a film that attempts farcical comedy, but doesn’t understand it. It sets up absurd situations, yet insists they play out with genial rom-com characters rather than the outrageously over-the-top caricatures that are required. Sandler’s Danny is a deceitful and disrespectful womanizer who is willing to belittle his friends in order to bed a hot blonde, so why is he sympathetically portrayed as a decent bloke with good intentions? The film would function a lot better as a farce if we loved to hate Danny, eagerly anticipating the moment his elaborate plan would fall apart.

To be fair, Aniston gets the tone right during an early scene where she is first introduced as Danny’s ex-wife, successfully overdoing it for a few chuckles. As someone who seemingly finds her scripts by rummaging through Katherine Heigl’s rubbish bin, this may be the most tolerable she’s ever been on the big screen.  Still, it’s a late appearance by Nicole Kidman that demonstrates what Just Go With It could have been. Kidman fully embraces the film’s farcical nature as Devlin, Katherine’s high school nemesis who is so deliciously detestable, you wish the camera would just follow her instead of the mumbling, monotone Sandler.

But even Kidman’s character is eventually undermined by typical rom-com schmaltz, which sees the film part ways with forced “happily ever after” sentiment despite the numerous liars and A-holes that occupy it. Just Go With It lives up to everything a Happy Madison production promises, which is to say not much.

]]> http://cutprintreview.com/reviews/1-12-stars/just-go-with-it-review/feed/ 5 Bad Faith [Ond Tro] (BAFF Review) http://cutprintreview.com/reviews/1-12-stars/bad-faith-ond-tro-baff-review/ http://cutprintreview.com/reviews/1-12-stars/bad-faith-ond-tro-baff-review/#comments Wed, 02 Mar 2011 12:45:14 +0000 Anders Wotzke http://cutprintreview.com/?p=16555 A symphony of snores could be heard throughout the cinema during Kristian Petri’s poorly plotted and limply performed Bad Faith, a reassuring sign that I wasn’t the only one who found this supposed crime thriller from Sweden not in the least bit thrilling.

The film’s ludicrous setup requires you to suspend all your disbelief as disillusioned Sweed Mona (Sonja Richter) stumbles upon the latest victim of the prolific Bayonet Killer. Rather [...]]]> A symphony of snores could be heard throughout the cinema during Kristian Petri’s poorly plotted and limply performed Bad Faith, a reassuring sign that I wasn’t the only one who found this supposed crime thriller from Sweden not in the least bit thrilling.

The film’s ludicrous setup requires you to suspend all your disbelief as disillusioned Sweed Mona (Sonja Richter) stumbles upon the latest victim of the prolific Bayonet Killer. Rather than call the police, Mona instead bloodies her hands by touching the corpse, says nothing to defend her innocence when two passers-by witness her hovering over the body, and most perplexingly, heads off to a work function without bothering to wash off the blood. Then, later that night, she chances upon yet another grisly crime scene, because murder victims apparently outnumber the living in Sweden. This time, however, the man is still alive. So what does Mona do? Nothing, of course.

Supposedly shaken by the experience — with Richter’s disinterested performance, it can be hard to tell — Mona then heads to a nearby Church where her prayers are disrupted by a creepy-eyed stranger named Frank (Jonas Karlsson). Because of their shared disconnect from greater society — not to mention the viewer — the two become intimate, yet their relationship is strained when Mona grows more and more obsessed with finding the elusive Bayonet Killer.

ond tro1 e1299070272725 Bad Faith [Ond Tro] (BAFF Review)

The icy atmosphere established by Hoyte Van Hoytema’s wide-angle cinematography is just about the only thing this pretentious and illogical film has to offer. The biggest mystery here is not the whodunit narrative, it’s how Magnus Dahlström’s screenplay – unsurprisingly his first – managed to survive the development process with its comatose characters, pedestrian storyline and gaping plot holes.

Unenviably tasked with making sense of Dahlström’s screenplay is director Kristian Petri, who loses out to the cinema’s air conditioner when it comes to delivering chills during the film’s ineffective climax. If he’s going to allow his actors to sleepwalk their way through the whole ordeal, it seems only fair that the audience be permitted to as well.

–

Bad Faith screens as part of the 2011 Bigpond Adelaide Film Festival. Read all of our BAFF11 coverage here.

]]> http://cutprintreview.com/reviews/1-12-stars/bad-faith-ond-tro-baff-review/feed/ 2 I Am Number Four (Review) http://cutprintreview.com/reviews/1-12-stars/i-am-number-four-review/ http://cutprintreview.com/reviews/1-12-stars/i-am-number-four-review/#comments Sun, 20 Feb 2011 10:21:19 +0000 Anders Wotzke http://cutprintreview.com/?p=15685 The fourth Twilight film isn’t due until November 17th, so mankind still has a good couple of months to prepare for the Breaking Dawn of the Dead, whereupon all estrogen-producing creatures emerge at the stroke of midnight to collectively howl about how mortal men are neither deceased nor canine enough to satisfy their needs.

In the meantime, though, we still have to deal with [...]]]> The fourth Twilight film isn’t due until November 17th, so mankind still has a good couple of months to prepare for the Breaking Dawn of the Dead, whereupon all estrogen-producing creatures emerge at the stroke of midnight to collectively howl about how mortal men are neither deceased nor canine enough to satisfy their needs.

In the meantime, though, we still have to deal with Twilight clones such as I Am Number Four. This shameless cash-grab is so desperate to be the next big thing amongst impressionable teens, it could easily be confused for a prequel to the Twilight series. You know, the one where Bella, before choosing between necrophilia and bestiality, dabbled in a little sextra-terrestrialism with a hunky alien teenager named John (Alex Pettyfer; Stormbreaker).

Of the few who survived the destruction of planet Lorien — a world that was inhabited exclusively by inexpressive Calvin Klein models — John is number Four. We’re told that numbers One, Two and Three have already been killed by a bunch of nasty aliens called the Mogadorians, and because their dim-witted Commander (a dull Kevin Durand) lacks the capacity to count out of order, John is next on their hit list. But why exactly do they want him dead? And what do the numbers really mean? Who knows. I Am Number Four would prefer it if you didn’t ask so many pertinent questions.

Moving on. With the help of his guardian Henri (Timothy Olyphant; The Crazies), John reluctantly moves to the quaint country town of Paradise to lay low for a while. He attends the local school to blend in, but during his first day, he stands up to the school bully Mark (Jake Abel; The Lovely Bones) for the sake of resident geek Sam (Callan McAuliffe; Flipped), and on his second day, he falls head over furls for a student photographer Sarah (Dianna Agron; Burlesque). She falls for him too, of course, because he’s all brooding and tormented. I should also mention that John has spotlights on his hands, which in the title for worst superpower ever, marginally puts him behind Smelly-Feet Steve and Toilet-Plunger Tim.

i am number four 221 e1298195766964 600x264 I Am Number Four (Review)

Dear oh dear, I’ve reached the point where I’m now inventing superheroes to make this drivel sound more interesting than it really is. But do not be fooled; I Am Number Four is nothing more than a monotonous mishmash of Spider-Man, Twilight, Harry Potter, X-men, X-Files, Smallville and [insert sci-fi/fantasy text here]. There is not a single moment of inspiration on display; the story by Pittacus Lore – a pen name for authors Jobie Hughes and James Frey to hide behind – was clearly written with the sole intent of capitalising on the void that will be left behind by Twilight and Harry Potter, two mega-franchises that are in their final chapters. I Am Number Four was never a story begging to be told, it was merely money begging to be made.

But will it succeed? I doubt it. Teenagers aren’t suckers for anything; Harry Potter is undeniably imaginative and immersive, and while Twilight is nowhere near as inspired, it does contain an idealistic young romance that speaks directly to quixotic hearts. I Am Number Four tries too hard to appeal to both genders, and in doing so, alienates both. Sure, females will enjoy perving on leading man Alex Pettyfer with his tousled blond hair and tanned biceps, but the real reason girls flock to Twilight is not solely because it features shirtless boys, but rather because in the middle of the hunk-sandwich is a female protagonist they can wishfully pretend to be.

As for teenage boys, they will likely roll their eyes at the wishy-washy romance between John and Sarah, which begins to take precedence over the thinly-plotted sci-fi storyline. The action is also spread far too thin, especially for a film that claims to be action-packed. With a fairly small budget of $50 million, director D.J. Caruso (Eagle Eye, Disturbia) has cut obvious corners by shooting most of the effect-heavy sequences at night, where digital trickery is harder to spot. Yet each of these scenes are so poorly lit and so frenetically edited, I hadn’t a clue what was going on, nor the impetus to care.

So if not teenagers, what age group will I Am Number Four ultimately appeal to? I’ll give you a hint; the answer is in the title.

]]> http://cutprintreview.com/reviews/1-12-stars/i-am-number-four-review/feed/ 6 Burlesque (Review) http://cutprintreview.com/reviews/1-12-stars/burlesque-review/ http://cutprintreview.com/reviews/1-12-stars/burlesque-review/#comments Tue, 28 Dec 2010 11:10:50 +0000 Anders Wotzke http://cutprintreview.com/?p=14698 Surprisingly enough, Cher’s lips are hardly the fakest, most unsightly thing about Burlesque. Not when compared to the cringe-worthy performances, the ear-splitting musical numbers and a screenplay so ridiculously campy, it may very well cause straight men to see the rainbow.

It makes sense that the man responsible for this flamboyant turkey is Steven Antin, the openly gay producer of the star-searching reality TV series Pussycat Dolls Present: Girlicious.  For his [...]]]> Surprisingly enough, Cher’s lips are hardly the fakest, most unsightly thing about Burlesque. Not when compared to the cringe-worthy performances, the ear-splitting musical numbers and a screenplay so ridiculously campy, it may very well cause straight men to see the rainbow.

It makes sense that the man responsible for this flamboyant turkey is Steven Antin, the openly gay producer of the star-searching reality TV series Pussycat Dolls Present: Girlicious.  For his sophomore feature, Antin hasn’t really written Burlesque, he has merely spooned the story out of a can labelled ‘Instant Musical: Just add eyeliner.’

The film follows Ali, a sweet small-town gal with big dreams of becoming a star performer. This is a pipe dream for most, but since Ali looks and sings a heck of a lot like Christina Aguilera, her chances are uncharacteristically good.

With nothing holding her back – she has no family, of course – Ali makes her way to LA, stumbling across a bohemian musical club called The Burlesque Lounge. Despite having no windows, the club is considered to have the “Best view on Sunset Boulevard” due to its raunchy performances. The film’s teen-friendly rating, however, prohibits the view from being truly great. Unlike Showgirls, Burlesque is just one big tease.

2010 burlesque 0061 e1293534025773 700x334 Burlesque (Review)

Upon entering the club, Ali meets her future lover Jack (Cam Gigandet), future employer Tess (Cher) and future dancing rival Nikki (Kristen Bell). I say it like it’s easily foreseeable because, well, it is; Burlesque is so dreadfully predictable, it’s almost insulting how Antin feels the need to prolong the inevitable. Worse yet, his hyperactive direction doesn’t slowdown for a second to find a real character beneath all the fishnets and feathers, effectively substituting honest-to-goodness sentiment for mawkish TV-movie melodrama.

Unable to explore her character beyond what is written on the page, Christina Aguilera’s performance as Ali is about as hollow as you’d expect from a pop star trying her hand in acting. While there’s no denying she can sing, her nonstop vocal acrobatics are about as pleasing to my ears as gravel in a blender. She’s just not my cup of tea.

Cher, who is looking more and more like a type-4 recyclable, is the source of many unintended laughs as the fiery manager willing to do anything to hold onto her financially-troubled club. She’s like a mother to all the dancers, albeit a mother who occasionally slips into a sequined leotard.

And on that note, let’s just be thankful Burlesque isn’t in 3D.

]]> http://cutprintreview.com/reviews/1-12-stars/burlesque-review/feed/ 8 TRON: Legacy (Review) http://cutprintreview.com/reviews/1-12-stars/tron-legacy-review/ http://cutprintreview.com/reviews/1-12-stars/tron-legacy-review/#comments Thu, 16 Dec 2010 02:00:42 +0000 Anders Wotzke http://cutprintreview.com/?p=14530 In computer speak, TRON: Legacy is a film that takes forever to boot up, fails to form a connection with its audience and repeatedly falls victim to the dreaded Blue Screen of Boredom (BSoB). It truly is the Windows Vista of blockbuster movies.

On paper, the specs are impressive; it boasts a starring role from recent Oscar winner Jeff Bridges, an electrifying score by Daft Punk and [...]]]> In computer speak, TRON: Legacy is a film that takes forever to boot up, fails to form a connection with its audience and repeatedly falls victim to the dreaded Blue Screen of Boredom (BSoB). It truly is the Windows Vista of blockbuster movies.

On paper, the specs are impressive; it boasts a starring role from recent Oscar winner Jeff Bridges, an electrifying score by Daft Punk and an onslaught of trailblazing CGI effects that would be enough to make James Cameron hot under the collar. But these strengths mean nothing when the screenplay is this idiotic, the direction this sterile. Legacy is film about computers, seemingly made by computers. It simply has no soul.

The story does not compute on an emotional level, though it does at least try. It begins in 1982, the year the original film was released, with genius computer programmer Kevin Flynn (Jeff Bridges) telling his young son Sam (Garrett Hedlund) a story about the digital universe he created. Kevin leaves for work that night, but he never returns. Sam grows up all moody and aloof, regularly sabotaging his Dad’s thriving computer company that has become a greedy corporate monster in his absence. Via an old friend, Sam receives a strange message from his father’s abandoned arcade, and on inspecting the venue, discovers a portal to his father’s computerised universe known as The Grid. But what, exactly, is The Grid? What is its purpose? What are the laws that govern its existence?  These kind of questions don’t seem to matter to the filmmakers, and as long as The Grid looks über cool, they’re assuming they won’t matter to us either. They do.

From here, the film plays out like The Matrix in reverse. Sam is transported into the digital world, and after being pitted against rogue programs in a giant Thunderdrome — where the only truly exciting scenes of the film take place — he bumps into his overlord father. Only it’s not his father; he’s actually Clu (also Bridges, digitally enhanced to make him look years younger), a computer program who was designed by his father to perfect The Grid in his absence. Of course, perfection to a computer is a bit like what perfection was to Hitler; it doesn’t bode well for those with apparent “flaws” (i.e. humans, or Users as they’re called). That’s why Sam’s actual father has been banished by Clu to the wastelands outside The Grid – the existence of which doesn’t really make sense when you think about it – where he has lived in exile ever since he walked out on his son some 30 years ago.

2010 tron legacy 0941 600x255 TRON: Legacy (Review)

The original TRON was released long before the target demographic for Legacy had even developed in their father’s crown jewels, so it would be foolish on Disney’s behalf to expect audiences to have seen it beforehand. I can’t imagine it would hurt, though, because Legacy doesn’t make much sense at the best of times. Despite being numbingly simplistic in its immediate plotting – a rinse/repeat case of travelling from point A to point B – the screenplay by Adam Horowitz and Eddy Kitsis is utterly bewildering in terms of its overly elaborate backstory and inconsistent internal logic. To make matters worse, it’s all told via giant chunks of goofy exposition that effectively brings the second act to a complete standstill. Not that it was exactly rollicking along in the first place.

Even as mere eye candy, Legacy disappoints.  The highly publicised 3D is barely noticeable, while the striking neon aesthetic of The Grid – painstakingly rendered by schools of VFX artists – is too gloomy and homogeneous to truly dazzle. Compared to the lush, colourful and often breathtaking world James Cameron introduced us to in Avatar, The Grid looks like the bathroom of a trendy nightclub. Under Joseph Kosinski’s detached direction, there’s no sense of immersion; it’s purely veneer.

Jeff Bridges, who plays both the hero Kevin and the villain Clu, does his best with the obscenely tacky dialogue, digging for much-needed laughs by sporadically channelling his performance as The Dude from The Big Lebowski. In his first major role, Garrett Hedlund’s barely makes a splash as vacuous protagonist Sam Flynn, sharing awkward romantic chemistry with Oliva Wilde as the enigmatic computer program Quorra. Oh, and the less said about Michael Sheen’s absurd David Bowie impersonation, the better. He’s going to regret that one in the morning.

As a state of the art money shredder, TRON: Legacy is right up there with Transformers 2. Disney has a lot of bugs to squash before they even consider v3.0.

]]> http://cutprintreview.com/reviews/1-12-stars/tron-legacy-review/feed/ 10 Dinner for Schmucks (Review) http://cutprintreview.com/reviews/1-12-stars/dinner-for-schmucks-review/ http://cutprintreview.com/reviews/1-12-stars/dinner-for-schmucks-review/#comments Thu, 30 Sep 2010 04:55:50 +0000 Anders Wotzke http://cutprintreview.com/?p=12529 As the title implies, Dinner for Schmucks is a film that asks us to spend 114 minutes in the company of people we don’t particularly like. Because really, that’s the definition of a schmuck; people who irritate us, frustrate us and whose mere presence makes us wish were somewhere, anywhere else.

And hey, if that’s the kind of experience director Jay Roach (Austin Powers, Meet the Parents) [...]]]> As the title implies, Dinner for Schmucks is a film that asks us to spend 114 minutes in the company of people we don’t particularly like. Because really, that’s the definition of a schmuck; people who irritate us, frustrate us and whose mere presence makes us wish were somewhere, anywhere else.

And hey, if that’s the kind of experience director Jay Roach (Austin Powers, Meet the Parents) wants from his remake of Francis Veber’s French farce The Dinner Game, then all the power to him. He’s done a bang-up job.

But if Roach’s intention was to actually make us laugh, then there is a bit of an issue, because the thing about watching incredibly annoying people do incredibly annoying things is that it tends to be – surprise! – incredibly annoying.

The flimsy but workable premise concerns nice-guy Tim (Paul Rudd), who in an effort to get a long sought-after promotion, accepts an unusual dinner invitation from his boss that requires him to bring along someone with a “special talent” – code for an A-grade idiot – so that they can be ridiculed for entertainment. By chance, Tim bumps into the blissfully ignorant Barry (Steve Carrell), a taxation officer by day and rodent taxidermist by night, who is so far beyond stupid, it’s nothing short of a miracle he’s still among the living.  He’s the perfect specimen for the dinner, but Barry shows up at Tim’s apartment a day earlier and won’t leave, systematically but unintentionally making his life a living hell. Ours too.

Schmucks, more so than Roach’s earlier films Meet the Parents and its sequel Meet the Fockers, belongs to that mangy breed of American comedy that confuses situations that are genuinely funny for situations that are agonizingly awkward. Such discomfort stems from the fact that these situations cannot decide whether they’re based in the real world or an absurdist one. They’re stuck in limbo because Hollywood, in an effort not to offend a single soul willing to spend money on a movie ticket, wouldn’t dare make a flat-out farcical comedy that runs the risk of alienating wallets.

But therein lies Schmucks’ dilemma; absurdism hasn’t room for half-measures. When making a farce, authentic characters, realistic scenarios, moral lessons and happy endings should be left at the door. Schmucks insists on having all of these things, thus undermining its every attempt to be bitter and bizarre.

dinner for schmucks081 e1285822387729 600x301 Dinner for Schmucks (Review)

The biggest victim here is Paul Rudd (Role Models, I Love You, Man). Rudd is a tremendous comedic actor, a master of deadpan delivery, whose talents are completely squandered as he is forced to play it straight as Mr. Every Man. This is a mistake; he shouldn’t be so relatable and grounded. We’re then asked to sympathise with Tim’s desire to get a promotion so that he can woo his girlfriend, Julie (Stephanie Szostak; The Rebound). This is also a mistake; he shouldn’t be so likeable and honourable. That just makes us loathe Barry, the aforementioned schmuck, for putting Tim in a position where he risks losing his girlfriend, his job and his sanity. We like the guy, so why on Earth would we want to see his life crumble?

Perhaps if Rudd was allowed to go as off-the-wall crazy as Carell (Despicable Me, Date Night), their screen partnering mightn’t have been so frustrating. To be fair, Carrell has the right kind of goofy energy as Barry, he’s just made so hopelessly irritating because he’s messing about in an absurdist movie while Rudd is stuck back in reality. As such, the most enjoyable moments to be had in Schmucks involve the wacky supporting characters; Jemaine Clement (TV’s Flight of the Conchords) as the existential and self-absorbed artist Kieran, Zach Galifianakis (The Hangover, Up in the Air) as the nutty IRS agent Therman and Octavia Spencer (The Soloist, Halloween II) as the animal clairvoyant Madam Nora. The writing is never witty enough for these characters to garner more than a chuckle, but they do represent the film’s farcicality at its best.

The rest of the time, though, Dinner for Schmucks sucks.

]]> http://cutprintreview.com/reviews/1-12-stars/dinner-for-schmucks-review/feed/ 11 The Last Airbender (Review) http://cutprintreview.com/reviews/1-12-stars/the-last-airbender-review/ http://cutprintreview.com/reviews/1-12-stars/the-last-airbender-review/#comments Tue, 21 Sep 2010 06:30:56 +0000 Anders Wotzke http://cutprintreview.com/?p=12167 When M. Night Shyamalan’s The Last Airbender made its way into US cinemas last July, critics bashed the film to a pulp like a  hapless piñata. Once considered to  be the next Hitchcock with film’s like The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable, Shyamalan’s career suffered a stroke with The Village and has been on life support ever since, Airbender being the director’s worst reviewed film to date. Yes, [...]]]> When M. Night Shyamalan’s The Last Airbender made its way into US cinemas last July, critics bashed the film to a pulp like a  hapless piñata. Once considered to  be the next Hitchcock with film’s like The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable, Shyamalan’s career suffered a stroke with The Village and has been on life support ever since, Airbender being the director’s worst reviewed film to date. Yes, even worse than his last effort The Happening. And that’s a film about a homicidal breeze.

But is Airbender really as awful as everyone says?

In all honesty, no it’s not. While Shyamalan’s latest typifies sloppy and soulless filmmaking, it’s not about to give you retinal cancer like the US press would have you believe.  It’s no worse than, say, this year’s remake of Clash of the Titans. Yet for someone who was actually looking forward to an absolute train wreck – if a film can’t be excellent, they may as well be hysterically awful – I don’t know whether it’s more disappointing that the film is bad, or that it isn’t quite bad enough to be considered good.

Based on the acclaimed animated television series Avatar: The Last Airbender, it’s clear even for someone who hasn’t watched the show that something was seriously lost in translation. Events take place in a mythical world divided into four nations; Earth, Air, Water and Fire (no prizes for guessing which one’s evil). Within each nation, select individuals awkwardly known as “Benders” – try not to laugh, Brits, we know what that implies – possess the ability to manipulate their native element. Keeping all the nations in harmony is the Avatar, a giant 3D smurf a powerful demigod who connects the physical world to the spiritual world and has the ability to bend all elements. The Avatar, however, has been MIA for the last century, allowing the tyrannical Fire nation to take the reins and exterminate/enslave all the foreign nations, possibly because they’re sick of being called flaming benders. Zzing!

the last airbender151 600x324 The Last Airbender (Review)

With the backstory out of the way, the film kicks off when 14-year old water bender Katara (Nicola Peltz) and her benderless older brother Sokka (Jackson Rathbone) – two of the most Caucasian-looking Inuits you’re ever likely to see – discover a bald boy named Aang (Noah Ringer) frozen in the ice. It turns out Aang is not only the last remaining Airbender, the rest of whom were wiped out by the Fire nation many years ago, but also the long-lost Avatar. With the help of a flying beaver-dog (don’t ask), Aang embarks on a mission to restore balance to the world. This displeases the dictatorial Fire Lord Ozai (Cliff Curtis) and his exiled son Prince Zuko (Dev Patel), both obviously evil because they’re the only ethnic lead actors on screen. But that’s not racist according to Shyamalan, just “ironic.” Someone please get the man a dictionary…

Glimpses of the film’s strong source material can be seen in the overarching mythology, which is actually quite fascinating in a Howl’s Moving Castle meets Lord of the Rings kind of way. The film’s execution, however, is exactly that: an execution. Almost as if he’s trying to avoid any emotional engagement with the material, Shyamalan tells the story like a syndicated news journalist, reporting events with detached direction and lifeless, plot-driven screenwriting. The characters are nothing but colour-coded cogs cranking the story forward, almost as shallow as the fake 3D that exacerbates the murky and dizzying cinematography. The visual effects are clearly on a different plane to the action, which is  without  any excitement or momentum because the characters must stop and perform tai-chi whenever they go to attack. Watching a bunch of “warriors” wage war like a stuck-in-the-mud rendition of Swan Lake is not only extremely anti-climactic, it’s just plain ol’ silly. Perhaps if the film wasn’t so deadly serious about everything, such folly might have been more welcome.

When it comes to the performances, one thing’s for certain; casting director Douglas Aibel is going to want to leave this one off his CV. In his feature film debut, Noah Ringer is miscast – in both ethnicity and acting ability – as boy hero Aang. To be fair, the young performer isn’t given much to work with dialogue-wise, but the closest Ringer comes to pulling a facial expression is flaring his nostrils. My understanding is that one flair means he’s angry, two means he’s upset.

the last airbender391 e1285049594387 700x337 The Last Airbender (Review)

Slumdog Millionaire’s Dev Patel fairs no better as Prince Zuko, essentially playing a spoilt brat with daddy issues, while Twilight’s Jackson Rathbone gives his best Hayden Christensen impersonation as the brooding Sokka. To give his character any semblance of a purpose, Rathbone engages in a pathetic last-minute romance with Seychelle Gabriel  (pictured above) as the bleach-bathing Water Princess Yue. The only young cast member who escapes relatively unscathed is newcomer Nicola Peltz as Katara. Watch closely and you can almost see her roll her eyes each time she is forced to deliver one awful chunk of expository dialogue after another.

In any case, it’s hard to believe that the M. Night Shyamalan who wrote this drivel is the same M. Night Shyamalan who scribed the captivating and chilling The Sixth Sense back in 1999. Eleven years on and the iconic line “I see dead people” has proven to be prophetic; take one look around the cinema during The Last Airbender and you’ll see some dead people too.

]]> http://cutprintreview.com/reviews/1-12-stars/the-last-airbender-review/feed/ 19 Give ‘Em Hell, Malone (Review) http://cutprintreview.com/reviews/1-12-stars/give-em-hell-malone-review/ http://cutprintreview.com/reviews/1-12-stars/give-em-hell-malone-review/#comments Thu, 16 Sep 2010 05:50:05 +0000 Alex Lindsey Jones http://cutprintreview.com/?p=12008 Give ‘Em Hell, Malone is yet another one of those straight to DVD pseudo noir action flicks trying to cash in on the style of much better films like Sin City but unfortunately comes off more like a carbon copy of other bad films like The Spirit, which were also trying to rip off the Sin City magic.

Tom (billed here as Thomas) Jane is the title character of Malone, an [...]]]> Give ‘Em Hell, Malone is yet another one of those straight to DVD pseudo noir action flicks trying to cash in on the style of much better films like Sin City but unfortunately comes off more like a carbon copy of other bad films like The Spirit, which were also trying to rip off the Sin City magic.

Tom (billed here as Thomas) Jane is the title character of Malone, an ex-private detective who is hired to retrieve a mysterious suitcase from a building full of heavily armed gangsters. After a violent shoot out, Malone realizes he was set up and sets out to investigate who is responsible and also to discover the meaning behind the suitcase’s contents which have a personal connection to Malone and for some strange reason are constantly referred to by all characters as “The meaning of love”.

While the film has shamelessly “cool” moments of over the top violence and some forced noir-esque dialogue, it’s not a complete write off due to some of the talent involved.

tomjanegun 600x282 Give Em Hell, Malone (Review)

Tom Jane is a fine, underrated actor who is always enjoyable playing the tough-as-nails herom but ever since appearing in minor hits like The Punisher and The Mist, his film career has seemed to have really stalled. Luckily he has the critically acclaimed new HBO series Hung to fall back on.

Ving Rhames (Pulp Fiction) co-stars as a mob henchman but hasn’t much to do except look big and tough, which he always pulls off successfully. Incredibly sexy Spanish actress Elsa Pataky (Snakes on a Plane) gets to play the love interest of sorts but ultimately comes off as just plain annoying and her accent doesn’t do much to help the situation. Then there is the matter of Doug Hutchison (The Green Mile), who plays the film’s most animated villain Matchstick.

Matchstick is an over the top cartoony villain that is hideously disfigured due to a childhood accident playing with matches and now uses his fascination with fire as his weapon of choice. At first there seemed to be something engaging about Hutchison’s performance until it becomes abundantly clear that he is just lazily channeling the vocal ticks and mannerisms of the late great Heath Ledger’s performance as The Joker from The Dark knight.  At that point there wasn’t much left to savor but Tom Jane’s tough guy routine and a partly amusing extended cameo from French Stewart (3rd Rock from the Sun) as a sleazy lounge singer who utters the line “Suck my Sinatra”.

Aussie director Russell Mulchay helms this splendid misfire. Mulchay started his feature career off with much promise by directing one of the definitive 80’s cult classics Highlander, however a few years later undid all that good will by directing its universally loathed sequel  and has since then for the most part been relegated to straight to DVD hell.

Verdict:

If you feel tempted to pick up Give ‘Em Hell, Malone while you’re at the local video store, do yourself a favour and don’t. Just rent Sin City again instead.

]]> http://cutprintreview.com/reviews/1-12-stars/give-em-hell-malone-review/feed/ 0 The Losers (Review) http://cutprintreview.com/reviews/1-12-stars/the-losers-review/ http://cutprintreview.com/reviews/1-12-stars/the-losers-review/#comments Thu, 27 May 2010 00:33:16 +0000 Glynn Morgan http://cutprintreview.com/?p=10820 Mindless action movies can be absolutely fantastic, especially if you are in the right mood to consume a patently ridiculous plotline, exaggerated physics and a heroic protagonist with a flair for blowing things up. Some of these films can be appreciated for being “so bad they’re good”, others are well conceived spectacles with uber cool, or bad ass, main characters. Sometimes they will even poke fun at themselves, or pay homage to classic action movies of old.

However, for every enjoyable action film, there is always an average attempt at the genre, one that misses the mark and never feels at home in the above categories. Unfortunately for me, The Losers was one of those films. Neither an atrocity to laugh at, nor a classic to cherish, the continuous attempts at humour, thrills and attitude fall hopelessly short.

The Losers begins by using freeze frame title cards to introduce each of our protagonists, the members of an American Elite Special Forces company. Jenson, Cougar, Pooch, Roque, and Clay are plastered on the screen with their respective squad positions, which feel pulled out of the latest computer game. Jenson (Chris Evans) serves as the tech guy, who can’t pick up girls and makes a continuous idiot of himself. Pooch (Columbus Short), the squad driver, is the soon-to-be father. Cougar (Oscar Jaenada) is the spiritual (and Hispanic) marksman, whose main activities include preying, shooting and wearing a hat. Roque (Idris Elba) is the demo man, second in command and has leadership issues amongst the group. Clay (Jeffrey Dean Morgan) is the team leader, who doesn’t do much more than stand around looking broody and unshaven, until he starts shooting people or making love, of course.

The team is sent to initiate an airstrike on an outpost in the jungle, harbouring an international criminal. When the company discovers the outpost has children on site, they realise the military is being manipulated by an entity known as Max (Jason Patric), who orders the strike to continue despite the children. When the company fails to save the children, they throw in their dog tags for a life of seclusion. Suddenly, the dubious femme Aisha shows up (Zoë Saldana) and the company is given a chance to redeem themselves and eliminate Max.

Now, most of these characters exude a type of macho, cockiness, which I found unsavoury – and this is the crux of it. I don’t expect a deep gallery of heroes, nor ones that hold an appropriate set of morals. What I do expect is at least one likeable, confident and charismatic player who is badass enough to make Alan Rickman wet his pants. Unfortunately, I found no such character in this movie. The supposedly witty dialogue is delivered in this self-aware tone that sounds more like the characters are fishing for a high five from their mates, rather than getting on with it. I generally dislike male attitude in ensemble casts, which didn’t help either. Nor did the accompanying film techniques, which attempt to make the team seem more “cool” then they are. The slow motion walking, circling pans and heavy rock soundtrack are a bit much, feeling almost like a parody of the genre.

the losers1 The Losers (Review)

Admittedly, there are some occasionally fun moments, like the blatantly evil performance of Jason Patric in Max. His character is somewhat amusing, casually discussing and organising the death of his victims, overt confidence and a taste for nuclear devices. He also has the quirk of appreciating the pro-green era of modern society, which he has twisted and applied to his weapons – a nice touch of originality. Unfortunately his “you have a better shot of kidnapping the President” notoriety turns out to be laughable and he doesn’t get enough screen time, despite having a strong role.

For what they lack, these movies can often be redeemed with glorious action sequences. But The Losers has nothing very special. Although the violence isn’t gratuitous, there is a copious amount of shooting. These sequences are damaged by shaky camera movements and lots of intensified continuity editing, making it hard to see whose getting a bullet to the face. Obviously this lowers the films rating, making it accessible to young teenage boys, who will probably love it. A few explosions break up the action, but there are easily better ones out there. All in all, the action is not really there, because you’ve likely seen a more fulfilling experience elsewhere, unless you’re particularly young.

I honestly thought this film was being ironic, with the title The Losers and the characterisations in the state they were, I was expecting it to get increasingly worse until someone said “surprise, it’s intentional”. The problem is, no such event occurs and your left with a half baked action film that tries to impress you in all the wrong ways. There are some good moments I’m sure teen viewers will enjoy, but don’t expect a large adult fan base for this movie any time soon.

Verdict:

Suffering from a rather forced sense of “cool”, The Losers fails to impress in the character department, which needs to be stronger to make up for the standard action it provides.

]]> http://cutprintreview.com/reviews/1-12-stars/the-losers-review/feed/ 9 Letters to Juliet (Review) http://cutprintreview.com/reviews/1-12-stars/letters-to-juliet-review/ http://cutprintreview.com/reviews/1-12-stars/letters-to-juliet-review/#comments Tue, 04 May 2010 16:56:37 +0000 Anders Wotzke http://cutprintreview.com/?p=10403 Packed full of sappy Hallmark moments, Letters to Juliet is another cushy effort from director Gary Winick, a rom-com regular responsible for the mishap that was last year’s Bride Wars. This time round, he’s taken a leaf  from Mamma Mia! and Julie & Julia’s book by taking the romance on a scenic European road-trip, bringing the genre’s go-to gal Amanda Seyfried (Mamma Mia!, Dear John) along for the ride.  I daresay it almost pays off as the framing premise about finding an old flame some fifty years later is actually quite endearing. But before long, the genre clichés start to pile up, the attempts at comedy repeatedly fall flat and the chemistry between Seyfried and co-star Christopher Egan (Crush, Eragon) fizzles before it even sparks.

Seyfried stars as Sophie, an aspiring writer for a New York newspaper who travels Verona with her fiancé Victor (Gael Garcia Bernal), a passionate chef, for a romantic getaway. Victor, however, decides to take their holiday as an opportunity to source some fine wines and cheeses for his new restaurant, leaving Sophie to wander through the city of love on her lonesome. While sightseeing, Sophie stumbles upon the supposed grave of the Shakespearean heroine Juliet, now a wall where broken hearted women leave notes in a hope that Juliet – or her “secretaries” — will reply.

Hidden inside a gap in the wall, Sophie discovers a 50 year old unanswered message from a then-teenage Englishwoman named Claire (Vanessa Redgrave) who reluctantly had to leave behind her true love Lorenzo to return back home. Sophie decides to respond to the letter despite the decades that have passed, telling Claire that true love from yesteryear is no less true now.  It’s enough to motivate the now 70 year-old to return to Verona to find Lorenzo, aided by her obnoxious grandson Charlie (Christopher Egan) who is, of course, a disbeliever in  true love. Sensing the makings of a good story, Sophie decides to tag along and help find Claire’s long-lost sweetheart, but (surprise!) she ultimately finds love herself.

“Take a risk and follow your heart!” tout screenwriters Jose Rivera and Tim Sullivan, a bit of hypocritical message given that they themselves fail to take any chances, letting the inevitable romance play out in the most derivative and dull fashion imaginable. While the family-friendly rating does more damage than good – I don’t recall a single sensual moment in the film – the film’s biggest issue is that Winick’s direction sits idly in cruise-control, plodding along like a Sunday driver with nary a care in the world. There’s scarcely a hint of tension to events; no emotional distinction between the dramatic highs and lows. If you’re not careful, exhaling might just blow this cinematic fluff right out of existence.

letters to juliet211 e1272991906688 600x276 Letters to Juliet (Review)
Perhaps if the budding romance between Sophie and Charlie were at all convincing, there would have been  something beyond the picturesque Italian countryside to relish. But Chris Egan’s forced and charmless performance means he doesn’t ever stop being the snotty English prat we’re first introduced to, thus making his cheesy balcony climbing antics in the last reel seem all but sincere.  Amanda Seyfried fairs slightly better as Sophie, yet she doesn’t really sparkle as much as the film requires, particularly when compared to former screen queen Vanessa Redgrave (Julia, The Gathering Storm). A grey head of hair hasn’t taken at all from Redgrave’s allure, managing to make even the clumsiest dialogue sound wholesome. She is a rose amongst thorns, although credit must also go out to Gael Garcia Bernal (The Limits of Control, Babel) as the likeably-unlikable Victor. He is the only character within the film believably in love. It just so happens to be with his stomach.

Verdict:

Diabetics steer clear; so awfully saccharine is the derivative romantic drama Letters to Juliet, it may induce a hyperglycemic coma.

 

Win tickets to see Letters to Juliet! Enter our competition now.

]]> http://cutprintreview.com/reviews/1-12-stars/letters-to-juliet-review/feed/ 5 Did You Hear About The Morgans? (Review) http://cutprintreview.com/reviews/1-12-stars/did-you-hear-about-the-morgans-review/ http://cutprintreview.com/reviews/1-12-stars/did-you-hear-about-the-morgans-review/#comments Wed, 23 Dec 2009 14:48:35 +0000 Kathleen Wang http://cutprintreview.com/?p=8911 Romantic comedies, especially those aimed at the lonely-gooey-hearts out there, rarely find a warm reception from me.  Although I must profess that those starring Hugh Grant (Notting Hill, About a Boy, Bridget Jones) do set my steel-reinforced heart just a wee bit aflutter.   So, I shuffled into Did You Hear About the Morgans? clutching an embarrassingly large bag of confectionary and shreds of hopeful expectation.  Alas, if was not to be – the film was absolutely dismal. And Grant was just an ungracefully aging chap who delivered poorly written lines with about as much gusto as custard (the ones that come out of a box and have 0% eggs).

So let’s start with the predictably predictable plot.  A New Yorker couple, estranged after an account of infidelity – and no surprises as to who violated their wedding vows, find themselves in a rut. Lawyer Paul Morgan (Hugh Grant) is desperately trying to win back his sunny real-estate mogul Meryl (Sarah Jessica Parker).  After a begrudging dinner the two find themselves the witnesses to a murder, placed on witness protection and shipped off to Wyoming in the protective custody of the horse-shoe-throwing county sheriff Clay Wheeler (Sam Elliot) and his pro-gun-anti-vegetarian wife/deputy sheriff Emma (Mary Steenburger).  Tempers flare and relationships are reforged. Blah blah blah.  You know the ending before you even make it through the first 20 minutes – but I suppose that’s the crux of any rom-com.

about the morgans 091 e1261561094258 350x333 Did You Hear About The Morgans? (Review)

Sometimes, weak plots can be salvaged by some very well written characters.  This film is not one of those sometimes.  The characters are Styrofoam and tremendously boring to watch.  From a kindly but near mute sherrif to the intellectually handicapped nurse/doctor duo, this film leaves much to be wanted.  Sarah Jessica Parker (Sex in the City) can normally be depended upon for her deliciously rumbustious curls and timely delivery of punchlines.  In this film, everything about her is flat; hair, dialogue, quirk-o-meter reading.  Everything!  Admittedly, the chemistry between Grant and SJP was passable, but they seemed from like bed-buddies than a real couple.  Essentially, the film and its characters were fake.  And not even cleverly fake. It was as if the writer (Marc Lawrence) ran out of Ritalin and was writing to meet a deadline.  The same could be said for the music and camera work.  There was no innovation or attempts to stamp on clichés.  If anything, cliché was the staple of the entire film.

My advice? Watch the preview.  It’s got pretty much all the best bits (humour, Hugh Grant with sexy-uber-textured hair, and grizzly bears) and you don’t need to sit through the agonizing hours of clichéd banter (if it even deserves such a title) and blandness.  And to all the romantics out there, please don’t amass outside my house with pitchforks and torches.  I don’t entirely dislike rom-coms (I happened to highly prize Bridget Jones and all her chimney-pot smoking and simultaneous attempts to wax lower appendages).  But this movie, is plain crass.

[rating: 1.5/5]

]]> http://cutprintreview.com/reviews/1-12-stars/did-you-hear-about-the-morgans-review/feed/ 47 Couples Retreat (Review) http://cutprintreview.com/reviews/1-12-stars/couples-retreat-review/ http://cutprintreview.com/reviews/1-12-stars/couples-retreat-review/#comments Sun, 11 Oct 2009 08:22:25 +0000 Anders Wotzke http://cutprintreview.com/?p=7481 “It’s like a screensaver!” says John Favreau’s character upon arriving at a stunning Island resort in Couples Retreat, a quip that perfectly encapsulates my attitude towards the film overall. Just like a screensaver, Couples Retreat is the kind of film you want to occupy the screen when you’re not around. It’s little more than a plodding slideshow of gorgeous scenery and equally as gorgeous people, with far too much (dubious) rom and not nearly enough com. If only bringing a premature end to its insufferable 110 minute runtime just meant wiggling the mouse.

Penned by the once-funny Vince Vaughn, and the better-off-directing-Iron Man John Fevreau, it’s the kind of film that is happy to settle for shallow laughs. The material flounders at the hands of first time director Peter Billingsley, who might know how to frame a pretty shot, but not a funny one.

Vaughn and Malin Akerman head off the ensemble cast as idyllic couple Dave and Ronnie, who of their friends, are the only two that are still happily married. Childhood sweethearts Joey (Favreau) and Lucy (Kristin Davis) are now only together for the sake of their teenage daughter, while Shane (Faizon Love) has recently divorced with his wife and is now trying to keep up with 20 year-old Trudy (Kali Hawk).

They’re given an enticing proposition by overly organised couple Jason (Jason Bateman) and Cynthia (Kristen Bell), who are on the brink of divorce, but believe their marriage can be saved by a week at an exotic couples retreat called Eden (a fictitious resort on the French-Polynesian island of Bora Bora). But to afford the trip, they need to take advantage of the resort’s group package, and thus rope their friends in by promising it’ll be a week of relaxing fun in the sun. Once they arrive, however, the therapy sessions are revealed to be mandatory, and at the hands of the island’s relationship ‘sensei’ Marcel (Jean Reno), they must endure through a week of torturous couple building exercises. And so must we.

couples retreat371 204x224 custom Couples Retreat (Review)

You’ll be lucky to laugh more than a couple of times throughout the film, which foolishly attempts low-brow humour within the confines of an M rating, when it really needs the extra bite only an MA15+ rating can allow (i.e. Forgetting Sarah Marshall).  While some one-liners hit their mark, the two biggest cracks at physical comedy are horrendously weak; one sees Vaughn incessantly whinge about surviving a shark “attack”, while the other sees a hunky Spaniard instructor (Carlos Ponce) grind his Speedo-clad privates against the women during Yoga class. It’s funny for about thirty seconds, but it insists on panning out for another five minutes.

It appears Favreau wrote the best material for himself, while everyone else seems to have signed-on as cast members just to go on paid vacation to Bora Bora. Vaughn has been playing the same character for a decade now, yet the last time it worked for him was in 2005’s Wedding Crashers. He needs to revisit the 90’s and start experimenting with genres. Elsewhere, Bateman proves once again that he needs the writers of Arrested Development to be truly funny and Jean Reno’s Zen-like character in support leaves absolutely no impression.

Couples Retreat is by no means the worst film of the year –it’s got nothing on Eddie Murphy’s latest disaster Imagine That – but it’s certainly not the cinematic escape it should have been. It needlessly serves up four rom-coms for the price of one, each preaching the same message about how relationships need constant love and attention. A worthy message, for sure, but since none of these four relationships feel even slightly authentic, it doesn’t pay-off. It’s a bit like getting relationship advice from a clown. A really, really unfunny one.

]]> http://cutprintreview.com/reviews/1-12-stars/couples-retreat-review/feed/ 6 The Taking of Pelham 123 (Review) http://cutprintreview.com/reviews/1-12-stars/the-taking-of-pelham-123-review/ http://cutprintreview.com/reviews/1-12-stars/the-taking-of-pelham-123-review/#comments Wed, 26 Aug 2009 14:31:28 +0000 Anders Wotzke http://cutprintreview.com/?p=6922 In The Taking of Pelham 123, Tony Scott’s camera zips around like paranoid fly, orbiting his cast like it hasn’t got anything better to do. It appears Scott grows restless because he desperately wants to make a 90 minute long music video, but has been told by his producers he must make a film about a heated phone conversation instead. Mind you, it hasn’t stopped him from trying; Pelham is packed with enough rap music, nauseating camera jerks, speed shifts and freeze frames to almost, so nearly, convince us something actually interesting is occurring on screen.

Now I haven’t seen the 1974 original, but unless Brian Helgeland’s revamped screenplay removed everything that made it of quality, I simply can’t see how Pelham was ever feature film material. Here we have all-round nice guy Walter Garber (Denzel Washington in his 5th Tony Scott film), a train coordinator, who is unfortunate enough to be on duty when not-so-nice guy Ryder (John Travolta), a train hijacker, is out to make some money. Garber inadvertently becomes a hostage negotiator when Ryder and his armed men bring Pelham 123 to a halt in the middle of the subway tunnel, threatening to kill the passengers if they don’t receive ten million dollars within sixty minutes.

The only way I managed to endure through their hour long chit-chat — where both their dishonest backgrounds are revealed to no real consequence — was by clinging to a hope that the film was building up to something. A twist conclusion, perhaps — anything that would make the first four reels a worthwhile exercise of my patience. But the twist here is that there are no twists. Everything is as it seems.

2009 the taking of pelham 123 0051 297x261 custom The Taking of Pelham 123 (Review)

It’s as if Scott was convinced that star power alone was enough to carry the film and he needn’t bother with any narrative substance.  Quite frankly, he almost gets away with it; Denzel Washington, having played an uncannily similar role in Spike Lee’s remake of Inside Man, certainly knows how to talk his way out of a dull situation. John Travolta also deserves kudos for  attempting to make something more of his character than what the screenplay suggests. He hints at the possibility that Ryder’s ‘crazed gunman’ act is really just a devious facade, and that he’s actually a brilliant mastermind waiting for perfect moment to reveal his grand plan. But not only is his supposed ‘grand plan’ stripped of all its mystique by being prematurely revealed, it also turns out that he is, in fact,  just fruity in the head.

Perhaps the fundamental flaw of  Pelham is that it misplaces, and drastically misuses, our invested interest in the characters. Take Garber for instance; he’s actually quite a likeable chap, but because he isn’t in any direct danger throughout most of the film, we’re given no real reason to be concerned about him or his circumstances. Compare this to a similar, but far more suspenseful film, Phone Booth. For 81 minutes, Colin Farrell’s character is stuck inside phone booth, held hostage by the man on the end of the line who has a sniper rifle aimed at his head. Now that’s a protagonist in a dangerous situation. Danger is what makes us feel anxious. Anxiety is what creates suspense. For the most of Pelham, right up until the farcical conclusion, the only threat to Garber is his wife; she really wants him to bring home a gallon of milk.  Meanwhile, most of those who are actually in danger, such as the hostages on the train, are dealt non-speaking roles. If The Taking of Pelham 123 wanted to be at all thrilling, it should have at least partly been about them, and not about a guy having a pretty average day at the office. As if we really need a movie to tell us what they’re like.

]]> http://cutprintreview.com/reviews/1-12-stars/the-taking-of-pelham-123-review/feed/ 1