Leaves of Grass: Review

Tim Blake Nelson’s latest film Leaves of Grass stars Edward Norton in a duel-role as twin brothers who have chosen very different paths of lives but find themselves thrown together again and their loyalty towards each other questioned. Bill Kincaid (Norton) is an Ivy League professor who is lured back to his family in rural Oklahoma by his brother, Brady Kincaid (Norton), who is a small-time drug dealer and marijuana enthusiast to help take out a local drug lord, played by Richard Dreyfuss. Bill unwittingly goes along with Brady’s plan and in the end has to clean up the mess that Brady creates. Despite the consequences of Brady’s actions Bill and Brady find themselves being pulled closer together by the bond of blood and their past.

The plot to this film is very simple and nothing original; yet there is something to this film that makes it so much more than the simple, and sometimes boring, plot that Nelson tells his audience. The choice of Norton to play Bill and Brady Kincaid was essential for this film, and could not have been played by anyone else. Nelson wrote the parts specifically for Norton, and Norton even took a pay cut to play these roles – and they were presented in such a way that no other actor, in my personal opinion, could have kept going nearly as strong. This film is a comedy, but it’s not like most dual persona comedies, like anything with Eddie Murphy, it is filled with substance that is buried beneath its simple plot. Tim Blake Nelson is known more for his acting than he is for his writing and directing, however with Leaves of Grass people will forget that he was attached to O and want to see more, much more.

The title Leaves of Grass is based on a collection of poems that was being constantly revised until his death, by America’s great Walt Whitman. The importance of this title to the film is that it is centered on praising nature and humanities role in it. And while the plot does not sound like it revolves around the praises of nature the subtext to this film is filled with the intrigue and beauty that nature provides our human existence; whether it be through the complexity of the growth of plants or the way we react to nature around us. The existential moments that reflect Whitman’s poetry are found through the character of Janet (Keri Russell) and her blossoming relationship with Bill.

The cast is phenomenal from Edward Norton, who the film hinges on, to moments of brilliance by Susan Sarandon, Richard Dreyfuss, Melanie Lynskey, Keri Russell and even Tim Blake Nelson himself. It was also a pleasant surprise to see Steve Earle, who also appears in my favourite show The Wire in the film.

Now the film, brilliant as it is through its subtext, is far from perfect on the surface level. Roger Ebert claims that this is the best film of the year, and the best to premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival in 2009; yet the plot remains simple, and almost seems more aimed for someone who just wants to sit back and enjoy a mindless film. There are also many continuity errors that make the film feel a little sloppy. Despite that it’s still a very enjoyable flick and I highly suggest you give it a chance. This film is having a limited release April 2nd, but has just been picked up by a bigger production company which will release it to a much wider market this summer.

Be sure to check it out.

3.5 out of 5 stars

How To Train Your Dragon: Review

Let me just cut to the chase.  DreamWorks latest animated picture How To Train Your Dragon may be one of the best animated films I have ever seen.  This film has everything that an animated film needs; humour, action, adventure and of course a love story. The story is about a young and scrawny Viking named Hiccup, voiced by Ottawa-native Jay Baruchel, who wants to become a dragon-killer like all the older and tougher Vikings. Their village is constantly under attack from dragons, but when he takes down a dragon and is offered the chance to kill it he sees fear in its eyes and instead allows it to live.  Thus is the beginning of an unlikely friendship between a dragon, Toothless, and a human, Hiccup.  Throughout the story Hiccup finds out that dragons and humans can co-exist peacefully, but when he tries to tell his community - well; I don't want to give away too much of the plot...

How To Train Your Dragon was co-written and co-directed by Ottawa-native Dean DeBlois - which makes me proud to be from Ottawa.  The animation behind this film was just fantastic and while most movies in 3D are just gimmicks the 3D in this film is finely layered and extremely engaging.  How To Train Your Dragon is a very touching tale and thoroughly engaging from start to finish.  The voice acting was, for the most part excellent as well - the only criticism I would have about the voice acting is that of Christopher Mintz-Plasse, his voice didn't seem to fit his character; however Gerard Butler as Stoick, chief of the village and father of Hiccup was excellent; and reminded me of his role of King Leonidas in 300. 

The great part of this movie is that it's enjoyable for kids and adults alike. It's a refreshing break for parents because they can go to the film and not have to deal with a child's film like Beverly Hills Chihuahua. This film is fun for young and old alike.  There was not a single negative comment about this film after two screenings in the city; and everyone, including myself, was excited to go back and see it again!  Definitely give it a chance this weekend!

4.5 out of 5 stars

Hot Tub Time Machine: Review

The title of Hot Tub Time Machine says all you need to know about this film. It is literally about a hot tub time machine.  When three aging buddies and one's nephew travel to the mountains for a ski weekend everything takes a turn for the worse (or for the better) when they crawl into a hot tub, mix in a lot of alcohol, a man in a bear  costume, Russian Redbull, and a squirrel and wake up in 1986.  Hilarity ensues while they try to find out how to get back to 2010, or decide if they even want to go back.

I was lucky to get to see this film three times before its release date giving me lots of time to ruminate on the film and how it was presented. First off; the cast is amazing, led by John Cusack as a 40-something loser with a crappy job and a pitiful love life, followed by the hilarious antics of Craig Robinson, Clark Duke & the jack-assery of Rob Corddry - all washed-up losers who try to change what their lives have become through their epic trip to the past. Chevy Chase also has a cameo, but it's far from as funny as Chase has proved to be in the past. I was hoping for a role much similar to that of his role on the new television show: Community. But alas - his character, while vital, was actually quite boring.

Now I understand that the film sounds stupid. The first time I heard about this film I was quite sceptical about how it would turn out - but in the long run it was actually hilarious. While I personally don't think it was nearly as good as The Hangover it was still such a funny ride that I didn't mind seeing it 3 times.

I am quite surprised to be saying this BUT Hot Tub Time Machine is actually one of the funniest movies, if not the funniest movie, of 2010.

Original? Hardly. It's like an R-Rated Back to the Future with boobs; even has Crispin Glover doing a cameo and a reference to [Marty] McFly in a scene where two of the group are betting money on a sports game that they know the outcome to. While hardly original writers John Morris & Sean Anders do what they did in Sex Drive and She's Out of My League; take what can potentially just be a raunchy-comedy; and make it an enjoyable film with a fun plot, lots of quotable one-liners, and enjoyable to more than just teenage males, while being able to maintain the raunch.

Hot Tub Time Machine definitely needs to be on your list of movies to see this month!

4 out of 5 stars

Brooklyn's Finest: Review

First off let me apologize for all the late reviews.  March has been a busy month and having a busy release schedule for the movie company I work for I have missed many screenings and thus; have fallen behind.  I finally got the chance to see Brooklyn's Finest and I have to say; while not being a gem of a film - it wasn't half bad.  I went into the film with low expectations because of all the negative press I had heard about the film - but was surprised to find myself thinking about 25 minutes into the film - 'if they ever tried to turn shows like The Wire or The Shield into a movie; this is kind of what it would look like.'  Now don't get me wrong - this movie is nowhere near the calibre of a film as The Wire is to television. In my honest opinion The Wire is by far the greatest show that's ever been on television; BUT this movie proves why you could never successfully make a movie like The Wire. Too much content, too little time.

Let's start with the plot.  This turned out to be a huge misconception; and albeit the little downfall to this film.  The plot, if you want to call it that was all over the place. From trailers I thought that the three cops played by Richard Gere, Don Cheadle and Ethan Hawke all intermingled and their stories fell together; but no - this film is ideally three separate cop stories that address different levels of cop corruption in the heart of Brooklyn.  Each tale, if you want to call it that, is about 45 minutes in length and interspersed to keep the audience intrigued in each individual story; hoping that somehow the stories will connect in the end; but no such luck.  The first plot is that of Richard Gere's character Eddie. Eddie is an older cop; a week away from retirement. He is an alcoholic, suicidal depressed, a whoremonger and could care less about his job.  We slowly watch as Eddie's drive and passion is reignited through events that happen as he trains rookie officers and how he learns to 'take his work home with him.'  The next plot is that of Ethan Hawke's character Sal, a dirty cop who is trying to steal enough money from drug dealers to buy his pregnant and sick wife a new suitable home to live in. The final plot revolves around Don Cheadle's character of Tango; an undercover cop who has to decide whether he is going to remain loyal to his police brotherhood or slip into a life of crime himself.  The film also ends in a very Shakespearan way; that was necessary for the audience to feel like something was actually resolved.

The plots are very simple; yet the story, as it unfolds, feels very complex - and if it weren't for the inter-cutting and placing of the plots I believe that the audience members would grow weary of the story quickly.  On a completely different note, the acting was phenomenal.  I don't think I've ever seen a role that Don Cheadle has performed that I haven't liked. I was even engaged by his character Bernie in Hotel for Dogs.  Richard Gere has always been one of my favourite actors; he provides an intensity to his characters that many actors in Hollywood haven't mastered yet. While his performance as Eddie is not award-worthy it's still a very intense performance and I was really impressed.  As for Ethan Hawke, any two-bit actor could have played a better Sal than he did.  I got bored with his character very easily.  He reminded me of Christian Bale's performance in Harsh Times; which not only was boring as hell; but was maybe the most unoriginal portrayal of a dirty cop I have ever seen.  Funny enough - Hawke and Bale kinda look alike too.  Oh and Snipes? He wasn't bad... but this was far from his finest performance... he'll always be Blade to me.

As for the directing... Antoine Fuqua has done this before. This movie feels a lot like his 2001 cop-drama Training Day. Yet this movie is far from his worst... I was just hoping for something a little more original from Fuqua than what Brooklyn's Finest actually was. Not only did this film feel a lot like a dumbed-down version of The Wire but he also brought along many actual actors from the hit-television show who played characters almost identical to that of when they were on The Wire.  And of course Fuqua's worked with Hawke before in the role of a cop... albeit not nearly as dirty as in this film - but it just felt like it's already been done.

It's not a movie that you MUST see. It's a movie that I recommend you watch... if you have nothing else to do on some evening.  Rent it when it comes out on DVD; see it on a cheap Tuesday... but don't rush out to see it.

2.5 out of 5 stars

Brief Interviews With Hideous Men: Review

I was looking forward to sitting down and viewing John Krasinski's directorial debut of Brief Interviews with Hideous Men. I'd heard great things after its premiere in the 2009 Sundance Festival - and Krasinski was even nominated for The Grand Jury Prize; however I can understand why he didn't win.  What I can't understand is why he was even nominated in the first place.  This film had so much potential; originally a great novel, featuring an amazing ensemble of television's top dramatic and comic actors, and a noviced, but enthusiastic director. Unfortunately despite what the film had going for it there was absolutely no shred of decency within the film.

The plot behind Brief Interviews with Hideous Men is supposed to be very simple. It's supposed to be about a scorned woman who interviews men for her Anthropology dissertation to be able to understand why men do the things they do; and while the movie holds true to the plot it unravels in a static mess of flashbacks.  It isn't until late in this 80 minute borefest that one starts to realize the motivation behind the main character, Sara Quinn's (Julianne Nicholson) actions. However, to call Sara Quinn the main character is almost a lie as her character is much more of a background performer in all scenes and her actual depth as a character is nonexistent.

The film tries to rocket itself off of the interviews that Sara Quinn holds with these 'hideous men.'  However, the depth and manner that the monologues/interviews are written/performed makes the audience question the credibility of the film; the worst by-far is that of John Krasinski himself. No one speaks the way in which he, or most of the other interviewee's spoke; and I'm certain that the level of detail gone into in these interviews, while necessary for the film, are most unrealistic. The only thing that Krasinski does in this film is make all men look like sexual deviants... and while the film is indeed about these 'hideous men' any semblence of plot fades away with each interjected interview.

This review, is short like the film, I don't have much good to say about Brief Interviews with Hideous Men. I can't recommend this film; simply based on the fact that it defies all that I consider to qualify as a decent film. It had a poor script, a poor plot, poor acting (despite a stellar cast), I couldn't connect with a single character; because each character has about 4 or 5 minutes of screen time and Sara's screen time is almost purely as a background performer, there was alsopoor directing, and - it was boring as hell. I think I even lost a little bit of respect for John Krasinski while watching this film.  On an up-note Will Forte's cameo was the only moment that I found slightly amusing. It was the only part of the film that made me chuckle.

This film is definitely for the skip pile.

1 out of 5 stars.

She's Out of My League: Review

Let me start off by saying that DreamWorks latest film She's Out of My League is the romantic comedy of 2010. Directed by British funny-man Jim Field Smith and starring the ever hilarious (and Ottawa born) Jay Baruchel and the most beautiful Alice Eve and Krysten Ritter She's Out of My League provides audiences with an hour and forty minutes of feel-good laughs.  The story is simple, Kirk (played by Jay Baruchel), lives a simple life with his family, working for the TSA and trying to win back his ex-girlfriend Marnie. He is a self-acclaimed '5 out of 10'; but when Molly (Alive Eve), 'a hard 10' enters his life and starts to show interest in Kirk his world is turned upside down... why would a 10 go for a 5? He starts to ask himself why a girl who could be with any man she wanted would choose to be with him, an out-of-shape, scrawny, slightly-un-attractive guy who is stuck in a dead end job.

The film of course tries to mix in many messages; whether it be about achieving part of the American Dream (the trophy wife) or realizing that a rating system like the one in the film is ill-prepped because 'everyone is a 10 to the person who loves them; and that you're only a 5 if you think you're a 5.' (a paraphrased conversation from the film.) But in all honesty - we're not watching this movie for moral messages; we're watching this movie because it was marketed towards us as a raunchy comedy... especially since it was penned by Sean Anders and John Morris (penners of: Sex Drive & upcoming raunch-comedy Hot Tub Time Machine) but it really isn't. The trailers are quite deceiving because the movie is truly a sweet romantic-comedy... most of the laughs brought forth by a minor character, Devon (played by Nate Torrence.)

Talking about characters, the film was well cast. Jay Baruchel plays the perfect Kirk as Alive Eve plays the perfect Molly. The supporting cast; led by Krysten Ritter, Nate Torrence, and T.J. Miller; helped provide the laughs along the way as the audience engages themselves in the romantic lives of Molly and Kirk. The laughs them self are hardly original; yet one doesn't care as Smith finds a way to take an unoriginal comic scene and make it original.  For example we've all seen the scene in Fast Times at Ridgemont High, where the guy has his 'explosion' a little too early... a very American Pie-esque gag... well; a scene like that appears in She's Out of My League - only to add an extra giggle when Molly's parents show up right after Kirk has his little accident.  Or another example: we've all seen the American Wedding shaving scene... well She's Out of My League takes the shaving scene and adds an extra person... which makes it even more funny than the first time you've seen it.

Sure the gags are hardly original; but they're still funny and with Nate Torrence's hilarious G-rated Disneyesque antics in this R-rated film there are conversations in the scene that you just want to replay over and over again... there are times in the film that you also find yourself wanting to sing along with Hall & Oates. (I'm serious... I've still got Kiss on My List stuck in my head.) You may also never look at dogs the same way again after this film... but it's worth it.

Is there anything wrong with the film? Well obviously the film isn't perfect... I've said before the gags are far from original and you can always tell how romantic-comedies end (far from actual reality). And there are even slight continuity errors within the acting that I noticed upon a second viewing of the film - yet it all seems forgivable once you actually sit through this film.  It will never be on a 'Must See' movie list - but it does deserve to be seen because out of two screenings that held a total of 575 people there was not a single negative comment upon the end of the film.  The majority of the comments included: 'this was a lot better than I thought it was going to be...' and in complete honesty that's how I felt too.

Give She's Out of My League a shot.  You won't regret it.  And surprise. You just might laugh. (Also - it's a great date movie... so take your 10 out to this film!)

3.5 out of 5 stars

The Crazies: Review

I think that the real problem I had with the film The Crazies lay in the hype. Reviews praised the film as being the new resurgence of the horror genre. The Crazies is a zombie-film that is not a zombie-film; and in that it loses its novelty. I have always been a zombie-film fanatic. George A. Romero is one of my personal film heroes and I have trekked to the Toronto International Film Festival twice to see world premiere’s of his work. I was very excited to see The Crazies and while it was not a complete disappointment, I can’t say that I hated it.

When making a zombie-esque film there needs to be something to captivate and engage the audience; something unique that the audience has yet to see in this type of film; that is where The Crazies failed. Upon departing the theatre my girlfriend turned to me and said: ‘We’ve seen this movie before... that Grindhouse film... Planet Terror. And upon further thought I realized she was right... the Government unleashes a biotoxin which turns people into creatures of rage, and the Government tries to fix their mistake through lethal force.

So what was The Crazies good for? Well, some of the action itself was alright; nothing too original – the most original kill being where a man get stabbed through the hand and then slides his hand all the way up the knife to go on and stab a woman in the throat using the knife still stuck in hand. The plot, while simple for a horror film was straightforward and easy to follow only providing one continuity error that I noticed. The Sheriff, played by Timothy Olyphant, turns off the city’s water supply, making it impossible to turn back on, only to find himself stuck in a carwash trap two days later... where’d the water come from? But other than that one moment the plot was decently played out.

The acting was actually brilliant; something you don’t normally get with zombie-esque films. Part of the love for zombie films revolves around the campy overacting; yet Olyphant and Radha, as the dynamic duo were brilliant on screen with a chemistry that felt very real. Reviewers talk a lot about Olyphant’s portrayal in The Crazies to rival his portrayal in Deadwood, and while I have yet to watch Deadwood if that is the case I truly look forward to the show.

My problem with the film comes back to the lack of originality; sure it is a remake of a Romero classic, and classified in the zombie/horror genre (although repeatedly marketed as ‘not another zombie film’) but one can see every bump, jump and twist 5 miles away (which ironically is how far the main characters have to walk at one point) you can obviously guess that while they made the 5 mile trek they experienced serious delays in the process. If only this film was able to provide an ending that didn’t go along with the typical zombie movie ending and bumps, jumps and twists that actually turned out to be a surprise. The lack of originality actually made the film start off much more slowly than need-be; as the first 30 minutes felt extremely gruelling and final runtime felt much longer than it actually was.

Despite the criticisms the movie is genuinely terrifying at moments; including moments where I almost leapt out of my seat. The film while not perfect still has its enjoyable moments and this is definitely Breck Eisner’s best directorial work, one can only hope that his next work Flash Gordon is better than this.

2.5 out of 5 stars

Gentlemen Broncos: Review

Once again Jared Hess makes us not care about something that's absolutely useless with his latest indie 'comedy' flick Gentlemen Broncos. I didn't think Hess could get any worse than Nacho Libre, I was wrong... however this time he managed to take some actors that are actually funny, like Jermaine Clement and Sam Rockwell, and make them completely unfunny.

The story, like every other Hess film, is simple. Young Benjamin, played by Michael Angarano, goes off to writer's camp where he meets his idol, author Chevalier, played by Flight of the Concord's Jermaine Clement. It is at this camp that Chevalier steals Benjamin's novella and publishes it as his own. The story than follows Benjamin and how he deals to losing control over his novella, to a friend who is making it into a film and to Chevalier who accuses him of plagiarism. What astounds me is that the story that was stolen may be the biggest steaming pile of dog crap out there... it was even worse than the film itself... which is hard to do.

The story stolen is about a man named Bronco who awakens on a foreign planet without his testicles. They were stolen by an evil overlord who is using them to create a super breed of soldiers. Bronco enlists the help of his ferocious cat and old childhood friend to destroy the overlord and retrieve his testicles.

It astounds me that this script ever got off the ground. Hess has been on a steady decline from Napoleon Dynamite which provided audiences with a couple of chuckles to Nacho Libre where I think I chuckled once, and finally to this, Gentlemen Broncos where not only did I not laugh once but I wanted to pluck my eyes out and throw them against the wall.

After about 15 minutes I wanted to turn it off; the only reason I didn't is so I could say that I had completed this steaming pile of Boa Constrictor turd and warn all of you out there to avoid it at all costs. Not only will this movie bore you to tears, but... well - it will bore you to tears... and then make you want to find out where Jared Hess lives, fill a brown paper bag with your own feces, light it on fire and then throw it through his living room window, ring the doorbell and then punch him in the face when he answers for being such a bad filmmaker.

I have figured out how Jared Hess makes a film:

1.) Use pastel colours and poorly hand drawn pictures during opening credits, and continue to refer to them throughout the film.
2.)Find funny looking people.
3.) Make them look attractive by putting them next to super ugly people.
4.) Make every single character annoyingly insane - therefore making even the most insane, ugly character seem normal.
5.) Have them deliver deadpan nonsensical lines that are 'supposed to be funny' but make you moan.
6.) Repeat for 60 minutes.
7.) Start of Plot.
8.) 15 Minutes of Plot.
9.) Deus Ex Machina Ending.
10.) One more deadpan, not funny nonsensical line.
11.) Credits

Jared Hess. Please. Stop. Making. Movies. They are awful. God-awful.

If you've made it to this point of the review and still have some sort of urge to go out and rent this film... well... don't say I didn't warn you.

0.5 out of 5 stars.