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.