Author Archives: davidcraigstl

This Is 40

Some really funny lines and situations, some great supporting acting performances and two attractive leads should make for a great movie. Instead, This Is 40 is more of a movie stew.

This Is 40 is like a big, bloated sitcom. An R-rated sitcom with F-bombs liberally sprinkled throughout. There’s enough going on here to provide story frameworks for at least a half-dozen sitcom episodes.

Paul Rudd and Leslie Mann are Pete and Debbie. Both are about to turn 40. Their lives are filled with messy situations. Their sex life is losing sizzle. Pete’s record label is hemorrhaging cash. Debbie’s boutique has an employee stealing money. Their kids are borderline obnoxious. Their fathers load them with more baggage.

Pete and Debbie each have little secrets that they don’t share with one another, like Pete’s obsession with cupcakes and Debbie’s sneaking off to smoke. They also do not fully disclose their respective financial issues.

And Debbie lies about her age. So the climactic 40th birthday party is just Pete’s party (not a joint affair, like they’ve had in past years).

The strongest performances in This Is 40 come from Albert Brooks as Pete’s dad, John Lithgow as Debbie’s dad and Melissa McCarthy as a parent the couple has an issue with. As she did in Bridesmaids, McCarthy steals the show.

Director/writer Judd Apatow delivers a movie that runs 2 hours and fourteen minutes, a bit too long. Judicious use of the editing blade could’ve easily trimmed this into a tighter, more focused movie.

This Is 40 will make you laugh. It may portray situations like some in your own relationship. With the right personnel, This Is 40 could easily transition into a successful TV series. It has a lot of the right stuff, but just a little too much stuff to be as good as it could’ve been.

 

 

Leave a comment

The Guilt Trip

Somebody had the great idea to cast Seth Rogen as the nerdy estranged son of doting Jewish widow mother Barbra Streisand. That person might want to rethink his/her future in the movie biz.

The Guilt Trip is an instantly forgettable film starring two people who have little chemistry. A weak and rarely funny script from a flimsy story idea doesn’t help. Did producers think that when these two appealing stars got together before the camera that magic would just spontaneously happen? Well, it didn’t.

Rogen plays a 30-ish LA chemist who flies back to Jersey to visit his mom before driving back west with stops along the way to pitch the cleaning solution he’s developed. A story his mother tells inspires him to invite her to make the week long trek across America with him.

Things that could’ve been funny are not, such as the choice of a book on CD they listen to in the car. Or Rogen’s uninspiring sales technique. Even the challenge at a Texas steakhouse to consume a monster chunk of meat in one hour produces little in the laughter department. Even the “hilarious” outtakes that run during the closing credits are ho-hum.

Much of the blame for The Guilt Trip’s failure goes to the old pro, Streisand. First, she’s had so much work done that she doesn’t quite look like Barbra Streisand anymore. Second, her character is only moderately wacky. Over-the-top zany might’ve worked better. Dialing back the wackiness does allow for a few moments of sweet motherly sensitivity.

Rogen is a talented actor and writer, but he does better in R-rated movies than in this PG-13 film. (Despite its tamer rating, there is a penis joke. A lame one. The joke, that is.) His name and reputation will sell tickets, but The Guilt Trip will not add to his long-term box office appeal.

This is a movie to watch on an obscure cable channel in four or five years when nothing else is on. There are better films in almost every other theater in the multiplex. This is not a trip you want to take.

 

 

Leave a comment

Hyde Park on Hudson

Hyde Park on Hudson is a slice of FDR’s life in the pre-war late 1930’s. It’s a light piece of fluff but totally enjoyable.

Bill Murray is fun to watch as FDR. This is not the FDR of stern speeches and wartime gravity. This is the warmer and fuzzier FDR, away from Washington to enjoy some time in the idyllic countryside, 90 miles upriver from Manhattan. This is not the goofy, eccentric Bill Murray. This time he brings depth and maturity to the role.

On one visit to Hyde Park, Roosevelt sends for his distant cousin Daisy, played by Laura Linney. She isn’t really sure why she’s been summoned to hang out with the president, but after a few visits and a drive to a secluded spot, she soon finds out. This is a plain, single woman who lives quietly with her mother. Suddenly, she’s having an affair with FDR.

What’s weird about their arrangement is everybody on FDR’s staff seems to be aware of what’s happening. Even the president’s mother and his wife Eleanor appear to know what the score is. Even the King of England and his wife who visit Hyde Park know that FDR is a philanderer. Compared to the secrecy, denials and shame of the Clinton-Lewinsky episode, this adulterous fling seems almost respectable.

Linney is perfect for the role of Daisy. She is revealed to be more than a blank, uninteresting woman. She has feelings and self-respect. Daisy’s self esteem rises and falls as the film’s events unfold.

Murray doesn’t really look like FDR, but with the trademark cigarette holder and glasses as props, he comes close enough. His late night conversation with King George of England is one of the movie’s highlights and one of his more presidential scenes in the movie.

Hyde Park on Hudson and its players will not be award winners, but this period piece takes us to a pleasant time and place. It provides a few laughs and tells a good story. If that’s what you enjoy in a movie, check it out!

 

 

 

Leave a comment

The Hobbit

The Hobbit has many great things going for it. Especially thrilling is the 48 frames per second technology, which provides images that are incredibly real looking.

Of course, what we see onscreen is unreal: Dwarves with huge feet. Creatures that are figments of creative imaginations. Settings that are other-worldly. And, our old weird little friend Gollum.

Unlike the three Lord of the Rings movies, The Hobbit is funny. Small chuckles and big laughs abound in a story that is also filled with peril and adventure. Yes, there were small bits of humor in the LOTR films, but The Hobbit is (as its director Peter Jackson has said in interviews) whimsical.

Martin Freeman is Bilbo Baggins, the Hobbit. He brings an air of complete bemusement to the role. He vaguely resembles Martin Short, but Freeman appears frequently dumbfounded by plot developments. (Short would, I think, always be on the verge of a snicker, I must say.)

The entire movie has moments to savor, but a favorite is the scene where Bilbo falls into an impossibly deep hole and meets Gollum. It’s a case of “Finders Keepers” when Bilbo picks up a certain ring that has fallen from Gollum’s keep. As the two trade riddles, both the character Gollum and the actor playing him (the talented Andy Sorkis) are revealed to be strong enough to carry an entire movie. (Maybe after the three Hobbit movies are done?)

The great Ian McKellan is back as Gandalf and even he seems a bit less severe than in the LOTR triology.

Here’s one where real parental guidance comes into play. It’s PG-13, but okay for most 9, 10, 11 & 12 year olds, in my opinion. If your kids have enjoyed the later Harry Potter movies with no ill effects, they should be able to handle The Hobbit.

As for its length, that may be another issue. While the movie flew by for me, its 2:45 run time may be a problem for the more restless among us.

I liked the LOTR movies, but I love The Hobbit. Yep, it’s a “must see!”

Leave a comment

Playing for Keeps

“Playing for Keeps” is a movie about a KIDS’ soccer team and a KIDS’ soccer coach, but it’s not a movie for KIDS. It’s PG-13. It’s a movie for soccer MOMS!

Gerard Butler is a divorced former pro soccer star. He has not done a good job of staying in touch with his son, who is about 8 years old. He reconnects with his son by becoming the boy’s soccer coach. Even though he was a cad, he still has strong feelings for his ex-wife, played by Jessica Biel.

Along the way, he is hit on by several attractive soccer moms. They are played by Uma Thurman, Judy Greer and Catherine Zeta-Jones. Catherine’s character helps him do an audition for an ESPN gig. He also gets hit on by Dennis Quaid—not for sex, but for playing time for his kid.

If you’ve ever seen a Hallmark or Lifetime movie, you can pretty much guess how this one turns out.

“Playing for Keeps” is a harmless piece of romantic comedy fluff. There are a few decent laughs and an appropriate amount of tearful regret and sappy sentimentality. Oh, and the kid is cute, too.

Leave a comment

Hitchcock

In 1959, for many Americans, Alfred Hitchcock was just as familiar as a TV personality as he was as a movie director. In “Hitchcock,” we get both personas.

The movie, starring Anthony Hopkins in the title role with Helen Mirren as his wife Alma, tells the story of the financing, filming and opening of Hitchcock’s “Psycho.” The film opens and closes with Hopkins as Hitchcock delivering his trademark dry humor as he directly addresses the audience, exactly like Hitchcock did on his “Alfred Hitchcock Presents” TV show.

Hopkins does not particularly resemble Hitchcock, but his portrayal of the large man with the large ego is delivered with a clever mix of gravitas and fun. His relationship with his wife, and her collaboration on a screenplay with a writer played by Danny Huston, provide a good portion of the film’s story. The story of getting “Psycho” made is the other main plot element.

Throughout the movie we see Hitchcock in fantasy segments watching and talking to Ed Gein, the real life man whose odd behavior was the inspiration for “Psycho’s” Norman Bates. We see Hitchcock coaxing terror from Janet Leigh, played by Scarlett Johanssohn, during the filming of the iconic shower scene. We see him reveling in the response from the audience at the film’s premiere.

Hopkins and Mirren are both excellent in this glimpse at their personal and professional lives in late ‘50’s Hollywood. Could they be in line for Oscar nominations? The movie industry loves movies about the movie industry, so the possibilities are good.

Many of us, especially baby boomers, recall the first time we saw “Psycho,” whose story and ending had profound effects on audiences. (I saw it in my dorm cafeteria as a college freshman.) While “Hitchcock” won’t have the same impact as “Psycho,” the characters, story and storytelling are all good. No surprise ending to this review: I like it!

Leave a comment

Killing Them Softly

Brutality, gore and obscene language combine to deliver the year’s grittiest crime drama. Setting the film against the backdrop of the 2008 pre-election financial crisis could have been a genius move, but ultimately is just an amusing juxtaposition.

“Killing Them Softly” is not a classic but has several memorable characters and some funny dark humor.

The story: two novice hoods are sent to rob a card game that’s run by the mob. They’re nervous, but they pull it off. Brad Pitt plays a mid-level mobster whose mission is to avenge the robbery. Pitt tells a mob lawyer, played by Richard Jenkins in one of their many conversations, that he doesn’t like to get into his target’s faces, he prefers to kill them “softly, from a distance.”

He imports a gunman played by James Gandolfini to help with the killing. This subcontracted hitman has addictions, mainly booze and hookers, which render him basically useless. Also in the cast are Ray Liotta and Sam Shepard.

Cinematic highlights include one particularly violent shooting, presented in slow motion a la “Bonnie and Clyde.” Also effective is the movie’s opening whose audio switches sharply back and forth between hard rock music and Barrack Obama campaign speech soundbites.

Throughout the film we see and hear TV clips of George W. Bush making his case to congress for bailout money and references to the ’08 election. The message, apparently, is that the meltdown affected mob finances just as much as it did the rest of America.

To borrow a line from another president, let me make one thing perfectly clear: this is one of the more violent movies you’ll ever see. If that’s your thing, enjoy. If not, stay away.

Leave a comment

A Late Quartet

A movie about a string quartet? How tedious could that be? In the case of “A Late Quartet,” not tedious at all—this is a lively, energetic movie about a talented group of musicians, performed by a talented group of actors.

You don’t have to be a Beethoven fan to appreciate “A Late Quartet.” There’s plenty of music, but the story is more about the musicians and their passions, musical and otherwise.

Christopher Walken is a recently widowed cello player who is diagnosed with early stage Parkinson’s disease. Phillip Seymour Hoffman is a violinist who is married to the quartet’s viola player, played by Catherine Keener. Ukraine native Mark Ivanir is the intense first-chair violinist who wants every note played perfectly.

But musicians do not always play every note perfectly. Christopher Walken’s character has a wonderful scene in the film in which he relates a tale about an encounter with violin great Pablo Casals. The point of his anecdote is that a live performance of music reveals personal interpretation.

The quartet has been together for nearly a quarter century when we meet them. The group is upset first by their cellist’s Parkinson’s, then by Hoffman’s character’s desire to make a change to the group. Then come marital issues between the couple and an upsetting romantic choice by the first chair.

Along with the quartet, a beautiful young actress with the unfortunate name Imogen Poots gives a nice performance as the aspiring violinist daughter of the couple.

Director Yaron Zilberman (such an unknown that he doesn’t even have a Wikipedia page) who co-wrote the original script, does an excellent job of making these actors appear to be real musicians. (At least to my non-musician eyes.)

Yes, the story is a bit soap opera-ish, but the cast is strong and the music enjoyable. While “A Late Quartet” is unlikely to move beyond art houses, don’t let Beethoven scare you away from a good movie.

Leave a comment

Anna Karenina

“Anna Karenina” is set in Russia but, make no mistake, this film is British from head to toe. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

How British is “AK?” Leo Tolstoy wrote the book, but Englishman Tom Stoppard wrote the script and Brit Joe Wright directed. The bulk of filming was done in the UK. And, of course, British actors populate the cast.

Much of this film is shot on and around a theater stage. We see Russian bureaucrats stamping papers in a musical rhythm. Model train sets substitute for exterior shots of trains. These elements and others give “AK” a sort of unreality that adds spice but doesn’t distract from the storytelling.

The plot is a classic tale of love and sex among the privileged class of pre-revolution Russia (1874, to be precise). Keira Knightley, looking impossibly beautiful, has the title role. Her husband, played by Jude Law, is a refined man who (almost) never loses his cool. (Law, who turns 40 in December, plays his most mature role to date.) Anna’s lover is played by Aaron Taylor-Johnson. He co-starred earlier this year in a completely different role as a pot grower/dealer in “Savages.”

While riding on a train to Moscow, Anna meets her future lover’s mother who offers her outlook on life. Her credo, approximately, is that it’s better to regret mistakes you make than to regret never having acted on one’s urges. This guidance informs Anna’s aggressive pursuit of her young lover.

Along with Anna’s story, we have the story of her brother and his chronic infidelity. Her brother is played by Matthew Macfayden who, coincidentally, wooed Knightley in 2005’s “Pride and Prejudice.” Then there’s the sweet romance between farmer Levin and Anna’s sister-in-law, Kitty.

One might ask why this story is being told yet again? Previous English language versions have starred Vivien Leigh, Sophie Marceau and Greta Garbo. The reason: It’s a classic.

There are characters in “AK” for most everyone in the audience to identify with. For women, Anna presents a character who risks her unfulfilling marriage to indulge her passion and desire. Are there married women in America today who might fantasize about doing that? I’m guessing there are.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Life of Pi

“”Life of Pi” is visually stunning and tells an incredible story. But it is not the next “Avatar.”

Director Ang Lee shares many gorgeous images in this movie. From the opening credits with animals galore, to the blendings of sea and sky, to the amazing enchanted island, to the luminous fish—shot after shot is memorable. And the story is pretty good, too.

A clever young man in India shortens his embarrassing first name to “Pi.” He covers his bases with God. He’s a Christian, a Muslim and a Hindu. His family, which owns a zoo, moves to Canada, traveling with their menagerie via freighter. A monster wave sinks the ship and Pi finds himself in a lifeboat with four zoo animals: a zebra, a hyena, an orangutan and a fearsome tiger. The story is related to a writer by an adult Pi, so we know from the outset that he survived the ordeal.

Most of the movie is set at sea, in and around the lifeboat. The survival instincts of this teenager, along with guidance from a book found in the lifeboat, keep him going through numerous frightening episodes. His “relationship” with the tiger fuels the story’s progress to its conclusion.

Suraj Sharma is the Indian actor who portrays the teenage Pi. His performance is a good one for a movie rookie who is charged with carrying the bulk of the movie’s story. Like Tom Hanks in “Cast Away,” he is the only human on screen for most of the movie.

This is a movie to see in 3-D on a big screen. It is, as they say, “a feast for the eyes.” There is peril and a few scenes that frighten, but “Life of Pi” (rated PG) will thrill kids just as much as it does adult viewers.

Early marketing for “Life of Pi” contained a critic quote that compared it to “Avatar.” Both are pretty to look at and both have compelling stories, but “Life of Pi” doesn’t have the heft of “Avatar.” Enjoy “Life of Pi” for what it is… a solidly entertaining movie. A classic? That’s still to be determined.

Leave a comment