Home » Movies
'I LOVE YOU, MAN'
PLATONIC MAN-DATING
By Sean Chavel
I Love You, Man is the real surprise of the season, a bawdy comedy that happens to be well-written beyond what is usually required for a buddy feature. One of the reasons it works so well is that the characters are distinguished by extreme differences yet seem believably relational to each other. Paul Rudd ("Role Models") and Jason Segel ("Forgetting Sarah Marshall") star as the two guys marked by two decidedly different mindsets. Rudd is square and uptight while Segel is hang-loose and impulsive. One buddy liberates the other in this anything goes boys will be boys comedy.
On an embankment overlooking the Los Angeles cityscape, Zooey (the irresistible Rashida Jones from season three of "The Office") accepts a marriage proposal from our doofus borderline-metrosexual hero Peter Klaven (Rudd). On the drive home, Zooey uses her speaker phone to announce to her friends that she's engaged (!) which begins an untamed dialogue about how obedient and generously selfless Peter is in the bedroom - with Peter in present earshot. The movie's nerve is that Zooey, while cute and perky, is the dominant power in the relationship.
One of the problems is that Peter has always related more comfortably with female companions befitting of his non-threat and cutesy-sensitive demeanor. Peter primly tucks his shirt in, sticks to one alcoholic drink or less in social situations and steers away when a male co-worker sends him a porno email featuring a grandma on a saddle. Director John Hamburg ("Along Came Polly") has the sense not to explicitly display the email to the audience, it instead fills our imaginations.
Another über-feminine quirk in Peter is when he prepares a tray of root beer floats with pirouettes standing in for straws that he voluntarily presents to Zooey and all his girlfriends. Upon entering, Peter catches all the girls talking behind his back in regards to his absence of male buddies capped off with the mocking that he doesn't have a Best Man to stand by him at the altar. This embarrasses Peter so bad that it from hereon launches the story that Peter needs to land a Best Man-caliber friend before his wedding in the forthcoming summer.
In this inspired awkward scenario, mom and girlfriends set Peter up with a series of man-dates to obtain a platonic friend for him. One of them is disastrous when it is mistaken for a real date (Peter has to gargle thoroughly upon his return home). Poker night is disastrous when he pisses everybody off after holding onto an off-suited 7-2 that results as a blunder-luck play, subsequently throwing up on the host after downing a beer. An attended soccer game with another would-be crony turns scary when a fight breaks out with all the fury of a demolition derby.
On his own, Peter meets the mentor-pal of his dreams in Sydney (Segel) at an open house property listing. Initial conversation is on safe playing ground for Peter when they discuss the classy nature of Panini sandwiches. Within two weeks, the two of them are hanging out full-time: surveying Los Angeles' best fish tacos, garage band jamming, confiding in personal sexual preferences, and encouraging Peter to talk more like a man ("Why does everything I say sound like I'm a Leprechaun?" Peter utters self-deplorably in his forced attempts to be funny. Alas, he soon learns to act comfortably in his own skin and sling jokes like a real man). What started with Panini sandwiches leads to Sydney getting Peter to get in touch with his inner dirty boy.
Friendship between two men craving to act like boys is a rite and a right, and yet the tension of the movie is how it dissolves the intimacy between Peter and Zooey - trust is especially gaped when he takes Sydney's advice too literally to open up and express feelings and concerns - the kind that are better left unsaid between a man and a woman (Don't test your mate on why we are we together when you can't answer it yourself). Plot detours that include sight gags on overly demographic-friendly billboards and an embarrassing party toast that disgraces sanctity, among dozens other scenes that score, the movie leads - following a few obligatory obstacles - to the big wedding but the movie stays right by remaining bright and keeping the comic tempo swift.
I am personally tired of movies with 15-minute wedding sequences especially the kind that involve detours with the bride having cold feet, or somebody losing the ring, or an arrival of a drunk minister spoiling the ceremony. What I like about this movie is that it wraps up in four or five minutes, and is hip and breezy in the process (there's a cool hassle-free reception montage in the end credits). It doesn't hammer us over the head with unfunny hold-ups like most wedding movies.
In simple summation, "I Love You, Man" makes you feel the joy in going to the movies again. It is perhaps the best comedy about last stand bachelorhood since "The 40-Year Old Virgin." The movie also features chipper roles for J.K. Simmons and Jane Curtin as Peter's parents, an exuberant turn by Andy Samberg as his brother, Thomas Lennon as Peter's aggressively forward man-date, and Jaime Pressly and Sarah Burns as Zooey's open-minded bridesmaids.
Miss March
By Ted Ott
Miss March looks like a silly, immature guy flick pandering to the lowest common denominator. In other words an unreservedly 'guy flick.' And, it damn near killed me.
I am a fragile asthmatic and three separate times during Miss March I had to reach for the rescue inhaler that I never leave home without. Zach Cregger and Trevor Moore are the co-writers, co-directors and co-stars in this kick ass screamingly funny movie.
They're just lucky that I survived my first viewing of their bizarre (in a great way) celluloid attack or I'd have haunted them for the rest of their lives, always wanting more like the addict they'd forced me to become.
Guys, we've all suffered through the 'chick flicks' our dates and girlfriends have insisted that we share with them. That said, this may not be the movie you want to go to so you can 'get even' for all that pain. This movie is what you need to go to with a posse of your football, baseball, etc. watching buddies. This is for a guys' night out. The jokes are way too man oriented to be shared with someone who wants us to open up to our female side. The guys in this movie haven't even heard of guy having a female side.
It's just occurred to me that viewed in a different perspective taking your girl to this movie and laughing all the way through it, might be the perfect way to set up a 'break up' fight that wouldn't really be your fault. Ya know?
If you're old enough to remember the first time you ever saw Animal House in a theatre and how its inspired insanity literally took your breath away, you have a pale model and warning. And, now a word to the ladies, let your guy go see this movie with his buds. You can get even with the Visa card while he and they are communing with their inner selves. Remember the motto from the late sixties, "If you love something set it free. . ." and all the rest of that crap. Let your dude go! And guys, get up off the sofa and get out there!
'THE EDGE OF LOVE'
A KNIGHTLEY TALE OF LOVE
By Sean Chavel
Taking place during the bombing raids of London of 1940-41, The Edge of Love centers on the complex relationships between two couples who drink, frolic and dance around the clock. Supposedly it is based on the true story of Welsh poet Dylan Thomas during his young days, yet the focus is not on his character. Welsh actor Matthew Rhys, who reads his poetry in voiceover, envelops the role as a selfish philandering romantic who manages to border an argument for infidelity in his verses. Yet the focus of the film is not on his character. Since the film stars Keira Knightley, every dramatic development must steer her way.
When a film stars Keira Knightley you want the film to be entirely about her regardless of story economy. Directors in the movie biz love working with her in their films because she is a classic beauty, a throwback to bygone eras. But I imagine make-up artists love working with her even more. Look at Knightley's past roles and consider what supple and pliant facial features she possesses that allows make-up artists to go to heaven. She was prettied to look positively aristocratic in "Atonement," she looked equally sublime and pampered in the 19th century set "Pride & Prejudice" and just as so as 18th century royalty in "The Duchess," she was a blushing bride in contemporary England in "Love Actually," she was a tomboy soccer player in "Bend It Like Beckham," she was a swashbuckling heroine both pretty and greased up in the "Pirates of the Caribbean" films, and she got her punk on in "Domino." In "The Edge of Love," make-up and hair artists Joe Hopker, Catherine Davies and Lizzi Lawson are the lucky three who get to transform Knightley into a dazzling nightclub singer highlighted by ruby red lipstick, hair-pin twists and midnight blue eye shadow.
Obviously beautiful, it's hard to resist Knightley in a period piece love story and it's harder for a director like John Maybury ("The Jacket") to not take the advantage, in a hip-side angle, of discreetly showing her breasts in a tender bedroom scene. But "The Edge of Love" is a multi-spanning year saga that is more stagnant than sweeping. Knightley, as diva Vera Philips, still running coast since childhood with her poet friend Dylan Thomas whom is married to free-spirit and potentially manic depressive Caitlin Thomas (portrayed by Sienna Miller). There are hints at exploring a ménage a trois until a dashing soldier named William Killick (Cillian Murphy) comes after Vera with romantic determination to at first bed her and then marry her. Bliss for William, not so much for Dylan.
It doesn't help that Matthew Rhys, as poet Dylan, has the least aptitude as an actor than the rest of the cast. More square than threatening, you never quite believe that he has the magnetism to seduce Vera while William is away at war. More troubling is that "The Edge of Love" is one of these movies that makes you wonder why the filmmakers were drawn to the story in the first place because you can't quite figure out what it's about the first hour. The London Blitz is mere scene decoration making bombing victims a background nuisance if anything. The tip-off answer to this confused film is that Maybury is more consumed in setting up beautiful but self-conscious shots, in art direction and costumes, in outdoor nightfall and interior nightclubs, bombing debris and cigarette smoke, and other kinds of photographic appeal, than to actually using his attention to construct story momentum.
The second hour is created with more purpose. Although the film absurdly intercuts Vera giving horrific childbirth while her new husband William is away witnessing horrific war combat (as if the juxtaposition of the two are equal), the rising development sets up tension and friction once the couple does reunite. Traumatized from battle, spiritually drained William returns with no warmth or compassion for his wife and newborn. Crossed in rivalry, William suspects Dylan Thomas had fooled around with his wife in his absence. What we have our two couples, closely interlocked, living as neighbors on the countryside following the war with Knightley as the intermediary between two testosterone-fueled men. At last, Maybury drops the fancy camera angles because the countryside is fair and photogenic enough on its own.
'KNOWING'
STRANGENESS FROM THE TWILIGHT ZONE
By Sean Chavel
Knowing is a triumph in special effects and camera angles and a letdown in story plausibility. But does a science fiction film of such a deliberately preposterous concept have to contain wall-to-wall plausibility? The director is Alex Proyas who made the best science-fiction of the last 25 years ("Dark City") and also made a dumbed-down Will Smith action vehicle that at least had stellar production values ("I Robot"). What he works with here is a story as naïve but as intriguing as a classic "Twilight Zone" episode that happens to contain awesome sequences of destruction.
The pre-credit sequence, which is absent of any big unleashed special effects, is among the best parts of the movie because it works most effectively as unbridled spookiness. It's 1959, and an elementary school class is assigned to draw pictures of what they imagine the future will look life in 50 years forward. The drawings will be enclosed in a time capsule to be opened in 2009. A haunted little girl composes a sheet of endless and seemingly random numbers in her contribution as if she is possessed by the supernatural beyond. She goes missing on school grounds following the burial ceremony of the time capsule and when she is found her reappearance provokes repulsion.
In present day Nicolas Cage stars as John Koestler, a professor of astrophysics at MIT. He moderates an in-class discussion on whether the universe is deterministic or random. The film, more concerned than just being an action flick, delves into whether a man like Koestler can make a difference in altering destiny. If you disregard the story for a moment you can muse on how Cage seems obsessed in the second half of his career with channeling the tics and mannerisms of the late Jimmy Stewart. If you think about it, Cage has most closely impersonated Jimmy Stewart before in such films as "The Family Man," "City of Angels" and probably never more than in the mildly old-fashioned romantic comedy "It Could Happen To You." If Cage is going to continue channeling the aw-shucks ordinary man quality of Jimmy Stewart it'd be nice if he found a script on par with "Vertigo." Not likely to happen but it is wishful thinking.
Anyway, the film returns to the same elementary school where the story began. At the reopening of the time capsule the drawings, sealed in envelopes, are parceled out to current students. Koestler's son Caleb (Chandler Canterbury) receives the odd diagram of numbers that when closely inspected contains an eerie pattern. The numbers formulate a catalog of all major disasters that have occurred in the last 50 years that list date, death tally, latitude and longitude. Three future disasters are prophesized. Koestler's closest colleague (Ben Mendelsohn) thinks he's off his rocker until the first disaster proves true.
One of the prophecies is a forecast of the end of the world. Koestler deciphers an apocalyptic theory that seems to be a reasonable threat. Of all end-of-the-world scenarios in the annals of science-fiction, "Knowing" contains one of the most clever gimmicks of them all which is better off unrevealed in this review. Meanwhile, Caleb is visited by ominous strangers in black coat attire that undeniably recalls a certain previous Proyas film. These supernatural-assisted appearances feel tacked-on as if the film was desperate to stack on another layer of menace. And lastly, there is a late entrance introduction of two characters, Diana (Rose Byrne) and her daughter whom unwittingly hold the clue to the outcome of Earth's destiny.
The set-up of the movie has a better grip of tension than the falling action, and the suspense wanes as soon as the script begins to depend on too many conveniences. But the disaster sequences are really something special with camera angles that I've never seen used before in smash-up collision and firestorm action. And the final scenes of the film Proyas delivers a scorcher of astonishing visual power. Although I wished we didn't have to endure a shot of Cage driving uncontested through streets that would be undoubtedly be riddled by roadblocks. If you hate You-Gotta-Be-Kidding-Me! moments in movies than "Knowing" might be too tough for you to swallow.
"Knowing" is a question mark for ordinary audiences - some will jump aboard and others will likely balk at its preposterousness. But then there is a more specific audience out there who know who the director is. You Alex Proyas admirers out there know who you are. You've seen "Dark City" and you've seen "I, Robot" and you share a resembled agreement with me that one is a masterpiece and the other is far, far from. What you need to know about "Knowing" is that it falls somewhere in the middle of those two.
THE EDUCATION OF CHARLIE BANKS
By Richard Kaplan
Limp Bizkit front man Fred Durst proves that he's got major game in his directorial debut of, "The Education of Charlie Banks." In fact, the word limp hardly applies; it's more like Viagra on steroids! Durst has had a lot of success directing music video's however the leap to large screen can easily be a disaster. But, Durst clearly demonstrates that he has the vision, technical skills and artistic instincts to be a contender for the big Hollywood director's chair behind the camera. Durst said that he actually had a strong interest in filmmaking as a teenager but, the music came along and he took that ride selling more than 35 million records. "My Limp Bizkit success opened a lot of doors for me. I would get industry meetings where these guys just wanted to see who I was, and I was the one who ended up interviewing them so to speak." according to Durst.
The Education of Charlie Banks is a disturbing coming of age story of sorts set in the 1980's against the backdrop of the rowdy street playgrounds of Greenwich Village. And, the affluence of an elite academic institution in Upstate New York which juxtaposes a privileged young student (Charlie) played by Jesse Eisenberg and a violent yet charismatic underprivileged young man (Mick) played by Jason Ritter.
In a recent interview with Durst and Jason Ritter I could see and hear the determination and passion the two have for this film. Durst said that he had read a lot of scripts and found this one to be extremely compelling. "I identified with both of the lead characters as diverse as they are and I felt that I could give a fair perspective into both of their worlds." said Durst. Ritter, the son of the late comedic actor John Ritter had met with Durst for the first time over lunch to discuss the project and well before the check came Durst new that he wanted to cast Ritter in the volatile role of Max. Ritter said of his character, "This guy is not just a thug, even though he comes from nothing and acts out on his violent tendencies. There is a tremendous potential for him to evolve when he gets a glimpse and feel of what life can be like for the privileged."
The movie which took 28 days to film centers around Ivy League life on the East Coast. Charlie Banks portrayed by Jesse Eisenberg whose other films include 'Roger Dodger' and 'The Squid and the Whale' and his childhood friend and dorm mate Danny, played by George Marquette are forced to keep a secret when an unwanted visitor from their past named Max suddenly emerges in their life becoming an illegal resident in their dorm room and infiltrating their friendships on campus. Max's rugged good looks and affable charm immediately ingratiates him into the circle of Charlie and Danny's campus click of wealthy and spoiled friends. A major line is crossed when Charlie's college crush Mary, played by Eva Amurri hooks up with Max for some bad-boy action. As the awkward and palpable tension between Charlie and Max escalates so to does their understanding and ultimate compassion for one another.
While the ensemble cast all pull his and her weight, some extra acknowledgment for memorable and colorful moments are earned by actor Sebastian Stan who portrays the flamboyant mega-rich brat Leo who is in a constant state of inebriation. However, the real breakout acting comes from Jason Ritter as the troubled and complex character Max.
Ritter achieves that rare ability as an actor to create a sense of compassion and utter contempt for his character who commits truly despicable and violent offences. And yet, we almost want to forgive and nurture this guy because we can sense his authentic vulnerability. This guy still in his 20's is already an actor's actor!
The Education of Charlie Banks opens in theaters March 27th.