Monday, March 30, 2009

Death at a Funeral (2007)




Bizarre, unabashedly black comedy chronicles a dysfunctional British family mourning the death of their patriarch. Well, they try to, anyway. Family tensions give way to total chaos with the arrival of a mysterious dwarf blackmailer, Hallucinogens accidentally passed around, and Uncle Alfie, an obnoxious foul-mouthed old man.

In the beginning, we are introduced to a whole host of strange characters. There's a slightly hypochondriac man, obsessed with a pigment mutation on his hand. There's a guy who's a successful novelist and his writer wanna-be brother. Well, I'm not going to rattle off every single person in the movie. I can't remember most of their names, actually.

The most normal people in the bunch are a woman named Martha and her quiet fiance' (Alan Tudyk.) Before they arrive at the funeral, they stop at a relatives place. Simon is stressed out, and Martha gives him a dose of Valium to calm his nerves. What they don't know is, it's not Valium. The owner of the bottle is a drug addict, and it's actually a Hallucinogenic concoction. Unfortunately, the drug goes straight to Simon's head and, sure enough, he begin behaving strangely and seeing things.

Simon is already disliked by the deceased's brother, Martha's father, for unknown reasons. Apparently, though, showing affection towards rooster garden ornaments and stumbling around in a drug-induced haze doesn't do much for your popularity. Things get worse when Simon sees something 'moving' inside the coffin and knocks it to the ground, spilling the body and sending the dead man's wife into tears.

The not-so-successful guy, who's busy writing the eulogy his friends want his brother to do, is surprised to see a strange dwarf standing by the table. Well, I'd hesitate to spoil this, but the preview will divulge it anyway. The unnamed dwarf takes takes him aside and shows him a pack of pictures of the small man and his dad together. Professing that they were good friends, he flips through the multiple photos of the two together.

The son is confused that he has never seen or heard of the dwarf, being that they were apparently close. The truth, however, comes out with the last picture. This one is a graphic shot of dad and the dwarf in an- um- compromising position. As if finding out your dad had an alternate lifestyle that he shared with a little person wasn't enough, he is informed that if the dwarf isn't given some of the will, the photos will be shown to the entire family, shocking them and traumatizing his mourning mother.

So you thought family had issues? The son is already having financial problems, so he is less than happy to hand the money over. However, he is even less keen on driving his mum to an early grave. So he asks his brother for help, and they try to come up with a way to make the guy leave.

Meanwhile, Simon has barricaded in the upstairs bathroom playing with tissue and his fiance', trying to get him to come out, is being leered at by a creepy guy she once had a one-night stand with. Wheelchair-bound Alfie's toilet problems only complicate things. To put it simply, pretty much everything that can happen does. The film's events tell the story of possibly one of the most chaotic, awful funerals in the history of cinema.

Make no mistake- this film's preview makes it look far inferior to the actual result. Though not without it's flaws, "Death at a Funeral" is funnier than many films I've seen this year. It's lines and timing were often hilarious. Sometimes, however, I felt they went too far in the humor's dark weirdness. At some points, I was close to being offended, and found little entertainment in the increasingly sick situations that were playing out.

Also, Alan Tudyk appears to get most of the great lines . Even though the wanna-be writer's beginning of his eulogy- "it seems that my father has more friends now that he's dead than when he was alive-' is somewhat funny by itself, it is Simon's grossly inappropriate reaction (hysterical laughing) that really drives the joke home. Simon, in fact, has so many funny parts you feel the directer should share the wealth a bit.

My new philosophy, though, is this- don't rag on a movie that makes me laugh as hard as this one did. Fans of dark humor will probably like it even more than me. This is definitely one of those movies that exceeded and soared beyond my original expectations. (Rated R)

Recommendation- Another high-speed farce you can see concerning myriad disasters befalling a family during a gathering is Only Human















Wednesday, March 25, 2009

The Producers (2005)




To tell you the truth, I haven't seen the 1968 original. Seriously. It's on my Netflix queue. So is you're a "The Producers"-the-way-it-was addict, trying to figure out if the remake can measure up to the greatness of the first, I can't help you. Judging from the reviews, I'll guess that if you are in that group, you will not enjoy this. Actually, if you are not familiar with "The Producers" in any way, shape, or form, you may not get it. It has a fairly small audience. I will just get on with it and tell you about the movie, and if you think it sounds stupid, for you, it probably will be.

"The Producers" is, first and foremost, a musical. The film starts in 1950's New York, with a catchy song performed by a group of people who have just seen "the worst show in town." The show is so bad, in fact, that they feel the need to through music, announce the play's crappiness to the world. In the song, they mention the play's inept director, Max Bialystock, "a bum." Next thing we know, we are taken to Bialystock's apartment, who we discover, is all they say and more.

Max (Nathan Lane) was, amazingly, once a successful producer, but as he aged he became less and less popular and his plays became increasingly dreadful. He lives in an apartment crammed with set design junk that looks like it would look better off at a yard sale. To get by, he prostitutes himself to old ladies looking for "one last thrill on their way to the cemetery." Wow. Max, to put it simply, is a mess. Of course, it is obvious he will be teamed up with a man who is almost more screwed up than he is.

The man is Leo Bloom (Matthew Broderick,) a nervous, timid accountant who arrives at about the same time as one of Max's 'backers,' "Hold Me, Touch Me" shows up. When the the sex-hungry elderly lady comes to the door, Leo is unceremoniously shoved into a bathroom while she is let in and Max and her engage in a weird "game." When she leaves, Leo comes out and informs Max that although he's sorry he caught him "feeling up the old lady," he has something wrong with his account.

It turns out that Max has been cheating with his money, but he convince Leo to "move some decimals around" While Max naps on the couch and Leo looks over the account, he says offhandedly that under the right circumstances, a producer could make more money with a flop than he could with a hit. Max, now awake, instantly comes up with a plan to get himself out of the hole financially. He and Leo, he decides, will intentionally make a horrible play and claim that they didn't get their money. The authorities, then, will never guess that Leo and Max's play was deliberately bad.

Leo isn't keen on they plan, and Max proceeds to chase him all over New York City singing "We Can Do It." Leo refuses, and it take him some time in his dead-end job with his horrible boss and another musical number to make him realize that he does, in fact, want to go through with it. So he quits his job and informs Max that he's willing to find the worst play ever written and produce it. They spend the rest of the night pouring over play, and finally find the flop. The title- "Springtime for Hitler." The writer- Franz Leibken. The play, in Max's words, is "practically a love letter to Hitler." Confident that it will offend hundreds of people, the go meet Franz Leibken to get him to sign permission- saying, of course, that his play is a masterpiece.

Now here's where things get really wacky. Franz (Will Ferrell,) a singing, dancing nazi, is more than happy to sign, after making them join with him in the fuhrers favorite song and take the Seigfried oath to honor Hitler. The two aren't comfortable with this, but will do anything to get paid. At long last, Franz signs. Good- now all they need is a director and actors.

The director, in my personal favorite scene, is a flamboyant, outrageously stereotyped gay drag queen, Roger De Bries. Now, you would think the last thing on a homosexual's mind, who were actually targeted during the Holocaust, would be to be involved with a play praising nazism. Luckily for Max and Leo, neither Roger or his houseful of gay roommates are particularly bright, and their main concern is that the play is too downbeat. So, to prove their point, they sing a not very subtly insinuated song, "Keep it Gay" (My favorite!) Eventually, however, Max and Leo convince them to participate.

Their lead position for lead actress is filled by ditzy Swedish sexpot Ulla, who both Leo and Max fall head-over-heels for. The other roles are soon taken, and the play begins, with both men positive it will flop. The situation, though, soon takes an unexpected and chaotic turn.

This film hold a different experience for me each time I watch it, which isn't necessarily a good thing. The first time I didn't get it, and I left halfway through. The second I decided to give it another chance, and sort of liked it. The third, I had decided I really liked it, though I wasn't exactly sure why. And the fourth time? As it began, I couldn't wipe the grin off my face. As it went on, though, I began to glance at the time on the DVD player. Even the gay scene wasn't as enjoyable as usual. The film really came to life at the musical sequences, but at other times it was drawn-out and passe'.

Not that I disliked it, overall. Nathan Lane was consistently amusing as Max. Certain scenes were so over-the-top that me and my brother laughed and smiled with glee. Other parts we laughed, but the laugh was slightly more of a groan. At the end, we liked it, but I at least was glad to go to bed.

"The Producers" isn't a bad movie. Or if it is, it's a bad movie that causes me to smile, which makes it not so bad. I cannot recommend or disrecommend it, just say that it grew on me, and I liked it enough to Netflix the original. If you hate it, I understand, but that doesn't make the weird enjoyment that I experience putting the DVD in the player go away.(Rated PG-13)









Trailer Not Available

Friday, March 20, 2009

Charlie Bartlett






"Charlie Bartlett" is an amiable comedy/drama, made better by Anton Yelchin's performance and a good premise. I cannot pretend that it is an amazing movie, nor can I claim that it is extremely original (in fact, it is in a long line of indie teen 'quirkies.') I did, however, like this film, and I thought that, although it was far from mind-blowing, it was fun and clever (if a bit used.)

Yelchin plays the title character, an misfit rich kid who wants desperately to be liked. In his quest for popularity, he is caught making fake IDs for fellow students and kicked out of his Elite private school. This is not his first expulsion, and his mom decides to try sending him to public school, as well as to a psychiatrist for his problems paying attention.

When Charlie goes to public school, he doesn't exactly do a good job of fitting in. Actually, he arrives at school in his old uniform and armed with an briefcase. This makes him a clear target for the school bully, who promptly sticks his head down a toilet. On his way home from the first day, the only person who sits next to him is Len, a retarded kid his age.

At the psychiatrist's, he is prescribed with Ritalin, to see if the drug helps him concentrate. When he takes it, it effects him quite the opposite. Twitchy, drugged, and temporarily disoriented, he runs through the neighborhood in his underwear, jerks like Tourette's Syndrome sufferer, and spends hours talking to himself in his empty swimming pool. After it's over, he comes up with a fool-proof way to make friends- pass on the Ritalin to his classmates.

As it turns out, the drugs are a big success. The students, invigorated by the temporary buzz, all but accept him as one of their own. Later, one depressed-looking student asked him for some real advice on how to deal with his panic attacks. So Charlie goes to his shrink, passing off the boy's illness as his own and getting some pills, as well as looking up information on it so that he has some advice to give him.

Soon enough, multiple students come to him looking for help with their problems. He even gets the attention of the principal's pretty daughter, Susan (Kat Dennings.) However, Susan's father (Robert Downey, Jr.) is convinced that Charlie is up to something, and sure enough, disaster strikes, Charlie is blamed, and is told to stay away from Susan. By this time, he's figured out that the principal has some problems of his own. As people's issues weigh down on him, he begins to realize that he can't be a grown-up for everyone.

Charlie is a likable character, despite his messed-up tendencies. The first thirty-or-so minutes of this film are often very humorous, especially Charlie's behavior while high on Ritalin and his over-the-top performance at the audition. Unfortunately, about one-third through it decides to become serious, upsetting the tone. Some seriousness is expected of a movie like this, but the directer forgets to add more humor around the ending, leaving the story tilting precariously between quirky-funny and sad-dark. Also, some of the aspects of the plot are illogical and feel 'written.' I guess I shouldn't take the movie so seriously, but even in a comedy, you generally shouldn't stretch too much credibility. For instance, why does Charlie feel the need to appoint the school bully to help him hand out pills? Wouldn't it be easier to get Len, who already likes him, to aid him? The 'bully' twist is there to help the story, for sure, but I wondered why he would risk getting his head shoved down a toilet instead of just getting his retarded friend to help.

Although it is not 'incredible' by a long shot, "Charlie Bartlett" is, all in all, a likable film. it's a movie that's good to rent if you're looking for something that has some brains but doesn't require quite as much thinking. I know it most likely won't win any Academy Awards, but I enjoyed it and found it entertaining (Rated R.)










Saturday, March 14, 2009

Imagination

I'll admit it, I didn't come to this film with high hopes. I had seen Netflix reviewers trash it again and again, but I hoped that it would at least be 'original.' By the middle, when the talking fruits showed up, I was waiting for the one hour ten minutes to end. By the credits, I was wondering how such a horrific trainwreck ever came into existence. There's a vague possibility that this could have been a good, albeit strange, film. What went wrong? As it turns out, almost everything.

The plot (if you can call it that) follows two prepubescent girls named Anna and Sarah through their joined imaginary realities. Their parents are struggling- Sarah is nearly blind, and Anna has Asperger's Syndrome, a form of autism. As their psychiatrist attempts to understand their increasingly bizarre fantasies, we watch dream-like sequences done through stop-motion animation and special effects. When tragedy strikes, the girls retreat further into their imaginations, causing the psychiatrist to wonder what the visions mean.

That's pretty much the sum of the story, avoiding spoilers. It actually was an interesting idea, visualizing two introverted girls' secret world. The result, however, is horrendous.

First of all the acting is pathetic- hard to watch. As you watch the actor's pitiable attempts to be 'emotional,' you wonder how they could have possibly set themselves up for this kind of humiliation. It feels like the director went out to a local park, watched people for a while, and chose a few, asking them to be in a movie. They agreed, despite their complete lack of dramatic skills. The two girl's performances are understandable- they're still young, after all. However, watching the adults, especially the psychiatrist, desperately trying to play a role, leaves you shaking your head in horror.

The other problem with "Imagination" is that Anna's 'Asperger's Syndrome' and Sarah's blindness are pointless; more or less just there to rationalize bizarre dream sequences. What may of helped this film is to explain why the girls 'live in a world all their own.' Anna, we are told again and again, 'can't socialize,' but we never see her interact with practically anyone in the film. It would have been interesting- more interesting, perhaps, than the weird trip scenes, to try to explain Sarah and Anna's need to go into their own realities. Ben X did this efficiently- We understood why the main character, Ben, became obsessed with the virtual world and tuned out of real life. "Imagination," however, is obviously a miserable attempt to play with hallucinogenic effects and claymation, without a glimmer of character development or logic to make sense of it.

There is one good quality, however. Even though the filmmakers got so many other things wrong, their skills at claymation are apparent. One scene, in particular, is darkly creative and weird, in a good way. In this case, the bizarre imagery actually attracted my attention. It makes you kind of wish they would kick out the actors and let the clay figures take center stage.

All in all, I wouldn't recommend this movie to practically anyone, unless they are especially fond of weird for weird's sake. Do not watch this looking for a realistic or informative view of Asperger's- you won't find it here. If you want something unusual, watch "The Fall"- in fact watch practically anything else. Just stay far away from this bizarre, pointless mess of a movie. (Rated NR) *









Trailer Not Available

Thursday, March 12, 2009

Ben X










"Ben X," Belgian director Nic Balthazar's film debut, is an ambitious drama exploring the autistic mind and how far harassment can go before the victim loses control. At the beginning, we are introduced to Ben ( superbly played by Greg Timmermans,) a teenage boy with Asperger's Syndrome who lives with his well-meaning mother and younger brother. Ben spends all his free time playing Archlord, a fantasy role-playing game where he becomes Ben X and plays alongside Scarlitte, a teenage girl who is impressed by his gaming skills. The game gives him a sense of purpose in a world that becomes increasingly out of control.

Ben's life at school, quite simply, is hell. Relentlessly tormented by two repugnant teenage boys, his teacher's try to help him but are ineffectual to do so. The situation worsens when an embarrassing prank preponderated on him is videotaped and posted all over the internet. Feeling that he has no where to turn to, he hides what happened from his family and teachers and becomes increasingly disturbed and suicidal.

Finally, close to breaking point, Ben decides to meet with Scarlitte, who is interested in visiting him in real life. Together with Scarlitte, his divorced father, and his desperate mother, he comes up with a bizarre plan to get back at his tormenters.

I waited a long time for this movie, and as it generally is in this case, was disappointed. Which isn't to say that "Ben X" is a bad film. On the contrary, it has many good qualities. The main thing that struck me was that this is one of the first times a character on the autistic spectrum takes center stage, and is treated as a person, not a plot device. Often, the character with autism is used to evoke feelings from the other people in the movie, or to teach them what is really important in life. This film, without avoiding the family's perception of the situation, concentrates on Ben and his reactions to what's happening around him.

Secondly, the acting in "Ben X" is top-notch, especially from Greg Timmermans and Marijke Pinoy, as Ben's mother. Greg Timmermans has excellent facial expressions and mannerisms, and in his and the directors hands the main character becomes a real person.

Many scenes and situations in "Ben X," however, are very melodramatic and over-the-top, but the ending is it's greatest weakness. Alternately bizarre and unrealistic, it detracts from an otherwise good movie. The director seems to think that neatly tying things up is more important than realism, and it shows. The film builds up a great deal of suspense and a foreboding that something terrible will happen, but seems to wimp out toward the end. I don't enjoy depressing endings, but I felt that the conclusion wasn't believable at all.

I am bound to cut this film some slack, because there are so few movies about high-functioning autism and because I waited a long time to watch it. Although I think it was ultimately disappointing, it also did many things right and tried to do what most directors haven't done effectively before. (Rated NR) ***1/2

Recommendation- For another subdued portrait of a teenage boy in crisis, watch Gus van Sant's Paranoid Park



























Wednesday, March 4, 2009

The Fall


Visually stunning film starts out in 1920's Los Angeles, where a 5-year-old immigrant named Alexandria stays at a hospital after falling from an orange tree and breaking her arm. As she begins to recover and explores the wards, she comes across a young man named Roy (Lee Pace,) a Hollywood stuntman who was injured trying to impress his girlfriend. Grieving over her leaving him and his troubles with his movie corporation, he entertains Alexandria with a vivid story about a group of five heroes bent on revenge against the evil Judge Odious.

We are taken to an unspecified time and place, where the group tries to escape from an island the judge has marooned them on. They are all after him for different reasons, but join up in order to defeat him. The main characters are

(1) The Masked Bandit, the hero, who is trying to save his twin brother from Judge Odious and his men. In Alexandria's imagination he resembles Roy.

(2) Charles Darwin (Leo Bill), a scientist, is obviously the intellectual of the group, and he is after Judge Odious because he killed a butterfly. He does, however, seem to be a few cards short of a full deck, as he discusses scientific theorems with his beloved monkey, Wallace.

(3) Oda Benga (Marcus Wesley) is a former slave whose brother died of heat exhaustion in the fields. He is physically fit but not educated, due to the fact that he's worked all his life.

There are two other heroes, Luigi, an Italian explosives expert, and an unnamed indian. One of the interesting things about this movie is that the director never loses sight of the idea that the adventure Roy tells Alexandria is a story, and so it is flexible in the hands of the teller and the listener. Roy's 'indian' is apparently Native American, being that he uses words like 'squaw' and 'wigwam.' Alexandria, who doesn't know the terms, pictures him as a native from India, complete with bright clothes and a full beard. Although it isn't accurate, that is how Alexandria perceives the character, so that is how we see him.

As the story reaches it's climax, it becomes clear to the viewer that Roy's intentions are not as clear as he wants Alexandria to believe. In fact, the morphine he continually requests that she steals is not to 'help him sleep,' but rather a method of suicide, and he is telling the story to convince Alexandria to help him kill himself. Also, Roy's story begins to bear resemblance to his own life.

This movie is almost worth seeing entirely for the brilliant cinematography, which was filmed over a period of 4 years in 18 different countries. If skillful camerawork isn't your thing though, there's still plenty to recommend it. It's consistently intriguing, alternating between real life and the fantasy reality that Roy has created. Even though some reviewers complain that there was little empathy for the characters, others (myself included) were genuinely involved with the story and disappointed when- oh, never mind. Watch it yourself. Although character development isn't the movie's main priority, it generates enough sympathy for the characters (both real and imagined) to keep you interested.

I do however have a few quibbles- well namely, one. Halfway through the movie, they include short sequence that is so out of context with the rest of the story that I scratched my head over how it got there. It felt like it was shoved in to add some flavor to the film. I'm not sure why this was necessary, as there's plenty of plot line here to use. As it is, the clip feels like an early draft of a surreal short film somebody forgot to remove from the major movie.

"The Fall," all in all, is a very unique and rewarding film experience. It's different from everything I've ever seen, and that's part of why I like it. I recommend it to anyone who wants to get away from standard Hollywood fare. It certainly isn't without it's flaws, but you have to admire the directors fierce originality (Rated R.)