Working Title closed for now....

I'm sorry to say that Working Title must go on sabbatical for a time. Earlier this year we bought a new house and are in the process of renovating it. We are now at the home stretch and my schedule is full to the brim. With a full time job and working on the house after work, there just is no time for blogging. We will be returning in the near future and will continue developing this blog as we go. Looking at the middle of September as a new starting point. Thanks for all the input and support. Keep watching movies!

Peace,

Mike

The Brothers Bloom

The Brothers Bloom is about two orphaned brothers, Stephen and Bloom, who jump from foster home to foster home all the while coming up with elaborate schemes and cons. Stephen is the older of the two. He creates, or "writes", the con much like you would write a play, filling it with scenes of symbolism and using fancy themes and such. For him the cons are a work of art. Bloom, the younger brother, is more of the character actor, playing his role to perfection and always following Stephen's lead.

When we join the two brothers, Bloom (Adrien Brody) is fed up with the con life. He is tired of playing parts and is wanting to experience something real. Stephen (Mark Ruffalo) tries to convince Bloom that there is no such thing as an "unwritten life" and the art if the con is what they are living for. Bloom decides he wants out for good and leaves for Montenegro. Stephen finds him and convinces Bloom to do one more con with him. Together with their silent partner Bang Bang (Rinko Kyuchi) they endeavor to con a lonely reclusive heiress, Penelope (Rachel Wiesz), who spends her days acting very eccentric. She has hid from the world for so long that she has no clue how to interact with it. Bloom shares this bond with her as he has never truly interacted in the world around him either. Bloom complicates everything by falling in love with Penelope. And everyone knows you should never fall in love with the mark.

Rian Johnson is the director of The Brothers Bloom. His debut feature, Brick, is one of my favorite films ever. This movie is a dire contrast to Brick. I was reminded of The Royal Tenenbaums, as the movie has the same feel and tone of Wes Anderson's film. In fact, it's not far-fetched to think of the brothers as close relatives to the Tenenbaums. I was surprised to find this style of film from the director.

The ending is very entertaining. I just do not think the journey in getting there is worth it. Like any con film there are twists and turns, and instead of feeling like it flowed naturally, I felt poked and prodded as if I was being told to "go here" and "go there".

The cast is excellent, especially Ruffalo, and the film has it's moments. But I was looking for something a little more substantial from Johnson. Skip this one and rent Brick instead.

Grade: C+

Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid

Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid encompasses many movie genres. First and foremost, it is a western, in the vein that they it takes place in the wild west and is about outlaws and thievery and violence of a simpler time. It is a dramatic movie, with love and hate and life and death and hard choices to be made. And also a comedy, in the road trip kind of way, where two best friends run off on what turns out to be an epic journey. Whatever genre it chooses to play to during whatever scene, it definitely is a good movie.

Paul Newman plays Butch and Robert Redford is Sundance in what is probably one of the better actor team-ups in Hollywood history. The film opens in a sepia toned sequence during a card game and to watch Sundance eyes dance across the cards is wonderful to see. The scene serves to set up the roles our two characters fill. Butch is the comfortable thinker, always hatching plans and talking his way around and through everybody. Sundance is quite the opposite; cool, calm, very serious and very dangerous. Later they propose to rob a train, not once, but twice, much to the chagrin of the owner of the railroad who hires a posse of the best lawmen around to catch the crew. Much of the movie is spent with Butch and Sundance using all their wits and cunning to stay one step ahead of the posse while still trying to pull their heists.

Newman and Redford are great in the film and share an amazing on-screen dynamic that few have managed to imitate. Newman is one of the coolest actors in Hollywood, matched with the likes of James Dean and Steve McQueen. Redford has held is own and is just as beloved in Hollywood circles, both as an actor and director. The dialogue is well-suited for the two as they banter back and forth. You can tell that Newman and Redford were just as comfortable with each other off camera as they were on.

The movie is very well done. There seems to be some interesting symbolism I found while watching. The posse bears down on Butch and Sundance, much like the progress of the world is bearing down on the two. These men live by a simple code. There is no right or wrong, only what it takes to get by and get rich quick. They live in the here and now while the rest of the world develops railroads and becomes enamored with the bicycle. And in the end, the pressure of a new more difficult world seems to leave them out-manned and out-gunned. The sad thing about it is they never saw it coming, but we the viewer seemed to understand that Butch and Sundance represented an older mode of thinking. One that ultimately would, and did, fail.

Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid was nominated for the Best Picture Oscar in 1970. It is hailed as classic in many circles and is well worth checking out. Westerns have lost a lot of their attraction with superhero movies, shock horror, and CGI animated kiddie fare dominating the box office. Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid hearkens back to a time when life was simpler and more enjoyable, much like that era's films, especially westerns.

Grade: B+

Inception

Christopher Nolan made a movie called Inception.

It is his follow-up to the blockbuster juggernaut called The Dark Knight.

Inception is like being part of an amazing dream.

Brilliant.

Grade: A+

P.S. Screw The Dark Knight.

P.P.S. Any critic who pans Inception should be thrown into "limbo".

P.P.P.S I just realized any movie I see from here on out for the rest of my life will probably suck. Thanks for nothing, Nolan.

Labyrinth

It's sad to know that in this day and age with the advent of CGI and Pixar animated movies, with Bert and Ernie leaving behind their puppetry for the more modern feel of claymation, with stop-motion and video games becoming the core of our children's entertainment, it's sad to think that my children and their children after will never fully know the magic of Jim Henson.

Anyone in my age group knows about Jim Henson. He is the creator of some of our childhood's most beloved characters. From Kermit the Frog to Gonzo to the Fraggles, I was a fond admirer of the puppeteer. I also loved the Muppet Babies Saturday morning cartoon series. I had managed to introduce my kids to the Muppet movies with moderate success. Alas they are not fans of Fraggle Rock and have never really experienced the magic of Sesame Street. But I continue to push on and have now introduced them to Henson's two major movie productions besides the Muppet movies. His first, The Dark Crystal, is sitting on the Netflix queue awaiting it's turn. Labyrinth, a movie I remember fondly as a child, became the first of the two films they watched.

Labyrinth stars a very young Jennifer Connelly as Sarah. Sarah spends a lot of her free time acting out fantastic scenes in a world ruled by the Goblin King. Sarah is charged with babysitting her younger brother, Toby, by her stepmother and father as they head out for a date night. Babysitting Toby is not something Sarah wants to do, and when the baby cannot seem to calm down she ends up wishing that the goblins and their king would come and take him away. Of course that is exactly what happens. The Goblin King, Jareth, is played by David Bowie (channeling his Ziggy Stardust days), and makes a deal with Sarah, who realizes she made a grave mistake sending her brother away. If Sarah can solve Jareth's labyrinth in the next 13 hours, she will have her brother back. Otherwise, young Toby becomes a goblin himself. Sarah enters the labyrinth and on her journey encounters several companions (all played by puppets) including Hoggle, Ludo, and Didymus who help the young girl on her way.

The movie is full of rich eye candy. The labyrinth itself is visually interesting and the characters that inhabit it are fun and intriguing themselves. A few notables are the Junk Lady, Didymus, and the two door knockers.

I am surprised at how well the movie holds up today. There are a few things that seem dated, one being David Bowie's musical montages. The montages are presented as cheesy '80s music videos and at times really seem larger then the movie, weakening the overall structure of the film. Also, the movement of some of the puppets is very stiff, especially Hoggle and a few of the goblins.

What is really weird (and a little worrisome) is that the baby who plays Toby actually seems to be scared or distressed by all the goblin puppets when he shares scenes with them. I mean, if a baby is crying, that usually means he's upset, unless he's a damn good actor (like those babes in Look Who's Talking).

There has been some discussion by fans and critics that Sarah's journey through the labyrinth takes place all in her head. There are several clues that support this theory, at the start of the movie when we first see Sarah's room and at the end with the conversation between her and her new friends back in her room. This is an interesting premise and brings to the front an idea that the movie could be a commentary on one's journey through childhood. It says that children use their imagination to help cope with real world problems that surround them. And really, isn't that what childhood is really about? Being able to escape from the harsh reality of the adult world and find strength and solace in the magic of our minds? Maybe Henson was able to keep that ability as he grew older, and that is why his creations proved to be so wonderful for all of us.

My children did not like Labyrinth. And I must admit, it was not as good as I remember it to be (looking through my jaded adult eyes), but there is still a lot of good things in the flick. Once you fast forward through David Bowie's music video collection that is. Well, I hope that the Dark Crystal fares better.

Grade: B-

Update Delay!

I'm sad to say that this week's update will be delayed a couple of days. My schedule is overwhelmed at the moment. And although I have 4 updates planned out, I have not had time to sit and get them down. Hopefully, I will be up and running at the earliest tomorrow night. I have 2, maybe 3 movie reviews and 2 debut features for the spotlight series coming up. But with a full work schedule and 3 kids out of school for the summer, well, all work and no play make Jack a dull boy (and the kids stir crazy). Thanks for the support. And please spread the word about Working Title.

Also I am looking for someone who may want to be a writer for reviews or such. If you watch a lot of flix and you are interested drop me a line at michaelwhetzel@gmail.com. I'll let you know what I am looking for. No pay, just for the love of movies.

Peace,

Mike

New features announced.

Beginning this week, Working Title will be adding some different articles to our blog. We will do a Spotlight Series, where we focus on a different topic each time. The goal is to do at least one article a week to publish with that week's reviews. Here is what is planned for the next couple of weeks:

Spotlight Series:

Directors: We will focus on some of Hollywood's best known directors, and discuss their merits and failings while looking at their career. Future topics include: M. Night Shymalan, Peter Weir, and Takashii Miike.

Great Performances: I'll take a look at some of the best performances deserving of wider recognition. They might not have won any awards, but we will make sure to get the word out on these great performances. Future topics include performances by: Joseph Gordon Leavitt and Alan Rickman

I'll also have some articles from some other writers looking at the artistic side of some movies. Basically discussing color and composition and how these help relate the overall message of the film.

Further in the future, we will also be announcing genre celebrations where we will take the whole month and focus on certain types of films, even inducting a few into our Hall of Fame. Examples include a Pixar month or even a Sequel month where we only look at sequels.

Just some ideas we are throwing around here at Working Title. Let me know what you think and if you have any ideas you may want to share. You can always email me at michaelwhetzel@gmail.com

Thanks for the support.

Mike

The Host

A idiotic doctor pours gallons and gallons of formaldehyde down the drain letting it run into the Han River. Six years later a monstrous creature arises from the water and goes on a feeding frenzy. Thus the plot of Bong Joon-Ho's The Host explodes in what is a very exciting monster flick that hearkens back to the old days of Godzilla and company. It's funny. I'm not a big fan of the horror genre. I mean there are scary movies I enjoy immensely i.e. Alien, Audition, zombie movies.... But for the most part I tend to stay away. However, if you have a good old monster eats the world movie, I'm there. I like the old Godzilla flicks, and movies like The Relic and most recently Cloverfield.

The Host starts out very well. The first 20 minutes may be one of the most exciting openings I've seen in awhile. The creature looks good on film. There are only a few moments during the whole film where the CGI is awkward looking. For the most part, the effects are believable, and the monster is presented in all of his ugliness (and it is ugly....yeesh). The film centers around a family of misfits. There's the grandfather who is a hard-working patient man and his son who is a bungling idiot. There may even be some sort of mental issue at work in the son. There is a brother, who is the angry surly archetype, and their sister, an olympic archer, who is very quiet and slow. All of them revolve around the daughter of the idiot. The whole family dotes on her endlessly, especially the father. In fact, that is his one redeeming quality. He seems to be really ignorant, but there is no question he loves his daughter. So when the monster inadvertently kidnaps the little girl, the family becomes devastated. Until they find out she is still alive deep in the sewers and set out to rescue her.

The movie is very different then the normal films you see of the genre. Joon-Ho melds thrill-seeking scenes with scenes of comedy. The comedy works great to set the film apart. There is even some slapstick, much like the early days of Chaplin or Buster Keaton. It feels like a fun movie you are watching, and hence you begin to have fun with. But not everything is comedy oriented. There are some scary images, and grotesque sequences of the monster feeding and the little girl trying to stay undetected. Joon-Ho is not afraid to take risks with his characters. For example, you know the sister is going to have her moment to shoot the creature with her bow. But when you think it is going to happen, Joon-Ho is not afraid to let his character fail. This keeps the movie fresh, and you are not really sure what is going to happen next. The director also uses some interesting shots and cuts during the film. Maybe this is more of a credit to the editor, but the movie flows nicely and there is a very unique feel to how everything is presented.

There is some social commentary regarding chemical warfare and environmental issues towards the end of the movie. I'm not sure how I feel about the obvious references. But I do like the ending, and how the remaining members of the family band together to fight for one of their own. What's better then bringing family together then monster hunting?

** Side note: I watched this with the English dub which was sub-par. but it made it even more enjoyable. Usually bad dubs are distracting. But this one really fit the mood.

Grade: B

The Last Airbender

The Last Airbender is an adaptation of the Nickelodeon cartoon created by Michael Dante Dimartino and Bryan Konietzko. My children and I discovered the series while looking through Netflix and decided to give it a try. Needless to say we were hooked from the get go and ran the gamut of the three seasons as fast as Netflix could ship the discs to us. So it was with growing excitement that I uncovered the news of a live action movie, then my excitement turned to one of trepidation upon hearing that M. Night Shymalan was helming the film.
Me and Night have a very convoluted history. At one time he was my favorite director and I was excited by every project he announced. Then came Lady in the Water. My excitement lessened a bit. Then came The Happening. All heck broke loose. How could such a promising director fall from grace so quickly in so little time? That is a question to be answered in an upcoming article I'm working on. But this is about Airbender, so let's focus on that. Then maybe we can see if Night has managed a comeback.
The Last Airbender takes place on a world that is ruled by four tribes: Fire, Water, Earth, and Air. There are a select few in each tribe called "benders", who are able to control their respective elements. To ensure balance between the tribes, a powerful being called the Avatar, a being who can control all 4 elements, maintains peace. The story opens with the Avatar missing from the world for 100 years, until he is discovered in a block of ice by two young members of the Southern Water Tribe, Sokka and Kitara. Surprisingly the Avatar is an airbender, the last of his kind, and also inhabits the body of a 12 year old boy, Aang. The story follows Aang as he looks to master the other 3 elements and help fight the world wide takeover by the fire nation. There is also an outcast prince of the Fire Nation, Zuku, who is trying to regain his honor by finding and delivering the Avatar to his father.
Critics are already bashing Night's latest film. Roger Ebert gave it a 1/2 star. Chris Bumbray from joblo.com rated it 1 out of 10. Many critics have said it is worse then the newest Twilight chapter, Eclipse (and without even seeing that film, I already know that is saying a lot). And just like many of his previous films, Night is getting bashed left and right.
Today I managed to find some time to see the film with my two young sons. We have been waiting anxiously to watch it since it started development. So.....is it as horrible as they say? No. But it's not great either. The film actually is not too bad. But it does have several flaws.
The first problem being the screenplay, most notably the dialogue. It is often very stilted and awkward. It is also very very very flat (but some of that comes from the acting, which we will get to soon). In several places, I recognized lines from the show, almost like Night lifted them from the series and form fitted them together to suit his needs. The structure of the movie is also at times awkward. There is a voice-over from Kitara that feels very out of place. I like the opening, much like the opening to the show, and I like the ending also. It's the progressions between the large action scenes that seem to kind of run very dry and flat too.
Then there is the acting. Wow. Terrible in some places. Many critics found faults with Night casting white actors to play Asian counterparts. This did not bother me, or I should say, would not bother me if they could just act. The cast is very young, especially the three main protagonists. And they are also fairly new to Hollywood. Their inexperience shows. But this I do not blame the actors for. With a young cast it is the director's responsibility to coach and help them be where they need to be for the film. I think Night phoned this part of the job in. It seems like he took the first take on everything. The best of the three is Nicola Peltz, who plays Kitara. Jackson Ratbone (Sokka) looks like he is two seconds from crying in every scene. Noah Ringer plays Aang and at first I was confused by his casting. He actually grew on me as the movie progressed. But you can tell how young he is from his acting chops. Dev Patel, the kid from Slumdog Millionaire, plays Zuku. He is fine but when I think of Zuku, I do not think Dev Patel is it. Of course, they could have went with their first choice, Jesse McCarthy (excuse me while I vomit. Okay, I'm back.)
Critics really hated the special effects. I actually enjoyed them immensely. The fights are fun to watch, the bending is neat and kind of beautiful as the actors go through their martial arts moves. The creatures, Oppa and MoMo, were fine. I thought it was on par with any other big budget movie.
Did Night regain any form in this reviewer's eyes? Or did he lose even more ground? Neither. He is still in a holding pattern it seems. Airbender could, and should, have been Night's return to prominence. We have been waiting to see what he can do on a property that is not his own creation for some time now. I expected much much more from him here, and it seems he was more interested in playing it safe. Disappointing.
The movie looks to have a large opening weekend, which almost assuredly means sequels. I would like to see the other two chapters in the proposed trilogy. One, because I love the series and want to see more airbending, and two, because I am now curious to see what Night does next with the project.
I'm sure critics will continue to pan this movie, hard. But they need to remember who the movie is made for: children. At a time when Twilight has teenyboppers all a titter, Percy Jackson pushes the violent content of a PG rating, and the Harry Potter franchise continues to get darker and darker, there is room for a kid-friendly series like Airbender. Kids will love this movie. And rightfully so.

Grade: B-

Hall of Fame: The Shawshank Redemption

Alright, everybody. It's time to begin our Hall of Fame inductions. It took a few weeks to decide which movie I wanted to induct first into Working Title's Hall of Fame. After much agonizing and perusing the DVD shelf, I think I have found a very worthy choice. So welcome to our first Hall of Fame movie(!):

The Shawshank Redemption

I cannot express the appreciation I have for this film. It is not so much a movie but a spiritual journey. Director Frank Darabont has crafted an excellent film about the triumphs of the human spirit and the power of hope. How many prison movies have you watched that ended with you feeling uplifted, and hopefully with a smile on your face?
The story revolves around Andy Dufresne, a former bank accountant who has been given a life sentence for killing his wife and her lover. He is sent to Shawshank Prison to serve his term. There Andy shows that he is not your typical in-mate, someone who has given into his circumstances. The others find Andy odd. Here is a man who acts like he is not in prison at all, but who still finds a sense of freedom in all the things he does. Dufresne (Tim Robbins) becomes good friends with Red (Morgan Freeman). It is through Red that we are able to observe Andy. Most of the inmates in Shawshank are there until death, and there is very little hope to be found. Slowly Andy shows them that it is the choices you make, even in prison, that can become empowering. Andy never loses hope in his circumstances, and even when Shawshank finally seems to beat him down, he still rises up and ask the question,"Do I give up and die, do I accept what the system has locked me into, or do I choose to live my life on my terms?" The answer to this question leads to one of cinema's most satisfying conclusions.
Darabont has helmed four feature films so far. I have not seen The Majestic, but I have seen the other three and I can say that Darabont is a major force as a director. The interesting thing is the three movies I have seen have been Stephen King adaptations, two of which are prison dramas. There is a solid dynamic between the two (who are real life close friends) in their story-telling abilities. Shawshank almost exists as a perfectly crafted film. It's 2 1/2 hour run-time seems to fly by, almost unheard of for a drama, much less a prison drama.
The performances are amazing, especially Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman. There is an unspoken unknown element, a chemistry that is heightened when they both are on screen. I cannot imagine it could be duplicated with any other actors. Robbins is a virtual everyman, someone all of us can relate to in some way. Red is the cynical, experienced "lifer", whose values are questioned with the arrival of Dufresne. In fact, every part of the prison, from the warden to the guards to the other in-mates are forced to act in different ways, solely from the presence of this one man in Andy. A man who can be physically locked behind bars forever, but whose spirit can never be caged.
My first experience with Shawshank was from my best friend. He recorded the film from satellite onto a beat up VHS copy. My first viewing was hardly memorable. I have since watched the movie close to 10 times. As I have grown older, my appreciation for the film has grown deeper. I now watch it annually, sometimes twice a year. As with myself, the film has taken time to catch on with everyone. When it was first released it did not make a lot of money. It was nominated for Best Picture and several other awards, but it was not until it's home release that it really took off with viewers. Now it is a definite inclusion on many all-time lists, most notably occupying the top spot on the Internet Movie Database's worldwide rankings. It is a film much deserving of all of it's accolade and much much more. If you have not seen it, do yourself a favor and find a copy. You will not be disappointed.

Grade: A+

Avatar

First a disclaimer. I have not seen this movie in 3D. I am hoping that the rumored re-release gives me an opportunity to view it the way James Cameron intended it to be. This is so far one of the toughest movies I have had to review yet. And the feedback from those who have seen the movie in 3D has been tremendously positive.

So where to begin? Where to begin with James Cameron's box office king, Avatar? Let's begin with the director himself. Most people know Cameron from his previous box office reign with a little movie called Titanic. He created the Terminator franchise, gave us one of the most popular sci-fi movies ever in Aliens, showed us wondrous visions in The Abyss, and had Jamie Lee Curtis hanging from a helicopter in True Lies. Why is it then that out of all of his movies, Avatar feels the least original?

I'm not going to go into the plot itself. I feel most already know the story. The story is filled with cliches that we have seen time and time again. There's man versus nature, and science versus the military. Great themes but this is all too familiar territory. There is the protagonist trying to integrate his way into a foreign society and finally winning them over with, of course, his true self inside. Halfway through the movie, I realized I had seen it before. It was called Dances With Wolves.

The performances are horrible. I do not know what the big interest in Sam Worthington is. He has been cast in blockbuster after blockbuster, from Terminator: Salvation to Avatar to Clash of the Titans. He is the new Gerard Butler. The problem is Butler brings a lot of screen presence, something Worthington lacks greatly. He cannot act. And what happened to Giovanni Ribisi? This was his worst performance yet. And Michele Rodriquez? Another horrible acting job. Cameron should know better then that. The only two notables are Stephen Lang and Zoe Saldana. Lang plays the gruff army commander and Saldana is our main Na'vi character. But what is up with the cast anyways? James Cameron knows the anticipation for this project is huge. So why not get a Gerard Butler or two to star in your movie instead of B-listers and no-names?

Then there is the Na'vi themselves. There are times when they look very very odd. It may be the blue tint of the skin, but sometimes they look like big violent Smurfs. Sigourney Weaver's Na'vi body is horrible looking. The faces of the Na'vi are cartoony. Which comes off very poorly in scenes that require a lot of emotion. And the way the Na'vi interlink with the animals and trees through their hair braids is.......well.........really flippin' weird.

Wow, looking up at the previous paragraphs, that is a lot of negative stuff. Well. let's get to the good then.

The world of Pandora is amazing. And this is where Cameron delivers. I have to admire a director who refuses to compromise his vision because the technology does not exist. Instead, he opts to develop the tech himself. That's serious film-making. And that is why, visually, this film delivers. In Pandora, Cameron may have created his most original character yet. The jungles are lush. The animals are bright and colorful. The water and sky clear and refreshing. You want to be there, to visit this world yourself. And then there are these epic scenes of action and disaster. World Tree being destroyed and the last great battle was breathtaking to see. I watched them over and over again, trying to make sure I did not miss anything, but always finding something I did miss. And this is what saves the movie and makes it watchable. I have not seen the 3D version. But I cannot imagine seeing it that way. The 2D is more then adequate enough.

Avatar is now the all-time box office king. I do not know if that is saying much nowadays. With rising ticket prices and 3D surcharges, it is not hard for a movie to gross $100 million anymore. If one were to factor inflation into the mix, Gone with the Wind is the all-time king, domestically. Gone with the Wind is the anti-Avatar, a movie strong on story and performances. But both are strong representatives of the power of Hollywood and the different perspectives in what we find entertaining.

Grade: B+

Observe and Report

Observe and Report is a movie that I believe suffers from an identity crisis. On one hand it, it tries to be a sillier version of Taxi Driver. And on the other side, it tries to be a dark twin of Paul Blart, Mall Cop. So what exactly is it? Well, I'm not really sure. And I do not believe director Jody Hill is really sure either. I do know for sure that Observe and Report is one of the zanier movies I've seen in quite a while. It's a twisted film, sometimes in a very dark way, and sometimes in a very witty way. And it is this mash-up of genres and styles that hurts the movie overall.

Seth Rogen plays Ronnie Barnhardt, a security officer at a large shopping mall. Ronnie takes his position very seriously. Very very very seriously. He has a small team of officers that work under him and when a serial streaker targets the mall, it is up to Ronnie and his crew to take him down. Seemingly by any means necessary.

Rogen stretches his acting chops a bit here, and it is interesting to see. But it is the always changing style and focus of the movie that wastes Rogen's effort. Consider my two favorite scenes in the movie: The first is Rogen taking out a group of drug pushers. It is full of blood and violence, and is shocking seeing Rogen beating up the dealers with such force. Now couple it with an earlier exchange between Rogen and new popular comedian Aziz Ansari at Ansari's kiosk. They exchange "F--- you" over and over again in a variety of styles and tones. Two great scenes from very opposite ends of the spectrum. But the middle ground between the two scenes is not very good at all. In fact, the film shifts so suddenly between comedy and dark drama that it is jarring at times to watch.

And we are presented with so much to take in with the main plot and sub-plots. There is Ronnie's alcoholic mother, Ray Liotta as the serious police officer, all the females that Ronnie looks after, the streaker, and Ronnie's security force. Ronnie also battles the police, his boss, his co-workers, his girlfriend, drug dealers, Ansari, and pretty much everyone else who enter the mall. It's no wonder that he starts to lose his mind a little. I started to by the end. Then there is Ronnie breaking a serious law at the end of the movie with a handgun. Again it is very jarring to see. I didn't expect him to do anything remotely like that. But Hill uses it to basically set everything back the way it was at the beginning of the movie. Which felt very forced to me.

There are some good scenes in Observe and Report. But they are lost amid the bedlam that Jody Hill has strung together. I know Hill is one of the creative forces behind Danny McBride's Eastbound and Down series. I hope that series and his first film, The Foot Fist Way, serve as a better representation of his work.

Grade: C-

The Road

The Road, is John Hillcoat's adaptation of the Cormac McCarthy novel of the same name. Hillcoat was the director of 2005's moody western, The Proposition and he really brings the moodiness to this latest film that tells the very bleak, despairing story of a father and son.

Something has happened to the world, leaving it in smoldering ashes. Only a few survivors are left, scrounging for food and trying desperately to stay alive. A man (Viggo Mortenson) travels the roads with his son (played by Kodi Smit-McPhee). They are starving to death, and hope seems to slowly fade away. Cannibalism is very rampant in this new world, and the man uses all his strength to protect his son from the horrors of the road. Everyday, the man faces a decision: Does he follow his wife and commit suicide with his son, or does he cling to the hope that they can find a safe place in this horrible world?

Hillcoat does a good job of bringing the story and world of the novel to the big screen. Of course there are differences, which we will get to in a bit, but the technical aspects of the film are well done. The surrounding areas look very burned out, and the sky and ocean is gray. The only colors in the film come from fires that spontaneously erupt from the ground and, curiously, cans of food. Fire and food, messengers of hope? I liked The Proposition, and Hillcoat is starting to really come into his own with a very unique style of directing.

But it is the performaces that really drive the film. Mortenson has always been an actor who really jumps into a role and he does here with abandon. Apparently, he would sleep outside for days in the same clothes to get the appearance of a homeless man and starve himself to lose weight. Viggo has one of those faces that brings great presence to the screen, see his roles in Lord of the Rings and History of Violence. He also provides a voice-over for a few scenes of the movie, and his voice lends itself very well. If Mortenson is good, Smit-McPhee is amazing. He really delivers as the main focus of the film. I cannot imagine how hard it is for a child actor to play this part. This is a serious movie, and required a lot of intensity for the role. Charlize Theron plays the boy's mother and only appears in flashbacks and does a fine job. Robert Duvall has a cameo in the movie and his scenes are very memorable. You get the feeling when Mortenson is sharing the scene with Duvall, Viggo understands he is working with one of the all-time greats. And Duvall is probably the best performance in the movie, doing so much with so little.

The film shows a lot of flashbacks to before the son is born. This is quite different from the novel, and I feel makes the movie inferior to the book in a huge way. The novel focused solely on the father and son. By bringing the mother more prominently into the movie, it feels like a bit of the focus shifted from the man and son to the man and his wife, and weakens the main story.

I remember reading The Road for the first time. I was still new to McCarthy's works. I picked up the book at the library during my lunch break, and was finished by 8pm that night. It was an amazing read. McCarthy's writing is simple, but very course, much like a post-apocalyptic Ernest Hemingway. The beauty of the novel is not just the story but the way it is written. This is something which is lost in the film translation.

Overall, The Road is a good movie. And I like it. But I also do not like it. I think the novel is so superior that upon finishing the movie, I felt disappointed. The performances are still amazing to see though, and it is well worth watching. As a father myself, I do not feel I can watch this movie again. It is a very heavy movie, at times utterly depressing. But at the end of the film, there is still that flame, that "fire" of hope to hold on to.

**Bonus points to who can tell me (without looking it up), who plays the man on the beach at the end of the movie. I had no idea until I saw some of the bonus features and the actor was revealed. Very cool.

Grade: B

Hall of Fame inductions

Hello,

Beginning July 1st, Working Title will begin inducting movies into it's Hall of Fame. The Hall of Fame will be especially reserved for films which I feel are the cream of the crop, the best of the best. They will represent a wide range of movies from all-time classics to a few notable movies which may very well surprise you. The goal is to induct 1 movie every month, making it 12 movies a year. I have been wrestling the past week with what is going to be our very first induction and feel I've chosen a worthy flick to start the blog off right. I'm sure there will be some controversy with my picks. Again this is only my opinion on what I think are the truly great films. But hey, I want to drum up some discussion, so feel free to argue with the choices or any of the reviews. With our grading system, it seems logical that Hall of Fame movies would garner an A+ rating. And yes, all Hall of Fame movies will be rated A+, but not all A+ movies will be Hall of Fame worthy. So then what is the criteria for the Hall of Fame? Let's see if we can break it down:

1- Sustainability: Simply put, does this movie stand the test of time? Will what was great in 1932 still be great today? Can this movie still be enjoyed with multiple viewings? Most Hall of Fame movies should hold up to this category.

2- Quality: Top notch performances, direction, technical effects. plot, etc. Does the film deliver most of these elements?

3- Innovation: There are some movies that changed the face of movie-making. These films should be considered Hall of Fame worthy.

These are the main three points. And I am sure we will explore others as we look towards what truly makes a film a great film, worthy of our highest honor.

Let me know what you think the elements of a Hall of Fame movie are.

Peace and Happy Father's Day to all.

Mike

Moon

Moon is the amazing debut feature film from David Bowie's own offspring, Duncan Jones. In Moon, Jones has crafted easily one of the best science fiction movies in the past decade. What is great about the film is the simplicity Jones brings to what becomes a very complex plot. It feels like instead of being a new kid on the block, Jones has been living in this realm for years.

The movie focuses mainly on two characters, with only one being actually alive. Sam Bell is fulfilling a contract to run a mining station on the moon. His only companion is a robotic assistant named GERTY. It is a lonely life which Sam fills adequately with the routine inspections of the mining station and his unique bond with GERTY. But then something extraordinary happens and Sam finds that not everything is as it seems.

As I stated earlier, the movie is very simple in its setup and progression. It is the performance of Sam Rockwell who plays Bell that lends to the complexity to the film. Rockwell is simply outstanding, and without giving to much away, he plays extremes within his character easily, shifting gears when asked and giving the viewer much more then we think we need. Which is not surprising. I feel Rockwell is one of the most underrated actors working in Hollywood today. His range is immense. Look at two other movies he has been in: Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and Confessions of a Dangerous Mind. Two roles from films on opposite ends of the spectrum and Rockwell delivers a solid performance each time.

Jones has said in the past that this movie was written with Sam Rockwell in mind. They wanted to work with each other and Jones began work on what would eventually become Moon. He is an admitted Sci-fi nerd and the are plenty of homages to past sci-fi films, most notably Blade Runner and 2001: A Space Odyssey. Gerty (voiced by Kevin Spacey) is the more compassionate side of HAL 2000, if it is believed that HAL is capable of compassion (fodder for a future essay perhaps?).

Jones is already hard at work on his second feature, which again seems to be based in science fiction, titled Source Code. I am excited at the prospect of seeing another completed film from this young man. His future seems very very bright.

**On a side note, the Moon DVD also has Jones' short film, Whistle. Check it out. It's a very interesting, well-executed flick.

Grade: A

Funny People

Funny People is the latest movie from popular writer/director Judd Apatow. For the past few years, Apatow has been box office gold with his raunchy 80's throwback comedies. He has been the driving force behind hits such as The 40 Year Old Virgin, Superbad, Knocked Up, and Pineapple Express. However, Funny People shows a different side of Apatow as it marks his first foray into more dramatic fare. Don't get me wrong, there are still plenty of Apatow trademarks as his T & A jokes have a huge audience.

Adam Sandler plays comedian George Simmons, who has just learned he has a terminal disease and does not have long to live. Seems Simmons was kind of a jerk to everybody when he became a star and does not have any close relations at all. The knowledge of dying leads him to take a young comedian under his wing named Ira Wright, played by Seth Rogen. Wright becomes Simmons confidant and eventually his only friend. But this proves to be challenging for the starstruck Wright as Simmons has no idea how to relate to people, hurting Ira and those closest to him over and over again.

And I think that is really the problem with this movie. Are we meant to be compassionate for Simmon's predicament? That's hard to fathom when your main character is a whopping jerk. Throughout the whole movie I found myself telling Ira he should tell George to just stick it. That it was not worth it. Simmons seemed more interested in passing his suffering along then genuinely trying to atone for his past mistakes. In the end, Apatow tries to give us the payoff that eventually comes with this type of movie, but by the time it plays out, you find that you just don't care. And, boy, does this movie play out. I thought it's 2 1/2 hour runtime was about 40 minutes too long.

There is not many surprises in the cast itself. Sandler is basically asked to play himself. Rogen is what Rogen always is. Sometimes funny, sometimes boring. He did drop a lot of weight before this role and my first reaction was "kudos!", he looks good. Jonah Hill is becoming tiring the more I see of him. It was surprising to see Jason Schwartzman and Eric Bana in this though, and they are some bright points, especially Bana.

There is a line at the end of the movie where Simmons basically says to Ira: Hey, I'm new at this. I'm still learning.

Maybe that is the excuse we should give Apatow on this flick. It is a break from his normal formulaic movies. Hopefully, the next one is better.

Grade: C

Zombieland

I like zombies. I mean, what's not to like? They are not a bunch of depressing emo goth wanna-bes like vampires, nor are they dirty, boring blah-blah-blahs like mummies. And they are not angry, scratchy, overly aggressive dirty beasts like werewolves. Nope, they are just hungry. For human flesh.

Director Ruben Fleischer (who worked as a writer and producer on Rob Dyrdek's "Fantasy Factory". Awesome.) has delivered a humor filled romp of a zombie movie. Zombieland is quirky and fun, much like it's older cousin, Edgar Wright's Shaun of the Dead. Most zombie movies are horror filled gore fests, meant to shock viewers with their bloody renderings of cannibalism. Zombieland is filled with the same gore, but does not take itself or it's genre seriously. Instead it opts to entertain not with cheap scares, but original dialogue, sweet relationships, and some good old zombie-killing action.

Woody Harrelson plays Tallahassee, a rough and tough zombie apocalypse survivor, who hooks up with Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg), a timid clumsy wanna-be rough and tough zombie apocalypse survivor. The end result is a weird but funny Laurel and Hardy duo who spend most of the movie killing zombies in unique and funny ways, looking for the last surviving Twinkie, and developing a relationship with the sister duo of Emma Stone and Abigail Breslin, who keep conning our tough guys out of their transportation. Throw in a great cameo by Bill Murray and you got yourself a good flick. I mean, Bill Murray and Woody Harrelson in a zombie flick. What else do you want?

Fleischer shows a lot of promise as a young director. He is able to mesh comedy and exciting action with scenes of genuine emotion. There is a great sequence at the end with Harrelson shooting zombies from a roller coaster! I look forward to seeing what else he delivers, especially with the inevitable Zombieland 2.

It's funny how zombies have evolved in cinema since the release of Romero's Night of the Living Dead. You have your classic zombie movies, filled with social commentary and dread of the future. Then you get zombie hybrids in 28 Days Later and the Resident Evil video game franchise. And now we have funny zombie films, filled with homages to the classics of the genre. I do not know about you, but I kind of like the new humor-filled movies. It's a nice break from the norm.

Grade: B

The Rock (Criterion Collection)

About a year ago, I decided to purge the greater part of my DVD collection. It had grown huge over the past 8 years, and somewhere along the line a focus on quantity over quality became evident. I was pushing over 300 discs and growing steadily. Many of the movies sat on the shelf, waiting for what I always thought would be repeated viewings. So the kids and I had a rather large yard sale and by the end I had pared the collection down to about 70 discs. Many of them are my favorites, movies I watch annually. Some are classic movies, treatises on film-making, meant to be studied over and over again and shared with others. Recently I've begun making moves to expand my collection again. This time with a straight eye and focus on quality. And whenever one seeks quality in their DVDs, one ultimately finds themselves searching the catalog of the Criterion Collection.

Criterion has been releasing films for years (first as Janus, and then also under their Essential Art-House Collection). They pride themselves on choosing only the best, and giving them the most technical sound presentation possible. Their catalog is very diverse, ranging from domestic films to foreign cinema from around the world. They choose classic films such as Fellini's 8 1/2 (1963), Renoir's Grand Illusion(1937), and Kurosawa's Seven Samurai(1954). But you will also find some more recent and mainstream choices such as Chasing Amy(1997), Armageddon(1998), and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button(2008). Their 3-disc release of Terry Gilliam's Brazil is arguably the greatest DVD release ever.

Michael Bay's The Rock has also been given the Criterion treatment. And what a treatment it is. With a new digital transfer approved by the director himself, 5.1 Dolby Digital and DTS surround sound, and special commentary by Bay, producer Jerry Brukheimer, and actors Nic Cage and Ed Harris, The Rock is a great addition to any DVD collection.

Michael Bay is one of the most polarizing directors in Hollywood today. Serious cinema enthusiasts hate his all-flash, no depth approach to film-making. However, everyday movie watchers love Bay as his movies have grossed trillions at the box office. I have found myself evolving from one of the former group into a member of the latter. Love him or hate him, I believe Michael Bay knows how to entertain you. And The Rock is entertaining.

Ed Harris plays a war general, tired of seeing his men fall victim to special missions and then having their families cheated out of needed benefits and even recognition for their valor. So what's a general to do? How about put together his own special ops force, steal some missiles loaded with the world's deadliest gas, and take 80 hostages at the famous Alcatraz prison, which has now become a tourist attraction. Harris gives the government 48 hours to transfer 100 million dollars into an account for his fallen men. That's 48 hours that Goodspeed (Nic Cage), Mason (Sean Connery), and a team of navy seals have to infiltrate "The Rock", disarm the missiles and save the hostages. What follows is the cinematic equivalent of seeing your favorite rock band in concert.

Bay has been called "the master of action." And deservedly so. The actions scenes in The Rock are some of the best ever filmed. The car chase through the streets of San Francisco uses a Ferrari, Hummer, trolley car, handicapped olympians, a dozen police vehicles, a water delivery truck, several explosions, a cell phone call, and the requisite little old lady crossing the road. The scene is a virtuoso of style and energy, but still has a tongue-in-cheek feel to it. And that is why Bay is a good director. I believe he understands that he is not the next Hitchcock or Kurosawa, but neither does he try to be. He keeps things simple. His main goal is not these deep, emotionally intense films, but films that deliver on their promise to entertain you. Some directors use shock to entertain, some use humor, some use historical fiction. Bay uses explosions and testosterone fueled characters to entertain, and the audience loves him for it.

He has blown up police vehicles and the KKK in his Bad Boys franchise, a large asteroid in Armageddon, futuristic flying machines in The Island, Pearl Harbor in, uh, Pearl Harbor, and large awesome robots in Transformers. He also directed Lionel Ritchie's "Do it to me" video, and ended up blowing up Ritchie's career. And now he's blowing up Alcatraz in The Rock.

The Rock is a great joy ride of a movie. It's filled with quality performances, intense editing, and lots and lots of action. It's fun. It's a popcorn flick. It's not going to leave you emotionally drained by the end. However, you will probably want to start a car chase along the streets of your hometown. That looks like a lot of fun.

Grade: B+

Mutant Chronicles

Mutant Chronicles is a small sci-fi flick with big aspirations. Unfortunately, it falls way short of these aspirations. The film shows some promise but the plot and acting is so sordid and dry, you find yourself wincing a few times, trying to choke down your popcorn.
The plot takes place in the distant future. The world is governed by four large corporations (apparently Sony and Google have folded sometime between) who are constantly at war with each other for precious resources. As armies collide on a murky wasteland somewhere, the battle awakens a machine(!) that changes humans into violent bone-bladed zombie killers. A task force is assembled to go deep into the ground and destroy said zombie making machine. Oh, and there are zombies everywhere....
Well, let's start with the good. Little known director Simon Hunter does his best with what he has. The majority of the film is shot digitally, which leaves Hunter open to really push the envelope visually. And there are some really interesting visuals in this movie. A lot of the military tech actually has a retro feel to it. The settings allude to a World War II, steampunk sort of feel. The blood is very visceral and bright red, which contrasts heavily with the murky CGI. It is always dark in this future, and raining a lot. Although there are some scenes where the CGI misses heavily, most of the effects hold up well against other movies within the genre. So good job, Simon Hunter. You may get to direct another movie yet. (And according to IMDB, he's got something called CURVE in development.)
And now the bad. The one aspect of the movie that looked to be strong was the cast. First impressions: Great cast for a sci-fi zombie flick. We have Thomas Jane, Ron Perlman, John Malkovich, Sean Pertwee, Devon Aoki, and Pras(!) from hip-hop group the Fugees. But this is where things fall apart. The acting is horrible!!!! I feel Jane is one of those actors that everyone is doting on, right up until they actually see him in a movie. Then it's kind of like, ewwww okkkkayyyyy. I mean he was serviceable in the Punisher, and the Mist is an awesome movie but not because of his acting ability. He spends most of the movie barking his lines at everyone and looking very distraught. Perlman is his trademark self. He's always been good in these kind of roles. Aoki and Pras are fill-ins. Pertwee is blah. And then there is Malkovich.
First of all, how the heck did John Malkovich even end up in this movie? I mean, he was in Burn After Reading and the Changeling which were both released the same year as Mutant Chronicles. ????????? He is the WORST actor in this movie. I read some reviews which believed him to be drunk or high when he filmed his scenes. I think he was sent the wrong script, ok'd the part, got to the set, saw what it was, said screw it and made up everything after that. At least he's got Transformers 3 on the horizon.

If you are a fan of MST3K, and are looking for some joke-filled commentary fodder, this is the film for you. But only if it is still in the special $1 rental section at Backstage Video.

Grade: D+

Band of Brothers

I was going to start this blog with a review of the current all-time box office king, AVATAR. And we will get to that review and plenty of other reviews, but I've been on a tangent of thoughts and feelings regarding another piece of work. I've started HBO's miniseries, Band of Brothers. This is my second time through the boxset and some interesting thoughts are coming to the forefront this time around. Especially on the topic of, well, courage. And bravery. And sacrifice.
For those of you unfamiliar with Band of Brothers here's a quick rundown: Band of Brothers was originally a book written by Stephen Ambrose. It details the true exploits of the para-troopers of Easy Company of the US Army 101st Airborne. Easy Company was at the forefront of most of the huge operations in the war and became known as the go-to company when the tough missions came about. They set precedents in field operations. Let me say that again. They set PRECEDENTS in field operations....that means the plan of action they came up with during missions were later taught in training courses. Heady stuff.
I have just finished the 3rd disk in the set which includes the Battle of the Bulge. Easy Company sets up a perimeter around the city of Bastogne and become surrounded by German tank divisions. It is the dead of winter and they are almost out of ammo, medical supplies, and food. They also do not have the appropriate clothes for the weather. The weather is so harsh that German and American soldiers keep running across each others front lines.
Imagine that for a second. You are freezing and hungry, buried in a foxhole. You have a handful of bullets left and you can hear the enemy 50 yards away singing Christmas carols. The medic keeps coming around to see if anyone has their personal first aid kits because he does not have enough morphine or supplies to help you if you get shot. The higher ups keep dropping supplies but because of the weather the drops land behind enemy lines. Imagine that is you and ask yourself, how would I act under these circumstances?
Before each episode the surviving members of Easy Company talk about what it was like to experience these things. One survivor talks about fear, and how if you let it, fear would ruin you and you could not function at all. They talk about accepting the fact that they were going to die. And how your ability to think through all the fear is what enables you to survive.
As I continue to watch, I keep asking myself "Could I do that?" And the one thought that keeps running over and over in my head is: "That could have been me." But the simple fact of my birth date kept this from happening. I am afraid of war and have no desire to ever participate in one. And I am thankful that I hopefully will never experience one in person. To make choices in a matter of seconds that decide life and death is unfathomable for me and to many of us. We are unable to relate to anyone who has been in a war, or a firefight, or even, for some of us, a simple fistfight. But even through all the fear and thankfulness of not being in a war, there is always that little part of me that keeps coming back to "Could I do that?" or, more importantly, "Am I good enough?" Am I strong enough to face my fears and still think in a rational way, still act in a rational way, all while under the threat of death? I think, for men especially, all of us want to know the answer to this question. Do I have what it takes? John Eldredge wrote in his book, Wild at Heart, that men have a inner desire to seek a battle and fight for something, to focus our strength into protecting that which is most valuable to us. In many ways we are each fighting little battles everyday. We fight to stay true to ourselves, and protect our families and our homes. But for us protection takes the form of providing and upkeep. It's that true sense of battle that leaves us pondering, that mystery of warfare that makes us ask "Am I good enough?" It's a genuine curiosity, but one that you hope is never fulfilled.
As I continue journeying through each episode, I find myself thinking about the men of Easy Company and what they had to endure for our sakes and our countries, and it leads me to thinking about those who now are serving across the world, in Iraq, in Afghanistan. We take so much for granted that we tend to forget about these people. When you are getting up in the morning to eat your cornflakes and fetch the paper, there is someone somewhere having to face their own question. And the answer will, more then likely, lead to life or death.

Band of Brothers is a 10 part miniseries from HBO and was produced by Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg. It stars a huge array of actors most notably Scott Grimes, Damian Lewis, Ron Livingston(that guy from Office Space), and Donnie Wahlberg(NKOTB!). There are a lot of great movies that may lead you to the same thoughts and questions. Saving Private Ryan, A Thin Red Line, and The Hurt Locker are some good examples. But Band of Brothers is heads above all of these.

Grade: A

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to my new blog, Working Title Movies, a home for discussing and reviewing movies, both old and new. Each week, I'll post reviews of movies I am currently exploring and also share thoughts and analysis about select films. This is a pretty simple blog. I just like talking about movies. I do not want to go into deep analysis and write 18 pages regarding what was in Marcellus Wallace's briefcase or what Bill Murray said to Scarlett Johansson at the end of Lost in Translation.

I just like sharing ideas and thoughts regarding movies, and I think I know a good flick from a crappy one. And I know a lot hidden gems out there and would like to share them with you. So if you like movies, welcome. And if you do not like movies, I think I saw a nice blog down the way regarding kittens and yarn, and another blog over there about some dude's mission to eat at every waffle house in the USA.

I'll have different posts every week but they really break down into 3 things:

Reviews: I'll review a movie and then grade it. I'll be using the Entertainment Weekly grade of A-F. It's a little narrower in saying whether a movie is good or bad, unlike Ebert's 4 star reviews.

Hall of Fame: I'll induct a select movie into my personal Hall of Fame. It is only my opinion on what I think are super duper movies.

Essays: Thoughts and opinions on select movies, directors, Hollywood, etc.

I'll also have some poll questions and, who knows, maybe I can score an interview with Scorsese. He owes me one.

Comment all you want. If there is a movie you would like me to review let me know.

Peace.

Mike