In Time

The movie begins with a decent enough premises for the sci-fi universe and definitely has enough potential to feel like it could be something special. It was written and directed by Andrew Niccol who also wrote Gattaca and The Truman Show so the man is no stranger to the bizarre. Niccol’s future enjoys a very glossy look with a vintage touch; he has also envisioned a future full of attractive people. It is all very fitting because In Time concerns itself more with style than substance because it offers very little beyond a cool concept.

In Time takes place in what is supposed to be a very near future, yet in this very near future somehow a few rich elite have convinced the world to shift the currency from money to time. None of this is explained mind you, how or why it happened, or how they were able to attach a glowing clock to everyone’s arm. If you are able to get past that, all you need to understand is everything is now charged in time from 4 minutes for a cup of coffee to 2 months from a hotel suite. There is still a significant difference between the rich who have the potential to live for eons and the poor who only have enough time to survive day by day.

The plot devices and situations are set clearly and are easy enough to understand that you can look past the unmentioned history, which a sci-fi is never obligated to explain instead just hope the audience can accept it and move on. The best thing Niccol does is lay the premise on thick, his problem though is that he lays everything on thick. There are so many different time puns that if I were to write them all out I don’t think I would be able to finish the review In Time. See what I did there, and if you found that annoying than get ready because this movie is stocked full of them for two hours. While the beginning of the movie is laid out very clearly it loses the momentum it may have garnered in the first half hour and loses any sense of pacing or tension. They have people running for their lives, watching their clocks tick down to zero and still it is tough to feel anything for the characters.

The lack of connection may be due to the delivery more than the writing. Justin Timberlake takes his first shot at headlining an action movie. He plays Will, who lives in the ghetto but after inheriting over a century looks to move up in the world. He plays the part just fine but he still seems too cool to be considered any kind of a bad ass or credible action hero. Amanda Seyfried plays the love interest that falls for the boy from the other side of the tracks. Niccol knows she brings very little to the part which may be why he wrote in scenes for skinny dipping and strip poker. One would expect that Pete Camball would be good at playing a little slime ball executive, but for some reason he just comes off as bland, his character on Mad Men must really benefit from Matthew Weiner’s writing. The only character who gives a convincing performance is Cillian Murphy who you may recognize from various Christopher Nolan movies. He plays a time cop who looks to uphold the society they live in and stays hot on Will’s trail.

The message is laid on extremely thickly. There will be little need to convince anyone who is seeing this movie that there is something wrong with the current situation, and seems more topical than ever with the events taking place in Oakland and Occupy Wall Street. But this movie hurts the very cause they are trying to acknowledge by stealing ten to fifteen dollars from the poor and handing that money over to wealthy movie studios. Seeing this movie is a waste of your time. D

Friends with Benefits

If you find yourself walking to the theater and not wanting to see a superhero movie, you may turn to the romantic comedy Friends With Benefits and think to yourself I've already seen this movie. While the premise is exactly the same as No Strings Attached, FWB seems to benefit from having taken the extra time to develop their writing and the chemistry between the two leads. It is still the same movie but this version of friends who just want the physical without all the emotional baggage is better.

A lot of the success of the movie is based on the chemistry between the two leads. They are both super sexy people with a lot of charisma and are each easy to like and neither are strangers to comedies. Mila Kunis got her start on the sitcom “That 70’s Show,” while her co-star Justin Timberlake was recently nominated for his work on “Saturday Night Live.” While both have been dabbling in a couple of Academy Award nominated movies, it is nice to see them get back to what they have done so well in the past.

A big part of the success also comes from the writing team of Keith Merryman, David Newman, and director Will Gluck who creates a sharply written movie filled with witty back and forth banter. The guys were on a role and put in a lot of material for their actors to work with. The jokes came at the audience so fast it was easy to miss a couple comebacks while you were laughing at the third joke in. The first half of the movie is full of one-liners and gentle ribbing.

There is also plenty of ribbing of the very genre they are trying to succeed in. The movie goes to task on the rom-com and all the pitfalls of the genre. But almost in the same breath while shouting out all the wrongs of their genre Gluck than goes ahead and commits all his previously mentioned sins as if he didn’t know how else to execute the movie. Just because you acknowledge all of the clichés doesn’t give you full reign to commit them yourself, in fact it probably makes it worse. At the very least he seems to acknowledge the wrongs himself, the biggest ones all being committed towards the end of the movie.

One such sin often poked fun at is the music selection of romantic comedies to help the audience know exactly how they should feel at the moment. And while the song selection performs just as our characters explained they are supposed to I loved almost every song they picked and was left to humming most of the tunes as I left the theater. Except “Hey Soul Sister” that song is a worse affront to human ears than an ice pick.

The first half of the movie is fun and witty and sexy, but due to the fact that this is a romantic comedy everyone in the audience knows that this can’t last. Faster than you can say Kriss Kross the movie makes the abrasive jump to sappy romance. All of a sudden we go from great dialogue to sappy stories of family tragedy, which helps to explain blah, blah, blah.

It actually isn’t all bad; Richard Jenkins is really impressive as JT’s dad. If you allow yourself to truly get involved with the story his is heartbreaking and Jenkins does well in the role. Rounding out his family is his sister Jenna Elfman and her son Nolan Gould (the kid from ‘Modern Family’). The kid is good, but I would have loved to see a little more of Elfman doing anything besides just moving the story along. Mila’s mommy is played by Patricia Clarkson who Will Gluck once again casts for the role of mother. She is solid in the role and has some great moments but as a supporting character isn’t nearly as funny as Woody Harrelson as Justin’s gay sports editor. He is fantastic in everything he touches and has an ability to turn every scene on its head with perfect comic timing. The stand outs here are Jenkins and Harrelson but they all do a great job.

It’s tough to believe anyone as beautiful as Justin Timberlake and Mila Kunis would have such dating problems, but if you put that thought on the side the movie is actually pretty fun. There is plenty of witty banter and self deprecating jokes to make you forget some of the hokier moments in the climax of the movie. And if that is not enough the two stars are naked for a decent section of the movie, so you should have something nice to stare at for a bit. B-

Bad Teacher

Growing up I don't know if I ever had a teacher who didn't care one bit. All of my teachers, at the very least, could put on a show so I was none the wiser. It was tough to tell what to expect from the movie, most of the trailers just featured the same one liners that weren't all that funny to begin with. The premise was good and had the potential to be hilarious if it was written from the perspective of a disgruntled teacher, it wasn't. While expectations were low the movie still had all the possibility in the world to offend but never quite gets to that point.

Cameron Diaz plays Elizabeth Halsey, a teacher that we all wished we had while we were going to school, a hottie who likes to show movies all day. She is just trying to get by until she can find a sugar daddy that can make all her dream purchases come true. Elizabeth loses out on plan A, and figures as she is getting older the best way to snag herself a man and compete with all the younger trim out there is with bigger breasts. All of a sudden a new substitute teacher, who comes from old money, rolls into the school and it seems her problems are solved. Now all she has to do is fend off a perky teacher from across the hall and a gym teacher who has the hots for her.

All the actors do a fine job in the movie, but that is probably them at their best, doing a fine job. All the actors seem to play a caricature, but none of them really go for it. We know that Justin Timberlake can be hilarious as seen on SNL, but can probably only go as far as the script takes him, I'm not sure if he knows how to take it to the next level yet. And Diaz gives it her all, but the problem is once again the writing. It is unclear if they wanted her to be as devious, as say a “Bad Santa,” or become the likable lead. They get close to both but excel in neither. In an unrelated note, I wonder what it was like for Diaz to have her character pursue a real life ex.

The better performances come from Jason Segal as Russell Gettis the gym teacher and Lucy Punch as Amy Squirrel the goody-goody teacher from across the hall. They do well playing the opposite ends of the spectrum to Diaz's character. Segal has done great as a completely likable guy and while his character is not perfect, he seems like the only one in the movie who is relatable. Meanwhile Lucy Punch seems to be the nicest character of the bunch which means in a movie called "Bad Teacher" she will be the chief antagonist. As she allows her character to get tipped over the edge she becomes far more interesting to watch than any of the names above the title. Punch goes for it all and it results in some of the funnier moments in the movie. Had all the characters had the same reign as she did, which on paper was probably written the same as the others, this movie could have been much better.

The two latter characters written about are the saving graces of the movie, and probably how they should have written the other two lead characters. This movie advertises itself as a black comedy and while it does have a couple funny moments to it, there is nothing really worth raving about. It is a perfect movie to go see and then no longer have the burden of remembering anything about it. D

Oscars 2011: First Glance

It's Oscar Season. Followers of this blog know that I love this time of year and like to draw it out as much as possible. So while I do plan on doing a post on my predictions for the awards, first here are a few things that caught my eye.

I knew that The King's Speech would be Oscar bait, I didn't think it would be leading the pack with 12 nominations. I thought it would be The Social Network. But the movie leading with all the best picture awards already didn't even garner second place. True Grit, which is a fun movie don't get wrong, took second with ten nominations.

This may be because of the glaring omission of Andrew Garfield as Supporting Actor. I genuinely thought all three men, Garfield, Justin Timberlake and Armie Hammer all deserved nominations for their performances, but that wasn't legitimately possible. Instead none get nominated and that is unfortunate.

Where was Nolan's nomination for director? Two years ago they expanded the Best Picture field to include blockbusters that don't get love from the Academy. So while Inception is rightly included in the best picture field it didn't get any love in the directing field. Nolan probably deserved more accolades for his directing than his screen writing. But if it were the other way around I'd probably still be bitching about it.

For lead actors Ryan Gosling got robbed. His performance with Michelle Williams is symbiotic, how is it possible for one to get nominatted and not the other. I imagine it was Javier Bardem who took his spot. Like most of America though I haven't seen Biutiful but I plan on getting to the bottom of this. I hear good things though, and to his credit Bardem becomes the first actor to be nominated as solely specking in Spanish throughout the film.

Call me crazy but I enjoyed Julianne Moore's performance more than Annette Bening's from The Kids Are Alright. Both deserved nominations and if only one was going to get the honor everyone knew it was going to be Bening but I thought Bening had a one strong moment where as Moore was consistently good throughout the movie.

Wasn't Waiting for "Superman" supposed to be the documentary everyone had to see to save our children? How did this movie not get nominated?

I love that Melissa Leo earned a nomination as the maniacal mother in The Fighter but where is the love for Barbara Hershey an equally if not more sinister parental figure for Black Swan because I'm not actually even sure if she was that evil or not.

Everyone is saying that The Town deserved more accolades. And with ten pictures being nominated for Best Picture it is really hard to snub a film anymore when it really only comes down to one or two films. What about directing or the screenplay. I actually agreed with the Academy on this one, and while it was a fun movie, unlike Nolan (who I would gladly substitute for Tom Hooper) I couldn't take anyone off the directing list for Ben Affleck.

What did you think. Am I wrong in any of these nomiantions? Is there someone else you thought got snubbed? Let me know

Yogi Bear: The Alternate Ending

Yogi Bear comes out this weekend. While I don't want to ruin the movie for any fans out there an alternate ending for the movie has been leaked onto the web. I believe it to be my duty to at least allow you to see it. Enjoy.

The Social Network

When word first came out that there was going to be a Facebook movie that was my first reaction "There is going to be a Facebook movie?!?" It was tough to initially sell it for me, but then the movie gained director David Fincher (Fight Club, Se7en) and screenwriter Aaron Sorkin (The West Wing, A Few Good Men). Then the critical reviews started coming out (it currently has a 97 on Rotten Tomatoes). The moment that sealed the deal is when the trailer featuring Kanye's song "Power" hit. I was hooked I needed to see this movie, and by most accounts many of you will probably see it in the near future if you haven't already.

The movie opens in a Cambridge bar that I have frequented on several occasions, and like most great motivators it all starts with a bad break up. Sorkin shows off a fast paced dialogue while Fincher sets the mood with the grungy lighting and turns a casual encounter into an eerie setting, their work really mashes up well together. In fact most of the best scenes happen when the characters are sitting down at a table with quick cuts and quicker dialogue. The sharp wit moves a mile a minute and if you lose focus you may miss an entire conversation.

Jesse Eisenberg stars as the CEO Mark Zuckerburg, many just may consider him Michael Cera lite but don't be mistaken, Cera may be better know but Eisenberg is a much better actor with a quality resume of films with another great addition. This role isn't too far off from his base, a socially inept outcast, but he somehow makes a self-interested asshole likable. You can't help but feel sorry for him at moments, or not depending on your perspective. Sorkin doesn't write the script taking one side or the other. He gets as many sources as he can and allows the audience to play the jury on each character which becomes fitting as the frame story takes you in and out of two lawsuits occurring simultaneously. The one source he is unable to get is Zuckerberg himself, not surprising, but what is stunning is that the lack of participation may have helped the story. By not getting this perspective it's no longer the Facebook/Zuckerburg movie, but rather a book about Zuckerburg adding more ambiguity to the character and more free range for Eisenberg to let loose.

This movie features a very strong ensemble cast and is easy to see why these actor will be the next generation of big names. Andrew Garfield plays Eduardo Saverin the C.F.O. and Zuckerburg's only friend in the entire film. I've heard some people say that the nicer the person the worse the businessman. Well Saverin is the nicest player in the whole group and in a group of various shades of gray he may be the lightest shade but still doesn't come out squeaky clean. Rooney Mara plays the heart breaker Erica Albright and her fast tongue and strong performance set the tone for the movie and is probably what landed her the lead role in the American version of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. It wouldn't be a David Fincher movie without some tricky computer imaging and that's exactly what he does to have one actor play both Winklevoss brothers. Then there is Justin Timberlake who you may not be able to take seriously due to some of his past endeavors. He really proves himself as the young entrepreneur who co-found Napster Sean Parker. He keeps the character sleek and his work on SNL helped hone in on his delivery skills. Timberlake flirts with the audience the entire movie so one minute you’ll love his enthusiasm next you’ll hate his treachery. He proves to be fantastic which may be why Entertainment Weekly wrote an article about how all three supporting actors could receive nominations come award season. That may not be true but Sorkin definitely will and Fincher should.

The Social Network is a modern day Citizen Kane. Both films feature a young upstart looking to make a name for himself in and both want acceptance from society. Even some of the scenes in the movie bear striking resemblance to some of Orson Welles' masterpiece. And why shouldn't this be a modern day retelling, the Internet has clearly taken the over as our main source of information. While I was writing this review I had Facebook up in the background the entire time, not doing anything with it but merely catching up on the tedium of some of my friends life that their inherent narcissism felt the entire world should know. That's what Facebook is all about, it’s an ego driven way to share the minutia of everyday life and I am right up there with some of the worst offenders. Sorkin is able to capture this feeling and addiction to this program in his script and makes this film an early Oscar contender. A