A Very Harold and Kumar 3D Christmas

To really enjoy A Very Harold and Kumar 3D Christmas might I suggest one of two things. Go in feeling the Christmas spirit or go in extremely high. While not necessarily requirements to enjoy the movie it will no doubt make the experience a better one. The franchise that started at White Castle has grown up and has lost a step or two. Harold and Kumar return to their drug induced states for their Christmas movie and you just might want to do the same.

It’s not that the movie isn't funny, it's just not all that hilarious but I believe that may be because I didn't see this 3D movie, the way it was intended to be seen, high. I saw it in 3D and there are all kinds of things flying at you from smoke to show to confetti to cocaine. At one point they may actually throw a kitchen sink at the audience. While they acknowledge that the whole 3D thing has "jumped the shark" it doesn't stop them from doing it, which may actually be worse. But there are also bright lights and clay-mation at work which would leave any stoned mind enchanted. Plus all the bright lights may keep you distracted from the writing.

The creative team behind the movie look to offend every minority out there, but my objection isn't the ethnic bashing it’s the lack of laughs. Once again this may all depend on your state of mind, you may be laughing out loud throughout the whole movie, or only chuckling a few times. Most of these laughs are in the first half of the movie, and if you are anything like me you may look at the clock and be unable to believe the movie was 90 minutes when it felt like two hours.

The success of the movie though is entirely in the hands of aging stoners Harold and Kumar played by John Cho and Kal Penn respectively. The plot of the movie revolves around Harold growing up and becoming a member of Wall Street while Kumar has stayed stagnant and remains baked in his bachelor pad. They have drifted apart since escaping from Guantanamo Bay but a mysterious package has brought them together. This plot seems fitting as these two actors seem to have outgrown the roles that launched them to stardom. Both have moved onto more serious work and now seem a step behind if not a little pathetic being in their mid thirties and still acting like this. The actors still have their charm though and have much more convincing delivery than the first movie but they still just seem out of place and the roles just don't come as easily as they did seven years ago.

Brief encounters take place by all sorts of co-stars and may be the best parts of the movie. Patton Oswald plays Santa, Danny Trejo plays Harold's father in law, Eddie Kaye Thomas and David Krumholtz return as their stoner buddies and of course NPH rises from the dead to play Neil Patrick Harris which helped to re-start his career. All these roles add to the movie and they are in and out just in time for each actor to grab a couple laughs.

The movie is funny; the actors are good there just isn’t anything spectacular or innovative about the third movie in the series. There is plenty of spirit to the movie along with nods to holiday movies of the past, which is why those who love the season may love this movie as well. But bear in mind lovers of eggnog, there are also a bunch of penis shots as well. While I can’t prove that they were injecting marijuana smoke into the theater I do know I bought an entire pizza afterwards. C

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

Like Crazy

The movie opens on a young couple beginning their relationship. After their first date he goes to leave her apartment and places his hand on the door, she does likewise as if the artist is attempting to say there will always be something that comes between their love. It becomes immediately obvious at this point that these two people are going to be one of those insufferable couples that everyone else hates. Nailed it. Like Crazy explores the trapping and difficulties involved with a long distance relationship and shows just how annoying watching a couple explore personal moments in public can be for everyone else.

While I did not like the movie that is not to say everyone will hate it. I’m sure there are many people in the audience who will connect with the movie whether they are currently in a long distance relationship, part of a new relationship, just getting out of a relationship, etc. Director Drake Doremus shows an honest and personal look inside almost any relationship from the cutesy moments to the bickering. The reason these moments are so personal is because no one else wants to see it. He shows his two leads being overly affectionate and annoyingly cutesy just as often as he shows the couple fighting in public. As anyone who has seen couples fight, it is an uncomfortable experience that you just hope ends without being dragged into it. Why would you want to pay for an experience that in real life you see almost any Friday night and try desperately to look away from?

The problems begin to stack up after Anna allows her student visa to expire, despite everyone telling her if she left for the summer it would be much easier to gain entry back into the country she decides to forgo that in order to spend a couple extra nights just laying in bed. It seems that most of their problems could be solved with a skype account and a couple extra plane tickets which they can obviously afford since Jacob graduated to become an instant success as a furniture designer and they can afford to make international calls on their cell phones. Many of you may respond that this is young love and everyone makes stupid mistakes at this age or without these problems there probably wouldn’t be a movie. That is all fine and well but it doesn’t mean we need to feel bad for them either. The main characters are completely unsympathetic and get everything they deserve. Besides being completely insufferable to watch they are also quick to betray each other’s trust. The most sympathetic character is Sam played by Jennifer Lawrence whose biggest fault is that she keeps falling for Jacob who keeps ditching her every time Anna becomes available. Which begs the question what is he bringing to the table that he is able to bag two girls like this, is building furniture a really sexy occupation and no one told me? If that is the case well then I have a table from Ikea that I can put together for all the ladies out there. Lawrence is without question the biggest talent in the movie and her performance is mostly tossed to the side in order to show Jacob and Anna in more montages. In fact all of the supporting actors excel in their effort to prop up their leads and are far more likeable characters; from Anna’s whiskey loving parents played by Alex Kingston and Oliver Muirhead to both of their ex’s played by Lawrence and Charlie Bewley.

It is tough to tell how much time passes between each fight but it doesn’t matter, Doremus feels it is more important to show the major moments than showing the timeline of the events and I won’t disagree. In fact Doremus made a lot of stylistic choices throughout the movie whether they match with his artistic vision or due to cost restraints it is tough to tell. They all help the story and help to give an intimate look into the relationship. He provides small moments that any audience member can connect to such as waiting for a reply from a text or sending more than one text in a neurotic hope that you’re special someone isn’t dodging you.

Anton Yelchin and Felicity Jones churn out very strong performances, especially considering most of the dialogue was improvised. They really show just how frustrating young love can be, which turns out to be the main reason why this movie is hard to watch. It is just tough to get past how maddening it was to watch these two make up and break up over the smallest trivialities. Where are these character’s friends to tell them to stay away from each other. I imagine they alienated any friends they may have had by being awful to be around.

Without sympathetic lead characters or living in a similar situation it is going to be tough to like this movie. I do suggest that if you are a couple that likes to argue in front of people I think you should see this movie, in order for you to understand how we all feel. D+

Trespass

It is tough to believe that Nicolas Cage's money problems are still this bad. It really is a shame that an Academy Award winning actor now has to do movies like this. But what I can't figure out is why Nicole Kidman is involved. This is a movie that at one point had discussions of going directly to DVD, but due to some big names got a theatrical debut. For whatever the reason Joel Schumacher, who always seems to direct movies this bad yet still get some kind of box office, strikes again as he makes his attempt at the recent brash of home invasion movies.

Allow me to save you some time and tell you Cage plays a diamond investor looking to make a big score for his family who feels alienated from him. Meanwhile thieves bust into his house and want the money and the stones. From there as one can expect Cage loses his shit and refuses to go along with their plan. Then the threats from the thieves come pouring in, making all sorts of demands to get a big pay day. The last two steps repeat themselves for the next HOUR. Literally no difference: Do this or I will kill that, then Cage refuses and the process repeats itself.

I'm sure someone thought to themselves, how are we going to keep raising the tension in this scene? Rather than any character exploration or originality they choose to just move the gun around to different people. For those of you interested in how the writing meetings went my crack detective team was able to record a meeting before a shoot: "Who haven't we threatened yet? We already did all three, well how about we have the thieves threaten each other? We did that too? Fine what’s the running time? We still need 20 more minutes? Damn it! Well threaten them all again but this time with a knife, I'm calling it a day." So with legitimate tension clearly gone from the script the camera man does his best to move the camera back and forth really quickly, I applaud your attempt sir. They also kept trying to insert plot twists throughout the movie, but they aren't twists so much as a step by step following of how every movie like this is done.

By the end of the movie people in my screening were actually laughing about what was going on. This is a great movie if you want something completely over the top and melodramatic and need to turn your brain off for about 90 minutes; you just need to ask yourself if that is worth ten bucks. If all you need is an over the top laughs save your money for your convenience I have posted a video of The Wicker Man below, it has been condensed to its shortest and funniest format which is how I wish Trespass was edited. D-

50/50

Whenever dealing with heavy themes, it is always important to find a balance to the material. No one in Hollywood is afraid to laugh about terminal illness anymore, but too many laughs and you risk creating an uncomfortable audience, too few and you risk being a Hallmark television movie of the week. Will Reiser is able to take a frightening part of his life and keep the audience smiling while sharing his heartfelt story of survival. 50/50 is a perfect balance of humor and heart to create a terrific story.

Let me start though with the tagline of the movie "It takes a pair to beat the odds," it's just awful. There is so much more to this movie than just two buddies looking to support each other. In fact there is a great ensemble here that helps convey the story’s message. I understand why the tag line exists; it is to let people know that there are two very popular male leads in the story. But this isn't a movie you are going to want to roll into anyway to forget about life for a while, the featured lead has cancer after all, and while there is plenty of humor behind the story the character still has a 50 percent survival rate, and the movie does not shy away from the emotional moments that come with such a diagnosis.

The movie stars Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Adam, who has just been diagnosed with an extremely rare form of cancer. And to no one’s surprise he plays the role superbly. He goes through the whole range of emotions almost effortlessly yet seems strained while doing it. The strain of course seems natural from a person who can see his own demise. Without the help of Seth Rogan, the performance may have leaned too far towards the depressing. Instead Rogan, who was a producer on the movie, balances out the story with laughs as Adam's best friend Kyle. In the third act though he is able to dig a little deeper into his character and shows why he is so easily likable by audiences despite his usual crassness.

The reason that Rogan does so well though is that he is part of the story that the movie is based on. The movie was written by Will Reiser who worked with Rogan on "Da Ali G Show" which is when he found out he had a serious form of cancer. The first draft of the script which was called "How I Learned Nothing from Cancer" I imagine lacked some of the more heartfelt moments that Gordon-Levitt was able to portray. But Reiser worked with Rogan to reflect back on this period in their lives to examine what really happened from many different perspectives. The combination and reflection both men shared helped to shape the movie.

It wasn't just the men that helped to make a strong finished product, the females co-stars help to elevate the lead actor and sometimes even outshine him. The first woman we meet is Adam's girlfriend played by Bryce Dallas Howard. She is always being cast as the beautiful bitchy character, which she has been playing so well recently. I don't understand how she plays the character so well with her grandparents being the Cunninghams, I suppose good parenting skips a generation. The bigger part though belongs to Anna Kendrick who plays Adam's therapist; she also seems to be cast in similar roles as the young professional who is in over her head. She once again does fantastic in the role and I can't wait to see her more often as she is a great personality to play the love interest in any drama. Anjelica Huston shows her years of experience and is superb as an overbearing mother. Any young person in the audience can identify why Adam may find her annoying but when he finally lets his guard down she shows him the caring and love every mother has for their son; which in turn should make every son feel guilty for blowing them off.

The sadness never becomes unbearable. Sure it may be tough to get through the whole movie without a couple sniffles, especially for those who have been through something like this before. But just when you think all the drama has taken over the actors in the movie will do something unbearably charming and will bring a smile back to your face. Often times while watching a movie I will say to myself “right here” in a hope that the movie will end on a high note, I don’t think any movie has ever gotten so close to a perfect moment, which makes sense as this story is full of near perfect moments. A-

Money Ball

There is a tendency in Hollywood for their movies to have a deeper meaning. If a movie were just about zombies it may be tough to get a broad audience into the theater. So what people tend to do is add a metaphor like zombies that really stand for consumerism or lack of individuality or some B.S. like that. Or they will put in a handsome lead to attract women who may otherwise not want to see a monster movie. Moneyball has every opportunity to do these things as well and while it may touch upon these ideas this is a baseball movie about baseball stats. If you like baseball, hate the Yankees, or find mathematics interesting you'll probably like the movie. That is what the movie is about and while it has a David and Goliath feel with a charismatic Brad Pitt in the lead this is a baseball movie. And how could you hate America's Pastime?

A big contributing factor to the success of the movie is the writing team behind it. When the source material is a look at stats and analysis you need strong writing to engage the audience and that is what Steve Zallian brought to the original script. Once the script was finished they brought over Steven Soderbergh to make the film and he made several changes to the script including interviews and having the players play themselves despite the age difference, the studio was not a fan. So they took him off the project and instead brought in Bennett Miller who has worked on dry material before and squeezed Oscar juice from it with Capote. Once they found a director who would make a more traditional movie (rather ironic considering what the movie is about) they brought in Aaron Sorkin to complete a fianl draft of the script. Usually with too many chefs in the kitchen you create a mess, here it works out and while it seems scattered at times, especially the end, I believe it works to make a compelling story.

As for the story I found some objection to it and what they left out. For those of you who don't know what Moneyball is about, it is based on the true story of the Oakland A's during the early 2000's while their team was good despite the lack of resources (read: money)that teams like the New York Yankees or the Boston Red Soxs have. Billy Beane the A's GM and a former player who had been highly touted coming out of high school abandoned the old method of scouting based off looks and feel and subscribed to an anaylytical, subermetric approach to forming a team. In other words he wasn't looking at batting average and speed like other organizations he wanted player who could get on base and could hit for power. The formula was basically the need to get people on base and keep your opponent off. In the movie they focus on getting men on base but during their run they had three of the best pitchers in baseball on the mound in Barry Zito, Mark Mulder, and Tim Hudson which is arguably a bigger reason they won then the batters they were able to scrap together after Jason Giambi and Johnny Damon left. I understand why they were left out of the movie as they were already on the team and had nothing to do with Beane's negotiations and front office moves, but to completely dismiss them from a movie about why the A's were winning is a little ridiculous.

Obviously nerding out a little there, but besides that the movie is strong. Sorkin writes a script as you would expect with plenty of great dialogue. Brad Pitt plays Billy Beane perfectly in a mix of a confident businessman with plenty of self doubt. His character refuses to watch the games as he believes he is cursed. The need to win the last game of the season keeps his head churning and his confidence in check. Pitt is able to be a character that can walk into a room with a confident swagger then leave it with nothing but doubts and remorse in his eyes. They also choose to include his daughter in the story, in an attempt to humanize a man who needs to be vicious when cuts need to be made.

Beane's right hand man is Peter Brand who is based on Paul DePodesta and is played by Jonah Hill. Hill does fantastic opposite Pitt, and while known for his comedy is able to slow his performance down as a man who lacks the swagger that Beane has but believes that his system is right for the organization. He nails his deadpan delivery and is able to participate in a great give and take with the lead actor. Philip Seymour Hoffman also makes an appearance in the movie as a manager who still believes in the old way of doing things and often clashed with his GM. That dynamic could have been interesting to explore but I imagine that confrontation ended in real life once the team started winning. Chris Pratt also stars in the movie as former catcher and current first baseman Scott Hatteberg, Pratt is always all kinds of charming and he is no different in this movie.

There isn't a whole lot of baseball action in the movie as it is more about the front office moves but there is enough to wet your whistle. The scenes in which we actually do see baseball are shot in different manners almost every time we see it. But since this story is told from the perspective of the GM who doesn't watch the game we only get slivers of action. We also see different shooting techniques from when he is interacting with people to when he is alone which reflect his two states of mind. When he is with others they use normal shooting techniques but when alone, they show Beane's disjointed thoughts and constant questioning of his moves using quick cuts and close ups that help us to further get in the character's head.

Not everyone is going to like Moneyball, it moves slowly and there is not a lot of action to it. But the writing is compelling, the banter and interactions are funny, and the actors are all charming, plus it is a movie about baseball stuff. For all the reasons above I liked the movie, and even if you are not into baseball maybe you will like the movie as well. Much like the movie the producers were able to get the most talented people to play for their team and create a winning formula. A-

Emmy Predictions: Drama

So yesterday I did Comedy, today I'll try my best to predict the Drama categories.

Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Drama
Kelly Macdonald, Boardwalk Empire
Archie Panjabi, The Good Wife
Christine Baranski, The Good Wife
Margo Martindale, Justified
Michelle Forbes, The Killing
Christina Hendricks, Mad Men

With two women from the same show, they may be stealing votes from each other, so I don't like either actress from The Good Wife to win. While Kelly Macdonald flourished in a cast full of outstanding male actors Margo Martindale had the performance of her career. Either of these two women could win but I like the Justified actress to give Justified its first Emmy.


Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Drama
Peter Dinklage, Game of Thrones
Josh Charles, The Good Wife
Alan Cummings, The Good Wife
Walton Goggins, Justified
John Slattery, Mad Men
Andrew Braugher, Men of a Certain Age

My heart of hearts wants Peter Dinklage to win for Game of Thrones (I'm still mad that Sean Bean didn't get nominated as a lead actor). The problem is he has some really stiff competition this year. Alan Cummings was outstanding on The Good Wife just as he was last year. John Slattery is terrific year after year, and for it keeps getting nominated year after year. And Walter Goggins is astonishing on Justified (let's face it that whole cast is great). While Slattery is due Alan Cummings had the better performance throughout the season so I think Cummings will win, but I'm still pulling for the honorable Lannister.


Outstanding Actress in a Drama
Kathy Bates, Harry's Law
Connie Britton, Friday Night Lights
Mireille Enos, The Killing
Mariska Hargitay, Law and Order: SVU
Juliana Margulies, The Good Wife
Elisabeth Moss, Mad Men

That's right, Harry's Law is still on TV. Oh man NBC is in a bad way. Anyway Juliana Margulies won the award last year, so don't be surprised if she wins again this year. The work is consistent and the show is just as good. But I would argue that Elisabeth Moss deserves the award more. As her character continues to grow and become the brains of the operation her talent becomes more visible. She is at her best when confronting Don and gives Jon Hamm a terrific partner in some of their scenes together. I would argue that Moss had the better year, I'd probably lose but I'd still be willing to put up the fight.


Outstanding Actor in a Drama
Steve Buscemi, Boardwalk Empire
Kyle Chandler, Friday Night Lights
Michael C. Hall, Dexter
Jon Hamm, Mad Men
Hugh Laurie, House
Timothy Olyphant, Justified

With Breaking Bad not eligible this year because of the late debut that means someone new has to win. Last year all six men had a legitimate claim to the best actor award, this year it is just as difficult to pick whose performance deserve the award. Kyle Chandler should have been nominated earlier than last year as he is great on Friday Night Lights, and since the show is over with this would be a great way to wrap up his tenure. Jon Hamm has been deserving of the award for the past three years but Bryan Cranston has always been a little bit better. With this season of Mad Men being devoted to the question "Who is Don Draper?" it gave him the perfect platform to show off why this show has won best drama the past three years. Steve Buscemi may play the role of Cranston for Hamm this year. Much like Don Draper, Nucky Thompson is one of the main reasons that Boardwalk Empires is so successful. He is perfectly cast in the lead role and can definitely walk away with the trophy, but Hamm has had this coming for too long not to walk away with the statuette tonight. Don Draper for the win.


Outstanding Drama Series
Boardwalk Empire
Dexter
Friday Night Lights
Game of Thrones
The Good Wife
Mad Men

I don't care who wins the award, Game of Thrones was the best show of the year. It took a manuscript that was written in order to be unfilmable and knocked it out of the park. They made bold moves all season, the premiere included a zombies, rape, incest and the killing of a child and by the end not everyone made it out alive, and did things no other show has ever had the cojones to do. But they won't win, the award comes down to a low year for Mad Men and Boardwalk Empires which started strong but tailed off towards the end. But at its worst Mad Men is still a brilliant analysis of a man destined to fail. The writing is always fantastic, the costumes fitting and they know how to make everything look exceptional by this point. Matthew Weiner will win again and this will give Mad Men their fourth straight win in the category.

What do you guys think? Did I get it wrong? Who do you think is gonna win this year. Let me know. And enjoy the show.