REVIEW: One Day

One Day (2011): Dir. Lone Scherfig. Written by David Nicholls, based on his novel. Starring Anne Hathaway, Jim Sturgess, Ken Stott, Patricia Clarkson and Rafe Spall. Rated PG-13 (Some sexuality and skinny dipping, but nothing too explicit). Running time: 108 minutes.

1 ½ stars (out of four)

One Day, a new Will They/Won’t They/Of Course They Will romance directed by Lone Scherfig and starring Anne Hathaway and Jim Sturgess, spans twenty years in the lives of its characters. Adapted by David Nicholls from his novel, the film begins on July 15, 1988, the day on which posh Brits Emma (Hathaway) and Dexter (Sturgess) are formally introduced following their college graduation. They nearly go to bed together but decide instead to just be good friends which makes One Day a sort of No Strings Attached or Friends With Benefits for audiences who prefer watching struggling artists to Ashton Kutcher.

The film checks back in with Emma and Dexter once a year on that same day – July 15 – and we follow their up-and-down, back-and-forth friendship that just might be the seed of a beautiful romance if they can ever get over themselves long enough to realize they are in a movie that demands they fall in love.

Emma is a shy, bookish girl who moves to London to become a poet and complains a year later that the city has “swallowed her up” when she is stuck waiting tables at a kitschy Tex-Mex restaurant. She both envies and resents (with equally strong levels of self-pity) the comparative success of her best friend and would-be lover, now a wealthy TV personality for a schlocky late night program. The film never adequately explains how Dexter gets such a cushy job, though he is quite charming in a sleazy way.

Jim Sturgess is just right for this type of character. His dashing looks (not to mention that accent, ladies!) give him a boy-next-door appeal that should be at odds with the character’s Casanova womanizing but somehow balance one another out in Sturgess’s sly smile. Anne Hathaway, a master of the shy, bookish girl (let’s not mention her accent, though!) is perfectly comfortable and oh-so-cute in her exasperated fits and dignified prudishness. The two are ideal romantic foils according to the opposites-always-attract logic of Movie Land.

Unfortunately, the script forces them to deliver a constant flow of exposition necessary to fill in the gaps between each July 15. Scene after scene the two young actors labor to spit out backstory in way that roughly resembles how people talk to one another. Occasionally, we learn that nothing interesting has happened since the previous year. At least once, a major plot point occurs during the in-between and is only casually alluded to despite its seemingly pivotal significance. Having such a crucial event happen off-screen would surely be the film’s biggest dramatic blunder were it not for the final twenty minutes, a contrived and predictable mess of an ending.

The problem is that One Day has nothing interesting to say about life and love; its observations about relationships are hackneyed and obvious. Time goes on, people change, life happens. And the film is just pretentious enough to believe these points can only be made through its tiresome structure. (It’s the same day – but different!) Last year’s Blue Valentine, an exceedingly better “love through the years” film, has similar things to say but understands how the nuances and complexities of human relationships shape our lives. By comparison, the characters in One Day are stiff, lifeless extensions of the plot.

Of course, Blue Valentine’s bitter take on love lost does not suit One Day’s sentimental aims. This is a hack job melodrama that places no trust in its audience to understand where emotional parts are. Strings doused in syrup accompany nearly every scene, overplaying the manufactured mush of the plot when it should be allowing its leads to actually, you know, fall in love.

As the film’s annual progression churns forward, helpful text pops up onscreen to announce what year we’re in, beginning in 1988 and only skipping a handful of years before arriving at July 15, 2011. (You remember, that long ago time of two months ago.) One Day also has an annoyingly persistent habit of depicting the 1990s and early twenty-first century with trite cultural markers. “I’ll never get a mobile phone,” Emma declares halfway through the film. A half dozen years later we see her with one of those hip Macbooks right around the time Dexter starts working for a trendy organic food company.

The worst of this occurs when, late in the film, Dexter reminds Emma that they once had feelings for each other. “That was in the late 80s!” she says to him, as if people actually perceive their lives in such rigid terms.

This moment is indicative of the film’s larger problems. One Day tries to build a tearjerker around its pseudo-wisdom about romance but misses the point of what a good weepie should be. We do not care whether or not Emma and Dexter get together, a death sentence for this type of movie. Instead of a love story we get two people talking at each other, explaining why they are or are not together. How romantic.

- Steve Avigliano, 8/29/11

REVIEW: 30 Minutes or Less

30 Minutes or Less (2011): Dir. Ruben Fleischer. Written by: Michael Diliberti. Story by: Michael Diliberti and Matthew Sullivan. Starring: Jesse Eisenberg, Danny McBride, Aziz Ansari, Nick Swardson, Michael Peña and Fred Ward. Rated R (Language, violence and nudity). Running time: 83 minutes.

2 stars (out of four)

In 30 Minutes or Less, a new comedy from director Ruben Fleischer, two would-be criminals strap a bomb to a stranger’s chest and force him to rob a bank under the threat of detonation, a premise that places the film in the company of a recent wave of action comedies that have been popular in the last few years.

In films such as Pineapple Express and this one (both of which feature actor Danny McBride) the best jokes stem from watching everyday incompetent shmoes realize that life is not like what they have been led to believe from their countless viewings of Lethal Weapon. This is amusing territory to be sure but when 30 Minutes or Less runs out of clever gags, it leans too heavily on its guns and explosives for laughs, a none-too-subtle way to cover for a lack of good material.

The victim of the aforementioned scheme is Nick (Jesse Eisenberg), a pizza delivery boy whose employer cruelly promises customers a free pizza if their order does not arrive in the titular time frame. Nick has a falling out with his childhood friend Chet (Aziz Ansari) over his interest in Chet’s sister Katie (Dilshad Valsaria), a plot device necessary to push the two apart before the forthcoming bomb situation draws them back together.

The architects of the deadly and poorly thought out plan are Dwayne (Danny McBride) and Travis (Nick Swardson) who want to off Dwayne’s father (Fred Ward), a ex-Marine hardass with a few million dollars in lottery winnings. Once his old man is out of the way, Dwayne can use his inheritance money to fund his dream business venture: a whorehouse that fronts as a tanning salon. First, however, the pair needs a hundred thousand bucks to hire a hit man (Michael Peña) who comes recommended by a stripper (Bianca Kajlich) Dwayne spills his guts to during a lap dance.

Eisenberg, fresh off his Oscar nod for The Social Network (there is a winking reference to Facebook in this film), reteams with his Zombieland director though he isn’t quite right for the role. There is too much of the nastiness from his take on Facebook mogul Mark Zuckerberg here and not enough of the neurosis from his Zombieland character. He is angry and spiteful when he should be bumbling and anxious.

The movie also features performances from a few comedic actors who are on the verge of becoming household names. The best of these is Aziz Ansari, a popular stand-up comic and TV actor who is about one good role away from becoming a star. There is something oddly likable about Ansari’s comedic persona; his hyper energy is fueled by the sort of faux-machismo that comes from watching too many action movies and rap videos (fitting that he should recently appear in a rap video). He poses as a tough guy but the act is quickly broken at the slightest sign of danger and he turns out to be as timid as any of us.

McBride and Swardson are more of a mixed bag. Their talents mainly lie in mining the lowest depths of privileged degenerates, which, I suppose, they are very good at though they are not always fun to watch. This is particularly the case when the script calls on them to deliver some pretty offensive one-liners. (The film is not shy about its sexist dismissal of its female characters and features a handful of racist comments directed towards Indians.) Coming from the mouths of such mean, unlikable characters, these lines are ugly rather than funny.

Entirely too much time is spent on this pair, especially in the opening scenes as the film needlessly depicts the two criminals devising their scheme. The movie might have taken a cue from the action movies it constantly references and launched right into the bomb and bank heist plot. Nick and Chet’s amateur robbery is great fun but gets limited to only a few scenes when it should form the basis of all the film’s jokes.

Ruben Fleischer’s Zombieland was a surprisingly smart and often very funny movie but here he places too much comedic faith in the wrong places. I appreciate the film’s economic running time but when a movie is this short there should be no wasted time, no extraneous scenes. Instead, 30 Minutes or Less squanders its 83 minutes as though as though unaware its main character could explode at any moment.

- Steve Avigliano, 8/14/11

REVIEW: Cowboys & Aliens

Cowboys & Aliens (2011): Dir. Jon Favreau. Written by: Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman, Damon Lindelof, Mark Fergus, and Hawk Ostby. Story by: Mark Fergus, Hawk Ostby, and Steve Oedekerk. Based on the graphic novel Cowboys & Aliens by: Scott Mitchell Rosenberg. Starring: Daniel Craig, Harrison Ford, Olivia Wilde, Sam Rockwell, Paul Dano, Clancy Brown, Keith Carradine and Raoul Trujillo. Rated PG-13 (Western & sci-fi action and violence). Running time: 118 minutes.

2 stars (out of four)

In Cowboys & Aliens, the latest from director Jon Favreau, the cowboys are dusty and the aliens are slimy. Anyone expecting anything else has walked into the wrong theater. The film delivers everything promised in its title (the ampersand stands in for “rescuing citizens who have been abducted by”) in a genre mash-up that, unless you are familiar with the graphic novel on which it is based, is admittedly original.

The premise is ingeniously simple. Why do movie aliens always attack Earth in the present day? Surely their spaceships and weaponry have been advanced for centuries so why not invade our terrestrial world in say, the late 1800s, before the Second Industrial Revolution begins depleting our celestially sought after natural resources?

This playful anachronism allows for some nice moments. When a metallic wristband suddenly starts beeping on Daniel Craig’s wrist, watch Paul Dano’s baffled reaction to the, um, alien sound.

Unfortunately, the majority of Cowboys & Aliens is not as noteworthy as its perfectly silly title. The film opens on a man with no name (Daniel Craig) waking in the middle of the New Mexican desert. He has a name, presumably, but he has forgotten that piece of information as well as how the aforementioned wristband got clamped onto his arm. He stumbles into a nearby town and meets a host of Western archetypes: the hotheaded son (Paul Dano) of a wealthy cattle driver (Harrison Ford), a sheepish bartender (Sam Rockwell), preacher (Clancy Brown), sheriff (Keith Carradine) and a mysterious beauty (Olivia Wilde).

A few of these people recognize Craig’s rugged face from a wanted poster sketch, which lands him in the town jail though he cannot recall his crime. Soon enough, however, bright lights descend from the night sky offering him a chance at redemption (not to mention an opportunity to use that thing on his wrist). The town gets pretty thoroughly blown up and about half its small population snatched up and whisked away by the spaceships. The next day, the cowboys embark on a mission led by Craig and Ford to save their fellow citizens.

The movie is considerably heavier on cowboys than it is aliens, even finding room for an Apache tribe led by their chief, Black Knife (Raoul Trujillo), to help the cowboys. This might lead some to think of the aliens as an allegorical replacement for Native Americans, making the film a sort of “Cowboys and Indian Symbols,” but that would be pushing a lot of unwanted subtext on the film. Cowboys & Aliens is more straightforward than that and I appreciate that the film is modest enough to not try and be anything more than the title suggests.

On the other hand, it’s a shame that with a premise as clever as this, the movie isn’t a little better. Cowboys & Aliens lacks the wit and humor of Jon Favreau’s Iron Man films, which is odd since the subject matter here might have lent itself to self-aware kidding even more. Harrison Ford, a master at cashing in on a paycheck while having some fun too, does his best to make up for the film’s mostly sober tone. You can just barely catch a little glimmer in his eye that shows he knows when he’s saying a bad line and when he’s saying a good and cheesy one. Playing a rough and gruff curmudgeon, he is responsible for the film’s few laughs.

At about two hours, the movie is too long considering it offers only the bare minimum in the way of plot. There are a number of well put together action scenes and the movie doesn’t really do anything wrong but I kept expecting something more. Some extra twist or turn, perhaps. But nothing like that ever comes and the movie is content to trot along with modest ambitions for the entirety of its running time. There are many worse ways to spend two hours but I don’t expect children to be playing “Cowboys and Aliens” anytime soon.

- Steve Avigliano, 7/12/11

REVIEW: Rise of the Planet of the Apes

Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011): Dir. Rupert Wyatt. Written by: Rick Jaffa and Amanda Silver. Starring James Franco, Andy Serkis, Freida Pinto, John Lithgow, Brian Cox, Tom Felton and David Oyelowo. Rated PG-13 (Violent riots carried out by apes). Running time: 105 minutes.

1 ½ stars (out of four)

Many years from now, long after human society has crumbled, when whatever living sentient race is examining the Planet of the Apes films, I hope they do not linger on the six films that followed the 1968 original starring Charlton Heston. And if they do, let them take the four sequels from the early 70s, Tim Burton’s supremely silly remake in 2001 and now Rise of the Planet of the Apes as examples of Hollywood’s relentless desire to repeat any and all past successes if doing so means a chance at more commercial gain.

The original Planet of the Apes is already something of an old relic, a classic that still resonates in spite of the fact that it now feels a little dated. The Twilight Zone-esque story (Twilight Zone creator Rod Serling co-wrote the script) with its now famous twist ending was very much a product of its time and though its allegorical comments on nuclear war and modern society are as true as they have ever been, they do not necessarily translate to contemporary blockbuster success.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes is an attempt to reboot the franchise from a different narrative starting point. Will Rodman (James Franco) is a scientist at a company called GEN-SYS working on a cutting edge drug that could cure Alzheimer’s. His boss, Steven Jacobs (David Oyelowo), is a pharmaceutical mogul excited about the drug’s financial potential but Will’s stakes in the drug are more personal; his father (John Lithgow) suffers from the degenerative disease. Tests in the lab successfully enhance the brainpower of chimps and the drug’s prospects look good until an accident in the lab puts the project on hold.

In the wake of the project’s failure, Will acquires a newborn chimp birthed by one of the test apes. Caesar, as he is symbolically named, has inherited the effects of the drug from his mother and over the next few years Will nurtures the ape’s inborn intelligence, a choice that leads humanity down a dangerous path the scientists from Project Nim only narrowly avoided.

Unlike the 1968 original or the 2001 remake, the human protagonist is not terribly important here. Rise is very much the apes’ story and because of this, the film makes little effort to offer any worthwhile human characters. Franco, who has a smirking charm in other films, gives a bland and sleepy performance. Mostly he exists to restate plot points in case you miss any of those subversive, glaring looks on the expressive faces of the computer-animated apes.

The rest of the film’s Homo sapiens are equally dull. Will’s girlfriend (Freida Pinto) isn’t given a single thing to do, though she is very pretty and occasionally chimes in a cautious word. And much time is wasted on a handful of feeble human antagonists including Tom Felton of Harry Potter fame as an oddly vicious caretaker at a primate facility who bears more than a little resemblance to the actor’s Draco Malfoy role. The venerable Brian Cox also appears as the facility’s owner but he is underused. The real villain is (or rather, should be) Jacobs, the corporate-minded pharmaceutical exec who pushes for hasty and reckless testing of the drug on as many apes as possible.

But Rise of the Planet of the Apes explores the subtleties of scientific ethics with all the grace of one of its 400-pound stars. “I make money and you make history!” Jacobs shouts to Will late in the film, trying to convince him to go through with the risky tests. The film lumbers along with tedious exposition and clunky dialogue for most of its running time until the final stretch when the uprising promised by the title occurs.

The film’s stupidity does provide some giddy entertainment, if perhaps unintentionally. One scene features Caesar engaging an orangutan in a sign language conversation that is – hilariously – subtitled. Once the action gets going, we also learn that the apes have an unusual affinity for leaping through glass, a feat that apparently does them no harm but makes for a dramatic entrance.

One of the film’s biggest flaws is the apes themselves. The CGI (including a motion-capture performance from CGI veteran Andy Serkis as Caesar) is impressive but cannot hide the fact that all the apes are animated creatures. The overuse of CGI takes the life out of the apes despite the filmmakers’ best efforts to do the opposite. I recall the effectiveness of the original’s costumes – silly though they may now seem – or the eerie unreality of Stanley Kubrick’s apes in the “Dawn of Man” sequence from 2001. Heck, even Tim Burton’s version had great costumes. No degree of skillful animation can beat the tactile pleasure of watching an actor in a monkey costume and I mean that with the utmost sincerity.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes wants to revive an outdated franchise but doesn’t have any drive or purpose beyond the commercial obligation to use the rights to the title while the studio still has it. In another ten years we may get another Apes film (be it remake, reboot or regurgitation) and when that happens, will anyone care about this film? Will they even remember it? Or will it be wait to be scrutinized an eon or two from now as a prime example of perfunctory summer entertainment?

- Steve Avigliano, 8/11/11

REVIEW: Captain America: The First Avenger

Captain America: The First Avenger (2011): Dir. Joe Johnston. Written by: Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely. Based on the comics by Joe Simon and Jack Kirby. Starring: Chris Evans, Tommy Lee Jones, Hugo Weaving, Hayley Atwell, Stanley Tucci and Dominic Cooper. Rated PG-13 (Mostly bloodless action). Running time: 124 minutes.

3 stars (out of four)

Captain America: The First Avenger knows exactly what it wants to be and has a lot of fun being it. That it should be several things at once – a winkingly self-aware superhero origin story, a history-free WWII action film and a better Indiana Jones movie than the last Indiana Jones movie – is part of its fun.

Captain America is not among the A-list of heroes every moviegoer is familiar with but unlike recent lower-tier superhero movies – I’m looking at you, Thor and Green Lantern – this shiny, new, multi-million dollar brand investment – that is to say, this movie – actually offers a likable screen character. You know the kind. The ones we are surprised to find ourselves rooting for and actually wouldn’t mind seeing in a sequel or two or four.

Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) is a scrawny kid from Brooklyn desperate to enlist in the armed forces and serve his nation at a time, 1942, when such desires carried a dreamy, youthful idealism, or at least they do in twenty-first century hindsight. In spite of persistent applications, however, the recruitment offices reject Rogers on the grounds of his numerous physical ailments. When asked why he wants to fight, Rogers responds that he doesn’t like bullies. In the present day that answer might sound naive but in the sepia-tinged 1940s of Captain America, its innocence feels genuine. He wants to deploy overseas and defeat the biggest bully of all, Adolf Hitler, not for political reasons but because he knows what it feels like to get pushed around.

We see him get pummeled in a back alley fight where punch after punch he gets back up for another. It’s the getting back up part that attracts the eye of Dr. Abraham Erskine (Stanley Tucci) who believes Rogers is the ideal candidate for a special procedure that will transform an ordinary recruit into a physically enhanced super-soldier. Heading the experiment are Col. Chester Phillips (Tommy Lee Jones), government scientist Howard Stark (Dominic Cooper) and officer Peggy Carter (Hayley Atwell).

The project is in response to looming threats from Johann Schmidt a.k.a. Red Skull (Hugo Weaving). Schmidt is the leader of HYDRA, a Nazi organization that appears to be a subsection of the intelligence team Hitler once asked to search for the Ark of the Covenant in Raiders of the Lost Ark. Schmidt and his team seek an ancient relic that will, naturally, help Schmidt take over the world. Weaving, a veteran of movie villainy, knows just how to play this sort of role. He goes far enough over-the-top that he comes back around to the bottom and is rather convincing delivering silly dialogue.

Captain America works because it acknowledges the campiness of its material then and uses this self-awareness to confidently march into the realm of comic book absurdities. The film knows that in order for its titular character to work in a 2011 Hollywood blockbuster, it must embrace and poke fun of the character’s wide-eyed patriotism. In the movie, Captain America becomes a national celebrity that the military parades around; he signs comic books for kids and performs with can-can dancers at USO shows. Too many recent superhero movies have their leather-clad crusaders saving the world in secrecy, which takes some of the fun out their derring-do and I appreciated that Captain America explored the public image of its hero.

The film’s only major misstep comes in its final two minutes. In the interest of remaining spoiler-free, I will not go into detail other than that the ending is an awkwardly inserted tie-in for next summer’s Avengers movie, which will feature a smorgasbord of Marvel characters including Thor, Iron Man, Hulk and now Captain America. The tie-in is a commercially motivated blunder that intrudes on the story and jams an annoying cliffhanger into the movie to ensure that audiences will buy a ticket to next summer’s big attraction.

But more on that gripe another time. Prior to its final moments, Captain America: The First Avenger is an entertaining standalone adventure and a reminder of how entertaining superhero movies can be when done right. The Marvel Studios marketing machine is already working on a sequel but for the first time in a while, here is a movie that deserves one.

- Steve Avigliano, 7/30/11

REVIEW: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 (2011): Dir. David Yates. Written by: Steve Kloves. Based on the novel by J.K. Rowling. Starring Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Ralph Fiennes and Alan Rickman. Rated PG-13 (Dark curses are cast and lives are lost). Running time: 131 minutes.

3 stars (out of four)

You want an epic finale? You sure as heck get one in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2, the eighth and final film in the franchise. The movie is packed with action, only pausing a handful of times to breathe before the last half hour, which gets metaphysical and sentimental in that order. This is a movie designed for supreme audience satisfaction. Fans will find few alterations from the book to squabble about and all moviegoers – dedicated readers and casual watchers alike – would have difficulty saying in good faith that the film does not offer enough magical bang for your 10+ bucks.

Beginning where Part 1 ended (there is a brief recap if you forgot what happened in the last scene), Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) and friends Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson) continue their search for the remaining horcruxes, pieces of Voldemort’s (Ralph Fiennes) soul trapped in hidden objects that must be destroyed before our heroes can hope to kill the Dark Lord. In the opening scenes, the characters are kind enough to give some explanatory exposition for forgetful viewers but this is not a film that stands on its own to be enjoyed by the uninitiated. It assumes – rightfully so – that its viewers are familiar with the wizarding world of Harry Potter and perhaps have even been to the Wizarding World of Harry Potter theme park in Orlando, Florida.

I will resist commenting that the choice to divide The Deathly Hallows into two films was financially motivated. Though the studio heads were no doubt pleased with the prospect of double the box office, I believe the filmmakers genuinely wanted the additional running time to adapt the novel as best they could. True, the film has time for scenes that might have been cut in a single Deathly Hallows movie (Part 1 in particular benefited from the lack of time constraints) but as a viewer, diving into a movie already half underway does not quite make for a narratively satisfying experience either.

My mind drifts now to Return of the King, the final Lord of the Rings film, which was wholly satisfying in part because of its lengthy running time. Return of the King stands on its own narratively and the final battle functions as the climax of both the individual film and the series on a whole. TDH Part 2, however, is all epic battle, a separate unit from the rest of the series and not really a narrative in its own right.

But to criticize the final Harry Potter film for being non-stop climax seems rather silly and more than a little futile too. There are moments of big-budget grandeur on display here that can only be afforded when you are making the eighth movie of a multi-billion dollar franchise. The sheer size of the film and its relentlessly epic tone are effective; it’s hard not to get caught up in this film.

This is also the most beautifully photographed Harry Potter film and equal credit should be given to director David Yates, cinematographer Eduardo Serra and production designer Stuart Craig for crafting a true spectacle. There are sweeping wide shots of the castle under fire and expressive close-ups of our heroes in battle, assembled together with a virtuoso artistry by editor Mark Day.

Of course, no one doubted the technical proficiency of this film and its visuals, impressive though they are, are not its main attractors. Fans have invested a great deal of time and money on these characters and the filmmakers do not forget the actors in the sea of lavish sets and computer animation. Alan Rickman’s Severus Snape, mostly unseen in the last film, gets more screen time and Rickman gets to show off his eloquent snarl one last time before quietly capturing the character’s poignant conclusion to his series-long arc. As Voldemort, Ralph Fiennes enunciates his words in hushed, sinister tones. He commands the frame whenever he is onscreen.

The story is faithfully told according to J.K. Rowling’s novel, which means the film also adopts a few of the novel’s shortcomings. There are moments of Great Drama that occasionally come off a little clumsy; characters are prone to giving speeches atop rubble about the truths of love and friendship and bravery. I don’t mean to sound cynical; one of the charms of Rowling’s writing has always been its willingness to embrace these sentimental themes with unabashed innocence. The Potter films have subsequently adopted this openness of emotion though the characters’ tearjerking declarations work better on page than they do cinematically.

I do not imagine this film will disappoint many people. It delivers on fans’ expectations for a grand finale. Might it have worked even better as an undivided whole, as a nearly four-hour epic audiences would likely have seen (and paid for only once) without complaint? Maybe, but there are future DVD marathons (or rereads of the books, I suppose) for that. At the moment, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 exists as undeniably grand pop cultural event that concludes the series with no shortage of stylistic wizardry.

- Steve Avigliano, 7/23/11

REVIEW: Project Nim

Project Nim (2011): Directed by James Marsh. Rated PG-13 (Some words are used that you probably shouldn't teach a chimp). Running time: 93 min.

3 ½ stars (out of four)

There is still so little that man knows about the world around him and the multitude of species that inhabitant it, and yet the most perplexing and elusive of those creatures may just be himself. Project Nim, a new documentary from James Marsh, follows a group of scientists’ attempt to teach a chimpanzee sign language in the 1970s but the film is as much about the many eccentric individuals who were attached to the project as it is the chimp.

The founder of the project, Professor Herbert Terrace, sought to explore the linguistic capabilities of primates by raising a newborn chimp named Nim as though he were human. The project would put to test many of the “Nature vs. Nurture” ideas that were on the cutting edge at the time. If Nim were taught American Sign Language from an early age, would he be able to adopt communicative language and grammar the way a human child does?

Nim’s pseudo-mother and first teacher was Stephanie LaFarge, a former hippie who signed onto the project despite her lack of experience raising a chimp. As her daughter, Jenny Lee, explains with a laugh, “It was the 70s.” Stephanie took to heart Prof. Terrace’s request to raise Nim as if he were human and Nim lived and interacted with her family as though he were a part of it. She breast-fed him, exposed him to alcohol and marijuana, and allowed him to play freely in the yard all day with little to no attempt at scientific control. She rejected Prof. Terrace’s unnatural attempts to organize or regiment the chimp’s life.

Believing Nim’s bohemian life with Stephanie was not conducive to the scientific aims of the project, Terrace removed Nim from her house and placed him in the care of the first of many new teachers. Nim’s sign language curriculum was picked up Laura-Ann Pettito, an attractive young grad student whose affair with Terrace, Terrace explains, had no effect on the integrity of the project.

Among Nim’s other caretakers was Bob Ingersoll, an aging Deadhead who recalls fondly his time with Nim as the best of his life. One of the last to join Project Nim, Ingersoll was perhaps the only researcher who truly cared about the animal; his attachment to Nim seems genuine and he fights for ethical treatment of the chimp long after the project is over.

At the center of all of these people is Nim himself who is described by several of the film’s interviewees as a creature of endless charm. These comments are made in spite of Nim’s tendency to bite and even hospitalize nearly everyone on the project. Nim’s constant exposure to people leant him an uncannily humanlike personality but in his heart he remained a wild and dangerous animal.

Director James Marsh’s last film, the Academy Award winning documentary Man on Wire (one of my favorite films of 2008) was about a daredevil who walked along a hire-wire between the World Trade Center towers in 1974. With Project Nim, he again finds a fascinating story about the strange things people will do to leave their mark on the world. He seamlessly integrates dramatizations with archival footage to tell the story of Nim’s life, which nearly ends in a medical testing facility for hepatitis vaccines. Marsh’s shot selection is evocative; each clip is carefully chosen to convey the complex relationships between Nim and his human companions.

The language aspect of Project Nim is said by Terrace himself to have failed and the project’s results remain inconclusive. Was Nim using language or simply memorizing signs? The difference is irrelevant to several of the project’s participants who, to this day, marvel that they were able to successfully communicate with an animal. The science of the project was doomed from the start – Stephanie LaFarge’s insistence on raising the chimp without the intrusion of scientific records ensured as much – and with each new participant, the project’s results were skewed by the biases and emotions of its researchers.

The failings of the project, however, provide a fascinating if unintentional study of humans that James Marsh brings to life in Project Nim. He examines the emotional attachments people formed with Nim and their inevitable heartbreak when they are reminded that he is just a chimpanzee and not a member of that strange species known as humans.

- Steve Avigliano, 7/17/11

REVIEW: Horrible Bosses

Horrible Bosses (2011): Dir. Seth Gordon. Written by: Michael Markowitz, John Francis Daley and Jonathan Goldstein. Story by: Michael Markowitz. Starring Jason Bateman, Charlie Day, Jason Sudeikis, Kevin Spacey, Jennifer Aniston, Colin Farrell and Jamie Foxx. Rated R (Sexual harassment in the workplace and all the cussing and violence that comes with a murder plan). Running time: 98 minutes.

3 stars (out of four)

Horrible Bosses takes a simple premise and has fun with it. Three friends set out to murder the superiors who make their lives miserable but – as movie murder plots often do – their plans go awry. The premise is a familiar but reliable one and Horrible Bosses twists its plot in a number of clever and very funny directions. Part of the film’s fun is in watching the scheme unravel and tangle up again in some rather ingenious ways. The rest of its fun comes from its leads – the murderous employees – whose ensemble effort lends the film an earnest charm.

Nick Hendricks (Jason Bateman) has been paying his dues on the corporate ladder for years and he is only one rung away from the cushy Vice President’s office. His boss, Dave Harkin (Kevin Spacey), has been hinting at a promotion but when the time comes for Harkin to announce the new VP, Nick finds that Harkin had been toying with him. The false promise of the promotion, Harkin explains, was motivation for Nick to work harder.

As a dental assistant for the lascivious Dr. Harris (Jennifer Aniston), Dale Arbus (Charlie Day) has a very different problem with his boss. He is happily engaged to his fiancée (Lindsay Sloane) but Dr. Harris is hell-bent on seducing him before the marriage becomes official. Believing as much in fidelity as he does workplace manners, Dale politely turns down an offer for a romp on top of an unconscious patient.

Then there is Kurt Buckman (Jason Sudeikis), an accountant for a chemical plant during the day and a ladies’ man after the whistle blows. Bobby Pellitt (Colin Farrell), the insufferable son of Kurt’s boss (Donald Sutherland), snorts coke in the bathroom and stomps around the office like a bratty child. Naturally, an unfortunate accident befalls Kurt’s boss, leaving Bobby to run the company and completing the trifecta of horrible.

The three friends do not need to kill their bosses but the alternatives are rather grim. They can’t quit in the current job market but swallowing their dignity another day seems impossible. So they set out to fulfill the fantasies of employees everywhere (themselves included) by killing their bosses.

Horrible Bosses has a wonderful self-awareness to it and features an abundance of references to other movies. Even the way the guys approach their scheme is informed by the countless movies they have seen. When they schedule a meeting with a hit man, Kurt answers the door in a deep, gruff voice because, well, isn’t that how people answer the door when they’re expecting a contract killer? Many of the jokes in the film are subtle and I particularly enjoyed a brief shot where we see Nick comparing the backs of two different brands of rat poison. I imagine that if I ever found myself in a similar situation, I too would be a smart consumer about that purchase.

Much of the film’s subtleties come from the performances of Bateman, Day and Sudeikis. Bateman has become something of Hollywood’s most dependable straight man recently and he and Sudeikis play off each other nicely in a pair of low-key roles. Charlie Day is the wild card in the bunch and the character of Dale bears more than a slight resemblance to Day’s hyper and anxious role on TV’s It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia. He transitions fine to the big screen, however, and his comic persona proves to be surprisingly flexible. (He is just as convincing playing a loving fiancé as he is an unbalanced bartender on It’s Always Sunny.)

Each of the bosses is well acted as well but the understated performances of Bateman, Day and Sudeikis often upstage their more over-the-top counterparts. A coke addict running an office is as funny on paper as it is onscreen (that is to say, pretty funny) and Colin Farrell doesn’t need to do much to sell those jokes. The three friends, however, have the considerably more difficult task of making normal guys seem funny and here the movie taps into a fundamental comic truth.

Absurd situations like many of the ones in Horrible Bosses have a degree of inherent humor to them but an ordinary and believable response to their absurdity is even funnier and actually strengthens the comedy of the original situation. When Jennifer Aniston molests a patient under the gas, the scene is funny not because of its crudeness but because of Charlie Day’s flustered and sputtering response that maybe this isn’t the most appropriate way to act in the workplace.

Too many cinematic comedies today try and outdo their peers by seeking new lows in the gross and profane, as if a joke is only funny if it is more disgusting than the last joke you heard. Horrible Bosses has an appreciation for the crude and vulgar but at its core understands that the best comedies are situational comedies involving real people who act in surprising (and surprisingly honest) ways and that attitude is a refreshing one.

- Steve Avigliano,  7/11/11

REVIEW: Transformers: Dark of the Moon

Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011): Dir. Michael Bay. Written by: Ehren Kruger. Starring: Shia LaBeouf, Josh Duhamel, John Turturro, Tyrese Gibson, Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, Patrick Dempsey, John Malkovich and Frances McDormand. Rated PG-13 (Robots smash each other up real good and some humans get vaporized). Running time: 157 minutes.

1 ½ stars (out of four)

Transformers: Dark of the Moon is a colossal mess of a movie. As the third in the series, this much should come as no surprise. Each Transformers movie seeks to be the Biggest and Loudest Thing you have ever seen. This is their primary goal; narrative cohesion is secondary if it factors in at all. The second Transformers feature, Revenge of the Fallen, may still have the honor of being the Biggest and Loudest Thing, though Dark of the Moon sure does make a convincing case for the title.

Dark of the Moon is hardly the incomprehensible behemoth Revenge of the Fallen was but the plot still defies summarization. There are good robots called Autobots who work with the U.S. government on covert missions and there are bad robots called Decepticons. You can usually tell them apart because the Autobots are colorful and the Decepticons are steely gray and black, but there are times when even these simple distinguishing characteristics fail the vigilant viewer.

The two robo-factions were once at war for their mechanized home world of Cybertron and for a third time, they have brought their battle to Earth. The Decepticons’ plan gets awfully complicated and I respect anyone who can successfully navigate the many intricacies of this convoluted plot which essentially boils down to this: the Decepticons want to take over the world and the Autobots want to save humanity if possible. Although the same has happened twice before, I am again astonished by how thoroughly director Michael Bay and Dark of the Moon’s screenwriter Ehren Kruger can obscure such a simple premise.

As baffling as this nearly $200 million train wreck gets, one has to sit back and appreciate the hugeness of it. No one can spend a budget that big quite like Michael Bay does. There are scenes when Decepticons flip cars and smash the sidewalk with the purposelessness of drunken teenagers who will break anything and everything in sight just for the fun of it. The action is so pervasive, so gratuitous, what else can one do but succumb to the film’s hedonistic love of destruction?

But the Transformers movies just don’t know when to end. Like each of its predecessors, Dark of the Moon overstays its welcome with a running time of 157 minutes that will test the patience of even the most devout fans of Michael Bay’s brand of sensory bombardment. I enjoyed the movie’s defiant recklessness to a point, but the last leg of the movie drags on so long that it numbs us to the action. Like a prolonged finale in a summer fireworks display there comes a point when enough is enough and we check our watches, wondering how much longer it could possibly go on for.

There are humans in Dark of the Moon too; did I forget to mention them? Shia LaBeouf continues to carry the burden of playing the franchise’s only interesting character, the young protagonist Sam Witwicky. LeBeouf is comfortable in this sort of mammoth-sized entertainment and he is oddly convincing when he shouts out, “OPTIMUS!” from a skyscraper rooftop. Also returning are the one-dimensional super soldiers played by Josh Duhamel and Tyrese Gibson, as well as John Turturro’s batty Agent Seymour Simmons. Apparently these guys are contractually obligated to show their faces whenever the Decepticons do.

Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, a Victoria’s Secret model, steps in for Megan Fox as Carly, the babe LaBeouf gets to alternately save and smooch. Her ability to look as calm and seductive as a Vogue cover model in the midst of Earth’s darkest hour is more impressive than any of Optimus Prime’s powers.

Making surprise appearances are John Malkovich as Witwicky’s eccentric new boss and Frances McDormand as the calculating, all-business National Intelligence Director. The largest contribution from this pair of Oscar-caliber actors, however, is their unexpected presence and once the initial shock of their being in the film wears off, they disappear into the sea of ultimately useless side characters. Patrick Dempsey plays Carly's deviously good-looking boss and talented comedic actors, Ken Jeong and Alan Tudyk, show up too but their comic relief mostly fails to do anything but add worthless scenes to an already long movie.

The first Transformers movie was fun because it never took itself too seriously. By comparison, Revenge of the Fallen was unbearably solemn even in its most absurd moments. Dark of the Moon has the opposite problem. If anything, the film doesn’t take itself seriously enough. Characters are prone to wild fits of screaming and flailing that are intended to be funny but just take the wind out of a scene. And while a part of me respects the audacity of including impersonations of no less than three Presidents (Kennedy, Nixon and Obama) plus a cameo from the real-life Buzz Aldrin, the gimmicks don’t add up to anything. The movie is a barrage of explosions occasionally interrupted by strange, fleeting gags.

Will you enjoy this film? That is hard to say. If you were entertained by either of the previous movies, this one should be equally satisfying. It is big, loud, dumb and utterly absurd, a formula that worked best the first time around. (For what it’s worth though, Dark of the Moon is not as ungodly terrible as the second film.)

The Transformers franchise continues to epitomize the twenty-first century blockbuster and in a weird way, I have to respect the films’ unflagging commitment to all things Big and Loud. Whether or not the movies are any good is beside the point. Transformers: Dark of the Moon is indeed the Biggest and Loudest Thing you’ll find in theatres this summer. Depending on your personal taste, let that statement serve as a recommendation or a warning.

- Steve Avigliano, 7/1/11

REVIEW: Green Lantern

Green Lantern (2011): Dir. Martin Campbell. Screenplay by: Greg Berlanti, Michael Green, Marc Guggenheim and Michael Goldenberg. Story by: Greg Berlanti, Michael Green and Marc Guggenheim. Based on the comics by: John Broome and Gil Kane. Starring: Ryan Reynolds, Blake Lively, Peter Sarsgaard and Mark Strong. Rated PG-13 (intense sequences of sci-fi violence and action). Running time: 114 minutes.

1 star (out of four)

Hal Jordan (Ryan Reynolds) has the power to create anything he wants to fight his enemies with. Let that sink in for a moment. Anything. When called upon to use this power, he creates a chainsaw, a machine gun, a really big fist. If you were given the ability to create anything at all out of nothing, wouldn’t you feel obligated to be a little more creative than that?

Green Lantern is an uninspired bore; its script seems to have been written by someone who saw Spider-Man once and was asked to copy the structure of its superhero origin story from memory. Hal Jordan, a cocky Air Force pilot, is the unlikely recipient of a green ring that bears with it great responsibility. Jordan has been chosen by the ring’s magical powers to become a Green Lantern – a Guardian of the Universe – and we all know that you can’t argue with a magic ring’s decision.

In many recent superhero movies, there has been a touch of much-needed self-awareness. Audiences cannot be expected to sit through film after film of increasingly silly heroes without those films acknowledging that maybe these stories are a little silly. There are moments when Green Lantern tries this but more often these scenes come across as lazy writing. When Jordan is given the ring by an alien who crash-lands on Earth, he immediately calls his friend to the crash site and the following exchange occurs:

“Is that a spaceship?”

“Yeah.”

“Is it real?”

“Yeah.”

There is no sense of wonder or excitement in Green Lantern, just the obligatory motions of a story that is being told… Why? To ensure that the ever-profitable mines of superhero lore have been thoroughly exhausted?

After receiving the ring, Jordan travels to the planet Oa where he meets the thousands of other Lanterns whose appearances range from fishy humanoids to burly trolls. Their leader, Sinestro (Mark Strong) looks almost completely human except that he has reddish purple skin, pointy ears and even pointier eyebrows. The Lanterns are currently plagued by the evil Parallax, a former Guardian of the Universe turned giant cloudy beast. He seeks to destroy Oa using the yellow power of Fear (as opposed to the green power of Will) but for reasons I have forgotten, must first devour Earth. This is where Jordan comes in.

There is another villain back on Earth named Dr. Hector Hammond (Peter Sarsgaard wearing a spectacular receding hairline and moustache), a science professor who is given the opportunity to study the body of the alien who crashed on Earth. Unbeknownst to him (but knownst to us), he is exposed to a trace of Parallax’s yellow DNA and its evil powers soon overcome him.

Dr. Hammond is a sorry excuse for a villain. The DNA of Parallax allows him unspeakable powers but he wastes them in a pathetic fit of jealousy over Jordan’s love interest, the improbably beautiful Air Force pilot Carol Ferris (Blake Lively). Dr. Hammond is so absorbed by his crush on Ferris that he is oblivious to Parallax’s plan for world devouring. Neither he nor Jordan have much of an understanding of what is going on and neither can think of anything better to do with their cool, new powers but use them against one another in a handful of dull, insipid fight scenes.

With the exception of the ghastly Parallax, the special effects in Green Lantern have a cartoonish silliness that might have been better suited to a children’s film. Come to think of it, Green Lantern on a whole might have been better off as a kids’ movie. The story’s simplicity might have been charming in a low-stakes PG outing but when blown-up to blockbuster proportions, one can only think about how little one cares about any of the characters onscreen.

I cannot say whether Green Lantern stays true to its comic book origins or not. I have had virtually no contact with the character or the world he is a part of prior to this movie. I do know, however, that the filmmakers behind Green Lantern could have made anything. Anything at all. And this is what they chose.

- Steven Avigliano, 6/29/11