Anything but a Drag (or: Another pukey punny blog title)

When you're a film sharpshooter like me -- that is to say, you avoid seeing movies that look especially crappy, and you're not even sure the "merely OK" types (e.g. State of Play) are worth your time/money -- quite often you'll come away disappointed, since you're aiming high almost all the time.

Now, you take that and combine it with a documented love of horror (and the insistence that horror isn't especially tough to pull off), and it's easy to leave the theater underwhelmed instead of chilled by the latest offering, be it a slasher flick or a supernatural thriller.

(And when the film in question runs up a 94% score on Rotten Tomatoes ... well, that's just recipe for a Michael Bay-like explosion in one's face.)

Which, in an incredibly long-winded way, brings us to Drag Me To Hell ...

(The Hollywood News with the pic)

... which, simply put, was exceptional. Not in a There Will Be Blood, preserve-this-film-after-the-ice-caps-melt kind of way. It's more of a best-movie-I've-seen-this-year situation.

First: Drag -- Sam Raimi's story of an insecure-yet-ambitious bank employee (Alison Lohman) who, through certain fault of her own, becomes cursed by an old gypsy woman (Lorna Raver) -- is not horror in the typical sense. It makes you jump, close your eyes and/or wince in disgust, but always winks at you.

Well, not always. Part of its brilliance is how it begins; basically, it tries to fool you into thinking it's a straightforward horror story -- with its flashback opening, then some early scenes of absurdly phony dialogue (the Lohman character is even listening to diction tapes on the way to work!).

But it's all just a setup for another of Raimi's bizarro trips, which starts in a parking garage and ends -- well, I won't tell you where it ends. I'll just say this: As the curse becomes more and more outrageous, the scares more creative and the solutions increasingly strange, the film asserts itself as something of a less-gory, bigger-budget version of Raimi's classic Evil Dead 2.

No, there's no amorous tree here ... but there is an (understandably) angry black cat, an adventurous housefly and a whole lot more fun.

Feeling conned by The Brothers Bloom

After mentioning it once or twice -- not to mention loving writer-director Rian Johnson's debut, Brick -- The Brothers Bloom was a must-watch, despite its lukewarm critical reception.

(Pic found at HitFix)

Sadly, the critics were right. What starts out as a fun, breezy and occasionally poignant story -- two grifter brothers (Mark Ruffalo and Adrien Brody) and their near-silent accomplice (Rinko Kikuchi) who attempt a multi-continent con on an eccentric heiress (Rachel Weisz) -- gradually takes on larger themes as the con gets bigger and the film gets longer. In the end, it goes pretty much where you think it'll go, it takes too long to get there, and the message is delivered with a heavy hand.

One additional complaint on con movies: The plots tend to be too big or too intricate or too both. There's nothing wrong with a simple ruse -- fewer holes can be punched, making for a film that doesn't leave you going, "Hey, wait a second ..."

One compliment on Brothers (aside from the performances, which are -- unsurprisingly -- quite good): Johnson knows how to create him some images. Lets hope he gets his hand on a script* that lets him show his knack for aesthetics within the confines of an equally great story.

*Looks like that could be Looper. Let's hope so.

Up to no great (or: Pixar is overrated)

I, like about $68.2 million worth of my peers, saw Up this weekend -- and no, that doesn't mean I aimed my eyes at the sky.

Funny thing is, although the film is set partially in a house that -- powered by balloons -- flies to South America, neither did Up. Instead, Up did what most Pixar movies do: It shot lower and hit its mark.

(Firstshowing.net with the pic)

That's not to say the film isn't good. It is. But "good" is they key word here, because what it does well -- it's about as emotionally grabbing as any film I've seen, and really leaves you wanting to hug somebody -- is offset partially by the same thing that hindered Wall-E and some of the other offerings from the unthinkable-to-question* animation studio: After unfurling another of its creative setups (this one involving a lonely widower fulfilling an unusual promise to his late wife), it devolves into formula (this one an "edge-of-your-seat" action finale that left me nowhere near falling off the theater's upholstery).

*Although, it must be noted, I did not like Ratatouille one bit.

Up's downturn isn't nearly as maddening as Wall-E's, since the former never reached the heights of the latter before treading familiar territory (although it did have me near tears earlier than any film I've seen, even my favorite little robot story). Still, it's a disheartening continuation down the "safe" path for the studio. It's like Spielberg's in charge there or something. Even the most original of concepts turn into unoriginal narratives by movie's end. It's as if they're pulling in adults, then pandering to the kiddies.

Although those box office numbers -- and the critical reception -- suggest everyone's pretty much OK with it. So I suppose it's hard to second-guess a studio that kills every time it releases something.

Still, just once, I'd love for that great creative team to go unchecked, offering something as weird and wild and wonderful as, say, The Triplets of Belleville -- in other words, a story that wows just as much as the technique does.

Star Trek quickie review

The Film Official emerges from the shadows to tackle a rare in-theaters movie. Thoughts on Star Trek ...

(Pic from ISN News)

... It's dece.

Sugar

"The BEST film OF THE YEAR!"
--Me

On a recent trip to SoFla, I had the chance to catch Sugar at one of those cheap arty theaters -- the ones which, in a perfect world, would be prolific and flush with people*. This one, well, wasn't. Which is too bad, because it was well worth the $5 to see this muted film about a Dominican baseball player (Algenis Perez Soto) trying to hack it as a minor-league prospect.

*Strangely, despite a decent amount of theaters that actually show real films sometimes, the whole Palm Beach/Broward/Dade area only had one theater showing Sugar. Strange.


(Hollywood.com with the pic)

Two things about Sugar -- 1) In a (very) small sample, it really is the best film I've seen in 2009 ... but here's hoping it gets passed. A lot. Because 2) It's little more than a nice movie, a well-made, realistic depiction of a story that, honestly, isn't earth-shatteringly compelling.

It follows the emotional journey, not so much the baseball one (although the two certainly are interlocked), of Miguel "Azucar" (Sugar) Santos, born into Dominican squalor but also born with an electric* right arm. He spends time at a local baseball academy, heads to Phoenix for spring training, then earns a spot in his club's (the fictional Kansas City Knights) system, on a Single-A team in ... rural Iowa. Obviously, a culture clash ensues -- Azucar barely speaks English -- although the clash is not of the cliched variety. Same thing when an injury temporarily sidelines our hero -- it's not as if his career is over, as would be the case in a formula-driven piece.

*Not literally. Now THAT would be -- wait, I'm gonna stop here before we really do get another one of those stupid comic book/superhero movies: The Electric Arm -- "Shockingly good!"

Really, this film sidesteps most cliches (although it does feature a cameo from everyone's favorite baseball bit player, the Performance Enhancing Drug). It's made very quietly, not bludgeoning us with backstory or unnecessary expository dialogue. Kudos to filmmakers Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck for being hugely realistic here.

And yet ...

That realism almost gets Sugar in trouble. Because as the story unfolds (I could explain, but that would be spoiler-tastic), some of the events become decreasingly interesting. Non-fantasies/fairy tales/comedies should be realistic, but some things can be omitted. Sugar just doesn't seem to leave out much as it goes for the true-to-life thing. Which makes it drag a bit, dampening the end result.

Would I rather have this than some piece of formula fluff? Especially from a movie about sports? Absolutely. Still, for a film to reach true greatness, there must be more. Sugar the movie is a little -- not totally, but somewhat -- like sugar the substance: Empty.

Almost there: Observe and Report

Ronnie: Dammit. We were *so* close.

Det. Harrison: Oh, if only ...

Yes, if only. If only Observe and Report had gone all the way*, rather than trying to mix a brilliantly uncomfortable story of a delusional, bipolar mall cop (Seth Rogen) with scenes that seemed to exist merely to be outrageous/funny and appeal to the the Rogen/Judd Apatow crowd (Danny McBride as a drug dealer? Again?).

*And I'm not talking about this part.

Because O&R really was onto something here. Sure, some of those ridiculous moments are quite funny, but -- as has been mentioned elsewhere -- the film has a less-moody Taxi Driver feel to it, but doesn't completely follow through on it. It didn't have Scorsese/De Niro potential, but it certainly could have existed in a nearby zip code.

Rogen and writer/director Jody Hill portray cop Ronnie Barnhardt's manic-depressive state so subtly (and smartly), it's almost an aside. Really, Ronnie's what happened to that high school outcast who didn't fit into any of those "nerdy" or "artsy" categories. He doesn't think he's a loser. Far from it. So what we have here is a character on the edge, a dreamer without a distinct goal, just someone looking for ... something, whatever it is, that confirms he's as great as he believes.

Which is a scary and intriguing setup, something that could have kept its share of comedic moments while existing in even darker territory, rather than jolting awkwardly between hilarious and frightening.

Which is why O&R falls into the category of "good, not great."

If only ...

BONUS POINTS ...
... for Rogen's performance, which had better earn him consideration for the Golden Globes Best Actor/Musical or Comedy category*.

*And while we're at it, why are musicals still a part of this category? How is playing Cole Porter even remotely similar to playing Dewey Cox? Let's change this before Daniel Day-Lewis becomes the next musical star to steal a Globe nod from a deserving comic actor.

... for filming in a near-vacant mall in Albuquerque, N.M.

... for "born-again virgin."

... for a cathartic moment involving stand-up "comic" Patton Oswalt.

I Rush You, Man

Modern-day warriors ...


First, a quickie review: I Love You, Man was lots of fun, absolutely nailing the awkward nature of what has been dubbed "bromance."

It isn't perfect, but from the Paul Rudd character's endless string of would-be cool phrases that come out as gibberish, to the fact that the inevitable "love triangle" -- between Peter (Rudd), fiancee Zooey (Rashida Jones) and new best friend Sydney (Jason Segal) -- never devolves into some bitter melodramatic war, this is an enjoyable flick with a solid message that doesn't get too preachy, unlike some others in the genre*.

*CoughWeddingCrasherscough.

Now for the coolest part: Music references! Mostly, just one -- Rush.

For those (like Zooey in the film) who don't know, Rush is something of a cult band -- only theirs is a huge cult. The Canadian rockers have been around since the 1960s and still are rolling (unlike some other bands that are still trying to kick it*). Everywhere they go they draw huge crowds. A few of their songs are locked into classic-rock station rotations.

*CoughAC/DCcough.

Still, they're not like The Stones or The Who or Led Zeppelin in terms of widespread popularity, despite having, IMO, three of the best ... musicians ... period* ... manning their respective positions.

*This guy, especially.

But instead of lamenting their lack of mainstream recognition, let's celebrate their sizable place in I Love You, Man, with only one complaint: Could they not have chosen at least one non-radio song for the soundtrack? YYZ, maybe? Or an extended drum solo for Peart? I mean, Peart got a (NSFW) solo here, after all ...

Watchmen

Watchmen is easily the best film I've seen all year.



Yeah, so it's the first 2009 movie I've seen. So what?

Actually, so this: Watchmen might be the No. 1 out of 1, but it ain't all that good*.

*First a disclaimer: I have not read the graphic novel. Therefore, although my complaints might also pertain to the source material, that's not the point. The point is, this is a movie. If I wanted something faithful to the book, I would read the book.

We'll call it The Dark Knight, Part 2: It involves superheroes. It looks great, it sounds great, some characters are great and some lines they utter are, well, great.

But then there's the fact that it's looooooong. No, not long. Long is fine (see: Rings, Lord of the). So let's say "bulky." Needed a cut.

Of course, that probably would have angered book fanboys and fangirls, so I understand why it didn't get one. But that doesn't make it OK. Do we really need every character's back story? Two (or was it three? four?) romance plots, none of which is very interesting? The identity of a certain character's certain parent? Yawn.

And then there's the endless moralizing, which seems to be in vogue in superhero movies these days. Like The Dark Knight before it, characters spew platitudes that will probably end up on Facebook profiles or something. And yes, I know most of these characters were human, so that gives them a little more of an excuse to ... well, to be human. But there's just something odd about hearing dull philosophy from folks who otherwise specialize in kicking ass and taking names (and, in this case, placing those names on court dockets). Give me Tony Stark's unapologetic megalomania over the internal conflicts of Strong and Pretty People any day, thanks.

All of this brings me to another parallel to TDK, and this one on the positive tip -- it really does have one strong redeeming character. In the Batman movie it was Joker, who was unpredictable and manic and hilariously so. In Watchmen it's our quasi-narrator, Rorschach, a cynical little tough guy who wears a mask and speaks in gravelly, Christian Bale Batman/Walt Kowalski tones and who often omits the articles from his sentences so they spew faster. It sounds like noir narration -- the best narration of all, IMO. And really, the climax is something out of noir, too.

So why all the heft around it? Rorschach (played by Jackie Earle Haley, who couldn't be farther from Kelly Leak unless he were playing a sex offender) and his unraveling the mystery of who killed The Comedian -- that works. The rest -- all the other characters and their internal (and, sort of, external) conflicts -- leave it. In the end, it's all empty words, except for the ones Rorschach speaks. Gimme a 90-minute movie about him, and you've got yourself a hit in my eyes*.

*And yes, a legion of angry book zealots. But hey -- if they don't like it, they can go read.

OUTTAKES
-Awesome opening credits. Who else thinks there should be an Oscars category for Best Title Sequence?

-As an actress, Malin Akerman is ... well, she's hot. Although she showed chops when explaining her love of Freakshow.

-Another complaint: The soundtrack. Just add Kanye and The Fray and you could upload it straight to a college kid's iPod. The Sounds of Silence? Hendrix's All Along the Watchtower? Good songs. Didn't fit. FAIL.

-End on a positive note: Always great to see Mickey from Seinfeld get work, and good work at that.