Underworld (2003)

For centuries, a war has raged between vampires and lycans. In the modern day, the lycans are all but extinct thanks in part to vampire warrior Selene (Kate Beckinsale). When she discovers the lycan are hunting a human, she will stop at nothing to find the truth—even if it means waking Viktor (Bill Nighy).

Let me digress for a moment—Bill Nighy is awesome! The guy doesn’t make a bad movie. Romantic comedies, blockbusters, period films, dramas… Supporting or lead role, Nighy owns each and always executes brilliantly.

Underworld, in essence, is a retelling of the Montagues and the Capulets. With gothic tendencies, it’s a highly-stylized film with little bite. Still, it’s fun entertainment.

Director Les Wiseman sets the stage with a narrative from Selene. Without that, we’d have more of a mindless romp. Casting is an interesting mix. Again, Bill Nighy as Viktor—Lord of the coven—is amazing!! Kate Beckinsale looks amazing, but is otherwise wooden despite attempts at affection. Scott Speedman, the human object of her affection is horribly reminiscent of Scott Sapp and is a complete turnoff.

The production is dark, rainy, and doesn’t follow its own rules. Breaking with horror conventions, Underworld doesn’t effectively build suspense. Instead, it builds action sequences and disjoined dramatic moments. But it’s fun.

The special effects are well done. The change from human to lycan is often shrouded, the transition is believable. Viktor’s resurrection was seamless. The cascades of silver and ultra-violet bullets aren’t nearly as cool as what you’ll find in The Matrix. Take heart, viewer. The leather-clan Beckinsale matches Trinity corset for corset.

So what is Underworld? It’s a violent, sexy, and uneven story that ultimately adds nothing to either genre.  The idea is good; the legend behind it even better; the execution just isn't there.  To fully enjoy Underworld, you must have no expectations.  Enjoy it for what it is; not for what it could have been.

Food, Inc. (2009)

“You are buying the idea of a tomato.” With that Food, Inc. sets out to explore the food industry’s effects on our health and our world. Through a series of interviews and investigations director Robert Kenner removes the veil behind the politics of food and just why a McDonald’s hamburger is cheaper than the head of lettuce.

One must be vigilant with films of this nature. Often these documentaries tend to be of a sensational nature. But in Food, Inc. you will find nothing but the awful truth. Ignorance may be bliss in this instance.  Don't watch if you don't want to know. Kenner is remarkably honest and more than willing to share both sides. Only trouble is Monsanto, Smithfield, and Tyson don’t want to talk.

Amid interviews with authors Eric Schlosser and Michael Pollan, we meet Tyson chicken farmers and Monsanto soybean growers who, in essence, are being bullied into producing a product cheaper and faster, but not (and often less) healthy. Making matters worse is the conflict on interest found on Capitol Hill.  Case in point: Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was once an attorney for Monsanto. As a judge, he signed into effect laws which now threaten to crush local Midwestern farmers. Century farmers are being extorted and often shut down thanks to Monsanto’s genetically modified seed patents. Tyson, Perdue, Smithfield, IBP… they are all given the opportunity to refute the facts presented here, but remain silent.

Thankfully, Kenner doesn’t leave the audience in fear of the impending food apocalypse. Stoneyfield Farms and its blossoming relationship with Wal-Mart is an interesting chain of events. Wal-Mart—the Mecca of Consumerism—is listening to its customers demands. But the wisdom dispensing Joel Salatin of Polyface Farms brings a real charm to the film.

The film has many horrifying moments—the tomato just being one of them. With the holidays upon us, this viewer will be hard pressed to look at that ham without recalling the trucked in illegal immigrants (farmers that NAFTA put out of business) that now process that Smithfield ham and who might have lost his thumb during an endless work week. When he does finally get to his ‘home’, the ICE agents are there to meet him.

Food, Inc. is a provocative, disgusting expose that doesn’t preach. Rather it offers only the truth and a simple solution for affecting change. American’s corporate agribusinesses are threatening our lives and while Food, Inc. may not be a life-changing catalyst, it will nonetheless raise consumer awareness. And that is never a bad thing.

A Christmas Carol (2009)

Robert Zemeckis was going to lose this battle the moment I set foot in the theatre. Nothing compares to the classic 1951 version starring Alistair Sims. But in Zemeckis’ defense (not that he needs any); his animated adaptation of the iconic tale is a delightful reimaging.

Admirably faithful to Dickens’s tale, A Christmas Carol takes few artist liberties. The ones that Zemeckis bravely executes add a modern charm that is commendable. The 3-D effects (now, for the record, this is the first film that I’ve viewed since the 3D epidemic took hold in Hollywood) are arresting and beautifully rendered.

Star of the show—Jim Carrey, surprisingly enough, is lost in the film. Though we see glimmers of the spastic star, the motion-capture is top-notch and his ugly face doesn’t come through. Scrooge's expressions are more lifelike with subtle changes. Colin Firth as Scrooge’s nephew is a sweet surprise. Bob Cratchit (voiced by Gary Oldman) is a bulbous, nearly lifeless fellow--a true disappointment.

The Ghosts of Past, Present, and Future rendered are faithful, if sometimes oddly frightening. A few particularly dark scenes mar an otherwise family-friendly fare. They are truly terrifying and out of character, but I am a classicist. Modern film-goers will find no issues with the aforementioned.

The scoring is complimentary. Andrea Bocelli sings a beautiful piece over the nondescript closing credits. What a waste!

Here’s the part where I leave, once again, my readers with a quizzical expression. Visually, Zemekis’ A Christmas Carol is arresting, but often times, I feel the ‘flying over and through London’ is pure filler, detracting from essential elements. At one point, I felt nauseous. Additionally, I take to task the overly diabolical element of our specters. This film does not have the charm of previous renditions, nor do I think it captures the true spirit of the novel.

This version is all style with no substance. But criticisms aside, most movie-goers will find A Christmas Carol a decent if unsatisfying film.

Sleepless in Seattle (1993)

In Seattle, a young boy conspires to find happiness for his widower father, Sam (Tom Hanks) by calling into a radio show. On the other side of the radio (and country) is Annie Reed (Meg Ryan) who falls in love with Sam and his son Jonah. A letter from Annie convinces Jonah that she’s the one for his dad. But convincing his Sam is harder than he expects.

Nora Ephron’s romantic comedy is a sweet tale of fate, but it contains little substance and what a shame that is. Still Sleepless in Seattle gets something right. The chemistry between Hanks and Ryan is genuine but we never see much of it. Both of them have delightful comedic timing; they are a joy to watch—as is the entire supporting cast with such names as Victor Garbor, Bill Pullman, David Hyde Pierce, Rosie O’Donnell, and Rita Wilson. It’s a nice balance.

The integration of An Affair to Remember is smartly done, but under Ephron’s direction Sleepless in Seattle is uniquely its own. The biggest caveat for me is our unlucky couple don’t have nearly enough ‘almost meetings’. The focus seems to be on Jonah’s hope for his dad. It’s perfectly precious without the cloying nonsense.

As I see it, Sleepless in Seattle is an adorable movie that relishes in happy endings for all. Less is more and this film proves it.

Will Ferrell: You're Welcome America: A Final Night with George W. Bush (2009)

Will Ferrell's humor isn't for anyone, but his quick wit and quirky manners kill me.  Here, Ferrell brings the Dubyah impersonation he honed on SNL to Broadway with this one-man show.  Eight years in office gave Ferrell plenty of material, but this two hour DVD is laborous at best.  Ferrell has moments of funny, but there are more moments of stupidity than anything.  As a HUGE Ferrell fan, I was disappointed, not by the nearly mean-spirited skewering, but by the trawling.  Can't imagine anyone enjoying this. 

Sorry Will.  It needed more cowbell!

Year One (2009)

I have a question. Who thinks this is funny?! Endless sex and fart jokes do NOT make a movie. Who green lights a screenplay like this?! The same people who like Paul Blart, if you ask me.

Zed (Jack Black) and Oh (former It-boy Michael Cera) are two idiot cavemen that have an adventure laden journey through the ancient world after being kick out of their tribe for stupidity. Unlike Bill and Ted, Oh and Zed are lame. Strangely, it doesn’t seem to matter that Olive Platt, Hank Azaria, Zander Berkley, Horatio Sans, and Olivia Wilde pop up.

Year One is just not funny.

Postscript 11.07.09 ~ Herein lies the film's demise.  It's too long.  Watch the theatrical version and Year One is wee bit more palatable.

Rope (1948)

Two friends Brandon and Phillip (John Dall and Farley Granger) have killed their 'inferior' friend David and now plan to relish it by having a dinner party with David right under nose of his fiancé, parents, and their former professor, Rupert Cadell (James Stewart). Have the two committed the perfect murder? Only the night will tell. Odd clues lead Rupert to question the entire evening; he wonders if his former students have taken his academic theories a little too far.
Alfred Hitchcock's Rope is a Technicolor masterpiece. Though it’s never quite as suspenseful as Hitchcock’s other, Rope is masterful for what it accomplishes nonetheless. Set in one room, the camera never seems cut off. Each frame feels like one continuous motion. That alone is amazing. As the gentlemen scheme, we get a sense of the diabolical. True to form, Hitchcock doesn’t spell it, trusting his audience to connect the dots.

The friendship is fascinating in itself. Brandon, the dominant one, oozes evil and obnoxious. Phillip, the submissive, is a mere boy. David is strangled with a rope and placed in a chest. The friends then set candelabras, plates, and food on the grandiose chest. Janet—his fiancé, his father, the cynical Professor, all invited under a ruse, dines in the presence of this chest.

As the evening continues, Brandon parades about. Every second brings more confidence to his step in Nietzsche-esque repose. Phillip quickly begins to crumble. Agitated, sweaty, stumbled words—combined with his unusual outburst, it’s enough for Cadell to ask questions.

It’s not until the dinner guests leaves, that Rope amps up. Returning to the apartment under the guise of forgetting his cigarette case, Cadell slowly picks the two friends apart. Jimmy Stewart brilliantly executes his role of learned professor and social misfit to a tee. Slowly plotting, encouraging the boys to comfort, Cadell nails the murders through their own missteps.

The period setting is one of refinement. The backdrop of NYC plays from day to night in the windows of the apartment. In retrospect, prop usage is remarkable, seamless, really. The dialogue is wickedly humorous and comfortable. Rope’s climax—Stewart’s soliloquy—is a brilliant piece of writing.

As I see it, Alfred Hitchcock's Rope is yet another exquisite film from the master director. Technically seamless, engaging from the start, movies like Rope, is why I watch.