Get Him to the Greek (2010)
★ / ★★★★
Aldous Snow (Russell Brand) was a rock star at the peak of his career but the negative reviews of his most recent album called “African Child,” labeled as offensive and racist, forced him to retreat from the spotlight. Enter Aaron (Jonah Hill), an intern for a major record company, when he was assigned by his boss, the tough Sergio Roma (Sean Combs), to take Aldous from England and accompany him to the Los Angeles Greek Theatre for a comeback concert. This proved to be a difficult task because Aldous loved to party, do drugs, and deviate from the original plan. “Get Him to the Greek,” directed by Nicholas Stoller, was hilarious during its first thirty minutes. Celebrity cameos seemed to come from everywhere; I liked it best when I didn’t know what hit me and I was forced to think, “Did that just really happen?” Unfortunately, the rest of the picture failed to measure up. Although there was mayhem left and right, the chaos wasn’t interesting because it had the same type of humor all the way to the finish line. I didn’t mind that it was raunchy. I laughed at some scenes like when Aaron felt forced to become a drug mule at the airport. I understood that it wanted to poke fun of stars like Britney Spears with their intense relationship with the media and their fans. It also wanted to make fun of us for liking bad pop music reflected by Aldous’ ridiculous song lyrics. Eventually, I realized there was something missing. The picture had to draw a line between fun and serious issues. It had the capacity to change things up as Aaron was forced to be in increasingly uncompromising situations. A person recently plucked from an ordinary life, despite the glamour of the world of celebrity, would eventually question whether it was ethically and morally right for him to enable an artist struggling with an addiction. Toward the end, it attempted to tackle the issue but it felt forced because the journey that Aldous and Aaron took together wasn’t particularly meaningful. They shared some drugs and they eventually learned (or thought they learned) to be comfortable with each other to the point where they agreed to a threesome, but there was not one conversation when they connected as equals. It was always about Aaron catering to Aldous’ fragile ego and that wasn’t friendship. It didn’t even work as a story about a fan and the person he looked up to because moments after Aaron met Aldous, he was perfectly aware that the Aldous in his records didn’t reflect reality. He came to terms with it right away. “Get Him to the Greek” would have been a stronger film without the redemption arc involving the rock star supposedly overcoming his addiction. Because when it tried to be sensitive, it just didn’t feel genuine.
A Serbian Film (2010)
★ / ★★★★
Milos (Srdjan Todorovic) was a former pornographic actor who retired early. He had some savings but since he didn’t have a stable job, his family was in a state of financial difficulty. When Lejla (Katarina Zutic), a former colleague, contacted Milos about a once in a lifetime opportunity work with an independent director, Vukmir (Sergej Trifunovic), the husband and his wife (Jelena Gavrilovic), Marija, agreed that he should accept the offer because the paycheck would allow them to be set for life. However, Vukmir’s project was incredibly top secret. Even Milos was ignorant to what he was about to do in front of the camera. Based on the screenplay by Aleksandar Radivojevic and Srdjan Spasojevic, “Srpski film” managed to take the term “torture porn” on a new level. There was a plethora of scenes that depicted women as playthings. It showed them screeching out of pain from objects thrusted inside them, being punched in the face until their faces were swollen and bloody, forcing to perform fellatio until they passed out due to a lack of oxygen, and being cut into pieces with a machete. It was ugly and it was shameless in challenging us to keep our eyes open to see what would happen next. Supposedly, the filmmakers’ intention was to parody the movies made in Serbia. They didn’t like the forced political correctness that plagued the films in their country. So, by creating something that is so far from what is expected, it is an act of standing up against the mundane movies that are constantly being financed, made, and released. I understand their intention, but I don’t quite see how this project is supposed to be a parody given that there was nothing amusing about it. I was disgusted. I was shocked. I was disturbed. But laugh I did not. I thought it was very cruel to women. For a movie that was supposed to be progressive-thinking, the final cut was backwards. And it fails with a deafening thud. Furthermore, if the filmmakers’ intentions were completely taken out of the equation, I would still consider the film to be weak. Milos wasn’t portrayed as a responsible father and husband, in the least, so how could we root for him? His family was supposed to be struggling financially, yet it wasn’t shown to us that he tried to get a job anywhere. It was mentioned that he had an education. He wasn’t old, so why didn’t he seriously consider other options before accepting a cryptic job? The movie was about a half an hour too long. There were too many scenes when Milos was drugged and looking confused. He, as well as the audiences, were left to decipher what had happened to him through millisecond flashes of images accompanied by shrill, harsh sounds. Not only were the techniques an assault to the senses, it didn’t feel like being on a journey with Milos was ultimately worth it. He lacked pragmatism; he always happened to helplessly stumble upon one bad situation to the next. “Srpski film,” also known as “A Serbian Film,” directed by Srdjan Spasojevic, is a one-note mean joke where nobody wins. I welcome transgressive movies given that their ambition and intention meet a certain level of artistry that forces me to think about the power of the movies as well as consider possibilities of unexplored territory. Pascal Laugier’s “Martyrs” is an excellent example of a transgressive film. “A Serbian Film” is cheap and execrable.
Dinner for Schmucks (2010)
★ / ★★★★
Tim (Paul Rudd) wanted to be a more powerful executive in the company he worked for. But in order to become one of them, his boss (Bruce Greenwood) invited Tim to attend a dinner party in which the company men were required to bring an idiot with whom they could make fun of as they enjoyed their meal. Plagued by thoughts about why his girlfriend (Stephanie Szostak) wouldn’t accept his marriage proposal, Tim accidentally ran over Barry (Steve Carell), an IRS agent who had a penchant for collecting dead mice and putting them in a box for display. Desperate to impress his girlfriend, he invited Barry to attend the mean-spirited dinner. Based on Francis Veber’s “Le dîner de cons,” “Dinner for Schmucks” committed an unforgivable sin: It was a comedy that was devoid of humor. Forty minutes into the picture, I stopped and wondered why not once did I laugh at the craziness that was happening on screen. There was a lot of yelling, particularly between Tim and Barry, but Jay Roach, the director, had mistaken screaming for energy. Instead of exploring the relationship between the pathetic Barry and the even more pathetic Tim, the movie spent more time with unnecessary distractions. Worse, the distractions were supposed to be amusing. There was Lucy Punch as Tim’s insane one night stand from a few years ago. Her character was taken out of a horrible pornographic film. Jemaine Clement as the vain French artist made me feel uncomfortable and seeing him made me wish he put on a shirt. Even Ron Livingston and Zach Galifianakis’ appearances as Tim and Barry’s rivals, respectively, were uninspired. Each scene was like watching a bad sitcom that lasted for almost two hours. I kept waiting for the film to slow down and take the time for Tim to realize that what he was doing to Barry was not only wrong, that his actions said a lot about himself. In an early scene, he told his girlfriend that there was a version of him that she didn’t know and she should find a way to deal with it. But maybe there was a version of him that he himself wasn’t aware of. There were times when I thought Rudd was miscast. When he was supposed to summon a bit of darkness and malicious intent, it didn’t quite work. He remained harmless and adorable. The lack of focus in terms of the relationship between Tim and Barry ultimately felt forced when Tim’s conscience was finally at the forefront. I couldn’t help but feel that “Dinner for Schmucks” was supposed to be a man and his blind ambition to further his career so that he could live the so-called American Dream. The gags should have been secondary and, more importantly, the humor should have had range.
Green Lantern (2011)
★ / ★★★★
When Hal was young, he witnessed the death of his father due to an aviation accident. Almost twenty years later, we came to discover that Hal (Ryan Reynolds) followed his father’s footsteps and became a successful test pilot. Meanwhile, two entities had been in war for a millennia: a group of warriors known as Green Lantern Corps, powered by will, and Parallax, powered by fear. The latter was quickly gaining the upper hand by literally eating the souls of its enemies. When one of the leaders of the corps, Abin Sur (Temuera Morrison), made an emergency landing on Earth after being attacked by the evil Parallax, he managed to pass his powers onto unsuspecting Hal. “Green Lantern,” directed by Martin Campbell, was sloppily put together. A myriad strands were introduced but not one achieved an above average level of thought nor a minutiae of common sense, so the film ultimately felt flat. Let’s take the romance between Hal and Carol (Blake Lively) as an example. Supposedly, the two of them had known each other for more than half their lives. I found that very hard to believe. While the two obviously cared for each other, perhaps even on a romantic level, I found it frustrating that they didn’t know how to communicate as adults and as close friends. If you’ve been friends with someone for a very long time, that certain connection, which often defies explanation, should be palpable to a third party. But I never felt that special connection when Hal and Carol were on screen. In fact, the whole thing felt forced. There were a lot of puppy dog eyes and polite smiles, like I was watching some teenage soap opera where characters pretend to be dumb yet they have the nerve to complain about the fact that no one is getting what they want. The screenplay, by Greg Berlanti, Michael Green, Marc Guggenheim and Michael Goldenberg, came off as rather desperate in injecting a human element into the story. I actually would have enjoyed the movie more if Hal and Carol were given the time to sit and talk about their feelings for up to three key scenes and defined their relationship once and for all. Then focus on the action, without the hammy and frivolous will-he-or-won’t-she interruptions, because 1) I wanted to see the war between good and evil and 2) watch things blow up in the city. The decision to put petty romances between action sequences made the project disjointed. As a result, the momentum failed to build and I ended up not caring. Another one of Hal and Carol’s childhood friend was Hector (Peter Sarsgaard), a formerly corpulent boy who preferred to stay indoors and read books rather than to play outside. Eventually, Hector became an agent of evil after being infected by an alien life form. But why was his transformation necessary? Since the writers offered no answer to that question, it was pretty much implied that brainiacs were less than so they deserved to be punished. That wouldn’t have been the case if we had a chance to observe Hector being black-hearted as a child in the first place. “Green Lantern” need not have been too serious nor abound with grand special effects to qualify as a decent superhero movie. It just needed to tell its story with clarity.
The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 1 (2011)
★ / ★★★★
Invitations were sent to family and friends about Bella (Kristen Stewart) and Edward’s (Robert Pattinson) upcoming wedding. Jacob (Taylor Lautner) was far from happy after receiving the news so he headed outside, took off his shirt, transformed into a wolf, and ran to ameliorate his rage. During their honeymoon, Bella discovered that she was pregnant. The couple was surprised because it was believed that a human and a vampire could not conceive a viable being. The fetus was growing at a rapid rate and it threatened the life of its host. Despite sensible advice that she ought to terminate, Bella decided to keep the thing inside her. Based on the novel by Stephenie Meyer, “The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 1” was the weakest entry in the series. It was divided into three parts: the wedding, the honeymoon, and the horrific pregnancy. There was absolutely no reason for the film to be divided into two halves other than to make money. There was no pretentiousness, which I would have welcomed and possibly interpreted as ambition, or even an attempt of artistic integrity. The movie lacked interesting events, both big and small, designed to challenge who the characters were and what they really stood for. Since Melissa Rosenberg, who wrote the screenplay, stretched about half the novel for almost two hours, the pacing felt unbearably slow. It got so bad to the point where the characters actually ended up watching television together because they had nothing better to do. At least it was unintentionally funny. The acting was never the series’ strong point, but I’ve always managed to stick with it. In this installment, I lost my patience within the first few minutes. It was supposed to be Bella’s wedding day. It’s a big day when everyone is supposed to be excited and happy. Or at least pretending to be. Walking down that aisle, Bella looked absolutely miserable, like she was being punished and in pain. Take off the wedding dress and she looked like she really needed to go to the restroom. I understood that maybe she was nervous about marrying a vampire. Maybe she was even having second thoughts about making a monumental commitment. If those were the emotions that the actress wanted to portray, the responsible thing to do was for the director, Bill Condon, to do a reshoot until the right emotions were conveyed through the screen. The director had no control over his material. It looked like the filmmakers did only about ten takes and were forced to pick the best one, which was below mediocre. I’ve seen Stewart’s work in other movies and I know that she can act well given the right script and direction. I wish Jessica (Anna Kendrick), Bella’s friend from high school with whom she never interacted with, had more lines during the scenes prior to the wedding. Kendrick brought a certain energy, a realism and effortless charisma, that the other actors either didn’t have or were unwilling to show. “The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 1” could not afford its characters to look bored because the pacing, the script, and the plot were already on the verge of lethargy. For instance, instead of showing the Cullens, Bella, and Jacob just sitting on the couch and watching TV, why not explain the concept of imprinting? It was an important part of the movie, but I found myself having to look up exactly what it was after watching it. Like the parasitic creature in Bella’s womb, that’s not a good sign.
You Again (2010)
★ / ★★★★
In high school, Marni (Kristen Bell) was bullied by the head cheerleader (Odette Yustman) because she was a geek. She was labeled as a loser with glasses, ugly bangs, and pimples so she didn’t have any friends. Marni was traumatized and grew to hate the idea of high school over the years. About ten years later, we saw that Marni had a great career in public relations. In fact, she recently had gotten a promotion before she headed home to her brother’s (James Wolk) wedding. To Marni’s horror, Joanna, the woman her brother was intending to marry, turned out to be the very same person who made high school a place of fear and humiliation. “You Again,” written by Moe Jelline and directed by Andy Fickman, casted wonderful actors but none of them were given much to do. Marni’s mother (Jamie Lee Curtis) and Joanna’s aunt (Sigourney Weaver) had an entirely predictable subplot that was directly and eerily related to Marni and Joanna’s rivalry. Betty White, as adorable as she was, was stuck playing the grandmother who had the funny one-liners. Even Victor Garber’s character was painfully one-dimensional as the unaware father whose only notable feature was that he liked to eat with a blindfold because he was convinced that not seeing the amount he ate made him lose weight. I wouldn’t have minded the poorly established supporting characters but the four women should have been at the forefront. The filmmakers’ job was to paint a portrait of them with varying degrees of depth and complexity. They failed. Marni and Joanna’s games were understandable. They might have been adults but they were young. Ten years isn’t a long time to forget high school memories especially if one had been scrutinized and bullied. I understood why Marni was still angry. I even understood why she wanted some form of revenge. At the same time, I felt like Joanna was genuine about starting over, to change from being a person she didn’t like to a person that she and others can love. Most of us deserve a second chance. However, the mother and the aunt’s relationship should have been explored deeper because it was a key element in the four women finding resolution and closure. The relationship between the two former best friends should have been the mirror in which the younger women realized the error of their ways. Instead, we were given a series of slapstick humor but not enough exploration of the real pain behind bullying and broken friendships. I felt that the material was deathly afraid to look at its own heart. Great comedies have proven that a comedy picture fails to work without some level of emotional investment between the characters and the audiences. “You Again” was like watching a freshman sitcom that was cancelled after only three episodes.
The Amityville Horror (1979)
★ / ★★★★
A twenty-year-old murdered his entire family and left the cops bewildered due to his lack of motive. Only a year later, George (James Brolin) and Kathy (Margot Kidder) decided to buy the house where the gruesome murders occurred. Kathy had three kids from a previous beau but George didn’t seem to mind. In fact, he loved the kids as if they were his own. But there was something strange about the house. Father Delaney (Rod Steiger) and Aunt Helena (Irene Dailey) felt a malevolent presence once they stepped inside. They heard voices that threatened and ordered them to get out. Inspired by a true story and based on Jay Anson’s book, “The Amityville Horror” was a whole lot of noise but it wasn’t particularly scary. At its best, it was creepy with the flies, obviously signifying death, that appeared only in one special room, the creaking floorboards when someone was alone in the house, and the dog desperately trying to dig up something from the basement. I took on a certain passivity as George’s hair began to grow longer. Over time, their neighbors claimed that he started to look like the boy who killed his parents and siblings. Notice I mentioned “passive.” George’s descent into madness lacked dimension. While he did look meaner and he became prone to snide remarks, his demeanor wasn’t that much different from a very stressed out person. Perhaps that was the filmmakers’ intent. However, I had serious doubts that it wanted to take the subtle path because, especially toward the end of the film, it became generous in terms of its special effects like blood seeping out of the walls and the rise of something buried in the basement. And, of course, the final confrontation had to happen in a dark, stormy night. The picture would have been stronger if it had rooted its horrific elements in little accidents. For instance, one of the son’s hand being stuck in a window that wouldn’t budge or the babysitter who got trapped in a closet as George and Kathy attended a wedding. When we were left in the house with just our imagination, it was scary and somewhat realistic. After all, a rocking chair that seemed to move by itself was probably just triggered by the wind or a natural tremor from the old house. Another weakness I noticed about the film was it had too many scenes that didn’t have anything to do with the family. When the camera was not in or around the house, the tension subsided because it felt less personal. Instead of a gradual increase in rising action, there were noticeable dips that borderline somnolence. “The Amityville Horror,” directed by Stuart Rosenberg was not as chilling as it should have been. To most audiences, it may seem old-fashioned or tame because it didn’t show us much for the majority of its two-hour running time. I believe it shouldn’t have shown us anything at all. It would have been an entirely different experience if it had challenged us to use our preconceived notions of haunted houses.