Mean Girls

Title: Mean Girls (2004)
Director: Mark Waters
Genre: Comedy
Lead Actor(s): Lindsay Lohan
Rating: PG-13
97 minutes

This is the last good movie Lindsay Lohan has made. She plays Cady Heron, an ex-homeschooler who has moved from Africa to someplace outside of Chicago. Her second day of school she meets Janis Ian (Lizzy Caplan) and Damian (Daniel Franzese) and is invited to eat lunch with The Plastics, the most popular girls in school. Janis, Damien, and Cady soon create a plan to destroy the head plastic’s life. Cady soon begins to lose herself in the plastic.

Lindsay Lohan really is not the best actress. Despite being the star, she is not the best or funniest or most memorable. The script is so strong that I think practically any actress who is halfway decent could have performed the part well.

Rachel McAdams plays Regina George, the queen of The Plastics. She is phenomenal in the part. There are times where her eyes are so creepy and intense. She is a powerful character and it takes a special actress to play such an unsympathetic character likably. This isn’t to say that the audience feels bad for her, but we like to see Regina George be a bitch. We also like to see her life unravel.

Lacey Chabert and Amanda Seyfried complete the trio of plastics, Gretchen Wieners and Karen Smith respectively. Gretchen is a sweet girl who just wants so hard to be liked. Some of her deliveries are the best in the whole movie. Karen is remarkably dumb. Seyfried is an example of an actress who can play dumb smartly. There are several times where it is questionable just how she reached high school at all. I would say The Plastics are the most enjoyable thing about the movie.

Lizzy Caplan is also really great as Janis. Regina George basically ruined her life and so her furious quest to destroy her life is understandable. She is both remarkably immature and observant. She can nail the personalities of the people she interacts with to remarkable accuracy.

The script is wonderful. Tina Fey wrote a funny, interesting, and intelligent script. All the characters are well-developed and relatable in some way. I admit that women are going to enjoy the films more than guys and younger more than old, but I think there are elements that can be enjoyed by all. This is a fun and well-crafted movie.

******* 7/10

The Terminal

Title: The Terminal (2004)
Director: Steven Spielberg
Genre: Comedy, Drama
Lead Actor(s): Tom Hanks
Rating: PG-13
128 minutes

This is a bit different from the films that Spielberg is best known for. Tom Hanks stars as Viktor Navorski, a Krakozhian citizen who tries to visit New York City but is stranded in JFK airport when his country erupts into civil war. He can’t return home due to the danger and isn’t allowed to go into New York because his papers became invalid when the government was overthrown. Instead he spends approximately a year living in the airport.

Again I think Hanks was miscast. Firstly he does not look Eastern European. Secondly I was always distinctly aware that I was watching Tom Hanks in the role. A successful actor in a role should be the role and have the audience forget who the actor is. Hanks does as best as he can in the role. I don’t think he nailed the accent, but it wasn’t hideously distracting. He also displays very little connection with his romantic interest, Amelia Warren (Catherine Zeta-Jones). Zeta-Jones is about as successful as Hanks in her role. She doesn’t connect with her role either. She seems awkward and off throughout the majority of the movie.

Where the movie really shines is in the minor characters. Stanley Tucci is the villainous airport immigration officer. As always Tucci is magnificent in the role. I have never seen him in a role where he didn’t shine. I also particularly love Zoe Saldana as the security officer who is a hidden Trekkie. My favorite, however, is Kumar Pallana as Gupta Rajan, a custodian who killed a man in his native India. He seems like a grumpy, crochety old fart (he was 86 when this came out), but he shows that he has a tender side.

The recreation of an airport is astounding. It feels like a real airport. The attention to detail is impeccable and the set dresser/art director should have been recognized. The script has some very tender and touching moments and it is certainly an interesting concept, but the lead actors and, in some part, the direction weight down a wonderfully diverse and interesting collection of minor characters.

****** 6/10

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban

Title: Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)
Director: Alfonso Cuarón
Genre: Adventure, Fantasy
Lead Actor(s): Daniel Radcliffe
Rating: PG
141 minutes

So my geekiness does not just extend to comic book movies. I am well-versed in other manners of geek including Harry Potter. This movie is an adaptation of my favorite book of the series and it is currently my favorite movie. For the three of you who have been living as a hermit for 6 years and are just now learning to use the internet and have found my site, a quick summary follows. It begins with Harry at home with the Dursleys and he accidentally inflates his Aunt Marge. He flees from the house and catches a ride on the night bus to Diagon Alley. He meets up with Ron and Hermione and finds that the man who betrayed his parents has escaped from Azkaban. Harry becomes obsessed with finding him and learning more about his parents. This is the act that puts every aspect of the plot in motion.

I have a strong personal bias against the character Ron and those the performance of Rupert Grint, so I am not going to comment on it. Daniel Radcliffe by now has a good grasp on Harry and is not nearly as melodramatic during this film as in others. Emma Watson is quite good as Hermione. I find her the most believable and most enjoyable to watch of the trio.

Now in my opinion the two most interesting and well-acted performances are those of Sirius Black and Remus Lupin, Gary Oldman and David Thewlis respectively. As I believe I have said before, when Gary Oldman chooses good roles, he is magnificent in them. This was a good role. He has the desperate mania needed in his few scenes. He is utterly believable in the role of a man gone slightly mad by years in a tortuous prison, but it is not overdone in any manner. David Thewlis is also wonderful as the tortured professor with a secret, Remus Lupin. Lupin has to walk a fine balance because in his heart he is a genial sort of person, but toward the full moon he does become a bit wild and a little sickly. He has to be constantly weary and amiable. Thewlis does a wonderful job balancing these two aspects of his characters personality.

All the other great characters are still great. Maggie Smith is still wonderful as Professor McGonagall. Robbie Coltrane is still great as the lovable half-giant, Hagrid. Alan Rickman is still snarky as hell as Professor Snape. The only sad part of the cast is that Michael Gambon replaces Richard Harris, who, in my opinion, was the best and ultimate Dumbledore. Gambon is ok as his replacement but is only a pale imitation of the astounding performance of Harris.

What I really love about this movie is that I feel the tone of the movie finally captures that of the book. Alfonso Cuarón does a fantastic job interpreting the emotion of the book. It is dark and a bit demented and with creatures called Dementors, it can hardly be anything but.

In my opinion, this is the best film of the series. Due to the lack of Voldemort, it is also the film that best stands alone. It is also just a good movie and a wonderful example of the skill of Oldman, Thewlis, and Cuarón.

******** 8/10

I Heart Huckabees

Today an atrocious article came to my knowledge. It was published in Newsweek on April 26, 2010 and written by Ramin Setoodeh. It is called “Straight Jacket” and it claims that homosexual actors are incapable of convincingly playing heterosexual actors. It is pure homophobic dribble and it infuriates me. Kristin Chenowith wrote a wonderful response here. In honor of the idiocy of this article, I decided to write about a movie that features one of the homosexual actors who wonderfully portrays a heterosexual actor, Lily Tomlin.

Title: I Heart Huckabees (2004)
Director: David O. Russell
Genre: Comedy
Lead Actor(s): Jason Schwartzman, Dustin Hoffman, Lily Tomlin
Rating: R
107 minutes

This will not be everyone’s cup of tea. It is a weird movie. The quick and dirty summary is Albert (Jason Schwartzman) is the leader of a group fighting against the installation of a Huckabees store (similar to walmart). He is displaced by a mole from Huckabees, Brad (Jude Law). Albert hires two detectives (Dustin Hoffman and Lily Tomlin) who call themselves existential detectives. When Albert becomes unsatisfied with the husband and wife team, he hires an ex-pupil and now rival, Caterine (Isabelle Huppert).

Jason Schwartzman always does well in these kinds of roles. He is at his best when he is playing an extremely awkward character and this is no exception. Jude Law is also quite good as the egotistical Brad. Law is also extremely good at playing cocky assholes. Dustin Hoffman is an extraordinary and diverse actor, but I always love him in his comedic roles. He has surprisingly good comedic timing.

Now for Lily Tomlin, I love her. I think she is a sharp and intelligent actress. I also find her and Hoffman’s interactions and relationships completely believable. The characters seem to truly care for each other and she has such a wonderful energy about her character. I never find her to be phoning it in or inauthentic. She also has great comedic timing and just a fantastic presence. Her character, Vivian, is the kind of old lady that I would love to grow up into.

The direction and writing is very loose and improvisational. It really lends to the realistically absurd nature of the film. The movie also makes some interesting comments on religion, reality, and commercialism.

As I said this is a weird movie and I know that not everyone will enjoy. Although it is hard to watch when not paying attention, it can be an interesting and entertaining if you have the patience and interest.

******* 7/10

The Incredibles

Title: The Incredibles (2004)
Director: Brad Bird
Genre: Family, Adventure
Lead Actor(s): Craig T. Nelson, Helen Parr
Rating: PG
115 minutes

As mentioned in my previous review of Up, I love Pixar movies. This is one of my favorite three. This movie follows the Parr family. The parents were superheroes before they were married, but an act of congress forces all superheroes into a witness protection kind of program. Bob Parr/Mr. Incredible begins working for a secret organization and this helps the family connect to each other and their powers.

This definitely the most human centric Pixar movie. None of the characters are talking animals or robots or personified objects. Craig T. Nelson has the everyday quality that was needed for Bob Parr. Although I am probably reading too much into it, I think the common nature of the super Bob is trying to say something about the human race. Everyone has a super in them. Nelson does an excellent job of changing from rather cocky as Mr. Incredible, to the beaten down Bob Parr, to the more confident reboot of Mr. Incredible, and finally as the happy combination between Incredible and Bob.

Mrs. Incredible/Elastigirl/Helen Parr is voiced by Holly Hunter. I have never been completely sold on her voice, but her acting is fine. The character of Dash Parr is the quintessential little brother. His personality is also reflective of his power, super-speed. He has a constant mania about him. Violet is a shy teenager. She uses her ability, the same as The Invisible Woman/Sue Storm, to disappear when in an awkward situation. The writing and character development is wonderfully strong. These are often sacrificed in children’s movies. Pixar never does this and is another reason why I love them. They make movies like those Disney movies I grew up with. Adults and children are capable of enjoying them.

This movie is also much more action-y than the other Pixar movies. Aside from Cars I would say that this is Pixar movie little boys would like the most. There are wonderful supporting characters such as Samuel L. Jackson’s Frozone, Jason Lee’s Syndrome. My favorite character is Edna Mode, the fashion designer for superheroes, who is voiced by the director, himself.

This is an intelligent, fun, interesting, and well-crafted film. Several levels can be attributed to it, but it is not a necessity. It is one of Pixar’s best and that is saying a lot. Now if only they would finally make a sequel with The Underminer.

********* 9/10

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

Title: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)
Director: Michel Gondry
Genre: Drama, Romance
Lead Actor(s): Jim Carey, Kate Winslet
Rating: R
108 minutes

I am not a big fan of most of the romantic comedies/dramas that are turned out today. I find most of them stale and formulaic. This is not one of those films. The story, acting, directing, editing, and score are fantastic. The simple story is that Joel and Clementine have broken up and Joel decides to erase Clementine from his memory.

I adore Kate Winslet. She is my favorite actress and I think she is amazing. It should then be little to no surprise that I think she is phenomenal in this. She had a tricky job. She has to be Clementine, be Joel’s happy Clementine, and be Joel’s unhappy Clementine. The majority of her performance in the movie falls into the latter two categories. She made these distinct from her performance as the actual Clementine. I think that doing that is incredibly important in this movie. Joel remembers Clementine differently than the actual Clementine. She also does not seem to ever get lost in the wildness of Clementine. Instead she maneuvers the pitfalls of the character with style and grace.

I often am not a fan of Jim Carey. I have a very different type of humor than the movies he usually makes. I was shocked at his sensitivity in portraying Joel. There are still elements of his comedy, but Joel is much stronger than his usually one-note characters. Carey also manages to navigate the strange and complex story with surprising skill. The relationship between the two main characters also seems natural and realistic despite the big differences between the actors and characters.

I don’t want to give away too much of the story because it is beautiful how it is laid out and how it develops. The direction and editing do so much to enhance the star of the movie, the story. Again without giving too much away, the direction goes into Joel’s head and makes the hurt and destruction that happens after a serious break-up appear on screen. The editing is just as adept at that as well.

There are several other wonderful performances in this movie. Kirsten Dunst is remarkable as the receptionist of the memory erasing doctor’s office. Tom Wilkinson is especially wonderful as the doctor who invented this procedure. Elijah Wood is geekier than I have ever seen him and it works better than almost anything I have seen him in.

This really is a great movie. It is sweet and deep and emotional and remarkable and strong and sad and presents some interesting questions and ideas about love. The story is unlike anything seen in movies, which is no real surprise given that the movie is written by the same author of Being John Malkovich and Adaptation. It has amazing performances and is just a touching movie.

********** 10/10

Hotel Rwanda

Since I have now mentioned it in two separate reviews, I figured I should probably do a review over Hotel Rwanda. Tomorrow I plan to write my first review over what I consider a bad movie.

Title: Hotel Rwanda (2004)
Director: Terry George
Genre: Drama
Lead Actor(s): Don Cheadle
Rating: PG-13
121 minutes

This movie is another one of those that can be very hard to watch. I don’t think I have ever cried as much in a theater as when I watched this movie. I would typify myself as one of those that doesn’t really cry at movies, but this one gets me every time. It is now mostly just one scene, it involves orphans and rain and that is all I will say.

This movie is about the atrocities of the Rwandan genocide, and one Hutu hotel manager, Paul Rusesabagina, who turned his diplomatic hotel into a sanctuary for Tutsi refugees. Cheadle’s Paul is much more like his character in Crash than Ocean’s Eleven. His Paul begins as the ultimate hotel manager who puts up with his more racist suppliers because they have the cheapest goods. He seems a bit removed from the Hutu/Tutsi clash. He has a Tutsi wife and employs Tutsis, but he doesn’t seem too invested in the politics of it. His wife, played wonderfully by Sophie Okoneda, even remarks about his disconnect. As the conflict escalates, Rusesabagina realizes just what is at stake.

The supporting cast is just as phenomenal as Don Cheadle with the difficult material they are given. Joaquin Pheonix as a war photographer who often says what the audience is thinking. His most important moment in the movie is probably when he explains to Paul just how the atrocities he has filmed will affect the people who watch it. In a phrase, not at all. Nick Nolte is surprisingly coherent as the UN colonel who wants to help but is bound by the rules of his placement.

Sophie Okonedo as Tatiana Rusesabinga has a fountain of strength that bolsters those around her in these tough times. She is by no means a lead, but possesses wonderful depth and emotion as the woman behind the man.

The direction of George helps bring this film alive. He knows how to play on the sympathies of the audience to enable the film to have a further effect on them. He is able to bring the script and actors to live in the these hard and realistic roles.

As I said this film is hard to watch and there are several elements some might label as “liberal,” but it is unnecessary to have that inclination to enjoy and be affected by this film. As an example, I was able to convince my very conservative, ex-marine world history teacher to show this movie, despite the fact we never learned anything in that class about this era of history. Although this movie is fantastic, it is also an important one. I highly recommend it.

********** 10/10