Easy A

Title: Easy A (2010)
Director: Will Gluck
Genre: Comedy
Lead Actor(s): Emma Stone
Rating: PG-13
92 minutes

Easy A is told through an internet stream as Olive Penderghast (a fairly awesome last name) (Emma Stone) and flash backs as she tells her side of the story in chapters. It begins when she lies about having a date with a college guy in order to get out of going on a camping trip with her friend, Rhi (Aly Michalka), and Rhi’s hippie parents. Her friend becomes convinced that Olive slept with the guy and when Olive sarcastically agrees, the school goody-goody, Marianne (Amanda Bynes), tells the whole school and now Olive is branded as a slut. Olive decides to embrace this view of her by channeling The Scarlet Letter and letting guys say they did something with her in return for gift cards. The only people who really seem to be consistently are her parents and Mr. Griffith (who I knew was going to hit on her, but you will have to see it to find out if he does) (Thomas Haden Church).

This movie is built around Emma Stone. She is able to display the wit and stamina needed for the role. The one-liners, some of which are seen in the trailer, would not have been nearly as funny if Bynes had been in the role instead. Stone has a dryness about her that differentiates this movie from so many of the other recent high school movies. She really is a funny and self-assured actress. There is a montage of her weekend that I have now watched twice on youtube just because it’s a quick funny thing to watch during dull commercials or breaks from dull studying. Should you want to watch it, search for Easy A pocketful of sunshine.

Besides Stone’s performance, there aren’t a lot of strong performances. The exceptions are Stanley Tucci and Patricia Clarkson as Olive’s parents and Lisa Kudrow as Mrs. Griffith, the school guidance counselor. I have by now realized that Tucci is one of those actors who I am just ridiculously biased for. I love his performance and personality and energy. This was one reason I did not want to see him play a child murderer in The Lovely Bones. I doubt I will ever see that movie, even though I am sure Tucci was wonderful in that as well. Here he is over-the-top and funny. Clarkson as her mom is a little more reserved, but still hilarious and Clarkson and Tucci have great timing and chemistry with each other. They could be seen as too exaggerated, but the town that this is supposedly taking place in is supposed to be very small, so instead their performances help us understand why Olive is so different from her classmates.

Lisa Kudrow plays her guidance counselor very similar to her character on her character on “Web Therapy,” Fiona Wallace. Both are more interested in themselves than their charges and have no understanding about how to interact with those who seek their help. She is very funny in the view parts she has, especially when we first meet her visiting her husband in his classroom.

The rest of the characters are very lacking. Bynes’s Marianne is by no means Mandy Moore’s Hillary Faye in Saved. She lacks the dimension and her actions and conviction come off much more artificial than Moore’s. I think the character of Rhianna or Rhi was almost an afterthought. Olive doesn’t really seem to like her “best friend” and they quickly split for the majority of the movie. I also don’t really understand the point of Woodchuck Todd (Penn Badgley) character. Would it be bad for Olive not to find someone in this small and ill-fitting town to have a crush on?

My final issue with the film is a very stupid and petty one, so forgive me. Olive is almost thrown out of school for calling a girl, who called her a slut (or some synonym), a twat. She never gets in trouble for wearing clothing she literally bought at a lingerie store. I find this baffling. They try to wave it off by saying that her pants are always longer than her fingertips, but I would like to know of one school that would not take action when one of their students is essentially just wearing a whole bunch of corsets.

My favorite parts are the ones where it is just Olive talking to her computer. They are simple, but define her character and avoid the majority of unnecessary characters. The directing is not noticeable in a good or bad way. There are moments where it makes the action more fun (the montage comes to mind) and there are moments that are really very cliché (Olive walking through a crowd in slow motion once she decides to embrace her inner Hester Prynne). Overall, it is a fun movie with good wit and great performances from Tucci, Clarkson, and Kudrow and a stand-out one by Stone. If the rest of the Easy A world was as good as these actors, it would be a great movie.

****** 6/10

Miss Congeniality

Title: Miss Congeniality (2000)
Director: Donald Petrie
Genre: Comedy
Lead Actor(s): Sandra Bullock
Rating: PG-13
109 minutes

The best things this movie has going for it are Michael Caine as a pageant coach and William Shatner as a pageant host. The basic plot is that tomboy FBI agent, Gracie Hart (Sandra Bullock), is forced to go undercover at the Miss United States Pageant to stop a copy cat killer.

All though this is not the most original comedy, Sandra Bullock does have some charm as the fish-out-of-water agent. Part of her charm is her awful clumsiness and thus makes what could have been a flat, bubble-head role into one with a bit of charisma. Her one-liners have good timing and delivery, although some are very unoriginal. It’s nice that Bullock keeps her temperament and behavior characteristics consistent throughout her transformation from Gracie Hart to Gracie Lou Freebush, her pageant name.

The best moments come from Shatner and Caine. Caine takes a role so different from the ones we are used to, that part of the appeal comes from the strangeness of it. Any movie that has Michael Caine saying “Don’t I look pretty?” is going to have some mildly funny moments. Shatner pokes fun at himself without being particularly obvious. His song at the end is particularly entertaining due to Shatner’s sheer persistence.

This is not the most original comedy, but due to some funny moments from the cast and entertaining performances by Caine and Shatner, the movie is spared from becoming a Valentine’s Day or its follow-up, Miss Congeniality 2: Armed and Fabulous.

**** 4/10

Eat, Pray, Love

Title: Eat, Pray, Love (2010)
Director: Ryan Murphy
Genre: Drama
Lead Actor(s): Julia Roberts
Rating: PG-13
133 minutes

I haven’t read the book. I never really had an interest in seeing the movie for the movie. I didn’t mind seeing it because I saw it with friends. The movie follows Liz Gilbert (Julia Roberts) after divorcing her husband. She dates a wannabe actor and then decides to spend a year abroad. She starts in Italy (eat), goes to India (pray), and ends in Bali (love). On her travels she meets a colorful cast of characters that help her learn about life and herself.

While this is not Julia Roberts’ best movie, the problems are not due to her. She is not off-putting or completely awkward in the role. The character is surprisingly annoying. She comes across as very self-involved. Despite her life being in a disarray, everyone she comes across is better for having met her.

The only actor whose performance I really like is Richard Jenkins as Richard. I like the actor quite a bit. His character all seems to be one of the few that shows a genuine believable emotion. All the others are very obvious about their acting. Part of it is the characters. They all are too wonderful or too damaged or too static.

The directing also is decent. The shots show off the beauty of the scenery and situations. All the visuals are right for the settings and characters. The thing that brings the film down is the story. I have mentioned the immense problems with the characterizations, but it goes to more than that. This movie is supposed to be about a character who is so emotionally lost that she has to travel the world to get a better understanding of herself. She never seems to really want to become a better person. It all is superficial. I never believe the character for an instant.

From all the hype about the book, I expected at the very least a decent movie. The flaw stems from the book though. It is not the fault of anyone involved. Without changing a lot about the source material, no one could fix the problem with the main character. The best thing about the movie is the poster. I doubt this is how Roberts wanted to jump back into leading roles. At least she got a good trip out of it.

*** 3/10

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

Title: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008)
Director: David Fincher
Genre: Drama, Romance
Lead Actor(s): Brad Pitt, Cate Blanchett
Rating: PG-13
166 minutes

I think the premise is extremely intriguing. Benjamin Button (Brad Pitt) ages backwards. He is born a creepy old baby. His mother dies in childbirth and after briefly considering infanticide, his father leaves him on the steps of an old folks home. He is raised by the black caretaker, Queenie (Taraji P. Henson). He meets Daisy (Cate Blanchett) and through their lives their paths cross again and again. Daisy grows older while Benjamin looks younger and younger.

Brad Pitt makes this movie. He is able to hold a child-like curiosity and maturity, while still looking like an old man. Then he has to have an old soul while appearing 22. The most convincing element, in my opinion is when Benjamin surprises Daisy in New York. You can see his heart breaking and yours almost breaks with it. He exhibits some of the carefree ease he did in Thelma and Louise. This is one of Pitt’s best performances in a long while. Despite his condition and his turmoils in love, he always see the beauty in what he has been given and the opportunity that could be wasted. He is able to travel the world like a young man, but still retain the wisdom of age.

I would not say this is Cate Blanchett’s best performance, but there are great points to it. Particularly when Daisy is pushing Benjamin away or trying to drag him closer. I don’t think her performance as the old Daisy is particularly intriguing. Blanchett does great in extremes and well in the in-betweens.

The cinematography is utterly gorgeous as well. There are several shots that would make gorgeous and expressive photographs. It enhances the beauty and meaning of the film in a way that makes the plot and actors the stars. The camera angles and positioning are also deliberate and compelling. There is a particularly beautiful scene in Paris in one of those butterfly wing sequences.

My biggest problem was Tilda Swinton. I have never really found her to be an entertaining actress. Here she plays a woman Benjamin meets in Russia named Elizabeth Abott. I never really believed her or the chemistry between her and Benjamin. Who can’t have chemistry with Brad Pitt? Luckily she is the movie for a brief time, especially considering how long the movie is. I would argue the only performance I really enjoyed was as the White Witch. She can’t express emotion with any conviction or believability.

The movie is beautiful and has wonderful acting from Pitt. He makes Benjamin heart-breaking and inspirational and tragic and beautiful Fincher used the story in the best way possible. These two are the shining stars in this movie. The rest for the most part is good. Swinton is not. Still this is a movie that is worth seeing. I understand, however, that some dislike movies this long and some may find the pacing boring. If it went faster, it would disrupt the simplicity Fincher somehow managed.

******** 8/10

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World

Title: Scott Pilgrim vs. the World (2010)
Director: Edgar Wright
Genre: Action, Comedy
Lead Actor(s): Michael Cera
Rating: PG-13
112 minutes

Again this is a movie based on a comic book I have not read. The movie centers around Scott Pilgrim (Michael Cera). He sees a girl, Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) and becomes utterly infatuated with her, despite the fact his is dating a high school student, Knives Chau. Despite the protests of members in his band and his sister, Pilgrim pursues her and ends up dating her. Unfortunately she has 7 evil exes, with super powers, determined to destroy Pilgrim for the love of Flowers. Pilgrim must fight and destroy each one in order to win the right to date Flowers.

I know that several people love Michael Cera, but I don’t think he is strong enough to carry a movie on his own. Despite Scott Pilgrim being the protagonist, I found myself enjoying the supporting character far more than the main character. That being said, I did like seeing this lanky nerdy guy in these crazy action sequences. It is the aftermath of the battles and the scenes leading up to it that are lacking. His character is very much like every other character he has played, and that is fine because they work in supporting roles, but the personality is not strong enough to base a movie around. I have not seen the other movie where Cera plays the lead, Youth in Revolt, but I didn’t really feel a need to see it.

The supporting characters make this movie. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is subtly funny as Flowers. She has a whole festival of crazy going on around her and she is still very calm about it all. Kieran Culkin plays Pilgrim’s gay roommate, Wallace. He is probably my favorite character in the movie. His character is the funniest and the ego he has is fitting for the character, whereas Pilgrim’s seems inflated and aggravating. The drummer is his band, Kim (Alison Pill), also has a very strong character that is funny without pushing it down your throat. I also love all the exes, particularly the last one. There were times I was almost rooting for the exes because they were far more interesting than the main character.

I also particularly liked the style of the movie. It is very old school video game-y. Pilgrim gets points for each ex he defeats and they shatter into coins. There are also flash back sequences that are apparently in the style of the comic. It is a somewhat romantic film, but it is unlike any that I have seen. In basically every genre, the movie is unique. The movie was also really funny. I think it could have been funnier and significantly better, if someone besides Cera were cast. It is still a fun and geeky and good movie. I will probably buy it, but due to the style I think this would be a great one to see in theaters.

******* 6/10

The Other Guys

Title: The Other Guys (2010)
Director: Adam McKay
Genre: Crime, Comedy
Lead Actor(s): Will Ferrell, Mark Wahlberg
Rating: PG-13
107 minutes

While not a classic comedy by any means, this movie is certainly better than the majority of the “comedies” Hollywood gifted us with this summer. After two star detectives in the NYPD die, there is a hole for the new it guys. Terry Hoitz (Mark Wahlberg) very much wants that spot for him and his partner, Allen Gamble (Will Ferrell). They are both jokes around the office. Hoitz for shooting Derek Jeter and Gamble for being a “paper bitch.” After Gamble tries to make a dull arrest on a man in violation of scaffolding permits, the two stumble upon a big case and think that this could be their chance to be something other than “the other guys.”

Will Ferrell is as he almost always is. An ADD 12-year-old who just keeps poking his 16-year-old big brother. I think that if Ferrell had been a bit more reined in, the movie could have been better than it is. Most of the parts I didn’t like heavily featured him. Many of his jokes were beat to death and became “how much longer are they going to stick with this bit.” His interactions with his wife (Eva Mendes) particularly suffer due to this. There are some that last more than others. The odd attraction Gamble has to attractive women is one that actually works, but it is not a joke that last five minutes. A hot girl looks or comments at Gamble, and Hoitz is baffled. I also found the bit about Gamble in college annoying and jarring. It really drug me out of this comedy that had a good amount of satire on cop movies and made me acutely aware that I was watching a movie. Ferrell is actually pretty adept at playing dull Gamble who loses real gun privileges and gets wood gun privileges. It is when his part goes to the more extreme aspects that I lose interest in the movie.

Considering the extreme behavior of his co-star, Mark Wahlberg manages not to simply fade into the background, which would have been very easy to do. Instead he is just as visible in his flaws as Gamble. He is hated by just about everyone in New York for his shooting of Jeter during the World Series. He is the stereotypical cop who doesn’t know how to be anything but a cop and has an odd obsession with drug crimes. I don’t know if there is a single scene until maybe the end where he is not wearing his shield around his neck. He also has a really short fuse. Wahlberg manages to, for the most part, keep his character from going into the heavy-handed Scary Movie territory. It is also very interesting to compare his Detective Hoitz with his Sgt. Dignam in The Departed. There are many similarities between the characters despite being opposite styles.

I briefly want to say how much I loved the beginning with Samuel L. Jackson as P.K. Highsmith and The Rock as Det. Danson. These are the two star cops who die in a spectacular and rather funny way. I thought the roles were cast perfectly and utterly hilarious. I also think it was a great idea to cast Ice-T as the narrator. Morgan Freeman he is not, but for this movie he was perfect.

This is one of the better buddy cop movies that has come out in recent years and elements of it are really funny. It just gets bogged down in certain points and I really think the writer needs to take to heart, “brevity is the soul of wit.” I wouldn’t pay full movie theater price to see it, but definitely suggest renting it off redbox or netflix and decide what you think about it.

***** 5/10

The Bachelor

Title: The Bachelor (1999)
Director: Gary Sinyor
Genre: Romance, Comedy
Lead Actor(s): Renee Zellweger, Chris O’Donnell
Rating: PG-13
101 minutes

This is an example of a romantic comedy I hate. The plot centers around Jimmie Shannon (Chris O’Donnell). He is a 29-year-old commitaphobe. He finally decides to settle down with his girlfriend, Anne (Renee Zellweger), and botches the proposal. Anne decides to leave and Jimmie’s grandfather dies leaving Jimmie $100 million inheritance on the condition that he is married by his 30th birthday, which happens to be the next day. Jimmie catches Anne as she is about to get on a plan and again lets his fear of commitment get between him and his inheritance.

O’Donnell is stiff and awkward in a stiff and awkward character. None of the delivery was believable and at times it was almost painful to watch. He never connected with the character and I can’t blame him. If I had a character like this, I would have tried very hard not to connect with it.

Zellweger is trying to recreate the character she had in Jerry Maguire. This character is not as well written or similar in style. This doesn’t stop her from barreling through like it is. I can’t think of a single scene that has an original feel to it.

This is an awful movie. The plot is insulting. The acting is atrocious. The only redeemable thing is that in a scene toward the end, the secret of the inheritance gets out and brides in dresses chase Jimmie down the street. A good portion of these brides are men in drag. This movie gets a bonus point for that aspect. Otherwise it would be a 1.

** 2/10

Grease

Title: Grease (1978)
Director: Randal Kleiser
Genre: Musical
Lead Actor(s): John Travolta, Olivia Newton-John
Rating: PG-13
110 minutes

There probably isn’t a musical better known than this one. For the view of you who haven’t ever heard of this musical, Goodie-Two-Shoes Sandy (Olivia Newton-John) moves to the states and remeets her summer fling, Danny (John Travolta), at her new high school. The Danny she met though was much kinder and softer than this Danny. The two try to rekindle their romance but find they both must change to get close to each other again.

Olivia Newton-John is probably my least favorite of the actors in the cast. Her purer than snow Sandy is often grating and unrelatable. I know that the celebrated “Hopelessly Devoted to You” is her big ballad, but it was always one of my least favorite songs. I just found the performance and character bland. She needs more personality and spunk. I find it hard to believe that there was a strong initial connection between the two leads.

John Travolta is much more on point as Danny Zuko. I think he understands this type of character better than Newton-John understands hers. He played a rather similar character in “Welcome Back, Kotter.” I also think he just had more fun with his character and the movie in general. Danny does have a good heart, but he also has a good reputation and sometimes one trumps the other. He is far more believable than his costar.

My favorite characters though are the supporting ones, particularly Kenickie (Jeff Conaway), Rizzo (Stockard Channing), and Marty Maraschino (Dinah Manoff). Kenickie is just a great foil for the characters around him. Whether he is interacting with Danny or Rizzo, he is always giving the support the other actor needs to perform to his best. He also is always acting even when he is in the background. Marty Maraschino is just funny. She is a not always purposeful vixen. She is at her funniest during the dance-off when flirting with the host. Rizzo is my favorite character in the movie. She is head of the Pink Ladies and a very strong character. Although far older than her teenage character, Channing is very strong in her characterization and finds humor in moments that could have been stale. I would argue she is the strongest character both in believability and personality in the movie.

Several of the songs are fun and catchy. The movie is well-directed even if I disagree with the casting of the female lead. After 30 years, the movie is just as beloved as it was then. I don’t know that it will ever fade from the pop culture’s radar. It is not my favorite musical or my favorite high school movie, but it isn’t bad.

****** 6/10

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

Inception

Title: Inception (2010)
Director: Christopher Nolan
Genre: Drama, Sci-fi
Lead Actor(s): Leonardo DiCaprio, Ellen Page
Rating: PG-13
148 minutes

Christopher Nolan is quickly becoming one of my favorite directors. Inception is trippy and thinky and great. Leonardo DiCaprio plays Cobb, the best “extractor” around with a very preoccupied subconscious. Extractors go into people’s dreams to unlock secrets for other people. Cobb and Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) are recruited for a big job and they must build a team including a forger, Eames (Tom Hardy), an architect, Ariadne (Ellen Page), a chemist, Yusuf (Dileep Rao), and the benefactor, Saito (Ken Wantanabe) to go deep into a mark’s mind.

Cobb has the most story in the movie and it is very complicated. DiCaprio handles such an intricate character with the taut skill he has become adept at. That being said, I would like to see him as a lighter character. His recent choices for characters never have a chance to smile and he was just as good at characters that smile. Back to his performance in this movie, I completely understand why Nolan only intended for DiCaprio for the role. This character is constantly tormented by personifications of his subconscious. He literally faces his evils in a more concrete way than the average person can dream. Cobb, however, feels that he has to continue. It doesn’t matter if he puts his whole team at risk. This gravity ways on DiCaprio as heavy as an anchor. Every movement, facial expression, every inflection is defined by this evil.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt is absolutely magnificent. He is half of the comedic relief (the other being Hardy as Eames) and also a more balanced and level person than Cobb. He is more dimensional than Cobb as well. Gordon-Levitt is just fun to watch in the movie. DiCaprio is tormented and marvelous, but Gordon-Levitt just helps pull the audience away from a constant and sharp decline with Cobb. Gordon-Levitt has really grown into a fun and talented actor.

The one actor I was probably most disappointed with was Ellen Page. She was great the first 20-30 minutes, but as soon as she started discovering Cobb’s back story, I thought she dropped the ball a bit. I know that Page can do serious, even frightening. She proved this in Hard Candy. As such I am not entirely sure why when things got darker, she distanced herself from the character. I think Gordon-Levitt’s character would have been just as effective in the role this character had to play.

The directing and writing, both done by Nolan, were interesting and made the movie more of an experience. I am dying to know how he did those hallway scenes. I also want to say I loved the villain. There were times where it was so utterly unsettling. The villain really bumped the movie to the next level. I am trying not to give too much away because it would ruin the movie and the ad campaign was so careful to reveal so little. That is how I like my trailers. They need to leave some mystery so I don’t come out of the theatre feeling like I could have saved my money and just watched all the trailers to get to the end.

If Inception is not recognized for certain elements come award season, I will be very disappointed and it will probably just make me like Nolan more. I urge everyone to see this movie. This is what great movies can be. They don’t have to be in 3-d, if they have a good plot, fun and interesting characters, and the director can use his imagination. Too many directors are relying on 3-d to make their movies. If Avatar had not been in 3-d, there is no way it would have made the massive amounts of money it did. It certainly would not have been nominated for Best Picture. I will now get off my soapbox and give one last plea to see this movie. There have been practically no good movies, not made by Pixar, out this summer and finally this arrived. If it were not for Ellen Page, this movie would have gotten a 10.

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