The young adult in question is Mavis Gary, an attractive woman who in a state of arrested development. Mavis Gary (played by the underrated Charlize Theron) was the popular girl is high school who hasn’t grown up (hence, the title, Young Adult) and still thinks she can get what she wants.

Mavis Gary is a ghostwriter for a once popular children’s series of books which now are on the clearance shelf and even at such slashed down prices, have trouble selling.

What Young Adult wants to portray is a character who is unable to understand reality and that what was once popular is no longer. Just like Mavis Gary’s books were popular, now they aren’t. People have their ups and downs as well.

The problem with Young Adult is that the audience knows exactly what is going to happen. The movie is predictable and the film says everything it needs to say in the first 10 minutes and doesn’t progress from there. The film is much like the movie’s main character—Young Adult starts off on fire but after the first 10 minutes just keeps put-put puttering along without knowing that it’s out of gas.

Young Adult is about Mavis Gary’s high school boyfriend, Buddy Slade (played by Patrick Wilson) who is now married with a baby. Mavis plans to drive back to her dead-end hometown and get her boyfriend back. Since Mavis was so popular in school, Mavis thinks that all she has to do is say, “come here, boy” for Buddy to come rolling back into Mavis’s arms.

The movie doesn’t seem to have much to say and is predictable all the way thru. The audience knows that Mavis won’t succeed in breaking up Buddy’s marriage and getting Buddy to fall back in love with her. The audience also knows that when Mavis feels rejected and lonely that she will shack up with the nice unpopular kid from high school, Matt (who is the most dimensional character in the film and is played by Patton Oswalt with both pity and sympathy).

Matt was a victim of a sort of hate-crime when he was in high school. A bunch of bullies beat up Matt, mangled his feet, and bashed his head for being gay, even though Matt isn’t really gay (which is what makes it sort of a hate-crime). Matt lives with his sister, Sandra, who is the only character in the film which admires Mavis; probably because Mavis is the girl Sandra always wishes she could be.

Mavis meets Matt is a bar and they get to talking and become somewhat friends. Matt and Mavis are both two lonely souls without a lot of friends and Mavis leans on Matt whenever she feels rejected. Mavis drives to Matt’s garage and they go out for drinks when Mavis feels the need for company.

The best scene in the film is when Mavis goes to Matt’s place after being rejected by Buddy. Mavis made a fool of herself at Buddy’s daughter’s naming. Mavis feels she needs someone to show her affection, so she goes to Matt’s house, takes off her clothes and fornicates with Matt. Matt is lonely and horny, so he reciprocates. This scene is the most honest and genuine scene in the film. The way Matt quickly takes off his pants, shows that he is eager to just have sex and might not fully care about Mavis’s feelings. And Mavis, likewise takes advantage of Matt’s vulnerability. The scene of Matt and Mavis getting intimate shows a true sex scene—that sometimes people has sex with someone just because they are there and have hormonal needs and not due to feelings of love.

Unfortunately, Young Adult is just an adequate movie. The movie offers chuckles, but no guffaws. Likewise, the movie doesn’t really get too deep into the character’s psyche. It seems to want to say something profound, but doesn’t do so in a way that is original, insightful, or arouses the audiences’ emotions or intellect in any meaningful way.

Every director has its flaws and Young Adult is Jason Reitman’s. Jason Reitman and Diablo Cody’s previous collaboration was Juno (a great film worth seeing). Those expecting something along the lines and quality of Juno will be disappointed.

I was really looking forward to watching Young Adult since Jason Reitman is a talented filmmaker and I’ve really enjoyed his other films. Young Adult is far from awful, it just feels empty with so much lost potential. Young Adult isn’t worth spending over $10 to see in a movie theater, but might be worth watching when it comes on TV and DVD. Until then, this young adult doesn’t recommend seeing Young Adult.

No related posts.

Hugo believes that there is a message in the automation that his father put in there before his death, which is one of the reasons Hugo wants to get the machine to work.

Hugo is a unique film unlike anything Martin Scorsese has ever done, yet very much a Scorsese film. Scorsese loves movies, not only for the story they tell, but the style the directors use to tell their stories. The style is just as important as the story itself. Since film is a visual medium, providing strong visual flourishes can add meaning to the movie which is impossible to convey in a novel.

Hugo starts off as a film about a boy trying to fix the automation his father gave him and about Hugo’s life living inside a clock at a train station, then the film is about the director George Melies, a magician and one of the earliest pioneers of film. George Melies most famous film (it’s only about 10 minutes long) is A Trip To The Moon (which Hugo shows clips of over and over again).

Martin Scorsese obviously loves film and wants to convey his love of film by making a film about the earliest moving pictures and the style and creativity that when into them.

Hugo is all about style. George Melies made films known for their unique images and not for their storylines. For Melies, film wasn’t about telling a story but showing certain visual tricks (much like his experience being a magician). Melies wanted to wow his audience with magic shots and strange images and was less concerned with substance and telling a story. Hugo is much the same way.

Hugo is all about style. The plot itself switches gears rather abruptly and is practically non-existent. The best parts of Hugo are seeing Melies and his staff shoot films on the movie lot. There is something interesting about seeing how even the earliest movies seemed to be done the same way there are done now—on a movie lot with effects, costumes, takes, and having the director yell, “cut” and “action” (at least that’s how it’s portrayed in the film).

Melies comes across as an ambitious director and Ben Kingley does a fine job (as he always does).

Hugo is a lot like cotton candy—it tastes really good but is nothing but empty calories (as opposed to a filling meal). Hugo is certainly a unique film to experience once, but also is plodding, insufferably ingratiating and repetitive.  Melies films worked because they were short films lasting around 10 minutes. Seeing a short film with nothing but style (especially during the creation of film) is interesting, but seeing a movie that’s over 2 hours that’s nothing but style is a bit too much.

I love film and if you love film, Hugo might be of interest to you since it’s about one of the earliest film directors and seeing clips of him making his short films. If you enjoy films but don’t have a lot affair with them, Hugo might seem like much ado about nothing.

The 3d in Hugo is done well. There are tracking shots, over the shoulder shots, and roving close ups that feel like you are moving with the camera. The first scene of the film shows a train going through the train and you feel as if you are moving with the train as well.

The acting by the cast is adequate, but nothing special. Only Sacha Baron Cohen as a station inspector stands out. While the character of the station inspector is an archetype of a clumsy evil authority figure, Sacha Baron Cohen manages to bring a sense of sadness, humanity, and empathy into what could easily have been an over-the-top one-dimensional character. Also, Sacha Baron Cohen as the conductor is funny as hell (I never understand what that expression means since I doubt hell is very funny).

I really wanted to give Hugo a good recommendation and I did enjoy it when I saw it, but the movie, while unique, is pure fluff that evaporates after you see it. Hugo is like a roller-coaster—fun while it lasts but not a particularly meaningful and memorable experience.

For those who love film and are interested in seeing clips of silent films and as well as scenes of Melies shooting his films, I recommend seeing Hugo once. Hugo is worth seeing, just because it is different and unlike anything made it awhile. I appreciate Scorsese for his ambition, for not compromising, and making a film the way he wants to make it (just like a good artist should). I only wish Hugo was trimmed (the film could have been an hour and a half easily), wasn’t so cloying and that the characters were more interesting and believable.

Hugo feels as if you are watching a puppet show, where Scorsese is moving the characters and events in the direction he wants them to go, but without any cohesion as to why the story and characters are moving in the direction Scorsese wants them to go.

No related posts.

Alexander Payne is one of the best filmmakers working today. His films are modest, biting, and made with both cynicism and a love of humanity. His characters are deeply flawed selfish individuals who the audience can alternately find repulsive and loving. The Descendants is no different.

Matt King’s wife, due to a recent  boating accident has left her into a coma which due to her will, the plug will be pulled in two weeks.

One of the things that I’ve found interesting about humanity is how we treat people differently if they have visible conditions that make their life difficult. If you found out that your friend had cancer, you would probably treat him nicer than if he didn’t have cancer. Many people treat people in wheelchairs nicer (albeit demeaningly) than those who are able-bodied. But why should we? We all have our own baggage and just because our maladies aren’t visible that doesn’t make our life better than those whose maladies are. Shouldn’t we treat people nice whether they have a disease or not? And if we treat someone nicer because he has cancer, isn’t this insincere and demeaning? Do people who are in wheelchairs really need to get special treatment? Can they not handle heartbreak just like everyone else? And if someone wrongs you in a way you find unforgivable should their own misfortune change the way you treat them, even though you feel wronged by them?

The above questions are those which The Descendants ask. Matt King finds out from his daughter, Alexandra (played with sharp wit and intelligence by the unknown and talented Shailene Woodley) that his wife cheated on him. He takes his children to confront the man who slept with his wife. Matt finds out that this guy, Brian Speer (played by Matthew Lillard who proves he can actually play it straight while acting his age and remain fully-dimensional) is married, and Brian’s wife finds out about the affair as well.

While his wife is lying brain-dead in a coma, Matt comes to the hospital and starts yelling at her about how selfish she was and about how wrong it was for her to cheat on him, and that she was selfish and irresponsible to want to leave him and their kids and break up their family to move with Brian. In a later scene, Brian’s wife visits Matt’s wife at the hospital and says that, “I forgive you for sleeping with my husband and for wanting to break up my family. I should hate you but I forgive you.” In another scene, Alexandra visits her mother at the hospital and calls her a whore and how she was wrong to cheat on dad. What makes these scenes funny is how profound they are. It might seem insensitive that Matt, his daughter, and Brian’s wife are so unsympathetic that they would yell at a woman while in a coma, but are they wrong to do this? Matt’s wife (Elizabeth) did act wrong and why should her actions be ignored just because she is in a coma? Does having something bad happen to you mean your sins should be forgiven? I’m not answering these questions, and what makes The Descendants a good movie is that neither does the film; the film just puts such situations out there so you can ponder about these questions yourself.

The Descendants is a road trip movie, where Brian takes his children to Hawaii to confront Brian Speer about the affair. Along with Matt and his two children, his eldest daughter, Alexandra brings her friend Sid (Nick Krause, who is very funny and steals every scene he is in) with them. Sid starts out as a typical surfer-dude type character, but shows depth along the film to make his character more than just a archetype. Sid says what’s on his mind even when inappropriate. When Matt tell’s Elizabeth’s parents that she is in an irreversible coma and is going to die soon. Elizabeth’s father tells his wife (who has Alzheimer’s) that they are going to visit Elizabeth at the hospital. “Really, we are going to visit Queen Elizabeth. How exciting. I always wanted to see a queen.” Sid starts laughing at this and Elizabeth’s father tells him to shut up. Sid doesn’t. “I’m going to punch you,” he says to Sid, which Elizabeth’s father does.

The Descendants doesn’t judge its characters but simply plays events and allows the audience to make their own judgments about them. George Clooney does a great job turning Matt into a moving and sympathetic character (even though he seems to care more about his wife cheating on him than her being in a coma and about to die).

The writing is typical funny and moving Alexander Payne. The directing is modest and there is lovely Hawaiian music in the film. If the film has a flaw it’s that the music is used too much and doesn’t always flow. I wish the music wasn’t used as much as it was. Another misstep is Matt King’s narrating the film. Having a character acting as narrator is a crutch and unless you are Ron Howard in Arrested Development, voice-over narrations should be carefully used. The first 15 minutes or so is almost all narration (it gets a lot better than that afterwards).

Besides for the over-reliance on music and Matt’s narration, The Descendants is a funny, touching, well-written, acted, and directed film that is well worth your time. My only request is that we don’t have to wait another seven years to see Alexander Payne behind the camera.

No related posts.

The Social Network (pejoratively known as “The Facebook movie”)  shows that Facebook wasn’t invented as a way to make friends but as a way to feel good about oneself and to increase ones own feeling of importance. “Look at me! Look how many friends I have and isn’t it interesting when I tell people where I buy my socks and what I ate for dinner!”

The first scene sets the tone up perfectly. Smug Mark Zuckerberg (played by the always excellent and underappreciated Jesse Eisenberg) is talking about himself to his girlfriend. He doesn’t care that his thoughts aren’t interesting to her and treats her as a lower life form. When his girlfriend says she has to go and study, Mark responds, “You don’t have to study; you go to BU;” implying that she goes to a less challenging school than Mark, who goes to Harvard and just bragged that he got a perfect score on his SATs. His girlfriend, Erica is tired of Mark’s narcissism and breaks up with him telling him, “You are going to go through life thinking that girls don’t like you because you’re a nerd. Let me tell you from the bottom of my heart, that’s not true. [Then a beat] It’s because you’re an as*hole.”

In his rage and feelings of hurt, Mark goes to his dorm and blogs about how Erica is a jerk and posts pictures of different Harvard girls and comparing which one is hotter. Mark’s blog generates so much traffic it eats out the electricity of the Harvard computers. Mark’s blog is a success and this leads to being approached by the Winklevoss twins to make a website where people can look up their friends at Harvard and talk about them and see their pictures. Mark takes this idea and turns it into a more ambitious project where instead of just Harvard students going on a website to see other Harvard students, any person can go on to see any other person, hence what is now known as Facebook.

Mark Zuckerberg isn’t a bully as the previews would lead you to believe. Rather he is a self-absorbed techie lacking social skills, a perfect candidate to build the largest social network ever. A social network where people can believe that they have a lot of friends without ever having (or wanting) to talk to them. This is perfect for a guy like Mark Zuckerberg. The Social Network is about Mark Zuckerberg getting sued by the Winklevoss twins for stealing their idea and by his former and only best friend (well except for the ones on Facebook), Eduardo Saverin (played by Andrew Garfield) for screwing him over by having him removed as the co-founder of Facebook.

The Social Network is well acted by all involved, especially Jesse Eisenberg as Mark Zuckerberg, who clearly has the most depth to him. You alternately hate Zuckerberg for his smug and coldness and admire him for his ambition, brains, and creativity. The writing is typical Aaron Sorkin: fast, clever and biting.  The Social Network is a sad film because it shows how superficial we are as a society. We pretend to care about others, when all we really care about is ourselves.  The Social Network isn’t so much about Mark Zuckerberg as it is about us—wanting to make friends but going about it the wrong way. Mark Zuckerberg may have made Facebook, a superficial social network where no one has to actually socialize, but we are the ones who go on it and help make it a success. I mean how many of us text instead of talking to people face to face or on the phone. The title of the film is a joke and a slap in the face, as the last scene of the film makes clear. I mean how many of our “Facebook friends” do we really talk to? Yep, we might not like the Zuckerberg The Social Network shows, but we are like him—self-deluded narcissists who believe that we have thousands of “friends,” without even knowing what the word really means and how to treat them.

No related posts.

The Other Guys stars Will Ferrell and Mark Wahlberg as two dumb cops (Allen and Terry, respectively). Plot isn’t important in a film like this, or isn’t supposed to be. The Other Guys is just supposed to make us laugh. For a comedy, too much time is spent on the clichéd plot and not enough on jokes.

The Other Guys’ best and funniest moments are in the beginning. The movie is very funny for the first half hour, but then the momentum slowly stops and the laughs come at a slower rate and the jokes get worse. The Other Guys starts out well enough, but like an old car, loses steam at the end.

Terry (Mark Wahlberg) is an angry cop who is made fun of for accidently shooting Derek Jeter. This idea is only mildly comic, but keeps getting mentioned until it is no longer funny. And that is the main problem with the film. The movie keeps repeating the same jokes over and over again which makes the film come across as thin and desperate, whereas if the movie didn’t feel the need to be repetitive with its jokes but come up with new material, The Other Guys could have been the enjoyable comedy the trailers make it out to be.

Terry continues being referred to as “the cop who shot Jeter.” This nickname may (it’s arguable) have been funny the first time Terry was called this, but isn’t by the half a dozenth time.

Michael Keaton stars as Terry and Allen’s boss, Captain Gene. He unknowingly talks in phrases taken out of TLC songs. “Why are you quoting TLC? Allen asks Gene. “What are you talking about?” Gene responds. This interaction must have occurred at least four times during the movie. Make the joke once and move on!

If given good material Will Ferrell is very funny and while The Other Guys isn’t awful and does have its share of good lines, it also has its share of groaners and is too pleased with itself. A bit of cutting, faster pacing and less repetition would have made The Other Guys worth watching, but as it says, Will Ferrell have many other could comedies that you guys should see instead (I just don’t know what they are).

No related posts.

The Other Guys best laughs are in the first half hour in the film and after that the laughs are far and in between. The beginning of The Other Guys is funny and enjoyable, but this laughter quickly dissipates and subsides into an average comedy by the end, which is a shame. Despite the talent of Will Ferrell, Mark Wahlberg and Michael Keaton, The  Other Guys makes us wish these these guys would have made other comedies that we could watch instead of this one.

No related posts.

Get Low is well acted by all involved, especially Bill Murray as Frank Quinn, an owner of a funeral home and Lucas Black, Frank’s protégé. Sissy Spacek as Mattie Darrow is completely wasted and isn’t really a flesh out character.

Most of the film revolves around setting up Felix’s funeral, whom Frank is all to happy to help with. The film is well-acted by the three main leads and even though the plot of the film might seem eccentric, the pacing of the film is very low-key and does its best to not heighten the absurdity of having a funeral while still alive.

The biggest weakness of the movie is it’s plodding pace. The movie drags and drags and is far from gripping. Maybe the MTV generation spoiled me, but Get Low is slow and hard to sit through. I wish Get Low did what its title promised and moved at a quicker pace. Get Low is 100 minutes long but feels much longer.

When it’s finally revealed why Felix became a hermit (and it’s obvious why since the film shows many clues that why Felix is doing what he is doing isn’t really a secret for the audience, which quells any questioning the audience might have as to Felix’s strange behavior), the answer is sort of stupid and unconvincing. Felix is supposed to feel guilty for his actions, but comes across as such a stoic man that it’s inconceivable that Felix would be racked with guilt.

Get Low has a few funny lines here and there (such as a sign which reads, “No Damn Tress-passing! Beware of Mule!”) and the acting is more than competent and the film is scenic, but the film also doesn’t grab the viewer. Get Low has about two dramatic scenes and it’s humor is dry at best. Its slow pacing makes the film a chore to sit through. While the film is technically well made, I wish the film was less pensive and more substantial. Get Low might mean getting down to business, but that’s not what this film does. If you have low expectations you’ll get more out of Get Low.

No related posts.

Unfortunately, the same can’t be said for Dinner for Schmucks. Dinner for Schmucks doesn’t exaggerate real situations and turn them into comedy; instead it has very broad humor. For example, Tim tells Barry to stay in the chair, so when Barry has to get up, he does the Amelia Bedelia and takes the chair with him. Another example of such broad humor is when Barry tries to imitate a Swiss person’s accent and ends up slurring his words.

There are way too few laughs in the film, although the movie does have some good lines. “Do you want to lick cheese off of my naked body?” a former lover of Tim says to Barry. “I think Tim has plates,” is Barry’s response. There’s another scene when a person’s finger gets cut off. “That’s my wife’s favorite finger,” is his reaction.

Steve Carell and Paul Rudd are likable and have good chemistry together. Jemaine Clement as Kieran steals the movie as a narcissistic artist, although he does overdo the comedy a little. And Stephanie Szostak as Tim’s girlfriend is quite cute and lovable.

The comedic situations are as overblown and broad as Jay Roach’s own overrated, Meet the Parents (I expect yelling from you now readers and negative comments for not liking a film almost everyone else seems to find funny). The dinner scene in the film goes on for far too long, even though some of the best laughs are to be had there. Unlike the swift French film on which Dinner for Schmucks is based (whoops, I mean inspired), this remake overstays its welcome.

While Dinner for Schmucks is not as awful as the trailer would suggest, due in large part to Paul Rudd and Steve Carell, it’s not very funny either. It’s not boring and there are enough plot complications to keep you interested, for a comedy the movie isn’t very funny. For those of you who haven’t seen The Dinner Game yet, I strongly recommend it. But for those of you who choose the Americanized version over the original, you’ll end up feeling—well, like a schmuck.

No related posts.

The original French film is a short (less than 80 minutes), clever, and funny farce that shows how a cruel person’s life is shattered by a well-meaning, but dumb person. There is a difference between acting dumb and being dumb. Acting dumb is something most people do. You can be smart but still make foolish mistakes, while a dumb person is stupid not just in their actions but in their thoughts, logic and the way he conducts his life. What makes The Dinner Game such an enjoyable treat is that the “idiot” is truly an idiot. A lovable and well-meaning idiot but an idiot nevertheless. Whereas, in Dinner for Schmucks the “schmuck” does stupid things, says stupid things, but isn’t dumb, thereby removing a lot of the comedy’s bite, which isn’t surprising as this film is directed by Jay Roach.

The film is about Tim (Paul Rudd, affable as always) who in order to get promoted has to invite an idiot for his boss’s dinner party. Tim bumps into Barry (Steve Carell), the “idiot,” while Barry unwilling ruins Tim’s life.

No related posts.

Felix has a reputation around town as a being a strange man prone to violent outburst. He wants to have a funeral while he is alive to hear what people have to say about him. He wants everyone who has a story to tell about Felix to speak at his funeral. At least that’s what he claims. What Felix really wants is to have a chance to tell his side of the story—to tell people why he lived alone for 40 years and for people to hear what he has to say before making up their mind about what he is really like.

No related posts.