Category Archives: Movie Reviews – R

“Ruby Sparks” – 4 STARS

by

26

ruby sparks posterThere are some movies that you know you have no interest in seeing from the first moment you hear of them. Whether you’re repelled by the story, the director, or someone in the cast, certain films can instantly turn you off. That was my initial reaction to “Ruby Sparks”. Since I’m an official Paul Dano hater, “Ruby Sparks” was immediately thrown into my ‘do not watch’ bin. But you know there are also movies that completely catch you off guard. Despite your lack of interest or minuscule expectations, some movies come out of the blue and totally surprise you. That was my reaction after finally seeing “Ruby Sparks”.

I really hadn’t given this film much consideration at all. But after reading a few recent positive reviews and desperately needing a movie for my Netflix queue, I decided to give “Ruby Sparks” a look. I’m glad I did. This is a smart and fresh romantic comedy that looks at control issues, insecurities, and the failures of people to look inward when it comes to solving a relationship problem. The film takes its unique idea and makes it work thanks to a superb script, nice direction, and yes, even a good performance from Paul Dano.

Zoe Kazan wrote and stars in this film about a struggling writer named Calvin (played by Kazan’s real life boyfriend Dano). Calvin captured lightning in a bottle at age 19 with a best selling novel that took the country by storm. But since that time he’s been unable to latch onto a good idea for a follow up. Calvin also has a poor track record when it comes to relationships. He spends the majority of his time alone with his dog Scotty dwelling on a long past breakup with a girl named Lila. Calvin’s jerky but caring brother Harry (Chris Messina) tries to help him with his depression and his therapist Dr. Rosenthal (Elliott Gould) gives him various writing assignments to try and provide him with the emotional and career push he needs.

Ruby Sparks2

Then something miraculous happens. Calvin has a dream where he has a lovely encounter with a girl in a park. He wakes up and immediately feels inspired to write about her. Day and night he enthusiastically writes about Ruby Sparks and falls for her more with each word he types. Then one morning Calvin is astonished to find Ruby (Kazan) in his house – a living, breathing embodiment of all he’s written. This provides several obvious complications for Calvin but it also offers some interesting possibilities for him. Could this be the one chance for him to have the girl of his dreams (yes, I actually went there)?

I don’t want to go much further into the story at risk of giving too much away. Lets just say the movie makes Calvin face a number of relationship questions and moral quandaries. With a few punches on his typewriter he’s able to change or adjust Ruby in any way he sees fit. But is that love? Is that what relationships are all about? Are our fantasies good measuring sticks for companionship? You’ll find these types of questions cleverly nestled between some good subtle humor and a touch of romance. I really responded to it and that’s mainly due to Kazan’s slick, intelligent script. This was her screenwriting debut and she shows an amazing knack for telling a good story while bucking conventional methods. The directing team of Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris keep Kazan’s story moving with energy and fluidity. At least most of the time. The film does hit a lull at the midway point but the directors quickly change directions which gets things back on track, right up to the satisfying ending.

Ruby Sparks1

It would be unfair for me to finish the review without talking about Paul Dano. He gives a really good performance here. Now I still stand by my assertion that he’s only good in certain and very specific roles. In fact, Kazan wrote this part with him in mind. But this is perfect for him and he nails it. Kazan is also very good in a small but tricky role. There is also good work from Messina and Gould as well as Annette Benning as Calvin’s free-spirited mother and Antonio Banderas as her peculiar boyfriend.

Let me sum this all up by saying “Ruby Sparks” was a pleasant surprise. I never expected to enjoy this movie nearly as much as I did. It may sputter in a spot or two and some of the characters may not feel as genuine as they should. But the acting is strong and the writing is fantastic. That was more than enough to bring this unique story alive for me. While Paul Dano still isn’t an instant box office draw for me, I believe that with the right material he can be good. And “Ruby Sparks” has me really excited to see what Kazan writes next. For me, she’s the one who shines the brightest from this film.

“Rust and Bone” – 3.5 STARS

by

25

RUST PosterThere are several things that attracted me to “Rust and Bone” but nothing more than seeing Marion Cotillard take on another challenging role. To me, Cotillard is one of the best female actresses working today and she has never shied away from a difficult or demanding performance. That’s certainly the case in “Rust and Bone”, a French language picture from director Jacques Audiard. Audiard’s last directed film was 2009’s “A Prophet” so I expected this to be a bit gritty. But in the end it was his grittiness and edginess that kept me from absolutely loving this movie.

Now don’t misunderstand me, I do like “Rust and Bone”. There’s such a harsh reality to Audiard and co-writer Thomas Bidegain’s script and the incredibly committed performances are essential to bringing us into the fragile and stained worlds of Alain (Matthias Schoenaerts) and Stéphanie (Cotillard). But as in real life, there are some things I don’t need to see over and over again and I felt Audiard’s desire to be edgy sometimes took away from the much better story at the heart of “Rust and Bone”.

The story revolves around two struggling people whose lives cross paths. We first see Alain as a single father with no money or home. He and his son Sam (Armand Verdure) end up crashing at his sisters house in a poor part of Antibes, France. He moves from one low-paying job to another while still holding out hope of reviving his kickboxing career. While working as a bouncer at a nightclub he has a brief encounter with Stéphanie. She works with killer whales at a Sea World type tourist park. Later during a performance there is a terrible accident which leaves Stéphanie as a double amputee. With her lower legs gone, she sinks into a world of deep depression. She reconnects with Alain and the two begin a peculiar relationship centered around two different sets of needs.

RUST2

“Rust and Bone” rarely offers the audience an opportunity to smile. It deals with tough issues and never adds an ounce of sugarcoating or melodrama. When it uses this approach to advance the plot the film is very effective. And that’s not to say the movie lacks heart. There are a few scenes that do lift your spirits and they drive you to root for these characters and their individual transformations. You find your self invested in Alain and Stéphanie even if you don’t particularly like them all the time. This is in large part due to the performances from Cotillard and Schoenaerts. There isn’t one bit of insincerity in these performances and you’ll never doubt them for a second. Cotillard continues to amaze me with her subtlety and ability to express genuine emotion through her expressions. Here she gives an intense yet grounded performance. The only distraction from the actor’s work comes from the movie’s persistent focus on the edgier part of their relationship. For me, Audiard goes to the proverbial well one too many times.

I also have to mention the insanely good CGI work and visual trickery used to make Cotillard look as if she has no legs. If you weren’t familiar with the actress you would never know otherwise. It’s that convincing. Of course I don’t have to explain how essential that is to making the story work. Much of the film deals with her struggling and dealing with her handicap and I was amazed at how visually impressive it looked.

“Rust and Bone” could be called an unconventional love story but that’s cutting it short. There’s so much more going on in this film and most of it works great. There’s some fantastic technique at work behind the camera and the performances are brilliant. But my overall experience with the film was brought down a bit by some pointless content that wasn’t just distracting but that caused things to drag a bit. A tighter script and a broader focus could have made this good film even better. Nevertheless there is some solid storytelling here and the raw emotion that it leaves you with says a lot about the movie.

REVIEW: “Roman Holiday”

by

36

Classic Movie Spotlight

roman_holidayI don’t mean to be repetitive. But at the risk of sounding like a broken record, they just don’t make romantic comedies like this anymore. This 1953 classic from director William Wyler is a beautiful blueprint for a genre that seems to struggle with making quality movies these days. “Roman Holiday” brings together the always good Gregory Peck and the adorable Audrey Hepburn in a film that could almost be considered a fairy tale story. But while the film embraces some of the elements that make a good romantic comedy, it dodges a few of the conventions which have become all too familiar.

“Roman Holiday” was the star-making role for a young Audrey Hepburn. After appearing in several smaller roles this was a bigger performance that caught the world’s attention. A lot of that attention is because of Gregory Peck. Peck was instrumental in getting Hepburn’s name out there after realizing she was going to be big. Interestingly enough Peck wasn’t Wyler’s first choice. The director first sought after Cary Grant but Grant turned it down after reading the script. Peck once said that anytime he received a comedy script he knew Grant must have turned it down first. Well I don’t think anyone is griping about how things turned out. Peck and Hepburn have a charming chemistry as they explore the unique relationship between their characters.

The story for “Roman Holiday” was written by Dalton Trumbo but it was credited to Ian McClellan Hunter. Trumbo was one of the Hollywood Ten and was blacklisted for his communist ties and failure to cooperate with Congress. It was during that time that he penned the story. To make things even more interesting, “Roman Holiday” won the Academy Award for Best Story (as the category was known at the time). Hunter would accept the award but it was Trumbo who earned it. Only in 2011 was full credit given to Trumbo was his work on the film.

ROMAN1

His story follows Ann (Hepburn), a princess of an unmentioned country who is on a European tour stop in Rome. Ann is young and adventurous and she wants to experience the life outside of her closed in ornate walls. She’s tired of the strict itineraries and stuffy hobnobbing so one night she lets out her frustrations. The royal family doctor gives her a sedative to calm her down but before it can kick in, she sneaks out of the embassy to experience the sites and sounds of Rome. An American reporter named Joe Bradley (Peck) stumbles across Ann sound asleep next to a fountain. He doesn’t recognize her at first but after a comical series of events he learns her identity and sees her as a big story that could eventually land him back in New York.

Joe doesn’t let Ann know that he recognizes her and Ann tries to keep her identity secret. He calls a photographer friend of his Irving Radovich (Eddie Albert) to secretly capture some photographs of Ann for their big story while the three of them spend a playful day exploring Rome. Of course Joe begins to have feelings for Ann. I mean who wouldn’t? This is Audrey Hepburn were talking about. He’s faced with the decision of caring for her or cashing in his feelings for a big payday. It’s such a wonderful story filled with good humor and a lovely romance. Hepburn and Peck light up Rome with Albert playing the tag-along who gets in some good laughs.

“Roman Holiday” was shot in Rome, something that you didn’t see a lot of during that time. Unlike now where on location shoots are the norm, then it was a pretty special thing to have such an extensive shoot especially I’m a city like Rome. It was a brilliant decision. The city and all its beauty is on display throughout the film and Wyler treats Rome like one of the film’s characters. But it’s a supporting character. The city shows itself often but always as a support for the bigger love story. There are several magical scenes with Ann and Joe at some of the city’s major locations. One of my favorites is a playful moment at The Mouth of Truth monument. Peck pretends as if his arm is stuck in the mouth of the monument and he lets out a scream. Hepburn new nothing of this little gag. Only Peck and Wyler were in on it. It genuinely startled Hepburn who let out a loud scream of her own. It was completely spontaneous and Wyler was able to capture it therefore requiring only one take.

ROMAN2

“Roman Holiday” ended up with 10 Academy Award nominations. I mentioned Trumbo’s win but that wasn’t the biggest story. Audrey Hepburn, a relatively unknown actress at the time, would take home the Best Actress Oscar. This catapulted her into the spotlight and opened the door for her to star in several of my favorite classic films. Peck was right with his appraisal of the young beauty and she was always appreciative. They remained close friends for the rest of their lives. Their admiration for each other and their friendship translated into their performances and they give us a truly memorable screen couple.

I still love “Roman Holiday”. It’s a beautifully filmed movie that tells a wonderful story through some top-notch performances. The Rome locations provide such a pleasing sense of place and even in black and white Wyler gives you a very real feel for the city’s allure and vibrancy. It’s also one of those movies with several scenes that you’ll never forget. It’s easy to get lost in “Roman Holiday” and as an avid movie watcher that’s what I want. I want to be swept away by an interesting story about interesting characters. And in a romantic comedy I want to care about what I’m seeing. I want the story to be smart, the humor to be sharp, and the romance genuine. We get all of this and more in “Roman Holiday” which is one reason this great film has stood the test of time.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

THE END

“The Raven” – 2 STARS

by

26

THE RAVEN POSTER

Have you ever had a movie that you didn’t really respond to but you had a hard time pinpointing why? This is the case with me after watching the 2012 period thriller “The Raven”. This is a movie that intrigued me from the start although I did keep it at an arm’s length. While the components for a unique crime thriller seemed to be there, I still never felt myself drawn to hurry up and see it. So as you can see, my fence straddling with “The Raven” started early. Well now I have seen this widely slammed movie. Is it as bad as the vast majority of critics made it out to be? I don’t think so. But unfortunately it’s missing some major pieces that are vital in making this kind of movie work.

In case you don’t know the story, it’s set in 19th century Baltimore, Maryland. A brutal and grisly double murder puts the police on the trail of a serial killer who patterns his crimes after the short stories of Edgar Allan Poe. Lead Detective Fields (Luke Evans) at first suspects the eccentric Poe (John Cusack) but eventually calls on him to help in the investigation. It’s a cat and mouse game as the two sift through the clues left at every new and horrible crime scene, each tied in to Poe’s writings.

The stakes are raised for Poe after his fiancé Emily (Alice Eve) is kidnapped and used as a pawn by the killer. Now this is a direction the story takes that should give the movie some emotional kick but that’s not the case at all. Poe and Emily’s relationship is cold and lifeless. They try to throw in some tension with Emily’s father (Brendan Gleeson) who despises Poe, but that does little to liven things up. Emily’s capture does lead to some of the movies most intense moments. But the underplayed romance between her and Poe strips the movie of a genuine and much needed sense of urgency.

RAVEN 2

I guess that leads into where my real problems lie with “The Raven”. It moves at a sharp pace. It captures the dark and moody tone that it’s going for. The crime scenes are perfectly unsettling. But in the end so much of the story feels manufactured. The relationships feel manufactured. The urgency feels manufactured. Even the ending feels manufactured (and a bit unsatisfying as well). But perhaps the biggest sin this movie commits is its overall lack of suspense. It’s hard to call a thriller a success if it lacks suspense. “The Raven” desperately tries to muster some but I don’t ever remember feeling it at any point in the movie.

I think “The Raven” is a movie that has some good ideas, but it doesn’t do much with them. It’s not a sloppy or lazy picture. But it also fails to step outside the bounds of conventionality, something that the material afforded them the chance to do. Now it’s decent enough to keep you in your seat, but it never does anything to put you on the edge of it. Again, I guess that’s where my biggest problem lies. There’s nothing suspenseful that grabs you and keeps you glued to the screen. That’s what I want from a thriller and I just didn’t get enough of it here.

REVIEW: “Red Dawn” (2012)

by

35

Red Dawn

I have no problem saying I was a big fan of 1984’s Red Dawn. And whether it’s the nostalgia, the good action, the interesting storyline, the movie still holds up for me today. Now I grant you the politics are outdated and the cheese may not appeal to newer audiences as it does for many of us who grew up during those days. But I still find it to be a rousing good time despite its occasional silliness. That appreciation for the original film combined with what I saw from the first trailers had me concerned about the 2012 remake. Hollywood doesn’t have the best track record when it comes to remakes and let me just say that this new Red Dawn will do nothing to change that.

Now if you’re unfamiliar with the original story that’s ok. The new version only incorporates the general idea and a few of the names. Most everything else is new but certainly not better. The film starts by introducing Jed Eckert (Chris Hemsworth), a Marine on leave in his hometown of Spokane Washington. We also meet his brother Matt (Josh Peck), a high school football quarterback who doesn’t have the best relationship with his older brother. The movie also chunks in a few more introductions including Matt’s girlfriend Erica (Isabel Lucas), one of Jed’s old schoolmates Toni (Adrianne Palicki), and the boys’ father Tom Eckert (Brett Cullen). All are awakened one morning by an all out military assault on their town. Now don’t even try to use your brain to figure out how the enemy got that many planes, ground forces, and Humvees in the area undetected. The explaination is laughable. In fact, it’s best just to turn your brain off at the opening scene. I mean it seems like the filmmakers certainly did when they were putting together this crappy concoction of errors.

Red Dawn1

This Red Dawn attempts to modernize the politics and the characters while telling the same basic story. Instead of Cuba and Russia from the 1984 film, this time North Korea is the occupying force that attacks the United States with a little help from Russia although how they’re associated is never adequately explained. In fact all we get is news footage during the opening credits which supposedly sets the deteriorating political climate of the world. Aside from that, the invading army is nothing more than a nameless, faceless force showing nothing in terms of motivation or incentive. They just supply our group of young heroes with people to kill. Their arrival causes chaos in the city but Jed, Matt and a few of their friends are able to escape up into the mountains. From there they form into a group of rebels that wages guerrilla war against their occupiers.

I know this sounds silly but the original movie actually did this quite well. It took a small group of scared young people, fleshed them out, and over several seasons turned them into pesky guerrilla fighters mainly focused on survival. This film takes an uninteresting group with practically no personality, zips them into combat, and soon has them carrying out complex missions in the middle of occupied Spokane. No training and very little trial and error. And in this film the North Korean army has to be the worst occupying force ever in the history of cinema. Jed and company are able to waltz right into town at their leisure, detonate C4 explosives wherever the wish, and walk right out of town with their AK47’s tucked under their jackets. And this is just for starters. Throughout the movie you’ll find huge gaps in logic, glaring plot holes, and numerous moments where all you can do is bury your face in your hands.

If I wasted time singling out every stupid moment and ridiculous inconsistency this review would go on forever. Instead let’s just give discredit where discredit is due. Carl Ellsworth and Jeremy Passmore’s script is bad. NOTHING that they’ve added, from the new character twists to the annoying profanity, is an improvement or even on par with the original Red Dawn. It’s one of the most amateurish and laughably bad scripts you’ll find and that’s unforgivable considering it’s a remake of a movie that I felt was well written and highly entertaining. This mess is anything but that.

Red Dawn 2

And then there’s the dialogue and the performances. I was astonished at some of the ridiculous lines crossing the lips of the actors in this movie. Several times I just sat there with my jaw dropped trying to figure out how some of these scenes could have made the final cut. Whether it’s the pseudo-toughness of the kids or the rare moments where they’re trying to show emotion, the film is littered with corny and brainless dialogue. The most laughably bad scenes come with the arrival of Jeffrey Dean Morgan and his two fellow Marines. Their embarrassing attempts at macho military talk left me speechless, particularly Matt Gerald. I swear he may have given one of the worst and most cringe-inducing performances I’ve ever seen. You’ll literally root for his character to be killed just to ease the assault on your ears.

Ok, enough of this. I could say so much more about this movie but I’m already sick of talking about it. In summary, Red Dawn is an unmitigated disaster from start to finish. About the only positives I can come up with are the explosions look good and Chris Hemsworth is decent. But even he is eventually buried by his poorly written character and the shallowness of his lines. Red Dawn ends up being another incompetent remake that shouldn’t even exist. It has virtually nothing in common with the original and it shreds everything that the first film did so well. I can’t see anyone who even slightly appreciated the 1984 film to find anything worthwhile in this remake. But then again I can’t see anyone who appreciates good movies to find anything worthwhile either. It’s that bad!

VERDICT – 1 STAR

For a much better version, please check out my review of the original Red Dawn (1984) .

“RUSHMORE” – 4.5 STARS

by

16

Whenever you’re watching a Wes Anderson movie, there’s no denying that you’re watching a Wes Anderson movie. The writer and director has made a number of films that feature profound uniqueness that set them apart. His quirky humor is unique in itself but Anderson is also known for his own visual style and presentation, his clever use of music, and familiar reoccurring themes that you can’t help but notice. In 1998, Anderson released “Rushmore”, his second feature film and one of his many collaborations with old friend and co-writer Owen Wilson. “Rushmore” is a perfect introduction to Anderson and his special brand of humor. And while the movie – just like all of Anderson’s pictures – won’t appeal to everyone, I found it to be an infectious comedy from start to finish.

“Rushmore” was the film that launched Wes Anderson’s career. He and Wilson began working on the story a few years prior to the release of his first film “Bottle Rocket”. The two took memories and experiences from their childhoods to form the foundation of this truly hilarious story which also flirts with some darker underlying themes. The movie also launched the career of Jason Schwartzman who plays Max Fischer, an eccentric and egocentric 15 year-old student at Rushmore Academy. Max is a underachiever in the classroom but is by far the most extracurricular student in the school. He’s the leader of school groups ranging from the French Club and the Debate Team to the Calligraphy Club, the Rushmore Beekeepers, and a goofy dodgeball club called Bombardment Society. It turns out Rushmore is his life but he finds himself in jeopardy of expulsion due to his horrible grades.

Max develops an unusual friendship with a wealthy but disenchanted business man named Herman Blume played by Bill Murray. Murray is fantastic and he delivers some of the story’s more straightforward laughs but he also adds lots of humor through his straight-faced, deadpan performance. Blume is a miserable fellow not at all happy with his life. But despite his troubles, particularly with his whacked out kids, he’s drawn to Max, so much so that he offers him a job and funds some of Max’s outlandish school “projects”.

But Max and Herman’s friendship takes a hit when they both end up falling in love with the same woman, Ms. Cross (Olivia Williams), a 1st grade teacher at Rushmore. Ms. Cross becomes aware of Max’s infatuation with her and tries to head it off. But Max is impervious to the truth that she is too old for him. It’s here that the movie is really intriguing. Their “relationship” leads to some really funny moments in the picture. But on the flip side, it’s here that we do get hints of a darker more troubling component to the story. There were several scenes where the internal struggle within Max felt real and in turn made him into a really sympathetic character. But Anderson would then draw out a good laugh from the most unexpected place. So it’s safe to say that “Rushmore” had the uncanny ability to make me laugh out loud in one scene and then feel uncomfortable in the very next one. In other words, there’s much more going on underneath the surface.

Anderson also employs several visual gimmicks that I’ve noticed in the handful of his other films that I’ve seen. Some people don’t really respond to his approach but I thoroughly enjoy it. He never frames an ugly shot and while some of “Rushmore” quick snippets may seem jarring to some, I think they brand the film with a quirkiness that I love. Helping out “Rushmore’s” presentation is the interesting choices of music including a selection of 60’s pop songs that feel surprisingly at home even though there doesn’t seem to be a single connection to the story. But again (at the risk of sounding like a broken record), this is typical for a Wes Anderson picture.

True comedy is subjective and that is never more obvious than with “Rushmore”. Many people wrestle with Anderson’s unique sense of humor and visual flair. But I found myself laughing all through this movie and the style of storytelling really helped the quirky humor. The cast is superb and it’s easy to see why Schwartzman took off from here and why this helped rejuvenate Bill Murray’s career. “Rushmore” is a genuinely funny movie laced with some darker undertones that will cause you to laugh and squirm during the same scene. Considering the majority of modern comedies, that’s something I can really appreciate.