Tag Archives: movies

“Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy” – 2.5 STARS

by

43

ANCHORMAN posterThere are a lot of people who absolutely love “Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy”. I’ve heard so many people talk about its hilarity and give it rave reviews. Yet I have stayed away from it for several reasons, mainly Will Ferrell. I know most people love the guy and find him hysterical, but I can only handle his brand of humor in small doses. Another turnoff for me was seeing that “Anchorman” is a Judd Apatow production. Again, I know Apatow’s movies have a big audience but I’m not into his insistent crass and raunchy style. So the question becomes why would I watch this film? Simply put, I’ve been asked about this movie so many times that I felt I should give it an objective look.

Let me get this out of the way first. “Anchorman” isn’t as bad as I feared. In fact it has several clever gags and some laugh-out-loud funny moments. But it also has the same flat and unfunny “humor” that plagues most of Ferrell’s movies. And of course Apatow’s dull raunchy influence is found at different points throughout the film. It’s really a shame because I like good absurdist comedy and “Anchorman” has a lot of that. But there are also several moments where the movie thinks it’s a lot funnier than it actually is. This roller coaster ride between funny and unfunny scenes can be a little taxing.

Ferrell plays Ron Burgundy, a beloved and legendary anchorman for San Diego’s #1 ranked Channel 4 News. His popularity is citywide and he’s considered the big fish in the San Diego news reporting community. He rolls with his news team consisting of his loud and obnoxious sportscaster “Champ” Kind (David Koechner), his fashion-conscience field reporter Brian Fantana (Paul Rudd), and team weatherman Brick Tamland (Steve Carell) who is basically the village idiot and that’s saying something considering the company of clowns he keeps. The four are given a pretty long leash by their boss Ed Harken (Fred Willard) and they spend it partying with newsroom groupies.

Anchorman

The film is set in the 1975 and it spends a lot of time spoofing the male-dominated society of the time. Burgundy and company view women as a lesser species whose main purpose is to serve them and their “needs”. Of course their sexism is so insanely over the top that it’s often times quite funny. That sets up quite a clash when these moronic Neanderthals learn that, in the interest of diversity, the station has hired a beautiful news reporter named Veronica Corningstone (Christina Applegate). Ron thinks it’s a ridiculous idea and that there’s no room for women in the news room. But he underestimates Veronica’s tenacity and ambition. He also underestimates her irresistible beauty and charm, and his attraction to her jeopardizes his role as a chauvinistic icon.

Ferrell co-wrote the script and I assume he tried to cater his role to his style of comedy. He has his moments where he’s very funny but there are also several times where his character’s gags land with a thud. Some of his jokes are so shallow and poorly written that they resemble material you would hear during a subpar comedy club’s amateur hour. But Ferrell does provide some good laughs especially when he’s swapping lines with his team. But overall I don’t think he’s the funniest character in the film. For me it was Steve Carell. He’s a complete space cadet and he had me laughing nearly every time he spoke. I also thought Applegate was very good as the straight person in the midst of a ton of lunacy. There’s also some really fun scenes with Willard. He’s a guy that can be very funny if given the right material.

Anchorman1

There are several cool touches that make the movie fun. I loved Bill Curtis’ pitch-perfect narration. The hyper-70’s wardrobes and hairstyles are a blast and the whole parody of the 70’s network news scene worked for me. Ferrell and gang play within this period sandbox and they’re clearly having a ton of fun. There are also a host of interesting cameos that pop up along the way. Some work while others are pretty pointless. I also have to tip my hat to Ferrell’s willingness to humiliate himself to get a laugh. It doesn’t always work but more often it does.

“Anchorman” actually attempts to provide some social commentary within its outlandish humor but I don’t think it pulls it off. For me it’s a film better appreciated as an insanely silly and preposterous comedy. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. Unfortunately it’s a terribly uneven film and you have to wade through numerous flat and unfunny jokes to get to the good stuff. It seems that for every hilarious gag “Anchorman” gives you two boring and lazy ones. And of course there’s the Apatow signature toilet humor that’s just as cheap and annoying as in Judd’s other pictures. And it’s really a shame. “Anchorman” has a number of great scenes and I found myself laughing out loud numerous times. Unfortunately I found myself rolling my eyes just as much.

REVIEW: “Evil Dead” (2013)

by

40

EVIL DEAD POSTER

It was 32 years ago that childhood friends Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell introduced a small, low budget horror film that would influence the genre for decades and become one of the biggest cult classics in film history. That movie was “The Evil Dead”. With little money and a cast and crew made up mostly of family and friends, Raimi and Campbell still managed to craft a visceral, gory, and frightening gem that remains one of my very favorite horror pictures of all time.

In keeping with Hollywood’s current remake fetish and creative brain freeze it seems only logical that we would get “Evil Dead”, an update on the 1981 classic. When I first heard about this project red flags went up everywhere. How dare they mess which such a cult favorite and one that I personally hold as sacred. I was instantly skeptical and uninterested. That was until I heard some very interesting details. Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell would be producing the movie. Game on! From that moment on I’ve been anxious to see this film. My anticipation grew after seeing the first trailer and after hearing Campbell and Raimi’s enthusiasm. But I still had a deep burning question – could they even come close to capturing what made the original so great?

They certainly weren’t afraid to set the bar high. The movie poster features the line “The most terrifying film you will ever experience”. While I wouldn’t go that far, “Evil Dead” is still a creepy, gore-soaked, step back in time that’s sure to entertain old-school horror fans and shock newer viewers who are more accustomed to the popular PG-13 ghost stories of today. Raimi and Campbell hand over the directing keys to Fede Alvarez but their bloody fingerprints are all over this picture. And while there are question marks and a few plot holes, I still found this to be satisfying horror ride and a perfectly acceptable reimagining.

EVIL DEAD1

There are several noticeable story changes in this film. Instead of it being five friends taking a fun filled vacation in the Tennessee hills, these five folks come together for a much more serious purpose. Mia (Jane Levy) has struggled with a drug problem and after a serious overdose her friends Olivia (Jessica Lewis) and Eric (Lou Taylor Pucci) decide to take her away to her family’s remote rundown cabin to help her quit cold turkey. Mia’s brother David (Shiloh Fernandez) and his girlfriend Natalie (Elizabeth Blackmore) meet them there to help. After making a grisly discovery in the basement, the group uncover a book bound in human skin and filled with disturbing text and images.

Now fans of the original know this is the Necronomicon (The Book of the Dead) and that by quoting a specific set of words from the book, you would awaken an evil presence in the woods. Well that’s what happens and quite literally all Hell breaks loose. One demon possession later and the creepiness shoots through the roof and the blood starts to flow. Now you should know this going in but in case you don’t let me emphasize that this is an extremely graphic film. A crowbar, an electric knife, a machete, a box cutter – these are just some of the instruments of defense of death and this film isn’t shy about using them.

The spectacular special effects only makes the eeriness more pronounced and the gore more vivid. This is worth mentioning because Alvarez was emphatic that no CGI be used. What you see is the real deal – old school visual effects with some clever illusions and slick camera tricks. I loved this decision. It’s a clear reminder that great effects can be done without the cheaper and often times more obvious CGI. The visuals work hand-in-hand with the brilliant use of sound. Every creak from the cabin, every flick of a switch, and every chord from the score help in giving the movie an eerie and intense feel. This is a very technically impressive film and I can just see Raimi wanting to play with all the visual toys that weren’t available to him in 1981.

EVIL DEAD2

Now perhaps the biggest question that will be asked by many centers around the horror. Is “Evil Dead” scary? This is almost impossible for me to gauge because movies never really scare me. For me effective horror pictures are one the creep me out, not necessarily scare me. While not on the same level as its inspiration, this film definitely has its creepy and disturbing moments. But it certainly scared some people during my screening so if that’s what your looking for, you should find it here.

But you won’t find the same sly and subtle humor that’s in the original. Everything here is dead serious (pun intended) and I honestly missed those lighter moments. There were also a few minor things that didn’t quite work as the movie intended. There’s an opening scene showing a disturbing past event that had happened in the cabin’s basement. The trouble is the entire scene felt completely disconnected from the rest of the movie. I had so many unanswered questions about it and I just don’t understand why it’s there. Then there is a scene close to the big finale featuring a bit of creative (and utterly preposterous) engineering. I’m not going to give anything away but it and its subsequent scene was just too ridiculous to buy into. Thankfully the movie doesn’t waste any time moving past it and making its way to its entertaining, blood-soaked ending. It too is different from the original but it worked for me.

Even though this is a remake of a true classic horror picture, for me it was important to not judge this movie strictly by the 1981 film or to go to far in comparing them. This movie stands on its own and it does it well. But it never forgets its roots and that’s the main reason I found it to be a success. It follows the pattern set forth by the earlier film and then amps things up 110%. It’s gruesome, it’s gory, it’s relentless, and it all fits perfectly with the films frightening tone. Fans of the classic will love the various tips of the hat to the original and new fans will be rocked by their visceral dose of old-school horror. I see it appealing to both groups. “Evil Dead” worked for me not only as a solid modern-day remake but as one of the better horror pictures to come around in years. It looks like Raimi and Campbell’s tried and true formula still works today.

VERDICT – 3.5 STARS

REVIEW: “Duck Soup”

by

23

Classic Movie Spotlight

duck_soup posterI think it would be safe to say that the Marx Brothers had a brand of humor that was uniquely their own. In a variety of ways Groucho, Harpo, Chico, and Zeppo Marx influenced the comedy genre like no others. Their chaotic and anarchic comedy is centered around rapid-fire quips and ingenious slapstick that’s as well choreographed as any fine dance or ballet. Some of today’s audiences haven’t had the same appreciation for the Marx Brothers and many moviegoers raised by modern cinema may be tempted to dismiss their style of humor. But I stand with the many who believe that the brothers were some of the greatest comic geniuses ever to grace the big screen.

Many believe “Duck Soup” to be the Marx Brothers’ greatest film. While my affection for several of their other movies keeps me from emphatically agreeing, I don’t mind saying that “Duck Soup” is right there in the conversation. The movie features two significant finales for the brothers. This was their last movie to include Zeppo Marx and it was their last production for Paramount Pictures. Many consider the Paramount days to be the best for Marx Brothers movies. But serious contract disputes sunk the relationship between the two sides and after “Duck Soup”, the final movie of a five picture contract, the brothers moved to MGM.

As with most of the Marx Brothers movies, summarizing the plot of “Duck Soup” can be an exercise in futility. There’s no dense or intricate narrative in the film. It’s simply a basic story that allows Groucho, Harpo, and Chico to showcase their comedic chaos. Groucho plays Rufus T. Firefly, the appointed leader of a small country named Freedonia. Freedonia is in a vulnerable position due to economic hardships and poor leadership. Why anyone would expect things to change with Firefly in charge is beyond me! Groucho is exactly as you would expect. He hurls sarcasm and insults at Mach 5 speed and his idiocy when it comes to running a country only makes things worse for Freedonia. But what’s worse for them is hilarious for the audience. Groucho is in top form and its a challenge just to keep up with his humor.

DUCK SOUP 1

The neighboring rival country of Sylvania sees blood in water and they believe the time to take control of Freedonia has come. Their ambassador Trentino (Louis Calhern) sends two spies Chicolini (Chico) and Pinky (Harpo) to infiltrate Firefly’s regime. Another dumb move. Obviously the two numbskulls botch the operation and turn things upside down. Before long the two countries have declared war and things go completely insane. In other words, its exactly what you would expect from an effective Marx Brothers picture.

Zeppo appears as Firefly’s secretary chief, Bob Roland. After playing his usual straight man role in the first five Marx Brothers films, he would quit acting after “Duck Soup” to make his fortune in engineering. Also a Marx Brothers favorite Margaret Dumont plays her familiar wealthy, aristocratic widow role. As always she plays the straight face in the middle of the brothers’ madness and she takes the brunt of Groucho’s jabs and insults. Dumont is certainly a supporting character but her roles are always vital to making much of the comedy work. That’s definitely the case in “Duck Soup”.

The film has several signature scenes none more well known than the mirror sequence. In it Harpo, decked out as Groucho, pretends to be his reflection in a busted out mirror. He matches Groucho’s every movement and expression in a scene featuring some mind-blowing choreography. There’s also a fantastic sequence where Chico and Harpo fight it out with a lemonade vendor battling them for sidewalk business. It’s a sequence that could be construed as Marx Brothers cruelty. In fact I’ve heard that argument but I think that’s taking the scene way to seriously. It’s a hysterical part of the film. Then there is Harpo’s penchant for clipping things with his scissors. Whether it’s tuxedo tales or feathered pens, he clips anything he gets a chance to.

I could go on and on about the numerous funny lines and hilarious gags. “Duck Soup” may have more Marx Brothers zaniness than any of their other pictures. For anyone not familiar with these early comic legends this is a great entry point. Just be prepared. The humor is relentless but it keeps me laughing from the opening to the closing credits. The boys made some fantastic films after “Duck Soup” but here they’re at their peak. And for me this 1933 comedy succeeds where the vast majority of modern attempts fail. It’s incredibly funny and it carves out for itself a spot as a true classic.

VERDICT – 5 STARS

5 STARSs

5STAR K&M

REVIEW: “G.I. Joe: Retaliation”

by

25

GIPOSTER

One of my great joys growing up was reading the G.I. Joe comic book series. The action figures, the vehicles, the cartoon series – G.I. Joe equaled big money in the late 80s and early 90s. But my favorite remained the comic book. I read it for around 100 issues and I loved the way it treated its characters, their relationships, and their storylines. So imagine my frustration when “G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra” hit the big screen in 2009. It was a movie ripe with potential but full of crap. The shoddy acting, the overt political correctness, and the ridiculous story supplied enough reasons to dislike the film. But for me its biggest vice was the butchering of the characters that I’ve loved since my childhood. Whether it was poor research or poor creative decisions, I don’t know. But I do know I despised that movie.

Four years have passed and now Paramount Studios have given us a sequel, “G.I. Joe: Retaliation”. This time around they dangle Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson and Bruce Willis like a carrot in front of a horse, trying to convince us that this movie aims to be better. Well, actually it is better but I’m not sure that’s saying much. One thing that stood out was that it did attempt to be a little more faithful to the comic book source material than the previous movie. There are several tips of the hat and even a side story straight from the pages of the print series. Unfortunately the side story will make absolutely no sense to anyone who hasn’t read it and this leads to the biggest problem with this entire project – the lame and often times amateurish writing.

GIPOST1GIPOST2GIPOST3

The movie picks up shortly after the events of the first film. Zartan is masquerading as the President of the United States while Cobra Commander and Destro are in some sort of cryogenic stasis in an underground government prison. But Cobra has a bigger plan at work that of course includes world domination and extinguishing the G.I. Joe team. Meanwhile, the Joes are out doing what they do, thwarting terrorist attacks, retrieving stolen nuclear warheads – you know, standard Joe stuff.

Duke (Channing Tatum) is back and he’s the man in charge. He shares a bromance with his best friend and team heavy machine gunner Roadblock (Johnson). We also get the seemingly loose cannon Flint (D.J. Cotrona) although they completely abandon his loose cannon angle. Then there’s the gorgeous but able Lady Jaye (played by the gorgeous and occasionally able Adrianne Palicki). And of course there’s the super cool and personal favorite Joe of mine Snake-Eyes (Ray Park). After the team is decimated by a Cobra attack sanctioned by the bogus president, the few surviving Joes are forced underground where they must put together a plan to expose Cobra and avenge the death of their comrades.

The movie is really just a series of action set pieces linked together by a few strands of plot. But did anyone honestly go into a G.I. Joe movie expecting anything deep? The story is adequate enough to move this action-oriented film along. It’s when the story tries to branch out into side stories that things begin to get messy. The most obvious example is a side story dealing with Snake-Eyes, Storm Shadow, and the events of their connected pasts. As a fan of the comic series I smiled as I remembered reading this story from the books. But in terms of this movie, its incorporation into the main story is horribly done. It comes completely out of the blue and instead of gelling with the main narrative, it violently collides with it. There’s no sense of place and there’s no real connection at all.

GI JOE2

The poor writing also shows itself in some of the character’s underwritten subplots and in some of the corniest dialogue you’ll hear all year. Some of the jokes and attempts at humor are nothing short of cringe-worthy. There were times, particularly in the first half of the film, where these lines felt so awkward and disingenuous. Then there was the macho military banter, again mostly in the first half of the film, that was so incredibly silly and fake. It’s hard to imagine anyone putting this on paper and thinking it sounds good. It’s also hard to take any of these characters seriously while you’re constantly face palming due to the goofy dialogue! Thankfully a lot of this subsides as the movie goes on.

As with many of this year’s movies we’ve seen so far and that are on the way, the action is the big focus. It’s pretty relentless so be prepared to be bombarded with bullets, blades, and explosions. For me, this was the film’s strong point. I thought the action sequences in the first film did nothing to save it from its serious flaws. The action sequences in this film are actually pretty good and they did help me get past some of this movie’s shortcomings. They also translated well in 3D, something that was a pleasant surprise considering my usual dislike for the technology. But like other movies with such heavy dependence on CGI, things sometimes feel too synthetic. There’s a wildly entertaining ninja showdown on the face of a huge mountain. But as fun as it is, it’s still hurt by its absurdity and obvious computer generated visuals. The action is also helped and sometimes hurt by Jon Chu’s direction. Now I was happy to see a new director on board after the first debacle. But I’m hard-pressed to believe that a director known for the “Step Up” series and “Justin Bieber: Never Say Never” was the best choice.

GI JOE

The Rock is intended to be the big draw here and while he’s big on charisma, he’s not when it comes to emotion. But is that just something that comes with casting him or was he handcuffed by the material he’s given? Another draw was Bruce Willis but this is clearly a check cashing role for him. His short screen time adds a few mild snickers and he serves as a plot hole filler (kind of) but that’s about it. Tatum is as forgettable as usual but again the material does him no favors. I think Jonathan Pryce may be the most fun actor to watch in the film. He plays around and has fun as both the president and Zartan posing as the president.

So after all of that what’s my conclusion on “G.I. Joe: Retaliation”? Is it as awful as I anticipated? Nope, not even close. Is at a good movie? I don’t think I can go there either. Let me just say it’s a better movie than its predecessor and at times can be entertaining. I enjoyed the attempt to add a pinch of realism to the story and I liked some of the money moments such as Snake-Eyes vs Storm Shadow. But in the end “G.I. Joe: Retaliation” seems content to be a better movie rather than a really good one. Granted it’s aimed at an audience made up of teen boys and nostalgic men and it’ll score some points there. But nostalgia only carries me so far.

VERDICT – 2 STARS

“Say Anything…” – 4 STARS

by

14

SAY ANYTHING POSTERBack in 1989 Cameron Crowe wrote and made his directorial debut with “Say Anything…”, a teen romantic comedy that still stands out from the bulk of the teen flicks we still get today. So many teen films adhere to the annoying formula of vulgarity mixed with immaturity and they treat their characters as shallow and stupid stereotypes. “Say Anything…” does none of that instead choosing to give us genuine characters who feel grounded in reality. These are the types of characters you can relate to and care about which makes for a much more authentic experience.

Crowe clearly has no interest in creating another portrait of teen debauchery. This film features real characters struggling with real problems and sharing real emotions. But Crowe’s writing also allows for a fair share of humor which always comes at just the right time. For all its sweet romance and well conceived drama there are some really funny moments as well. But perhaps what I’m the most thankful for is that Crowe actually gives us well developed and layered characters. He opens these people up for us and allows us to see what’s inside. That’s a key ingredient to getting the audience to latch onto the characters and their stories.

The story starts on graduation day at a small Seattle, Wasington high school. John Cusack plays Lloyd Dobler, an average, everyday student with no clear vision for what he wants to do with his life. He’s a very honest and forthright guy who finds himself attracted to Diane Court (Ione Skye), the class valedictorian. On paper this doesn’t look like the perfect match, something Lloyd’s best friend Corey (Lili Taylor) is happy to point out. But Lloyd and Diane are two characters that we’re happy to invest in and their unlikely romance makes for good cinema.

Say ANything 2

Both Lloyd and Diane have struggles in there individual lives that Crowe takes time explore. I mentioned Lloyd’s uncertainty about his future and with graduation day behind him time is running out to decide what he’s going to do. His parents are overseas leaving him to live with his sister and her son. I couldn’t help but feel he was a kid needing his parents presence and love. Yet Lloyd is still a good guy even though he’s unsure. Diana is the smartest girl in school which has socially distanced her from her entire class. She doesn’t appear to have any close friends and her one confidant is her father Jim (John Mahoney). She chose to live with him during her parents’ divorce and the two have a very close and open relationship. But outside of her father, Diane has no one else she can truly call a friend.

Crowe stays away from the standard teen movie cliches and formulas when bringing these two together. Their emotions feel so authentic and their problems complicate things in ways people are sure to relate to. There’s a lot of talk about honesty in “Say Anything…”. Lloyd is a honest and sincere young man and that plays a big part in his relationship with Diane. Her relationship with her father is built entirely on honesty and trust. Honesty is such a big part of the film and when it’s broken, just like in real life, it can often times carry heavy consequences.

SAY ANYTHING

Cusack is pitch perfect for this role. I’m not the biggest fan of his but I have admired some of his work. Here he relays that teen enthusiasm and nervousness surrounding new found love. But there’s also a innocence and vulnerability that he brings which I really responded to. Skye has her moments as well. At times her performance can be very convincing as she moves between heavy, emotional scenes and others where she conveys an almost childlike exuberance. But there are some times where she plays things a tad to big and she ends up standing out for the wrong reasons. Mahoney is brilliant as Diane’s father. He gives us such a likable character and several times we feel as if he’s going to go down the conventional road that most of these teen movie fathers travel. Mahoney is so believable and his performance really shines later in the film.

“Say Anything…” is over 20 years old now but it still maintains its freshness in a genre thats grown repetitive and stale. It’s a film that treats teens as sensible human beings with real world feelings and issues. Cameron Crowe’s writing is crisp and his direction is sharp. He gives us a film that feels like an 80’s movie with a new decade’s vibe bursting out of it. But regardless of its age and imperfections, “Say Anything…” still stands out today. But that’s no surprise. Good movies always seem to.

“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.