Oh my. This movie is just bad. Jennifer's Body is Diablo Cody's follow-up script to her Oscar winning Juno (which despite which I assume I gave a glowing review to, was highly overrated). This time she ventures into the teen-horror-comedy genre. Megan Fox stars as Jennifer a possessed cheerleader who starts killing her male classmates. Starring along side her is Amanda Seyfried as Needy, her slightly dorky "all she needs to do to be hot is take off her glasses" stereotype.
Just looking at the trailers you can tell the target audience. Seriously, Megan Fox in a horror movie with lesbian undertones. Who do you think wants to see this movie? On the subject of Megan Fox- she's simply terrible. At least Seyfried can act. It's a terrible role, but she's able to make it work. Fox on the other hand, is downright awful. It worked fine in Transformers because the real stars were the robots. And it could work here, because she's supposed to be a sexy husk of a person. But instead of looking alluring, she just looks confused.
The script certainly has Diablo Cody all over it. From gems like "it has to be true, it's on the Wikipedia," to "Move on dot org" (in which Jennifer is telling Needy to get past the fact they were almost killed in a fire). If you want to bring trendy catch phrases into your script to show off the hipness of your characters, fine, it worked or Juno. But don't call it "The Wikipedia." It just makes high schoolers look even more vapid than intended. I know these are little quibbles, but if you're going to build your whole trademark around quick witty dialog, you better make it a lot tighter than that.
It had a relatively small budget (most of which probably went to their troublesome star) so I have little doubt it'll turn a pretty profit. Though it did have a mediocre opening weekend- so here's hoping movie going audiences aren't being drawn in by this movie's one trick.
You generally don't associate post apocalyptic wasteland with animation (yes, Wall-e did it) but 9 takes that idea to a new extreme. The human race has been wiped out and all that remains is a small band of rag doll-esque heroes and the robot responsible for destroying humanity. This is certainly not a children's movie (that should be evident from the presence of Timur Bekmambetov as producer), but it doesn't feature anything that would inappropriate for children- just some intense action.
The movie opens with the title character "9" awakening for the first time. He quickly comes across and is befriended by "2" (all the characters are just numbers), and is almost immediately thrust into the conflict between the survivors and the machines. The film moves at a rapid clip, and in no time the action is in full swing. This results in little character development up front. Fortunately this comes throughout the movie in the short bits between action sequences.
Clearly the best aspect of the movie is the animation, and the all around visual aesthetic. Shane Acker captured the wasteland of the crumbling ruins of society perfectly. There was not a shot lacking the requisite filth and dust. Every detail seemed painstakingly created. You could see Tim Burton's hand at work in some of the robotic villains, including one disturbing doll faced snake creature. These particular moments seem to be the ones making this not a kid friendly movie.
The film could be taken as cautionary tale about our dependence on technology; or on the importance of the human soul; or even a simple tale of redemption both for "9" and the cantankerous de-facto leader "1". Honestly, I don't think any of these themes are all that strong, and it seems they're simply a way to stitch together well directed action sequences. In the end, 9 simply boils down to a feature length video game cinematic.
3/5
Also, here's shane Acker's original short. Almost every part of this showed up again in some way in the movie- and the style remained almost exact. The short gives you a really good idea of the movie.
Well they've certainly got their formula down. One teen has a premonition about an overly elaborate and drawn disaster, saves his or her friends, and subsequently spends the rest of the movie trying avoid death. The first movie actually introduced this as an interesting a novel concept (though it was poorly executed). The second one, though bad, featured a spectacular car accident scene that still looks great. The third brought a sense of humor and lightened the series a bit. Now the fourth installment just went through the paces. Though none of the movies were good (or even mediocre), it should come as little surprise that this was the worst.
This time Nick O'Bannon (Bobby Campo) and a few of his friends are at a NASCAR race. He witnesses a horrific crash that kills everyone in his section- in his mind. After making a scene he convinces his friends to leave, and by extension a few others follow. Of course, the accident occurs, and now they have to avoid increasingly complex traps set by death.
I'm not outright dismissing this movie. Naturally it's not supposed to be an Oscar contender. The few things that made its predecessors palletable are all but absent here. In the previous movies, the accident caused the survivors to band together and try to protect each other. This time except for the four main characters, there's almost no interaction between the survivors. This means there's absolutely no development of these characters. In the first movies as well, the death scenes were indeed elaborate, but at least they led somewhere. In this movie, however, these buildups lead nowhere. Drawn out and complex traps end up being for naught. Granted, this ends up blindsiding you, but more importantly it leaves you asking "what was the point of that?" And the few times the payoff is as intended, it is so absurd as to put even the most outlandish deaths in the earlier movies to shame.
This is the shortest movie of the franchise, clocking in at under an hour and a half. Clearly they sacrificed even the most remote character development to keep this trim running length. I did not have the privilege of seeing this in 3D, but I bet I picked out most if not all of the instances this effect was used. I'm not sure if I've ever seen a movie that relied so heavily on objects flying at the screen.
Julie and Julia is an absolutely delightful close to the Summer. Amy Adams stars as Julie Powel, a skilled amateur cook lacking something that can't be fulfilled through her cubicle job. She finds an outlet through Julia Child. Julie gives herself one year to cook every recipe in Julia's "Mastering the art of French Cooking" and blog about it. 500 and some recipes in one year. Meanwhile, the movie features the parallel, and more compelling, story of Julia Child as she's writing the book.
Despite some certainly dramatic moments, the movie maintains a decidedly lighthearted tone through most of it. I don't think there was a single scene with Julia Child (played brilliantly by Meryl Streep) that didn't elicit a smile on my face. Her infectious positive, even when things didn't go her way (and this was a lot) was astounding. I'm hoping for an Oscar nomination for her role. Amy Adams seemed to hold her own pretty well as Julia Child's modern counterpart. She wasn't as effective as Meryl Streep, but then again, who is?
The movie switches between Child trying to get her book made, and Powel trying to get her blog made. They both faced completely different, yet somehow linked trials. Both were lost in a way, not sure what they wanted, and both found salvation through cooking (Julia as a profession, Julie as a hobby). The similarities also carried into their tasks. Julie finds herself overwhelmed by the momentous task, whereas Julia had trouble keeping it as small as it was. The major difference between the two was that Julie's endeavor started to drive a wedge between her and her husband (Chris Messina) whereas Julia and her husband Paul (Stanley Tucci with yet another amazing performance) never let anything get between them. It's almost certain that his presence played a major role in her never gloomy attitude.
They both found themselves in a situation many can relate to. Though Julie had her identity crisis about 20 years younger than Julia's, and dealt with it in a very public forum. Of course the food was center stage for both of them. Though Julie often found it more obligation and bane than salvation (the scene when she tries to make an aspic for example). But what was possibly even more important than just the food, was the process- the exploration.
The part with Julie got off to a but of a slow start. Whereas Julia seemed to fall naturally into her quest for french cuisine, Julie's motives seemed a little forced. The first twenty minutes or so are filled with very expository conversations. The inciting argument that drove her into the block was painfully obvious. It stopped just short of her husband saying "I dare you." Julie took this off the cuff remark seriously and the seeds that would eventually grow into her book were sown. This is a very minor, quibble, however, and the rest of the movie makes up for it. Besides these few forced moments, this is one of the most charming films I've seen in some time.
I figured it's time to post the top movies I'm looking forward to for the rest of the year. These are in no particular order (mostly in order that they're coming out) Taking Woodstock I know this one is already out, but I haven't seen it yet, so it's leading off my list.
Extract This looks like a fairly standard romantic comedy (except that it actually looks funny). I'm a big fan of Jason Bateman, and think that he makes a really good underdog romantic lead. Add to that a supporting cast of Mila Kunis, Kristin Wiig, and Ben Affleck, who is always so much better as a supporting actor, and I think we'll have a winner.
Carriers There's never a shortage of zombie-esque movies. Carriers looks much better than the overly, albeit intentional, cheesy Zombieland which comes out around the same time. Carriers plays up the isolation and the forced mobility that made movies like 28 Days later so good. Carriers may end up being terrible, but I hope it'll at least be scary.
9 This is Shane Acker's feature length debut. After directing a short of the same name, Timur Bekmambetov and Tim Burton gave him the opportunity to turn it into a feature. There's no shortage of animated movies rounding out the year (Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs, Planet 51, Princess and the Frog) but this seems to be the only serious one, and the only post-apocolyptic animation I can recall since Heavy Metal.
No Impact Man This seems to be a fairly interesting documentary on a family's attempts to minimize their carbon footprint, and the struggles that follow. If anything, it may just show how futile this attempt really is.
The Informant This seems like a very funny case of the wrong man for the wrong job. The Informant is a corporate dark comedy that seems to be in the same vein as last year's Burn After Reading. And Matt Damon as a lovable goof? Sound good to me.
Surrogats In a very plausible future, people are able to live their lives through a robotic proxy, while staying in the comfort of their own home. But then people start dieing while hooked up to their surrogates, and Bruce Willis must actually go out in the world to figure out what's going on.
A Serious Man I don't know what this movie is about, other than a perennial loser's life spiraling out of control. But the fact that it's from the Cohen Brothers nearly guarantees a winner.
Whip It In general I've become sick of the quirky indie film. I had no interest in 500 Days of Summer or Paper Hearts. Whip It, however, looks like it transcends the quirky quicksand (despite staring Ellen Page) and looks like it will be genuinely entertaining.
The Invention of Lying This one may be entertaining or awful. Ricky Gervais is one funny guy, but doesn't have a very good record in film. Hopefully this will be better than Ghost Town.
Good Hair This is one of two documentaries on my list. Hosted by Chris Rock, this study in the history and stigma of African American hair seems genuinely compelling. And judging from the trailer, despite some serious undertones, it does not take itself too seriously. With Chris Rock leading it, it promises to be very funny.
The Road I did not particularly like Cormack McCarthy's book, but i think the bleak post-apocalyptic future will lend itself to a beautiful movie. My concern is that the movie appears to reveal more about what happened before the story begins than the book. It always worried me when a movie takes liberties like this.
Where the Wild Things Are I have no idea how they can turn a children's book with more than 10 sentences into a feature length movie. If anyone can, Spike Jonze can. What I've seen of it looks absolutely wonderful.
New York, I love You This is the sequel (sort of) to Paris, je t'aime, which I believe I gave a 5 to. This time the movie is series of short films about New York. The movie doesn't have the same caliber of directors found in the original one, and it lacks the presence of any director who is associated with New York. No Scorsese, no Woody Allen, no Spike Lee. The only person really holding that tradition is Allen Hughs. I hope this will lead to a New generation of New York directors (despite the inclusion of Brett Ratner).
Lovely Bones Peter Jackson's new story of what happens after a girl is murdered looks exquisit, and thrilling at parts. I never read the book, but this is near the top of the list for movies I'm looking forward to.
Amelia Directed by Mira Nair (who also contributes a segment to New York, I Love You), this Amerlia Earhart biopic features Hilary Swank in the starring role.
The Fourth Kind "based on true events" is always both a draw and a caution. Like many of the movies on this list, this one is a wildcard. It could either be fantastically scary (which the trailer makes it look) or a complete dud. Here's hoping for fantastically scary.
The Boat that Rocked This looks like one of the funniest movies on the list. It follows the story of a pirate radio station transmitting of a boat in 1960's. With a cast led by Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Bill Nighy, Nick Frost, and Kenneth Branagh, this one can't lose.
The Princess and the Frog Finally Disney is returning to 2D. This movie adds a cajun feel and decidedly original twist on this classic fairy tale. I'm hoping that this movie does well, because we are in desperate need of a return to classic animation.
Sherlock Holmes This isn't quite the dignified Hound of Baskervilles Sherlock Holmes, but I think Robert Downy Jr. can bring the famous detective in the new century.
This movie is atrocious. But honestly, that doesn't come as any surprise. It had some potential- a great cast (and I mean really great) and a concept that could lend itself to some very funny situations. Unfortunately the film makers doesn't utilize any of these assets, and instead they churn out a criminally unfunny movie.
The Goods is about a band of mercenary car salesmen who travel around the country trying to save struggling dealers. The movie opens on failing Selleck Motors as Don Ready (Jeremy Piven) and his crew come in revitalize the company before it's foreclosed on. Car lots can involve very funny situations- one of my favorite Seinfeld episodes took place at a car dealership. The Goods, instead of including well timed observational humor, focuses on profanity, sexual innuendo, and situations that rival our least favorite parody movies (Including comparing the auto lot to a riot and a battlefield).
Piven tried to capture that sleazy, yet somehow charming jerk. This applies both to moving cars, and his infatuation with the dealer owner's daughter (Jordana Spiro). Aaron Eckhart mastered this role in Thank You For Smoking, whereas Piven just you with a bad taste. This applies to most of the other characters, too, from Ving Rhames' stiff dialog, to Rob Riggle's man-child. The only person immune to this is Ed Helms, who I think is one of the funniest people working today.
Of course the best selling point is the cast. That's what sold me. Ving Rhames, Ed Helms, Tony Hale, Rob Riggle, David Koechner, and even a small but great cameo by Kristen Schaal. And this is just a small sampling of a wonderful ensemble cast. The movie falls well short of the sum of its parts (it's more like the difference of its parts). It suffers the same fate as last year's Step Brothers. Great comedic leads given a terrible script. The dialog is stilted, and as I previously mentioned, it focuses way too much on profanity. This really isn't much of surprise with a fairly green director (Neal Brennan) and writers. Brennan, the most experienced of the team made his break directing Chapelle's Show. When charged with a feature, however, he just can't keep it going. Even though it's produced by funnyman Will Ferrel, the best that comes out is his small cameo in one scene.
The Goods is one of the least funny movies of the year. A great cast is reduced to walking through stilted dialog like their reading it for the first time. Don't waste your time on The Goods.
Oh my. This movie is just bad. Jennifer's Body is Diablo Cody's follow-up script to her Oscar winning Juno (which despite which I assume I gave a glowing review to, was highly overrated). This time she ventures into the teen-horror-comedy genre. Megan Fox stars as Jennifer a possessed cheerleader who starts killing her male classmates. Starring along side her is Amanda Seyfried as Needy, her slightly dorky "all she needs to do to be hot is take off her glasses" stereotype.
