Crazy Stupid Love (2011) Review

I like Steve Carell, I think he's one of the funniest actors we currently have. I like Julianne Moore who is a terrific actress and just doesn't get the roles she deserves. I like Ryan Gosling, especially after seeing his badass performance in "Drive", this guy has a bright Hollywood future. But did I like "Crazy Stupid Love", the romantic comedy that unites all of them? Well, sort of.

The movie sees Carell being left by his wife, played by Moore, for her colleague at work, played by Kevin Bacon. Then Carell meets playboy Gosling and the latter also makes him a fellow womanizer. What a great setup, I thought when I first heard about the movie. Knowing that directors John Requa and Glenn Ficarra had written the refreshingly insane "Bad Santa" and "I love you, Phillip Morris" I was hoping for another remarkably bold movie.

Unfortunately the story plays it safe and has Gosling falling in love with Emma Stone while Carell and Moore realize that they still have a thing for each other. It would have been nice to see a film that's braver than your average Hollywood flick in its depiction of relationships but "Crazy Stupid Love" has more problems to fight with.

There are just too many unanswered questions that kept popping up in my head. Why does Gosling pick Carell as his scholar and not anybody else? What exactly drives Moore back to Carell, is it just his new way of dressing sharply? Why does Carell's son adore his dad so much for his love to his wife if he gets divorced? Why are Kevin Bacon and Marisa Tomei, two outstanding actors, wasted in filler roles? Why does Emma Stone's role feel so tacked on? And did we really need the part about the underage babysitter being in love with Carell?

If you didn't get my point, there's a whole lot of "too much" going on and none of the separate parts feels fully completed, it seems too many crucial scenes either ended up on the editor's floor or were just totally over-written. In the case of "Crazy Stupid Love" less would definitely have been more.

Don't get me wrong, the film makes for an entertaining watch, the actors give it their best shot and there are sequences that definitely work but in its entirety the movie just feels like three really good movies blended together, it never adds up to the sum of its parts.

The Strangers (2008) Review

I like writing about films, it's fun to me. That's actually the main reason I started this whole blog, because I'm  enjoying writing about movies. But as much as I enjoy it, sometimes it can be a pain in the ass and that's mostly the case when I am dealing with a film so generic and uninspiring that it is mental torture to come up with anything at all. So here we go, welcome to "The Strangers"!

The story, if you actually care, is barely existent, we have a couple, played by Liv Tyler and Scott Speedman, being terrorized by some strangers in a house in the woods. So far, so generic. The setup is nice and creepy, the intruders wear some freaky masks and the movie is (for today's standards) surprisingly low on gore.

The end result is a mostly chilling but never scary horror film that suffers from the same weaknesses others did before. Too often we question the stupid actions of our supposedly heroes Tyler and Speedman who behave according to the rules that Wes Craven so perfectly parodied in 1996's "Scream". The big problem is that there is no post modern subtext or self awareness of the characters to generate any kind of originality.

"The Strangers" is outspokenly old-schoolish but that doesn't help the fact that we've seen all of its scenes in other (and mostly better) movies. On top of that we get some unnecessary religious symbolism at the end in the form of two Mormon boys.

If you've never seen any horror or slasher movie in your life then "The Strangers" might offer you some scares but everyone else will have forgotten the movie by the time the credits roll.

Martyrs (2008) Review

I think I've seen a couple of really weird movies in my life but I feel there has never been a movie like "Martyrs" that just made me want to stop watching. Not because it is a terrible movie but because of how gruesome, disturbing and unpleasant it is. Seriously, this was a real test of endurance but let's break it down.

"Martyrs" is a French horror movie from 2008 that has since its release repeatedly been named one of the most shocking movies of all time. I was not sure whether this should be taken as a compliment or as a warning but now that I've made it trough I know viewer discretion definitely is more than advised.

Part of the whole experience is not knowing what's about to come so I won't spoil you the story besides the fact that after a rather generic first half about a tortured girl taking revenge the movie takes an unexpectedly hellish turn. From this point on "Martyrs" will split audiences, there will be a) the ones who just get sickened by what's presented on screen or b) the ones who see beyond what's being shown and get the critical message writer and director Pascal Laugier tries to bring across.

The film's really well done, the bleached colors and the shaky cam are used perfectly to create a feeling of terror in the audience and the minimalist approach with basically just one location and a handful of actors and actresses helps heighten the tension. As an example of the modern gore film craze this movie will remain as one of the most terrifying but it will leave audiences alone who will be put off by the questionably sadistic and misogynistic execution.

I don't believe there are people who actually enjoy "Martyrs" for what it is but if you feel like you've seen everything and want to really test your limits then check out this more than controversial film.

Happy Gilmore (1996) Review

Ah, Adam Sandler, hated by critics everywhere and loved by the American audience. Say whatever you want about him but there's no denying that this guy makes some serious cash at the box office. Which makes me wonder why. In all honesty, he's not that funny of a comedian and he's definitely not that good of an actor. His characters are mostly just variations of the same chauvinist stereotype and that stuff gets old really quickly.

BUT, it's not that he's never made a good movie. In my humble opinion his best is without a doubt Happy Gilmore, one of my childhood favorites and together with Billy Madison one of the first successes of Sandler.

The story of Happy Gilmore isn't much more than warmed up sport film cliches about a failed hockey player who becomes a rowdy golf sensation. But what the film lacks in script is made up for by the clash of the fancy golf world with the redneck mentality of Sandler. Mash that with a great performance by Christopher MacDonald as the perfectly named villain Shooter McGavin and a hilarious cameo by Ben Stiller and you get a simple, funny and entertaining movie.

Some might complain about the main character who's not always sympathetic or the alarmingly underdeveloped supporting characters but you know what? I don't care, this movie will always be fun to me!

The Ides Of March (2011) Review

A new school year has started and that means automatically less time for me to watch movies. That's a pity because now that Autumn has come all the blockbuster rubbish from the summer gets wiped away from theaters to make space for the more ambitious crowd of movies. And who could be more ambitious than our good old beloved ex-Batman George Clooney?

His new film The Ides of March is his fourth outing as a director and features a more than impressive cast: Clooney himself, Ryan Gosling, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Paul Giamatti, Marisa Tomei and a couple more better-than-average actors. I mean, honestly, I did the math, his cast was nominated for 11 Academy Awards including 3 wins, wouldn't you expect nothing short of greatness?

The story revolves around young and idealistic Stephen Meyers, played by Gosling, who works as a campaign manager for presidential candidate Governor Mike Morris, played by Clooney. But how long can Stephen preserve his ideals in the dirty world of politics?

Everybody knows how liberal of a guy Clooney is so it is no surprise what kind of message he is delivering here: Power corrupts and if you want to swim with the sharks then you have to learn to play dirty. Of course that is a valuable lesson that's being taught here, the only problem is that it is not particularly new. Have you never heard of All the King's Men? Citizen Kane? The Candidate?

Of course the movie is extremely well acted, everybody in the cast shines, even the characters with minor roles such as Marisa Tomei and Paul Giamatti get their fare share of good scenes and unsurprisingly it is also another stepping stone for soon-to-be Hollywood leading man Ryan Gosling. The dialogue is sharp, the pacing perfect and Clooney keeps growing as a serious filmmaker. The only thing that prevents the movie from being the masterpiece it should have been is its unoriginal storyline and its not very relevant message. 

Don't get me wrong, I'd recommend this film without hesitation to anyone, I just can't help but see The Ides of March as a failed opportunity on a very high level.

The Slammin' Salmon (2009) Review

If you're ever in the mood for crappy movies, the quickest way to watch one is to switch on your TV, go to Free Movies on Demand and take your pick. Who actually likes watching these films? The majority is Direct to Video rubbish and there's barely a hidden gem in the mix. But when you just made lunch and hang out with your roommates, who knows, maybe you happen to find something good in there that goes well with pizza and chips.

Well, that's what I thought today when we stumbled over The Slammin' Salmon, the latest movie by comedy group Broken Lizard, known mostly for Super Troopers and Beerfest. I remember hearing about the movie back in 2009 when it was released without any press or commercials on TV. It played in empty theaters and made a laughable $60K worldwide. If you don't get it, these are never good signs and normally point to the fact that you're dealing with a total cinematic turd. But we felt lucky so we checked it out.

The film's plot is more or less an excuse to connect all the poorly executed jokes but if you really care, here it comes: A group of waiters in a seafood restaurant compete to see who makes the most money in one night. Sounds like the perfect comedy plot to me, I mean, Broken Lizard's other movies didn't have plots either and were hilarious nonetheless.

Too bad this film is far from being as funny as their other ones. The timing which is the most crucial element in the comedy genre is mostly off and many gags are either absolutely silly and dumb or just so predictable that the whole mess feels like a bad copy of a much better comedy. The only redeeming quality comes in the form of Michael Clarke Duncan who plays the owner of the restaurant, a Mike Tyson style boxing giant and while he's also not consistently funny he at least has the highest gag hit rate of all the actors involved.

I don't really know what else to say about this film, if you've never heard about it then you probably won't care in the future and if you're a fan of Broken Lizard, then do yourself a favor and just skip The Slammin' Salmon, it's not worth your time.

50/50 (2011) Review

How do you make a comedy about something that you shouldn't make fun of? Honestly, how do you pull that off? I for myself don't have any clue but obviously some filmmakers do. Look at La vita e bella by Roberto Benigni. A comedy set in a concentration camp? It works! Look at Life of Brian. A comedy mocking the life of Jesus Christ? Controversial but also laugh-out-loud funny. (Also, thank you Monty Python for one of the most quotable movies ever.)

You get the idea, it's possible to make comedies about tough subjects. And here comes one about cancer. 50/50 is about Adam, a 27 year old radio show writer living in Seattle. He has a best friend who is all about getting some with the ladies and a girlfriend who is just a complete tool. Oh, and he also gets diagnosed with cancer.

Our lead Adam is played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt and he does a great job. His performance is very understated, he rarely plays it for tears and never goes over the top. He's not always likable but that just adds to the authentic feel of the movie. Seth Rogen as his best friend Kyle is just perfectly cast, he has the funniest lines and shares a good chemistry with Gordon-Levitt. Normally I am not too big of a fan of him, too much of his humor seems to be just unoriginal, annoying stoner talk but here Rogen is just in his element.

The performance that got my closest attention was the one by Anjelica Huston as Adam's overly worried mother. While she doesn't have too many scenes, she's outshining everyone else on screen. I bet she's gonna be snubbed by the Academy but in a just world she'd get nominated for Best Supporting Actress.

What makes this movie ultimately succeed is not just the great acting but also a very authentic and realistic feel. There are so many hilarious scenes in it that are just perfectly balanced with very well written characters that one can't help but go with it. I really want to see this film get the audience it deserves, especially considering that it's gonna be released one week after the crappy Taylor Lautner vehicle Abduction. Just think about it, what would you rather see, a talentless laughingstock starring in an awful Bourne rip-off or a well acted, remarkably funny film that will stick with you long after you've left the theater? Tough call...