Genre: Thriller
Director: Darren Aronofsky Writers: Mark Heyman, Andres Heinz and John McLaughlin Cast: Natalie Portman, Vincent Cassel, Mila Kunis, Barbara Hershey, Winona Ryder Running Length: 107 minutes Synopsis: Nina Sawyer (Natalie Portman) is a ballerina in a New York City ballet company whose entire life revolves around dance. She still lives with her obsessive and oppressive former ballerina mother Erica (Barbara Hershey), who smothers her with attention and control. When the company’s artistic director Thomas Leroy (Vincent Cassel) decides to replace prima ballerina Beth MacIntyre (Winona Ryder) for the opening production of their new season, Swan Lake, Nina becomes his first choice. However, newcomer Lily (Mila Kunis) is a potential threat as Leroy is impressed with her as well. Swan Lake requires a dancer who can play both the White Swan and the Black Swan, and whilst the innocent Nina is a perfect White Swan, the bohemian Lily is the perfect personification of the Black Swan. As Nina struggles to expand her abilities to become both Swans, she gets in touch with her dark side, but this is not without consequences. Review: If your purpose of watching a movie is to relax and enjoy yourself, Black Swan should definitely stay off your to-watch list. This is an intense psychological thriller that makes for largely uneasy viewing, since the film is essentially about a young ballerina who descends into madness. Aronofsky may have moved from the more violent world of wrestling to the seemingly more docile art form of ballet, but the film suggests that high art may just be as much of a bloodsport. For those who have the stomach for it, however, will find that Black Swan boasts a number of excellent performances, even if the film itself lacks a little finesse and subtlety. As the film is told from the perspective of Nina, it’s a fractured take on reality, and the lines between her troubled imagination and the real world are blurred considerably. Aronofsky is intentionally oblique when crossing between the two realities, and this does add an interesting dimension to the film. The audience is left guessing about what is real and what isn’t, and even the conclusion of the film is somewhat open-ended. Where Aronofsky fumbles is his insistence on bashing the audience over the head with his light/dark themes, repeatedly using different characters as mouthpieces to reinforce the black swan / white swan dichotomy. It almost borders on self parody and is one of the reasons why the screenplay didn’t work entirely for me. Much like The King’s Speech, the best thing about Black Swan is the performances found within. Natalie Portman, in particular, puts forth a tour de force turn as the troubled protagonist, and it is easy to tell she had literally poured her heart and soul into bringing Nina to life, warts and all. Portman also underwent months of intensive dance training to prepare for the role, and Aronofsky had stated that much of the dancing in the movie is performed by Portman herself, and the body double coming into play only in wider shots. It is little wonder that Portman is the frontrunner for acting nominations this awards season, and it is deservedly so. Mila Kunis also deserves kudos for her portrayal as the free spirited Lily, and because her character is viewed through Nina’s eyes, she has to inhabit a number of wide-ranging personas all of which Kunis manages to nail. It may be unflattering to compare Black Swan to roadkill, but the comparison is an apt one. This is a largely unattractive take on ballet, a drastic departure from many similarly-themed movies. Whilst the movie takes itself too seriously despite some rather eye-roll worthy plot points – a similarly crazed ex-prima donna? A controlling, smothering mother straight out from the Mommy Dearest handbook? – there’s a magnetic quality about the film that makes you unable to tear your eyes away. Imperfect as it is, Black Swan makes for very compelling viewing. Rating: * * * (out of four stars)Tag Archives: 3 stars
Hereafter * * *
Genre: Drama
Director: Clint Eastwood
Writer: Peter Morgan
Cast: Matt Damon, Cecile de France, Frankie McLaren, George McLaren, Jay Mohr, Bryce Dallas Howard, Thierry Neuvic
Running Length: 129 minutes
Synopsis: Hereafter revolves around the stories of three unrelated people who are touched by death in different ways. George (Matt Damon) is an American who used to be a real-deal psychic, but quit to become a factory worker when his unique gift becomes the bane of his existence. Marie (Cecile de France), a French journalist, has a near-death experience when she comes face to face with a tsunami whilst on a vacation. The incident opens her eyes to what she thinks is the afterlife, and changes her view on reality. Finally, there’s Marcus (George McLaren), a London schoolboy, who loses the person closest to him. Unable to deal with the loss, he desperately seeks a way to reconnect with the departed. Eventually their three paths intersect, forever changed by what they believe might – or must – exist in the hereafter.
Review: Contrary to what the trailer suggests, Hereafter is not strictly a supernatural drama in the veins of The Sixth Sense. Yes, it does deal with the afterlife, and Matt Damon’s character does indeed see dead people, but Clint Eastwood’s latest directorial offering can be more accurately described as a made-in-America French movie, deliberately paced and minimalistic, which is likely to turn some viewers off. However, Hereafter is a very well-acted and compelling human drama, and although it’s rather unfocused in the first two thirds, patient cinemagoers who are willing to give this film a shot will likely find themselves richly rewarded by the time the end credits roll.
Although all three plot threads are somewhat interesting, the storyline revolving around Damon’s psychic character is by far the most riveting. However, because the movie is structured in such a way that the plots remain wholly separate till the last half hour, it can get frustrating when the film pulls away from George to focus on Marie or Marcus. The eventual convergence of the three characters and their resolution also feels a little too convenient, but at least Eastwood’s direction never descends into the maudlin. There’s also this nagging sense that each of the three stories would have had enough material to sustain its own movie, and Eastwood’s attempt to balance all three, and not being entirely successful, is what prevents Hereafter from achieving true cinematic greatness.
Aside from the structural issues of the movie, the rest of Hereafter is about as good as it gets. The lead actors all put in excellent performances, but the standout is the young McLaren twins, plumbing an amazing depth of emotions with their riveting performance. Matt Damon also deserves kudos for a very understated, internalized but convincing turn as the tortured psychic, who has to deal with so much pain from all the psychic readings that he has shrunken away from meaningful relationships and human contact. There’s also the very harrowing opening sequence of the tsunami devastating the seaside resort, and although the CGI borders on being hokey, the emotions generated by the scene is anything but. Clint Eastwood has proven his directorial strength time and again, and while this film may not rank amongst his best, Hereafter is still far better than most of the cinematic chaff that has been released of late.
Rating: * * * (out of four stars)
Burlesque * * *
Genre: Musical
Director: Steve Antin
Writer: Steve Antin
Cast: Cher, Christina Aguilera, Stanley Tucci, Kristen Bell, Cam Gigandet, Eric Dane
Running Length: 119 minutes
Synopsis: Escaping from her small town and dreaming to make it big in LA, Ali (Christina Aguilera) stumbles upon The Burlesque Lounge, a musical revue that has seen better days. She manages to secure a job as cocktail waitress from Tess (Cher), the club’s proprietor, but aspires to perform on the club’s stage one day. Along the way, Ali garners the affection of Jack (Cam Gigandet), bartender at the club and a struggling musician, makes an enemy of Nikki (Kristen Bell), a star performer. She also has the help of Sean (Stanley Tucci), the keen-eyed and sharp-witted stage manager. Ali’s eventual success on the Burlesque stage restores the club back to its former glory, but financial woes still plagues the club and threatens to shut it down for good.
Review: Burlesque is not a masterpiece by any measure, but that doesn’t mean it is not an entertaining movie – Christina Aguilera’s acting debut is unimpressive, but at least has a killer voice and a hot-enough body that is she uses to their full extent in the movie. She also wisely surrounds herself with capable actors and delectable eye candy, and it also helps the song and dance sequences are great fun to watch. And then, of course, there’s Cher, who finally returns to the big screen after a seven year hiatus. The 64-year-old veteran seems to be pumped full of botox, but looks incredible for her age, plus she shows that both her acting chops and pipes are still in fine form. This may be Christina’s star vehicle but Cher roundly beats her in every department.
Steve Antin has aimed for a film that seems like a mix between Cabaret and Chicago, and although it isn’t quite there, Burlesque does score a number of triumphs. One of the more impressive moments of the show is Cher’s showstopping performance of a power ballad, unsurprisingly written by Diane Warren. And despite much focus on the Christina-Gigandet romance, the duo with the most chemistry is actually Cher and Stanley Tucci, who plays her gay BFF and their interaction serves up the best emotional scenes of the show. For audiences who prefer to focus on the aesthetics, Burlesque is also chock-full of beautiful people of both sexes, ranging from the gorgeous Kristen Bell to the sizzling hot Cam Gigandet.
That said, Burlesque’s plot is paper-thin with minimal characterization, and the decision to let the running time stretch to almost 2 hours actually hurts the film – there simply isn’t enough to sustain such length. In fact, there are probably some music videos out there that boast more plot than what Burlesque has on offer. Also, while the song and dance sequences are impressively staged, they are subject to way too many quick cuts and edits, which distracts from the action.
Despite the flaws, Burlesque remains far more watchable than other celebrity star vehicles like Glitter (Mariah) and Crossroads (Britney). The film doesn’t push any boundaries and is about as superficial a movie as can be, but like real life, sometimes it’s just fun to play in the shallow end of the pool. This is a bona fide guilty pleasure.
Rating: * * * (out of four stars)
Love and Other Drugs * * *
Genre: Romantic Comedy
Director: Edward Zwick
Writers: Charles Randolph and Edward Zwick & Marshall Herskovitz, based on the book Hard Sell: The Evolution of a Viagra Salesman
Cast: Anne Hathaway, Jake Gyllenhaal, Hank Azaria, Oliver Platt, Josh Gad, Gabriel Macht, Judy Greer
Running Length: 113 minutes
Synopsis: Set between 1996 and 1999, the movie traces the development of Jamie Randall (Jake Gyllenhaal) as a drug sales rep in Pfizer, from his early difficulties with attaining his quotas, to the release of Viagra in the market and his meteoric rise selling the most desired pharmaceutical product of that period. At the same time, Jamie begins a relationship with Maggie (Anne Hathaway), who is suffering from early onset Parkinson’s. Maggie is volatile and brittle, and even the glib Jamie finds difficulty in breaking her defenses down to engage in a serious relationship.
Review: Although this is officially one of the first romantic comedies to hit local screens in 2011, Love and Other Drugs is already a shoo-in to be one of the best we’ll see this year. Purveyors of this genre of movies are not demanding – likeable leads with good chemistry are all that’s needed. However, Love & Other Drugs takes it one step further, and presents audiences with a movie that’s more than a run-of-the-mill romantic comedy. Unlike most romantic comedies, Love and Other Drugs comes off as being a lot more “real” than the usual boy-meets-girl shtick. The problems that Jamie and Maggie face are pretty close to real life, unlike most of the fluffy romantic complications that onscreen couples face. It still plays out some of the conventions of the genre, but at least the film gives a less superficial treatment than usual.
This is Anne Hathaway and Jake Gyllenhaal’s second romantic pairing (the first being Brokeback Mountain), and they have more than enough passion and chemistry on screen to make the romance believable. It helps, of course, that they are both pretty faces (with pretty bodies to boot – which we see a fair bit of), but their acting abilities go far beyond that. Jake Gyllenhaal plays both the glib salesman and devoted partner well, but Anne Hathaway gives the more impressive, multi-dimensional performance as the damaged Maggie. Hathaway has certainly come very far since her Princess Diaries days and is now rightfully considered one of the best young actresses in Hollywood.
Some viewers may find the copious amounts of sex and flesh in the first half of the movie (and not just of the leads) objectionable, personally I found that the visual way that Edward Zwick had employed to represent the couple’s progression in their relationship was actually quite effective. What I didn’t really care for is the inclusion of Josh Gad’s character, who seemed to exist only as juvenile comic relief and really jars with the rest of the movie. Also, the main theme of Love doesn’t ever really gel with the Other Drugs theme, and I for one would have loved to see more of the workings of the pharmaceutical industry. Flaws aside, Love and Other Drugs is definitely still an enjoyable romantic film with a number of great performances, and a surprising amount of depth and poignancy that’s rarely seen in the genre.
Rating: * * * (out of four stars)
Let Me In * * *
Genre: Horror
Director: Matt Reeves
Writer: Matt Reeves, based on Let the Right One In by John Ajvide Lindqvist
Cast: Kodi Smit-McPhee, Chloe Moretz, Richard Jenkins, Elias Koteas, Cara Buono
Running Length: 115 minutes
Synopsis: Owen (Kodi Smit-McPhee) is a scrawny, timid 12-year old who is frequently bullied at school. When a new girl, Abby (Chloe Moretz) moves into his apartment block together with an older gentleman who seems to be her father (Richard Jenkins), Owen’s interest is naturally piqued, and despite Abby’s protests, a friendship soon forms between the two. What Owen doesn’t realize (until later) is that Abby is actually a vampire, and when her “father” is unable to provide for her meals, she decides to go hunting in the neighbourhood. With her indiscretions during these bloodbaths, it’s only a matter of time before the police (Elias Koteas) get too close for comfort.
Review: One might question the sense in remaking a Swedish film (Let the Right One In) that’s barely 2 years old, but casting aside the fact that Let Me In is a remake, the film actually stands very well on its own merits. Let Me In is starkly different from vampire movies of late – it’s subtle and atmospheric, yet brutally violent when it needs to be. Although there is a pseudo-romance between a vampire girl and a human boy, the soppy melodrama that permeates vampire romance franchises like Twilight are completely missing in this movie – which, to me, is a very good thing.
The narrative structure of Let Me In is very simple, and there really aren’t that many surprises to be had. However, what really stands out is the quality of acting of the two young leads as well as Richard Jenkins. Kodi Smit-McPhee is very credible as a frightened, socially awkward boy, and it’s very easy for audience members to relate to him. Chloe Moretz may be too attractive and girly to pass off as an age-old vampire, but there’s great chemistry between her and Smit-McPhee, and given the unique situation Abby is in (her new relationship with Owen puts her existing relationship with her “father” into jeopardy) , manages a very nuanced performance. Richard Jenkins has only a handful of scenes, but these are some of the most emotionally powerful in the movie and Jenkins manages to convey a multitude of emotions without even having to speak.
What’s most impressive about Let Me In is how Reeves treats the source material with a lot more respect than many Hollywood remakes. He has managed to make the film “Hollywood-friendly” while still preserving much of what made Let the Right One In such a good horror film, and yet Let Me In is different enough to justify its existence. Much of the ambiguity in the original has been cleared up, and in some ways this may prove a more satisfying cinematic experience for many viewers.
One of the few problems with Let Me In is its special effects. There’s a lot of gore in the film, but some of these sequences are more cheesy than scary, and the scenes with Abby turning into a vampire are particularly unconvincing. However, it’s clear that Reeves had intended this film to be more a psychological horror film than an outright splatterfest, so it’s a rather forgivable flaw. There may not really be a reason for Let Me In to be made, but Reeves’ sophomore directorial effort is a very accomplished, solid film that deserves to be seen.
Rating: * * * (out of four stars)
Easy A * * *
Genre: Comedy
Director: Will Gluck
Writer: Bert V. Royal
Cast: Emma Stone, Penn Badgley, Amanda Bynes, Dan Byrd, Thomas Haden Church, Patricia Clarkson, Lisa Kudrow, Malcolm McDowell, Stanley Tucci, Aly Michalka
Running Length: 93 minutes
Synopsis: Olive (Emma Stone) is a somewhat attractive and rather bright high school student, but seems to be coasting just beneath the collective consciousness of the school. This changes overnight, however, when an innocent lie to her best friend Rhiannon (Aly Michalka) about her virginity – she pretends that she had a one night stand with a college boy – quickly spreads like wildfire through the school. And when she helps to “straighten” a gay friend (Dan Byrd) via a fake but extremely public “sexual encounter”, her reputation as a harlot is cemented. Olive initially enjoys the notoriety and the perks that come with “helping out” other social outcasts, but very soon the negatives that come with such a reputation begin to outweigh its benefits.
Review: Good teen comedies are few and far between, and truly memorable ones can literally be counted on one hand (Mean Girls and Juno are the most recent films that come to mind, and they are a 2004 and 2007 movie respectively). While Easy A doesn’t quite reach the same stratosphere, it is undoubtedly the best teen comedy to be released this year, and probably in the past few years. Much of this has to be credited to the sharp writing of Bert V. Royal, and to the excellent ensemble cast.
Never resorting to puerile humour, the film still manages to bring on the big laughs, much of it from excellent one-liners that, while incisive, remain very funny. Most of these are of course from Olive (much as it is pretty unbelievable that a high school student can come up with these), but Stanley Tucci and Patricia Clarkson get a pretty good share as Possibly The Coolest Parents in the World.
Much of the heavy lifting in the film is done by Emma Stone, and she certainly ranks as one of the biggest surprises of the year. Despite this being her first leading role, Emma Stone handles it more than capably, going toe to toe with a fair number of industry veterans. Her portrayal of Olive is near perfect – everything, from her wit to her insecurities and occasional petulance, is spot on. It’s hard to imagine that a girl as beautiful, smart and confident as Stone could possible be a social outcast and not be able to secure a beau, but her performance is so good most audiences will relate to and root for her anyway.
The film is not without its problems. The plot tends to meander a bit too much, the denouement is a little anti-climactic, and the romantic subplot involving Olive feels rather forced and unnecessary. However, Easy A, like its lead actress, is so charming that one can notice all the little niggling flaws and still find the film a really enjoyable one.
Rating: * * * (out of four stars)
RED * * *
Genre: Action Comedy
Director: Robert Schwentke
Writers: Jon Hoeber and Eric Hoeber, based on the graphic novels by Warren Ellis and Cully Hammer
Cast: Bruce Willis, Mary-Louise Parker, Morgan Freeman, John Malkovich, Helen Mirren, Brian Cox
Running Length: 111 minutes
Synopsis: The film opens with Frank Morse (Bruce Willis) in Cleveland, where he is engineering flirty conversations with his pensions claim officer Sarah Ross (Mary-Louise Parker), situated in Kansas City. Frank is no ordinary pensioner, however, and when a team of hit men infiltrates his house one night, he realizes his past is catching up with him in a rather unpleasant manner. After travelling to Kansas to “kidnap” Sarah, Frank begins to round up his old team: 80-year old Joe Matheson (Morgan Freeman), who has been diagnosed with Stage 4 liver cancer but hasn’t lost his edge; the paranoid Marvin Boggs (John Malkovich) who is suspicious of everyone and everything; KGB agent Ivan Simanov (Brian Cox), who is eager to get back in the game even if it’s in collaboration with his former enemies; and Victoria (Helen Mirren), a former MI6 agent who still misses her old life as an operative. The team has to figure out who is out for their lives, but are also being pursued doggedly by CIA agent William Cooper (Karl Urban), who doesn’t really understand what RED (Retired, Extremely Dangerous) means until he goes mano a mano with the team.
Review: RED is a movie that requires a healthy serving of suspension of disbelief – Helen Mirren toting a huge-ass gun? John Malkovich being a superb marksman? It sounds more than a little unbelievable (okay, maybe excepting Bruce Willis), and yet once said suspension is in place, the film becomes a rather enjoyable romp, albeit a film that has more cheeky moments that true blue action.
Much of this has to be credited to the stellar cast. These are all old hands in the industry, and many have shown their thespian talents in previous films. Even in RED, where no one is truly taken seriously, the level of commitment each veteran has in their character is clearly visible. It’s very impressive that the producers have managed to put together such an epic ensemble cast, and the star power alone is likely to contribute to a large component of the box office takings. And unlike many other movies, in this case it’s deservedly so.
It’s very easy to tell that the actors had a ball of a time filming RED, and there’s an easy chemistry between all the main characters. Bruce Willis remains surprisingly charming even in his mid fifties, and the trio of John Malkovich, Brian Cox and Morgan Freeman hold their own as supporting characters without much scenery chewing. Far and away my favourite, however, is Helen Mirren. There’s a perverse pleasure in seeing the Queen of England handling big guns like a pro, and Mirren really milks it for all it’s worth while staying very classy. It’s a wonderful, fun performance that on its own is already worth the price of admission.
Apart from the inspired casting and performances, the action sequences are actually rather entertaining in their own right, although obviously for a cast in this age bracket the action is pretty dialed down. Schwentke compensates for this by employing wit and humour, planting tongue firmly in cheek in many scenes. It all comes together pretty well, and RED is a rather entertaining two hours – not a groundbreaking film by any measure, but fun and easy to sit through.
Rating: * * * (out of four stars)
Despicable Me * * *
Genre: Animation
Directors: Chris Renaud, Pierre Coffin
Writers: Cinco Paul and Ken Daurio based on a story by Sergio Pablos
Voice Cast: Steve Carrell, Jason Segel, Russell Brand, Julie Andrews, Will Arnett, Kristen Wiig
Running Length: 94 minutes
Synopsis: Gru (Steve Carrell) has prided himself on being a supervillain, but when someone else steals the Great Pyramid of Giza, Gru knows it's time to step it up a notch. His new plan – to steal the moon and hold it ransom – can only be accomplished with a Shrink Ray, but getting his hands on one can be very tough when he's pitting himself against Vector (Jason Segel), the new villain on the block. Gru chances upon an unconventional solution of adopting three orphan girls – Margo (Miranda Cosgrove), Edith (Dana Gaier) and Agnes (Elsie Fisher) – who will then become his "in" to infiltrating Vector's fortress. What Gru didn't count on, of course, was that his paternal instinct would be brought to the forefront when he is with the three girls. Superbad? Or Superdad?
Review: Despicable Me bears more than a passing resemblance to the Shrek franchise – both movies establish an anti-hero as a central character, and both make copious use of humour and a bevy of interesting (and some will say scene-stealing) supporting characters to augment the leads. In fact, Despicable Me seems to have borrowed a fair bit off a number of other movies, but thankfully despite this the film still manages to be quite an entertaining film for young and old.
The best thing about Despicable Me is its humour, which is presented both visually and in its smart script. There are plenty of laugh-out-loud moments, and the directors wisely decided to give the minions (strange yellow gnomes spouting gibberish) a lot of exposure, with much of the sight gags coming from these creatures (and some great Spy vs Spy moments between Gru and Vector). It is great fun to watch, and even though it’s a little too piecemeal for my liking, there’s no denying that Despicable Me would be a true crowd pleaser across most audience demographics.
The voice cast is a mixed lot – Steve Carrell’s accent seems a little inconsistent, and Julie Andrews is criminally underused as Gru’s mum (although her non-committal “eehhhhh”s to Gru was one of the highlights of the film to me), but generally the cast turn in decent vocal performances, especially the directors themselves who voiced most of the gibberish spouted by the minions.
And now, the million dollar question for films released this year – to 3D or not to 3D? Despicable Me takes a slightly different route in its 3D implementation and intentionally creates scenes where the “3D effect” is very obvious, including a very tongue-in-cheek end credits sequence where the minions try to outdo each other in being “more 3D”. Yes – it’s completely a gimmick, but one that would probably be appreciated by younger audiences. I remain unimpressed, and in my opinion the film is not one that needs to be watched in 3D.
It seems that 2010 is the year of animated films, and although Despicable Me does not come close to the bar set by Pixar’s Toy Story 3, especially in terms of its story, it still manages to roundly beat almost every single live-action summer blockbuster I’ve watched this year. Even if one remains unmoved by the rather simplistic plot, only the dourest audiences would leave the cinema without at least a smile on their faces.
Rating: * * * (out of four stars)
Shrek Forever After * * *
Genre: Animation
Director: Mike Mitchell
Writers: Josh Klausner, Darren Lemke
Voice Cast: Mike Myers, Cameron Diaz, Eddie Murphy, Antonio Banderas, Walt Dohn
Running Length: 93 minutes
Synopsis: Shrek (Mike Myers) and Fiona (Cameron Diaz) are now happily married ogres, with three children in tow, and best friend Donkey (Eddie Murphy) and family an integral part of their lives. However, life has become so routine that Shrek suffers from a mid-life crisis, hoping to find a way out from his mundane existence. Rumplestiltskin (Walt Dohn) hears his wish and grants it, but Shrek fails to read the fine print on the contract, and is tricked into an alternate version of Far Far Away where he never existed and Rumplestiltskin is king – and Shrek has only a day to fix everything. Yes, it’s basically an animated take on It’s A Wonderful Life.
Review: With all the Shrek movies making big bucks, it’s little wonder that yet another sequel has been made(claimed to be the final installment, but Puss in Boots already has a spin off coming next year so…). The good news is that Shrek Forever After is very much improved from Shrek the Third, and at times is reminiscent of the first two films in the Shrek franchise. However, even Shrek cannot escape the trappings of 3D, and it now has the dubious honour of being the animated film with the most poorly implemented 3D I have had the chance to see (so far). My advice – don’t bother shelling out the extra money for 3D for this film.
Although the first Shrek had a very different visual aesthetic to Pixar’s films, nothing much has improved or changed over the past decade, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing since the benchmark was set pretty much from the beginning. There are some attempts early in the film to make things “pop” in 3D, but as the film progresses these instances become fewer and further between. In fact, with the frequent chase and action sequences in the film, the 3D implementation simply cannot keep up. The same goes for the voice talents – we’ve all heard these voices before, and although it’s unimaginable to replace them at this point in time, even Mike Myers seems to be dialing in his performance.
It may seem like there are a lot of niggling points for Shrek Forever After, but the film is solidly entertaining despite these flaws. There are still fun pop culture references (the usage of “Top of the World” by the Carpenters is rather inspired), and some good gags to be had (although many of the funny parts have been included in the trailers for the film). And Puss in Boots’ googly eyes never, ever fail to crack me up regardless of the number of times I see it.
However entertaining and fun the movie was, there’s also this consistent feeling that this fourth movie is a very good time to give closure to the main Shrek franchise. I cannot imagine sitting through yet another Shrek movie, and since the franchise has already done a Frank Capra, even the alternate reality angle has been covered. Let’s hope that the almost-assured box office success of Shrek Forever After won’t change the producers’ minds.
Rating: * * * (out of four stars)
Date Night * * *
Genre: Action Comedy
Director: Shawn Levy
Writers: Josh Klausner
Cast: Steve Carell, Tina Fey, Mark Wahlberg, Taraji P. Henson, Jimmi Simpson, Common, William Fichtner
Running Length: 98 minutes
Synopsis: Phil and Claire Foster (Steve Carell and Tina Fey) are a happily married couple, but like so many couples in real life, the romance in their lives have given way to work and parenting duties. They schedule occasional “date nights” but even that has become rather routine. On one such date night, Phil decides to break out of the mould and go for something different – he takes Claire to a trendy new Manhattan restaurant, but because they had no reservations made, he also steals the table of “the Tripplehorns”, who seem to have skipped their dinner. However, it soon becomes apparent why – a pair of thugs, Armstrong (Jimmi Simpson) and Collins (Common) arrives at the restaurant to retrieve an item from the Fosters, which obviously is not in their possession. So begins a manic night across town where the Fosters have to use all their resources to outwit the thugs, obtain the item from the real Tripplehorns (James Franco and Mila Kunis), and maybe even strike a deal with the current mob boss (Ray Liotta). The Fosters also seek help from a laid-back ex-military secret ops guy called Holbrooke (Mark Wahlberg) who seems to have an aversion to wearing shirts and have somewhat of a history with Claire.
Review: Date Night is a very good example of how a movie can work without a good script – the plot for the film ranks about 9.5 on the cliché scale, but Steve Carell and Tina Fey perform so well in their roles that all is forgiven. Both are great comedians and are already proven veterans on both the small and big screen, but together their chemistry and comic timing are truly impeccable and a force to be reckoned with. The action sequences may be a little pedestrian, and (of course) not every joke works, but when Date Night works, it does so very well, and makes for a very entertaining film that doesn’t outlive its welcome.
Just like a romcom, an action comedy film like Date Night is very dependent on the chemistry between the lead characters, and the Steve Carell and Tina Fey pairing is simply one of the best I have seen this year. They are totally believable in their roles – many audience members will see a little (or a lot) of themselves in the Fosters, which makes the emotional connection stronger. There’s a great little scene in between the action where the couple stop and contemplate the state of their marriage, and it’s this scene that really sealed the deal for me. Of course, most of what they go through is nothing short of unbelievable, but at least the audience has a vested interest in seeing them triumph.
There are a great lot of laughs to be had in Date Night, most of them delivered with impeccable comic timing by Carell and Fey. Although both actors are not known for physical comedy, there is a scene involving the duo late in the film that shows that they can rise to that particular challenge. In the outtakes featured during the end credits (stay till the end to catch them all), it’s clear to see that Shawn Levy had given the two actors a lot of free play, and even the improvs that didn’t make the final cut are quite hilarious.
Credit also goes to the supporting cast for their comedic efforts, in particular James Franco and Mila Kunis for a very memorable scene as the real Tripplehorns, and Mark Wahlberg for being game enough to do nothing much but bare his (still very fit) upper torso. Although the additional “hook” in an action comedy is ostensibly the action sequences, these scenes in Date Night are actually the weakest in the show. Shawn Levy is not the most adept at directing action set-pieces, and it shows. However, such transgressions are forgivable given the strength of the lead pairing, and Date Night makes for an excellent date night movie.
Rating: * * * (out of four stars)
e-ramblings 