Thursday Movie Picks: Adaptations

Straight Outta Compton

The Amazing Spider-Man 2

Saving Mr. Banks

Directed by John Lee Hancock. 

2013. Rated PG, 125 minutes. 

Cast: 

Emma Thompson 

Tom Hanks 

Paul Giamatti 

Colin Farrell 

B.J. Novak 

Jason Schwartzman 

Ruth Wilson 

Annie Rose Buckley 

Melanie Paxson 

Bradley Whitford

Even if you've never seen Mary Poppins, chances are you're familiar with the character. Based on a children's novel and released in 1964, it quickly became an iconic piece of cinema, raking in all sorts of money at the box office and an armful of Oscars for good measure. Our plot revolves around the struggles of the great Walt Disney (Hanks) to get the book's author P.L. Travers (Thompson) to let him bring it to the big screen. The problem is she's so attached to her creation she can't bear to see anyone embellish it any way and is willing to fight tooth and nail about it. We get to see how Disney and his team of merry makers charmed her enough to get her to loosen the reins. This is no small feat considering she starts adamantly against him making it one of his "silly cartoons" and absolutely does not want it to be a musical. A power struggle with a seismic shift ensues.

The film benefits from a wonderful performance by Emma Thompson in the lead role. She is a perfect blend of standoffish, defensive, and rude. At the same time, we know that she is fiercely protecting something she loves. We respect that immensely even if we disagree with her methods. Thompson commands the screen whenever she is on it which is most of the time. Her strong presence pulls us in. She makes us understand that she feels wronged by Disney and his people at every turn. We're also glad when she begins coming around.

From the other side of things, we feel the frustration of the people who are trying to give cinematic life to Travers' book. Despite what you've heard, Disney is not really key to conveying this life. He's just the muscle brought in when the rest of his team is at their wits end. They spend much more time with her, and with us. It's their pain we feel. Mostly, this is thanks to a pair of wonderful turns. One is B.J. Novak, the other by Jason Schwartzman. They play the two songwriters who compose the music for the movie. Their battles with her take on an epic quality that serves the movie well. As for Hanks as Disney, he gets two scenes where he goes for the gusto, but otherwise isn't given a whole lot to do. To his credit, he makes it work when he's called upon.

Where Saving Mr. Banks lacks most is in the tension department. Given that we all know Mary Poppins got made, the movie can't generate any whatsoever. P.L. Travers can rant, rave, stomp, and shout all she wants to, we're never going to think she's actually going to stop the production. It's like watching a sporting event when you already know the final score. Sure, seeing how it got that way can be fun, but it never generates the same excitement as not knowing how it ends. Even with lots of movies that we can predict the ending, that shred of doubt that says we might be wrong can keep us interested. This movie never affords us that.

The movie does do a decent job combating this problem by using flashbacks to Travers' life as a child. It's a history most viewers aren't familiar with. We don't know how her relationship with her dad (Farrell) plays out. We hope it works out for the best. Unfortunately, this is still only a subplot. The overriding focus is on whether or not a movie will be made, a question to which we already know the answer. That said, I have to give Colin Farrell credit, for turning in some very nice work as the author's dad. It is him and his character that provide the movie's most emotional moments.

As the movie comes to a close, we're left with the feeling we watched a nice movie that is very well made. We really enjoy the performances by Emma Thompson and Colin Farrell, as well as those of actors with smaller roles. This includes Tom Hanks, disarmingly charming when he needs to be. However, its iconic subject matter serves as an anchor. The movie can never pull it along enough to build up any serious momentum. It just moseys along, pluckily doing things we can appreciate, but aren't necessarily thrilled by. I hate to say it, but we have an enjoyable and pleasant watch that is bound to be forgotten.

Thursday Movie Picks: Movies About Assassins

Once again, it's that wonderful day of the week that most of you only like slightly more than Wednesday because it's one step closer to Friday. Around here, Thursday has recently gotten a sprucing up thanks to Wanderer at Wandering Through the Shelves and her Thursday Movie Picks Meme.

Yes, this is the part where I urge you to swing by her place, check out the blog and join the Thursday fun.

Do it.

Now.

Just make sure you come back here, at some point.

Soon.

This week's theme is "Movies About Assassins." No shortage of those, so I didn't have too much trouble picking this week. In fact, I had way too many to choose from. I had to narrow it down some way. Therefore, I settled on three that don't take themselves serious, at all. Not even a little bit. These are three movies filled with blood soaked action, profane profanity, and situations so far over the top ridiculous doesn't even begin to describe them. All three are underappreciated, so I've no choice but to call them hidden gems.

Shoot 'em Up

Clive Owen does not play an assassin. However, he is trying to protect an infant from one. Just how insane is this movie? It starts with the delivery of said baby by Owen amidst a shootout that includes the death of the mother. Owen engages in another shootout literally while having sex with Monica Bellucci. The assassin who is always hot on our hero's trail is played with mustache twirling brilliance by Paul Giamatti. It's all a bit much to take in, but it's totally worth it when you do. Don't believe me? Take it from the late great Roger Ebert. About this movie he wrote "I may disapprove of a movie for going too far, and yet have a sneaky regard for a movie that goes much, much farther than merely too far." And he gave it 3 1/2 stars out of four.

Smokin' Aces 

This one features a cast of thousands (not quite). Most of them are hitmen trying to kill a magician/gangster played with sleaze dripping from every pore by Jeremy Piven to keep him from testifying against a Las Vegas mob boss. The roster of killers includes Chris Pine, Kevin Durand, Peter Berg, Taraji P. Henson, Common, and even Alicia Keys. Don't worry Piven's got some help from the likes of Ryan Reynolds, Ray Liotta, Andy Garcia, Common, and Jason Bateman giving what I consider his finest (and most disturbing) performance. "The Critics' Consensus" on rottentomatoes.com for this film is that it's "a violent mess of a movie." And like that's somehow a bad thing, it only earned a 28% rating. Ladies and gentlemen, I am the 28%.

Crank

It doesn't get any more ridiculous than this. Jason Statham plays an assassin who makes a hit that has some unforeseen consequences. He finds himself poisoned with a drug that inhibits the flow of adrenaline and will eventually slow his heart down enough to kill him. Well, it will kill him if he can't keep his heart rate up. To do so, he does everything you could possibly think of, and then some. Take methamphetamines? Check. Get into fights with both gangsters and the police? Check. Have sex in the middle of the street? Check. Of course, he does all this while trying to get the guys who did this to him. Does it always make sense? No. Is it often downright sadistic? Yup. Do you need to "turn your brain off" to enjoy this? It wouldn't hurt. What? I don't see the problem.

Bonus pick!

Crank: High Voltage

Just because I couldn't let you escape without mentioning the sequel. I'll keep this one short and simple. Suffice it to say when I wrote 'it doesn't get any more ridiculous than this' about the original, I lied.

Bonus Bonus Pick!!

The Big Hit

I won't say too much about this one since I used it as a Thursday Movie Pick a few weeks back. Click here.

Click here for more Thursday Movie Picks.

12 Years a Slave

Directed by Steve McQueen.

2013. Rated R, 134 minutes.

Cast:

Chiwetel Ejiofor

Michael Fassbender

Benedict Cumberbatch

Lupita Nyong'o

Paul Dano

Paul Giamatti

Sarah Paulson

Brad Pitt

Alfre Woodard

Quvenzhane Wallis

Garret Dillahunt

Dwight Henry

It's 1841 in Saratoga Springs, New York and Solomon Northrup leads a somewhat idyllic life. He is a free black man living with his wife and children and interacting with whites as a near equal. He is also known around town as a excellent violinist. When a couple of out-of-towners offer him a job playing in their traveling show, he takes them up on it. Assured they'll go no further south than, Washington DC things seem to be going well when he goes to a celebratory dinner with his new benefactors. However his world is turned completely upside down when he wakes up in chains, is taking below the Mason-Dixon line and sold into slavery. Based on the real Solomon Northup's autobiography of the same name.

There is one word that I've seen used repeatedly to describe this movie. That word is visceral. The reason I keep seeing it is because it is an entirely accurate description. Every epithet hurled and whip cracked is both physically and emotionally jarring. Each indignation is repulsive. The shame of it all is that this is as much American history as any story that could possibly be told. It depicts the roots of problems we're still dealing with all these years later and it does so unflinchingly.

To make it all work, we need totally committed performances. There can be no a moment where any actor appears even the least bit unsure of his/her character's situation in this world. Throughout the movie there are none. As Solomon, Chiwetel Ejiofor is a man who cannot hide his sophistication in spite of his circumstances, and is powerless to change them. His frustration bleeds into every frame, none more than when he is forced to administer the punishment of a fellow slave. However, he still tries to see the good in people and appeal to that side of them. As you might imagine, the results aren't always pleasant.

As good as Ejiofor is, the performance that makes the movie is Michael Fassbender's as Master Epps. For quite a bit of the film's run time, everything that happens is either his own action or a reaction to him. He is a man who fully believes what he is doing is divinely right. Without even a hint of doubt, Fassbender brings this across with such assuredness that is downright frightening. Playing a less empowered, slightly less scary version is Paul Dano. That he is less scary is not a function of his acting which is excellent, but of his role as someone a bit further down the food chain.

Of course, we can't conclude any discussion of the acting in this movie without giving serious consideration to the work done by Lupita Nyong'o. She became a media darling even before winning the Best Supporting Actress for her work here. She plays Patsey who is something of a star slave on Epps' plantation. She picks more than twice as much cotton as any man on a daily basis. As such she is his favorite. Her reward? He oddly dotes on her and rapes her from time to time. In his own very twisted way, he cares for her. This makes the cruelty she endures feel even worse than it does when suffered by others. Nyoug'o masterfully brings this to life. It is actually Patsey, not Solomon, who gets the lion's share of our sympathy. What happened to Solomon is undeniably cruel and unjust. What happens to Patsey is even beyond that. Much of it is done upon the encouragement of Mary, Epps' wife, in an under-appreciated performance by Sarah Paulson. She has a coldness that permeates the screen whenever she appears. what makes her such an important figure is that she is the one person who bends Epps to do her bidding. She holds a demented moral authority over him. Paulson completely owns this every time she comes into the picture.

Enabling these actors to disappear into the roles, and more than believably reconstructing the world as it was in the mid-nineteenth century, is director Steve McQueen. I've already mentioned how he doesn't let his camera flinch. More impressively, he places it in very intimate positions. The viewer is not just seeing the atrocities take place but feeling them. Making us feel them, no matter how uncomfortable we might get is clearly the goal. This is why he frames the story in a manner that forces us to deal with Patsey's plight, as well as Solomon's. Even as the movie ends, McQueen's still hasn't let us off the hook. It's an effective move. A friend of mine, both of us African American, watched 12 Years a Slave weeks before I did. He immediately texted me that he didn't like it much. Its not that he thought it was bad. It just put him in a bad place. He was infuriated by the visual reminder of the unbridled cruelty of slavery. My response? Dude, that's kind of the point.

Parkland

Directed by Peter Landesman. 

2013. Rated R, 93 minutes. 

Cast: 

Paul Giamatti 

James Badge Dale 

Zac Efron 

Colin Hanks 

Marcia Gay Harden 

Billy Bob Thornton 

Jacki Weaver 

Jackie Earl Haley 

Ron Livingston 

Jeremy Strong

As we were all reminded last year, during which the 50th anniversary of the event occurred, Pres. John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, TX on November 22, 1963. Parkland tells the story of what happened starting a few moments before he was shot until the time he was buried a few days later. The title refers to Parkland Memorial Hospital, where Pres. Kennedy was taken after being shot. We go there with him and go through the attempts to save his life, headed up by Dr. Jim Carrico (Efron), a very young doctor, and seasoned head nurse Doris Nelson (Harden). We see how first the Secret Service and then hordes of media folk descend upon Abraham Zapruder (Giamatti) when it becomes known that he caught the tragedy on film. We're also privy to the fed's handling of Lee Harvey Oswald (Strong) and his family. Finally, we deal with the shift in focus to protecting Lyndon B. Johnson who suddenly found himself President of the United States.

The fly on the wall perspective makes this about as close to being there as a movie is likely to get. To perpetuate that feeling, the camera is often in odd locations. A lot of times it is at a distance we would normally think of as too close. We can't make out much of the rooms these people are in. This is particularly true of the scenes in the operating room. It helps foster the feeling of being in a crowded space with almost no wiggle room. Outside the hospital, this technique hints at how little each person involved was really aware of, or could see from their vantage point.

In keeping with its documentary like survey of events, the acting is so good across the board it feels like we are watching the actual people live through a moment in history. Paul Giamatti and Marcia Gay Harden are, excellent as always. Billy Bob Thornton simply dominates the screen in one of his better, but bound to be underrated performances. Even Zac Efron impresses. His portrayal of Dr. Carrico rings true right from the start. In the film's showiest performance, Jacki Weaver is absolutely mind-blowing as Lee Harvey Oswald's mother Marguerite. She quickly becomes a person we love to hate, possibly even more than her son who killed arguably the most beloved U.S. president of the 20th century. Kudos to Weaver for completely selling it. Conversely, the person we most sympathize with is her other son Robert played with remorse for his brother's actions by James Badge Dale.

Clocking in at a shade under ninety minutes when you subtract the credits, it is a movie that moves at an extraordinary pace. It packs each frame to the gills and sprints by. As fast as it moves, it has no time to do what a lot of movies based on true events can. There is no theorizing about grassy knolls, second shooters, and the like. There also doesn't appear to be much in the way of agenda pushing. It just punches us right in the mouth with the most corroborated parts of a still mysterious story. It ends without any speculation whatsoever. Therefore, Parkland is certainly not the most contemplative JFK movie you'll ever see, but it's likely the most visceral one.

MY SCORE: 9/10

Turbo

Directed by David Soren.

2013. Rated PG, 96 minutes.

Cast:

Ryan Reynolds

Paul Giamatti

Samuel L. Jackson

Michael Peña

Snoop Dogg

Maya Rudolph

Michelle Rodriguez

Luis Guzman

Bill Hader

Richard Jenkins

Ken Jeong

Mario Andretti

Ironically, Turbo (Reynolds) is a snail. He loves Formula One racing, especially his hero Guy Gagné (Hader) and wants nothing more than to go really fast. As you might imagine, being a snail makes this rather difficult. Still, a boy can dream. Unfortunately, that dreaming makes it hard for him to perform the mundane tasks of daily life. This includes doing his job for which he is under the supervision of his much more cautious brother Chet (Giamatti). Frustrated with life, Turbo finds himself looking over the freeway. Somehow he finds himself on it, barely surviving the harrowing ordeal. When he comes to, he discovers that his shell is suddenly a high-powered engine that enables him to travel at ridiculous speeds. One thing leads to another and Turbo and Chet wind up in the care of Tito (Peña), a taco salesman/snail racer with big ideas. Trying to get Turbo into the Indy 500 ensues.

Following Turbo on his quest is a fun adventure that is well paced and breezes by easily. The racing scenes are all exciting and should bring the youngsters to the edge of their seats as a decent amount of tension is created by them. The story between them holds together pretty well, also. As nonsensical as it sounds, we buy into it. We get caught up in whether or not this little snail can do the impossible.

Helping to sell all of this to us is a remarkable cast. To me, this begins with two wonderful actors doing superb voice work, Paul Giamatti and the incomparable Samuel L. Jackson. Both are just plain amazing. Giamatti provides a persistent naysayer who makes his opinions clearly known. Jackson brings his familiar persona to the role and somehow makes it all the way through the film without dropping F-bombs. Between the two of them, they get most of the movie’s best lines. However, they are not alone. Michael Peña, Bill Hader, Snoop, and Ken Jeong are all excellent, as well. Luis Guzman shines in the very nearly thankless role of Tito’s big brother Angelo, but not given nearly as much to do. All of them overshadow leading snail Ryan Reynolds. It’s not that he is bad, it’s that they are so good.

By the end, we have an easily graspable film about chasing your dreams and never giving up. This message is telegraphed pretty far in advance so that might lessen some of its potency, but it still works. Best of all, it’s not something we have to dwell on. Things are kept lighthearted enough so the kids don’t feel brow-beaten when it’s over. It stands a bit ahead of most animated kiddie fare, but is not quite special.

MY SCORE: 7/10

Rock of Ages

Directed by Adam Shankman.

2012. Rated PG-13, 123 minutes.

Cast:

Tom Cruise

Julianne Hough

Diego Boneta

Alec Baldwin

Catherine Zeta-Jones

Russell Brand

Paul Giamatti

Bryan Cranston

Malin Akerman

Mary J. Blige

Will Forte 

Kevin Nash

It is 1987 and The Bourbon Room is a legendary rock-n-roll club on Hollywood’s famed Sunset Strip. It’s where aspiring singers like Sherrie (Hough) come for a job when they’re fresh off the bus from their small hometowns. After all, rock god Stacee Jax (Cruise) got his start there and is coming back for his last show with his band, Arsenal, before embarking on a solo career. It’s where Drew (Boneta) already works. He fancies two things: Sherrie and being the next Stacee Jax. The Bourbon is also in the cross hairs of Mayor Whitmore (Cranston) and his high-profile and overzealous wife Patricia (Zeta-Jones). They are looking to clean up the strip, starting with its most famous den of sin. The Bourbon is run by Dennis (Baldwin) and his right hand man Lonny (Brand) and it is going broke. These story lines swirl about as now classic, pop infused rock songs blare through the speakers.

Rock of Ages is a musical in the most traditional sense of the word. Anytime and any place, people break into song while whoever is around dutifully provides background vocals and perform choreographed dance routines. Some are better than others, but all of them are cheesy. Regardless, they’re often saved by the sheer power of the songs they’re singing. You pretty much can’t help singing along if you've ever heard any of them before which is to say you've probably heard them a thousand times. However, after each song is done, we realize that what we just ate is not particularly filling. On the other hand, this changes a bit when there are actual stage performances. Most of them have more genuine emotion and edge to them thanks, in large part, to Tom Cruise. He seems to be channeling Axl Rose, both on and off the stage. It’s a mesmerizing turn by Cruise that, in a better movie, might have earned him some love during awards season.

The rest of the cast delivers mixed results and are not aided by the hackneyed writing. Paul Giamatti is great because that’s what he always is. Thankfully, he only sings a couple of bars in the whole movie. Bryan Cranston is mostly just there cheering on his wife, or sneaking out of the room to cheat on her. Russell Brand does his best Russell Brand impersonation, take it or leave it. Alec Baldwin is not as good as he is in those Capitol One commercials, except for when he gets to sing. He’s obviously thrilled someone was willing to pay him to croon. Now, he’s not the X factor or anything, but he appears to be having so much fun belting out tunes it’s infectious. That writing let him and Brand down in a major way, though. Musicals are, by nature, contrived. However, the turn their relationship takes feels so forced it’s beyond absurd. It only becomes what it is in order to wedge in the song they sing together. In contrast to Baldwin, we have Catherine Zeta-Jones. She is very good for most of the movie but terribly botches her big number. Her singing is okay, I guess, but watching her stiffly mimic old Michael Jackson moves is painful.

Speaking of painful, that’s precisely the way to describe the work turned in by our two young lovebirds. Julianne Hough is pretty, but hardly compelling and seems to be replaceable by any number of twenty-something Hollywood blondes. Ditto for Malin Akerman as Rolling Stone reporter Constance Sack. Believe it, or not, Diego Boneta fares even worse as Drew. His character struggles with being true to himself, and be a rocker, or do what his manager wants and front a boy band. Sadly, he’s not believable in either case. And more bad writing hurts him further. Early on, his character suffers from stage-fright. I get that even more suspension of belief is required to watch musicals than most other genres. Still, I’m hard pressed to accept that a guy whom I just saw give a rendition of “I Love Rock ‘n Roll” in a crowded record store, while dancing in the aisles no less, is afraid to sing once someone puts a microphone in front of him.

The better movie takes place when the two youngsters are not on the screen. It has considerable charm, again, much of which is due to Tom Cruise’s eccentric rock star. The rest is because of the familiar and still catchy songs. These tunes are fun no matter what, but a little less so when performed by Hough and Boneta who come off like a pair of posers. Perhaps, it’s because there is noticeably less grunge to either of them than anyone else in the movie. So, in addition to their blank acting, they’re both just way too glossy. Finally, that writing is just flat lazy as things are resolved suddenly without the end result feeling earned. In summation: see Rock of Ages for the music and Tom Cruise, skip it if you don’t think that will be enough.

Win Win

Directed by Thomas McCarthy.

2011. Rated R, 106 minutes.

Cast:

Paul Giamatti

Alex Shaffer

Amy Ryan

Jeffrey Tambor

Bobby Cannavale

Burt Young

Melanie Lynskey

Sharon Wilkins

Margo Martindale

David W. Thompson

Nina Arianda

Mike (Giamatti) is a lawyer struggling to keep his practice afloat. One of his clients is Leo (Young), an elderly gentleman whom the state deems incapable of caring for himself. They want to move him into a rest home. His only relative, an estranged daughter is nowhere to be found. Of course, Leo thinks he’s perfectly fine and wants to keep living in his own house. Mike is going along with the state’s program until he learns that Leo’s guardian is paid $1500 per month. He himself assumes guardianship under the pretenses of making sure Leo’s wish will be granted and he will be well taken care of. He then dumps the old man in a home, anyway and begins collecting the monthly checks. Things are going according to plan until Leo’s 16 year old grandson Kyle (Shaffer) shows up out of the blue. No one, including Leo, even knew of the boy’s existence. Since he’s obviously a troubled kid, and to keep his lie going, Mike takes him in.

Despite his issues, Kyle is a nice, quiet kid. Eventually we find out his mother Cindy (wonderfully played by Lynskey) is both alive and a drug addict. This has obviously taken its toll on the boy. He wants nothing to do with her and she seemingly wants nothing to do with her father. It’s no wonder Kyle enjoys being part of Mike’s family. Shaffer handles the role well. It is also well-written. Kyle and the other kids actually feel like genuine teenagers as opposed to an adult in an adolescent body as is the case in plenty of movies. Much of his communication to adults is eerily similar to that of many real teenaged boys including my own son, through shrugs and nods. It is a subtle, yet effective performance.

Less subtle is the work of Paul Giamatti. That he turns in an excellent portrayal should go without saying to anyone familiar with him. Admittedly, Mike is a character that’s right up his alley: a guy who is often exasperated, slightly sweaty and prone to loud verbal outbursts. Still, he makes Mike convincingly simple in motive yet complex in action. In another actor’s hands, the character may have come across as too dastardly. Giamatti makes him believable as a guy who, for the most part, is on the straight and narrow, but the desire to feed his family leads him to try slipping something past the world.

The two main characters combine to make Win Win a tricky proposition. Our empathy clearly lies with Kyle. How we feel about Mike is not such a sure thing. We’re not certain we like him but we want him to come out victorious in what becomes a custody battle over both Kyle and Leo. Whether or not he’s a great choice is debatable. What is not debatable is that he’s better than the alternative. Still, the alternative has at least as much right as he does.

Win Win navigates these complex issues without becoming complicated itself. Instead of pouring out every ounce of melodrama it can muster, it does most things in a matter-of-fact manner. Supporting players provide comedy and Mike’s family gives us cuteness while the story holds our interest. The key to it all is something I’ve already said: we feel for Kyle. We really care what happens to the kid.

MY SCORE: 8/10

The Ides of March

Directed by George Clooney.

2011. Rated R, 101 minutes.
Cast:
Ryan Gosling
George Clooney
Philip Seymour Hoffman
Paul Giamatti
Marisa Tomei
Evan Rachel Wood
Jeffrey Wright
Max Minghella
Michael Mantell

Stephen (Gosling) is a young hotshot in the world of campaign managing. He’s trying to help Governor Mike Morris (Clooney) win the presidential nomination of the Democrats. At this task he’s second in command to Paul (Hoffman). Together, they work against the force of evil known as Duffy (Giamatti) who manages their opponent’s campaign. The reason they get to be the good guys is because their candidate is not just a good guy, he’s a great guy. Even Duffy acknowledges this on several occasions. Stephen is so smitten, he’s sure the governor will “take back the world” should he become commander-in-chief.

Don’t worry, things aren’t all so black and white. A major conflict in the story is whether or not our young jedi will turn to the dark side. After all, you’re not really good at your job if no one else wants to hire you. Of course, there’s also a love story. Or, is it a lust story? Either way, like the rest of the movie, things start innocently enough and eventually get very messy.

The various messes are handled nicely. Strangely, the twists and turns that create them aren’t of the totally unexpected sort. In fact, we can kind of see them coming. The intrigue comes from seeing how the people on the screen will handle the curves their lives throw them. We say “I knew it” to ourselves when circumstances change. After this, we’re fully vested in the answer to our rhetorical question: Whaddya do now?

Many of us are jaded enough to believe there are no heroes in politics, only villains. We think the people in all aspects of the game are all relentlessly pursuing their own best interests under the guise of working for the betterment of society. They’re constantly hiding things because they need us to believe the words coming out of their mouths. Their livelihood depends on it. Never is this more true than in a presidential election year. Jobs are won and lost. Fame and infamy are gained. The direction of the nation is swayed. This is true whether we’re talking about the politicians themselves, the people who run and work for their campaigns or the journalists who cover them. The Ides of March drags us into the muck with fantastic results.

American Splendor

Directed by Shari Springer Berman and Robert Pulcini.

2003. Rated R, 101 minutes.
Cast:
Paul Giamatti
Harvey Pekar
Hope Davis
Joyce Brabner
Judah Friedlander
9Toby Radloff
James Urbaniak
Madylin Sweeten
Danielle Batone

When most of us think of comic books, we think of costumed heroes with super powers battling outlandish villains. Harvey Pekar, played by both Paul Giamatti and the real Harvey himself, this seemed to extremely limit the types of tales that could be told. He felt the possibilities would be infinite if storylines were more directly drawn from real life. With that in mind, he created “American Splendor,” a comic book series based on his own life. The “ripped from reality” principle is applied to this film. We weave in and out of fictionalized accounts of Harvey’s experiences and his own observations of them. It’s a viewing excursion different than most and superior to the few similarly styled movies I’ve come across. We first meet Harvey shortly before he hatched the idea for his own comic. Things unfold in an almost linear fashion up to and including the filming of this movie. This gives it a wonderfully self-aware quality that comes across as conversational and without the arrogances that seems to be inherent in most such films.

Visually, American Splendor is subtle, yet poignant. Harvey’s cluttered apartment is a perfect representation of the mind he’s able to pull his stories from. Many of the outdoor scenes have a chilly look to them, mirroring his normal disposition. This is interspersed with interviews of Real Harvey, as he’s listed in the credits, his wife Real Joyce (Brabner) and his buddy Real Toby (Radloff). In one brilliant shot we see the actors playing Harvey and Toby (Friedlander) taking a break in the background, completely out of character, while the genuine articles are talking to the camera. If there is one place the visuals falter, it’s in its depiction of Pekar’s final appearance as a guest on “The David Letterman Show.” We saw his first via a clip of the real thing. It’s seamlessly integrated into the film. For the last appearance, that technique is abandoned and we get Giamatti doing the scene. That wouldn’t be bad at all since he is quite good. However, having an actor play Letterman and only showing odd shots of the back of his head is jarring. It feels like a movie that’s been completely open about itself suddenly has something to hide.

Much of the humor is derived from Harvey’s social awkwardness. Despite this and his not-so-sunny demeanor the script, Giamatti’s performance and Real Harvey combine to endow the man with a weird sort of charm. For instance, the first thing he does after meeting Joyce (Davis) face to face for the first time is tell her he’s had a vasectomy. We laugh and wonder what she must be thinking. Still, it’s so typically Harvey that we understand. Essentially, that’s the overwhelming theme of AS. Regardless of all his idiosyncrasies, we wouldn’t have him any other way.

The Hangover Part II

Directed by Todd Phillips.

2011. Rated R, 102 minutes.
Cast:
Bradley Cooper
Ed Helms
Zach Galifianakis
Ken Jeong
Jeffrey Tambor
Justin Bartha
Paul Giamatti
Jamie Chung
Mason Lee

Mike Tyson

The gang’s all back for another misadventure. It’s Stu (Helms) who is tying the knot. He and his lovely fiancé Lauren (Chung) are having their wedding in her native Thailand. Of course, he invites his buddies Phil (Cooper) and Doug (Bartha) to tag along. Understandably, after the events of the first movie, it takes quite a bit of cajoling before Stu agrees to invite Alan (Galifianakis). Per Stu’s orders, there will be no bachelor party. Begrudgingly, he agrees to have one beer with the fellas on the beach before returning to Lauren’s side. Of course, much more than that happens and the boys don’t remember any of it when they wake up in a rundown Bangkok hotel. This time, the missing party is Lauren’s little brother/child prodigy Teddy played by the Mason Lee, the son of famed director Ang Lee. Teddy is only 16 but is already a Stanford pre-med student. The only sign of him in the room is the finger he seems to have lost at some point during the night. It’s still wearing his Stanford ring. Mysteriously, they have added one: Mr. Chow (Jeong), the villain from part one. Now, he’s on their side. The guys going all over Bangkok looking for Teddy ensues.

If you’ve see the first one, then you’ll notice that this is essentially the same movie. This is both a good and a bad thing. It’s good because I suspect the audience for this is people who love the original and want more of it. Part II is more than happy to oblige. It’s a sequel that doesn’t seem to tell a new part of the story as much as it just gives us an alternate version of its predecessor. The downside to this is that the sameness gets to be overwhelming, at times. The freshness and mystery of the original is gone. We have a fairly good idea how this will turn out and, in a number of cases, it’s kind of hard to laugh at the same jokes twice.

Once that freshness and mystery has dissipated, the only thing we have left are those jokes. Due to many of them being recycled material, they’re much more hit and miss than in the previous film. Luckily, when they hit, they tend to hit big. There is loud, hearty laughter to be had at several points. Other funny moments eminate from Alan through another superb performance by Zach Galifianakis. You may find more with Chow, but that depends on whether or not you find Ken Jeong annoying. The same goes for the monkey the boys have acquired.

One other thing does mark this as a true sequel, though. Things are bigger. Aside from Teddy potentially missing a digit, or worse, Chow is now an international criminal with international heat on him. There’s some shooting and huge car chase. Even Stu’s physical dilemmas are bigger. He wakes up with a tattoo on his face. It is a replica of the one that adorns the grill of Mike Tyson. Instead of being a nod to the first film like it’s obviously intended, it’s a constant reminder of the better movie. Still, later on we’ll learn something about Stu even bigger than that. As for Tyson, he himself eventually turns up again. Sadly, this time he does something far worse to our ears than he ever did to Evander Holyfield’s.

The Hangover Part II isn’t a bad watch, despite all I’ve said. It just pales in comparison with its predecessor. As stated, it’s the same basic formula. Unfortunately, most of the new ingredients dilute the potency of its humor. Mainly to blame is all the action flick stuff thrown in. Whenever those elements pop up, they give the movie a far more serious tone. Instead of action and comedy complementing one another, they take turns. This makes the movie uneven, almost as if we’re switching channels back and forth between a sitcom and a murder mystery. To be honest, this is probably a lot better for people who haven’t seen Part I. With that said, I do like the movie. I laughed a lot which is what comedy is about. I just don’t like it as much as the original.

MY SCORE: 6.5/10

The Nanny Diaries

Directed by Shari Springer Berman and Robert Pulcini.
2007. Rated PG-13, 106 minutes.
Cast:
Scarlett Johansson
Laura Linney
Chris Evans
Paul Giamatti
Donna Murphy
Nicholas Reese Art
Alicia Keys

Every once in a while, you go into a movie fearing the worse and are pleasantly surprised. The Nanny Diaries is one such movie. Charged with picking out “something for everyone,” I settled on this, as it seemed to be the sort of flick my girls would like. “My girls” consists of my wife and two daughters. With my son away at a friend’s, I’m severely outnumbered, in terms of gender. This was not the time to pluck a testosterone fueled adventure from the shelf.

Our tale begins with Annie (Johansson) graduating from college. She’s more than a little unsure what she’s going to do in “the real world.” As luck would have it, she quite literally stumbles into a job as a live-in nanny to a very wealthy family on New York’s Upper East Side. Actually, calling her a nanny is understating her job quite a bit. She is more like a post-natal surrogate mother. She merely has to do everything for Grayer (Art), the little boy she nannies. Dad (Giamatti) is almost always on a business trip. Somehow, he’s still absent even on those rare occasions he’s actually in the same room as his son. Mom (Linney) dictates all activities but doesn’t participate. Apparently, she just can’t do with less than 12 hours of “me time” every day. As a result, “me time” is something Annie finds hard to come by. On top of that, she’s lying to her own mother (Murphy), whom she is hiding her occupation from. Then there’s Harvard Hottie (Evans). He’s the handsome rich guy who lives on the 12th floor and has taken a liking to Annie.

Johansson acquits herself nicely in the lead role. However, it’s Linney’s excellent turn as the control freak mom that drives the movie. She’s oblivious to her own villainy and operates through the fog of pain she’s trying desperately not to show. Her self-worth hinges on the two men in her life, her husband and son. Their failures, both real and imagined, keep her teetering on the edge of full blown depression. Linney plays it perfectly.

TND could’ve settled on the slapstick and pratfalls that mark Annie’s first day at work. Luckily, it finds its brain going forward. Perhaps, this makes it less funny, producing fewer laughs. However, it also makes it smarter, more enjoyable. When we get to the end, even though it’s fairly predictable, it’s somewhat satisfying. It doesn’t feel rushed or seem to come in out of left field. It also says what we’ve been dying to say for the last hour leading up to this.

MY SCORE: 6/10