Derailed

Year 3, Day 42 - 2/11/11 - Movie #772

BEFORE: Capping off my Clive Owen triple-play, and giving Birthday SHOUT-out #11 tonight to Jennifer Aniston, born February 11, 1969, and last seen in "Rock Star".

THE PLOT: When two married business executives having an affair are blackmailed by a violent criminal, the two must turn the tables on him to save their families.

AFTER: This film illustrates the point I was making about "Closer" - a character's infidelity is more believable when there's some motivation for it. Here we have two people who are at least disenchanted - one has a husband who spends all his time trading stocks and golfing, and the other's marriage is affected by his daughter's health problems. They meet on the commuter train, and form a friendship that turns to attraction.

But when they finally decide to act on their impulses, that's when things take a dark turn, and they end up being blackmailed. I don't want to say any more about the plot, because I found the ending to be quite clever. Perhaps a little too tidy, but definitely clever. Another case of a screenwriter "showing off", perhaps.

My only complaint was that the story stretched the bounds of believability a bit, both in the detailing of the crimes, and the lengths that a man might go to in order to protect his (and his mistress's) reputation. And the movie did stay mostly in linear sequence, however there was one point where a character remembered in flashback things he couldn't possibly have known - OK, so I have two complaints.

Also starring Vincent Cassel (last seen in "Ocean's Thirteen"), Giancarlo Esposito (last seen in "Maximum Overdrive"), Xzibit and RZA.

RATING: 7 out of 10 composition books

Closer

Year 3, Day 41 - 2/10/11 - Movie #771

BEFORE: I've mapped out the rocky road to Valentine's Day and beyond, and for some reason, the path this year goes through Clive Owen. Both he AND Julia Roberts carry over from last night's film. Making up for another past movie sin tonight, since I got an Academy screener of this a few years back, and only watched a few scenes - you can probably guess which ones. It's all about context, though, and up until now I've had none.

THE PLOT: The relationships of two couples become complicated and deceitful when the man from one couple meets the woman of the other.

AFTER: The love triangle is a common plot device, but the love quadrangle (I wonder why people don't say "love square" - I guess it just don't sound right...) is less common. Unfortunately it carries the stigma of a writer showing off - hey, why stop there, why not pen a love pentangle or a love sextangle (nice double entendre) or a love octangle?

This was quite obviously a work originally written for the stage - it's got the feel of a Mamet-y talky talky piece, you can almost feel the stage exits and the spotlights as each character rises to prominence and then fades into the background.

But what about the content? Well, between America's sweetheart Julia Roberts dropping the f-bomb, along with other salty language, as well as a number of awkward and uncomfortable conversations as these two couples break up repeatedly and recombine, honestly it feels like stunt work - when you combine it with the casting of America's "other" sweetheart Natalie Portman as a stripper, it feels especially staged.

What's clear is that somebody, somewhere got their heart broken, and decided to write a play about damaged people who damage each other further. Sure, they're occasionally apologetic about it, but the damage is still done. Is it true to life? Possibly - it does examine those most personal and hurtful conversations that one might have after infidelity is exposed. And the balance between the horrible desire to know the details of the infidelity, and the impulse to block them out, run out the door and move on with one's life.

There's something here on a par with "The War of the Roses" - people being emotionally (and physically) cruel to each other, in graphic detail. But where that film over-explained the reasons for all the damage, this one under-explains. Almost every plot development here can be countered with a "but WHY?". "I cheated on you." (but WHY?) "I don't love you any more." (but WHY?) And if your characters can't answer these questions, what chance does the audience have? For all that's said and done in this movie, they really only scratch the surface.

I was terribly afraid during the first half-hour, because there's a huge time-jump during which one character writes an entire novel - for a while it seemed like there would be two timelines, present and past, and the film was going to toggle between them. It didn't - but that itself highlights a major problem here, all the best action seems to take place off-screen or in-between - and then later in the film there ARE some non-linear jumps, as we flashback to reveal what happened in-between the earlier scenes. Again - you're asking too much if you want me to re-assemble the timeline for you, since you apparently couldn't be bothered to edit (or write) the scenes in the proper order. Or you're just messing with me, which isn't cool either.

This film got some pretty horrible reviews, as I seem to recall - I think it got marketed all wrong, like some kind of romantic comedy, when it's nothing close to a feel-good film, it's all rather bleak. I can't recall one character laughing in this whole film, and only one scene where someone smiled.

Also starring Natalie Portman (last seen in "Heat") and Jude Law (last seen in "Road to Perdition") and really, no one else - I've rarely seen a feature film with only 6 cast members...

RATING: 5 out of 10 - once again, I'm being very ambiguous here, because it seems like somewhat important material, but it also seems very stage-y and full of broad stereotypes. Plus points off for excessive time-jumping and not supplying any real character motivations.

Duplicity

Year 3, Day 40 - 2/9/11 - Movie #770

BEFORE: I almost broke up with my comic-book shop today, the problem has been for the last few weeks, they haven't been getting all the new books in - forcing me to shop at a second comic-book store on the way home, making me walk further in the cold, making me late, etc. I understand that the shop changed hands a month ago, and the old owner probably didn't pre-order books for this month since he wasn't planning to still be in business. Still, everyone knows what issues are supposed to be released, thanks to the interwebs, and the new owner has been telling me that certain books didn't ship, and then I walk 10 blocks to another shop, where I find them. SO, either he's lying to me, or someone's lying to him - both situations are unacceptable. SO, I told him we were no longer exclusive, and that I was seeing other comic-book stores behind his back - I'm tired of sneaking around anyway, a man has needs after all. I'm willing to give the old/new store a few more weeks to get their act together, but if the shelves are still missing books next month, I've got to bounce.

Following up last night's film about a quarreling couple on a Texas ranch with this film, about a quarreling couple in...umm...wherever this one takes place.

THE PLOT: A pair of corporate spies who share a steamy past hook up to pull off the ultimate con job on their respective bosses.

AFTER: Unfortunately, this is another film that tries to be three different things - a romance story, a spy story, and a corporate story. Now I love a good double-cross (or even triple-cross) movie, but I'm quite torn about whether this constitutes a "good" example of the genre.

Once again, I've got troubles with a film that jumps around in time. Every segment begins with "10 months ago" or "5 years ago", and each new segment from the past is supposed to shed some new light on what we're seeing in the present - valuable information about character background and "the plan" is being withheld and then doled out in small pieces. Why? It's either to mess with the audience's heads, or it's done to cover up flaws in the linear storyline. Both situations are unacceptable.

As a filmmaker (or a novel writer, or a comic-book writer...) you can't expect your audience to sit at home (or in a movie theater) with charts and graphs and work on re-assembling your damn timeline because you thought it would be cute, or arty, or clever to jump around in time. I'm calling this the worst movie trend of the last decade - it worked on "Memento", but not on any of the countless knock-offs.

As more information is revealed, the second meeting between the main characters suddenly makes no sense. And then I suppose later it makes sense again, but that's beside the point.

And then we've got the plot, which I'm going to kind of dance around here - I'll just say it involves corporate secrets. Let's take any case of two major competing U.S. companies - Coke and Pepsi. Now obviously there will be some similarities in their product lines - Diet Coke, Diet Pepsi. Coke Zero, Pepsi Max. Mello Yello, Mountain Dew. And I'm willing to believe there's a certain amount of corporate espionage involved, with each company trying to get the jump on the other. But would it make more sense for Coke to spend $3 million to develop, test and market a radically new soda, or to spend $6 million on phony plans to make Pepsi believe it's working on a new product? All JUST to see how PepsiCo reacts, or perhaps to make Pepsi look foolish? (I suppose that would explain Crystal Pepsi, though...)

Isn't it more likely that Coke would just spend their money on the product development itself, and the security to protect the new formula? The best offense is a good defense, and vice versa...but this movie would have you believe otherwise.

Then we have the technology, and a very specific method of transmitting corporate data - but as the movie itself points out, there were at least 50 easier ways of getting the sensitive information out of the building, including, but not limited to, faxing it, mailing it, and folding it into a paper airplane and sailing it out the window. It seems like the writer/director is calling "shenanigans" on his own plot point - did he think I'd then leave it alone?

I might have bought into the love story here, if the two main characters weren't always at each other's throats, or trying to out-think each other at every opportunity. I understand this might be the way that spies or ex-spies think, so maybe spies shouldn't get involved with each other - it seems quite problematic.

There are plans within plans here, and good luck to any viewer trying to sort it all out - in the end certain characters are left hanging, finally figuring out how they got played. And now I know exactly how they feel. Was that the lesson?

Starring Julia Roberts (last seen in "America's Sweethearts"), Clive Owen (last seen in "The Bourne Identity"), Paul Giamatti (last seen in "Fred Claus"), and Tom Wilkinson (last seen in "Valkyrie").

RATING: 5 out of 10 frozen pizzas

Giant

Year 3, Day 39 - 2/8/11 - Movie #769

BEFORE: I've hit a bit of a thematic break, just in time for the birthday of James Dean, who gets SHOUT-out #10. Today would have been, could have been, James Dean's 80th. I had a choice between this film and "Rebel Without a Cause", I hope this one fits my February theme better.

THE PLOT: Sprawling epic covering the life of a Texas cattle rancher and his family and associates.

AFTER: Damn, this was a long movie - clocking in at three hours and 20 minutes! But it's an epic, a Texas-sized tale covering two generations of the Benedict family. And it does fit my theme, because at the center of the story is the often-stormy marriage between a Texas cattleman (Rock Hudson) and a Maryland socialite (Elizabeth Taylor). Meanwhile, James Dean's character (with one of the best names ever, Jett Rink) gets a little piece of land, drills for oil, and pines after what the Benedicts have.

There is a lot of ground covered here - Texas politics, gender stereotypes, discrimination against Mexicans. A reflection of changing times and changing attitudes from the 1930's (?) through the 1950's. Liz Taylor's character learns the ins and outs of a Texas cattle ranch, and Rock Hudson's character (eventually) learns that he can't solve every problem with his fortune and his fists. Meanwhile James Dean's character gets rich, gets drunk, and gets old.

It's an odd thing to see James Dean playing a middle-aged character, since we all know he died at age 24, a year before this film was released. So we get a glimpse of what he'd look like in an alternate timeline - sort of like how we glimpsed Orson Welles' future look at the end/beginning of "Citizen Kane". Also interesting is seeing Dennis Hopper playing a young man, since his most famous roles, like "Apocalypse Now" and "Blue Velvet", came along later in his life.

I guess tonight's lesson, from both the plot and the careers of the actors, is that you can't always see what's ahead in life, what with all its twists and turns. There's a constant set of surprises coming, and that's both good and bad.

Also starring Carroll Baker, Mercedes McCambridge, Rod Taylor, Sal Mineo.

RATING: 6 out of 10 derricks (penalties incurred for a dire need for some editing, and some very fake fight scenes)

Mrs. Doubtfire

Year 3, Day 38 - 2/7/11 - Movie #768

BEFORE: I had some internal debate about where to put this film in my chain - should I save it for Robin Williams week? Build a chain around movie transvestitism? Nah, seeing as how films like "Big Momma's House" and "White Chicks" will NEVER make the cut, I guess I'll use it to cap off a trilogy of divorce-based comedies.

THE PLOT: After a bitter divorce, an actor disguises himself as a female housekeeper to spend secret time with his children.

AFTER: I'm split down the middle on this one - because taken one way, it's a heartwarming story of a man (Robin Williams, last seen in "August Rush") who goes to extremes to spend more time with his kids, get his life back together, and prevent his wife from dating a cad. But looked at from a more cynical viewpoint, it's the story of a deranged actor who disguises himself to stalk his own family. There, I said it...

I've got a host of nitpick points, mostly built around the "disguise" aspect - obviously the audience needs to recognize Robin Williams in granny drag, but none of the other characters are supposed to - so that's a visual conundrum right there. And then we're supposed to believe that the man's own wife of 14 years (!!) doesn't recognize him as a woman of similar height and shape. It's awful convenient that his brother is an expert make-up artist, but 99.9% of men who put on a dress, Robin Williams included, will NOT pass as a woman, merely that same man in a dress. (Case in point: Dame Edna, Flip Wilson as Geraldine, Eddie Izzard, etc.) I did it one Halloween (never again!) so I also speak from some experience.

Then we get to the voice - it's a smart idea casting Williams as a voice-over artist, it's something he has experience with (me, too...). But most v.o. people have a stock set of characters, so if he lived with a woman for 14 years, chances are she would have heard all of his voices over time, so she'd recognize his fake British accent, as well as all the voices he used when answering the nanny ad by phone. Even putting caller I.D. aside, I bet my wife would recognize one of my character voices right away (and even if she didn't, she knows the kind of prank call I'd make).

So he gets the job as the kids' nanny, and then slapstick comedy (the lowest form...) ensues, and since we know the improbable situation can't last forever, it's just a matter of time before his cover is blown - but first there's a restaurant scene where two situations converge, and he has to switch outfits a dozen times (now we know what old ladies carry in their oversized purses - a different identity), leading to a cross-dressing farce of Shakespearean size (note: I said size, not quality...).

Even if I suspend disbelief about the gender disguise, since it is just a movie, I've still got to question the character's actions from a legal and moral angle, and I'm not sure there's any way his actions can be justified, except as an attempt to entertain the audience (note: I said "attempt"). Yes, we want this well-intentioned man-child to grow up, succeed, and get his kids and marriage back - but is that really what's best for everyone involved? I appreciate them leaving the marriage status ambiguous - but I question whether that was done to appeal to both fractured families and reconnected ones.

NITPICK POINT #1: At the time of the make-up session, he'd already applied for the nanny job by phone, so the fake voice had already been established - so why was he trying out different voices? He couldn't use them - was he channeling the spirit of the different looks? Maybe so, but that seems a little odd.

NITPICK POINT #2: It's not relevant to the story, but with two older characters who were presumably unattached - the spinsterish social worker and the polite lonely bus driver - there needed to be a scene where these two characters fell for each other, or at least met. From a screenwriting angle, there shouldn't be two loose ends left dangling like that.

NITPICK POINT #3: So this man's day includes a film archiving job, a nanny job (cooking, cleaning, etc.) travel between the two jobs AND a (presumed) 4-hour make-up session? I call shenanigans - there aren't enough hours in the day. When does he sleep?

Movies depict impossible/improbable situations all the time - so I'm not sure what it says about me if I'm more willing to believe in a superhero's powers or an alien invasion than a man disquised as a woman - but that seems to be the state of things.

Also starring Sally Field (last seen in "Absence of Malice"), Pierce Brosnan (last seen in "The Fourth Protocol"), Mara Wilson (last seen in "Miracle on 34th St."), with cameos from Harvey Fierstein, Robert Prosky, Polly Holliday and Martin Mull (very underused here). Also Rick Overton and Paul Guilfoyle glimpsed during the restaurant scene.

RATING: (A very ambiguous) 5 out of 10 double-scotches

The First Wives Club

Year 3, Day 37 - 2/6/11 - Movie #767

BEFORE: Super Bowl Sunday has become this weird mix of a sporting event, rock concert, Thanksgiving (for the food), and the Fourth of July - for some reason there's a dramatic reading of the Declaration of Independence before the game, in addition to performances of the National Anthem AND "America the Beautiful". I don't see the direct connection to patriotism, but I guess it's part of the NFL brainwashing...I mean branding campaign.

Since part of my job involves tracking commercials with animation and effects, it's always a busy day for me - sort of like my Super Bowl, if you will. I started watching TV at noon, first to clear my DVR to make room for the game, then to scan through the ads during the pre-game (which for me starts at noon, not 6 pm) and then finally the ads during the game. I think there was even a football game somewhere in there, but I forwarded over most of it. Anyway, by 11 pm I was so burned out on the NFL that I was happy to watch the opposite, which would be a "chick flick" (anyway, I watched all my football movies in December...)

THE PLOT: Reunited by the death of a college friend, three divorced women seek revenge on the husbands who left them for younger women.

AFTER: I didn't really mind the plot here - everyone who gets divorced has their own form of therapy to go through, anyway. Sometimes it's real therapy, sometimes it involved drinking or shopping or just getting back on the dating scene. And I have to admire the plan that the three scorned women concoct - it all ties together, and it's as intricate as something you might see in one of those casino heist movies.

My problem came when they said that it "wasn't about revenge". Ummm...it sure looked like it. If it wasn't revenge, what was it? Why couldn't they get their revenge on their ex-husbands, and OWN that? It feels like the filmmakers were hedging their bets, since they wanted the audience to like and admire these women for acting in their own best interests, and if it's not vengeful, well then we can't hate them, can we? There's a point at which their plan starts to weaken, due to personality conflicts between the main characters, and their internal doubts - again, this feels like it was manufactured to soften their characters, and take away any negative feelings we might have about them.

Again, as with "War of the Roses", it's hard to muster up much sympathy for main characters who seem financially well-off, reasonably intelligent, and capable, who choose to devote their time on negative things like revenge and blackmail, instead of focusing their talents in a more positive direction. And the one who's an actress has an Oscar, a Golden Globe, and a few pieces of Manhattan real estate - she'll be fine! And don't those Hollywood marriages come and go? You'd think she'd be more used to it than the others...

NITPICK POINT: I also work in a position where I track who's working at all the major ad agencies - and in the top creative positions, people come and go so often it's like their offices have revolving doors. A character in this film complains about how hard it would be to open his own agency, but anyone who reads Adweek knows that it happens all the time. For a top advertising executive, it would be no big deal.

Starring Bette Midler (last seen in "Get Shorty"), Goldie Hawn, Diane Keaton (last seen in "Marvin's Room"), Sarah Jessica Parker (last seen in "Honeymoon in Vegas"), Dan Hedaya (last seen in "A Civil Action"), Stephen Collins (last seen in "All the President's Men"), Victor Garber (last seen in "Milk") and Marcia Gay Harden, with cameos from Elizabeth Berkley, Bronson Pinchot, Rob Reiner, Ivana Trump, Ed Koch, Kathie Lee Gifford, and J.K. Simmons (last seen in "Extract").

RATING: 5 out of 10 glasses of champagne