Burn After Reading - 2 stars out of 10

Burn After Reading - 2 stars out of 10

"Burn After Reading" is one of my least favorite Coen Brothers films.  The Coens have created some inspired work from "Fargo" to "No Country For Old Men," but this script relies on a constant stream of f-words to fill in the gaps left by its weak plot.  I loathe modern comedies that subscribe to the belief that if you use the f-word enough, it will become a running gag (Melissa McCarthy, I'm talking to you).  In fact, the main theme that connects the film together is its crude content.  Why is every relationship in the film predicated on infidelity?  And that machine that George Clooney builds - there is absolutely no purpose behind it, and yet it's there for the sake of being there.  I didn't like this film when it came out and tried to approach it with fresh eyes, believing that I would fall in love with it knowing what I know now about movies.  I was wrong and should have trusted my first experience with it.  I actually hated it significantly more than I did the first time!  You would think that a cast including John Malkovich, Brad Pitt, Frances McDormand, Tilda Swinton (detestable in this role), Richard Jenkins, J.K. Simmons, and Clooney would have to be amazing but the entire story is absurd.  It's almost as if they pigeonholed a bunch of great actors into a 90's Adam Sandler movie and called it sophisticated.  Black comedies often miss the mark because they don't find that balance between feeling sorry for characters and enjoying their misfortune.  This one is a prime example.  Pitt is the only reason to even consider watching this film a his character is so over the top that we love to see him be absurd.  Unfortunately, the rest of the characters are so static that he feels out of place.  There are a few decent moments in this film (serving the papers, Pitt's nosebleed) but nothing that will make it worth enduring.  If you love the Coen brothers, you might see something in "Burn After Reading" that I didn't.  After you're done, you can find me pouting in the corner, still annoyed with myself for wasting an hour and a half on this film AGAIN!

[Pictured: Pitt starts out as an annoying jock, becomes an unbearable jock, and turns out to be the most entertaining part of the film in the end]

Elle (2016) - 7 stars out of 10

Elle (2016) - 7 stars out of 10

“Elle” is a French erotic thriller that digs deep into the psyche of a rape victim and goes in the complete opposite direction of what you might expect.  I anticipated a classic game of cat and mouse in which the victim hunts down the assailant; instead, this story unravels the layers of the victim’s life so that we can understand why she reacts to the crime in the way that she does.  The film is all about Isabelle Huppert’s Oscar-nominated performance.  She commands the screen by developing several different sides of herself, each of which is visible to a different person.  The end result is a multifaceted character that feels raw and real.  The story is equally complex and unexpected with a wide array of characters whose unique personalities bring out the different sides of Huppert.  While the acting is great, the film disappointed me in its slow plot development and lack of action.  The conclusion is satisfying but feels like a missed opportunity in an era of movies that are always accompanied by a strong political statement.  Personally, I find “Elle” to be overrated in comparison with great French films like “The Intouchables” and “The Chorus,” though I applaud it for thinking outside of the box.  It is worth giving this one a shot but brace yourself for strong content and dialogue.

[Pictured: I don’t know if Isabelle Huppert was worthy of an Oscar nomination but her performance is impressive]

My Girlfriend's Boyfriend (2010) - 2 stars out of 10

My Girlfriend's Boyfriend (2010) - 2 stars out of 10

I’m frustrated.  I don’t understand how a film like “My Girlfriend’s Boyfriend” gets made.  I can understand how the vision of a film can get lost in the editing process, but how can a film be so misguided from the very start.  I can’t imagine the crew members on the set of this film thinking anything other than “these are the most emotionless characters that I have ever seen” as the cameras were rolling.  I have seen Lifetime Original Movies with better acting.  I’ve even seen mid-afternoon Nickelodeon comedies with every cast member under the age of 16 that has better acting.  Christopher Gorham’s soft-spoken tone of voice wreaks of a sensitive used car salesman and makes any attempt by Alyssa Milano to create chemistry feel awkward.  It doesn’t help that the script is completely mundane.  Not in a Richard Linklater real-life-unfolding-in-front-of-your-eyes sort of way, but in a why-am-I-watching-this-unemotional-dialogue sort of way.  The entire film feels painfully overacted and it is no surprise that it received a pay-per-view release instead of a theatrical one.  It latches onto the classic cliché of a girl trying to choose between a successful ad executive vs. a family-oriented struggling writer, though you will understand why in the end.  In an effort to incorporate some comedy into the film, they create a random tangent with a character appearing in a gum commercial but it has ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING on the plot!  The experience of watching this film is painful… and then it throws in one of the most incredible twists that I’ve ever seen in a romantic comedy.  This is one of the highest quality chick flick concepts that I have ever seen, but the dialogue and acting are so average that it will never be appreciated for its underlying genius.  I want to tell you to watch “My Girlfriend’s Boyfriend” to experience its inventive ending, or even just to laugh at how bad the acting is; unfortunately, any attempt to endure this film will result in an unending frustration with its relentless monotony.

[Pictured: This is pretty much how everybody feels about this movie.  Can we please steal this ending and put it at the end of a good film?]

3 Days To Kill - 4 stars out of 10

3 Days To Kill - 4 stars out of 10

“3 Days To Kill” is an average action comedy film that features Kevin Costner doing his best “gruff Harrison Ford” impression.  It intersperses several well-executed shootout sequences with a shallow family plot.  The Parisian setting and the intrigue behind Amber Heard’s character set the stage for a riveting story but what develops feels like a bunch of ideas that were borrowed from other films.  As I mentioned, Costner’s voice and disposition are reminiscent of most Harrison Ford action films, his crippling adrenaline-induced hallucinations seem to be inspired by “Crank,” and the plot device of a man trying to develop a relationship with his daughter amidst dangerous spy missions feels very cliché.  This led to a familiarity that had my wife and I debating whether we had seen the film before.  The predictability of the family story left little room for surprises.  We even developed an expectation that one particular character would reveal herself to be a bad guy… only to realize that we were remembering a different film and definitely had not seen this one before.  While the story lacks originality, much of the comedy hits the target.  The running gag of Costner’s “I Love It” ringtone going off at inappropriate moments never gets old and his reliance on his targets (Mitat and Guido) to help mend his relationship with Zooey creates some great moments.  If you are looking for a serious action film, “3 Days To Kill” will let you down but if you are looking for something predictable and light, it might be just what you are looking for. 

[Pictured: This film would've been much more interesting if Amber Heard was the main character]