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]

2017 Oscar Nominees for Short Film (Live Action)

2017 Oscar Nominees for Short Film (Live Action)

1. “Sing (Mindenki)” was my choice to win Best Live Action Short (and it did!)  This Hungarian short tells the story of a girl that moves to a new school and tries to fit in by joining their award-winning choir.  In the music classroom, she encounters a seemingly wonderful choir director but we quickly see the director’s true colors.  The story is punctuated by quality performances of two-part choral songs that will put a smile on your face.  The script is composed of simple dialogue but the impressive acting performances of Dorka Gáspárfalvi and Dorottya Hais help to develop several layers of emotions throughout the film’s short 25-minute runtime.  As a choir director, the final scene is my worst nightmare.  I’d recommend this short to anyone!

2. “Ennemis intérieurs (Enemies Within)” offers the best acting performance of this years’ shorts.  The small cast (mainly featuring two men in a series of interviews) use their dialogue to create an impressive intensity that carries the film from start to finish.  There is no action in this short.  It is pure acting and intrigue.  It also captures a unique snapshot of France’s conflicts with their colonies.

3. “Silent Nights” tackles the difficulties faced by the homeless in Denmark.  The story has several interesting themes including an illegal immigrant seeking work in a new country and a homeless shelter volunteer that falls in love with a resident.  The acting is excellent and the story is well-developed, though this is the only nominated short with inappropriate content.  Once you start watching this one, you’ll have to keep watching to find out what happens next!

4. “La femme et le TGV (The Railroad Lady)” may have been my favorite short of the year.  It is a testament to the quality of this year’s nominees (minus “Timecode”) since I enjoyed it so much but still have to rank it fourth in quality.  This short is based on the true story of a widow who lived beside the train tracks and waved a Swiss flag at the passing trains each day.  The story grows interesting when she is noticed by a daily passenger who begins a correspondence with her by throwing letters out of the train window to her.  The story is quirky and you can’t help but love the main character!

5. “Timecode (El corredor)” was my least favorite short.  There isn’t really a story as much as a series of vignettes of two random dancing characters thrown into a setting unrelated to dance.  The film is totally unique and I kind of get what they were going for but at the same time, why did they go for it?

Walt Disney Presents: An Adventure in the Magic Kingdom (1958) - 9 stars out of 10

Walt Disney Presents: An Adventure in the Magic Kingdom (1958) - 9 stars out of 10

“Walt Disney Presents: An Adventure in the Magic Kingdom” captures a timeless snapshot of Walt Disney’s original vision for his theme park.  With a dozen parks worldwide, it’s fascinating to see how their offerings have transformed from simple dark rides and walkthroughs to elaborate experiences that utilize some of the most advanced technologies available.  Though this 1958 tv special predates many of the park’s renovations (including the Monorail, Space Mountain, Pirates of the Caribbean, and the Haunted Mansion), I was surprised to see how much there was to do at this park.  It would have been very easy to fill a day with adventures on Tom Sawyer Island, Autopia, the Jungle Cruise, Peter Pan’s Flight, and any of the park’s three trains.  I was also surprised to see the film’s depiction of foreign tourists and Frontierland before our society became politically correct. Like the part where they literally encourage a bunch of children to fire guns at invading “Indians.”  This tv special was the first look at Disney's park for many people around the country and I can imagine how badly someone would want to visit after getting this taste.  The POV shots of the rides capture the magic and every guest has a huge smile on their face.  The clothing, transportation, and societal expectations have changed but Walt’s dream has not.  Disney parks continue to provide a place where parents and children can play together and “An Adventure in the Magic Kingdom” preserves an archive of where it all started.

Watch the special here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRrn_IOIIpc

[Pictured: Tinker Bell is your tour guide through the "Magic Kingdom," but not the Floridian one that initially comes to mind]

The Present (2014) - 10 stars out of 10

The Present (2014) - 10 stars out of 10

“The Present” is an animated short created by Jacob Frey and Markus Kranzler.  The term “short” is an understatement as its runtime is only 4:20, a minute of which is taken up by the credits.  The phenomenal thing about the short is its ability to tell a layered story full of emotions in less than three and a half minutes.  The film is notable for bringing critical acclaim to the work of Frey and Kranzler which quickly led to their hiring by Disney and Pixar.  We’ve already seen Frey’s work included in “Zootopia” and “Moana,” and their careers will continue to build from here.  It’s hard to discuss the short without spoiling the story since it is so short, but I will say that if you love dogs you will love it.  The animation is such a high quality that I’m surprised at the lack of an Oscar nomination.  It is definitely worth three and a half minutes of your time to experience “The Present” at the Vimeo link below!

https://vimeo.com/152985022

[Pictured: This picture says everything about why you need to watch this short]