Hot Tub Time Machine

When a movie has a title like Hot Tub Time Machine, reviewing it almost seems futile. Movies like this come down to whether or not you find it funny. Unfortunately, it seems that the movie had most of its jokes ruined by the trailers, so I found myself laughing less than I would have liked to. Sure, there were a few surprises, and the characters were occasionally entertaining, if not a little stock. Still, if you like knowingly dumb comedies, you could do worse than Hot Tub Time Machine.

Do I even need to explain the plot? Four friends get into a hot tub and it takes them back to the 80's. It's the barest of premises, and it serves to give us a lot of riffs on both the 80's and the 00's (Indeed, while there isn't a lot of 10's culture yet established for a film to make fun of, this film seems most comfortable with jokes about things that are more than a few years old, like "Let's Get Retarded" by the Black Eyed Peas). Like any good 80's satire, everything is extremely exaggerated. People all wear ridiculous clothes, love Red Dawn, and listen to the most on the nose 80's songs. The 80's are such an easy target, it can often make for very lazy jokes (what color is Michael Jackson?). It would have been nice to see the film try a little harder. Still, when the jokes do work, they work well. The running joke about Crispin Glover's character is probably the standout.

The cast is strong for this kind of film, even if they have little to do. John Cusack seems so out of place here, and as our de facto lead he is probably the only dull spot. His straight man routine doesn't really provide any real comedy, he is mostly there to comment on what is going on. Craig Robinson and Rob Corddry are, as expected, very reliable. While we've seen the Corddry character a thousand times before - the boorish friend who seems to have no boundaries - Corddry takes the guy to new and outlandish heights. And Clarke Duke, as the youngster of the group, is surprisingly amusing as the only person who seems to be aware of how much damage they could cause to the future. Realizing he was conceived the very weekend they end up in, his neurosis over erasing his birth is very funny. And then there is the cameo by Chevy Chase. Chase seems to be in the midst of a very minor comeback, which is a wonderful thing. Sadly, his talent is squandered here in a borderline non-sequitur performance. He is apparently some sort of time traveling God who only speaks in riddles, but he is so insignificant to the plot and is clearly only there because he is a familiar face.

Your mileage may vary, but I found the film to lack the big laughs and truly memorable characters of something like the similar Hangover. Still, it does have some nifty riffs on time travel, and the callback to the "Johnny Be Good" sequence from Back to the Future is a clever moment that doesn't hit you over the head about being a reference. Again, when you call your film Hot Tub Time Machine, you aren't exactly delving into the intricacies of time travel or the profundity of life.

Greenberg

What is it that drives Noah Baumbach to create some of the most unlikable characters in recent cinema? Greenberg is his third film in a row that centers on how an essentially irredeemable misanthrope ruins the lives of those around him. If that doesn't sound like a whole lot of fun, you wouldn't be mistaken. While The Squid and the Whale was saved by some truly great performances, Greenberg does not have Jeff Daniels and Laura Linney to depend upon. Instead, it has Ben Stiller and Mumblecore queen Greta Gerwig at its center. They try their best with such difficult material, and they ultimately save it from being as passionless as Margot at the Wedding. Still, not being as bad as Margot is damning with faint praise.

Stiller plays the titular Greenberg, a man who had the world in the palm of his hand fifteen years earlier, but let it slip away. Now he is a socially awkward, angry, bitter man with only one tenuous friend and no real prospects. He meets Florence (Gerwig), who is sort of an errand girl for Greenberg's brother. The two don't exactly hit it off, but for some reason Florence is intrigued by Greenberg. The two start an on and off relationship, which often results in some demeaning moments for Florence. Baumbach doesn't really seem to think people can change who they are, so we know from the beginning that this relationship can never really work. That's a big part of why it can be such a slog to sit through.

Stiller does a good job of being unlikable, but he isn't able to make being unlikable interesting. Aside from a few uncomfortably funny quips ("That's the worst story I've ever heard. Bye!"), he is difficult to watch. Gerwig, on the other hand, is kind of a delight. Her Florence is the opposite of Greenberg, a bit of a doormat that lets people use her. She's such a sad and endearing person, and Gerwig gives her just the right amount of spark to make you care for her. Gerwig helps you understand why this girl would settle for Greenberg, even if you don't agree that she should.

To say this film offers nothing new to Baumbach's oeuvre wouldn't be totally fair, but not entirely off the mark, either. It's certainly got some of the funnier moments in any of his films, and Gerwig is enjoyable to watch. But if you've seen The Squid and the Whale, this isn't something that ever reaches the same heights. It's not easy to endure the kinds of characters and situations that Baumbach likes to create, so I simply can't recommend sitting through this one if you've seen anything else he has done.

Cop Out

I think I'll keep this one quick, as there's really little to be said about a film like Cop Out. Director Kevin Smith has made a film that plays homage to the classic buddy cop comedies of the 80's. Everything is there: mismatched partners, a synth score, a ridiculous plot driven by a MacGuffin. Indeed, the only thing Smith left out is the actual comedy. Cop Out is simply a dreadfully dull film. Everyone involved seem to be either bored or don't care. The performances are lifeless, the story is tedious, and no amount of riffs on a genre can change that.

Smith is better known for his scripts than his directing, and he has said he took this as a way to test out what it would be like to direct a film he didn't write. Well, he should stick to his own scripts. It would appear that, when he doesn't write out the film himself, Smith has little to no actual ideas as to how he wants the film to flow. People, including Smith himself, have knocked the directing style of his previous films, but his directing always served the writing. His films may not look good, but the directing never got in the way of telling a good story. Not here. Smith seems so hung up on trying to prove he can create a visually interesting film, he ignored one of the real keys to being a director: pace. Scenes do not flow well together at all, the film feels disjointed and sluggish, and subplots either go nowhere or pop up at the wrong times. A funny running gag could have come out of Tracy Morgan's character trying to determine if his wife is cheating on him, but there is no rhythm to the way these jokes are parsed out through the film. This lack of pace kills any chance of someone like Morgan or Bruce Willis creating memorably funny characters.

I think Smith's concern over being a visual director is holding him back from making truly great movies. Chasing Amy looks really bad, but it is still one of the best films of the 90's because it is an interesting story told well. Anyone who has listened to the guy talk knows he is a pro at telling a story. For a man who holds the words of the script so high, it's shocking how little he cares about them here in Cop Out, focusing too much on what looks cool and little else. Let's just hope that now that he got this experiment out of his system, he can go back to crafting intelligent and insightful character pieces.

Another Oscar Season in the Books

And there you have it, the lowest grossing film (ever?) to win Best Picture. And you know, I think that's pretty cool. I'm sure there will be a lot of Avatar fans who are disappointed by the outcome, but hopefully they will give this thrilling and unique film a chance. And special kudos to Kathryn Bigelow for becoming the first woman to win Best Director. As for the rest of the categories, it was all pretty clear who would win. The big surprise, certainly, was Precious shutting out Up in the Air for screenplay. Not entirely in agreement with that decision, but at least it was surprising. Anyway, some stray thoughts:

• Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin were awful. Really, really awful. Which is a shame, since these guys are usually very funny. You'd think given ten nominees, they'd have a wealth of material to work with.
• Indeed, the whole show was a big letdown. From the strange dance sequence during the score nominees, to the return of the supremely awkward acting presentations by other actors, this year was, dare I say, a disaster. It was becoming clear these last few weeks that Adam Shankman, the producer, had no love for the Oscars at all, so this wasn't all that surprising.
• Jeff Bridges finally won! He has True Grit, with the Coen Bros, coming out this Christmas, maybe there's a chance he will be the first consecutive winner since Tom Hanks?
• So, of all the people who have died since Stanly Kubrick in 1999, none have been more worthy of a standalone In Memoriam than John Hughes? I like the guy's films plenty, and his impact is undeniable, but that's just silly.
  
• Less silly? The horror montage. I was doubtful when they announced it, but damn if it didn't make me want to go watch a bunch of scary movies. Good on them for recognizing it in the show.

So it seems the 10 was a big success for the Academy. I'm sure the ratings this year will be huge. Hopefully the Academy will make as good of a selection in their picture choices next year as they did this year. If they continue to show good, varied taste, this could be an experiment I can get behind.

Alice in Wonderland

Normally I would review this movie like I would any other: the good, the bad, the ugly. But three years ago, in my review for Sweeney Todd, I declared Tim Burton to be my favorite filmmaker. I feel that statement needs to be further examined, and what better place to do so than in my review for his latest movie? Suffice it to say, I do not stand by that statement any longer, and it is not Alice in Wonderland that makes me reconsider. But it is Alice in Wonderland that so perfectly exemplifies why I can't stand by that statement any longer. Alice in Wonderland is a bad film, and it's a bad film because it is a Tim Burton film. It exemplifies what exactly is wrong with the career of my once favorite director.

There was a time when Tim Burton made original films - or at least films that weren't remakes/reimaginings. But ever since Sleepy Hollow, he has felt the need to remake everything that sounds vaguely like a Tim Burton movie (he is even reimagining one of his own next, the short film Frankenweenie). Perhaps no story sounds more tailor made to Tim Burton's sensibilities than that of Alice in Wonderland - and that's exactly the problem. When Burton gets his hands on these properties, he immediately goes into autopilot. There is no challenge in taking a story that sounds like a Tim Burton film, and then turning it into a Tim Burton film. One has only to look at the various elements of this film to see how much they mirror everything else he has ever done, and how little thought he had to put into it.

The most obvious autopilot choice Burton always makes is the casting. Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter are both fine actors, but his reliance on them repeatedly results in tamer and tamer performances on their parts. Depp especially seems lost here. After seven collaborations, I can't imagine that Tim Burton has a lot of new directorial ideas for Depp to try out. As such, we get a performance that never takes off, relying too much on silly makeup and bad character quirks. Carter fares better, taking her character to some really silly places, but all too often she seems to rely on quirkiness and not actual performing.

The score is exactly what you would expect. Where once a Danny Elfman score would jump out at you, now it seems to just serve as a placeholder. Nothing about the music is memorable because it hits the exact Elfman beats you would expect from a collaboration with Burton. While music shouldn't be a make or break element in the quality of a film, it is certainly a piece of the film, and in this case it serves to illustrate the lazy mentality that seems to go on when someone teams up with Burton for the umpteenth time.

But what Burton is most known for, of course, is his visual style. When someone says a story seems like a perfect fit for Burton, it is usually this element they are referring to. Here is no exception: Burton's love for German Expressionism is once again on display, but filtered through copious amounts of CGI. And it looks really bad. Perhaps this aspect of the film is the one I would have most easily given a pass, as his visual style still entertains me, but it is done so poorly here, I can't ignore it. Maybe it was the 3D, but this is one of the most visually repugnant movies I have seen in some time. One has to look no further than Johnny Depp's makeup design to see what I mean. It is harsh on the eyes, garish and without reason. It's weird simply for the sake of being weird. Why is the Red Queen's head so big? Because it looks weird. Why does Crispin Glover appear to be stretched out vertically? Because it looks weird. That seems to be the length of thought process Burton has been putting into his visuals, and the bad CGI here does him no favors.

The best films Tim Burton has done are among my all time favorites. But it has been a long time since the days of Ed Wood or Beetle Juice. It's strange to watch a man I once wholly respected so completely tarnish his image and credibility. Between the Frankenweenie remake and his stated desire to tackle the Sleeping Beauty story, there is no reason to think his decision making will improve. And when his movies make as much money as Alice in Wonderland has so far, why would he risk making something as uniquely personal as Edward Scissorhands again? As long as Burton continues to make the films people expect him to make, his creative decisions in each film will probably become more and more bankrupt of creativity. Tim Burton is a man in need of a comeback, but he'll need to step outside of his comfort zone again to achieve it.

Green Zone

Paul Greengrass is one of the most exciting filmmakers working today. He is one of those very rare directors that can straddle the line between populist entertainment and political film making. With past efforts, he tended to lean more heavily on one aspect while infusing it with the other. The Bourne films were entertaining while being moderately political, United 93 and Bloody Sunday were political while being moderately populist. With Green Zone, he blurs the line more than before. Here he tries to make a film that is both very political, and pure entertainment. The results aren't quite perfect, but they are an interesting step forward for a man who seems on the cusp of being one of the most important directors of his generation.

Green Zone is a fictional spin on the way we got into the Iraq War. One might initially assume he is going for a purely political film here, but that notion is very quickly brushed aside. From the beginning, this thing is an action picture. The film opens with an explosion (many of them, actually), and ramps up the tension from there. Matt Damon stars as Miller, a soldier who has been assigned the duty of finding the elusive weapons of mass destruction. After coming up empty handed again and again, he starts to suspect that the Intel he is being given is fictitious. He sets out to find the source of the information, with the help of a local man named Freddy (Khalid Abdalla, who also appeared in United 93). Jumping from location to location, never sure who he can trust, Miller is racing against time to find what he needs to know before things get out of control in Iraq.

What Greengrass appears to have done is make a modern version of All the Presidents Men, and turn it into an action film. Miller jumps from lead to lead, clue to clue, trying to uncover a conspiracy that reaches the highest levels of government. Where some might take umbrage is with the fact that this is a fictional account on a real story. None of these people actually exist, nor was there ever any conspiracy uncovered. For those who don't take kindly to speculative historical fiction, this might come across as smug finger pointing. For those who can enjoy that sort of thing, Greengrass infuses it with many great details and ideas. Personally, I don't think there was a grand conspiracy, but the film does give ample evidence to support the idea that information could have been knowingly falsified to get us to war. And at its heart, Green Zone isn't about the specific details, as much as it is about the bigger questions of why we go to war, and what ultimately justifies it.

It can't be left unmentioned that Greengrass brings his traditional documentary style camerawork to the film. I personally have no problems with this style, as it lends itself to creating a level of intimacy that more conventional camerawork doesn't. At the same time, though, I think he overindulged. There are a great many scenes where it is almost impossible to see what is going on, especially early on. Some shots go out of focus, others miss what is happening entirely. It can be frustrating. On the other hand, it helps the audience get into the mind of these soldiers who were the first to arrive in Iraq. They too are lost and confused, and the camera is a great facsimile of how overwhelming the experience for them was those first few days of war.

The film's one big flaw, sadly, is the characters. The style of film Greengrass usually makes requires a bit of detachment from the characters, much like you would have in an objective documentary. Here, though, it stops being detachment, and starts being stock characters. Everybody is a character type, not a character. As such, they are only vessels for exposition. I have not mentioned the fact that the film also starts such great actors as Amy Ryan, Greg Kinnear, and Brenden Gleason. That's because none leave any impact on the viewer. Even Damon as Miller is a bit of a nothing character. His righteousness never feels backed up by anything, and when he gets his big moment at the end where he claims that the reasons for going to war always matter, it feels less like a character and more like a screenwriter saying it. But there is one shining performance, that of the aforementioned Freddy (Khalid Abdalla). He is the heart of the film, and you actually care what happens with his story more than anyone else. Part of that is the film playing on our fears that this Iraqi trying to help the government will get screwed for doing the right thing, but most of it comes from a strong performance on Abdalla's part.

While it doesn't achieve the same levels of greatness that his best political (United 93) or pulp (The Bourne Ultimatum) films did, Green Zone is still an interesting step forward in his attempt to fully fuse the two types of films. Had a bit more work been given to the screenplay and characters, it might have been to that level. It's interesting to see that in the last year, Hollywood has finally started to figure out how to tell Iraq War stories. While this isn't quite up there with The Hurt Locker, it is certainly an entertaining alternative. Let's hope Hollywood continues to find new and interesting ways to mine this material.