The Scoop From The Coop

GENRE: Drama/Thriller

YEAR OF RELEASE: 2010

Amazing what things you can stumble upon when scrolling Netflix with a friend on a Wednesday evening!  This independently-made (yet sleek-looking) film starring David Hyde Pierce in the disturbing title role, for example!

The film is about a criminal on the run (Clayne Crawford) who cons his way into the wrong dinner party where the host (David Hyde Pierce) is anything but ordinary.  The film starts off interestingly enough, throwing you straight into the criminal’s frantic flight.  The film continues its momentum as you begin to learn more and more about this criminal, partially from his crafty and resourceful methods, and partially through flashbacks.  Enter David Hyde Pierce into the plot, in a thoroughly bizarre role (in which he made an acting choice that included an even more bizarre gait).  As the host’s true colors are revealed to both the audience and our criminal, the con starts to regret his choice to hide in this home.

David Hyde Pierce’s performance in this film certainly is something.  While he makes some very interesting (some may say odd) acting choices with the role, I believe he served the role well and accomplished his purpose in the part.  Clayne Crawford as criminal John Taylor was formidable opposite to David Hyde Pierce.  Even more, hroughout the film, he effectively wins the audience over, and we begin to root for this criminal to escape.

As I mentioned earlier, for an independent film, it certainly seemed well-financed.  The lighting and camera work on this film were actually quite nice.  And the editing was actually really fantastic, quite possibly my favorite part of the film.  The film never loses momentum, and the flashbacks to the events leading to our protagonist’s crime suck us further into the story.  The music, however, was at times inconsistent and had the sense of trying to hard to be edgy.  The sound work was a tad sloppy in parts, but overall okay.  The story has a very, very interesting concept.  It depends much on plot twists, so I won’t reveal them here.  However, there are certain things in the script that don’t seem fully thought out.  But overall, the suspense and the plot turns will keep you interested enough.

While definitely a strange film experience, a viewing of this film certainly isn’t without reward.  The intriguing story concept, skillful performances, and great editing will keep you eager to know what happens next.

My Grade: C+

It’s been a while since I’ve done a review, but I saw this Zemeckis film the other night, and I felt like it was time to give it another shot.

I’m not sure who the advertisers are for this film, but the campaign does not do the film justice.  The commercials on TV and even the description of Flight on Flixter make the film out to be an action-packed thriller.  The film thrills, but not at all in the way you might expect.

Without spoiling too much, the film, at its core, is about an alcoholic pilot struggling with his addiction to drink.  When he saves nearly a hundred lives when mechanical failures causes his plane to go out of control, Whip Whitaker (Denzel Washington) looks like a hero.  But when investigations are made into the cause of the crash, it appears that Whip’s drinking problem may be discovered.  Whip must struggle against his addiction in order to save his career.

To be honest, the screenplay by John Gatins (Real Steel, Coach Carter) is probably the best screenplay I’ve seen in a film this year.  It is a very real and believable story about a man battling his addiction.  You learn about his past little by little, how his drinking has already affected his life.  And his relapses are believable, without being melodramatic.  Denzel Washington gives yet another stellar performance, showing at times a confident, arrogant (yet extremely gifted) airline pilot, at other times a belligerent drunk, and also displaying a tender man, broken by his addiction.  The cast is well-rounded with plenty of great actors, including Kelly Reilly, Bruce Greenwood, Don Cheadle, and John Goodman, who provides some great comic relief in what, at times, is very heavy film.

As a huge Back To The Future fan, I was thrilled to see Robert Zemeckis return to REAL MOVIES! He’s been so wrapped up in the “cutting-edge” animation stuff the last several years, I was beginning to wonder if he’d ever do movies set in the real world again.  He came back in full stride, providing a wonderful visual palate for this film.  His shots are beautiful, and subtly and wonderfully reveal information about his characters to the audience.  At times, he can give you a glimpse at the rush of a cocaine hit.  Other times, he slows things down and lets you feel the weight of the decision between drinking again or staying sober.  Likewise, his cinematographer Don Burgess (Forrest Gump, Spider-Man, Cast Away) lights and photographs the scenes beautifully.  The camera movements are used effectively in drawing you deeper and deeper into Whip’s world.

The soundtrack, seeming to follow the lead of films like The Big Chill and Boogie Nights, can seem a bit frenetic at times.  But as it was pointed out to me, often the music provided a stark and unsettling contrast for what was going on inside Whip’s head.  When Joe Cocker or The Rolling Stones were not playing, Alan Silvestri’s score poignantly played to the quiet moments of the film.

Flight, while poorly advertised, was expertly executed.  Bravo to all involved.  And welcome back, Mr. Zemeckis.

My Grade: A-

GENRE: Drama

YEAR OF RELEASE: 2011

A friend of mine told me a week or so ago that he had no interest in seeing this film, because it would be a complete work of fiction; all speculation about a man of whom people knew very little.  Now, this is true.  There is much of this film that is pure speculation about the personal life of J. Edgar Hoover.  Moments in which no one can verify (or deny) these incidents.

The take on Hoover, Director of the FBI and one-time-dubbed “most powerful man in the world”, was quite interesting.  It was entertaining to really take an intimate look at this man, what makes him tick, his fears, and his struggles.  My mother, for one, said that seeing Leonardo DiCaprio with brown eyes was off-putting.  I, for one, didn’t mind it.  DiCaprio loses himself in any role he does.  And you just believe him.  J. Edgar is no different.  He delivers another stellar performance, portraying a real life entity.  But his performance is not the only noteworthy one.  Armie Hammer gives quite the compelling performance as Clyde Tolson, Assistant Director of the FBI and implied (in this movie) clandestine love interest of Hoover.  Likewise, Dame Judi Dench gives a performance that matches her usual superb standard.  They are all supported well, with Burn Notice’s Jeffrey Donovan portraying District Attorney Robert Kennedy, Back To The Future’s Lea Thompson in head-scratchingly small role as Ginger Rogers’ mother and Hoover admirer, and an almost-unrecognizable Naomi Watts as Helen Gandy, Hoover’s personal secretary.  In short, the performances were stellar.  DiCaprio and Hammer will probably both be nominated for the Academy Awards for portraying real people in a moving way, as they age over a period of decades; indeed, Hammer even perfected that little bobbly head that old men sometimes get, particularly after strokes.

The story, on the other hand, was a little off.  There were often very abrupt and awkward transitions between events of a much later date and events of the beginning of J. Edgar’s career.  Often, the only thing that clued me into a time change was the difference in age of the main characters.  There was this odd plot device of Hoover dictating his memoirs to a series of FBI agents so as to publish them; something I believe never occurred.  Yet, it was also very clear that the events we saw went beyond what he dictated to his staff and delved into his speculated personal life.  As suspected, they did play on the rumors of Hoover being a closeted homosexual.  They insinuated a mutual, yet clandestine (even to each other) love between Hoover and his Assistant Director Tolson, culminating in a fist fight over Hoover’s sexuality that leads to Tolson forcing a kiss on Hoover.  Hoover returns the kiss, much later in life, in a scene that is all but ruined by Eastwood’s typically cheesy and amateur attempts at film score composition.  All the jumping around in time, and the seemingly random focus on certain events in Hoover’s career made for a seemingly slow-paced movie.  Indeed, I believe the movie would have been better if it was about twenty minutes shorter.

Most of the technical aspects of the film were wonderful.  As usual, Eastwood’s visual style was beautiful, and the work he did with cinematographer Tom Stern made for a unique color and tone to the film, especially within the many flashbacks.  However, with as much as was fictionalized and/or speculated, it left me wondering, Why?  Why do we care now what very well may (or just as well may not) have happened in the personal life of J. Edgar Hoover?  Does it matter if he was a momma’s boy, whose domineering and homophobic mother led him to having almost no social life his entire existence?  I’m not sure it does…

My Grade: B-

GENRE: Comedy

YEAR OF RELEASE: 2011

What better way for this film major to spend Thanksgiving than by seeing two movies?  This one, which came out today, was a long-anticipated one.  I’ve always been a huge Muppets fan, and when the idea of seeing this one on Thanksgiving came into my head, I jumped on that shit like a fat kid on cake.

Conceived and executed by Jason Segel (How I Met Your Mother, Forgetting Sarah Marshall, and who also produced, co-wrote, and starred in the film), this movie was Segel’s attempt to keep the Muppet name fresh and relevant.  Clearly, Segel was greatly influenced by the Muppets, and I would believe that the nostalgic opening, told from main character Muppet Walter’s point of view, is very autobiographical.  But what starts as a buddy film transitions into something more of a Muppet crusade to reunite the Muppet clan.

When evil oil tycoon Tex Richman (Chris Cooper) plans to tear down Muppet studios to drill for oil as soon as the Muppets’ contract on the property is up, Muppet-worshiper Walter pulls the Muppet gang back together for a last-minute telethon to raise the money and buy the theater back (the loophole in the contract).  The Muppets struggle to find support in a world where they are “no longer relevant”, and scramble to put on a good show in time.

Celebrities came out in droves to appear in this film, featuring cameos by Alan Arkin, Ken Jeong, Zach Galifianakis, Sarah Silverman, Emily Blunt, Whoopi Goldberg, Selena Gomez, Dave Grohl, Neil Patrick Harris, John Krasinski, and Mickey Rooney.  It also featured Segel, Amy Adams, and Big Bang Theory’s Jim Parsons as a human version of Walter.

As fun as many parts of this film were, I’m not sure it accomplished its goal in regenerating a Muppet audience.  I feel like this picture was primarily for the older, die-hard fans.  There were tons of references to ’80s pop culture, most notably in the form of Kermit’s helpful robot, Eighties-Bot, who served Tab on a tray (a drink I’m pretty sure most of my generation hasn’t even heard of, much less the younger generations).  While many of the lines were jokes, they weren’t too far from the truth when they mentioned how irrelevant the Muppets are now.  They even had Selena Gomez say that she didn’t know who they were, but that she came because her agent told her to; this may very well have been fact.  It’s sad.

In addition, the songs seemed far more contrived than in past Muppet films; Christophe Beck is no Paul Williams when it comes to writing Muppet songs…  And director James Bobin… I can’t quite put my finger on it…  He did many things very creatively.  But overall, pacing, timing, and performances suffered, making even Oscar-worthy Chris Cooper look awkward and amateur in his acting.

I died with laughter at parts of the film, but there were many things that I think flopped.  And more things still that I think went over the heads of a majority of the audience, particularly the younger ones.  Rather than reviving a Muppet following, I think the film was a bitter-sweet illustration of how small their following still is.  It makes me wonder how much longer they will be relevant.  I commend Jason Segel for his effort, but I’m not sure the intended goal will be met with this film.

My Grade: (As much as it pains me to say it) C-

GENRE: Romance Drama

YEAR OF RELEASE: 1949

I caught this movie yesterday afternoon, and I’m SO glad I did.  This masterpiece by Joseph Mankiewicz follows three women and their troubled and fearful thoughts, all sparked by their good friend Addie Ross.  The trouble begins when the three women (played by Jeanne Craine, Linda Darnell, and Ann Sothern) receive a letter, moments before they board a boat to chaperone a day cruise field trip with the local school, stating that she left town that morning, and that she took one of their husbands with them.

They all want to run for the phone booth there at the docks (oh… the days before cell phones and texting) when the teacher and head chaperone calls for them to board.  They will have to wait until they get home to know which of their husbands ran out.  They all put up this air of being confident that her husband is not the one.  One of them (Linda Darnell) even pretends not to even care if it is her husband.  One by one, we see the extent of each woman’s fears.

Mankiewicz, who worked closely on mammoth that is Citizen Kane, uses similarly brilliant storytelling technique on this film to show us flashbacks that emphasize the depth of each woman’s personal fears.  Each sees or hears something during the course of the day cruise that sends her daydreaming into a vivid memory with her husband; in all of them, we see not only the varying degrees of chemistry between each pair, but also reasons and indications for each husband to have been the one that ran off with Addie.

Addie is spoken very highly by many in the town, especially the men.  And each of these women’s husbands has some special connection to Addie, some reason to run off with her if they had the chance.  Upon the wives’ return to shore, we one by one see their return home.  This is the part of the movie that impressed me the most.  Mankiewicz gives us one; a wife returns home to find her husband there waiting and jubilant.  But even after we see the second return to a cryptic note, there is still mystery: it could very well be either husband still.  And a twist at the end is shocking, sensical, relieving, and poignant all at once.

Mankiewicz did a fine job in the making of this movie, and won two Oscars for it (Best Screenplay and Best Director), both very well earned.  All of the performances are wonderful, with an all-star cast including Kirk Douglas, Paul Douglas, and Jeffrey Lynn.  A fine piece of filmmaking with brilliant acting and a wonderful story.

My Grade: A

GENRE: Action

YEAR OF RELEASE: 2011

Let me start by saying that I don’t really get the 3D thing.  I’m a film major, and I don’t really dig it.  Every movie I see in 3D, I feel: There were a few shots that were really cool to see in 3D, but as a whole movie, I didn’t need to see it in 3D.  Just a thought of mine, not really related to the movie.

As far as Transformers 3 goes, we reunite with Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf) in his life after saving the world twice.  He lives with his rich, posh babe Carly Spencer (Rosie Huntington-Whiteley), a Megan Fox substitute.  When he met her at the White House, she was in some sort of ambassador position, but has now settled as the assistant of an affluent car collector (Patrick Dempsey) who overtly hits on her and showers her with gifts.  Sam is in a rutt:  he can’t get a job, he feels useless now that he can’t be with the Autobots saving the world, and he feels threatened by Carly’s boss.

Meanwhile, the Autobots participate in a mission in the Ukraine, where Optimus Prime finds an engine part from an Autobot ship from long ago.  The ship belonged to Sentinel Prime, leader of the Autobots before Optimus, whose ship was supposed to contain a technology that could save Cybertron from the Decepticons.  It turns out, Sentinel’s ship crash-landed on the moon in the early ’60s.  The Autobots now must race against the Decepticons to recover Sentinel and his secret weapon.

In my opinion, like the second movie, Transformers 3 is a lot of flash; no substance.  The story is absolute fodder, riddled with plot holes and non-sensical character motivations.

Spoiler alert (if you don’t want it spoiled, skip over the bold portion below):

In the film, the Decepticons apparently plotted all along for the Autobots to recover Sentinel and his last 5 pillars.  The Decepticons evidently knew of the crash landing all along, but were waiting for the Autobots, because only Optimus has the Matrix, the device with the power to revive Cybertronians.  Not only is it somewhat inconceivable that the Decepticons knew of Sentinel’s ship the whole time, but their decade-old plan was determinant on Optimus Prime reviving Sentinel with a device that Optimus didn’t even have and that nobody really knew about until the last movie!  In addition, Sentinel says he made a deal decades ago with the Decepticons in order to save Cybertron.  If that was the case, why did the Decepticons shoot down his ship in the first place?!  Why didn’t they just use Sentinel’s technology back in the ’60s to carry out their plan instead of waiting 50 years and involving the Autobots at all???!!!!

Michael Bay’s franchise here has certainly mastered the art of exciting, action-packed adventure.  I just wish they would pack a little more story into that adventure too.

My Grade:  C-

GENRE: Comedy

YEAR OF RELEASE: 2011

The first one became a legend.  So they thought, “Why not make another?  Double our profits!”  So they did.  They made The Hangover again.  No, literally.  They made The Hangover again.

This movie is, as my friend put it, almost frame for frame the same movie as before.  Change Vegas to Bangkok, change a tooth to a finger, change a stripper to a monk, change a baby to a monkey, and you have The Hangover Part II.

Don’t get me wrong; it’s still enjoyable.  Just don’t expect anything too shockingly new.  I guess the creators of the original movie figured they should stick to the kind of jokes they excel at, and didn’t really push their boundaries too far.

For those that don’t know much about the revamp, this film now features Dr. Stu (Ed Helms) getting married this time to a beautiful Thai woman (Jamie Chung) he met after cutting himself from his bitch of a fiancée at the end of the first film.  Due to her overbearing father (Nirut Sirichanya), the wedding is actually happening in Thailand.  When Doug (Justin Bartha) talks Stu into bringing Alan (Zach Galifianakis) because it would mean a lot to Alan to be invited, the occasion allows for a wolf-pack reunion.

Stu, wary of a Vegas repeat, tries to keep things tame.  But when he wakes up in a Bangkok motel room with Alan, Phil (Bradley Cooper), a monkey, and the finger of his fiancée’s little brother, he realizes things have gone amiss.

They again try to piece together what happened the night before in order to find the little brother, Teddy (Mason Lee).  Stu realizes he has a “demon” in the form of a weakness for hookers “of all kind”, and they must reunite with their Vegas friend/enemy Mr. Chow (Ken Jeong) to find their friend.

Apparently the writers and producers decided that the humor and jokes played best with the classic 3 from the last movie, and they decided to take care of Doug by again removing him from the action, placing him safely back at the resort.  They also made the decision to up the ante with their token character of Alan; in my opinion, they tried to up his crazy factor a little too much for pure laugh appeal.  The result just found me wondering why rather than laughing at all his crazy antics.  Although, they did give him the best line in the movie: “I wish monkeys could Skype.”   The film is enriched by the appearance of some great actors, including Paul Giamatti (who delivers a performance almost too real and sincere to fit the movie), and a ridiculous cameo from Nick Cassavetes.

Overall, it’s not a bad movie.  Definitely produced several laughs, and like I said, the writers decided to stick with what they did best the first time.  The experience is definitely amplified if you bring a fun-loving friend with whom to laugh.  Many of the movie’s gags were made better by friend laugh factor.

My Grade: B-