screen |skr_n| |skrin| |skri_n| noun • a blank, typically white or silver surface on which a photographic image is projected : the world's largest movie screen • movies or television; the motion-picture industry : she's a star of the stage as well as the screen. verb [ trans. ] • protect (someone) from something dangerous or unpleasant • evaluate or analyze (something) for its suitability for a particular purpose or application


Friday, February 29, 2008

Saturday, February 23, 2008

Charlie Bartlett

This started out great, and really seemed like it was going in a dangerous direction most teen movies haven’t dared to go. Unfortunately, the second half goes over a cliff, and the story tries to recover from all the political incorrectness by exploiting every hacky cliché from the genre. The lead actor, Anton Yelchin, is supremely talented, but only at times is this on display. Sometimes he veers into a really annoying, over-talented, Dakota Fanning territory -- where he knows he’s really talented, and he comes off as disingenuous... so you want to punch him in the face. Kudos, though, to Kat Dennings as the sweet girlfriend. She’s destined for great things. Otherwise, this was below par, so I can’t really recommend it. It had hope, but lost its way.

Friday, February 22, 2008

Be Kind Rewind

Not terrible, but lacked purpose. Not laugh-out-loud funny, either. It seems that director Michel Gondry needs Charlie Kaufman and Jim Carey more than they need him. A fun diversion, though, and a heartwarming ending. It just doesn’t resonate.

Friday, February 15, 2008

Jumper

Dull sci-fi with lots of missed potential. Confusing because it seems like a lot of stuff was cut out. Diane Lane’s in the movie for two scenes. Weird. The motives of the villain are totally unclear. The time-line is screwy. And the big fight, the big final “knock-down, drag-out” isn’t even against the villain. It’s with another dude. This will probably yield a sequel which hopefully will explore the concept better and tap the potential. Not terrible, but bland and forgettable.

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Michael Clayton

(Second viewing)
It’s still slow in the beginning, and it still dazzles by the end. It’s also worth pointing out, that although it’s pretty much a given that Daniel Day Lewis will win the Oscar, Clooney’s performance is more difficult, nuanced, and three-dimensional. Daniel Day Lewis bursts from every frame – a larger than life portrait. But Clooney manages to shrink from the frame and still compel you to watch him. You wonder, what got him down? How did the world kick his ass so thoroughly? Looking at an actor like George Clooney, and imagining the kind of movie-star life he must lead, how did he manage to depict a loser so deeply and thoughtfully? Oscars tend to go to the most memorable performances. The handicapped, drug-addicts, or the Ray Charles, Truman Copote, Idi Amin historical types. Not since Kevin Spacey won for American Beauty has a guy won for playing an ordinary schlub. He won’t win, but Clooney deserves to be remembered for this.

Friday, February 01, 2008

Strange Wilderness

This is what happens when the “merry men” formula of The 40 Year Old Virgin, Knocked Up, and a million other movies, goes horribly horribly wrong. I’m sure the filmmakers thought, “Well, we’ve got Steve Zahn, Justin Long, Jonah Hill, and those 2 dumb guys from all the Adam Sandler movies. Who needs a script? They can just improvise! It’ll be hilarious!” Sandler’s team is getting lazy. Ten years ago he was a trailblazer. But now days, with The Longest Yard, Click, Chuck and Larry, Deuce Bigalow, and now this. Stale. It’s all going downhill fast.