The Kidd Vs. The Oscars

Sun, 7 Mar 2010 00:40:52 -0500

For the first-time ever, The Kidd will be providing live coverage of the Academy Awards. From the first moment of the show all the way until the final credits roll, The Kidd will be supplying a running commentary of observations, comments, and more throughout the Oscars. In addition, it’ll be as interactive an experience as we can make it, as you’ll be able to vote in polls, send in your questions, and, if you have something worthwhile to add to the conversation, be able to have your comments posted up also.

We hope you’ll follow along with us for the 82nd Annual Academy Awards.

Enjoy the show.

The Kidd Vs. Brooklyn’s Finest

Fri, 5 Mar 2010 01:51:11 -0500

When you take a look at the solid cast involved with “Brooklyn’s Finest,” you’d be right to expect something good. And that’s where “Brooklyn’s Finest” does you wrong, because, even with Richard Gere, Don Cheadle, Ethan Hawke, and Wesley Snipes, you get an average film filled with elements you’ve seen done hundreds of time and done better. In fact, it’s ironic that Antoine Fuqua is behind the camera, because the film feels a lot like it’s trying to be “Training Day Lite,” which would almost make this a sequel/spin-off of sorts to Fuqua’s original film. The dirty cop looking to score more money, so he can help his family, regardless of the rightness or wrongness of his actions... the undercover officer who gets in too deep and becomes emotionally attached to the people he’s in with, only to have to turn on them in order to do their job... hell, even Richard Gere falls in love with a hooker again... now tell me where you haven’t seen all of this before. “Brooklyn’s Finest” tries to suck you into following the different life and career paths that each of these New York City cops has chosen with their actions, but the problem is that when only one out of three is remotely interesting, that can’t be a good sign.

“Brooklyn’s Finest” opens with Vincent D’Onofrio sitting in a car with Ethan Hawke, telling a story of right and wrong... a theme which resonates throughout the film, even if most times it seems forced and ineffective. D’Onofrio is talking about how sometimes doing something wrong turns out to be the right thing to do, about how he is hoping to turn his life around... and BAM!!! He gets shot, killed, and ripped off, as Ethan Hawke has designs on collecting as much dirty money as he can, in order to buy his ever-expanding family a new house that they can all live in, a vast improvement over the few bedrooms where they’re all crammed in now. Had D’Onofrio stayed alive and we got to know more about his character, who, in five minutes, is one of the more complicated characters we get to meet, or I would have settled for a lead-up to how he ended up in this car with a corrupt, thieving officer of the law, we might have been better off. Instead we get stuck with one of our three storylines being about a cop trying to better his home life by whatever means necessary. Perhaps we would be emotionally invested in his moral quandary a bit more if it wasn’t revealed that Hawke’s Sal has two kids. No, wait... he has four kids. Nope... eight. Hold on... there’s two more. Geez... how many kids does this guy have? I could buy an honest cop looking to take money no one would miss or probably doesn’t even know exists to help raise his kids, ease his wife’s burden, etc. But it’s a distraction from Sal’s choices between right and wrong when I’m too focused on the fact that Sal and his wife Angela (Lili Taylor) should stop having sex. I mean, really... didn’t they even give thought to such an option after kid #8 or whatever number they’re up to. Condoms, birth control, a vasectomy...? Ever hear about any of them? It’s hard to sympathize with a character who should know better, and, as a result, there is no mercy to be shown upon him. It’s one thing to understand a guy who is doing something wrong but in order to do something right in the grand scheme of things. But, if that same character is doing something wrong to cover up for the fact that he’s been doing plenty of stupid, then there’s nothing much to see here.

Don Cheadle gives his usual stellar performance as Clarence Butler or Tango, as they know him on the streets. I can never say enough positive about a Don Cheadle role, and, while he does a fine job in “Brooklyn’s Finest,” he is terribly miscast. Regardless of whether he’s an undercover cop or not, Don Cheadle isn’t a guy who runs with gangs from the projects who are out dealing drugs. Name one thing about Don Cheadle that you’ve ever seen that screams hoodrat. It’s amazing to me that no one popped Cheadle’s Tango during that time, because you couldn’t see anyone looking or acting more like a cop here than Don Cheadle. Only if he was wearing a shirt that said “I’m The Police” on it would he have given up his identity and cover earlier, but no one picks up on it, which is probably why they all end up either arrested or dead. Tango’s goal is to make detective, first grade, on the police force. He wants a pay raise, less risk, a desk in an office where he has to wear a suit and tie. He’s not cut out for the street life. But, in order for that to happen, he needs to sell out his long-time friend, the guy who saved his life, the man who also happens to be the most notable name in narcotics in the area. So, will Sal go through with the set-up on Caz (Wesley Snipes), in order to better his own life? Or will he allow his loyalty to put him in a place worse off than the criminals he tries desperately to take down? I think you know how this one plays out. Have you seen “Donnie Brasco,” “Point Break,” “State of Grace” or “Reservoir Dogs”? Then you should have a clue. Snipes isn’t bad in his theatrical return... but he’s not good either. What else could you expect from a role so underwritten, with nothing substantial to do, that Snipes’ screen time is made up mostly of drinking booze, watching girls dance, and... hmmm... that’s about it.

Finally, we get to Richard Gere, the only actor and character worth watching, which is perfect considering how the rest of the movie goes, because there’s not nearly enough of him. Gere plays Officer Eddie Dugan, a cop for 22 years, who is seven days away from his retirement, and not too willing to lift a finger or do any heavy police work during that time, because who wants to put themselves in danger when they’re so close to getting out. The other stories try to construct this bleak life of police officers, due to the choices they have to make in order to protect and serve the common good, while their own lives fall apart around them as they save everyone else’s, but it’s all stuff we’ve seen before. The story of Eddie Dugan though is not. Don’t get me wrong... we’ve seen cops nearing retirement put into perilous situations on their last big case before retirement. However, what draws you to Eddie Dugan is the fact that he doesn’t give a shit anymore. When he’s forced to teach a few young rookies on the force due to his experience on the job, he spends more time telling them what not to do rather than what they should be doing. Dugan is a cop beaten down by being a police officer, which is the side of law enforcement that you never hear about. How does a cop deal with the awful and horrible things they have to see every day - the murders and the beatings and the rapes and the robberies? How much of their work sticks with them forever, as they see someone’s life ruined, destroyed, ended on every shift? This isn’t a man who is ready to retire, because he doesn’t love being a cop. He may have once. He may have been gung-ho about his job and stopping crime and busting bad guys... but not anymore. Eddie is tired... he’s worn-down... he is emotionally exhausted from the baggage that comes with being a cop. That’s not something they teach you before you become an active officer. It’s something you can only learn through experience. The real world experience surpasses anything he could have been taught or read. One can learn how to shoot targets with a gun, but there’s no lesson for what you’ll feel if you have to put that bullet into another human being.

Gere’s character endures the most change of any we see, too. He starts off not caring and progresses that to caring too much. Now, it might be easy to pick on going from one extreme to another, and, of course, there’s the whole subplot with the hooker, but Gere’s job on “Brooklyn’s Finest” is hands-down above everyone else’s on this film. He transforms from the cop who doesn’t care anymore to the cop who remembers what it means to be a police officer, to help those who need it, to enforce the law. If only there were more Gere in “Brooklyn’s Finest,” or, in all honesty, if there was only Gere in this film, it might have made a far more interesting story. Instead what we’re left with is a tale of three men that we know will ultimately end up with everyone coincidentally and convolutedly in the same place at the same time. And, no, that’s not a spoiler... that’s merely stating the obvious.

Will Patton does his usual fine job in a supporting role as Cheadle’s commanding officer. His screen time is limited, but it’s his interactions with Cheadle that get you slightly interested in the situation of Tango, until it’s wasted away again once he leaves those meetings. And Ellen Barkin as FBI Agent Smith feels as if they needed to throw in a useless character with no real purpose whatsoever other than to justify having Ellen Barkin in your movie. What a waste.

The pacing of “Brooklyn’s Finest” is very slow, dragging painfully through the middle third of the flick, which is where most of your interest in the future of these characters will dwindle. There’s just not a lot of interest in what they’re doing during the homestretch to have it really matter to you once we hit the threeway split in one of the projects. It’s not that Antoine Fuqua shot a bad movie. In fact, “Brooklyn’s Finest” isn’t too bad on the eyes in capturing the feel of the city. There are a few long takes that really build the tension of a scene and leave you hanging with anticipation as to where things might go next. But the poorly developed characters quickly ruin that goodwill by not doing anything interesting enough to get me to care. People get shot. People die, and it felt like no big deal, because I hadn’t been given enough for it to have meant anything.

I will say that the cast isn’t merely going through the motions. They are working hard to apply their craft and put forth a strong effort in “Brooklyn’s Finest.” But there’s only so much they can do. With plot lines I’ve seen before, characters that are derivative of plenty others, and a predictable ending, this isn’t a very good film. Surely Brooklyn has much finer to offer up than this.

The Kidd Vs. Alice In Wonderland

Thu, 4 Mar 2010 00:24:13 -0500

Tim Burton is no longer a visionary director known for his wildly imaginative films that are far different from anything else. Right now, Tim Burton is an argument waiting to happen. He’s a divisive discussion on how you feel about the movies he makes. Sometime around the turn of the century, Burton went from making movies that you could respect to movies that you either love or hate. You can take “Big Fish” and “Corpse Bride” out of the equation, but there’s no getting around the fact that there is a wide gap of emotions incurred when you bring up “Planet of the Apes,” “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory,” “Sweeney Todd,” and now “Alice in Wonderland.” Of course, what’s common amongst these films is the idea that the source material for each had been done long before, and so it all became Burton’s take on these worlds, and not necessarily something new. And, in making these films, Burton became a bit of a parody of himself. All of his flicks began to look the same - dark undertones, creepy yet visually interesting set pieces, pale faces on every character, etc. “Alice in Wonderland” is a Tim Burton movie. It fits all the criteria for what we’ve come to recognize as the typical Tim Burton trademarks, as no one can do strange structures and scraggly branches that look as if the trees are ready to reach out and grab at any second like he can. But, more importantly, this is one of those Burton films that the debate will be on for, because you’re either going to be really excited about it and love it... or you’re going to be extremely disappointed and hate it. You won’t find The Kidd rolling with those who have fond memories of “Alice in Wonderland” here. I won’t go so far as to say that I absolutely loathe the movie, because that’s a bit harsh... but strongly disliking it is a far more accurate assessment.

Disney’s “alice in Wonderland” is an uninspired bore of a movie, which features plenty of cool stuff (people, places, and things), thanks to the wonders of computer-generated animation. Unfortunately, nothing of any memorable consequence takes place around any of it. Sure, it looks nice... visually stunning even... but there is no connection to any of the characters to get you invested in the prettiness, there is no worthwhile story to get you interested in anyone or anything that is happening, and, overall, this film made me feel as if I fell down a rabbit hole, got trapped in Wonderland, and was left waiting for the opportunity when I could leave... and, even worse, it felt like days spent waiting, not an hour and 49 minutes.

“Alice in Wonderland” picks up 13 years after Alice’s last trip to Wonderland, where she can’t remember anything that happened, except as a strange and bizarre dream she’s been having every night in that elapsed time. In fact, even when she makes her return, she still insists on it all being a dream, even as she’s viciously scratched by one of Wonderland’s creatures and is stabbed in the foot by the sword of Mallymkun, the dormouse. Needless to say, Alice isn’t the brightest protagonist in the world, and, as a result, it becomes increasingly difficult to get behind Mia Wasikowska’s journey as Alice, because frankly there’s nothing to care about.

Her father has died. She only has her mother, and she is about to be proposed to by some rich nerd named Hamish, because it makes financial sense for her and her remaining family. However, Alice is an unconventional girl, and marriage at the age of 19 to this doofus (and he is a doofus), isn’t in the cards for her. However, chasing after a well-dressed white rabbit with a pocket watch is, because running after what might just be delusions is always the best idea. Once again, not the smartest girl we are forced to follow.

Of course, this leads to Alice once again falling down the rabbit hole, once again landing in a room filled with doors yet no exit, once again drinking liquids that make her small, once again eating cakes that make her large, and... well, you get the idea. “Alice in Wonderland” does everything possible to incorporate all the familiar characters of the previous books and movies that you may be familiar with, even if it means forcing them in somewhere just to have them be part of the story.

“Oh, we need the Cheshire Cat in here somewhere... let’s thrown him in, we’ll make him evaporate, and people will be happy.”

“Oh, no... we forgot about the Blue Caterpillar... so let’s have Alan Rickman voice him, and that should make up for the fact that the character really has nothing to do.”

“Wait... can we toss in Tweedledee and Tweedledum, even if their inclusion is purely for cosmetic purposes, to show that we can create their very being using computers, even if they really have no bearing on the story whatsoever?”

The conflict of the Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter) having taken over Wonderland and enslaved most of its population is paper-thin, as it’s glossed over about halfway through the movie with a brief flashback, lending more weight to your thought throughout the movie of just what the hell we’re doing back here in Wonderland. It was foretold that Alice would return, that she would slay the Red Queen’s weapon, the Jabberwocky, and the creatures of Wonderland would be able to rise up and return the throne back to the White Queen (Anne Hathaway). Yep... that’s really it. We’re brought back to Wonderland to watch a predicted future play out. Well, so much for having any type of drama or tension build the story and ultimately Alice’s choice of whether or not she can carry out the responsibility that’s been placed on her. There is never any sense that things won’t come through the way they’re supposed to. There is no peril, no danger, no moments of dread, nothing... “Alice in Wonderland” goes through the motions to get from beginning to end, and it feels like it every step of the way.

Even Johnny Depp, who’s gotten a lot of attention for his role as The Mad Hatter, is wasted. Oh, sure, he’s eccentric, and it’s another one of those different roles Depp can lay claim to having taken. However, The Mad Hatter is crammed down our throats in an effort to justify having Johnny Depp on the payroll. He’s given almost too much to do, none of which is substantial or necessary, and his constant featuring, including a dance sequence that will have you rolling your eyes, seems so out of place that it makes you long for the time when The Mad Hatter was just a bit player, a small part of Wonderland, where he rightfully belongs, as opposed to a main figure.

Anne Hathaway adds nothing to “Wonderland” as the White Queen, but her counterpart Helena Bonham Carter is a pleasure to watch. She hams it up quite well as the ever-demanding Red Queen, from her demands for fat boys as entertainment or a warm pig belly to rest her aching feet. Her over-the-top personality mixed with her interesting look make her the only entertaining and worthwhile character in the film. When she appears, “Alice in Wonderland” instantly ratchets up to watchable for a few brief moments... but, unfortunately, the film isn’t built around her, so, once she’s gone, everything sinks right back into its sleep-inducing state.

“Alice in Wonderland” does have incredible visuals to fall back on, and, if that’s enough to make a movie worth your while, then “Alice in Wonderland” might be right up your alley. Wonderland itself is an amazing creation, as, right along Willy Wonka’s chocolate factory, these are two locations made for Tim Burton to spend some time in, so you won’t be disappointed with the world this all takes place in... but the mediocrity will seep in once you experience what is taking place within it. The rest of the CGI effects are hit-and-miss, with the White Rabbit and the Jabberwocky sitting right atop the best that “Alice in Wonderland” has to offer, but, on the other end, you have Crispin Glover as Stayne, the Knave of Hearts. Stayne is made to be super tall and super thin, and, as a result of the computer-generated alterations, we’re left with Crispin Glover’s head on a strange body that moves awkwardly and disjointedly to the point of being a distraction with its poor rendering. Sounds like a perfect fit in this mess of a movie.

Even the climactic battle for Wonderland is just there. Nothing to that point has led you to caring about this big moment, and, as a result, you don’t. You get a sword fight between the Mad Hatter and Stayne, but the actual product of it is nowhere near the cool factor such a moment should invoke. It’s just there. Alice’s battle with the Jabberwocky is just there. The whole movie just seems to be there, with no real story to tell, no interesting characters to follow, nothing worthwhile to pay attention to.

Sometimes we get a little too comfortable in our relationships that we go through the motions, because it’s the easiest path to follow. Johnny Depp and Tim Burton might want to think about putting some separation in their friendship, because, if collaborations like this are what we get, things are started to border on unhealthy between them. For all the bells and whistles here, there’s not much else to hold your interest. This certainly isn’t a wonderful film, and the only wonder left in “Alice in Wonderland” is how Tim Burton could make a movie this unsatisfyingly bad. Let the debate begin.

The Kidd Vs. Cop Out

Fri, 26 Feb 2010 01:58:50 -0500

The Kidd makes no attempt to hide the fact that I’m a huge Kevin Smith fan. “Clerks” may be one of the funniest films I’ve ever seen. “Chasing Amy,” “Dogma,” “Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back,” where can you go wrong? Okay, “Jersey Girl” is the obvious answer there, but it looks like the Ben Affleck/Liv Tyler disappointment has company now in the not-very-good section of Kevin Smith’s filmography... and its name is “Cop Out.”

When I saw the first trailer for the flick, I gently placed my forehead in the palms of my hands and shook it incredulously. Was this really the next Kevin Smith movie? It couldn’t be, because the Kevin Smith films I remember were all funny... yes, even “Mallrats” (but not “Jersey Girl”). The red band trailer gave me a little more hope, because there were a few clips made available to invoke some laughter and strategically place to give you a false sense of confidence that a funny movie awaiting you once “Cop Out” rolled on the projector. Oh... how that confidence quickly went away once you started watching the movie and went right back to “Is this really it?!”

“Cop Out” is an attempt to make yet another buddy cop with another unlikely pairing, this time matching up Bruce Willis as Jimmy Monroe with Tracy Morgan as Paul Hodges. Now your enjoyment of “Cop Out” is going to ultimately rest on how funny you find these two together. If you find Tracy Morgan cutting loose on his rants humorous, then you might be okay. But, if you’re like The Kidd, and prefer your Tracy Morgan in short five-minute bursts, because non-stop Tracy Morgan for an hour and 50 minutes just becomes grating, then “Cop Out” will start off extremely funny and end up exhausting your patience.

What’s the plot of “Cop Out”? I wish I could give you a straight-forward answer to that, but at times, “Cop Out” resembles what would be the visual equivalent of a clusterfuck. Don’t believe me... well, how about if I told you that each of the following elements makes some sort of appearance to drive what gets passed off as a story for this flick? Okay, here we go: drugs, money laundering, rare and expensive baseball cards, expensive dream weddings, dick stepfathers, a kid car thief, a Parkour-using burglar, a stolen Mercedes, a kidnapped Mexican beauty, a crucifix USB drive, gangs, cops who wear boots, an insecure marriage, a spying teddy bear... had enough yet? Figured out how it all fit together? Me neither, and I actually saw the movie. “Cop Out” is one random-ass plot device after another thrown together in an attempt to make a movie with the hope that the funny shit would stick to the wall and the rest of it... well, let’s just hope no one remembers it. When the funniest scene in the movie is the first one (complete with a classic jab at Bruce Willis’ “Die Hard” viewing habits), it logically can only go downhill from there... and it does... quickly.

Bruce Willis is fine as Jimmy Monroe, the straight man in the pairing, but the straight man can only be as good as his comic relief, and Tracy Morgan isn’t very good here at all. It’s just long, rambling take upon long, rambling take from him, ranging from watching monkeys having oral sex on TV to his bowel movements, and none of it is any funny. In fact, it becomes a tired and stale act very quickly, and “Cop Out” suffers as a result. Back when Kevin Smith was writing his own projects as well as directing them, he did so, because he had something to say, be it about pop culture or geek icons or societal structures or hockey or whatever. However, with this being the first Kevin Smith-directed film that he didn’t write, it makes The Kidd wonder if the great wordsmith has run out of things to say, and all we’re left with is a shell of the filmmaker who now makes other people’s substandard writing come to life on the screen.

Seann William Scott has no business being in the movie at all, as there is no need for his character to even exist. It’s almost as if someone on this production wondering aloud what this movie was missing, someone answered “More Seann William Scott,” and the guy who cuts checks made it happen. The only reason he’s in “Cop Out” is to hike his Stifler up to about an 11, and use that increase to annoy and harass the other characters as well as those who make up the viewing audience for any “Cop Out” showing. Plus, throw in the wasted Rashida Jones (“Parks and Recreation”) who gets saddled with some ridiculous subplot about whether or not she’s cheating on her husband Paul, not to mention the underused Adam Brody, Kevin Pollak, and Michelle Trachtenberg, and it all adds up to a poor end to the equation.

Kevin Smith fans will laugh at the nod they’re given with Jason Lee added to the cast as Roy, the stepfather who is at the other end of the family from where Jimmy is. The lone scene they share together isn’t too bad, as Lee brings the smug asinine prick portrayal we’ve seen him have in a few other Kevin Smith films, but unfortunately he’s not in the movie enough. I would have gladly watched a bit more of Roy over all the moments of overacting, trying-too-hard Tracy Morgan. For a director who is usually pretty tight on the dialogue, it felt like a far departure from anything Kevin Smith we’ve seen, because it felt like he just cut Morgan and Willis loose to riff back and forth on each other, and then had no idea how to edit it down, so he just left it all in... kinda like this last sentence.

The lone bright spot of “Cop Out” is the soundtrack and score. While Kevin Smith may have lost his way as a filmmaker, he’s still able to hit the right music at the right time of any story. However, it’s the score by Harold Faltermeyer, the man best known for composing 80s classics like the “Axel F” theme from “Beverly Hills Cop” and the synth sounds of “Fletch,” that really shines. You can’t miss his distinctive sound anywhere, and it brings that 80s throwback feel to “Cop Out.” Too bad the rest of “Cop Out” doesn’t invoke those throwback feelings as well, unless you want to count the hope that “Cop Out” could have been a movie made in the 80s and one we should have left there.

It’s no wonder you haven’t heard Kevin Smith’s name attached to this movie. If my name was a part of this unfunny disappointment that drags you through an entire second act which leads to a boring ending, I’d want my name removed from it, too. Sure, there’s a few good laughs, but, by and large, they all take place at the beginning of the film, giving you still a good hour-and-a-half to have to sit there, wondering why you’re still watching “Cop Out.” You could have been doing something better with your time, like forming a dog fighting ring, or your money, like tearing it up into tiny pieces, lighting it on fire, and then pissing on it to put it out.

I’ve never come away from a Kevin Smith-directed film before so unhappy and disappointed with the results, so, if you can’t tell, “Cop Out” is a movie you want to refrain from seeing. If a friend invites you to check it out, absolutely cop out on that invitation. This isn’t worth seeing. This isn’t worth renting. This isn’t worth even knowing about. Unless you’re a fan of mediocre attempts at a comedy, “Cop Out” is not for you... or anyone... except idiots maybe... and even then, probably not them either.

The Kidd Vs. The Crazies

Fri, 26 Feb 2010 01:42:42 -0500

The first day of spring has arrived. Your small town gathers for an afternoon out at the ball game, coming out to support their local team. The sun is shining, the grass is green, and there’s a guy wielding a shotgun coming in from centerfield. The sheriff rushes out to meet him in an attempt to disarm him, as everyone clears the field to safety. The guy points his weapon at the law, and BAM!!! The sheriff fires in self-defense, in front of the town, and there you have the start of “The Crazies,” a non-zombie zombie movie that, as a result of its on-the-fence position, never quite achieves greatness... or even goodness, for that matter. This is your average, run-of-the-mill horror fare that serves up a few solid scares but not much else that would have The Kidd offering up a glowing recommendation.

Timothy Olyphant plays Sheriff David Dutton, your typical law enforcement in middle America. He’s got a wife, a baby on the way, and the last thing he really needs weighing on his mind these days is the fact that he put a bullet into one of his residents, with hundreds of witnesses, because he may or may not have been drunk. Of course, things aren’t what they appear to be, with the dead gunman receiving a clean blood-alcohol level, so something else is going on. Could it be the same thing that leads another citizen to lock his wife and son in a closet, set his house on fire killing everyone inside, and then go mow his lawn until the fire department and sheriff’s office hit the scene? You’re damn right, because clearly bad shit is about to go down within Ogden Marsh.

For a long time, The Kidd’s been waiting for that role to really catapult Olyphant to the next level. Unfortunately, this isn’t it. Olyphant is his usual sturdy self, but doesn’t have extraordinary material for him to do anything more than survive, try to make sure those who are with him survive, and look at all times like “What the fuck is going to happen to us next?!” Olyphant has been phenomenal many times before when he’s been given something good to work with. On “Deadwood” and in “The Girl Next Door,” he’s given us that glimmer of stardom that he always seems to be just short of, and he does a fine job in “The Crazies,” but it wouldn’t have mattered if it was him in the Sheriff’s role or Martin Short. Sure, there’s less singing and dancing this way, but, regardless of who is Sheriff Dutton, it’s merely a matter of moving from point A to point B while encountering The Crazies along the way. It’s not a bad Timothy Olyphant here... it’s just a rather pedestrian one, which is more frustrating, because The Kidd knows he is capable of so much more.

The real joy of the film comes in the performance of Joe Anderson, as Deputy Russell Clank. Clank is the deputy you want on your side, if you were in the middle of bad things happening. He’ll save your ass if the situation calls for it. He’s certainly not afraid to shoot first and ask questions later. He’s reckless, but in a way that could be beneficial when you’re dealing with crazy mutant non-zombies. Anderson gets all the good action, all the good lines, and it makes you wonder if writers Scott Kosar and Ray Wright loaded up on this one sidekick character since everyone else in the film seems bland and uninteresting.

There isn’t a lot of character development to “The Crazies,” so, after a strong setup, the film seems to lose steam consistently throughout, because there’s no emotional investment whatsoever. Someone dies... big deal. I barely knew that character to begin with, so why should I care? Danielle Panabaker’s character Becca is a prime example, as she has a minor introductory scene, and then doesn’t show up again until later when she’s encountering a moment of peril. Oh, she might die...? Okay... and I care why? She has a boyfriend that she wants to try to help. That might have been awesome if we had any connection to the boyfriend to give a shit about his survival. It also might have been good to know a little bit about Becca to even care that she had a boyfriend. She could be slaughtered by Crazies, eaten by wolves, hit by a car, blown up by fireworks gone wrong... it wouldn’t have mattered. Either way, we’re given nothing to care about in her character, so why bother worrying how she ends up?

And that’s a big problem with “The Crazies” is that there’s nothing to care about. Oh, sure, we’d like to see Timothy Olyphant make it, or even his pregnant wife Judy (Radha Mitchell), whose sole purpose seems to be to find herself in as many compromising scenarios as possible, where she needs rescue. She’s there to give Sheriff Dutton someone to care about, but for me, her inclusion in “The Crazies” I couldn’t care less about. Want a prime example as to how useless Judy Dutton is? Before the “crazy” epidemic is explained, the Sheriff tries to get his wife to get out of town and towards safety, and she protests, because she’s the doctor of most of these victims. Well, I’m their source of entertainment, but, if a deadly virus is killing people at an alarming rate over a period of 48 hours, I am getting the fuck out of town... period. Bye, people who read InfamousKidd.com. I’m saving my own ass. And, for someone who’s pregnant, you might expect similar behavior, because who is willing to risk their life and the life of their unborn child in order to try saving people who have veins popping out on their faces? Judy Dutton apparently... that’s who.

Breck Eisner does a fine job directing “The Crazies,” modernizing George Romero’s original with crisp visuals and creepy tone. There are a few nice setups, including one excellent payoff involving a bonesaw in a funeral home, but a lot of this has been seen before. I’ve seen the misdirection where things jump out at you from off-screen. I’ve seen the enemy systemically work their way to the victim we’re supposed to care about, only to be foiled after the tension reaches its high point. Eisner does a good job in transforming this quaint little area in small town America into a hell hole quarantined for the safety of the rest of the country, but the pacing tends to drag and drag and drag to where you’re bored and restless by the end that it doesn’t matter how things end just as long as they end.

Typically, your standard zombie movie has a lot to say, using the zombie world metaphorically to deliver some social commentary about the world we live in. However, “The Crazies” puts itself between a rock and a hard place by not quite doing that in their world of non-zombie zombies. The reasoning behind the contamination and subsequent containment protocol is thrown away in a couple of sentences, and, stemming from that, the idea that the government could be capable of accidentally launching a biological attack against its own citizens and the steps and lengths they’d go to in order to prevent it from spreading falls flat, because there’s never a real importance given to its significance. It’s hard to comment on society when the audience hasn’t been given a reason to pay attention or take notice of the issues you’re trying to touch upon.

“The Crazies” starts off strong, but quickly falls off the cliff and loses track of everything it had going for it. Would you be “crazy” to like the film? I don’t think so. There is some entertainment value to what you’ll get. However, I’ve seen horror done better and much more effectively that, while a few good scares are nice, I was expecting a lot more. I wasn’t expecting much from “The Crazies,” so, in that sense, I think it’d be fair to say it exceeded my expectations, but that still doesn’t mean this is a good movie. It’s alright. It’s not good. It’s not bad. It’s average, so, if an average horror movie that’ll cause you to jump on a handful of occasions, then you might want to check out “The Crazies.” However, if you’re looking for something a bit more substantial, like a good story and interesting characters that provide some humor, some action, and some thrills, look elsewhere, because you are one of “The Crazies” if you think you’re going to find that here.

The Kidd Vs. Shutter Island

Fri, 19 Feb 2010 01:43:01 -0500

Admittedly, The Kidd managed to squeeze in two viewings of Martin Scorsese’s new film “Shutter Island” before it was absolutely time to get my thoughts down on the page. That isn’t necessarily a bad thing or a good thing. It was more along the lines of still being unsure how I ultimately felt about the movie after seeing it initially, and wanting to go through it a second time in order to really shape my opinion. Needless to say, the things I did like still held up, and the things I didn’t like, while playing a little better now that I know the endgame of “Shutter Island” still bother be tremendously. Overall, “Shutter Island” is a movie I really was hoping to like, a movie I really wanted to like, and a movie that I was right smack in the middle of liking until the third act, which completely crumbles the film.

If you want to take that as The Kidd recommends on 2/3 of the movie, go right ahead. I do think it is a strong but flawed film that is really difficult to discuss, because every moment depends on the one before. Therefore, to really give anything away about the directions the movie chooses to go would spoil the flick for you. It’d be as if I told you that Kevin Spacey was really Keyser Soze in “The Usual Suspects” or Michael Douglas was merely playing a game in “The Game.” To get to those points, I’d have to reveal some clues, and, in doing so, the whole movie would unravel right before your very eyes. “Shutter Island” is that kind of movie, so to reveal anything is already revealing too much. However, let me do you at least one HUGE favor by offering up some advice if “Shutter Island” is in your place. Take whatever you think you know about the movie from what you’ve read and definitely what you’ve seen in the trailers and the TV spots, because whatever you’re expecting “Shutter Island” to be, you’re wrong. And you’re better off clearing that perception from your mind before you even step foot inside the theatre, because if you go in looking for something in particular, you’re going to be disappointed when you don’t get it.

“Shutter Island” starts off with a simple enough premise - a patient at a mental institution for the criminally insane has disappeared, and two federal marshals are brought to the island to investigate and hopefully solve the matter of her whereabouts. But the movie never stays that simple again. In fact, that simple premise might not even be what the movie is really about either. I could be lying to you... or I could be completely honest with you. And that’s where the mystery of “Shutter Island” lies, in trying to figure out what to believe and what not to believe, in trying to solve a puzzle using pieces that are never what they appear to be.

So, without explaining too much else, because the entire movie will come crumbling down around my big mouth, let me tell you that there is a lot in “Shutter Island” to like. Leonardo DiCaprio is absolutely fantastic as U.S. Marshal Teddy Daniels, a man whose own fears and paranoia are on full display as the investigation unravels. This is an intense performance by DiCaprio as his complex character is forced to run the gauntlet of emotions that really show you what Leo is capable of. Whether it’s dealing with an obstructionist doctor or coming up a Nazi death camp in World War II or dreaming horrible nightmares where he continously encounters his dead wife (Michelle Williams), you get to witness the downward spiral Teddy Daniels is going through just be being at Ashecliffe Hospital on the island. This might be DiCaprio’s best overall performance, as his character has so much to deal with in his quest for the truth - physically, mentally, emotionally, and, most importantly, psychologically - and a lesser actor might not be able to pull it off convincingly, but DiCaprio nails everything that Teddy Daniels needs from him.

Ben Kingsley is the real standout of the film as Dr. Cawley, the chief physician at Ashecliffe. It is Kingsley who really sets the tone for the movie, as the many faces of Dr. Cawley really guide us through the ever-changing moods of the film. His interactions with Daniels, be it open or divisive or argumentative or calm, directly reflect where things are at in the story. His range goes from creepy to quite helpful with ease, and, as a result, it is really the carefully constructed character of Dr. Cawley that will help you come to terms with what is happening at all times on the island, surrounding his presence.

From there, you have one outstanding performance by the supporting cast after another in some minor roles that all play their part in the overall scheme of things. Max von Sydow pops in as Dr. Naering to give us a more detailed look at the psychology of the film. Emily Mortimer and Patricia Clarkson couldn’t be at more opposite ends of the spectrum for the two versions of Rachel Solando we’re given a chance to see, but each is effective in providing the information that their characters are called upon to give. John Carroll Lynch is good as Deputy Warden McPherson, and Michelle Williams gives a chilling performance as Teddy Daniels’ dead wife. Her appearances in Teddy’s dreams and in popping up in potential delusionary visions is something to pay attention to. Jackie Early Haley and Ted Levine, who many of you might remember as Buffalo Bill in “The Silence of the Lambs,” are only around for a few minutes a piece, but they are quite a few important moments, as their conversations with Teddy might not seem relevant at the time, but they are big factors in understanding the “Shutter Island” puzzle. Mark Ruffalo, as Teddy’s partner Chuck Aule, leaves a bit to be desired, but there’s reason for it, and, by the end of the film, you’ll have figured out why his Marshal isn’t nearly as charismatic or interesting as DiCaprio’s.

Another major plus for “Shutter Island” is the soundtrack, as Robbie Robertson was able to oversee and put together a superb collection of previously recorded music. However, with each musical cue, particular the epic sounds we get right at the beginning in entering the hospital’s grounds, we hear something that fits perfectly. Whether it’s the heavy bass of a string section delivering a sense of dread and an idea that bad things are going to happen or the chaotic horns that go right with the uncertainty and messiness of it all, Robertson has assembled quite a group that aids and never gets in the way of conveying what we should be feeling at just about every moment.

This also might be Martin Scorsese’s best-lookng work, as “Shutter Island” is stunningly beautiful. Even in the tight enclosures of a mental institution, Scorsese commands his space well, shooting some small areas to look much grander than they are, while also using some of the larger places as intimate settings. He is able to capture the best from his actors, and his pacing throughout much of the film is perfect, as “Shutter Island” carefully builds tension using the unknown. You can’t help being hooked in the first few minutes to try to follow, understand, and uncover everything that’s going on in “Shutter Island. However, the individual pieces wind up being greater than the sum of their parts, as the third act is really where “Shutter Island” lost me... and not in that “I’m confused and don’t get it” lost way. I checked out as the final third slowed down considerably with large chunks of exposition elaborate on the big picture. However, even beyond the speed to which the movie slows down to considerably as we near the finale, it was the ending that turns out to be the major issue of this film.

I get the feeling that audiences will be split with how things turn out, but The Kidd was left seriously unsatisfied with the resolution, especially when considering how contrived it all really seemed. Now, upon the second time seeing “Shutter Island,” I can understand a little better how they got to where they did... but that still doesn’t make it any good. The movie spends nearly two hours building to something, and then takes the last 20 minutes or so and ignores that by suddenly taking an unannounced left turn that will have you winding up nowhere near where you thought you were going. And once you reach that final destination, you’ll be left wondering whose genius idea it was to veer off-course rather than continuing on the path of what would have fit better.

Is “Shutter Island” a bad film? Absolutely not. It actually turns out to be a very good film with what I found to be a problem ending. With a second viewing, I was awarded the benefit of taking a closer look at how we got to that point, by closely observing different characters and events that might not have seemed as important the first time around, but now take on a far greater meaning. I was able to keep an eye out for any clues that might help me understand things more clearly, and, in all honesty, the second show helps, to an extent, in that you’re able to reconcile with yourself that “Shutter Island” isn’t the movie you were expecting, and that’s okay. Just because it’s not the movie you thought it was going to be doesn’t mean it’s not a good movie. It’s a very good movie... for the first 2/3 of it. However, it’s the finale that just doesn’t work for The Kidd, and, as a result, I can’t overwhelmingly recommend the new Scorsese. For every aspect that does manage to come together well in this film, it quickly falls apart, when a lot of it is rendered meaningless. If you’re prone to disappointment with unsatisfying endings, you might not want to put yourself through this. That doesn’t mean you won’t be locked into the rest of the film, sometimes even on the edge of your seat, racking your brain to figure out what everything means... but, when you are given the answers, you might feel a bit cheated that THAT is what “Shutter Island” committed you to.

The Kidd Vs. The Wolfman

Fri, 12 Feb 2010 03:04:34 -0500

There is a perfectly good reason to explain why the troubled production of “The Wolfman” has continuously been delayed and rescheduled and found difficulty in ultimately being released to the public. Quite simply, it wasn’t ready... which makes The Kidd wonder why it is hitting theatres now, because it’s still not ready, and I don’t know if it would ever have been ready. The story is bad, and so is the acting, which not only makes for a bad movie, but a stupid one at that. “The Wolfman” is a stupid, stupid movie that, other than the monster make-up, has no redeeming value whatsoever.

Benicio del Toro has the lead as Lawrence Talbot, a stage actor who has returned home to find out what happened to his brother, who was only thought to be missing but was found butchered and mutilated by the side of the road. His brother’s fiancee Gwen (Emily Blunt) notified him of the problem, and he now feels a duty to her as well as to his brother, who he left behind during childhood upon the murder of their mother, to find, capture, and kill whatever beast was responsible for his death. Upon finding a strange medallion on his brother’s body, he treks out to a gypsy camp to find out its meaning, and, while there, a werewolf attack erupts, with Lawrence falling victim to its bite. The Wolfman is now born.

From there, we have Hugo Weaving doing his best Victorian Mr. Smith as Scotland Yard Inspector Francis Aberline. We’ve seen Weaving do some good work since “The Matrix” trilogy in “The Lord of the Rings” films and “V For Vendetta,” but here he reaches deep down into his old bag of tricks to pull out that Mr. Smith speech pattern that took me right out of the film, as I was left to wonder if The Wolfman would be able to dodge silver bullets in Bullet Time if the moment called for it.

Sir Anthony Hopkins plays Lawrence’s father, Sir John Talbot, a man who doesn’t seem to care that his one son is dead, his other son has returned, or that anyone may have been attacked by a werewolf. There’s no emotion at all in the character, which gives off the sense that Hopkins cashed his paycheck for “The Wolfman” before cameras ever started rolling and is now mailing it in. He seems to sleepwalk through most of his screen time, outside of when he’s the polar opposite here and there, bringing Sir John completely over the top to the point of borderline insanity. Hopkins ranges from one extreme to the other, but there’s nothing in the middle to help anchor his performance. Therefore, we’re left with a crazy man off the rails... and that’s no way to help us get emotionally invested in the psychological issues of Lawrence Talbot, which stem from his childhood.

Benicio del Toro is another issue, as he delivers a completely boring, uninteresting, and uninspiring performance. It felt like there was more life in the bad CGI effects of The Wolfman’s transformation than there was in del Toro throughout the movie. And, when your star doesn’t seem all that into the movie he’s making, it makes it awfully hard for the audience to get all that into the movie. Wait... scratch that. It wasn’t that hard at all, since I never really got into “The Wolfman” from the start. So, I guess you could say instead that it is pretty easy to not get into a movie when the star of it isn’t very good.

You might think the R rated violence would help matters some, but it doesn’t. What we’re left with is some blood splats thrown about across the screen here and there to try to bring in some of the cool factor from movies like “Watchmen,” “300,” or “Sin City.” However, the presence of blood in “The Wolfman” often looks more cartoonish than it does artistic, and the only thing that seemed to be missing from the frequent splatters were the Batman TV show sound effects thrown in for good measure. The Wolfman rips out someone’s intestines... THWACK!! The Wolfman decapitates another... BIFF!!! Claws through the jaw... ZAP!!! There’s nothing terrifying about The Wolfman’s appearances or even his killings, as he seems to be more in line with Jason, trying to make each new murder stylish and creative over brutal and animalistic.

The make-up effect of “The Wolfman” don’t look that bad at all, and are a bright spot of the film... a bright spot that is quickly ruined by CGI effects mixed in, which look so badly rendered and downright cheap, that it takes away and distracts from the realism of practical effects. The completed Wolfman transformation looks pretty sweet, but it’s the getting there that’s the problem, with the transformation itself coming across as being very computer-driven. If I examined the screen shots closely and came across visible pixels, I wouldn’t be surprised. When the full moon comes out and a man is in the process of transforming into a werewolf, you should get chills. There should be some sense of terror that bad things are going to happen to a lot of people, particularly when it’s taking place in a locked room full of doctors. But, even in that instance, it’s hard to cheer for The Wolfman to dish out what’s deserved, because I’m still caught up in how fake The Wolfman switch looked. Never once did I get the feeling that Benicio del Toro was turning into a werewolf. It always felt more like computers were turning Benicio del Toro, and, if you can’t hide your tricks behind the curtain, then you are screwed from the start.

I really don’t place the blame on “The Wolfman” solely on director Joe Johnston, as my belief is that he was making the best out of what he had at his disposal. Original director Mark Romanek cited the ol’ “creative differences” about two months before shooting was set to begin, and Johnston wasn’t hired until a month before they went before cameras. Therefore, there was only so much work and tweaking that could be done to a bad script, and Johnston was essentially stuck. You can give him a little bit of credit for trying to dress it all up, with some nice set pieces and some moderate success in setting the eerie mood of a town being victimized by a werewolf... but, even if you put a bowtie on shit, it’s still shit, no matter how you try to improve its appearance... and “The Wolfman” is shit.

From top to bottom, there isn’t anything watchable in “The Wolfman,” and the only thing it manages to do right is to get you howling mad that you were tricked into seeing it by your own free will. Well, that’ll teach you, If there’s one small positive thing I can say about “The Wolfman,” it’s that it’s short. With a running time of one hour and 42 minutes, the pain you choose to inflict on yourself will be brief, although it’ll feel much longer as the movie drags considerably in the second and third act, once they quickly establish The Wolfman.

Oh, and you will get a good laugh when Gollum of “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy seems to make an appearance in Lawrence’s dream, only later to be revealed as the source of all the lycanthrophy. And, if you think I’m joking with that spoiler, go ahead and test me. But, just remember your lack of belief as you’re smacking your forehead in disgust when it happens.

“The Wolfman” is a train wreck of a movie that isn’t even worth seeing to know how bad it is. The film never gets going, never engages you, never gets you interested, and, as a result, is never any good. If you were planning on making “The Wolfman” your Valentine’s movie date of choice, with the idea that perhaps your significant other might get scared and snuggle up tighter with you, get those thoughts right out of your head. It’s not going to happen. “The Wolfman” never becomes that kind of movie, as you could make the case it turns into more of a comedy than a horror or thriller. And, on Valentine’s Day, no one needs their date laughing so hard that they pee themselves, all because of how dumb “The Wolfman” turns out to be. If you do decide to see it, pack a firearm and some silver bullets for yourself, because, after a short time, you may find it necessary to put this film and yourself out of your miseries.

The Kidd Vs. Valentine’s Day

Fri, 12 Feb 2010 00:55:50 -0500

The Kidd really didn’t have high expectations at all heading into “Valentine’s Day.” As far as I was concerned, it was merely a ploy to release a movie called “Valentine’s Day” on Valentine’s Day weekend for people to see with their significant others, resulting in a windfall of dollar bills from those looking for a decent date movie. Needless to say, I came out of “Valentine’s Day” pleasantly surprised with what I’d seen. This isn’t a great movie. It’s not even very good. However, what it is is entertaining, and there’s enough here to like that you won’t feel heartbroken that you spent your time and money seeing it.

“Valentine’s Day” tells the story of about 62 different people and how their stories all intertwine to make up one giant Valentine’s Day web on the Hallmark holiday. And, if you think I’m kidding as to the number of characters, I’m not. I could have tried to play it off by going to IMDB in order to score each and every one of the characters’ names in the film, but I can’t lie to you like that. I could barely name three of them in “Valentine’s Day,” and that’s if I really sat and racked my brain trying to come up with them. There are entirely too many characters in this movie that it doesn’t necessarily make it hard to follow what’s going on, but it does make it extremely difficult for any of the characters to resonate with you. How can I care who’s in love, who’s not in love, who’s getting dumped, who’s getting back together, who’s gay, who’s not gay, etc., when I only get to see a few minutes at a time of each story? There’s no emotional connection to any of the characters, because you’re never given a chance to identify with any of them. By the time you might start liking or disliking someone, they’re off, and someone else is on, and, when they return again, you can’t remember what you felt about them, because it wasn’t that strong to begin with. Now some of the stories do work, and some of the stories do present some interesting circumstances. But the problem with “Valentine’s Day” is that you don’t get enough of those arcs, because they are drowned out by the other meaningless ones, which seem to only be thrown into the mix in order to add more stars.

And “Valentine’s Day” has plenty of stars, with every actor/actress known to man basically in this movie. You name them, and they’re probably on display here. But to give you an idea of what you’re in for with “Valentine’s Day,” let me give you a rundown of all the different characters and what they do and how they factor into the holiday.

You’ve got Jessica Alba as the new fiancee of Ashton Kutcher, a florist whose place of business is at the center of everyone’s Valentine’s Day gifts. Kutcher is best friends with Jennifer Garner, long time companions who may or may not have feelings for each other, but have never gotten a chance to find out, because the timing was never right. Garner is dating Patrick Dempsey, a doctor (go figure...) who is supposedly divorced but isn’t quite out of his family as he says he is. Garner is also friends with Jessica Biel, a publicist who hates Valentine’s Day, because she’s come to the conclusion that she’s destined to be alone, because apparently in Los Angeles, people don’t date women who look like Jessica Biel. Biel is the publicist of Eric Dane, a football player who might be nearing his retirement with his long-time team not wanting to plan a future with him. Oh, yeah... and he might be gay. His agent is Queen Latifah, whose new assistant is Anne Hathaway, who is making ends meet by being a phone sex operator, while she dates a new guy who happens to be Topher Grace. Oh, wait... back to Jessica Biel, she... oh, forget it. It’s too much. And just think... I haven’t even touched upon what Kathy Bates, Bradley Cooper, Hector Elizondo, Jamie Foxx, Carter Jenkins, Taylor Lautner, George Lopez, Shirley MacLaine, Emma Roberts, Julia Roberts, or Taylor Swift are doing in this movie. Believing there are too many characters yet? Good.

Of course, some of the pair interactions stand out a lot more than others. For once, Ashton Kutcher didn’t want to make me stab myself in the face for watching an Ashton Kutcher movie. HIs over-the-top, lovey-dovey attitude plays well for Kutcher, as he’s allowed to be the goofy guy we’re used to... it’s more acceptable though for this character than any others, so he’s able to get away with it and have it be not even close to annoying, which is a far departure from the typical Ashton Kutcher role. Jessica Biel is fun to watch as the anti-Valentine’s Day entry of the story. She shows a bit of comedic performance we haven’t seen from her yet, as her publicist is straddling the ledge between hot and hot crazy. However, her character’s story resolution turns out a bit forced, as there is absolutely nothing throughout the film that would lead you to believe she would end up as she does.

Anne Hathaway is excellent, which is something The Kidd doesn’t throw around lightly, since I’m not usually the biggest Anne Hathaway fan. However, her turn as a phone sex operator steals the movie and provides the most laughs. You can’t help but smile as she switches from Southern belle to Russian domme to Kitty Cat lady each time her 70’s funky porn ringtone goes off. It isn’t the filthy talk that might have you viewing Hathaway in a totally different way than usual. But her kinky role-playing with different guys who know what get them off, even if that includes pretending to be spanked by a rubber band ball, then so be it. It doesn’t make it any less funny.

George Lopez is his usually witty self, as his Mexican delivery man (there’s not a stereotype at all in this movie) provides most of the words of wisdom “Valentine’s Day” has to offer. Unfortunately, his character is too few and far between in his moments, so an underwritten George Lopez only pops up here and there when some reason is needed in the script. Otherwise, he’s lost amongst the vast array of stars here. The same can be said for the two Taylors - Swift and Lautner. They play the two people in high school you hope with all your might would use protection if they ever had sex, because, if anything happened, they might create the dumbest kids in the history of the world. She dates him, because he’s hot. He dates her, because she’s hot. Yet, for as stupid as they both are, rather convincingly might I add, they are a joy to watch on-screen as they play off each other. You knew people like that in high school, ones who were dating for all the wrong reasons, namely superficial. However, you can’t stop watching them, because it’s like a car wreck. You want to see how bad they can really get the longer they stay together. Once again, we don’t get enough of the pair though, as they are reduced to bit parts, so we see more about the old couple who is suddenly confronted by an affair from their past, and a man and a woman chatting on a plane, with no real rhyme of reason as to why they’re even featured, because they add nothing, except to be shown again every 25 minutes or so, just to remind us they are still involved. Toss in the other high school couple who wants to have sex for the first time, even if it means it happens during their lunch break while parents are out of town, and a little kid who wants to send a gift to someone in his classroom, and you can see where “Valentine’s Day” is a mixed bag. Lucky for it, the good interactions and characters far outweigh the bad, useless, unnecessary ones.

Garry Marshall (“Pretty Woman,” “The Princess Diaries”) does a pretty solid job in keeping things light throughout, which helps you settle into the fact that you’re having a good time watching “Valentine’s Day.” It’s too bad the camera turned out to be his tool of choice in making this film rather than the red pen he would have been better served using in slashing bits and pieces from Katherine Fugate’s overloaded script. Sometimes less is more, and that would have been advice that “Valentine’s Day” could have used to make it a better film. As it stands, it’s a light-hearted cute date movie that will have you feeling good at the end, because nothing bad really happens throughout the movie, except to those who deserve it. Quite a few characters stick around too long, several more don’t stick around enough, and what you’re left with is a bit of an uneven ride for “Valentine’s Day.” However, there was enough for me here to have walked out of the theatre with a smile on my face, feeling like a good time was had. And isn’t that the point of Valentine’s Day anyway? You won’t emerge from “Valentine’s Day” loving the movie... not unless you’re desperate. You won’t even like like it. But you should like it, and, while it won’t be remembered next year on Valentine’s Day probably because you already dumped it from your life after the weekend, it’ll serve you well this weekend as a decent yet entertaining date movie.

The Kidd Vs. Edge of Darkness

Fri, 29 Jan 2010 02:25:08 -0500

Mel Gibson returns to the big screen in his first starring role since 2002’s “Signs,” and he really have waited longer for a movie much more worthwhile. “Edge of Darkness” is a convoluted mess of a movie that, by the end, had me more interested in how quickly I could get to the bathroom ahead of the full theatre than how everything ends... and that’s never a good sign.

Gibson plays Thomas Craven, a cop for the Boston police department who, upon picking his daughter Emma (Bojana Novakovic) up for a visit home, witnesses her getting blown away right next to him shotgun-style by a masked assailant right in the doorway of his house. From there, the investigation is on as to who is responsible for this incident and why. And, as intense of a quick build as that is, the stupidity quickly sets in, with cops focusing entirely on enemies Tom may have made while on the force, never even giving a second thought to the idea that perhaps Emma could have been the target. After all, the gunmen did yell out “Craven!!” before he fired. I mean, there’s no possible way he could have been directing it at the other family member, the one he did shoot in the gut at point blank range. And, because of the cops’ inability to think about more than one idea at a time, Tom is able to steal evidence, track down possible leads, interrogate persons of interest, and let’s not forget breaking and entering, all while the police actually on the case dick around, coming no closer to finding the murderer or even thinking to keep an eye on a potentially vengeful father who watched his only immediate family member gunned down in violent fashion and could be trying to find the bastards that did it. That would make too much sense. And that’s something this movie wants no part of - common sense. Instead, it tries to throw in as many plot lines as possible to ultimately confuse you to the point that you don’t realize how dumb “Edge of Darkness” really is.

As Tom sets out to solve the mystery of what happened, sparked by the discovery that his college student/intern of a daughter was for some reason carrying a gun, you’re ready for things to kick into high gear with Mel Gibson on the lookout for some vigilante justice, aided by the fact that he carries a badge. But that’s not what you get. This isn’t “Taken.” This isn’t Mel Gibson ready to go medieval on some asses, once he finds out who pulled the trigger. This is Mel Gibson pissed-off but level-headed, as he thinks more and more clearly with the more secrets and developments he uncovers. So, wait... he doesn’t want payback on those who killed his daughter? Oh, sure, he does... eventually. He wants to piece together the whole puzzle first, giving the bad guys every opportunity to kill anyone he manages to get to talk to him and confess their role in the entire scheme and even giving them chances to kill him, rendering this whole situation a distant memory.

And the idiocy continues from there. Tom manages to locate Terry (Shawn Roberts), his daughter’s boyfriend and, against his wishes not to speak because of the surveillance watching his every action and listening to his every word, still gets him to reveal a good chunk of information, exposition-style. It doesn’t matter that the bad guys will kill him if he talks. He’s made up his mind that he has to speak for the memory of his girlfriend. Of course, this would be the perfect opportunity for masked gunmen to storm the apartment with automatic weapons and take out everyone with the damaging information, so it doesn’t spread... but no. Too much sense. It’s much better if they let the pissed father get everything he needs to learn the next clue to solving the puzzle.

“Edge of Darkness” continues in that direction, with more new information continuously revealed by those “in danger,” who talk long enough to reveal what happened before they are retaliated upon. To make matters worse, it’s often done in a cliched fashion. Yeah, because I don’t know what’s going to happen to this witness when she steps out of the car into the road after talking about everything she knew. And, if you see this and genuinely don’t when the moment rolls around, then you really need to get out more.

The movie then takes the shape of an activist trying to do the right thing against the corrupt nature of politics and business, with the evil corporation the villain for doing things it’s not supposed to, even with some pretty powerful government employees fully aware of their actions. A nuclear weapons supplier to the United States also selling weapons for foreign enemies? Nope, never seen that before... although I will say I’ve never seen the head of an evil corporation played so evilly by Danny Huston as Jack Bennett. Bennett is so over the top as the main man in charge and responsible that the only things missing from his arsenal are an evil laugh, wrecklessly thrown about anytime he accomplishes anything evil, and a handlebar mustache he can twirl as his evil plans all come together. And if you think I’m fuckin’ kidding, lay out your eight bucks and learn that lesson the hard way.

You’d think you’d get a better end result for a movie written by William Monahan (“The Departed”) and directed by Martin Campbell, who saved the Bond franchise twice with “Goldeneye” and “Casino Royale.” But that’s where you’d be wrong. After the strong start, the movie quickly tosses aside any momentum it could have been building as it drags on endlessly in its attempts to shine the spotlight on bad big business and the politicians to whose campaigns they donate.

I haven’t even gotten to Ray Winstone yet as Jedburgh, a problem solver who makes messy situations like this go away, all the while straddling the fence between right and wrong. Winstone is usually good in the roles he takes, and “Edge of Darkness” is no different, except I challenge anyone to really tell me what the fuck he does in this movie. It’s almost as if a clear explanation of who he is and what his purpose is was lost on the writers and the director, who were all too lazy to explain, so they just threw him in, gave a him a few scenes to lay down some story elements, and called it a day.

To cap it all off, they slapped an ending that feels like it belongs to a totally different movie, because, in tone, it is so much different than anything that had been on-screen for the rest of the film. We get more action, more gunshots, more blood in the last ten minutes than we had in the entire front end of the movie. It all seems so out of place that what would under normal circumstances have been natural now feels so unnecessary.

If “Edge of Darkness” was reduced to the first 20 minutes and the last 20 minutes, you might not have a half-bad movie on your hands. The problem is that the whole middle of the movie really gets in the way and fucks up the whole thing. Everything from the dialogue to the actors feels very bland, and it results in a bland film. “Edge of Darkness” will not have you on the edge of your seat. If anything, it will have you on the edge of an answer to “Why did I choose to see this?” Mel Gibson has done far better work in far better films, and, for what should have been his triumphant return in front of the camera, both he and we deserved much better.

The Kidd Vs. Crazy Heart

Fri, 29 Jan 2010 01:42:28 -0500

There are three things that will stick with you upon seeing “Crazy Heart.” One is the incredible performance of Jeff Bridges as broken-down, washed-up, has-been Bad Blake, a former country music star living on the nostalgia of the few fans that still remember him enough to make a trip out to the local bar or bowling alley to see him play some of his old tunes. Two is the phenomenal soundtrack put together by Stephen Bruton, T-Bone Burnett, and Ryan Bingham, which gives this down-and-out former star some blues to carry him throughout this story. The Kidd is not a fan of country music at all. Okay, there are one or two here and there (who can’t resist “Friends in Low Places” after you’ve heard it at every single karaoke bar you’ve ever been to?), but this isn’t that modern twangy country about tractors and cow-tipping. This is about sadness, about loss, about life... and it drew me in far enough to question whether I’d been missing out on some good country after all this time. Perhaps I have, but the strong soundtrack has now shown me the error of my ways. Third... well... hmmm... so there are only two things that will stick with you upon seeing “Crazy Heart.”

“Crazy Heart” is really a mixed bag for The Kidd, because, while Bridges is so good in the lead, this is a story we’ve seen told before and told much better. We’ve seen countless tales of the mighty having fallen, hoping to one day return to glory, after the battle their vices, their demons. We’ve seen plenty of films about athletes, actors, musicians, entertainers, and more broadly stars hoping to get back to the top, get back to where they were in their prime. Just last year, we saw it with Darren Aronofsky’s “The Wrestler.” But this ain’t “The Wrestler,” which is a shame, because it really should be. If it aimed for that direction, you’d have a movie that doesn’t feel like it wastes Jeff Bridges’ Oscar-worthy turn on a forced romance and a lack of passion. This isn’t “The Wrestler,” because in that film, Randy keeps doing what he does, because he loves it, whereas here, Bad Blake keeps doing what he’s doing, because he’s broke, and there is no good reason ever given by him, by his manager, by anyone as to why he won’t do anything to change his lot in life. You want to root for Bad Blake. You should root for Bad Blake. He’s a cool guy, who made a lot of cool music. But “Crazy Heart” gives you no reason to, and, without that, the movie doesn’t feel like it has anywhere to go. It’s just there.

We’ve seen musicians long since forgotten still touring. They’re playing racetracks, and state fairs, and county festivals just to get a paycheck, playing the same one-hit wonder over and over again, because it’s the only way anyone will remember who they are. They live on the memory that they were once great, or that people once bought up their albums. They bang chicks 20 years past when they should have, and, even then, their standards are lowered pretty significantly just to feel noticed and important. That’s Bad Blake. He goes from town to town, playing shitty venue after shitty venue, screwing old groupie after old groupie, without a dime to his name, because he’s spent it all on whiskey. Even when he’s broke, he relies on liquor store owners to recognize who he once was, so he can try to score some free booze. He doesn’t give a shit about his music anymore. Shit... if you were out there playing bowling alleys for 25 people, you’d want to make sure you were fucked-up when you took the stage, too, in order to dull the awfulness of where it all went. But Bad Blake is one stubborn son of a bitch. His manager Jack Greene (Paul Herman in a minor buy always entertaining role) continues to stick by him, doing whatever he can possibly do to make sure Blake has some money coming in, encouraging and begging Blake to write some new material, get some new songs flowing, but Blake would rather bitch about how bad things are on the road rather than change his course.

That is until he meets Jean Craddock (Maggie Gyllenhaal), a local reporter who loves music and remembers Blake for all of his previous greatness. She wants to interview him, and, of course, Blake turns on the charm, viewing her as another notch in the bed post on this particular stop, but that’s not how it goes down. They talk. They tell stories. They become attracted to each other through conversation, and their romance begins... and this is where the movie starts to fall apart for me.

I couldn’t buy these two people together. I couldn’t see it. I couldn’t imagine it, and I couldn’t suspend disbelief on it either, because the romantic interest comes out of nowhere, with no rhyme nor reason, and really seems to derail the movie we thought we might be getting. Instead of following this musician struggle to try to regain the fame and fortune that he threw away, we’re left stuck in the mud of a cliched relationship. She’s divorced and made a bad choice there. As a result, she has a kid, who she loves, but who she doesn’t want to see punished for her mistakes. Jean wants to raise her boy right, so he can become a good man, not the douchebag that her ex-husband apparently was.

Unfortunately, Bad Blake is another bad choice. He’s a drinker, who is now using these new relationships to essentially push aside the disease he lives with every day, as opposed to encouraging him to change his ways. He’s ready to get his life back on track for them, but he’s not willing to get his life back on track for himself. As a result, he’s not the guy to have around her, around her kid... and she knows it. But it continues, and we’re left waiting for the inevitable moment to happen where he fucks it all up, because he can’t say no to the booze. And too bad for us that we can’t say no to the plodding relationship. The movie is interesting when Jeff Bridges is dealing with anyone NOT Maggie Gyllenhaal here. When he’s on the phone with his manager, that’s Bad Blake at his finest. When he’s talking with Tommy Sweet (Colin Farrell in an uncredited and un-Colin Farrell-like role), his protege who is bigger now than Blake ever was, you feel that hurt in Bridges’ performance of a guy jealous that he’s not the headliner anymore, wondering why he’s not the star. That’s where this movie really hooks you. That’s where you want to learn more about this character, about what’s happened to him, about where it’s all gone wrong. Instead, the movie is split between that and his interactions with Jean and her son, which of course leads to the old cliche of him taking better care of a kid not his own, because he fucked up the relationship with his own child long, long ago. And, once again, we’re left to feel like we’ve seen this all before. How many times do we have to see the down-on-his-luck guy trying to project where he’d like to be on a substitute child, because he, for all intents and purposes, doesn’t have a son/daughter anymore due to their choices? Too many times... and I wouldn’t mind it if it didn’t seem suddenly thrown in just for the sake of giving him something else he ruined in his past.

Speaking of throwaways, I still can’t figure out what Robert Duvall is even doing in this movie. He plays Wayne, one of Bad’s oldest friends and his bartender, who really offers nothing substantial to the film at all. He doesn’t show up until about 2/3 into the movie, and, from there his job is to be in the right place at the right time, and to offer words of wisdom when he shows up. Bad needs a drink, Wayne is there. Bad passes out on the floor, Wayne’s there to pick him up. Bad needs to get out of the house and reflect, Wayne’ll take him fishing. It’s a wasted opportunity to include a talented actor in a role that isn’t needed. The only supporting cast worth anything to the film is Colin Farrell, but, even then, his contribution is much too short. Tommy Sweet is the guy Blake doesn’t want to talk about in interviews or write music for any more. He’s the guy who Bad taught everything to - how to play, how to sing, how to perform - and Bad feels like he’s never gotten the appreciation for everything he gave to Tommy to get him where he is today. And Tommy Sweet is built up in the first half of the film off-screen as this major musical deal, that when Farrell is revealed, you are taken aback, because that is never in a million fuckin’ years who you would have expected. But he pulls it off incredibly well. His talks with Bad about what it was like on the road, paying dues, learning the gig are heartfelt. You know that Tommy wants to do right by Bad. You know he wants to rise him up, to toss him something to get back on his feet, to take care of the guy who took care of him. These are strong moments of “Crazy Heart” where you get to see the heart and soul of Bad Blake and his love for the music... but, then just like that, Tommy is gone, not to be seen or heard from again until the last scene. And all you’re left with is the disappointment that the interesting characters show up for time that is few and far between, while the uninteresting characters hang around for far too long.

“Crazy Heart” turns out to be an unbalanced film that could have been something else and been so much better, but instead fell into the lazy cliches we’ve seen before, giving it that same old, same old feel. I would still recommend you see it, primarily to see Jeff Bridges’ acting mastery at work. He makes Bad Blake someone you want to watch in action, as long as it’s not babysitting or dating. “Crazy Heart” goes down a path we’ve been down on several occasions, ditching its potential for the familiar. “Crazy Heart” ain’t no movie for the weary kind... so, if you’re weary from seeing movies that feel all too familiar, “Crazy Heart” ain’t for you.