FRIENDS WITH BENEFITS (2011)

Think about the possibilities. A friend with whom you could have unlimited sex and not get emotionally attached too. It seems, though, this is an impossible dream only imagined by the immature and the naive. But at some point, those of us who get older and find ourselves wedged in between that 'first love' and 'committed relationship' phase attempt it because dating has become a repetitive, cruel and exhausting joke. Sexually, this can be very frustrating. Girls - this is why guys are more likely to be found playing a game of pocket pool rather than dreaming of white knights and prince charmings. We know what we need and we know what we want (just not always on an emotional level. Justin Timberlake says it best in Friends with Benefits after Mila Kunis asks him what movies after the credits are like. He answers with one word: porn.

If you've seen Timberlake on SNL in the past couple of years you know he's not the N'Sync toting, boy band weirdo he once was. Instead, he's evolved into a very talented and funny actor. Mila Kunis, being raised on the sets of sitcoms also knows the value of wit - and together they're unstoppable. The first half of Friends With Benefits will blow your mind by how laugh out loud funny it is. From the opening credits on you'll find yourself either laughing (or cringing) at the 'funny because it's true' dating and sex commentary made by this talented on-screen couple. I've never been more pleased in a comedy.

But in typical Hollywood tradition, we have to learn some life lessons and more importantly (apparently), we all have to grow up some time. I believe there was easily enough material to make a movie entirely based on the 'f**k buddy' label, which made me even more disappointed when I found myself half way through watching something I'd seen on screen a million times before - and I didn't know why. Within Friends With Benefits there's a movie within the movie that stars Jason Segal and Rashida Jones as a couple of cliché romantic film characters who say every bad line imaginable. This fake film seemed earlier on to be a nice commentary of the cheese Hollywood has been bringing to the fondue party for the past thirty years. Unfortunately, I believe it was only in place to make one believe the ending of Friends with Benefits 'at least wasn't as bad as that other shit comedy the characters were watching'. But alas, I was watching another shit comedy. Having JT say he knows 'this is cheesy' or 'I know you wanted a movie moment, so...'. is just as bad and seems more of an easy way out than anything. Satire is no longer satire if it's - well, not satirical.

There is good though. Namely, supporting appearances made by Woody Harrelson and (even smaller) guest spots by Andy Samberg and Emma Stone. I feel all the characters and general idea (and maybe even the first sixty pages) were there from the get go and this is what sold it to the studios. I also wouldn't blame the writer of the film (Keith Merryman) if his original idea didn't involve all the mushy, cliché stuff at the end. Studios are unsurprisingly known for pressuring an artist for happy endings, stories about Alzheimer-ridden fathers and life lessons. It's not enough anymore that things are just funny - really funny.

Based on the first half alone though, Friends With Benefits won me over and therefore gets an open door. Like I said, the first forty minutes could have sustained the whole movie but doesn't. The plus - the last half makes it a good date movie and the perfect excuse to see Mila Kunis sporting nothing but her undies. Unfortunately we also see a lot (and I mean a lot) of Timberlake.

*Stills courtesy of Castle Rock Entertainment

Read more...

LARRY CROWNE (2011)

Straight up, I've always been a fan of Tom Hanks - both in public and film. In public he keeps to himself and seems more or less a humble guy. In films, he's not afraid to have fun and when he wants to be he's a damn good actor. When it comes to Hanks being a writer and a director, he also nails it. The two films he's helmed so far (That Thing You Do! and Larry Crowne) both are similar in that they're both innocent and mean well. You can feel the devotion and love for the projects that Hanks has from script to screen. While his projects aren't groundbreaking or wholly original, it's like spending time with the nicest guy you know - vs. the artsy one. I wouldn't be surprised if Hanks' next film was titled Can't We All Just Get Along?.

That theme is what makes up the majority of Larry Crowne, a film about a divorcee who gets fired from his job forcing him to find a new path in life. He meet cutes his teacher (Julia Roberts) at a community college after he enrolls to further his career. The funny thing about a film description like the one I just gave is that it could easily be both the romantic comedy it is, as well as an Oscar winning drama. The reason it's not the latter, I believe, is simply because Hanks wrote it and simply wants to make people smile. The reason it could be an Oscar drama (and at some points maybe should have) is because it deals with a lot of serious themes like the recession, job loss, middle-aged crisis and reinvention. It's a lot like About Schmidt that way - just less depressing (and less naked Kathy Bates).

Along his journey to a new romance and an adulthood education, Crowne gets a scooter to save on somr gas and runs into a 'scooter gang' at school, who are nice enough to help him along the way. The lead of the gang is played by Talia (Gugu Mbatha-Raw). Her roll is to help Crowne update his look and land the leading lady (who just happens to be in a loveless marriage). It's these type of relatively unrealistic circumstances that weigh the light and fluffy Larry Crowne down. If you can get past it though, you shouldn't find a problem having a lot of fun.

The truth of the matter is that like the character it's named after, Larry Crowne doesn't have a mean bone in it's body. It's a delightful, innocent and small film - especially compared to something like Transformers. Yet, a movie that costs hundreds of millions of dollars to produce pales in comparison to the lessons (both life-wise and thematically) one can learn from a film about a middle-aged man struggling to regain his footing.

Larry Crowne gets and open door. Hanks and Roberts are both so terribly charming you can't help but fall under their spell. Is it a funny movie like Bridesmaids was funny? Hell no. So for those of you looking for bathroom humour - look elsewhere. Is it the perfect movie for someone, or anyone really, that's going through a change in their life and needs a little inspiration? Hell to the double yes. Is it a bit hokey? Yup. Are there cliché and cheesy moments? Absolutely. Is it so incredibly lovable, and the perfect film to end long work week with? 100% confirmed.

*Stills courtesy of Universal Pictures

Read more...

MIDNIGHT IN PARIS (2011)

It’s been a while since I walked into a movie without knowing too much about it. The last one that came close was Hobo With a Shotgun, and even then I still knew more about it than I did Midnight in Paris. All I knew was that this was a Woody Allen film starring Owen Wilson and Rachel McAdams. The other thing I knew was that I really enjoyed Vicky Cristina Barcelona, so I figured I would enjoy this latest addition to Allen’s repertoire. I’ve never been happier to walk into a film knowing so little as I was walking out of Midnight in Paris.

The trailer (which I only saw post-film in preparation for this review) states that ‘Paris after midnight is magic’, but doesn’t prepare you for exactly what type of magic you’re about to experience. It’s interesting, it’s exotic, it’s nostalgic and it’s surprising. I’ll tell you this though, IMDb states Midnight in Paris is a romantic comedy – it’s anything but. If anything, it’s more of a mystery, which I loved and embraced.

As usual, I’ll keep this review spoiler free – although in this case it’s more difficult then you think. Already this may sound a little unlike your typical Allen film and it’s a whole hell of a lot more optimistic. Even the choice to use Wilson as the lead proclaims exactly what type of mood Allen was in when he wrote this flick. Don’t get me wrong though – you’ll still end up with enough typical Woody-isms to make the most modest Allen fans happy.

Upon knowing I was about to see this film, I invited two of my friends along. One was my friend Dave (with whom I ventured into Vicky Cristina with) and the other was his girlfriend Wendy (of the new blog A Girl Named Wendy). Dave didn’t dig this newest Allen instalment for a reason still unknown to me. To be fair, there were time restraints and lengthy discussions could not ensue to further validate his thoughts. From what I gathered though, Dave may have disliked the film for the same reason Wendy and I enjoyed Midnight in Paris. That reason is one based on the slight and purposeful cheesiness of the film. There are moments in the movie (including the ending) where things seem too convenient or perfect or obvious. I’ve always enjoyed subtlety as much as any film lover but here I felt it was neither here nor there. It didn’t affect the film and in some cases made it that much more charming – unrelatable as it may be for those of us like Dave, who are looking to identify with the characters a little more.

Midnight in Paris easily scores an open door. A major theme in this film is one based around nostalgia – more specifically the idea that a person can feel out of their element in the year they occupy and wish only for a time machine. I’m one of those people. I constantly wish for second chances or the opportunity to see myself shine in a different decade. This is another reason I enjoyed Midnight in Paris. It’s rare these days for me to leave a movie feeling as if I learnt something and here I truly did.

*Stills courtesy of Gravier Productions

Read more...

THE SWITCH (2010)

Who hasn’t masturbated to Diane Sawyer before?

Jason Bateman and Jennifer Aniston set themselves up for everything they ever wanted in The Switch, a new romantic comedy from Blades of Glory (2007) director, Josh Gordon. The story takes place in New York (like so many love stories seem too) and starts when Kassie (Aniston) decides she is going to have a baby and is sick of waiting around for Mr. Right. Fortunately for Kassie, Mr. ‘Right Now’ is a brand of a turkey baster and will do the job.

Kassie instantly goes onto Craig’s List to post a wanted ad for a sperm donor and low behold, as weeks pass (although the movie doesn’t always have a coherent timeline) Kassie ends up with the perfect tall, handsome, charming donor she was looking for – much to the chagrin of her best ‘like a brother’ friend Wally (Bateman). Wally offered Kassie his “ingredients”, but she didn’t take too kindly to the idea of raising a neurotic, emetophobia-driven mini-Wally. I don’t know how much this woman knows about the nature vs. nurture debate, but movies don’t need to be believable, right? Right?....

Wally wines to his best friend Leonard (Jeff Goldblum) about the problem to the point where (like any good friend) he makes jokes out of the situation and stutters and speaks quickly just long enough for us to thinks he’s clever - without giving any real advice I might add. On that (and a completely unrelated) note, why is it, guy business buddy types always get their talking done on a treadmill 53 stories above the Manhattan skyline? But moving on…

Wally heads to a party that Kassie is throwing where the turkey baster deed is to happen, as Kassie doesn’t want that “frozen type” of material. She’s into a more “fresh approach” (Christ, even sperm donations are becoming organic these days) Wally starts to mingle, then drinks, then meets the donor, then drinks some more and eventually finds himself in the same room as the semen Kassie is about to ingest (check your prom dress next time, Kassie). It sits tempting as ever in a cup on a little heater. Of course (and as any guy would do), Wally’s first reaction is to pick the cup up, unscrew the lid and (gulp) play with the stuff. Turns out that leads to tempting the fates and placing the opened container under tap water where, sooner than later, he finds himself with an empty cup. This is where Wally becomes a real “jerk”.

Seven years pass and without anyone aging or changing fashion styles, Wally finds himself with the good news that Kassie (who had moved away shortly after becoming pregnant) is moving back to New York. And good news, she has a son! Could it be? Might it be? Yup. Looks like it’s Wally’s. And wouldn’t you know it, the little bastard (played decently by newcomer Thomas Robinson) is like Wally in every way and may just change Wally’s life and make him more mature. You can see where I’m going with this. Think About a Boy (2002), but not as entertaining.

It seems to me that The Switch tried to channel the spirits that made Sleepless in Seattle (1993) and When Harry Met Sally (1989) a success, and unfortunately it just doesn’t make it - in a tradition more akin to something uninspiring like Made of Honour (2008) . Aniston and Bateman have good chemistry, and although they don’t challenge themselves here as actors, they are pleasant enough to watch – as expected. The strongest bond in this movie comes (surprisingly) from Wally and his son Sebastian (Robinson) - so much to the point where Kassie becomes someone you sorta don’t care about anymore.

Ultimately, I give The Switch a closed door. We’ve definitely seen this stuff a million times before (well, the sperm thing is new), and it’s completely predictable. I saw this movie in the afternoon and that’s probably a good time to take it in if you choose to do so. It’s a pleasant enough little film, but in the end it’s pretty forgettable. This includes cheesy lines of dialogue such as “maybe in the end, the human race…. isn’t such a race after all?”.

.

*Stills courtesy of Bona Fide Productions

Read more...

VALENTINE'S DAY (2010)

Look, kids! I'm being punk'd!

Well, you caught me. I saw this movie on the day New Line was hoping everybody would. That would explain the huge line up I faced getting there an hour early. Either way, I didn’t know what I would be in for as the trailer is relatively vague and the tagline literally said “A love story. More or less.” It doesn’t matter though, as the title might be enough. I was either walking into a movie with an all-star cast that was about each of them dealing with the pressures and expectations of Valentine’s Day, or I was walking into a movie about a character named Valentine and the crazy day he was about to have. For the record, it wasn’t the latter.

That all said, I didn’t regret seeing this film. There are movies out there like Up in the Air that you have to be in the mood to see, and movies like Avatar that you have to be in the mood to sit through. Then there are movies like Valentine’s Day that I’m glad I went and saw simply because it was fun.

Valentine’s Day has no one plot – it has several. Even then, they are mini plots that on their own couldn’t support an entire movie, although there are several movies out there that have tried. If I was to compare this film to any out there I would say it’s most like Paris, Je T’Aime or The Ten, which were both released in 2007 - except Valentine’s Day only used one director (unlike Paris) and all the stories intertwined in one way or another. Which is both a good and a bad thing.

The good comes from the fact that because we jumped through all the story lines as fast as we did you were kept entertained all the way through the 2 hour running time. Each story was intriguing and different enough that you never found yourself wanting more of one story over another, or waiting for one to be over in order to continue on with an earlier plot line. Director Gary Marshall (of Pretty Woman) did an excellent job balancing all the stories and keeping everything straight. The bad came from the fact the plotline were almost too intertwined to the point where it levelled on being a little ridiculous. Then again, it is a movie so it’s kind of a fun idea that your neighbour is also the person who is sleeping with your boss which is making your boss in turn happier and in the end getting you a promotion. So maybe it’s not a bad thing? That’s for you to decide as to whether or not it’s going to bother you (for the record that plot line was an example and it’s not actually in this film).

As for the cast and the acting – none of them will win an Oscar for their roles here. Valentine’s Day works like the Ocean’s series where the big names turn up for their parts simply because they want to get paid to have fun - which is definitely what all of them had, and that clearly shows on the screen. No actor is better over the other here, but it’s a nice representation of actors from the past (Shirley MacLaine, Hector Elizondo, Larry Miller) the present (Julia Roberts, Jamie Foxx, Kathy Bates) and the future (Bradley Cooper, Taylor Lautner, Taylor Swift [maaaybe]). And for the record, Taylor Swift wasn’t awful here, but I don’t think this was more than a flavour of the month thing or that she should take any starring roles too soon.

Valentine’s Day is a good dose of fun amidst all the more serious suff that’s out there right now. You won’t regret seeing it (even after Valentine’s Day) because fun is not a once a year thing and there should be more comedies like this and less like When in Rome. The door o’ love is open here, so jump into your swan boat and float down a river of fun performances and lots of laughs.
*Stills courtesy of New Line Cinema

Read more...