Date Night (2010)

In a TV-comedy dream pairing come true on the big screen, funny guy Steve Carell and funny gal Tina Fey join forces in this madcap comedy. Perhaps an homage to the screwball comedies of yesteryear, Date Night has all the wit, action, and heart to please just about any willing viewer. It may not be an instant classic or live up to all the hype of its lead pair, but it’s got it where it counts.

Phil and Claire Foster (Carell and Fey) are in a bit of a rut. Married with children, approaching middle age (if not already there), and caught in a boring and repetitive suburban New Jersey routine, they are looking for a little excitement in life. When they go to a hip restaurant in New York City and steal a table from a no-show reservation, they get far more than they hoped for. In a case of mistaken identity, Phil and Claire find themselves running for their lives from gangsters and crooked cops.

It’s not so much the fact that mistaken identity comedies have been around forever that hurts this film. Rather, it’s the fact that two of the top funny people in the TV/movie business are in this film and the end result is not wall-to-wall funny. Yes, there are a lot of laughs to be had here but those laughs are not always the hearty belly-laughs that signify a great comedy. Carell and Fey are only working with the lines they’re given, so a fair amount of the blame needs to go to the scriptwriter for giving such moderately funny lines to such a dynamic duo. Still though, you would think that talented comedians would have tried a little ad-libbing to improve a scene or two.

Another attribute of the film that works both ways (good and bad) is the inclusion of so many colorful supporting characters. On one hand, it helps distract the audience from the fact that Carell and Fey aren’t being as funny as they ‘ought’ to be. Mark Wahlberg is hilarious as the shirtless security guy who repeatedly comes to the Fosters’ rescue. At the same time, it’s the kind of over-the-top stereotype character you aren’t surprised to see in a chase-comedy. A lot of the supporting roles are like this, which makes for some good initial laughs but the conceit wears out the longer you’re exposed to these folk.

What holds the film together is the likableness of the Fosters. Unless you’re deeply cynical towards middle-class, white suburban couples, it’s easy to root for them. They’re nice people who are just trying to keep life interesting- something most of us yearn for at some point in our own lives. It may help to be married, possibly with children too, to pick up some of the subtler quips and nuances. Young adults expecting something Hangover-esque will be disappointed but the rest of us will, at the very least, enjoy ourselves.

That’s the kind of movie Date Night is- one where you’re likely to enjoy yourself if nothing else. That’s certainly not a bad thing but it doesn’t make for a very memorable viewing experience. It’s a movie you wouldn’t mind tuning into if you come across it on the TV or, if you own it, one that you can pop in just about any time for a few easy laughs. While it would be nice for Hollywood to get back to making great films consistently, there’s also a need for more above-average comedies like this one.

RATING: 3.25 out of 5

The Happening (2008)

For months, this film was hyped up to be one of the big event films of the summer. Boasting a talented lead actor and a decent supporting crew, this was M. Night Shyamalan’s first R-rated film. After a pair of films that received lukewarm receptions, it seemed that Shyamalan was laying it all on the table. That could only be a good sign right?

A wave of suicidal behavior, beginning in Central Park, sweeps through New York City, causing mass hysteria. Soon enough, more major cities in the northeast are affected. Is it bio-terrorists? Chemical warfare? Elliot Moore (Mark Wahlberg), a science teacher in Philadelphia, isn’t going to wait around to find out. He shuttles his wife Alma (Zooey Deschanel), along with his colleague Julian (John Leguizamo) and Julian’s daughter Jess onto a train headed for Harrisburg. He hopes that moving away from the urban center will eliminate their risk of exposure to whatever is killing people.

The train stops mid-route because all radio contact has been lost with both Harrisburg and Philadelphia. Julian hitches a ride headed for New Jersey to see if he can find his wife, who is stuck in Princeton. Elliot, Alma, Jess and the others find little time to relax as people start succumbing to the mysterious ailment. It seems nowhere is safe, forcing the trio and a few others to flee across suburban and rural landscapes in an attempt to stay one step ahead of certain death.

The mystery behind the killing phenomenon in The Happening is really quite good. In fact, the idea is brilliant- have people running from something they can’t see, hear, touch, taste or smell. Shymalan did wonders with delivering terror from unknown sources in the past, so I can see why he returned to this theme. The problem lies in the execution. When the only thing a film has going for it is its gorgeous scenery, you know there’s a problem.

Less than a week before the film premiered, M. Night Shyamalan stated in an interview that the film was an excellent B movie, which was his intent. This was probably news to the marketing department at 20th Century Fox, because they were putting out very serious-toned advertisements. Perhaps if it had been marketed as a B movie that shouldn’t be taken seriously, moviegoers would have responded more kindly. That strategy worked for Snakes on a Plane and the recent Piranha 3D but those films didn’t even take themselves seriously, let alone expect the audience to. The Happening sends out mixed signals that don’t mesh with the director’s prospective damage control comments.

The biggest disappointment is the reason for the killing phenomenon. Plants, which can evidently produce toxins to eliminate threats in more isolated environments (science, please!), gang up on the human race and unleash a wave of neurotoxins capable of mass extinction. This is proposed as a solution early on and is adopted pretty swiftly by Elliot, so I have no shame in revealing it here. Besides, if spoiling the cause prevents you from seeing this film, you can thank me later. This leads to a lot of ridiculous worried glances being cast towards any number of plants for much of the film.

Almost as disappointing as the chlorophyll-composed killers is the acting. Mark Wahlberg was nominated for Best Supporting Actor in The Departed, so his performance here boggles the mind. His delivery is like that of a hopeless wannabe not even fit for the Z-List of acting talent. Zooey Deschanel dispenses her typically vacant performance except this is not a film where that will work. It seems like she can only portray awkwardness, rather than fear and sadness. The chemistry between her and Wahlberg is paper thin at best, making it hard to buy into the rebuilding of their strained relationship.

There are also a lot of things that don’t make any sense. For instance, people take refuge inside homes and other buildings to escape the neurotoxins in the air. Correct me if I’m wrong, but won’t those neurotoxins find their way into the air ducts of that house? It’s not like the angel of death passing you by because there’s blood on your doorjamb. But hey, if an everyday household air filter can put the brakes on the end of the world, I’d like to buy some stock in whoever makes those things.

If the film had been played up for laughs rather than being unintentionally funny, I could buy into the B-movie bit. The Happening could have been an amusing romp through 50s and 60s era paranoia-film nostalgia. Too bad for everyone involved that the film starts out acting all serious and dramatic. You can’t put up that kind of front and then yell ‘psych!’

I’ve enjoyed all of M. Night Shyamalan’s films on some level up until now. It’s sad to see a once-bright star go dim but I’d like to think this is just a momentary flicker. In a few years M. Night will be back on top again, stunning us all.

RATING: 1.25 out of 5

The Departed** (2006)

After finally seeing this film, I was surprised that it managed to win Best Picture at the Oscars. When I think of the Oscars I typically think of films like Gone With the Wind and Casablanca, or West Side Story and (sadly) Shakespeare in Love. Majestic in scope and in some cases artsy, these are the movies that seem to typify what is Oscar material.

The Departed, at first glance is anything but. This is such a guy movie it’s not even funny.

A tough, raw, intense police drama with a stellar cast (can any film with a Baldwin in it claim to have an all-star cast?) grabs you by the throat and won’t let go until it's done telling its story.

Okay, that’s a bit much. There are some slow scenes and it's not all action. In fact, there are some points where I found myself confused as to just what is going on. Fortunately, director Martin Scorsese straightens out this convoluted thriller come the final reel (and what a reel!).

This is a very smart film and treats its thinking viewers with a myriad of twists, turns and plenty of jolts along the way. I can almost guarantee that you will gasp and/or flinch at least once during this movie from all the drama. The Departed is simply a film that is very well put together. With this in mind, it really isn’t so surprising that it won Best Picture. It also helps that the Academy felt particularly bad this past year about neglecting Scorsese all this time.

The Departed certainly fits into the lexicon of Best Picture winners that are very well made, like Platoon, Rocky and The French Connection. Maybe it’s not quite the best picture of the year, but you’d have a tough time faulting the Academy for it.

And I guess that’s what The Departed boils down to- it may not be the greatest picture of the year, but it is one of the most complete in terms of its scope. The acting is brilliant and believable (notably only the third time I can honestly say that I enjoyed Leonardo DiCaprio's performance); Scorsese and his crew work their magic with editing, the soundtrack and score; and the story itself is very well written. But that can’t quite make up for two hugely important factors- 1) This film is a remake of film from Hong Kong called Infernal Affairs, and 2) while the film has many strengths, it doesn’t quite have the staying power that other Best Picture winners have had.

While I have never seen Infernal Affairs, and although this American version was rewritten and likely differs in ways from the original, it’s impossible to escape the stigma that a film is a remake. Instead of Hong Kong, we get Boston. A newly graduated policeman (Leonardo DiCaprio) is hired to infiltrate a notorious gangster’s (Jack Nicholson) criminal empire. Along the way there is denial, deception and death. Things are never quite what they seem, which is the film’s key strength, but it is a bit of a slight to the mind of the viewer to realize that the premise did not originate from the filmmakers presenting it. This isn’t the first time this story has been told, and we have to wonder, has it been done better?

Whatever the answer to that question is, The Departed is undeniably one of the best films of 2006. Whether it was intended to be commercially successful or just appreciable from a film lover's point of view is irrelevant. It was a huge hit, but I doubt it will be remembered as fondly as many of Scorsese’s other works. It is, to date, Scorsese’s highest rated film on my list, but hardly the most memorable.

In the pantheon of Oscar winners for Best Picture, I have a feeling that The Departed is more likely to fall by the wayside like The Last Emperor or The English Patient rather than engraining itself in minds and becoming a commonplace reference in our culture like Forrest Gump, Rain Man or Silence of the Lambs.

Good, but not quite great.

RATING: 3.75 out of 5

Planet of the Apes (2001)

The big problem with remaking a legendary film (especially one with such an iconic and oft referenced/mocked ending) is that everyone already knows what’s going to happen. The middle of the film may be wildly different (as some remakes try to be), but the beginning and end points are already known to us.

Tim Burton brings his creep-tastic directing skills to create some very nice imagery but a mediocre script. Burton’s films typically have a dark feel to them and this is no exception. The landscapes work really well, but "Marky" Mark Wahlberg is out of his element and out of his league here. It doesn’t help that the script is bad, laden with intimations at current politics and how our society is really no better off. Pile on top of this some ridiculous special effects, a shameful overuse of wire work, a weak supporting cast, hideously cheesy references to the original, and an ending that made me say out loud “Well, that was stupid,” and you get this underwhelming example of why Hollywood doesn’t need to remake really good movies.

RATING: 1.5 out of 5

Boogie Nights (1997)

Wildly weird, shamelessly indulgent and intentionally vulgar, Boogie Nights is director Paul Thomas Anderson’s second major motion picture, the first of his films he was truly happy with, and much, much more.

It seems as if it is a combination swan song and memoir for the “glory days” of pornographic films, while also being a dramatic, complex character study. Boogie Nights is first and foremost an ensemble film. Though his next film, Magnolia, would divvy up screen time more evenly among its cast, Boogie Nights remains largely focused on Eddie Adams (played by Mark Wahlberg) and his path in and out and back into the porno scene.

It’s the 70’s and Eddie wants desperately to become a porn star and he knows just the man to see. Burt Reynolds plays a deliciously shifty porn producer in what may be his best acting since Deliverance. In fact, the entire cast turns out tremendous performances. Each character really has depth to them (a testament to Anderson’s craft), experiencing joy, sorrow and anger. The only way to do this for all the major players in an ensemble film though is to make it long. Ticking in at just over 2 and a half hours, Boogie Nights may be more than some people can handle.

The film runs through Eddie’s foray into porn, the creation of his alter ego (Dirk Diggler) and his rise and fall through porn stardom in the 70’s and 80’s. The sleeze of the industry and the indulgence of the time period are expertly crafted and captured, leaving you feeling a little overwhelmed and unsure as to whether or not it’s okay to like the film.

But it is okay to like. A bit heavy handed and providing more detail than you would probably want, but it is certainly okay to like Boogie Nights.

(I will warn those who are on the prudish side that this film, being about porn, contains lots of sex and nudity and a healthy dose of language and violence- not for the faint at heart)

RATING: 3.5 out of 5