Made of Honor (2008)

I have not seen My Best Friend’s Wedding but I’m going to assume that there are some recycled and gender-reversed elements of that popular film at play in this 2008 rom-com. That being said, Made of Honor might actually be faring better than it ought to if it is something of a rehash. Aside from its strapping lead man, some witty dialog and a few amusing scenes, there isn’t a lot going for this mostly formulaic film.

After getting acquainted under amusing circumstances in college, Tom Bailey, Jr. (Patrick Dempsey) and Hannah (Michelle Monaghan) spend the next ten years as best friends. Tom designed the coffee collar and is loaded to the gills and keeps himself occupied as a serial dater when he’s not hanging out with Hannah as friends. Hannah strives for a more responsible life, working for a museum but still enjoys the companionship of Tom.

When business whisks Hannah away from the States for a while, Tom is bored and misses her. He comes to the realization that he has loved her all along and decides to ask her out when she returns. Unfortunately for him, Hannah returns to America with a wealthy Scottish fiancé and throws Tom for a loop by asking him to be her Maid of Honor. It’s a tightrope walk as Tom has to play nice with Hannah’s jealous bridesmaids while planning a wedding that he desperately wants to break up.

That pretty much tells you all you need to know, right? The concept of best friends realizing they love each other has been played out enough times that it barely fazes you anymore. The filmmakers dress it up with the amusing idea of having the bride-to-be select a man as her Maid of Honor. It may work for women who have experience in the cutthroat realm of being a bridesmaid but it seems like a silly construct to me. If he’s her best friend, wouldn’t it be logical just to make him a groomsman?

Perhaps I’m being too harsh on this film. Having a man as the Maid of Honor could have been used for a crude, Frat Pack comedy featuring nothing but trashy humor and vulgarity. The romantic aspect of the film holds it back from becoming sophomoric but it doesn’t help it avoid the general silliness that most chick flicks fall victim to. But those are the trappings that bring women into the theaters and until that changes, we will continue to have run of the mill films like this.

Of all the actors who are doing romantic comedies these days, Patrick Dempsey is among the easiest to watch. Perhaps it’s because he’s on a primetime soap/drama (Grey’s Anatomy), where he plays a similar charming and loveable sort of guy. He hasn’t done any action movies and even his moonlighting in the horror genre (Scream 3) he was a sympathetic kind of role. Given his resume, there’s not much in the way of preconceived notions about what films he should be doing and none of his roles have been iconic to the point where you have a hard time thinking of him as any other character. He also usually does a pretty good job with his characters, so I can’t hold it against him for sticking with what works.

There are a few nice location shots with some beautiful scenery but that’s not enough to make up for Made of Honor's predictability. That won’t bother the target audience of the film though. Women love this stuff and, seeing as I am not a woman, I do not. If you’re in the mood for silly, romantic escapism, you could certainly do a lot worse.

RATING: 2.5 out of 5

He's Just Not That Into You (2009)

Despite my long-standing feud with the chick flick genre, I refuse to give in to the desire to use the un-clever and obvious comment that this film’s title sets itself up for. If you’re thinking of popping in a heart-warming and mushy romantic comedy, this is not the film you want. Sure, there’s plenty of fluff, but this is a sunny path with plenty of rocks in it.

The hub of this ensemble is Gigi (Ginnifer Goodwin), a slightly scatterbrained single who reads far too much into the actions and words of the men she dates. She’s in love with the idea of being in love and is repeatedly crushed when things don’t work out the way she thought. An off-the cuff conversation with a bartender named Alex (Justin Long) leads to an odd friendship. Alex tells it like it is and illuminates Gigi to how guys work when they are or are not into a girl. This leads to Gigi constantly calling Alex for advice in a variety of situations.

Alex’s friend Connor (Kevin Connolly) is the exact opposite. He’s hung up solely on his long-time best friend Anna (Scarlett Johansson) but is afraid to tell her how he feels about her. She’s not into him in quite that way. Anna also happens to be in the early stages of an affair with Ben (Bradley Cooper), who is married to Gigi’s co-worker Janine (Jennifer Connelly). Their marriage is on rocky grounds to start but Janine is desperate to try and save it. Between Gigi’s new intel on how men avoid commitment and Janine’s desperation, their co-worker Beth (Jennifer Aniston) decides to break up with her marriage-phobic boyfriend Neil (Ben Affleck).

As you can tell, there is an awful lot going on at one time in this film. Bouncing back and forth between the storylines doesn’t give you whiplash but it certainly makes for a frustrating viewing experience. Gigi and Alex are fun to watch because Alex is almost always spot on with his observations about men and desperate single women. Gigi on her own is a tad annoying though. The slow destruction of Janine and Ben’s marriage is powerful but not exactly pleasant to watch, what with all the fluff the other sub-plots hold. Conner and Anna are equally tough to watch because he’s such a stoop for a girl who will probably never reciprocate. Finally, Beth and Neil serve little purpose whatsoever other than to add commentary about long-term, unmarried couples.

If the point of the film is merely to make observations about a select few relationship scenarios, then it succeeds. But, if that is the case, then it’s a pretty cheap way to provide entertainment and the construct is absurd. It’s bad enough that there are eight main characters plus Drew Barrymore thrown in to boot. This forces He’s Just Not That Into You is forced to split up its 129-minute run time a little too much. Some characters are more developed, leaving others feeling flat and (as with Beth and Neil) mostly unnecessary.

Part of me wants to blast the film for having all of the characters connected in one way or another but I loved both Magnolia and Crash, which use a similar six-degrees-of-separation approach to tell an engrossing story. Perhaps it’s the genre in general or the fact that some of the characters turned me off that prevented me from being fully engaged in the story. All I can really say is that this film lacks that special quality that successful ensemble films possess.

Women are the target audience for this film. I am positive of that. With that in mind, it will likely strike a chord with a lot of women who have been through frustrating and uncertain relationship. Men will enjoy the film for Alex’s spot-on assessment of relationship but they will also cringe at the chick-flick cop-out that comes at the end.

He’s Just Not That Into You suffers from trying to hit too many issues. It probably needs another hour for all the characters to truly develop properly but who would really want to watch a three-hour chick flick? I sure don’t. Despite some clever dialog spread throughout, there isn’t much special about this film and its sugary, chick-flick marketing betrays the emotional darkness that lies within its reels.

RATING: 2.5 out of 5

The Blind Side* (2009)

It’s easy to look at the setup of this film and feel your inner cynic rolling his eyes. Letting Disney get their hands on a true story involving sports, an underdog, culture clashes and a dose of family values would seem dangerous. Disney’s track record for these kinds of stories has been spotty at best and usually dripping with schmaltz. Fortunately, The Blind Side doesn’t give in to the usual Disney trappings. Instead, it delivers an emotionally charged, if not semi-predictable, film that works on all levels.

Teenager Michael Oher has been bounced around all his life. From foster homes to his friend’s couch, ‘Big Mike’ finally catches a break when his friend’s father convinces a private school athletics coach to admit the boys for their athletic abilities. At school, Michael befriends a younger boy named Sean Tuohy, Jr. (S.J. for short). This proves to be life-changing when S.J.’s mother feels a sudden surge of compassion for the down-on-his-luck teen.

The Tuohy family takes Michael in, temporarily at first, but Mrs. Tuohy (Sandra Bullock) in particular forms an attachment to the boy. Putting her Christian faith where it counts, she and the family move towards adopting Michael as their son. Along the way, Mrs. Tuohy faces criticism from her friends who are shocked that a well-to-do white woman would even want a lower class African American boy in her home, and Michael faces adversity at school in order to stay on the football team. Football unites Michael and the Tuohy’s as Michael comes to play an important role both on and off the field.

As I mentioned with my review for Invictus, these based-on-a-true-story underdog tales need to be given a little extra context. Had this not been based on the life of a real person, it would have been much easier to skewer Disney for what would feel like a paint-by-numbers upward mobility tale. But because of that ‘true story’ disclaimer, it’s easier to sit back and enjoy this film knowing that it is based, in some part, on fact. Had Disney gone too far with artistic and storytelling liberties, someone would have made a big stink about it.

Nobody made a big stink about The Blind Side, though it’s not hard to pinpoint a few areas where liberties may have been taken. Parts that are played up for emotional impact actually work though, especially when we explore Michael’s former world of poverty, gangs and downward spiraling behavior. Seeing Mrs. Tuohy descend into this world in an effort to help Michael is enough to make any middle class suburbanite nervous. These scenes in particular are probably what propelled Sandra Bullock to her Oscar win for this film, as the rest of it feels pretty generic.

Bullock’s character is tenacious though. Coupled with Michael’s desire to better himself, Bullock plays a believably defensive surrogate mother for her adopted son. The supporting characters all get the job done as well, with youngster Jae Head as the lovably quirky and over-exuberant S.J. Tuohy. Country artist Tim McGraw continues his streak of respectable performances as well as a Southern dad doing his best to aide and support Michael. No one is flat, stale or too over the top for their own good, which is another major victory for Disney.

One interesting side note and word of warning to some of you- don’t expect to see a lot of sports action from this sports story. Most of the film covers Michael’s struggle with schoolwork, self-esteem and building relationships with his new family. These are obviously the most important elements of the film but there is a dash of football every now and then. Just don’t be expecting something along the lines of Friday Night Lights and you won’t be disappointed.

There’s a lot to like about this film. It’s funny, moving, clever and heartfelt all at the same time. Are some parts easy to see coming? Of course, but that’s not this movie’s fault. Despite the number of poor true-story films that get made, and despite their familiar structure, America loves a good underdog tale, true or not. When they can be as consistent and solid as The Blind Side, they are worth remembering.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

Rent (2005)

On the night my wife and I watched this film, we were supposed to watch Rocky Balboa. When the DVD we checked out from the local library turned out to be too scratched to watch beyond the first 30 minutes, I was disappointed. After watching this Broadway hit adapted to film, I was beyond disappointed. Musical theater may be alive and well in New York City but the journey from Broadway glamour to Hollywood glory is a map that’s proven difficult to find.

The story begins late in 1989 and spans a little over a year. The main characters are young, struggling artists and their friends. There’s a Jewish wannabe filmmaker, an ex-junkie musician with writer’s block, an anarchist philosophy professor, a drag queen, a night club dancer and ‘performance artist.’ Several of these characters are HIV-positive and suffering from AIDS. The film documents their struggles to make due, fulfill their goals and find success without ‘selling out.’

I’ve never seen a stage production of Rent, so I have no idea if the film makes any great departures from the source material. What it doesn’t deviate from enough is the staginess of many of its musical numbers. I’m always willing to cut a musical some slack for including unrealistic elements to musical numbers (i.e. dancing atop restaurant tables while singing and not getting kicked out). I’m nowhere near cynical enough to dock points for that kind of stuff.

What I can and will dock points for is framing a scene as if it were being performed on a stage. Blocking for the stage and choreographing for film are two separate beasts that should not be treated as if they are interchangeable. There are times when this film under-utilizes the skills of its editor in order to show off some extended choreography. There are certainly times to run extended shots and refrain from constant quick cuts but the wonderful part of film is that musical numbers don’t have to consist of just a handful of shots. You should use the added dimension film provides to take us through the musical number rather than watching from a distance, which happens a few times too many.

Rent does a pretty good job of creating and bringing us into a self-contained world and several interior sets look convincing enough. The trouble lies mostly with the exteriors. The city block that our characters live on looks too much like an elaborate stage prop, especially during outdoor musical numbers. With a $40 million budget, you’d think they could have done some exterior location shoots.

One crucial element that I found the film to be lacking is quality singing. That’s right- Rent falls short in probably the most important component to its genre. I’m no music expert but it sounds to me like two or three of the actors are off key quite a bit. That’s very distracting and makes it a hard song to enjoy. There is also a lot of what I call 'singposition' (singing exposition). Regular lines don’t need to be sung. As far as I’m concerned, the songs in musicals serve as a fun tangent to the actual story. If you have important information to convey to the audience, just say it and leave the songs for expressing emotions and other fluffy stuff. Otherwise you run the risk of having too many musical moments in a film, which can actually turn some viewers off.

While Rent tries to be a lot of things, I felt that the filmmakers could have included more of the struggles of the gay and HIV-positive characters. Sure, the filmmaker character has his eyes opened to their world but the audience never sees enough of it to feel the weight bearing down on their shoulders. We hear AIDS patients talk about some issues but even the character who dies of AIDS doesn’t look as far gone physically as he probably should have. The film could have been more powerful had we seen more of the end-of-life struggle many AIDS patients suffer.

Also, there was only the slightest bit of alienation and mistrust directed at the gay and HIV-positive characters. This is the late 80s and early 90s we’re talking about, folks. Anyone who remembers that era can tell you there would have been more prejudice and paranoia aimed at some of our leads.

On a personal note, I absolutely abhor any glorification or romanticizing of the bohemian lifestyle. Living in poverty is not glorious or virtuous, it’s living in poverty. Some of the characters come off a tad pretentious in their aims of living like a free spirit in order to maintain their artistic integrity. There does come a point in life where you need to drop the ego, suck it up and admit that things aren’t working. There’s nothing wrong with moving on to Plan B while still holding onto something you’re passionate about. The whole free-wheeling, live-for-love stuff always makes me want to retch.

Fans of the stage production will almost certainly enjoy this film but I have to wonder how broad a target audience was ever really possible. Elements of the story are intriguing and can even prove informative if you know nothing about AIDS, but it doesn’t seem to go far enough to hammer home the chilling reality behind the disease. Rent is one of those films with a pre-fabricated audience that largely doesn’t include me and it struggles to make a clean transition from stage to screen.

RATING: 2.5 out of 5

Rocky Balboa (2006)

After ending things on a bad note with Rocky V, Sylvester Stallone let his pugilist franchise lie dormant for a decade and a half. The announcement of a brand new, final installment caught many by surprise. How could Stallone, flirting with 60 at the time, possibly think another Rocky film was a good idea? How could any film involving a post-middle aged boxer work on any level? Expectations were low, so is it any wonder that Rocky Balboa surpasses them?

Almost two decades into retirement, Rocky’s life is only a few steps up from where he left off in Rocky V. He owns a restaurant in Philadelphia, where he tells patrons about his glory days as a boxer. His beloved wife, Adrian, passed away a few years ago and his son Robert is trying to make it on his own in the corporate world without any help from his dad. This leaves Balboa alone in his small home in the city. His constant reminiscing is finally growing to bother his brother-in-law, Paulie, but living in the past has become a staple of the former champion’s day-to-day existence.

When ESPN runs a virtual boxing simulation of current and past champions, Rocky Balboa (in his prime) tops the current champion, Mason “The Line” Dixon (Antonio Tarver). Inspired by this fresh taste of glory, Balboa applies for a new boxing license just to see if he still has anything in the tank. Everyone thinks he’s crazy but Dixon’s manager proposes an exhibition match between the two. Rocky calls together the old gang to help get his body into fighting shape.

Is the premise completely ridiculous? Of course it is. What current boxing champion would have the gall to challenge a near retirement-age man to even an exhibition match? Win and you’re scum for beating an old man. Lose and you’re a phony who got beat by an old man. This would never happen in real life, but it’s Rocky we’re talking about here, so nothing is impossible!

As unlikely as this film may be, this is the conclusion Rocky fans had hoped for all along. Rocky Balboa hearkens back to the original in many ways: Rocky is given a chance to prove himself against a current champion in an exhibition match; he goes through all the old-school training exercises to get ready for the fight; he battles feelings of loneliness and uncertainty leading up to the fight; and he leaves it all in the ring. It’s not a carbon copy of the original (that would have been met with derision), but the similarities are many.

I don’t think Stallone was looking to replicate the magic of the original but it is clear that he is nostalgic for it. I think Rocky Balboa was made partly under the assumption that moviegoers and fans of the series would be nostalgic for most of the Rocky saga as well. Stallone capitalizes on this by dishing out dozens of references to the character’s journey and legacy. Sometimes characters reminisce about moments from past films. Other times new things are happening in familiar locations. And then there are the subtle things- stances, framing and a number of non-verbal elements that remind you of how much you enjoyed the early movies.

The script has its shaky parts and the film moves at a sluggish pace until Rocky sees the virtual fight on TV but once we get to the crux of the matter, it’s full steam ahead. The boxing scenes have always been done well throughout the series and Rocky Balboa is no exception. I’m sure it took some careful choreography and editing to make it seem like Rocky is truly able to keep pace with his younger opponent. Yes, Stallone bulked up for the role but you have to wonder how hard film was on his aging body. The illusion is grand though, making Rocky a believable hero once more.

The absence of Adrian doesn’t hurt the film quite like you would expect. Mrs. Balboa was always Rocky’s moral center and the source of his inspiration. Rocky is in a bit of a lurch, especially with his son trying to avoid association with him but he finds inspiration from an unlikely source- a neighborhood woman who was just a trouble-making kid when Rocky first rose to prominence. Their friendship builds awkwardly, but it helps keep the formula fresh. Rocky has an outlet for his frustration and innermost thoughts and a personal side project all in one. It’s not a romantic relationship like the one he had with Adrian but it’s all he needs to keep his mind in the fight.

It doesn’t soar to the heights of the original but Rocky Balboa more than makes up for Rocky V’s laughable almost-ending to the series. The formerly larger-than-life megaplex hero is brought back to size but still gives him the chance to puff his chest with pride. I don’t know if Rocky Balboa ends the series just right but it does end it well. It’s a familiar ending that drapes our beloved boxer with the kind of dignity that has been lacking from the franchise since Rocky II. That alone makes the film worth it.

RATING: 3.25 out of 5

Rocky V (1990)

After years of training montages, marathon fights and perfectly-timed comebacks, Rocky Balboa finally hangs up the gloves (but only for 16 years). This was originally the last installment of the Rocky series and it has been an object of scorn and ridicule since its release. Universally panned as the worst film of the franchise, I had always wondered whether or not Rocky V deserved all the animosity. Having finally seen it, I have my answer.

The film picks up immediately after Rocky’s triumph over Ivan Drago in Russia. In the locker room, something is seriously wrong with Rocky. The iron-fisted soviet all but turned Balboa’s brain into mush. Doctors discover brain damage and tell the Italian Stallion that his career is over- one more fight could kill him. Upon returning to America, Rocky and Adrian discover their lives are in ruin. Adrian’s brother Paulie signed over power of attorney to their accountant, who squandered all of their money away. Their lives now in the gutter, the Balboa’s move back to the slums from whence they came.

Retaining possession of Mickey’s gym, Rocky uses it as a meager source of income. This turns out to be a blessing when a talented up-and-comer from Oklahoma named Tommy Gunn seeks Rocky out for training. Rocky guides his pupil along the road to stardom but Tommy is coaxed away by the allure of superstardom at the hands of a slimy big-time promoter. When this backfires, Tommy seeks Balboa out in an attempt to break out from under his former mentor’s shadow.

I was surprised to find myself enjoying this film for much of its runtime. Unlike die-hard Rocky fans, I liked the move away from the standard Rocky format. Watching Rocky struggle to build himself back up and deal with family issues was a breath of fresh air for a series that had become a joke. Had this film been just another road map to yet another unfathomable victory, I’d like to think that people would finally start to catch on. I mean, Balboa defeated the world’s ultimate fighter in Ivan Drago and melted hearts across the USSR. What could you possibly expect him to do next?

In all likelihood, no matter what the content, Rocky V was doomed from the start. There was nowhere further up the great chain of being for Rocky to climb, so he had to go down. Nobody likes seeing their heroes get older and fail, so I understand why Rocky’s freefall back into the slums of Philadelphia irritated so many. But character development demands some sacrifices and I think Stallone got it right by having Rocky develop a new fighter much in his own image.

Tommy Gunn is, at first, a likeable guy. He is determined and thirsty for knowledge. It’s clear that, despite the brain damage, Rocky is a pretty good teacher and trainer, ensuring that Tommy doesn’t try to jump too far too fast. Training Tommy takes over Rocky’s life and he loses touch with his son. Usually I abhor family bonding subplots but this one makes sense and it works. Rocky isn’t exactly the brightest crayon in the box so it’s understandable that he could get that kind of tunnel vision. It’s not that he’s a lazy parent, he’s just dumb like that.

Having become so close with the world of professional boxing while making the previous four films, Sylvester Stallone seems to be imparting some judgment on the million-dollar hype machine that evolved over the years. There are sleazy promoters using naïve talent for personal gain and plenty of underlings and material possessions at their disposal to lure boxers away from the noble path. It makes me laugh to suggest that boxing is in any way a noble profession but Rocky does represent the untainted side of the sport. He tries his best to instill virtue into his protégé but the snakes win out. I can’t help but wonder if this film opened a few eyes to the dark side of boxing, leading to its rapid decline in popularity by the end of the 90s. Or maybe they were as miffed as I was with the way this boxing movie ended and gave up on the sport altogether.

Rocky V is one of those rare films that completely blows it all in the last act. Up until an idiotic teacher-vs.-student street fight, this film was pretty good. Nothing overly remarkable, but at least worth watching. Then, as Tommy Gunn takes on his mentor in an attempt to prove himself the better fighter, Rocky, gives us something even better than a training montage (and by better I mean ordering filet mignon and getting chicken nuggets)- a rousing barrage of flashbacks to all of his best come-from behind moments and even a visit from the ghost of his old trainer Mickey! With that, our middle-aged hero defeats the young man for the hollowest victory of the series.

For 16 years, the remained as the last film of the series and I’m sure Stallone spent those years looking at this film trying to figure out where he went wrong. Sabotaged by a schlocky ending, Rocky V is actually a decent film. Some of the character growth elements would be recycled to better effect in the redemptive and final sequel, Rocky Balboa. It’s really your choice as to whether you want to acknowledge this rough draft of a finale or skip right over to the finished copy.

RATING: 2.25 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

28 Weeks Later (2007)

Did it feel good to make this film? I only ask because it was borderline painful to watch. I love the predecessor to this idiotic sequel. In fact, 28 Days Later is one of the better horror films ever made. I need to get around to watching it again, because it probably deserves a higher rating. After its international success, they just had to make a follow-up, no matter how complete the original may have been. The end result is a treat for splatter fans and a turn-off for those of us who were captivated by the intelligence of the original.

First we see a clip of a man struggling to barricade his home from an onslaught of the infected masses terrorizing the countryside. (For those who didn’t see the original, animal rights activists break into a research facility and let loose apes infected with a rage inhibitor that is passable to humans.) The man is unable to save his wife but he gets away in a boat on the river running behind their property. As the title suggests, we fast-forward to 28 weeks later. The man, Don (Robert Carlyle), is acting as caretaker in a secure colony in the heart of London.

The colony, being run by American and NATO forces, is slowly bringing people back to Britain in an attempt to rebuild. Don’s children, who were in Spain during the outbreak, join Don in the colony but their curiosity gets the best of them. They sneak out into the countryside to find their old house and retrieve a picture of their mother. Instead, they find their mother alive but a symptomless carrier of the virus. She is brought back to the colony by security forces for observation. Don uses his security clearances to meet with his wife but he becomes fully infected after kissing her. Don goes on a rampage, causing a swift-moving outbreak within the colony, threatening everyone.

Maybe I’m just too sensible and realistic but there are too many gaffes in this film to enjoy it. Critics liked it for the most part but I can’t figure out why. Anyone can shoot enough holes into 28 Weeks Later to render it more fit to be Swiss cheese than cinema. Let’s begin with the easy stuff:

What’s the most common problem with horror movies in general? Bad decisions. This film is rife with them. For starters, what sensible child would even think about attempting to sneak out of a secure compound just to find a picture of their mother? Secondly, why would security forces bring an infected individual into the heart of their secure colony? Do you expect me to believe there are no outlying facilities they could use for observation? Third but probably not lastly, I don’t care how much you love someone; if they are infected with a nation-crushing virus, keep your hands to yourself unless told otherwise!

A problem unique to horror sequels is the ill-conceived notion that you have to up the ante. More often than not, this escalation leads to a higher death toll, more violence and more gore. This appeases hard-core splatter fans because their insatiable thirst for blood-spilling, limb-removing carnage knows no end. For those of us who aren’t trying to build up a tolerance for gratuitous gore, 28 Weeks Later offers plenty of opportunities to ponder what kind of story elements could have been included had we not been subjected to every other infected human vomiting up blood. Perhaps a plot hole could have been filled in or characters defined better. Instead, we get zombie spew. Gee, thanks.

Part of the problem is that the filmmakers lose sight of what made 28 Days Later so riveting. It’s not the blood and guts but the human drama. If people want to see gratuitous violence, let them watch the latest Saw movie or some other torture-porn dreck. Don’t dilute an intelligent film with a populist sequel. What’s shocking is that many of the people involved with the first film helped produce this one. Maybe their quest for ‘bigger and badder’ clouded their eyes to the fact that their story wasn’t up to snuff.

I like the idea of using children in the sequel but they are used in the wrong way. In the first installment, there was a teenage girl as one of the supporting characters. She was innocent and thought like a rational human being. She was also used amidst the human drama of the film quite well. This time around, the two children are even younger and there is little threat to them beyond the infected. There’s a subconscious wiring in our brains that all but forces us to care about kids this young when they are put in danger but 28 Weeks Later left me feeling more manipulated than concerned. The kids are thrown from one perilous situation to another (sometimes via their own poor decisions) but it feels very paint-by-numbers.

The other big switch this time around is the theme of the film. Where the original was all about survival after the collapse of civilization, the sequel covers what the first film skipped over. I’m not sure watching the breakdown of society and seeing men and women turn on each other is as palatable as post-apocalyptic wandering. There’s more intrigue in seeing the aftermath and trying to imagine how things got the way they are. Seeing the world blow up before your eyes with no room for interpretation isn’t as engrossing. If they were trying to emphasize the fragility of building a society, it didn’t work. All I see is chaos being thrown at me.

There are some interesting things going on in the film but they are too few to make up for all the failed logic. The mutation of the virus to be transmittable by saliva is interesting but it was never explained by any scientists and it’s never brought up by anyone after Don goes berserk. His status as an infected person is different too. Unlike the mindless behavior exhibited in the first film, Don seems to retain some intellect and even plans some of his attacks. This also isn’t explained scientifically, which leaves you wondering if it is a mutation in the virus or just something the filmmakers thought would be ‘cool and scary.’

Naturally, the film closes with an open ending, paving the way for another possible sequel. The ending is a clear sign that the surviving characters made further bad decisions or were just plain irresponsible. There is promise in a story involving asymptomatic carriers of the virus and rebuilding society but 28 Weeks Later does not deliver anything close to it.

RATING: 1.75 out of 5

Coraline (2009)

Some might be tempted to call this film a modern Alice in Wonderland but to stop a description there would woefully mischaracterize this film as something of a knock-off. Truth be told, Coraline is a breath of fresh air amidst a sea of paint-by-numbers animated kids films. Not only is it more mature in its approach to children but it also features a mesmerizing combination of stop-motion animation and computer effects.

Coraline Jones does not like here living arrangements one bit. Her parents moved the family into an old house converted into apartments. While her parents work slavishly on completing a gardening catalog for a client, Coraline is left to entertain herself. The other residents of the apartment-house are old and very weird. The only young person around is the grandson of the landlady, who strikes Coraline as equally odd and a little annoying to boot. Feeling neglected and along, Coraline longs for an escape from her reality.

She gets just such an opening when she discovers a small door in the living room that opens up at night to a passageway to a much more desirable mirror world. In the Other World, Coraline’s Other Mother is affectionate and caring. Her Other Father is musically inclined and hard-working around the house. Coraline makes repeat visits to this Other World but is warned by a talking cat that all is not as it appears to be in this ideal getaway place. In time, Coraline learns the truth about the Other World, putting her in a dangerous conflict with her Other Mother.

There is a lot to like about Coraline, both the film and the character. Both are perfectly modern takes on familiar concepts. Coraline the girl is a believable creation. The creators clearly had a pulse on the tween attitude when committing this story to film. Kudos to Dakota Fanning for giving a voice to a charming yet witty young girl. Coraline has the right amount of sarcasm, venom and remorse in her voice and mannerisms to appease those film-goers who demand realism even in an animated film.

Accompanying the titular character is a well-rounded supporting cast. Even credit is again due to the animators and the voice actors (particularly to Terri Hatcher for being nothing short of creeptastic) for making the film flow with realism. This is not an old-school fairy tale where everything fits into certain generalizations or stereotypes. Lines are not so well-defined and intentions held back until just the right moments. Despite a few similarities to other child-fantasy-adventure tales, Coraline’s story is unique enough to avoid tipping its hand. This keeps the film fresh, entertaining and rewarding.

Like deep sea diving, Coraline gets darker the deeper you get into the tale. This is a great move because too few films are made for older children in mind. While it will probably be too scary for kids under eight years old, it’s perfect for everyone else. Tweens and teens will connect with the hip lead character while adults nod their head in agreement that Coraline is one sharp girl and the world presented is real enough (minus to gonzo neighbors at least). Parents may also see some of their own unintended failing in Coraline’s parents or at least see enough to vow not to be like that.

Don’t get me wrong, this isn’t going to be some John Hughes-ian tale that makes it seem like parents and children can find perfect common ground, living in harmony the rest of their days. It certainly won’t be a miracle film to bring families together but it will give them things to talk about. That’s at least a start, right? Then again, that’s a moot point because familial strengthening outside of the story isn’t one of the film’s goals to begin with.

As entertainment, it’s a hit. As art, it could very well be groundbreaking. The producers sank a lot of money into the technique behind Coraline’s seamless stop-motion animation, so you’re unlikely to see any indie directors springing for this kind of project. Still though, how many CGI films come out every year now? Even the good ones can get passed over because we’re becoming immune to the marvel of CGI. One could argue that, by using stop-motion animation, Coraline is taking the animation genre a step backward but consider this- as time-consuming as stop-motion is, Coraline was still less expensive than its CGI counterparts. I dare say that the choice to be different makes the film stand out all the more.

Everything about this film, foreground and background, is rich with detail you wouldn’t expect from a stop-motion animated film. A few digital effects thrown in help complete the illusion. There were times when I doubted Coraline was stop-motion. It just looks too good to be true. Thankfully, this is one case where it still is true.

Check this film out if you get the chance. It’s sassy, fun, scary and even has a good moral base to it. I may have to watch this one again. I fear I may have short-changed it on the rating.

RATING: 3.75 out of 5

Alice in Wonderland (1951)

This is a tough film to place. I have never studied, nor even read, Lewis Carroll’s Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland or Through the Looking Glass. I don’t know if that leaves me at a disadvantage when approaching this film from a critical perspective. Literary types go gaga over the source stories and artsy-fartsy types (not to mention recreational drug enthusiasts) adore the trippy animation employed by Disney’s team. Seeing as I don’t really fall into any of the above categories, it should come as little surprise that this film fails to get much of a reaction from me.

The young and lovely Alice grows tired of living within the strict rules of reality. Dreaming of a world unlike her own, she spies a White Rabbit hurrying along and talking to himself. Following the curious creature, Alice falls down his rabbit hole and into a world full of nonsense. Along her pursuit of the White Rabbit she meets various unique characters that have become timeless: the Mad Hatter, Tweedledee and Tweedledum, and the grinning Cheshire Cat, just to name a few.

Not many of the characters Alice meets along the way are helpful but her quest isn’t much to get excited about. Through most of the tale she is merely trying to catch up to the White Rabbit and find out where he is running to. She does a good job of staying on task, despite being bombarded by gibberish and nonsense at every turn. Once she gets to where the Rabbit is headed, her life is put in jeopardy by the headstrong Red Queen.

The story itself is interesting, despite going off on a tangent with the seemingly random vignette of ‘The Walrus and the Carpenter.’ Then again, there’s really not much to the story at all. Alice is trying to find the White Rabbit the whole time and eventually realizes what a mess a world of nonsense would be. I guess the point of the tale is for Alice to learn a simple lesson while encountering a world of bizarre people and creatures. In many ways, this is similar to a number of other children’s fantasy tales. Alice in Wonderland just happens to be wittier and smarter than most.

Disney keeps much of the manic wordplay that made Carroll’s stories popular with the literary crowd. It is fun to hear the double entendres and usage of dual-meaning words. It is also enjoyable to watch the weirdness play out. The Cheshire Cat is really the only animation marvel in the film though, as he fades in and out of existence with ease. Yes, there are plenty of creative settings but Alice features Disney’s plainest animation since Dumbo. That takes away from the visual impact that could have turned the film into a real mind-bender.

I understand why Disney played up the story for a family-friendly vibe but Alice in Wonderland misses the mark a hair for modern audiences. I don’t know how kids were back in the 50s but nowadays it’s mostly the under-10 crowd that goes to see Disney movies. Kids that young won’t get much of the wordplay and will be more likely to watch it on the surface as a goofy fantasy with funny characters. Parents may pop it in just to entertain the kids and not think much, but they’re apt to find their brains in overdrive processing the literary lunacy being cut loose.

The utter weirdness of Disney’s Alice in Wonderland has made it memorable for generations. I remember seeing it and reading the Diseny read-along-on-tape book when I was a kid. Do I remember it for being awesome and fun like Cinderella? Nope. I remember it for being weird and being creeped out by the Cheshire Cat. Elements of the story remain in our cultural consciousness and I believe that this animated version has kept it there for the past 60 years much in the same way that Disney’s Cinderella has for that tale. Do many parents read Carroll’s stories to the kids anymore?

Maybe I just don’t belong to the niche audience that Alice in Wonderland was made for. It is entertaining to watch, albeit frustrating at times, but the conclusion lacks profundity. Alice learns that a world of nonsense is not a place worth living in. Any adult could have told her that but, like any stubborn child, Alice has to learn it for herself. Unlike most other Disney films, there are no central themes or morals to the story. Perhaps, given the source material, none are needed, and I’m just used to children’s stories having a lesson behind the colorful, musical fun.

Perhaps I’ll change my tune once I read the works of Lewis Carroll. Until then, I’m not surprised that this film isn’t remembered as part of the upper echelon of Disney classics.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5