Weekly Review -- That ole devil called love

Valentine's Day (2010) -- "We live in a cynical world", proclaimed Jerry Maguire boldly in 1996. If Mr. Maguire could have hopped through time and landed in 2010, he may have wanted to follow up this statement with a stiff drink. The fourteen years since have hardened the world we inhabit, making it a haven not just for cynicism, but for somber pessimism, the kind that could only have grown out of the very real and, frankly, very depressing changes that we have weathered. Enter Garry Marshall's Valentine's Day, a delectable cinematic treat void of politics, economy and various other stress-exacerbating aspects of everyday life, one that is all about the cozy, cuddly, glowing feeling of -- you guessed it -- luurve.

The story follows a group of loved-up and lovelorn Angelenos on V-Day, including newly engaged florist Reed (Ashton Kutcher), his fiancée Morley (Jessica Alba), Reed's best friend Julia (Jennifer Garner), NFL star Sean Jackson (Eric Dane) and jaded sports reporter Kelvin (Jamie Foxx). As the day progresses, their lives intertwine in a not-so-cutesy and rather charming way, leading to very interesting outcomes in each situation...

Right off the bat, I have to say that I do not understand the amount of criticism being directed toward this film. Yes, some stories are too underdeveloped for the audience to become invested in -- Liz (Anne Hathaway) and Jason's (Topher Grace) tale comes to mind -- and some characters, like Paula (Queen Latifah), seem to be there merely to give momentum, without a real purpose in the context. Yes, you also get a plethora of clichés associated with the title holiday. With all the heart-shaped candy boxes, angelic children, colors and flowers galore, you really have to make sure that your blood sugar does not go through the roof while you are watching this romcom. The thing is, Valentine's Day is the kind of movie whose appeal lies in its lack of pretense and its schmaltz overload. What you see is exactly what you get -- accounts of love in their sappiest, most whimsical form. As far as ensemble romances go, it is not nearly as artfully sophisticated as Paris, je t'aime or as blissfully sentimental as Love Actually, but it offers some good lines and laughs, as well as a few truly poignant stories, with two in particular, which I do not intend to reveal and spoil for you. You will have to see the film for yourself.

The cast does well in their roles and, while the screenplay never really explores uncharted territory, it is the chemistry between the actors that renders the proceedings a joy to watch. Bradley Cooper, Julia Roberts, Shirley MacLaine and Hector Elizondo give the best performances, while Ashton Kutcher and Jennifer Garner share playful sparks, making me wish they would carry their own project sometime in the future. Taylor Swift is also great in her debut as a ditzy high schooler, as is Taylor Lautner, who plays her equally vapid boyfriend.

Valentine's Day is better than many critics would lead you to believe. It is a romance wrapped in an attractive package and a comedy aimed at the most elusive of emotions. You would have to be an extremely fatalistic individual not to like at least one aspect of it, be it the cast, the acting, the jokes or heck, the aforementioned clichés. See it and enjoy.

8/10

EDIT: At the time of editing this review, it has come to my attention that a sequel, New Year's Eve, is set to be released in 2011. Something tells me that Santa will be working overtime...

The Inception of bated breath

Whenever a film that I am dying to watch is being released, I like to watch the trailer. Occasionally, I will look for clips on the Net and probably take in an interview or two. Usually, though, the trailer is the first thing I go for, savoring the images and dialogue in a deliciously chopped-up, sped-up, hyped-up version of the upcoming cinematic entity.

However, from the moment I saw the Inception teaser, I have been unable to tell myself that watching anything out of context about this film was the right thing to do. The teaser was a mini noir spectacle, exquisitely complex in the choreography of its sequences and special effects. It was one of the most adventurous concepts I had ever seen, made even more brilliant by the fact that I had absolutely NO IDEA as to what the story was about, the fact that made me giddy with delight. I realized then that, based on the disjointedly beautiful ballet I had witnessed, I did not want to know up until the very release date.

So, when the initial full-length trailer came out, I peeked at the first five seconds and would not allow myself to see more. Like a child reaching into a cookie jar, I wanted to indulge; unlike said child, I knew I would be spoiling a scrumptious dinner if I was greedy and yes, I do believe that watching anything about Inception in advance is pure, unadulterated greed. Some movies warrant and deserve to claim the air of mystery, only to gradually reveal their secrets to us in a darkened theatre brimming with fellow enthusiasts.

As is the case with most people, I cannot tolerate teasers and trailers that recount the entire movie within a minute. Selling out what seem to be the best parts is also a big no-no; selling out the best parts when it is known, in retrospect, that those were the singular ones worth watching is just painful, on so many levels. The Inception teaser is in a different league altogether, hinting at a unique and sprawling world, heretofore hidden in the corners of director Christopher Nolan's imagination. There are three directors I trust unequivocally with transporting me to universes unseen -- Tom Tykwer, James Cameron and Christopher Nolan -- and the latter filmmaker, who has managed to create a Gotham City to end all Gotham Cities, is the perfect director to take us into a surrealist innovation, where every building, every shadow and every move appears to be borne of a new dimension. So why should I not wait for the hour when I can finally see and marvel at the entire masterpiece? Choosing to taunt myself would be nothing short of masochistic.

Is it just me (come ON, it cannot just be me!) or is it more alluring for certain films to remain mysteries until the opening day? Do we need to know everything about what we are hotly anticipating? Inception or Intrigue? You be the judge. Here is the teaser: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DwuVKfjctk

EDIT: Yes, it has been almost a month since I started this article, and no, I still have not seen the trailer and stand by my decision not to peek... well, not beyond the first five seconds, that is.

Weekly Review -- A bloody future

Daybreakers (2009) -- The rush of all things vampyric that has recently taken over pop culture is probably felt in the TV and cinema world the most. From the Twilight series to "True Blood" to the upcoming Fright Night and Dracula remakes, the media are getting, shall we say... revamped? The Spierig brothers' Daybreakers is the latest take on the mythology. In 2019, following an outbreak, the planet has been overrun by vampires. The human population is dwindling, making the food resources scarcer by the minute. Working for the largest pharmaceutical company, researcher Edward Dalton (Ethan Hawke) is attempting to find a blood substitute, while his boss (Sam Neill) is scheming to devise a way for the upper echelons to keep devouring the real deal. When Edward accidentally encounters a rogue group of humans, led by Elvis (Willem Dafoe), they inform him that they are creating their own concoction, one that could change the course of history... The big problem with Daybreakers is that the parts are actually much more intriguing than the execution of their sum. There are numerous interesting sequences and details, including some ingenious twists. I liked the opening scene, the idea of mutant vampires and the subtle hints at corporate machinations. Unfortunately, the story arc and the characters are not established enough for the audience to become truly invested in the characters' plight. I also wish more time and attention had been paid to the background of the plague that turned the world upside down. Hawke is convincing as the conflicted Edward, while Neill spews sleaze at every turn as the ruthless CEO Bromley and Dafoe hams it up occasionally as the cheekily named Elvis. Daybreakers offers a lot of originality, but not a cohesive enough package to present it. Still, its universe is different enough for the viewer to marvel at and its story is new enough for the filmmakers to expand upon.

6/10

Weekly Review -- Constructing damnation

Law Abiding Citizen (2009) -- Legal thrillers that serve up original stories are rarities; legal thrillers that fill these stories with twists, mix up the heroes and the villains and make the audience debate their themes are a needle in a haystack. These facts render this film a genuine revelation. After his wife and daughter are brutally murdered during a home invasion, engineer Clyde Shelton (Gerard Butler) is horrified to learn that ambitious district attorney Nick Rice (Jamie Foxx) has made a deal that sends the actual killer to prison on a lighter conviction. Ten years later, Shelton decides to teach the justice system a lesson about justice, first killing the two intruders and then setting his sights on everyone involved in the prosecution of the case... Besides never letting up with suspense, the film sets forth a plethora of morality issues. Sure, there are holes in the screenplay, an obvious one being the lack of FBI involvement when a city such as Philadelphia is threatened, but, for its faults, the film is very clever in its plot machinations. As merciless as some of the scenes in Law Abiding Citizen are -- and they are not for the faint of heart -- it is the build-up to and the aftermath of these acts that constitutes the core of the story. Who is the real villain? Are there any heroes at all, or does that question hinge on the degree of our society's humanity? Are Clyde's actions, however violent, justified within any sense of motivation? Butler and Foxx have dynamic chemistry as the two antagonists, who would undoubtedly be on the same side under different circumstances. Butler is intimidating as an everyman who spirals out of control when he loses the people he loves the most. Foxx forces us to rightfully question Rice, who is not exactly a good guy through and through, getting caught up in the system that he is supposed to be fighting and forgetting the "little people" one too many times. Honorable mentions go to Viola Davis as the tough-as-nails mayor and Bruce McGill as Rice's exasperated mentor. Law Abiding Citizen is a welcome detour from remakes, sequels and similar tack-ons overpopulating silver screens. There are not enough films nowadays that sow seeds of discussion or take into account the intelligence of the audience, who certainly appreciate something other than a formulaic genre piece and who need provocative works that make us think.

8/10

The Super 8 riddle

As famous as J.J. Abrams is for his creative shenanigans on "Alias" and "Lost", and a cleverly witty Star Trek reboot, he is getting just as much of a reputation for ultra secretive, super hush-hush projects that are advertised through enigmas in trailer disguise.

Yes, you read that last part correctly.

It happened with the Cloverfield marketing machine, it happened when Star Trek was merely in its inception, and now we are treated to a teaser trailer for Super 8, a film that Abrams is collaborating on with none other than Steven Spielberg, one of the most imaginative filmmakers that ever existed.

Like many others, I enjoy deciphering the little clues that Abrams gives us; hell, I like figuring out if there are clues to decipher in the first place. Talk about cloak and dagger! While the Cloverfield trailer hinted at a disastrous event through the now iconic shot of the Statue of Liberty's head flying through a somberly fragmented New York night, Super 8 is more vague, though seemingly not more sinister. Yes, there is mention of a conspiracy and a shot of some thing attempting to break free out of a railroad car, which led some fans to believe that this is the long-awaited sequel to the monster film, the rumor which was squashed the very same day. They do share an air of mystery, however, which is exactly what made Cloverfield a much-anticipated novelty in the best sense of the word, and which is the aspect of this coming attraction that I believe will draw the audiences in.

Another thought that comes to mind is that, apart from the epic beauty that was Avatar and that deserves its own category, I have not seen many original and/or entertaining alien sub-genre flicks in the past decade, making the market ripe for one of those suckers to burst out through a proverbial human. Most of the films that came out were extremes -- either underdeveloped or over the top. Both Alien vs. Predator films went largely unnoticed, the first Species film had already started off on a too-high end of the camp spectrum to continue properly and no, we do not discuss Men in Black 2 in this region of Blogland. The mention of Area 51 in the Super 8 trailer makes me think of a possible Cloverfield prequel, but I cannot believe that Abrams would make it that easy. Many fans have noticed an image of a little boy toward the end, which makes me think that the movie might be along the lines of Close Encounters of the Third Kind on acid, a science-fiction piece with a LOT of scream-worthy action sequences and a bit of fantasy thrown in for good measure. Either way, I would think aliens were a safe bet, what with hints at the most mystifying terrain of all, telekinesis and similarly nifty details. Just like he put the juice back into the monster sub-genre, Abrams would be the right filmmaker to lend a new slant to alien lifeforms.

To sum it up, I am really looking forward to Super 8. The only thing better than solving a puzzle is speculating as to what type of puzzle one is about to be solving, and J.J. Abrams is especially adept at giving us the gift of guesswork, before one of his cinematic joyrides hits the big screen near you.

Here is the Super 8 trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPcta5V5dA0 Discuss and enjoy.

Weekly Review -- Love on the rocks, anyone?

It's Complicated (2009) -- When it comes to the psychology of relationships, life's surprises and human interactions, no filmmaker does it better than Lisa Cholodenko and Nancy Meyers. While the former often emphasizes the present context of a situation within the remnants of the past and the characters' inner conflicts, the latter likes to play with what is habitually known as maturity, putting a slant on comical elements of contemporary existence. In It's Complicated, Jane (the effervescent Meryl Streep) is a successful businesswoman and mother, whose ex-husband Jake (Alec Baldwin) had run off with another woman ten years earlier. Having gotten used to being without him, Jane meets Jake again at their son's graduation and, little by little, the two start their own affair. Enter charming and vulnerable architect Adam (Steve Martin), and suddenly Jane's routine gets rather spicy... Two things make the film -- Meyers' always engaging writing and Meryl Streep. Oh, and Meryl Streep. Did I already say Meryl Streep? Forgive me if I cannot stop myself. Everyone knows that this lady could make even a phone book sound like a bona fide Shakespearean play, so it is no surprise that her comedy skills and timing are off the map. She radiates humor and beauty in every scene and manages to turn every line into a zinger. Baldwin fares very well as the clingy ex with tons of issues, while Martin gives a subdued performance as the new man in Jane's life. And Hollywood, please take note of John Krasinski, who adds a bit of light slapstick to the proceedings and has enough charisma to be cast in more leading roles. As far as the screenplay goes, Meyers once again populates a story with intellectuals at the crossroads, examining their quirks and their personal journeys in her usual warm, yet sharply clever, way. It's Complicated is a film for grown-ups, one that always stays on sophisticated track in relating its laughs and cries, never veering into the territory of simplicity or melodrama. We need more delightful cinematic morsels like it and yes, we would love for them to be as complicated as possible.

10/10

Weekly Review -- Choose your apocalypse

Babylon A.D. (2008) -- One thing worse than a bloated, effect-laden blockbuster hopeful? A bloated, effect-laden blockbuster hopeful which makes no sense whatsoever. Such is the case with this Mathieu Kassovitz offering, although I should maybe call it a Twentieth Century Fox offering, having read about Kassovitz's complaints regarding his compromised artistic integrity and vision during filming. In a dystopian future (is there any other kind?), mercenary Toorop (Vin Diesel) is ordered to pick up young Aurora (Mélanie Thierry) and her guardian (Michelle Yeoh) from a Russian monastery and bring them to New York City. Along the way, he finds out about the girl's mysterious origins and a danger that her existence may represent... First off, do not bother reading the plot. All the hoopla concerning a "genetically modified Messiah" is never, ever touched upon or explained. There is mishmash about a cult, hodgepodge about a possible new breed of humans, and then there are class acts like Charlotte Rampling and Gérard Depardieu, probably wondering what they are doing in this mess. To be quite honest, everyone who took part deserves much better. I have always considered Diesel an underrated and compelling performer, with charisma to spare. Why he is not getting more dramatic, organic roles is beyond me. Yeoh and Thierry each have a presence to behold, from Yeoh's compassionate authority to Thierry's radiant exoticism, but their roles are far too underdeveloped for the audience to invest in their characters. The same goes for the entire screenplay. Every theme is merely hinted at and never fully explored, while every scene is accompanied by noisy visuals and preposterous rationalizations. One of the many frustrating aspects of the movie is that the story and ambiance definitely have potential, and it is a pity that the talented Kassovitz did not have a chance to utilize his imagination to the fullest. Floating in its own little post-millennial vacuum, Babylon A.D. does possess a certain aura of apocalyptic anti-charm, one that unfortunately falls prey to a screenplay that begs further refinement.

4/10