What I Rented - Tideland

Terry Gilliam's Tideland is a colossal failure, a movie so misguided and ugly that it is a chore to sit through the first ten minutes let alone the entire two hours. There is the hope that some of Gilliam's enormous talent will shine through later on, but aside from the occasional fantasy scene he seems more interested in surrounding his lead character with bizarre whackos who engage in acts more at home in The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

The story, or what little story there is, follows Jeliza Rose (Jodelle Ferland), who moves with her father to a deserted house in the middle of the prairies after her mother dies from a drug overdose. Soon after, dad follows suit, and Jeliza is left to fend for herself, communicating solely with four severed doll's heads. Eventually she meets up with some more characters and they form a disfunctional family unit. Lots of bizarre sexual situations, violence, and depravity follows.

Tideland is first and foremost an exercise in excess. Without any restraints, it appears that Gilliam was allowed to do whatever he wanted, and while there is certainly an abundance of ideas, there is no sense of pacing, story, or even visual grace. A little girl simply walks around and finds herself in troubling situations, but unlike Alice in Wonderland (a story Gilliam repeatedly references), Jeliza's journey is witless, satire-free, and dull.

One of the main problems is that the Gilliam never allows the audience to truly get inside Jeliza's head. According to Gilliam's bizarre intro, he claims that he wants the viewer to see the world through the innocence of a child. Fair enough, but why then does he constantly show the reality of the scene?

For example, in Jeliza's world, Dickens, her neighbour, is a heroic submarines captain who hunts and kills sharks. Yet, aside from one extremely over-the-top fantasy scene, the camera consistently shows the grim reality of the situation. Dickens is a mentally disabled boy who spends most of his time in a tent where he plans to blow up trains and other moving vehicles. Jeliza simply wanders into his world, mumbles a lot of childish nonsense, and we're supposed to accept that Jeliza's imagination is working overtime to create a wondrous fantasy.

Every scene in the movie is essentially the same. Jeliza is innocently placed in a potentially traumatic experience, and instead of watching her interpretation of the event, the audience is treated to the gritty, hard-to-stomach reality. Because she is a child, and the plot would disintegrate if she actively tried to improve her lot in life, she is essentially reduced to a powerless protagonist, and the movie never lets her be anything more than a passive observer. Sure she occasionally takes action; freeing a squirrel, or putting two doll's heads inside her dead father's open carcass (yep that's the kind of movie this is), but more often than not Jeliza simply is in the right place at the right time and has an "encounter". Over the course of two hours, Jeliza's inaction becomes downright annoying. I know she's a child, but Gilliam spends so long trying to prove that she is a bright child, so it's thoroughly unconvincing when Jeliza is unable to sense that the people around her are downright insane.

Tideland is a terrible, terrible movie, made even worse by the fact that this is potentially fascinating material, placed in the hands of the one man who could have actually made it work. Gilliam's film is a depressing slog, an unrestrained mess, and one of the worst films I have had the displeasure to sit through.

Star Rating - O out of 4

What I Rented - Deja Vu

Dear Tony Scott

It's time to come clean.

You and I have had a rocky relationship. At times, yes, I have called you the "destroyer of all things cinematic", but remember at times you have made me physically ill with your endless barrage of swishes, zooms, and insane editing tricks.

In the nineties you and I were tight - True Romance, Crimson Tide, heck even The Last Boyscout all have spots in my VHS library, but lately....well....

I strongly disliked your last few movies. Domino gave me a headache, Man on Fire (after a good start) degenerated into a pointless series of stalks and kills more reminiscent of Friday the Thirteenth than a Denzel Washington action flick, and Spy Game is instantly forgettable - in fact aside from starring Robert Redford and Brad Pitt I really don't remember that one at all.

You love "style". I get it. I love "character". You don't get it.

But, I'm hoping with Deja Vu we can develop somewhat of a truce. I'm not saying you've made a great film, but it does seem like you are at least making movies again, and not just glorified music videos.

I liked the plot of Deja Vu. A terrorist bombing aboard a ferry kills hundreds of people. Detective Denzel tracks down clues, only to discover that the FBI actually has a time portal that allows them to see four days into the past. So, he tries to track down the killer by looking into the past. That's pretty cool stuff.

Heck, I even liked it when the film went into Back to the Future territory and the plot started folding in on itself. There are some fun, time twisty moments here.

But once again, you don't really provide characters worth knowing. Denzel plays Denzel giving the same performance he gives whenever he plays thinly written characters. You know what I'm talking about? The "I'm smarter than you are" smile mixed with the cold clinical "investigative" mode Denzel. Val Kilmer shows up, looks like he's going to be important to the story, and then disappears. Paula Patton is nice as the girl at the center of the mystery, but she never really comes across as more than just The Victim.

Alright, I know...it sounds like I'm being really negative. I'm not trying to be, but I was frustrated at the end of Deja Vu. I was enjoying the movie all the way through, saying to myself...gee that Tony Scott sure proved me wrong....but then the final moments left me cold.

Maybe it was the plot holes. Maybe it was the undercooked characters. Regardless, this is better than your recent movies, and that's the point I should focus on.

So, truce?

You continue to make movies, using Deja Vu as a starting point, and I will stop calling you names behind your back.

I'm giving you a weary *** out of 4. We'll talk later....

What I Rented - Dreamgirls

Dreamgirls has a lot of flash, energy, great music, and riveting scenes. It's an entertaining, fun musical, made with a lot of passion, but by the end, aside from a couple of incredible moments, it makes as much impact as a big budget music video.

It's a simple story, one that has been told many times before. Three girls get their chance to make it big in the music world, but cutthroat business strategies soon have them fighting each other for a shot at fame. As their careers skyrocket, their personal relationships deteriorate and each girl finds that what they truly wanted, they had before all the glitz and glam entered their lives.

Now, much has been written about the star making performance by Jennifer Hudson, as Effie, the slightly overweight lead singer who is tossed aside in favour of the slimmer, but vocally inferior Deena Jones (Beyonce). Hudson is fantastic, and puts everyone in the cast to shame. Everyone else knows the poses, and knows how to look cool while singing, but Hudson loses herself in the music, connecting to the emotion behind the words. There is a ten minute section in the middle of the film, where Effie's life reaches absolute rock bottom, and Hudson belts out And I'm Telling You I'm Not Going with such a wounded passion that it's easy to see why she won the Academy Award. It's an electrifying scene because you know you are watching that old Hollywood cliche moment where the unknown starlet becomes an overnight sensation.

Hudson is the reason this movie works at all.

Eddie Murphy, in his defence, also finds a way to make his one note character seem much deeper than he truly is (which is essentially a womanizing drug addict), but the rest of the cast just gets lost...

Sure, they all have their moments, but Beyonce doesn't even register until 45 minutes in, and the other girl is simply "girl who loves Eddie Murphy's character". Jamie Foxx, while adding a lot of charm early on the film, ends up becoming "rich guy who scowls all the time".

What keeps the film afloat, when Hudson isn't on screen, is the tremendous music which really does provide a thrilling pace and energy level. Dreamgirls also makes some interesting comments about the music industry and the business' preference for catchy tunes rather than songs that truly comment on world issues (a topic that seems particularly relevant in today's superficial marketplace).

It's a solid film, but not a great one, and although Hudson's big scene is an incredible moment, it almost points a finger at everything else that is wrong with the movie. Her performance shows what Dreamgirls could have been had more emphasis been placed on fleshing out the characters, and pushing a game cast to take their musical talents to a new level. It's entertaining, but it should have been unforgettable.

Star Rating *** out of 4

What I Rented - Epic Movie

Sometimes I don't know what compels me to watch certain movies. I knew Epic Movie wasn't going to be very good. In fact, based on the recent onslaught of horrible spoof films like Scary Movie 3 and Scary Movie 4, I knew it was going to be downright awful. Yet, still, somehow; maybe it was the promise of at least one cheap laugh; maybe it was some of the more interesting casting choices like Crispin Glover as Willy Wonka, I decided to give it a chance.

Giving Epic Movie a chance will go down as one of the worst mistakes I will ever make in my life.

I am including all potential mistakes I may make in the future as well; like getting involved in bad relationships, finding myself on the wrong side of the law, or inadvertently bringing about the end of civilization. Those mistakes will pale in comparison to the experience of watching all 86 mind numbing moments of Epic Movie.

This is the anti-comedy, sent forth by some demonic figure to destroy all that is good and mighty in the world. Here is a project that doesn't make a lick of sense on a conceptual level, but people decided to say, "screw it" we kinda have a script, so let's shoot something. What is it trying to spoof? It spends most of the time tackling big Hollywood fantasy films like Narnia or Harry Potter, but then decides to throw in jokes based on Pirates of the Carribean, Snakes on a Plane, Nacho Libre, and Click. Huh? Aren't those movies comedies in their own right? How can you spoof something that doesn't take itself seriously to begin with?

It's the same mistake Scary Movie made when it stupidly decided to spoof Scream, which was already a spoof of horror films. You can't just point your fingers and laugh at someone who showed up first and told a funnier, more original joke. It makes you look like an idiot.

That being said what kind of jokes does Epic Movie treat us to? It's your typical collection of gross out gags (it's funny cause it's just plain gross), obvious jokes (it's funny cause we were all thinking it right?), references (it's funny cause they show you something that happened in another movie, but now it happens in this movie too), and puns (Oh Boy - zing - white bitch instead of white witch).

If I had to reach down into the pit of my very soul in order to find something good to say about the movie, I will at least say, without damning myself to eternal Hellfire, that the actors give it their best shot. I can't fault them in this catastrophic mess. Oh, and some of the sets are nice...

But everyone else....oh boy!

Epic Movie is now the film I will refer to in order to describe how unfunny something is. It is truly one of the worst films ever made.

ZERO stars out of 4

What I Rented - Eragon

Eragon tells the story of a young man, Eragon, who is magically given a dragon by a captured princess. After his uncle is murdered, he finds that he is part of a thought-dead group of mystical warriors called The Jedi....sorry....The Dragon Riders. Under the guidance of an old disgruntled Dragon Rider named Obi-Wan....wait....Brom (Jeremy Irons) he has to rescue the princess, join a rebel alliance, and take down an evil empire.

So, yeah...originality isn't Eragon's strong point, and the constant feeling of "Haven't-I-Seen-That-Before" intrudes on the movie at least once every two minutes. On top of being two steps away from a plagiarism lawsuit, there is absolutely no sense of pacing. Big moments arrive with little buildup (including a final battle that feels incredibly rushed) and characters have no time to be anything other than "good" or "bad".

That being said, there's still a goofy charm at work in Eragon, and while it isn't particularly good, it is at least entertaining and watchable. Jeremy Irons has fun as the wise elder, and his relationship with Eragon provides many of the film's best moments. The director, Stefen Fangmeier, allows the fast paced action to take a break during their scenes, and Irons manages to inject a bit of life into a thinly written character.

When the film finally decides to venture out from endless Star Wars references and create a mythology of its own it's actually quite clever. I liked the rules of the Dragon Riders; how the life of the dragon is linked with the rider; how they have a telepathic link; how magic can arise from their connection. It's enough to make the relationship between Eragon and the dragon unique; which in this movie is the equivalent of being given a glass of cold water in the desert.

Eragon never really finds its own voice, and that keeps it from being anything more than a pleasant Friday evening rental.

Star Rating ** out of 4

What I Rented - Bobby

Emilio Estevez certainly has a lot to say in Bobby about the infamous night Bobby Kennedy was shot at the Ambassador Hotel. With a sprawling cast and multiple storylines (very reminscent of Robert Altman's Nashville) he attempts to create a snapshot of America on the eve of June 6, 1968. It doesn't always work, as there are just too many stories, and several come across as shallow and cliched, but when it does get things right, as it does in its last act, Bobby manages to convey how fragile the American dream truly is, and how those who fight hardest to protect that idealism often fall victim to its shortcomings.

Instead of focusing on Robert Kennedy as a three dimensional character, Estevez uses him as a symbol of optimism. Through old news clips, Bobby, is seen as a hero who will guide America through Vietnam, and bridge the racial divide. It's a smart decision on Estevez's part, because the film isn't about who Kennedy was, it's about how so many people needed a pure hero, regardless of reality, and put all of their hopes and dreams into what he could potentially achieve.

The stories in the hotel reflect this viewpoint. There's the Mexican restaurant worker (Freddy Rodriguez) who longs for a day when he won't be mistreated because of his skin colour. There's the retired doorman (Anthony Hopkins) who lives in the past because the present is cruel and unforgiving. There are the two young Kennedy volunteers (Brian Geraghty and Shia LaBeouf) who spend the day tripping out on acid because they can't imagine what the future holds for them. As each character, including many others, gets ready to watch Kennedy's speech at the hotel, they begin to realize that he may be able to guide them out of their ruts.

These stories unfortunately don't have time to offer much in the way of depth and often hit one note repeatedly. It feels like Estevez is more interested in using these characters to create a cacophany of political and socialogical ideoligies. From each character's story, arises an issue that Bobby Kennedy's political agenda can solve. It's at this point, about an hour in, once the characters start to become mouthpieces for political viewpoints that the film starts to wear out its welcome.

Fortunately, Estevez is able to get back on track for a well-done ending, showing that there is method to his madness. With all of these political ideas floating around creating a sense of wide eyed optimism, it is hard not to feel everything that was lost when Kennedy was shot. The stories converge with the assassination, and Bobby shows how quickly thoughts of peace and unity devolved into a struggle for survival that night. The horrors everyone hoped Bobby would shield them from, infiltrated their "safe" world, leading to a very different future for America.

Bobby isn't a great movie, and the large cast isn't handled well, but there is passion behind it, and the emotional ending is haunting.

Star Rating *** out of 4

What I Rented - Rocky Balboa

“I think you try a little harder when you’re scared,” says Rocky right before the climactic bout of Rocky Balboa. Coming from Stallone, who hasn’t had a hit film in nearly a decade, that line is the key to understanding the entire Rocky franchise.

These are the movies that Stallone has invested his heart and soul into over the years, and the best ones are the ones he had to fight for. At times it’s become impossible to separate the actor from the character. The story of Stallone refusing the big paycheck because he had to star in the first Rocky movie is now legendary, and it’s his guttural, wounded performance, that made the first movie so compelling. He might not be the greatest actor in the world, but it’s almost impossible to find someone who invested more of himself in a role than Stallone did in Rocky. He risked everything, and you can feel the fear pushing him; allowing him to tap into dark, uncomfortable corners of his psyche.

But, the first movie was huge, and Stallone became an overnight success story. Fame, fortune, and plenty of jobs followed, and the Rocky sequels never felt as urgent or insightful as the first one (when Stallone stopped being the underdog, the character stopped being an underdog)…until this one.

Rocky Balboa isn’t a great film (we have seen the same story five times before after all), but boy does Stallone inject it with an enormous amount of passion. This movie works primarily because Stallone is taking a risk again and you can feel the fear pushing him. If Rocky Balboa fails his career is over!

To make it work he goes back to the basics, and using his own experience as an aging action star, writes a simple, but honest script. Sure it resolves some of the conflicts a little too easily (one simple speech is enough to transform Rocky’s son into a thoughtful kid), but Stallone sells even the most unabashedly emotional moments with a wonderfully sincere performance.

The fact that the first hour barely touches on boxing, but is still compelling says a lot about how much time and effort went into creating a movie with characters worth investing in. Rocky finds himself trying to help out a single mother and her kid while his own son tries to distance himself further and further from the Balboa name. It’s low key and charming; everything the sequels tossed aside.

The plot doesn’t offer too many surprises, but because the characters are at the forefront, the final fight is still an edge of your seat bout. This movie ends the series in the best possible way, and once again it’s nice to root for the underdog; both Balboa and Stallone.

***1/2 out of 4 (it should really just be ***, but dagnabbit sometimes you just want to give the underdog a ½ star more)

What I Rented - Love Me If You Dare

Love Me If You Dare is a film so at odds with itself, that it left me breathless, angry, frustrated, and mesmerized, often simultaneously. It’s a romantic comedy, as told by somebody who probably believes that Seven is a poetic tale of lost love. It bounces along with a dash of whimsy, and an innocent veneer, trying to cover the fact that it’s really about two psychotic lovers, trapped in a vicious mind game.

It all starts innocently enough, as two alienated children, a boy, Julien, whose mother is dying of cancer and a Polish girl, Sophie, who is racially taunted by her classmates, devise a game of dares in order to empower them in a world that seems Hellbent on keeping them down. At first they are childish games, swearing in front of the teacher, toppling over a wedding cake, etc…, but as they grow older, the game begins to take on an obsessive, and disturbing nature.

Soon, their relationship becomes defined entirely by the dares they play on each other, and as they begin to realize that they are in love with one another, they recognize that they have no way to communicate it. This frustration begins to manifest itself through the game, and the dares begin to take on a passive aggressive nature that leads to shocking cruelty.

It’s at this point where the movie began to lose me. All the characters have to do is say three simple words to one another, drop the game, and presto chango…happiness, but Julien devises a far more horrible plan. After daring each other that they won’t speak for a year, Julien tracks down Sophie (after four years) and tells her that he has made a mistake. He takes her out to dinner, brings out two rings, and asks if she will do him the favour. She agrees, thinking that he has finally proposed, but nope, he wants her to hold on to the rings for his marriage to another woman. The reason for his ruse; because Sophie dared him that he couldn’t find a way to hurt her. Ouch.

At this point the games become abusive, although both seem to find excitement in the manipulation. But miraculously, it all leads to a finale that is actually horribly touching. I disliked these characters immensely, yet somehow the way in which they find each other is fitting, and emotionally moving. If only the pathway that lead them there was clearer..

I think for me the problem with the movie is mostly in its tone. It’s dishonest. It bounces along with such joy, asking the audience to forgive these characters’ devilish actions, that it fails to recognize how sick and twisted they are. There’s never a moment where the true nature of their…let’s face it…crimes is exposed.

Love Me If You Dare wants to be a jaunty fairy tale, but ends up being a disturbing look at two disillusioned lovers who seem more intent on destroying one another than being together.

Star Rating - ** out of 4

What I Rented - With a Friend Like Harry

With a Friend Like Harry is a great little slow burn thriller. Despite the fact that the story isn’t incredibly original, and follows a predictable path, it still finds unique ways to build suspense. Instead of big edge of your seat thrills and chills, it’s a movie that uses tiny gestures and awkward line deliveries in order to create an overall sense of unease.

Two men, former schoolmates, run into each other by coincidence at a rest stop bathroom. Michel, a family man going to a summer home with his wife and children, doesn’t recognize Harry, a wealthy playboy, at first. But Harry certainly remembers Michel, especially the high school poems and stories he wrote. As Harry begins to immerse himself in Michel’s life, it becomes clear that he has an ulterior motive.

Director Dominik Moll guides this film with a sure hand, and although the pace is slow, it’s never boring; rather it’s unsettling. Each of Harry’s lines, as spoken by Sergi Lopez, cuts deeper and deeper into Michel’s psyche, filling him with confidence and doubt at the same time. Harry pushes each gesture of goodwill just a little farther than most people would dare. When he praises Michel’s high school poem, it’s flattering at first, but when he begins to recite it word for word it’s creepy. Yet, Harry always has a good reason for everything, and a zest for life that Michel hasn’t experienced in ages due to family responsibilities. Michel leans toward him in the hopes that some of his raw excitement will rub off on him.

The dynamic between the two is fascinating, leading to a conclusion that actually surprised me, but not in the usual way. It’s surprising in that it manages to effectively end the story in a thrilling, albeit entirely low key manner that doesn’t betray the previously established tone.

The plot never finds a way to be as inventive as the character work, and because of that the movie doesn’t take off completely. The shocks are hardly surprising (until the end), and at times With a Friend Like Harry feels like it is adding suspense sequences to appease potentially restless audience members. It’s actually less disturbing in the scenes that are supposed to be big set pieces.

But for once, I didn’t find myself all that upset by being a few steps ahead of the movie. It’s just a joy watching the main characters subtly try to figure each other out. Sometimes it’s nice to have a thriller interested in the small moments.

*** out of 4

What I Rented - Blood Diamond

Blood Diamond explores the nature of African conflict diamonds through the bold in-your-face directorial style of Edward Zwick. It proudly wears its message on its shoulder, and never apologizes for moments that lean toward the melodramatic. In short, it’s that rare modern Hollywood film that actually gives a damn, and even though, at times, it tends to brush up against action film clichés, there’s a passion lurking in every cut that pushes the film toward its emotional finale.

In the mid nineties, Solomon Vandy (Djimon Hounsou) is taken from his family to work the diamond mines in Sierra Leone. While enduring this slave labour he finds a extremely rare diamond, and hides it. Denny Archer (Leonardo DiCaprio), a diamond smuggler, finds out about Vandy’s discovery, and forms a shady partnership with the man in order to recover it. Their journey leads them into the chaos of civil war, forces Vandy to come face to face with the horrors that have befallen his family, and allows Archer to explore his corrupt nature.

The most startling scenes show just how quickly violence erupted in various parts of Africa during the nineties. Zwick doesn’t shy away from showing the brutality of this war, and the unpredictable nature of when and where a strike will occur adds an underlying tension to even the most serene of scenes. In the most horrific element of the movie, Vandy’s son is taken under the guidance of rebel forces, and is programmed to become a cold blooded killer.

But, ultimately it’s the human story between the main characters that provides the heart of the movie, and the script allows Vandy and Archer to evolve as the story progresses. Each man fuels the other man’s journey, Archer shows Vandy the darkness in the world, while Vandy shows Archer the light. It’s not a complicated character arc for either, but both Djimon Hounsou and Leonardo DiCaprio make it rich and fulfilling. DiCaprio in particular has the unenviable task of making the corrupt and highly manipulative Archer a likeable character. His natural charisma turns even the most mundane of lines into a revealing moment.

Blood Diamond is a welcome blast of topical Hollywood cinema in a year that seemed to pump out far too many vacuous films.

**** out of 4

What I Rented - Flags of Our Fathers

The Battle of Iwo Jima was the first Pacific battle of World War II fought on Japanese soil. By capturing the desolate island, the Americans would cut off an important way station for Japanese planes and ships, as well as procure an essential stepping stone toward the Japanese mainland. It was a brutal battle, resulting in thousands of deaths. Yet, one moment, the raising of an American flag atop a hill and the photograph that was taken of it, brought hope to millions. Flags of Our Fathers focuses on the events, and people, surrounding this famous photograph.

Clint Eastwood’s film is incredibly ambitious, but its unfocused narrative spends so much time shifting back and forth from multiple points of view and periods of time that the emotional throughway is hard to find.

The opening act of the film is brilliant though, as Eastwood shows the arrival on Iwo Jima and the moments leading up to the first attack. The narrative is straight forward, the characters easily identifiable and distinguishable from one another, and the tension mounts steadily. The first moments on Iwo Jima are among the very best in the entire film. The marines storm the beach and find it completely deserted. As they walk further inland, Eastwood slowly reveals that the Japanese soldiers are hiding in elaborate underground bunkers, armed, and waiting for the perfect moment to strike. The battle scene that follows is harrowing.

The power of this first scene overshadows the rest of the movie, especially since Eastwood moves back to the American mainland to explore the power of propaganda. After the picture of the flag raising is taken, the men involved with raising it are brought back to the States and sent on a public relations tour in order to raise money for the war effort. As the film shows, the three surviving men (three others subsequently died in further combat) have difficulty accepting their roles as heroes. It’s an interesting deconstruction of heroism and finding reality behind “written history”, but too many scenes show the same thing. The men are praised for their heroic efforts, they put on smiling faces in front of the crowds, and then fall apart when the cameras are taken away.

The performers all try their best to make this duality interesting, but the script just moves from one similar situation to another, so even the performances become tedious. As the film moves into its third act, it goes even further into the future, trying to explore how the horrors of war affect aging. Eastwood finds some great moments in this section, including a tearful hospital scene between a father and son, but it’s another movie entirely, suddenly becoming a tale of a son sorting through history.

The further away from the battle scenes Eastwood takes the audience, the further away he gets from telling the emotional truth of that fateful photograph. An important aspect of the movie is that the American public never got to know the real men behind the flag raising, and after the movie, I was still unclear on who two of those men were. As the focus keeps shifting, Flags of Our Fathers moves away from character driven drama and takes on a more ideological stance, criticizing the government for exploitation, or commenting on how history is rarely truthful. By the end, with so many ideas dangling, Flags of Our Fathers resorts to a constant barrage of voiceovers in order to piece everything together into a cohesive whole. The ideas are compelling, but they are spoon fed to the audience, turning what began as an immersive drama into a didactic essay.

Star Rating - **1/2 outof 4

What I Rented - Stranger Than Fiction

Some mild plot points about the ending are in the following review.

Stranger Than Fiction could have gone the easy route, making quick, cheap jokes at the expense of its characters, but it instead chooses the more difficult, and interesting path, taking its premise seriously and allowing the characters to react to the extraordinary events. When a voice starts narrating IRS agent Harold Crick’s (Will Ferrell) life, insinuating that he will die imminently, Crick begins to re-evaluate his life. At the same time, Karen Eiffel (Emma Thompson), while writing a novel about Crick (not knowing that he is a real person), tries to figure out how to conquer her writer’s block and kill off her protagonist.

While the film initially relies a bit too much on gimmicks (the Sims style pop-ups are more distracting than anything else), Stranger Than Fiction quickly finds its groove when Ana Pascal (Maggie Gyllenhaal), a tax dodging baker, enters the movie and Crick, confused about his narrative situation, seeks advice from literary professor Jules Hilbert (Dustin Hoffman). Since his life is being narrated, Hilbert and Crick try to discover what kind of story is being told, a comedy or a tragedy. Some of the films most charming moments occur when Crick realizes Pascal is the pendulum in his life that can swing him towards a happy ending or a tragic one (an idea hilariously visualized when Crick has a conversation with her while sitting in the middle of an accordion bus).

The love story with Pascal is charming, a definite throwback to old-style romantic comedies, complete with grand romantic gestures (he gives her flours), and heartfelt speeches (is there anything greater in a movie than watching a timid character finally tell someone how they truly feel?). It’s material that could easily be corny, but Gyllenhaal and Ferrell find the right chemistry, adding sparks to the potentially clichéd relationship.

In fact, the movie keeps finding ways to circumvent clichés. Harold realizing that he hasn’t actually been living his life and has just been going through the motions is a story point used in many, many previous films. Here, the plot point becomes more complicated when Karen Eiffel realizes that she has the power to keep Harold alive or kill him, which becomes further complicated by the fact that the ending in which he dies could result in one of the best, most influential books of the twenty-first century. Does Harold fight for life, or sacrifice himself in order to ensure the survival of an important work of fiction? It’s all darkly funny, but oddly touching, and the film finds the right ending to wrap everything up.

My only true concern has to do with a tiny, but frustrating plot point. Harold’s death, as conceived by Karen Eiffel, revolves around two other people, a small boy and a bus driver. They are shown at various times in the film only for a few brief seconds, but it’s implied in the narrative that their stories are just as important as Crick’s, that somehow his death ties up three narratives. Unfortunately, the audience never knows anything about them, so it’s hard to get a true sense of why Harold’s death is so important or why Eiffel’s book has the potential to be so earth shattering. It’s a minor quibble, but I felt like I needed to know a bit more about these characters in order to understand the full gravitas of Harold’s final decision.

As it stands, Stranger Than Fiction is a charming, funny, moving movie with great performances, and a script that wonderfully dissects the intricate balance between reality and those moments in life that seem more rooted in fiction.

Star Rating ***1/2 out of 4

What I Rented - The Protector

It’s very difficult to review a movie like The Protector, where unbelievable and fantastic action sequences are undermined at every turn by a clichéd and overly plotted script focusing on the intimate relationship between man and elephant (no, you read that right). When Cam’s (Tony Jaa) sacred elephants are kidnapped by an evil crime syndicate, he must journey to Sydney, Australia in order to reclaim his beloved pachyderms. While there, he fights his way through numerous bad guys and uncovers a city wide criminal organization.

The character work and storyline are barely comprehensible (even in the uncut version I saw), but the action sequences are incredible (minus a sloppily filmed and edited boat chase). Tony Jaa’s fight choreography is easily the best I’ve seen in ages.

Take for instance a four minute long, one-take, fight extravaganza in which Jaa climbs up four floors and takes on at least thirty bad guys in a brothel/casino/restaurant complex.. It’s an unbelievable fusion of fighting and top quality camera work and should be included on lists of the best tracking shots of all time.

Or there’s the bone break orgy in which Jaa fights his way through fifty people by breaking close to a thousand bones. If that weren’t enough he then finds his way into a room with four hulking manbeasts (one guy hurtles a baby elephant through a glass pane!!) and a middle aged woman who suddenly becomes a whip mistress. To fight them off he chooses the only weapon available to him, elephant bones. It’s all wildly original, borderline insane, and thrilling.

Except, there’s no emotional weight behind any of it. The most fully developed relationship in the movie is between Tony Jaa and his elephant friend. Everyone else is just set dressing. So, if you just want to see some brilliant action scenes, The Protector will certainly serve that up in spades, but you want to see a great action film, you’ll have to wait until Jaa starts choosing better scripts.

Star Rating – Movie - ** out of 4
Action Scenes - **** out of 4

What I Rented - The Devil Wears Prada

Meryl Streep is so good in The Devil Wears Prada that her performance overshadows the rest of the movie, creating a horrible void whenever her character is offscreen or not being mentioned. The plot is something we’ve seen numerous times. In order to advance her career Andy Sachs (Anne Hathaway) gets a job with Miranda Priestly (Meryl Streep) a notoriously cruel boss. To prove she’s up for anything Andy sacrifices family and friends, but most importantly her own morals, as she enters into the cutthroat fashion magazine business.

Instead of turning Miranda into a caricature, Streep creates a fully realized character who hurls passively aggressive insults like they are 44 caliber bullets. She uses psychological mind games to tear down anyone who gets in her way, and it’s fascinating to watch Streep think through each new chess move. Yet, as manipulative as Miranda Priestly is, Streep never turns her into a cardboard villain by layering the performance with a twisted sense of morality and ethics. By the end of the film it’s not so easy to dislike Miranda Priestly.

Unfortunately, I can’t say the same about the cast of characters the audience is supposed to root for. Hathaway’s longtime boyfriend, played by Adrian Grenier, is a colossal, self-righteous bore. His sole purpose in the movie is to provide “ahhh-shucks, ain’t I cute” lines and glances so that the audience will feel terrible when Andy ditches him on his birthday. Instead of trying to craft a realistic relationship, one that evolves (or devolves) naturally, and has honest conversations about Andy’s transformations, the writers use Grenier’s character as a symbol to judge Andy’s behaviour without allowing her the courtesy of replying.

Fortunately, Streep is the main feature, and watching Andy’s struggle between hating Miranda and respecting her is fascinating. This isn’t a story about Andy disappointing the people around her, it’s a story about how Andy adapts her ethical beliefs in order to achieve success. When Miranda demonstrates to a judgmental Andy how she has cut the same ethical corners as herself, it makes the same point in one fantastic second that the boyfriend subplot tries to make over several agonizing and repetitive minutes.

Star Rating - *** out of 4 (it’s a close **1/2, but Streep is so good I’ve got to add half a star).

What I Rented - Flyboys

Flyboys is a “gee willickers” war movie that feels like it was made by a group of 12 year old Boy Scouts stuck in a 1950’s time bubble. There’s a lot of heart, but not a lot of brains, and while the aerial combat scenes are thrilling, the melodrama in between is not.

Flyboys follows a group of American volunteers who join the French air force during World War 1. They are your typical group of stock war characters – the lone cowboy, the guy with the girl back home, the black guy, the religious guy, and the rich guy. Over the course of the war, and the movie, they will learn many life lessons (most of which you can predict from the first scene…such as…don’t be racist and everybody needs somebody). The main character Blaine Rawlings (James Franco) also gets a romantic subplot where he falls in love with a French girl living in the countryside. It feels like a subplot that could easily have been cut were the producers not trying to woo a female demographic.

My biggest problem with Flyboys is that there isn’t a whole lot of drama. The pilots are all decent people, so we essentially watch as they correct that one flaw in their personality that the screenplay has given them (racism, fear, ego). Each storyline is told with such emotion-on-your-sleeve earnestness that there is little doubt how everything will turn out. The only real conflict comes from the faceless horde of German soldiers and pilots. Alas, Flyboys doesn’t attempt to contextualize the war or explain the German strategy, so it’s hard to root for our heroes when there’s no real understanding of what they are fighting for.

Regardless, the movie does have some viscerally exciting aerial combat scenes and those moments are fun to watch. Sure there’s some clunky editing and it can be tough to follow the action, but the scope of the battle scenes is impressive and the special effects provide some much needed thrills.

In the end, the emotional thrust of Flyboys is too weak to carry the film, especially for its very long running time. It has its moments, but its clichés and on-the-nose script prevent it from being anything more than a B-movie with good special effects.

Star Rating - ** out of 4

What I Rented - The Marine

The Marine is about a guy who miraculously survives a lot of explosions while trying to save his wife who has been kidnapped by diamond thieves. The man in question is wrestler John Cena, who seems to be hoping that the world is waiting with baited breath for an eighties action flick revival.

And, as terrible a movie as The Marine is, it’s actually better than most of those Van Damme, Steven Seagal pics, not a whole lot better, but better nonetheless. The Marine at least goes full speed ahead with its stupid plot, bizarre characters, hulking machismo, and ridiculous action scenes, creating a movie that barely makes sense, but is awfully entertaining.

Part of the movie’s charm is the villains, a rag tag group of thieves who are downright crazy, in a “I just escaped from the Asylum” kind of way. Lead by Robert Patrick (of Terminator 2 fame) they are just plain wacky, and in case we didn’t know, “WHA WHAAA” sound effects play during one of Robert Patrick’s wackier speeches. My favorite of the wacky villains is Morgan, the black guy who talks about being black all the time, and has a fear of rock candy. That’s right, in The Marine, they actually find a way to have Morgan reminded time and time again about his ridiculous fear of rock candy. This leads to the film’s greatest scene, a short monologue, out of nowhere, in which Morgan reveals that his male camp counselor lured him into his cabin with…you guessed it…rock candy only to…uh huh…molest him. BRAVO screenwriters!!! Oh, and then they play the music from Deliverance. CLASS ACT director!!!

Elsewhere, John Cena runs through the woods a lot and beats up people with his awesome arsenal of wrestling moves. Alas, by the last half hour, when all the interesting villains are killed off, it all becomes painfully boring as yet another gasoline canister sets off an explosive chain reaction.

The Marine is a great movie to rent if you want a lot of unintentional laughs (sadly it’s funnier than most of the comedies released lately), but don’t expect anything more.

Star Rating – I should give it *1/2 out of 4, but I’m feeling generous cause I laughed so much so ** out of 4.

What I Rented - The Illusionist

Without revealing too much, I will probably get into plot details in this review that could ruin your enjoyment of The Illusionist so read at your own caution.

--------------------------------------------------
Once a magician explains his illusion the magic is gone and it becomes a simple parlour trick. If The Illusionist had followed this guideline it might have lived up to its title, but alas it devolves into a moderately entertaining movie devoid of any real screen magic.

Eisenheim (Edward Norton) is a first rate magician whose current show appears to be pushing the bounds of good taste. Crown Prince Leopold (Rufus Sewell) is outraged by the spiritual content of his show and has Inspector Uhl (Paul Giammati) arrest him. What follows is the complex story of Eisenheim’s career, love life, and feud with the Crown Prince himself.

It’s a great set up, but once again, we have a movie where the script revolves around tricking the audience ; nothing more. For me a plot twist is only rewarding when it adds to the emotional journeys of the characters. When it’s designed solely to fool the audience or the audience surrogate, which in this case would be Inspector Uhl, then it feels like sleight of hand.

The first half of the story is the best. Eisenheim comes to town, dazzles audiences with his amazing illusions, and then meets his old childhood sweetheart who is engaged to be married. There’s real warmth in the romantic subplot, and the film focuses primarily on Eisenheim’s troubled love life.

Then the plot mechanics start to grind, and the film drastically switches gear.

Suddenly, due to some startling complications, Eisenheim is a supporting character in the film and is seen only through Inspector Uhl’s eyes. It’s a jarring change, and since I was no longer allowed to get into Eisenheim’s head, my first question was, “What is he hiding and why can’t the audience know about it?”

The second half of the film ends up becoming a puzzle, which is fun to try and solve for a while, but loses all of the emotional electricity from the first half. Instead of engaging with the characters on any guttural level I was trying to fit the pieces together.

When everything is finally revealed, the magic trick is pretty underwhelming.

That’s not to say that The Illusionist is a total loss. It’s beautifully shot, has a wonderful sense of atmosphere aided by a neat Philip Glass score, and that first hour is phenomenal. It’s just too bad that it feels the need to focus on plot mechanics rather than character. By focusing so much on the trick itself, it forgets to spend any real time with the true star, the magician.

Star Rating - **1/2 out of 4

What I Rented - Crank

I wanted to like Crank. You’ve got to believe me. I enjoy a mindless action film as much as the next guy, and the premise for this film sounded great – Jason Statham gets poisoned and has to keep his adrenaline level up or else he dies, and he’s not ready to die until he gets the guys who killed him! I moderately enjoyed Jason Statham’s Transporter flicks, so I was hoping for a good ride, but as Crank kept spinning its wheels, a shocking thought entered my head…..”wow, I hate this movie.”

The biggest problem with Crank is that while the premise is intriguing it also helps to dig the film’s grave. This has to be one of the most repetitive movies I’ve ever seen. Every five minutes or so, Statham starts slowing down, and starts dying, so he has to do something morally shocking to get his adrenaline back up. At first it’s funny and mildly exhilarating watching Statham sink into a pool of drugs, violence, and sex. But, once you know the joke it stops becoming funny. I get it! He has to do something crazy to stay alive.

This could work if Crank was interested in building momentum, but it wants to be exciting for every single minute of its running time. The ending has the same level of excitement as the beginning. It’s like babysitting a kid with ADHD who wants to show you how amazing he is by doing lots of stupid things for an hour and a half. At first it’s kind of amusing, but it gets annoying really fast.

I liked a few things about the movie. An action scene involving a car traveling up an escalator made me laugh, and the last two minutes are great, but everything else is a horrible blur.

For a movie so interested in being exciting, it’s amazing how boring Crank truly is.

Star Rating - * out of 4

What I Rented - Hard Candy

Hard Candy tries to follow a difficult road, but unfortunately takes a few too many lefts when it should be taking rights. It’s the story of a man, Jeff, (Patrick Wilson) who has lured a 14 year old girl, Hayley, (Ellen Page), by way of Internet chat rooms, to meet him at a restaurant. He takes her back to his house, they have a few drinks, and before long he’s passed out. When he wakes up he finds that the innocent little girl he was trying to take advantage of is a tough as nails crusader who has some nasty surprises in store for him.

Hard Candy’s biggest accomplishment is in its casting. Patrick Wilson and Ellen Page are fantastic together before the script goes completely over the top. Wilson has the difficult task of trying to make his character, a sexual predator, charming and creepy at the same time, and he does so remarkably. One of the film’s big mysteries is just how far Jeff has gone with his past encounters, and it’s a true testament to Wilson’s performance that I could envision him being both innocent and guilty.

Page has the more showy role; the innocent ingénue turned avenging attacker, and in the early scenes she is extremely convincing. She plays the little girl with a hint more wisdom than a girl her age should have, yet she never loses sight of the fact that she is 14.

These early scenes are sharply written, tense, and stem naturally from the characters’ motivations. About halfway through the movie though, I started to feel like certain lines of dialogue and situations were being imposed on the story. Hayley’s voice slowly starts to feel like the voice of a much older character and her actions become far more unbelievable (is she really that clever or that strong?). These changes take away from the credibility the film has established, and lead the movie toward a contrived ending that I didn’t believe for one second.

By the end, the film succumbs to shock value, and the carefully nuanced writing becomes abrasive and by-the-numbers (even resorting to the clichéd neighbour-just-decided-to-stop-by scene). It’s a shame because when Hard Candy isn’t trying so hard, it’s one of the more engrossing thrillers of recent memory.

Star Rating **1/2 (out of 4 stars)

What I Rented - Miami Vice

Miami Vice has to be the coolest movie ever made. That’s not a compliment, just an observation. Characters slam down mad rhymes, people rarely smile, there’s all sorts of “Vice” lingo that is so nonsensical it must be important, and when anyone takes a shower they aren’t on their own for too long (uh huh!).

I have to hand it to Michael Mann. He is committed to this cool vision even if that vision veers into self-parody numerous times.

Crockett and Tubbs know the seedy drug underworld, and when an informant spills the beans on a wide array of undercover FBI agents, it’s up to the Miami Vice Squad to rebuild the case. This means…deep cover. Or as Tubbs says, they are in so deep they can’t tell, “which way is up!”……so cool Tubbs, so cool. Of course, Crockett finds himself not only deeply undercover, but deeply in love with Isabella, a business woman who deals in drugs.

The biggest problem with Miami Vice is that there is nothing beneath the cool surface. Crockett and Tubbs act the same way in their personal lives as they do on the job. Because the audience can’t see their fears, hopes, dreams, or how they love outside of a sexual relationship they become one note crusaders. The right actors could maybe have pulled this off. Look at Daniel Craig’s work in Casino Royale – yes he’s cool, but Craig always makes sure to pull back, and reveal slight insecurities when nobody’s looking. Foxx and Farrell always maintain a cool persona, and it becomes tiresome and ultimately alienating.

How can an audience care about these relationships when there’s no real sense that the characters care about one another?

The movie finally gets its second wind in the last forty-five minutes when everything gets out of hand for Crockett and Tubbs. Mann creates some genuinely suspenseful action scenes. As he has shown in Heat and Collateral he knows how to stage a shootout, and Miami Vice is no exception. For this chunk of the movie, Mann finally surrenders his film to its surface level style, and the clinical way in which he follows each step of the action is captivating.

It’s not enough to save the movie, however; and Mann’s attempt at an emotionally complex ending falls flat.

Miami Vice tries too hard to be hip and cutting edge. It can focus on beautiful women, fast boats, sleek airplanes, cool clothes, and slick weapons all it wants, but with nothing behind it, it all just comes off as superficial nonsense.

Star Rating ** (out of 4 stars)