Fun Flicks and Fabulous Finds

2009 | U.S. | 115 minutes
Director: Richard Eyre
Writers: Richard Eyre, Charles Wood (based on a short story by Bernhard Schlink)
Cast: Liam Neeson, Antonio Banderas, Laura Linney
Distributor: Image Entertainment
Cdn video distributor: Image Entertainment

The Wife jokingly calls me “Bastardo” sometimes. She picked it up from an episode of Everybody Loves Raymond. She calls me that because the sadist in me loves playing mind games on her. She can be very neurotic, and one trick that never fails to push her buttons is when I pretend to get all serious and say, “Sweetie, I hate to do this but there’s something we have to talk about.” A worried look always erupts on her face. She nervously braces herself, while I quietly milk the tension for as long as I can, before I finally quip, “Nah, I’m just kidding.”

Some day that stunt will be the death of me — a gory blood-spattered end at the hands of my darling — and when the truth is revealed that I’ve tortured her with this for years, there won’t be a jury in this country that’ll convict her.

I was thinking this as I watched the plot of The Other Man unfold because it uses much the same tactic, and it’s maddening. Finally I’m getting a taste of my own medicine, I guess.

Part of my mistake was in watching the trailer for this beforehand. It tempts you with the promise of a mystery thriller — and it is for awhile — until it pulls off its mask and shows its true face. The set-up is, a woman (Laura Linney) vanishes and her husband (Liam Neeson) uncovers evidence there is “another man” (Antonio Banderas) in her life. He wants to track him down. He wants to meet him. He also wants to kill him. It’s an engaging start to a story. Where it ends is stunning in its banality.

What you’ll discover is a story that plays out like a variation of a Three’s Company episode. We — the audience — are like one of those characters who overhear a conversation which, without the benefit of context, provokes assumptions about all manner of degenerate activity. Of course we’re being prepped for a shocker when the actual context finally surfaces.

The film does this by utilizing two literary traditions. One is the mystery thriller. In a typical mystery the audience is in cahoots with the lead. What they know, we know. The thrill is in figuring out how all the pieces of the puzzle fit together. In The Sixth Sense, for example, the twist happens when the Bruce Willis character finally gets the last piece of the puzzle. It’s a gasp-inducing moment for him, and the viewer. But the surprise in The Other Man is that this mystery is being married with another literary technique.

That technique is known as the “unreliable narrator.” This is usually a first-person narrator who tells us a story but, at the end, we discover they’re not telling us everything that is pertinent. They could even be lying. This was used to good effect in The Usual Suspects, and is a handy device for all kinds of characters — except the hero.

In The Other Man, Liam Neeson‘s character is presented as our conduit to the story. We go where he goes. We may not agree with his scheme to commit murder but we come to sympathize with him. We understand the pain he must be feeling. Except we don’t understand, because we find out he knows something the film stubbornly doesn’t share with us. We’re suppose to be surprised when we finally discover what it is but it’s a cheap deception, and the audience doesn’t deserve it.

The films of Atom Egoyan love pulling the same trick. I’m not aware if they still do because I stopped watching them for this reason. It basically involves taking a simple story and telling it in non-linear fashion. The Other Man uses a similar non-linear technique to keep us guessing but it at least cleverly cloaks its dull reality by making us think we’re watching an erotic thriller. Still, it divorces us from the characters. We are no longer “in” the story, with the characters, but outside it. Alone.

It’s a very alienating device.

Those who indulge in this form of storytelling will surely explain there is a purpose to their methods. That they want to challenge our perceptions, begging us to think about why we tend to see things differently when viewed from a different angle. Yeah, whatever.

The Other Man is based on a short story by Bernhard Schlink, who also wrote the source novel for The Reader, and that explains a lot. The Reader provokes similar thoughts via its piecemeal, non-linear approach. It suggests that telling the whole truth is not necessarily wise.

Perhaps. But as the clench-fisted, primal scream reaction of my Sweetie confirms (whenever I mess with her head) conscious deception is not the best road to travel if you want to illicit such discussions. It might even get you killed. Forgive me, Sweetie.

• Theatrical release date: September 11, 2009
• Video release date: December 15, 2009
• Production Budget: N/A
• Worldwide Box Office: $149,528

FUN ALTERNATIVE: If the subject of infidelity strikes your fancy, Unfaithful is a gem.

Director Adrian Lynne has touched on this topic before with Indecent Proposal and Fatal Attraction and, as with his previous films, he does not attempt to demonize the marriage of his characters (here played by Diane Lane and Richard Gere) nor does the cheating spouse (Lane) actively seek out a lover. Once more fate intervenes with her chance meeting with the very handsome Olivier Martinez.

The sex scenes here are some of the most graphic and erotic of any Hollywood feature. Arguably the most erotic. It’s also perfectly plausible how her character could fall for this guy because the sex is not just a physical act, but a seduction of her most erogenous zone — her mind.

How their affair evolves — and ends — as well as its repercussions is quite unexpected. There are plenty of unexpected twists. But it never fails to lose sight of the issue that betrayal always has consequences.

Despite its serious subject matter, with its inherent depressing elements, it’s exciting drama throughout.

—–

AUTHOR’S NOTE: The last few weeks have been a busy time, helping to promote the Corinth Films release of The Bicycle Thief with a variety of b&w ads for The New York Times, as well as its upcoming premiere at the Music Hall Theatre in L.A. This is why I haven’t posted in quite a few weeks.

Besides this other work intruded which I can’t detail at the moment, but I should have a post about one of those projects in early January.

Thus far in this blog I’ve attempted to address the common interest in video new releases but, as a recreational exercise, it’s proven not only to be a time-consuming task, but one that detracts from my original intention (as reflected in the name “Fun Flicks and Fabulous Finds”).

The above write-up for The Other Man was written back in November and I’ve held back on posting it — and others — because I felt it further diminishes what this blog was supposed to be about.

But that’s something I hope to remedy in the New Year.

2009 | U.S. | 115 minutes
Director: McG
Writers: John D. Brancato, Michael Ferris
Cast: Christian Bale, Sam Worthington, Moon Bloodgood, Helena Bonham Carter
Distributor: Warner Brothers Pictures
Cdn video distributor: Warner Home Video

The Terminator and Terminator 2: Judgment Day are widely known as action classics. They also told simple stories. Hero vs unstoppable killing machine. Just one. If the machine got close enough, it was game over. Hero dead, and humanity doomed.

That’s it. Very simple. Very direct. Lots of fun.

Terminator Salvation — set sometime after the nuclear holocaust that closed out Terminator 3 — strives to top this by throwing in dozens of terminators. Some fly, a few look like sporty motorcycles, others like snakes, and one resembles a 10-storey high Transformer. There’s even the return of the Arnold Schwarzenegger T-800 model. Yet none of them seem very capable as terminators. They all behave like spy villain henchmen. Countless times they get their metallic claws on their prime targets — John Connor and Kyle Reese — and what do they do? Throw them across rooms, mostly.

And what happens when the true scheme is finally revealed at story’s end? It’s told in typical spy movie fashion with the chief villain — the Skynet mainframe computer — explaining its devious plan to the one person most capable of foiling it.

Remember Scott Evil from the Austin Powers films? He was always chastising his dad, Dr. Evil, about such senseless toying. He was all for blowing away Austin Powers without hesitation.

Yet the antagonist is not supposed to reflect the dim-witted thought processes of Dr. Evil. They’re Terminators. Menacing machines, programmed to kill. The embodiment of the Scott Evil philosophy of don’t-dilly-dally. It’s what made the earlier stories so terrifying. It’s why they’re called “terminators” in the first place. As the Kyle Reese character succinctly explained in the first movie, “It can’t be bargained with. It can’t be reasoned with. It doesn’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.”

The film is also bogged down by its stubborn focus on the Connor family life cycle, once again reminding us of the paradoxes of time travel and its threat of retroactive-abortion. It’s further complicated by the introduction of a new character named Marcus Wright (Sam Worthington). He’s even given a love interest in the form of a tough, scrappy lass named Blair Williams (Moon Bloodgood). Ultimately, though, his character is just a pawn in Skynet’s Dr Evil-like scheme to kill the present and future John Connor.

Most may not comprehend the silliness of this plotting since the whole thing is set in a dull-grey, desolate world that never offers a moment of levity or comic relief. Even the revival of the “I’ll be back” phrase is drained of its comical irony.

It’s all so bleak and serious.

Here’s a suggestion for the writers of future Terminator sequels: stop trying to add wrinkles to the Connor family storyline. Ideally, dump it altogether. Go back to basics. Keep it simple. Have a group of survivors in some safe haven. Eventually have them surrounded by an army of terminators, all bent on killing anything in sight. The challenge: how do they get out of this pickle?

Don’t have Skynet lure its nemesis to its secret underground lair (seriously, that’s what happens in this film)

In case you care, yes, there is action. Deadly showdowns, guns blazing, buildings exploding, plus lots of foot chases, car chases and aerial sequences.

But if the experience of watching all this elaborate production design, state-of-the-art f/x and action fails to thrill as much as the previous films — you’d think it would — it’ll probably happen when you realize that the terminators are not really terminators anymore. More like Fembots.

John Connor and Kyle Reese will surely live to see another sequel in the face of such incompetent adversaries.

• Theatrical release date: May 21, 2009
• Video release date: December 1, 2009
• Production Budget: $200 million
• Worldwide Box Office: $371,352,910

FUN ALTERNATIVE: Terminator Salvation director McG confessed he used the story of The Road as inspiration for his film. He would have been better off studying The Road Warrior.

For one thing The Road Warrior dispenses with it backstory shortly after the opening credits, and then soars into action.

Also set in a post-apocalyptic world, Mel Gibson reprises his Mad Max character and, at first, he’s just as ruthless as his opponents. Any attempts at decency are merely acts to fulfill his selfish interests (fuel for his car, primarily). When the last of his worldly possessions — and his dog — are finally wiped out, he finally resigns to commit a selfless act. Even then he’s mostly compelled because he has no other choice. He simply has nothing left to live for (the screenwriters Terry Hayes, George Miller and Brian Hannant used the samurai films of Akira Kurosawa, classic Hollywood westerns, as well as the writings of Joseph Campbell — he wrote a book on mythology entitled “The Hero with a Thousand Faces” – as inspiration). The John Connor character could have used such complexity, instead of the all-noble hero he apparently strives to be.

Best of all, there’s no computer-generated imagery here. Everything you see is real-time action. Every full-throttle image, dangerous stunt, and crushing crash. Occasionally the camera is under-cranked to add a sense of speed, but the overall realness is breathtaking.

Curiously, the final chase sequence was modeled after the climax in Buster Keaton‘s The General. Indeed this is a film that borrows from the best, and remains one of the greatest action films of all-time.

2009 | U.S. | 146 minutes (153 minutes unrated)
Director: Judd Apatow
Writers: Judd Apatow
Cast: Adam Sandler, Seth Rogen, Leslie Mann, Eric Bana
Distributor: Universal Pictures
Cdn video distributor: Universal Studios

When you make a movie about stand-up comics, cast it full of comedians, advertise that it’s from the writer/director of 40-Year-Old Virgin and Knocked-Up, and then give it a title like Funny People, you’re asking for trouble if your aim is to make it a drama.

Critics love movies like this. It exudes daring via its avoidance of pandering. Audiences, if caught unaware, will feel cheated. But is it worth seeing?

That depends on what works as entertainment for you.

The best thing about it is its setting: the world of comics and the filthy rich. Writer/director Judd Apatow clearly knows a lot about both, effectively capturing the rapport of those who inhabit that scene. For example, you often see two comic characters trying to write jokes, and they never react to the process with laughter but with dry, low-key responses like “Yeah, that’s funny.” Clearly comedy in no longer fun for them. It’s work. It’s a means to pay the bills.

The other aspect it captures well — and I’ve befriended some stand-up comics in my time to know — is that these people can be both great friends with one another, as well as vicious back-stabbers. Yet they stick together because, just in case one of them hits it big, they want to hitch a ride on their rocket.

That’s precisely what our hero does, and it’s main motivator for just about everyone in this story. As for the rest — the successful ones — they relish their torment of the less fortunate (watch the Jason Schwartzman character to get a further taste of this). If that’s your idea of entertainment, you’re in for a blast.

Seth Rogen plays Ira, a struggling comedian with a minimum wage job who is best friends with Leo (Jonah Hill) — but not enough that he won’t screw him out of a golden opportunity to work for the fabulously wealthy comic star George Simmons (Adam Sandler). He grabs that gig for himself.

The story mostly follows Ira’s dealings George who is not especially likable (evidenced by his lack of friends) but one thing makes him want to change — the rare blood disorder he learns is killing him. George starts off playing mentor to Ira but, really, he just wants the company. He hates being alone, especially with death at his door. But when George miraculously cures himself of his disease, he sets off on a new mission — to reconnect with the girl he dumped years ago, Laura (Leslie Mann), now married with kids.

Everyone in this story starts off seeming nice enough, but their selfish tendencies inevitably surface. Even Laura sees the opportunity to rekindle her abandoned acting career when George re-enters her life. Husband and kids be damned. But it’s George who progressively becomes more distasteful as the story moves on. Why be nice when you’re rich, no longer dying, and can do anything you want?

This is what Funny People does well. There is little contrivance in how the characters behave, including Ira’s eventual selfless compulsion to save Laura’s marriage to Clarke (Eric Bana) who is seemingly the most awful character of the bunch. One nice twist is Bana’s performance during a lawn-fight scene. It’s fitting, tension-filled, funny and filled with heartfelt emotion and caring.

This is the kind of comedy/drama hybrid James L. Brooks (Terms of Endearment, Spanglish, As Good As It Gets) is famous for and probably explains why he’s given “thanks” in the end credits. I suspect Funny People could have been an excellent tale throughout if he was at the helm, and it’s too bad he wasn’t. It’s a delicate balancing act to build a story around people who treat each other so terribly in their pursuit of money and fame and, here, it inevitably has an alienating effect.

The funniest bits are when the characters meet various celebrities, playing themselves. They include Ray Romano, Eminem, Norm MacDonald, Sarah Silverman and James Taylor. Of course they’re not really themselves — more like self-parodies — and that’s what makes it fun.

The main characters, too, come off best when they poke fun at their own personas (e.g. the film-within-a-film clips of George’s comedy blockbusters, clearly modeled after Sandler’s related successes). Mostly, though, they treat each other badly until the final reel and, for a two-and-a-half hour movie, it’s a long time to tolerate such unsavory behaviour.

• Theatrical release date: July 31, 2009
• Video release date: November 24, 2009
• Production Budget: $75 million
• Worldwide Box Office: $61,458,982

FUN ALTERNATIVE: Punchline also aims more for drama than comedy, and its tale of the struggles of doing stand-up plays quite similarly — comics are miserable people who are not very funny in day-to-day life.

Tom Hanks‘ scenes — especially the hospital gig — solidly capture the art of stand-up, and Sally Field pulls off some genuine laughs when she finally gets a hang of things. Still, comedy is seen as work, and — judging from these movies — you only become successful if you keep working at it. Not because you’re funny.

2009 | U.S. | 138 minutes (146 extended)
Director: Ron Howard
Writers: Tom Hanks,
Cast: Tom Hanks, Ewan McGregor, Ayelet Zurer, Stellan Skarsgård
Distributor: Sony Pictures Entertainment
Cdn video distributor: Columbia/Tristar

Angels & Demons is the follow-up to The Da Vinci Code — based on a book written prior to its release — and replaces intriguing religious study with more conventional thrills. It is also surprisingly more entertaining. My hunch is, having David Koepp on board as a co-screenwriter helped a lot.

The uniqueness of the first film was its exhaustive overview of Christian history. It pieced together various historical facts with compelling conspiracy theories in its imagined quest to solve the greatest myth of all-time: the holy grail (except, of course, it wasn’t a cup in that instance). Jammed into a thriller template, the characters senselessly ran all over Europe — chased by police and a secret society — as if lives depended on them solving the damnedest mystery known to man within 24 hours. Even then, it stopped short of confirming its hypothesis, leaving our hero pretty much back where he started.

Having exhausted much of the tantalizing history of the Christian/Catholic faith in the first story, there’s not much to play with in Angels & Demons. Instead, it invents a mystery thriller that uses the Vatican as its setting and, this time, it’s given a practical time-sensitive puzzle: solve it before midnight or else four cardinals will die and the Vatican, plus much of Rome, will blow up. That’s a thriller.

The action sequences are still in the implausible realm — as in the first story, there are countless just-in-the-nick-of-time set-ups — but the Church vs science debate that drives the story, the Vatican setting, as well as its unique violent threat (a sample of stolen anti-matter) adds a huge level of interest over the typical terrorist-threat story-line.

The story also introduces some red herrings as to who may be behind it all, and the final reveal is both surprising and frustrating (the ultimate motive proves far less interesting than originally suggested) but the journey there is still a fun ride despite the illogical speed with which people travel (across Rome in about 5 minutes) and urgent quests that prove unnecessary (e.g. the secret journals which seem so important, but are never read and later forgotten).

What’s especially nice is that, at the end of the story, our hero Prof. Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) is given good reason to pause and ponder his religious beliefs (something The Da Vinci Code only fleetingly addressed). He clearly teeters on the line between logical skepticism and faithful acceptance — the film doesn’t force us to decide which way he should fall — but his “save the day” efforts certainly add emotional weight to this struggle, and might be useful fodder for future adventures.

• Theatrical release date: May 15, 2008
• Video release date: November 24, 2009
• Production Budget: $150 million
• Worldwide Box Office: $485,900,330

FUN ALTERNATIVE: It’s strange there are so few films centred around the Vatican; a sovereign city-state with its own economy and security force. The Godfather, Part III is largely viewed as the weakest entry in the Godfather Trilogy, but it’s this setting that helps keep it intriguing. It makes it plausible that a mobster like Michael Corleone (Al Pacino) would throw gobs of cash at the Catholic Church, and gain their blessing — all in the vain hope of washing away his past sins.

It uses the unusual death of Pope John Paul I as a means to suggest how such a deed could play out, but the location alone — and the back-room dealings it dramatizes — are compelling enough on their own.

2008 | U.S. | 88 minutes
Director: Seth Gordon
Writers: Matt R. Allen, Caleb Wilson, Jon Lucas, Scott Moore
Cast: Vince Vaughn, Reese Witherspoon, Robert Duvall , Jon Favreau, Mary Steenburgen
Distributor: Alliance Atlantis
Cdn video distributor: Alliance Atlantis

Four Christmases is a movie that probably started out as a pitch. It certainly has comedic potential; a loving couple spend Christmas with their wacky divorced parents. Most of us know that family + Christmas can be the greatest love/hate combo there is, ripe with drama and all manner of painfully funny moments. It’s a promising start.

Since Vince Vaughn and Reese Witherspoon are listed as producers, surely their willingness to star in it sealed the deal. The supporting cast they corral is equally stellar; Robert Duvall, Mary Steenburgen, Jon Voight, Dwight Yoakam, Sissy Spacek and Jon Favreau.

It sounds hilarious already.

It starts off well enough. The introductory scene is the best, effectively setting up the nature of the relationship between Vaughn and Witherspoon. The verbal sparring between them in subsequent scenes have some nice bits too, and I suspect it’s because they (especially Vaughn) ad-libbed their lines.

Where the story is headed carries no surprises. Vaughn and Witherspoon play commitment-phobic lovers whose disastrous childhoods have killed their ambitions for marriage and kids. You know that will change, no matter how awful their encounters are with family and projectile-vomiting babies.

Oddly, the film sets up all sorts of comedic situations but doesn’t follow through with them. Steenburgen, for example, is introduced as a “cougar” with some inappropriate desires for younger men. Including Vaughan. After she greets him at the door she doesn’t do much else except walk around in a tight dress. Meanwhile her husband is an evangelical minister played by Dwight Yoakam. Just imagine. Man-of-the-cloth with a horny housewife — the laugh-inducing possibilities are endless. But instead he’s used as a device for a poorly mishandled Mary & Joseph scene, where Vaughan very publicly — and without motivation —  consciously insults and humiliates Witherspoon.

There’s an old saying that comedy is not about action but reactions. The filmmakers here surely need a lesson in this basic rule. Take, for example, the satellite dish scene. It’s descends into a wild, nicely choreographed slapstick moment with most of the characters screaming and crying their heads off. If they only sat stone-faced (especially Duvall) it would have played beautifully. As it stands, it’s only when Vaughan quietly delivers his punch-line that it pays-off.

This is a comedy filled with great actors, missed opportunities and, occasionally, a laugh-worthy gag. It also ends way too quickly.

The film is listed as running 82 minutes, but over 7 minutes of that is end credits. It’s obvious padding. Even the biggest blockbusters, with hundreds of CGI technicians, don’t milk time that long.

One other thing, did anyone notice Carol Kane as Steenburgen’s sister and fellow cougar? She has maybe one throw-away line, and then disappears. Who on earth hires Carol Kane for a comedy and doesn’t use her? Check out her performance as the Ghost of Christmas Present in Scrooged. It’s one of the funniest things you’ll ever see.

• Theatrical release date: November 26, 2008
• Video release date: November 24, 2009
• Production Budget: $80 million
• Worldwide Box Office: $163,733,697

FUN ALTERNATIVE: There are a number of solid Christmas-themed comedies such as A Christmas Story, Scrooged and The Ref, but Christmas Vacation incorporates some genuinely funny moments that Four Christmases strives for, but never quite pulls off.

Remember what I said about comedy being about reactions, not action? Try to imagine Clark Griswold having his “Christmas bonus meltdown” if his family wasn’t quietly watching. Or the Christmas lights scene without the unsuspecting neighbours having a quiet romantic interlude. The act is only as funny as the reaction its tempered with — and there are some doozies in this one.

It’s also worth highlighting again the Carol Kane scene in Scrooged. It may be the ultimate slapstick scene in cinema history. And what reaction makes it over-the-top funny? Kane’s uncontrollable giggling as she sadistically knocks Bill Murray around. She’s so tiny, cute and adorable, its a gleeful contrast to the violence she inflicts.

2009 | U.S. | 127 minutes
Director: J.J. Abrams
Writers: Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman
Cast: Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto , Leonard Nimoy, Eric Bana, Bruce Greenwood
Distributor: Paramount Pictures
Cdn video distributor: Paramount

By now this much should be obvious — the new Star Trek is visually lush with a slick new Enterprise, a hot new crew, and some of the best action and f/x the series has ever seen. This much is true.

But it’s also loaded with some remarkably silly plot motivators that transform once admirable characters (Kirk, Spock and all the rest) into younger and dumber versions of themselves.

For the last 40 years or so the Star Trek universe has almost become a religion. It is not just a franchise but also an idealized view of what the human race is capable of. The story lines habitually frowned upon self-serving attitudes because, in a future where technology brings cultures together, the need to acknowledge and respect diversity would seem essential (Star Trek: First Contact convincingly spells out how the human race would undergo this important change).

This value system was deemed especially important for the characters of Starfleet because, as frontline ambassadors, if they can’t embrace these high ideals — and behave peacefully and selflessly — what sort of example do they set for the diverse alien cultures they will surely meet?

It is this struggle to rise above their immature past — to better themselves — that has made the Star Trek characters so endearing, and the franchise a global phenomenon.

Yet this new tricked-out Star Trek largely forsakes this humanitarian philosophy in favour of spunky heroes who — despite being top-of-the-class graduates — have got a lot to learn about getting along with each other, much less the rest of the universe.

Kirk, for example (Chris Pine), is made into a reckless, arrogant hotdog who earns the disdain of everyone at one point or another — except Bones for some reason. The events that follow only support his inflated notion of himself. As for Spock (Zachary Quinto), he clearly loves his mother a great deal, but he’s also annoyingly pompous. The two perpetually get into power struggles until Kirk literally has to knock Spock off his pedestal (and out of his Captain’s chair) to prove his hotshot hunches will save the day. Now humbled, this supposedly makes them good friends in the end.

Meanwhile Uhura (Zoë Saldana) uses her sex and miniskirt (via her relationship with Spock) to help secure her assignment to the Enterprise. Apparently sleeping your way to the middle still works in the future. As for Scotty (Simon Pegg), he’s pissed about being stuck in the universal-equivalent of Alaska. Even after he learns Earth faces certain doom, he’s more excited about his unexpected promotion to the Enterprise than the fate of billions.

Only Bones (Karl Urban) comes off more positively because he’s the only one indifferent about his lot in life. He apparently lost everything he valued — “except my bones” — in his divorce.

Much of the advance press for Star Trek used the word “reboot” — and it’s an apt word. The plot feels like a computer system restart that spends more time reloading programs than running them.

And as upgrades go, this is the buggiest one I’ve ever seen.

The challenge the writers had was this: how can they re-introduce the old Star Trek characters — Kirk, Spock, Scotty, Bones, Uhura, Chekov and Sulu — and logically change their story (just a tad) for a new generation? Solution: Time travel and alternate realities.

The set-up involves saving the planet Romulus from a supernova, and the effect that has on a Romulan named Captain Nero (Eric Bana). If you’ve seen the movie, try answering some of these questions for me. I just can’t figure them out:

1. Why would the Federation send a geriatric statesman — alone — on such an important mission to Romulus?
2. Why exactly is Captain Nero mad at the Federation, and Spock (Leonard Nimoy) in particular? Is it because he’s a slow driver?
3. How are supernovas the fault of the Federation?
4. How does Captain Nero know to wait 25 years for Spock? As captain of a mining ship, what would he know about artificial black holes?
5. Why the complicated, time-consuming process of drilling into a planet’s core when a surface hit of the “red matter” would likely do the trick?
6. Why does elder Spock park his ass in an ice cave when a Federation outpost is within walking distance? Wouldn’t it at least be warmer, with more food?

Star Trek raises all kinds of head-scratchers like this. So how did it become a critically acclaimed box office smash? Thank goodness for non-linear narratives and lots of distracting thrills.

For example, we never find out the whole Nero back-story (the ultimate in baffling plot drivers) until the film is about 3/4 of the way through. Even then it’s explained so quickly (about 2 minutes worth of flashbacks), we barely have time to process how ridiculous it is. Besides, with scores of action and mass destruction — much more opulent then any previous entry in the series — who cares about plot?

Despite its messy narrative, the story of Star Trek still boils down to good triumphing over evil, with liberal references to past adventures to keep Trekkies happy (e.g. Wrath of Khan and its Centaurian slugs, Sulu’s fencing skills from “The Naked Time” episode, as well as Vulcan pinches, warp drives and familiar catchphrases such as “Dammit, man! I’m a doctor, not a physicist!”)

Presumably, if you dealing with a story that defies the logic of physics anyway, you don’t care about narrative logic either.

Still, now that this jumbled preamble is out the way, I hope the writers get back to more inspiring stories for the sequels — and, please, have the characters grow up a bit.

• Theatrical release date: May 7, 2009
• Video release date: November 17, 2009
• Production Budget: $150 million
• Worldwide Box Office: $384,953,671

FUN ALTERNATIVE: There are a lot of reasons why Star Trek: First Contact is one of the best in the series. It not only features Patrick Stewart as Jean-Luc Picard (arguably the greatest Enterprise Captain ever), it incorporates the Borg (the series’ most intriguing villains) and further sets the story at the imaginary pivotal point when the human race becomes Trekkers; a race no longer consumed with navel-gazing, but now inspired to think beyond its borders and seek harmony with others.

Of course, despite years of evolution, even someone as strong and idealistic as Picard can still be taught a lesson or two about humanity. The exchange between him and a relatively minor character name Lilly (Alfre Woodard) best illustrates this, as it segues into a clever reference to Moby Dick.

It’s a fascinating story with action, suspense, and the some well-placed comic relief. Plus, like the new Star Trek movie, it uses time travel as a plot device. The notion of time travel has always been silly — its use here is no exception — but at least the motivations for the characters make plausible sense, rendering them extremely likable.

Roger Ebert said in his original 1996 review of the film that “Star Trek movies are not so much about action and effects as they are about ideas and dialogue.”

Not anymore, unfortunately.

2009 | U.S. | 109 minutes
Director: Nick Cassavetes
Writers: Nick Cassavetes, Jeremy Leven (based on a book by Jodi Picoult)
Cast: Cameron Diaz, Abigail Breslin, Sofia Vassilieva, Eric Baldwin, Joan Cuzack
Distributor: Alliance Atlantis
Cdn video distributor: Alliance Atlantis

My Sister’s Keeper launches right away into it’s captivating story; desperate parents (Cameron Diaz and Jason Patric) engineer a test-tube baby as spare parts for their leukemia-stricken daughter, Kate. 11 years later, that baby is now their very bright and mature daughter, Anna (Abigail Breslin). Since birth Anna has endured a variety of painful surgical procedures to keep her sister alive, but now she’s being asked to donate a kidney. There’s no guarantee the procedure will work, but it will certainly make Anna’s future health less assured. So she retains a lawyer (Alec Baldwin) and sues her parents for rights to her body.

You might assume this premise would evolve into a story involving character conflicts, but this is a family that loves each other too much for that to happen. No, this is actually a conflict with something less tangible; inevitable death.

Death should have come knocking for Kate (Sofia Vassilieva) 10 years ago, but the love of her family (not just Anna’s body parts) have not only kept Kate’s body alive but her spirit too. It has bonded them together as nothing else could. But the grim reaper is a stubborn sort, and if it can’t take Kate, it will kill her family instead. Slowly and surely.

Already it’s destroying the parent’s marriage. Meanwhile Jesse, their son (Evan Ellingson), is pushed to the sidelines as everyone focuses their energies on Kate’s dilemma. Not to mention the bodily harm that Anna has to endure. Still, nobody harbours resentment about it all. But there is a growing acceptance amongst everyone — including the doctors — that the time has come to stop cheating death and rebuild what’s left of the family. Anna’s lawsuit is not so much about her rights, but a means to finally confront this fact.

The only one not ready to accept the inevitable is Mom.

The stubbornness of Diaz’s character is sometimes off-putting, but she never evolves into a character we can hate. What mother could accept the death of a child? In fact, this is that rare film where everyone is likable, including minor characters.

For example the judge in Anna’s case, played by Joan Cuzack, would have been a thankless role in any other film. Here she is given a backstory, as well as an unexpected opportunity to express her inner emotions about it. It’s a powerful wordless moment that is loaded with subtext. You can’t help but love her, as with everyone else in this story.

Death is the only villain of the piece.

My Sister’s Keeper is a marvel in how it handles its story. Every scene strikes the perfect note in how each character would likely react in a given situation. Co-writer/director Nick Cassavetes (son of actor/filmmaker John Cassavetes and actress Gena Rowlands) has clearly inherited his father’s mastery of replicating realism, but instead of long improvisational scenes (which his dad tendered to favour) Nick works from a very tight, well-structured script.

This is a story that has thought a great deal about the issues it raises, but doesn’t easily spell it out for us. It has so many layers, you’ll likely ponder matters long after the film is over.

The only thing that becomes taxing about the film is that the cancer issue is ever-present. Nearly every scene talks about it and, while worthy of seriousness, comic relief can be welcome element without being distasteful.

Thankfully there’s Tyler (Thomas Dekker). Tyler is a cancer sufferer too, and he becomes Kate’s boyfriend for awhile. He proves to be the best boyfriend a girl could ask for. All of his scenes are a pleasure to watch, provoking laughs, feelings of joy and signs of caring, without ever seeming forced. It’s a shame he disappears from the story when he does. It’s a logical exit — even necessary — but the film really benefits from his presence, and saves it from being a complete downer.

The ending is more a relief, than sad or tearful. The experience of watching it is much the same. Finally, the pain is over. Given its subject matter, it’s difficult to imagine how it could play out any other way.

NOTE: After posting this my sister-in-law, Teresa, pointed out that in the original book the story does end another way. To her the movie was a “huge disappointment.”

This might be a good excuse to tell a story I heard about John Cassavetes. It’s from the documentary  I’m Almost Not Crazy, in reference to Opening Night which he wrote and directed. Cohort Ted Allan recalls seeing an early version of it that garnered thunderous applause from the audience. They loved it. Allan looks over at Cassavetes and notices he’s  just sitting there, pale, and not very happy. This was clearly not the response he wanted.

Sure enough, for the next screening, the final 30 minutes of the film is recut and when it ends, the audience is silent. No applause. But Cassavetes is pleased.

Perhaps the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree after all.

• Theatrical release date: June 26, 2009
• Video release date: November 17, 2009
• Production Budget: $30 million
• Worldwide Box Office: $78,771,734

FUN ALTERNATIVE: Remember Tyler in My Sister’s Keeper? Whose Life Is It Anyway? is what the Cassavetes film might have been like if he was the lead character.

Richard Dreyfuss plays Ken Harrison, a successful sculptor with a beautiful girlfriend (Janet Eilber). Life is wonderful until — wham! — car accident, and he’s paralysed for life.

Now trapped in a hospital bed, he can see, smell and talk. That’s about it. He can’t make love to his girl — nor even hold her hand — and he certainly can’t do the one thing he loves most; sculpting.

At any other time in human history, his particular condition would have led to certain death. But, due to advances in medical technology, he can be kept alive. He doesn’t think it’s fair.

So begins his legal battle with the hospital administration to let nature takes its course.

For a film about a man bed-bound for its duration, it’s far more compelling than it should. What keeps it vibrant is the sense of humour Dreyfuss constantly exudes. Often times its silly one-liners — to keep his character’s spirits up — but it’s also his charming relationships with the staff, such Mary Jo (Kaki Hunter), a cute young nurse trainee, and John (Thomas Carter), a fun-loving orderly with a taste for marijuana.

The story naturally addresses the ethical issues his plight — and his mission — provoke, underscored by some strong emotional outbursts, but it’s the practical fun-loving moments sprinkled throughout that keep it from sinking into the doldrums.

One curious note: The main antagonist in this story, Dr. Emerson, is played by the aforementioned John Cassavetes, father of My Sister’s Keeper director/co-writer Nick Cassavetes.

2009 | U.S. | 89 minutes
Director: Neal Brennan
Writers: Andy Stock, Rick Stempson
Cast: Jeremy Piven, Ving Rhames, James Brolin, David Koechner, Kathryn Hahn
Distributor: Paramount Vantage
Cdn video distributor: Paramount

NOTE: Though the dvd release is not scheduled until December 15th, rental versions of this title are now available.

I have to confess, I mostly sat stone-faced throughout Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby, Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy and Step Brothers. I just don’t find silly, self-centred buffoons funny. So when I noticed The Goods: Live Hard, Sell Hard was being promoted as “From the Guys Behind Talladega Nights and Step Brothers,” I was rightfully worried. But one thing — an actor — made me happy to check it out.

His name is Jeremy Piven.

I first noticed Piven in the film PCU, and I’ve been anxious to see more ever since. I was amused by his character because, instead of being a boorish moron, he reacted against stupidity and self-interest. In PCU he was surrounded by crazy people — overzealous screamers who fervently lauded the glories of political correctness — and he and his comrades were literally under siege. I loved watching his blank closed-mouth reaction, as he calmly stared them down — pursing his lips a bit, tilting his head slightly from side-to-side — waiting for the right moment to zap them with a comeback. He always had a zinger, but it was the silent suspense just before that always cracked me up.

In the years since Piven mostly popped up in supporting roles, but it still made me smile. He was one of the joys of Chasing Liberty. His cameo in Rush Hour 2 as a gay tailor was one of its highlights (his ad-libbing in the out-takes was even better). Even his tiny appearance in the tense crime thriller Heat made me crack a grin (I was just glad to see him). But he could also be serious. In The Family Man he delivers a terrific little speech to our hero (Nicolas Cage) about “Fidelity Bank and Trust” that exudes so much about his character, and the heart of the movie.

Over the years I also realized he had a knack for speeches. Direct, no-holds-barred stream-of-consciousness stuff that told things as they were. He exuded smartness, honesty, a wicked sense of humour, as well as an overall concern for his fellow man. No matter what the role, you always sense the persona of a man who loved people and wanted to make them happy. I couldn’t imagine a better person I’d want to get drunk with.

All the while I kept wondering, why doesn’t someone give this man a whole movie? It’s finally here, and he deserves better.

Piven plays Don Ready, an old-school used car salesman who still drinks, smokes and hangs out in strip clubs. His specialty is traveling town-to-town, rescuing troubled dealerships. He does it for the thrills and the money, but his latest assignment stirs up his gentler side. It juices him up to score one last win. Perhaps hang up his spurs for good.

There’s way more story to be told, of course. It involves rivalries — in both business and love — as well as boy bands, child molestation, latent homosexuality and Pearl Harbor. Ultimately this is a film that aims to be outrageous. It exaggerates everything. Characters keep saying and doing things that jolt you out of any plausible reality — and out of their characters — simply to showcase whatever gag dreamt up by the writers.

Piven, of course, is forced to throw himself into the mayhem, but his delivery is only as real as the scene he occupies. The more outrageous the situation, the more awkward he looks — and that happens a lot. Take, for example, the smoking-on-a-plane scene near the beginning. It starts off low-key and promising, and Piven is in command. It quickly evolves into him yelling. Piven is now in a cartoon, divorced from any reality. It’s a potentially good scene, ruined by over-acting.

A similar fate befalls Ready’s crew (Ving Rhames, David Koechner and Kathryn Hahn) who otherwise seem to make a great team. They shine best in the quieter scenes, though they do manage to illicit some effective laughs when called upon to be more ridiculous. If only they could have existed in a less noisy film. They would be a blast.

The elements that most deflate the characters is when the script demands they become downright stupid. In the case of Piven’s character, examples are when he sings (terribly) to a lot-full of customers, or gets all fatherly with a young salesman he suspects may be his son. He’s not, of course, but that doesn’t stop Don Ready from making an ass of himself.

Throughout likable characters are sabotaged in favour of jokes like this; jokes that don’t work. But the problem more likely has to do with miscasting.

Will Ferrell has made this type of film quite a few times now (like the ones mentioned earlier) and, somehow, he has the magic touch to turn these awful moments into box office gold. No matter how unpleasant his character is (or, perhaps, because of it) people laugh. One assumes the casting of Piven was a test to see if he could work the same magic. Now we know.

I just hope Piven rises from this failed experiment to score the big hit I know is in him.

• Theatrical release date: August 14, 2009
• Video release date: December 15, 2009 (currently available for rental)
• Production Budget: $10 million
• Worldwide Box Office: $15,142,571

FUN ALTERNATIVE: Used Cars is still the best comedy about the auto sales trade. The plot is strikingly similar to that of The Goods — sleazy sales guy falls for owner’s daughter and resolves to save dealership from ruthless rival — and features some outlandish scenes of physical comedy. Most of the best moments are the various promotional schemes the characters invent — especially the “Marshall Lucky” bit. While definitely wild and absurd at times, the film stays rooted in the story its telling — something I wish the writers of The Goods had attempted themselves.

Director Robert Zemeckis (he went on to direct the blockbuster Back to the Future movies, Forrest Gump, Contact and Cast Away), co-writer/producer Bob Gale, and star Kurt Russell, provide a very entertaining and informative commentary for the dvd. They try to explain why a lot of the humour works and their pearls of wisdom include “comedy is about reactions… we only laugh about the things that are true” and “this movie proves the Hitchcock premise that you’ll love a character if he’s good at his job.” Just listening to these guys — especially Russell’s uncontrollable laugher throughout — is sometimes more fun than the movie.

2008 | U.S. | 96 minutes
Director: Pete Docter, Bob Peterson
Writers: Pete Docter, Bob Peterson
Cast: Ed Asner, Christopher Plummer
Distributor: Walt Disney Studios
Cdn video distributor: Walt Disney Video

When I was kid our family had a dog named Nemo. It was a wonderful German Shepherd/Labrador mix that loved catching all sorts of things. Especially small animals. Rabbits and muskrats were his usual victims. Whenever I played with him in our backyard, something — some sound or sight out of the corner of his eye — would always catch his attention, prompting his head to whip around and stare at whatever the source was. He’d freeze like that for a bit, before turning his attention back to me, happily panting again. If only he could talk. I always wondered what must be going through his mind.

Now, thanks to Up, I wonder no more. It invents a dialogue for its canine characters — via a voice-box collar that translates dog thoughts into words — that, someday, I suspect will prove to be damn close to reality. Of course, it also made me laugh out loud. The 1:23 mark in this trailer should explain why.

I highlight this because, traditionally, the freedom of animation is that you can do anything. Mostly that other beings — like the toys in Toy Story, the fish in Finding Nemo — get to behave and talk like humans, sharing many the same feelings and desires for love and adventure. It helps give the audience something to relate to. The characters of Up, though, largely stick to their inherit ways. Old men behave like old men, kids like kids, birds like birds and, of course, dogs will always be dogs. The latter are shown to be remarkably well-trained, and though the scope of their abilities (like flying fighter planes during the climax) is definitely a stretch, they still retain their here-boy-fetch instincts. It comes in handy when our heroes are in a pickle.

Up opens with one of the most heart-warming sequences I’ve ever seen in cinema. It’s a lovely, wordless montage that chronicles the love story of two people, Carl and Ellie, from childhood to old age. What follows is the life of Carl after Ellie is gone. Now an old man, he’s a bitter recluse who has transformed his once happy home into a shrine for his departed love. When faced with the final phase of his own life, Carl decides to realize a dream he and Ellie had shared since the day they met; to find a place called Paradise Falls.

Thanks to his life-long profession as a balloon salesman, Carl has all the tools he needs to get the job done; thousands of multi-coloured helium-filled balloons that fly Carl off in search of this mystical land — house and all.

Unbeknownst to Carl, a young kid was under his porch when he launched; a chubby Wilderness Explorer named Russell. He’s not the sharpest knife in the drawer either. Russell ends up throwing a wrench into his Paradise Falls plans, but at least the misadventures that follow allow Carl to realize another dream; an audience with his childhood hero, Charles Muntz (Christopher Plummer).

The appearance of Muntz — isolated from civilization, and surrounded by his army of canines — recalls some spooky similarities to the Kurtz character in Apocalypse Now. Could the name similarities be a coincidence?

Need it be added, Muntz is no longer the hero he once was. Years in the wilderness, haunted by his obsessions to recapture fame and glory, Muntz has gone off the deep-end and emerges as a deadly threat to Carl, Russell and the beastly comrades they’ve come to love.

Knowing this is a Pixar production, it should be a given that the visuals are extraordinary — though produced in 3D, the compositions render beautifully in 2D — and the story follows the usual arc of characters finally making profound realizations that inspire them into heroic acts, filled with action and adventure.

Critics and fans everywhere are often tempted to use expressions such as “this is the best Pixar film yet” but, you have to admit, Up comes up short in its character diversity and all-star casting (Ed Asner, Christopher Plummer and relative unknown Jordan Nagai are the primary voices here) that distinguished their earlier films, especially the Toy Story films. Plus it deals with darker themes such as mortality (something that made Toy Story 2 a more depressing, though still touching, experience). After Ellie disappears, Carl is a grumpy old fart for most of the story, and we know his Paradise Falls objective will never bring the happiness he desperately seeks. Still, we’re forced to wait almost an hour for him to realize that too.

But it is the ghost of Ellie — whose spirit still lurks on wall portraits and photo albums — and Carl’s undying love for her, that keeps the heart of this story alive. Not a bad trick for a character that’s largely absent and mute.

• Theatrical release date: May 29, 2009
• Video release date: November 10, 2009
• Production Budget: $175 million
• Worldwide Box Office: $506,962,798

FUN ALTERNATIVE : How could I resist? See for yourself some of the similarities between Up and Apocalypse Now. Try to imagine Willard as Carl, Lance as Russell and the Dennis Hopper character as “Dug.”

If you haven’t seen it before, trust me, it’s not meant for kids. This is a much darker, graphically violent and pessimistic vision.

This Vietnam War tale, based on Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness, follows Captain Willard as he travels up a river in a small boat to track down the well-decorated Colonel Kurtz who has disappeared into the jungle, gone native, and is reportedly insane. Willard’s mission: Kill Kurtz.

You can avoid the “Redux” version of this film (nearly an hour longer than the already lengthy two-and-a-half hour original). The documentary Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker’s Apocalypse makes a convincing case for why scenes (later re-inserted into Redux) were taken out in the first place. Director Francis Ford Coppola expressed no regret over that decision. He only changed his tune when it became fashionable to create “director’s cuts” — and squeeze out more cash — and the Redux version was the result.

And if you enjoyed the gorgeous visuals in Up, Apocalypse Now possesses some of the most extraordinary of any motion picture. Cinematographer Vittorio Storaro (he became a legend for his work on The Conformist) is a master at capturing primary colours and, despite the location shooting in the mostly brown and green jungles of the Philippines, he still manages to paint in some vivid palettes. The night sequences too (the Bunnies scene, the Do Long Bridge scene and the bloody climax) further incorporate available light sources that are often breathtaking.

2008 | U.S. | 90 minutes
Director: Griffin Dunn
Writers: Mimi Hare, Clare Naylor, Bonnie Sikowitz
Cast: Uma Thurman, Colin Firth, Jeffrey Dean Morgan
Distributor: No domestic theatrical
Cdn video distributor: Sony Pictures

Much like this week’s The Ugly Truth (critique posted last week), The Accidental Husband uses the much-loved template of boy meets girl, boy/girl hate each other, fall in love, fight, break-up, get back together, the end. It also uses a love doctor premise. This time the doc is Dr. Emma Lloyd, played by Uma Thurman. She focuses her advice on being very picky and practical when choosing a mate — much like her rich, bland fiance Richard (Colin Firth). It’s enough to prompt jittery Sofia (Justina Machado) to cancel her wedding to Patrick — her sweet, funny, charming, hunky New York City fireman of a groom played by Jeffrey Dean Morgan. If such a man truly exists, I’d be curious to meet the woman strong enough to throw that fish back into the water.

Jilted and pissed off, Patrick is presented with an opportunity for revenge; he can screw up Emma’s wedding too by having his computer-savvy friend hack into the Marriage License Bureau and create a record that says she’s already married — to Patrick.

It’s a good premise, with nice potential for comedy gold. So how did this become such a mess?

For example, what happens to Sofia? You know, the girl Patrick was going to spend the rest of his life with, who breaks his heart and sets everything in motion. Who knows. After the opening scenes she disappears from the rest of the story. Within minutes Patrick is already getting misty-eyed about Emma. It’s not explained why he does. Perhaps it’s because she recites names of U.S. presidents when drinking. It’s about all he knows about her at this point.

Then there’s Mr and Mrs Bollenbecker, played by Keir Dullea and Isabella Rossellini. Their entrance into the story is mind-numbing in it’s complexity. They also seem to exist only to induce a screwball-comedy subplot involving mistaken identity. Their story is dispensed with well before the halfway mark — it was neither interesting or funny anyway — and they’re gone too. Granted Rossellini is lovely and all — she always is — but good riddance.

Watching the 20-minute “making-of” doc that accompanies the dvd, it gives some clues as to what went wrong. Apparently The Accidental Husband was 10 years in the making, with countless re-writes and input from producer Thurman and director Griffin Dunn. The only addition that is credited to anyone was one from Dunn; a Hindu Sacred Thread ceremony scene. It’s a great — insanely long — joy-filled inclusion, that adds an uncommon cultural flavour to the proceedings. It serves no purpose being in the story, but it’s fun to watch.

So too is Jeffrey Dean Morgan. His character consistently maintains a gentle working-class charm, and everyone he meets seems to love him. It’s easy to see why. He’s handsome, funny and utterly charming. So much so it’s impossible to feel upset that he never tells Emma, until the very end, the truth of his original revenge plan.

Expect to see more of Morgan in the future. If he can outshine Firth and Thurman in this disaster, he’ll go far.

The problem with Firth and Thurman is that their uptight characters are far too manic to be funny. Her Emma, for example, is constantly banging into stuff and acting flustered. It’s like she’s hyped up on coke. Richard, on the other hand, compulsively eats his way through a crisis. Supposedly this is funny.

One nice bit, though, is when Richard makes his final exit. Normally such characters are played out as despicable — and, if you watch carefully, the script still leaves hints (presumably remnants of earlier drafts) of what that might be — but he turns out to be a swell guy. It’s a welcome twist from the usual formula.

Sam Shepherd, as Emma’s father, is also wonderful to watch. Much like the Hindu scene, he serves no significant purpose to the story, but his consistently cool laid-back presence is a welcome relief from the over-worked attempts at comedy.

And what do we learn about love in the end? After all Thurman’s character is all about figuring out that big topic. Apparently it boils down to “don’t sweat the small stuff.”

Nice one, Emma. Too bad Sofia didn’t get the benefit of this advice sooner.

• Theatrical release date: No domestic theatrical
• Video release date: November 10, 2009
• Production Budget: n/a
• Worldwide Box Office: $20,129,180

FUN ALTERNATIVE: The Truth About Cats and Dogs is one of many variations of Cyrano de Bergerac, and is still one of the best romantic comedies around. It’s not without its faults, such as Thurman‘s tendency to go into full-body tense-up in almost every scene. Will she ever learn? Honey, it’s romantic entanglement, not 9/11. Try to calm down.

Janeane Garofalo plays a radio talk show host (why do rom-com writers love this profession so much?) who gives advice to pet owners. After she saves a particularly troubled caller (Ben Chaplin) from doggy disaster, he becomes enamored. And what a dish he turns out to be — handsome, funny, intelligent, and with a inviting British accent to boot. Their love blooms during one remarkable all-night phone conversation, but it puts her in a panic. Having not laid eyes on her yet, she worries he won’t find her attractive.

So she enlists the help of her not-too-swift neighbour (the supposedly more-beautiful Thurman) to stand in for her when he pushes for a face-to-face.

The screwy mistaken-identity stuff that follows is mostly unspectacular comedy, and it almost derails the appeal of Chaplin’s character (could he really that blind to the ruse?). What saves it is the adorable Garofalo. She is not the “dog” the script tries to project. I especially like how she uses her eyes to project shock, dismay, panic and such. It’s way more effective — and funny — than Thurman’s full-body convulsions in similar circumstances. In a way, Garofalo is the Mary Ann to Thurman’s Ginger — and most men agree, Mary Ann is the real hottie.

Mostly it’s the chemistry between Garofalo and Chaplin that is best. They generate a genuine desire within the audience to see their relationship survive, and the ending is a worthy pay-off.

It’s an injustice Hollywood producers still insist on casting Garofalo in bitchy supporting roles.

2009 | U.S. | 96 minutes
Director: Robert Luketic
Writers: Nicole Eastman, Karen McCullah Lutz, Kirsten Smith
Cast: Katherine Heigl, Gerard Butler, Eric Winter
Distributor: Columbia Pictures
Cdn video distributor: Sony Pictures

The Wife loves reading Cosmo, or just about anything that will help her unlock the secrets to the male mind. Naturally — as I’m sure many men can relate — I shake my head and say, “Sweetie, really, we’re not that complicated.”

The Ugly Truth dares to promise similar insights but, befitting of the fact it’s written by three women (Nicole Eastman, Karen McCullah Lutz, Kirsten Smith), it quickly abandons the so-called “ugly truth,” and falls into a pit of complex courtship methods — much like those labyrinth love teachings in Cosmo, which only make plausible sense to the women reading them. Ladies, please, just spend the money buying us beer. It’ll work wonders.

Katherine Heigl plays Abby; a stunningly beautiful blonde who can’t find a man. Yeah right. The morning news show she’s producing is not going well either. To help shake things up, her boss hires a crass TV love doctor, with the suitably macho name of Mike Chadway (Gerard Butler). Mike seemingly confirms how simple our brains are. He even spells it out in an early scene: “Men. Are. Simple.”

So far, so good.

Abby hates him already, thus setting in motion that painfully-overused romantic comedy plot device of girl meets boy, girl hates boy, and so on. But, first, she aims to sabotage his career. He can’t chance that so he makes a deal with her; he’ll help her score with the hunky surgeon (Eric Winter) she has her eye on, and she’ll support his show. Deal.

What follows is a varied assortment of scenes involving body make-overs, and lessons in seduction, so complex our girl needs to be read the guidebook via a wireless earpiece when she goes on dates. What happened to “men are simple?” Do you need any further proof women wrote this?

Besides giving advice like a Cosmo “secrets” article,  Mike is also periodically shown hanging out his young nephew. The poor kid is given no other purpose in the story but to illustrate what a loving and sensitive uncle Mike is. Can the script be any more obvious with its direction?

And so it goes, as the film wanders through a series of comic situations built around embarrassing moments (mostly sexual) until our heroes finally acknowledge their mutual attraction, retreat, and so on and so on.

Considering there are so many romantic comedies like this — and this one definitely scored nicely at the box office — surely confirms most people don’t care we’ve been here before. Many times. There’s no doubt Katherine Heigl and Gerard Butler are lovely to watch, its heart is in the right place, and everyone talks about sex and the sexes a lot — all wrapped in the cozy blanket of a formula romantic comedy. Good enough?

But if you want more compelling insight into the male (and female) mind, I recommend this clip from Mark Gungor. It nails more “ugly truth” in 5 minutes than this movie does in 90.

• Theatrical release date: July 24, 2009
• Video release date: November 10, 2009
• Production Budget: $38 million
• Worldwide Box Office: $196,304,363

FUN ALTERNATIVE: There is no love interest in Dreamcatcher. This is not a romance. Nor is it very funny. So why am I highlighting this sci-fi supernatural thriller? Because it’s the only film I can recall that actually visualizes what the inside of a man’s brain might be like. Similar to what Mark Gungor describes in the above-noted clip, it’s looks like a vast library, filled with countless boxes — each containing its own unique memories.

It’s a very clever visual and, someday, I hope there’s a filmmaker who makes a whole movie around the concept (the female equivalent, if Gungor is to be believed, would likely resemble the innards of a pinball machine). Unfortunately  for Dreamcatcher, it never exploits the potential of this visual — much like many of the other intriguing ideas the story introduces, and then abandons.

2009 | U.S. | 106 minutes
Director: Tony Scott
Writer: Brian Helgeland
Cast: John Travolta, Denzel Washington, John Turturro, James Gandolfini
Distributor: Columbia Pictures
Cdn video distributor: Sony Pictures

New York has changed a lot in the the last 35 years. So have the movies. Everything is more high-tech and fast-paced — just like this remake of The Taking of Pelham One Two Three. It’s not necessarily a good thing.

The strength of the original film — based on the book of the same title — was its setting in both time and place. Back then the subways were not a pleasant scene for New Yorkers. The trains looked old, scrappy and rundown, just like the people who worked them. Walter Matthau (as transit cop Lt. Zachary Garber) epitomizes the milieu. This guy has seen it all. Muggers, rapists and all manner of low-life scum. Nothing shocks him anymore.

That is until hijackers commandeer a train and demand $1 million ransom within the hour — or they start killing hostages. He’s never heard anything like it, and it jolts him — and everyone else — out of their bitter New York existence.

It’s a pretty good set-up for a thriller — and there are thrills be be had — but what really distinguishes this film is its witty portrayal of worn-out New Yorkers, always snapping at each other with salty dialogue.

The end credit sequence gives some evidence of its brashness by giving characters descriptors, instead of names, like “The W.A.S.P,” “The Hippie,” “The Pimp,” and “The Homosexual.” Even our hero, Garber, is seen dismissing a group of Tokyo businessmen as “monkeys,” and reacts with surprise when he meets a black police inspector. Just like everyone else he works with — almost all white, sagging, middle-aged Archie Bunker types — he doesn’t mean any harm by it. He’s just an old guy who’s grown cozy with his cranky New York way of life. The hijacking helps shake things up for everybody.

It all reveals a city that is harshly divided by ethnic groups and lifestyles but, as events unfold, they all find common ground to help save the day.

This remake dispenses with all of this.

The subway looks cleaner now. Everyone uses cell phones and computers with Bluetooth technology and Skype software — but it’s ultimately inconsequential to the story. And everyone looks healthy, and lives in racial harmony. Black characters exist, for example — including Garber, now played by Denzel Washington — but nobody calls attention to it. Once again unique local flavour is replaced with cool-talking characters who have no logical explanation being there, except to justify the writer’s convoluted plotting.

The focus, here, is all about the money, and the unlikely bond that develops between Garber and the our villain, played by John Travolta. This time money is not so much used as a means to save the hostages, but as a device to learn more about these two characters. It would be easier to care if we knew who the characters were in the first place.

Travolta’s performance is miles away from the quiet, menacing intensity Robert Shaw brought to the role. It’s all cleverly-worded philosophical talk, punctuated by moments of enraged screaming. Why he’s this way eventually makes a bit of sense when we discover his former profession, but it’s not especially interesting. Any why he takes a shine to Garber — sensing they share the same love for money through illicit means — may prove true but, again, it does not a thriller make.

Plus, in the wake of 9/11, the hijacking premise just doesn’t have the bite it once had.

As usual, director Tony Scott mostly counts on physical action to provide the thrills. But the racing train scene, the speeding police car bit, the gun showdown outside the Waldorf — those moments only happen to incidental characters, so the sense of peril is missing.

I was especially disappointed that the Garber character was transformed from a grumpy, seasoned cop into a wimpy civil servant — who then inexplicably turns super hero at the end. What’s his motivation to catch the bad guy? It’s not the safety of the passengers anymore. The hostage crisis is already over by this point. The only seeming justification is because the script demands it.

At least the 1974 version stayed true to the characters right to the end, before easing into one of the most unusual of climaxes — and an unexpected comedic payoff.

The original also benefited from a great music score by David Shire. The steely jazz horns, and quirky percussion, that punctuate both the opening and closing credits is terrifically dynamic, truly memorable, and perfectly captures the mood of its period New York setting.

Mostly what is best about the original is its sense of humour. Unlike the remake, it has one. I have an old university buddy who loves reciting lines from it. Almost every time we talk he’ll quote a line — burst out laughing — quote another line — more laughter — and so on. His laughter is infectious too, which further helps endear me to the experience — and makes me chuckle just thinking about it. Men and movies, eh?

• Theatrical release date: June 12, 2009
• Video release date: November 3, 2009
• Production Budget: $100 million
• Worldwide Box Office: $150,027,284

FUN ALTERNATIVE: Tony Scott is planning another remake of a 70s thriller — curiously one that was also very New York-centric, with a subway focus — and, again, stripping it of its unique setting by moving it to present-day L.A. This time treat yourself to the original beforehand to find out what you’re missing.

The Warriors was a volatile movie when first released in 1979, about a fictitious NYC gang that have to fight their way home because of a crime they didn’t commit. The tagline alone freaked people out: “These are the Armies of The Night. They are 60,000 strong. They outnumber the cops three to one. They could run New York City. Tonight they’re all out to get the Warriors.” Presumably uppity middle-class folk didn’t want young thugs to get any bright ideas.

Entirely shot at night, the film captures the grittiness of a city seeming populated only by colourfully-dressed gangs members, and the occasional cop. Realism is not the goal here. It’s more a vivid surreal nightmare that haunts our heroes constantly.

Director Walter Hill cast non-actors in some of the supporting roles and their wooden performances painfully makes that clear. But the attractive visuals, snappy score, and exuberant action help offset these failings, creating a unique modern-day fable.

The Director’s Cut dvd helps explain the unusual look and story by pointing out it’s based on a 4th century BC tale (Anabasis by Xenophon) about a Greek army that also had to fight its way home. The director’s cut further adds comic-book artwork to connect various scenes, and underscore its other-world tone.

2009 | U.S. | 95 minutes
Director: John Hindman
Writer: John Hindman
Cast: Jeff Daniels, Lauren Graham, Lou Taylor Pucci, Nora Dunn
Distributor: Magnolia Pictures
Cdn video distributor: Mongrel Media

The Answer Man is your standard romantic comedy — boy meets girl, gets girl, loses girl, gets girl back — that throws in two subplots. One is intriguing, but is side-stepped, while the pointless one is given way too much focus.

The intriguing part has to do with the main character, Arlen Faber (Jeff Daniels). Twenty years ago he wrote a book called “Me and God.” It became a bestseller. In fact it’s still one of the best-selling books in the world, and has provided spiritual fulfillment to millions. Faber is worshipped almost more enthusiastically than the Pope — and he just wants everyone to leave him alone.

So for the last 20 years he has hidden in his elegant townhouse in fashionable Philadelphia, and never tells anyone his real name. And, boy, is he a sourpuss.

He’s hostile, stubborn and bitterly alone (though he’s not likely to admit that). Not the man one would figure to be a spiritual guru. It’s a stretch but, as set-ups go, it’s a pretty interesting one.

Then his back gives out in a big way. It’s been plaguing him for years, but now its crippling. He has to crawl for blocks to the nearest chiropractor, who turns out to be a dark-haired lovely named Elizabeth (Lauren Graham); a struggling single mom with a struggling new practice.

To his grumpy surprise, she performs miracles. He couldn’t be more thrilled. Love ensues.

The relationship they inevitably form is fairly dull by romantic comedy standards, but the performances of Daniels and Graham still manage to gleam interest. We know these are sad and lonely people who, together, can be happy again. He’s certainly much more charming when she’s around. The scenes of him with her young son (Max Antisell) are some of the best, and provide the few instances of warmth and humour.

Their scenes are contrasted with others Faber has with a local bookstore owner named Kris (Lou Taylor Pucci). The impetus for their interaction is one of the most baffling I’ve ever seen in a movie. It makes no sense whatsoever. Still, the movie goes with it, and even forces us to follow various moments in Kris’ life — hanging out with his father, hanging out at work, going to Alcoholics Anonymous, and so forth.

Later we realized Kris is just a plot device. Initially it’s to trigger the inevitable moment when Faber loses Elizabeth, and once more at the end to get her back. Surely first time writer/director John Hindman could have figured out a better way.

And what does God have to do with all this? Not much apparently. The film continually references the book he once wrote, but we never fully understand the nature of its content until the very end — and then it’s written off as made-up dribble. It completely blows a perfect opportunity to reference Luke 17:21, which would still retain a logic, and not make our hero look such a irredeemable fraud. But, I suppose, the film didn’t want to tempt religious division by citing Christian scripture.

The story finishes, of course, with “boy gets girl” — as if that’s a surprise. It’s a lackluster finish to one messed-up story. Looking back, the whole thing is pretty shy on laughs, too. But Jeff Daniels and Lauren Graham are still a pleasure to watch, as is Nora Dunn as his long-suffering editor. They are given enough moments of sweetness and light to keep the clunky script alive.

• Theatrical release date: July 24, 2009
• Video release date: November 3, 2009
• Production Budget: n/a
• Worldwide Box Office: $26,676 (domestic)

FUN ALTERNATIVE: Dogma is a remarkably curious creation. I can’t think of any other movie that deals so intelligently, so thoughtfully, so thoroughly about a particular religious faith (Catholicism in this case) while constantly jabbing the funny bone with clever wordplay, graphic violence, sexuality and a poop monster. Yet the crude content does not aim to insult its subject matter, but to worship it. Who would have thought?

It doesn’t pander either. If you grew up Catholic (as I did) you’ll be faced with doctrine analysis that may require several viewings to fully grasp. Writer/Director Kevin Smith (another Catholic boy) clearly had better teachers than I did. He really goes out on a limb to make a movie that risks satisfying no-one and nothing but his own struggles with the paradoxes that threaten his faith.

The result is an unusual celebration and respect for his chosen beliefs, and is a much more worthy film than others that have tried (The Passion of the Christ, The Last Temptation of Christ) to open up a dialogue for analysis and, perhaps, acceptance. Check out Roger Ebert’s review of the film, who offers a more thorough observation of the treasures that can be found within.