Nov 29: A Cat in Paris

"In Paris, a cat who lives a secret life as a cat burglar's aide must come to the rescue of Zoe, the little girl he lives with, after she falls into a gangster's clutches."

Directed by: Jean-Loup Felicioli and Alain Gagnol, Rated: PG, 70 minutes

Last year, A Cat in Paris was nominated for an Oscar for Best Animated Feature of the Year. While it's competition wasn't the greatest of films, the movie definitely was able to stand on its own amid the mix as a little French flick with stellar hand-drawn animation and a jazzy score that makes you move. It's visually engaging and really makes you appreciate its style, but the film does get a bit boring after a bit. Luckily, the visuals keep things interesting and leave you more overwhelmed with nostalgia than anything else.

It's pretty... pretty. 

Zoe, a little girl in Paris, hasn't said a word since her father died at the hands of the gangster Victor Costa. Her mother, Jeanne (Marcia Gay Harden) is a cop who's obsessed with getting her vengeance for her husband's death but also has to deal with a cat burglar, Nico, who's stealing precious jewels and artifacts all around the city. Zoe's cat, Dino, seems to be the only joy in the little girl's life at the time and he continually brings her home little treats (dead lizards, diamond bracelets). Little does Zoe know, Dino is actually an accomplice to the burglar, helping him get through alarms and warning him when someone is near. After Zoe is kidnapped by Costa, Dino finds a way to get Nico to help save her, and must figure out a way to get the aid of Jeanne as well, even though he's one of her prime targets.

It plays out a lot like a children's book you'd find in the corner of the kids section at the library. 

A Cat in Paris' animation style is beautiful. Hand drawn with paint and ink, you're left in awe thinking you're watching something from the days of the past. The movement and color is both vibrant and full of energy and the music that accompanies it gives the movie a feeling of being cool. The jazz music that dances with the visuals only adds to the mood and you're left with a laid back, easy-listening vibe. It's certainly the biggest strength for the film and you really could watch it all day. The movie is certainly for kids (with only a couple of moments for adults) and the style reminds of you something you'd watch on PBS growing up. It's sophisticated on its own level and is a valuable piece of cinema that calls back to the past.

Nico moves like a dancer in the dark, stretching and swimming through the rooftops at night. 

Even though A Cat in Paris has moments that leave you a bit bored, the visuals are a masterpiece of its own kind. I would definitely recommend watching the movie for the animation alone and if you're a fan of anything of the past or the classic in the genre, you're in for a treat. Beautiful on levels you haven't seen for years, A Cat in Paris is the perfect remedy to the countless 3D CGI animated movies that litter the theaters these days. It's a work of art that needs to be watched, and even if you get bored, it is only 71 minutes. But I think then, even after it's over, you'll know that you've watched something special. 

The Good:

incredible animation, hand-drawn and painted that leaves you all sorts of amazed

The Bad:

moments of the story drag on a bit and leave you a little bored

The Ugly:

wondering why there are not more movies like this made these days and if old style animation is really dead

Overall: 7.5/10

Discussion Question: 

What recent movies remind of you animation styles of the past? Is the art dead or just buried in the ground, sleeping for awhile?

Trailer:

Nov 28: The Company Men

"The story centers on a year in the life of three men trying to survive a round of corporate downsizing at a major company - and how that affects them, their families, and their communities."

Directed by: John Wells, Rated: R, 104 minutes

2007 saw Ben Affleck become relevant again with his directorial debut in Gone Baby Gone. Seemingly re-energized  Affleck jumped back into the acting game after a few years on "leave" and found that his talent in that department started to catch up with his directing ability. To be honest, I never really gave up on the man but I can understand why a lot of people did. He's an acquired taste and you tend to either love him or hate him. Well, throughout all of his emergence as one of the best American directors, a little film called The Company Men he stars in flew under the radar. It's even more surprising given its subject matter- the US economy collapse and the results of the recession, in the corporate world and at home.

He even gets to keep his Bawston accent. 

The Company Men follows the stories of three men. Bobby Walker (Affleck) is a senior salesman at the GTX Corporation. He's damn good at his job and makes $200K a year. He has a beautiful home, a gorgeous wife (Rosemarie DeWitt), and a really nice car. He has settled in his life and is more than sitting large and comfortable. Unfortunately  GTX runs into financial problems because of the recession and Walker is let go, completely out of nowhere. Bobby flails and loses any comforts he had, never thinking something like that could ever happen to him. Gene McClary (Tommy Lee Jones) is another bigshot at GTX and his close friends with the CEO, James (Craig T. Nelson). He's a fighter for all the workers let go and we see him working to contain the downsizing, knowing the employees are more than just people who show up to work every day. Phil Woodward (Chris Cooper) started off on the factory floor of GTX and worked his way up over thirty years. His job is his life and he has set up an even nicer home for his wife and daughter. He never complains and works his ass off, so hearing the news that he too has been let go pushes him to the brink, unraveling the man faster than you could imagine.

The film also stars Maria "I Always Get Naked" Bello. And yes, she does. 

The Company Men is a movie all about the performances. All three men in the lead roles are amazing, each fitting their respective part perfectly. It's easy to believe Affleck is the over-confident businessman who has it all and it's even easier to picture Tommy Lee Jones as the man at the top, rugged, worn, and wiser than you think. Chris Cooper is exceptional as Phil and you feel so bad for him as the man who's worked so hard to get royally f**ked in the end. However, at first glance, you would think that these characters shouldn't be cared about, as they really are high and tight, near millionaires who have made money off of the losses and pains of other people. But, I guess that's the strength of the film because it never villainizes these characters. Even if they're "better than us", they're still human and the movie really focuses on the real struggles they face. Losing your job and even your home effects everyone and is equally embarrassing across every economic class.

This sucks, no matter who you are. 

I would definitely recommend The Company Men. It's a movie that's relevant to what's been going on in the country the last few years and gives us at look at how those on the top (who we're supposed to hate) are struggling to get by as well. It's extremely well acted and gives the film an unexpected level of talent and credibility. Written and directed by TV vet John Wells (The West Wing and ER), it's a smart very serious drama showered with bits of humor that make it all that much easier to swallow. While the lives of those focused on in the film are far from what any of us are used to, their struggles are still relatable and their pain is still hard to watch. Even then though, it's worth your time. 

The Good:

terrific performances from the entire cast, from the three main leads to each supporting character

The Bad:

being reminded that getting fired has absolutely no positive aspects to it and that family may be important, but money really, really helps

The Ugly:

seeing that everyone was hit hard by the recession, except the very, very, very, very top of big companies that keep spending all of the money, taking bonuses, raising new buildings, and going on vacations 

Overall: 7.7/10

Discussion Question:

If someone makes millions of dollars a year, lives large, but then loses his/her job, should we feel sorry for them? 

Trailer:

Oct 22: The Crazies

"About the inhabitants of a small Iowa town suddenly plagued by insanity and then death after a mysterious toxin contaminates their water supply."

Directed by: Breck Eisner, Rated: R, 101 minutes

The Crazies is a severely underrated horror movie. It's full of plenty of scares, packed with even creepier situations, and poses many questions as to what should happen under a violent epidemic. Yes, there are parts in the film that don't make sense (when it comes to the army and such), but as an overall movie it's very compelling, very bloody, and very fun. It blends all sorts of sub-genres of horror into a great little flick that really needs more attention.

Zombie, disease, epidemic, thriller, action, horror. It's everything.

David (Timothy Olyphant) is the sheriff of Ogden Marsh, a small town in Iowa. He's the stereotypical little town hero, knowing everyone by name and keeping the quaint little Main Street town quiet and safe. At a baseball game, David notices a man walking onto the field with a shotgun, seemingly ready to kill the little-leaguers or anyone else that gets in his way. He's distraught and looks a little "off" but David believes it to just be alcohol that's gotten the best of him. After the man pulls the gun on the sheriff  David puts him down and panic slowly rises in Ogden Marsh. Soon, more people become more violent, burning houses down and killing each other, even hunting others down as though it's a game. David discovers that something has tainted their water supply, and that a virus has taken over the populous, turning people into quasi-rage zombies, driven by anger and the lust for blood. As the army arrives, David, his wife, Judy (Radha Mitchell), and his deputy, Russell (Joe Anderson) must find a safe haven and escape the "quarantining" the military puts into place as well as the locals that have become mad, seeking to kill anyone in their way. 

Who knew death by pitchfork could be so suspenseful? 

Timothy Olyphant has been an actor I've followed for years and will watch and genuinely love anything he's done. From Deadwood to Justified, the man is really the closest to a modern day cowboy than any other actor, and his grit, humor, and lengthy figure add much to The Crazies, as well as anything else he's in. He's incredibly likable and an immediate hero and seeing him in trouble makes you worried. He's not the kind of guy you want to see killed on screen so seeing him in dangerous makes you panic, even if its just the slightest. Joe Anderson is also a terrific little actor who's fallen into supporting role after supporting role, but taking each of them to places that make him much more memorable than most other actors. The combination between these two leads takes The Crazies to places much higher than most horror movies these days. Along with the acting, the directing is also solid, and Breck Eisner produces a film that's both gritty and bloody and captures the isolation of this small town and the almost hopeless situation the characters find themselves in. 

I cannot fathom why this man is not a bigger star? Seriously people, give this man all of your attention. 

The Crazies is not as much about the pop-out scares as much as it is about the uncomfortable feeling it makes you feel, leaving you uneasy and paranoid. The characters at the center of the film are all strong and very smart, thus incredibly easy to stand behind. You don't want harm to come upon them and when (and if) it does, you worry with them. The movie has a constant sense of dread and you really can't anticipate what will happen next or if anyone is actually safe. It's worth noting that this movie is actually a remake, but just like Dawn of the Dead, it builds on its predecessor, injecting a more modern "juice" and having a fresh take on the subject. I would highly recommend The Crazies. It might make you wonder how far you'd go to save yourself and if you have the balls to cut down your neighbor when they come chasing after you with all sorts of insanity behind their eyes. 

The Good:

smart script (minus a few plot points), plenty of scares, great characters, and even better acting 

The Bad:

the ending has so many holes in it, you can't help but complain... a little

The Ugly:

a semi-realistic look at the paranoia of an epidemic and the lengths the military may go to keep the majority of the country's population safe

7.8/10

Trailer:

Oct 19: Insidious

"A family looks to prevent evil spirits from trapping their comatose child in a realm called The Further."

Directed by: James Wan, Rated: PG-13, 103 minutes

I have always been against PG-13 horror movies, thinking they can never go places you'd never expect or that the violence and terror would be too tame. Insidious turns all of those notions on its side, and delivers a very scary movie that goes plenty of places you won't expect and has genuinely uncomfortable scares, as opposed to the constant jump-out gimmick so many movies utilize. The third act, however, is a little disappointing but the film as a whole still delivers on the creepy goods and sticks with you. 

F**k you, word!

Rose Byrne and Patrick Wilson play a young couple, Renai & Josh, with three kids, Foster, Dalton, and a newborn girl. As any horror movie would start, the family is seen moving into a new house. It's beautiful, it's old, and it's the perfect setting for something haunted. Dalton (Ty Simpkins) goes to sleep one night and never wakes up. Worried, his parents rush him to the hospital but after plenty of tests, the doctors cannot figure out what is wrong with him, he's just simply slipped into a coma. Renai begins seeing things- apparitions hovering over her baby's crib and a figure standing outside a window. Convinced the place is haunted, Renai convinces Josh to move. Once arrived in their new home, the haunting continues and the couple is terrified. Not knowing what's going on, they call in a specialist (Lin Shaye), and she discovers that Dalton is an astral projector, someone who uses out of body experiences in his/her sleep to "explore" different realms. The reason Dalton is in the coma is because he's wandered too far into the darkness and his soul and mind are in danger. Thus, Renai and Josh must figured out a way to save their son from these demons haunting them, lingering around and waiting for his body to be "released" for possession. 

Rose is beautiful, but she keeps playing the same exasperated, overwhelmed characters. Let's see a smile already. 

Insidious crawls under your skin and plants itself deep inside you, festering and oozing out all sorts of psychological creep. Director James Wan (Saw- the good one) is a very good director, using an eerie edge to his films similar to what Fincher implemented in Se7en. There's a large attention paid to detail and sounds, drawing you only to hurl you across the room once the tables change. Sure, the jumpy gimmicks are still present and some scares are accentuated with loud music, but for the most part Insidious works slowly and burrows itself inside you. The entire idea behind the film is very original and it really changes up the idea of a haunted house story, turning it more into a haunted person tale. The entire film is full of dread, because you continually anticipate each new scare and the music has an almost-constant heartbeat to it, putting you on edge even further. It's a great buildup that actually delivers for once and makes you hate what you're watching. Seriously, Insidious has moments that just rape themselves into your mind, creeping you the f**k out.

And this song... why, why why? So. Creepy. No. Ass.  

Insidious is terrific for about 95 minutes. The ending leaves you very frustrated, almost hating how the entire thing is concluded. But moving past that, it's still a terrific horror movie in a day and age where the good ones are damn near impossible to come across. Insidious is a success in large part to the direction of James Wan and the acting, led by the ever-likable Patrick Wilson, a man you want to see no harm done to but continually gets tortured, scared, or abused (see Hard Candy). I don't scare easily. It really takes a lot to get me spooked but Insidious manages to tip-toe the line between the horrific and the cliche and deliver something worth watching. Sure, it'll most certainly be ruined by its sequels (you know they're coming), but in the meantime, I highly recommend it. Just turn it off when there's about 10 minutes left. 

The Good:
a continued layer of horror that leaves you very uncomfortable, with a dissonant score that exaggerates the bizarre and a constant heartbeat that leaves you on edge
The Bad:
a few scares that get you because of the jump factor and then immediately hate because they're so gimmicky
The Ugly:
f**k this movie's ending... it is so terribly lazy and reveals way too much, taking away a lot of the horror it hoped to create

Overall: 7.4/10

Trailer:

Oct. 2: A Double Team Review: Wrecked

"A man trapped in a car wreck at the bottom of a ravine must overcome incredible odds to survive."

Directed by: Michael Greenspan, Rated: R, 91 minutes

So I have done a couple of Double Team Reviews at this point, both of them with Joe from Two Dude Review. This time around, I'm teaming up with David Gilleand who writes for Examiner.com and can be found here, on his Facebook page. Today we're discussing the 2010, Adrien Brody survival thriller, Wrecked. Below, I am in blue and David is in green. 

N: Okay, so what are your initial thoughts on Wrecked?

D: I really liked the film's level of suspense, Adrien Brody did a great job at portraying his character as always, and thought it had great pacing. How about you?

N: I thought it had moments of brilliance, but there were a lot of problems with it for me, such as random animals popping up everywhere and what not. I did really enjoy Brody's performance though. When he's the only guy on the screen he has to bring it, and I feel he really did.

D: Of course. I had one major issue with it, and that was if he was in the middle of a vast forest, why he couldn't simply get a couple of logs to use as clutches instead of crawling around the entire way through.

N: That is a good point. I kind of wondered that, but then just went with it. Crawling around, I guess, adds to the suspense and desperation he was suffering through?

D: I could see it that way, I just try to find the difference between metaphors like that and realism. So I am on the fence there.

When has crawling through a forest ever been a good idea?

N: What did you think of the overall story of the film? There's not a lot at the heart of it, with most of the reveals being in the final scene of the movie.

D: I think because there wasn't a whole lot, it added to the suspense, and that's just not something we see everyday in movies, and it is good to step away from the usual to get an audience reeled into another perspective.

N: Speaking of perspective, the first twenty minutes or so, with Brody trapped in a car in a ditch, was all we saw. Everything from his crowded little perspective. Did you think that was done well? It's hard not to compare something like this to say, Buried. Although it wasn't as claustrophobic, I felt it really was closing in all around.

D: I wasn't a fan of Buried apart from the overall idea of shooting an entire movie in one place with one person, but I think they did it particularly well in this one. Brody is really a great actor, and he prepared for this movie by staying out in Canadian woods in the winter, stuck in the car while the rest of the crew went to the hotel. You really have to give the guy credit for that. I really think that added to the believability to his situation, which in turn made the film that much better.

N: Certainly. This film could have easily been thrown out the window had the lead actor been somebody else. Brody carries the movie completely.

D: Come to think of it, I can't remember the last time I disliked any role I have seen him play.

N. Yeah! Me too. It's just a shame that after his recognition for The Pianist, the guy's kind of faded off into nothing. He's a great actor.

Brody: "I won an Oscar and all I got was the lousy Predators". Seriously, how is this guy not in more big time stuff?

N. So, researching the film, I see that on IMDB it has a 5.1/10. While I felt that Wrecked is much more deserving than that score. What issues did you have with it that could explain such a low score by so many people?

D: I am guessing that because everyone's taste is different, some may not have been able to sense the suspense. It could be seen as repetitive  I could see someone saying "Okay, I get it, he's stuck. Get on with it".

N: True. Like I mentioned, the biggest complaint I had were the animals. The film really wanted to focus on a realism behind what Brody's character's situation is, but having random homicidal mountain lions pop up really pissed me off.

D: I never really thought about it. He was in the wilderness, things were bound to show up to add to that suspense, but you're right. Reminds me of how everyone complained about the cougar episode of 24.

N: That's the first thing I thought of! Thinking that f**king Kim Bauer was hiding somewhere.

D: This was definitely a spin-off.

N: Haha.

N: What did you think of the overall look of the film?

D: I think the massive size of the forest, and the fact that he went in circles was done very well. It was filmed in actual woods, so it looks real because it is. I never had any issues with the blood in the movie, and I often do. I guess the overall look had no flaws for me, what about you?

N: I really liked the look too. I've always been a fan of survival movies and I think this one captured the woods really well. And I agree, the blood looked good. It was that dark, realistic looking kind, and not that corn syrup and red food coloring look you see in a lot of low budget movies.

D: Which is why when I make movies, I stay away from the blood aspect.

The blood effects actually look real. Something you rarely find in films with this kind of budget. Thank God.

D: Well you said you are a fan of survival movies, so I guess how would you compare this to other survival movies?

N: I think Wrecked is up there, honestly. Sure, it's not as showy as a lot of the other ones, like The Edge, The Grey, or even 127 Hours, but it's still pretty suspenseful  The added plot-line that he can't remember anything that happened before the crash is also something new, that makes it more of a mystery thriller than a straight up horror movie.

D: Yeah I agree. I always like to say that presentation is key, not how big of a budget a movie has. I am a fan of survival films too, and I am really glad I saw this movie. I still think 127 Hours takes the cake, but this is up there as well.

N: To wrap things up then, what score would you give this movie on a scale of 1-10?

D: I'll give it an 8.

N: And what is your favorite part of the film?

D: Normally, I would say the end reveal, but my personal favorite part is when he finally got the dog to warm up to him.

N: I liked that part too. The look on his face when he realized he needed to share the tiny piece of beef jerky was genuine. I would give the movie a 7.4 out of 10. I thought the movie is filmed well and that Brody absolutely nails it with his performance.

Wrecked is a great little film that deserves your attention. It's slower than most movies of the survival genre, but it's beautifully shot and has an incredible actor in the leading role. It also packs a little mystery, with Brody's character waking up not knowing who he is. As we struggle along with him in his attempt to find rescue, we also begin to wonder what kind of man he is and what he was doing before the car crash. I would definitely recommend the film. 

The Good:

Adrian Brody delivering an exceptional performance, being the only man on screen for 90% of the film

The Bad:

homicidal mountain lions that pop up for no real reason but to add more suspense to something that's strong enough on its own without it

The Ugly:

the fact this movie isn't getting as much love as I believe it deserves, it's really good

Overall: 7.4/10

Trailer:

Want to team up with me for a future Double Team Review? Comment below with ideas or reach out to me on Twitter @CineKatz

Guest Review- The Trip

So one of my best friends, Ries Murphy decided to give writing a movie review a shot. He's an excellent writer, but as he has no blog or anything for me to plug for him, you'll have to just take my word for it (and this review). He's a great guy and I want to thank him for writing this as well as a couple of others he's written that I'll be posting over the next few weeks. Enjoy.

I spent a long while wanting to watch Michael Winterbottom’s British road trip film The Trip, more or less thinking about it ever since I saw the first trailers for it over a year ago. There was a distinct sense of British humor crackling around the trailers, teasing what promised to be an intelligent film about to actors on a road savoring various foods in the Northern hills of England. That is more or less what this film was - though to accept at such face value would be a gross error.

Steve Coogan and Rob Brydon are truly magnificent in this film, and that’s not a term I use often. Their chemistry is spot on, true skill shining through whether via their subtle rivalry or tender loyalty. I was surprised to realize that The Trip is not a documentary, because it feels like one. It feels as real as a documentary and yet even as I watched it I knew it wasn’t, because in some ways the film is even more honest about life than a lot of documentaries are.

The entirety of the film is shot on location in England, and is shown in such a way that paints the countryside as at once beautiful and indifferent. It looks cold and is cold, and the modest charm of English bed & breakfasts is all over the screen. The meals themselves look delicious - so much so, in fact, that I felt compelled to order food about twenty minutes into the film. I think watching The Trip under the slight effect of sangria only added to the experience - this is a film about men eating food, you should have food with you, too. But watchers beware - like most comedies, The Trip has an undertone that will upset you if you watch it too closely.

I was tempted to call it the British equivalent of Alexander Payne’s Sideways, but realized about halfway through the film that this would be unfair. Sideways and The Trip offer very different thoughts about life, though they share certain characteristics, namely their tendency to fall into the “dramedy” category. The Trip features Coogan as an uncertain actor who is struggling to decide between contentment and ambition, while Brydon does a great job of portraying a man who lives a happy life. The result is an interesting, understated yet undeniable rivalry.

At one point in the film, after Brydon has recited a Wordsworth poem near an English abbey, and after Coogan monologues with a somewhat insulting pseudo-eulogy for Brydon’s theoretical funeral, Coogan says to him “I would never stick the knife in. I might just...you know...tickle you with the knife.” There’s no better phrase to describe their relationship in this film, and it was a real joy to watch two masters of the craft bounce off one another. Their impressions are always spot on, and sometimes lead to real laughs.

Another line that captures the soul of the movie is when Brydon calls out to Coogan as he attempts to cross a bridge of stones that spans a river. Brydon warns him “You’re stuck in a metaphor!” Stuck in a metaphor indeed. The film pitches a hard question in the form of a metaphor - would we rather be free or be contained? Would we rather be settled down or single? Famous or talented? The answers aren’t always forthcoming.

Ultimately, I enjoyed The Trip very much. I thought the acting was remarkable, the humor sufficiently dry and the drama effectively placed. I left this film with a feeling of genuine uncertainty, as though I had been privy to a road trip that might have changed someone’s life but never quite did. That was the idea, I think - to show, realistically - how hard it is to get off a road we’re on, once we’re on it.

THE BOTTOM LINE: What a good movie. Good, not great. Funny, but not hysterical. Sad, but not heartbreaking. Important, but distant, and most importantly, honest. 

Overall Score: 8.5/10 

July 5: Daydream Nation

"Tells the story of a city girl who moves to a small town and becomes entangled in a love triangle between her high school teacher and a stoner classmate."

Directed by: Michael Goldbach, Rated: R, 98 minutes

Daydream Nation is a teenage angst movie with way too much angst and way too much going on. It takes the worst parts of Juno (the f**k the world attitude and "strong" female lead), adds a little visual tidbits of Donnie Darko, and throws in a completely unnecessary serial killer in the mix, just because. There is so much going on in this film, it's really hard to focus on any particular character, let alone care enough about them. However, Daydream Nation does try very hard to be good, and while most of the film is incredibly forgettable, the performances are solid, with a cast led by the sexy Kat Dennings.

Who, clearly, has large... talent.

Daydream Nation follows the story of Caroline Wexler (Dennings), a city girl who moves to a small town and is immediately bored with the place (even though there's more drugs to do than a Colombian whorehouse and a serial killer on the loose to keep thinks interesting). To spice things up a bit, Caroline throws herself at her teacher, Mr. Anderson (Josh Lucas). Mr. Anderson has no qualms about banging a student and their sex flings begin immediately, disguised as tutor sessions. Of course, there's a troubled little boy, Thurston (Reece Thompson), her own age that has a crush on Caroline and she tries to juggle the two men, relying on one for sex and the other for a "cover". There really is very little story around her relationships, and the only thing that moves the film forward is the local investigation of a serial killer who continues to murder teenage girls. The rest of the movie is just looking in to everyone else's problem- guilt, sexual confusion, drug addiction, widowed parents. Oh, and there's a subplot following Thurston's young sister, as she plays hide and seek in the woods with her friend? Or something. I'm not really sure what is going on with that part. However, Daydream Nation does look very nice. It's poetic in the visuals, even if the substance telling the stories is lacking. 

There are also a lot of "mini-chapters" that try to give the film depth, but in the end, only distracts

As mentioned before, the best part of Daydream Nation is the acting. Even the script, minus the confusing and unecessary stories, is pretty good. Dennings is great as Caroline and very believable as the mature on the outside, vulnerable on the inside, sex-crazed teenager, even if her character is pumped up with too many of these "quirky" traits. Josh Lucas also does a fine job as Mr. Anderson and his story, although bizarre, is one of the more interesting parts of the film. Daydream Nation also has a fair amount of suspense and mystery in it, but there are so many red herrings thrown out to confuse the viewer, any resolve to the problems feels worn out.

Red Herring: noun- Something, esp. a clue, that is or is intended to be misleading or distracting

I would suggest skipping Daydream Nation. First time director, Michael Goldbach (who also wrote the film) does show promise as a filmmaker but Daydream Nation has too many flaws to recommend. There is simply too much going on to care about the characters and its frustrating to follow. It's not confusing, by any means, but there is too much packed into a 98 minute film to call it great. Daydream Nation will leave you thinking that nothing is really resolved and that really, none of the characters learned anything from the experiences and events you witness. 

The Good:

Kat Dennings and Josh Lucas lead a great cast, that also includes Andie MacDowell, Rachel Blanchard, and Tedd Whittall

The Bad:

there is so much happening in such a small town, with an apparent need to follow every story that's going on

The Ugly:

not giving a damn about any of the characters, let alone hoping to see them change for the better (which doesn't really happen)

Overall: 5.7/10

Trailer:

Re-watch? No

Buy? No, thank you

July 1: The Extra Man

"A man who escorts wealthy widows in New York's Upper East Side takes a young aspiring playwright under his wing."

Directed by: Shari Springer Berman & Robert Pulcini, Rated: R, 108 minutes

Now, I am usually an avid fan of Kevin Kline, loving nearly everything he is in. I even like Wild, Wild, West based purely on his performance. I'll give anything he is in a chance, and I went into The Extra Man thinking it would be a little gem. I was certainly wrong. The Extra Man is the type of film that tries way too hard to be "quirky", but instead turns out to be incredibly annoying. It does have its moments, but when you look at the movie as a whole, it feels like a bunch of randomness strung together on a laundry line that stayed out to dry a little too long. It's stiff, stale, and quite the mess.

Hell, this is even more enjoyable to watch. Peaceful, serene, and probably smells a lot nicer. 

The story follows Louis (Paul Dano), an emotionally f**ked up man who moves to Manhattan to follow his writing dreams. He moves into an apartment with Henry (Kline), a wannabe aristocrat who moonlights as an escort to the city's wealthiest widows. As Louis tries to discover who he is and flirt with his odd inner desires, he begins to learn about the eccentricities and the perks of trying to live the high life in one of the world's grandest cities. Oh, Louis has an odd curiosity towards woman's clothing and even experiments with cross-dressing. I'm not saying that it's necessary wrong to do so, but the way Louis is portrayed makes him come across as a sheltered, perverted weirdo. I am also a huge fan of Paul Dano (he is great in Little Miss Sunshine and There Will Be Blood), but he's following the career paths of Michael Cera, John Heder, and  even Jesse Eisenberg, playing the same, socially awkward loner over and over. 

A little creepier looking though. 

The Extra Man can't decide on what kind of movie it wants to be. It jumps drastically from comedy to drama and it's in these transitions that the film loses itself completely. I blame the directing and the script. Although the directing duo of Berman and Pulcini did make the great American Splendor, I feel the two did not work together at all on this film. With the mess at hand, I can only assume each director showed up on his/her schedule and filmed a scene on his/her own, without consulting the other. The film lacks a singular heart, style, and theme. As for the script, it's just as big of a mess as the directing. I am a huge fan of Jonathan Ames, one of the screenwriters and the author of the novel on which the film is based. His TV series, Bored to Death, is one of my favorite shows of all time. However, The Extra Man is far from the quality of his show, and it's a huge disappointment. The characters lack nearly all likability and are more annoying than they are funny or developed. While Kline and Dano's acting is good, the characters they create are victims to the script. John C. Reilly is a saving grace, playing Henry's neighbor, Gershon. However, he has very little screen time and is tiny role cannot save the film. Oh, and Katie Holmes sneaks in as a possible love-interest to Louis, but the two share absolutely no chemistry and her character's a total bitch. Why would an introvert intellectual fall for a shallow, fake semi-attractive working girl?

One of her many career casualties after marrying Tom Cruise. 

Skip The Extra Man. It has a good premise but is executed with way too many flaws to maintain any quality storytelling. It's all over the place, never knowing what it is, and in it's attempt to be out of the box and original, it instead turns out to be very annoying. I don't know if Kevin Kline is getting worse with age but he certainly does not save a movie like he used to. 

The Good:

John C. Reilly with a full grizzly man beard

The Bad:

a cast made nearly entirely of unlikable, too-weird characters

The Ugly:

a messy script and directing that turns a good premise into a movie with a terrible identity crisis 

Overall: 3.8/10

Trailer: