Tag: Emma Stone

Side by Side: Birdman and Whiplash

“Birdman” and “Whiplash” are both technically impressive films about characters looking to feel they exist

All throughout cinema history we see protagonists who wish to be remembered, who wish to become something great. Marlon Brando said in “On the Waterfront”, “I coulda been somebody. I coulda been a contender!” Their means for greatness are always different, but their ends are never the same, and it lets us know just what kind of movie we’re watching.

Two films released this month that are both receiving Oscar buzz but are miles apart in terms of tone and style have protagonists who share these feelings of greatness in their own ways and to their own ends. “Birdman Or (the Unexpected Virtues of Ignorance” and “Whiplash” are fiery dramas that lead to realizations that some of the things in life that feel most real and make people feel most alive, are pain and death. Continue reading “Side by Side: Birdman and Whiplash”

The Amazing Spider-Man

What people really like about Spiderman isn’t the web slinging or the red-blue spandex or the zippy one-liners; its that beneath the mask there is a smart, witty, nerdy, likeable and relatable kid in Peter Parker.

Sam Raimi and Tobey Maguire knew that for their 2002 film “Spider-Man,” and Marc Webb and Andrew Garfield seem to know it here for “The Amazing Spider-Man,” which is essentially a remake of Raimi’s film. But Garfield’s Peter Parker doesn’t have the boyish charms of Maguire’s, and his mixed persona makes for a film that suffers from its other clichés and hokey gags.

I’m dating myself when I realize that “Spider-Man” is in fact 10 years old, and there are likely a new generation of 12-year-olds who will watch this version and appreciate it just fine. But everyone else may have fatigue at just how familiar this origin reboot is.

Peter Parker is left with his Aunt May and Uncle Ben (Sally Field and Martin Sheen) after his parents are forced to leave in a hurry, never to be seen again. Now as a bright high school teenager, he’s rediscovering his father’s past and tracks down an old colleague, Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans), who transforms into a monstrous lizard thanks to a genetic algorithm provided by Peter. It’s then Peter’s job to stop him after he’s bitten by a genetically mutated spider that gives him enhanced strength, reflexes and an ability to stick to walls.

What’s tiring is how boilerplate Peter’s backstory is. Of course he has to deal with the obnoxious bully in school, stumble through awkward conversations with the cute Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone) and rehash the boring pseudo-science that explains his mutation.

And while the original “Spider-Man” is no less guilty of these clichés, Director Marc Webb (“500 Days of Summer”) overdoes it. The high school drama consumes the entire first half of “The Amazing Spider-Man,” and for every visual gag, there’s an added cinematic punch line in case you forgot how to react, be it in a cheerleader’s bubble gum popping over her face or a Coldplay song cueing in to fill the gooey void.

Garfield handles all these moments with a peculiar attitude. On the streets in his costume, he’s notoriously smarmy and glib, and then at home or around his girlfriend, he shuts up into an awkward ball of angst. Garfield emanates so little chemistry with Stone that you wonder why Gwen is so drawn to him.

“The Amazing Spider-Man” also lacks a moment as instantly iconic as Spiderman kissing Mary Jane upside down in the rain, and Webb is not the visual technician that Raimi is, so a few shots from Spidey’s POV as he careens through the air look plain cartoonish.

Maybe it’s the 12-year-old me talking, but I was able to take the original “Spider-Man” somewhat seriously and still realize it was a goofy popcorn movie. It was as if Peter Parker never forgot how dopey he really is just by putting on that mask. “The Amazing Spider-Man” on the other hand is cornball all the time and thinks itself otherwise. It forgets who’s inside that spandex suit.

2.5 stars

Friends with Benefits

The surprisingly clever and enjoyable “Friends with Benefits” was hampered this year by coming out five months after the much worse reviewed “No Strings Attached.” Who really wanted to see another lame casual sex movie with the OTHER girl from “Black Swan?”

Believe it or not, Mila Kunis would here give Natalie Portman a run for her money as America’s sweetheart. Her character Jamie is not just quick witted and tough but seems free of the hang-ups of the inherently cute and mildly flawed leading lady of most romantic comedies.

There’s a scene early on where Kunis meets her equally charming costar Justin Timberlake, and he catches her walking on the baggage carousel at the airport. What I like is that she doesn’t double take or make an awkward, embarrassed face and rather seems to shrug it off as a kind of funny circumstance.

The whole film is self aware in that way. It’s the kind that just rips on other rom-coms and how silly they all are and winks at the camera with how self-aware it is before totally not innovating in the third act. Oh well, what can you do?

The answer of course is to be silly about it. Kunis and Timberlake have magnificent chemistry and don’t seem to take a minute of their somewhat clichéd screenplay too seriously. They show such stability and comfort in their friendly relationship that they stave off the movie’s urge to rush into the sappy will they/won’t they ending.

Both Kunis and Timberlake are sexy, funny and never intentionally embarrass themselves for a dumb laugh. They rattle off dialogue and the cross cutting can be a headache, but rather than make obscure pop culture references at every turn they seem to have down the inside jokes of a naturally compatible pair of friends.

“Friends with Benefits” is also the sort of movie that makes you blurt out, “What the hell is Woody Harrelson doing in this movie?” I also exclaimed at the appearance of Nolan Gould from “Modern Family,” but the real standout is the completely irreverent Patricia Clarkson. This disturbingly sex driven mother could’ve been a nightmare in another actress’s hands.

Now you’re asking, “So Justin Timberlake and Mila Kunis are actually funny and likeable AND they take their clothes off?” Yes, who knew?

3 ½ stars

The Help

“The Help” isn’t really a drama about racism but about snobby, white Southern socialites.

 

What’s the real evil in civil rights era Jackson, Mississippi? Is it racism or controlling, white female socialites? “The Help” thinks it’s the former but the film is simply an entertaining movie about the latter.

It tells of how the budding young journalist Skeeter (Emma Stone) returns from college to find she is more enlightened and intelligent than her prejudiced housewife friends and that the black maid that helped raise her as a child is gone from their home. She’s embarrassed by a rule that would force black servants to use a separate bathroom outside the house and decides to write a book from the perspective of the help.

Skeeter’s two most animated subjects are the life of the film. Aibileen (Viola Davis) and Minnie (Octavia Spencer) are fun, sassy, strong and complex individuals with a lot of stories about one of their employers, Hilly Holbrook. Bryce Dallas Howard plays Hilly with spunk and whiplash tartness, but her character is a one-dimensional, bitchy control freak who determines who’s in and who’s out in her middle class WASP social circle of women. Continue reading “The Help”

Crazy, Stupid, Love

“Crazy, Stupid Love” is a rom-com salvaged by its cast but done in by a strange side plot.

Steve Carell is hoping to be a movie star after “The Office.” Ryan Gosling is trying to prove he can do more than simply dramatic method acting. Emma Stone wants to be seen as more than a kid. “Crazy, Stupid, Love” tries so hard to be generic and boilerplate, and there’s a sense the cast would simply not allow it. Continue reading “Crazy, Stupid, Love”

Zombieland

Can I recommend a movie simply because Bill Murray is in it? Can I justify a likeness for a film if it contained five great minutes in comparison to 75 more lackluster ones? I’m not kidding when I say “Zombieland” features a cameo so hilarious it may just be worth your money and time. So should you see this movie? If zombies are your thing, have a blast.

Oh! You were expecting more of a review? Anyone going to see “Zombieland” can guess the film is just a goofy monster movie, and for these people for this movie, a simple thumbs up/thumbs down should suffice. Anyone else is waiting to hear if this is another genre-defying “Shaun of the Dead,” in which case, don’t leave the comfort of your witty, quirky Judd Apatow or Wes Anderson comedy just yet.

In fact there is nothing clever about the dozens of zombie murders that pepper the film. Kills are less amusing and more gruesome. They amount to little creativity other than baseball bat to the head, car door to the head, banjo to the head, and on one occasion, grand piano to the head. Continue reading “Zombieland”