The Ugly Truth

Ah, the requisite summer chick flick. The complexities surrounding the Mars and Venus personalities of the two extremely opposite genders is explored in this vehicle starring, and produced by Katherine Heigl and her Hollywood virgin mother, Nancy Heigl.

Let me begin by saying that I am a little biased. I don't like Katherine Heigl. She is attractive, but her acting is suspect. I lump her in with Anna Faris - using beauty to try to break into comedy, while it just doesn't seem natural enough. It is frustrating to see her become so successful despite obvious industry deficiencies, but I guess Hollywood loves a pretty face.

You have to give her credit for pulling the clout to get her mom an executive producer title, but that raises a red flag for me as to the quality of the film in the first place. An additional tidbit - mom is producing the next 4 movies that Heigl is producing/acting in. Good for her, but I won't be paying for any of them.

Enough of that - let's get to the movie. The premise is so cliche it is cringe-inspiring. Successful corporate woman who exhibits typical emotionally suppressed feminist attitude meets an exaggerated misogynist hunk with a heart of gold when you peel back the layers. I will wait to proceed while you vomit.

Gerard Butler's character is well done in the sense that he has a charming smile and a good comedic sense of timing. His lines are generally funny as well, but in a mostly entertaining sense, not anything exceptional. Where he fails is in his attempt to hide his Scottish accent. It is unnatural and actually makes you wonder why they didn't hire someone without an accent, or just modify the part to be a UK transplant.

Heigl tries too hard to be funny and pretty, and the subtle attempt to promote girl power is not lost on the audience at all. She participates in the raunchy jokes and gags and her character even learns a valuable lesson in the end, but it is not enough to make her likable.

The two of them have little chemistry other than two unrealistically attractive people who have absolutely no respect for each others views until they realize that they are in love with each other (sorry - should have mentioned spoiler). It is predictable and mindless, but there are some moments of humor scattered throughout.

One such source of the humor is the completely under-appreciated supporting player John Michael Higgins. He is one of those comedic actors who is recognized by everyone but just can't be named. He is one of Christopher Guest's regular accomplices and most recently can be seen in a recurring commercial role as a blowhard corporate executive doing battle against DirectTV. His earlier work is hilarious, and he shines in every role he takes.

This film is about as typical as a RomCom can be, and despite the flaws mentioned, it wasn't too painful to watch. The predictable ending pleasantly came and went faster than most in the genre. I suppose this film will be better received by women than men, but there is a raunchy appeal that may draw a bit of a male crowd, and the typical paradigm of "man changes, they live happily ever after" is modified so that both the man and the woman come to realizations and make significant compromises (although utterly ridiculous).

All in all, it is a vehicle for Heigl(s) to get richer and there is little substance to the story. I would say that despite the lull in the summer movie season, better to skip this one and wait for some of the more promising August films. 6/10.

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

The Harry Potter saga continues with the sixth film adaptation in the seven book series. This time Harry is a little older and a little more mature, but he is still battling both inner demons, and he who mustn't be named.

This film slows down the pace of the series and although the visual effects are brilliant, it leaves much to be desired in terms of action. There are so many characters and the back story is so convoluted and detailed that it seems that much of the film is spent reintroducing us to characters from the previous films almost as if it is obligatory that they pop their heads in and say hi.

Maybe I am all Harry-Pottered out, but each time it seems that he is on the road to self-discovery or mastering the art of wizardry, some new potion, spell, enemy or sub-plot arises and takes the whole story down a new path. Maybe I am not the intended audience, and despite enjoying the fantasy world (and appreciating the artistic imagination) that Rowling has created, I have had enough.

At an already epic 2 hours and 33 minutes, the film actually seems much longer. This may be due to the constant and frankly, distracting teenage hormone dealings. Granted, growing up is a part of life, but the romance, albeit innocent just seems out of place (although if I wrote 7 books I'm sure I would need some filler too). Over the course of the film, there are a mere handful of significant events and action scenes. This is more than a little disappointing from the perspective of an audience member who has seen the dark progression of the films from young, innocent little Harry to a man who is the "chosen one" fighting for all of good.

The usual cast members return, some of the kids becoming almost unrecognizable from just a few years ago. The fear of them growing up too fast to film all of the books should be put to rest - the progression and maturation is evident from film to film, so it does seem natural if not a little accelerated. The one new addition to the Hogwarts faculty is the ever talented Jim Broadbent as a retired teacher brought back into the fray to help explain some of the preposterous mysteries.

It is hard to be too negative about Harry Potter, because what I like about the films is the same thing that drives me crazy; the fantasy world where there are no rules and anything is possible. There are continually new developments that one-up the already mind-boggling battlefield between good and evil. These are creative, but leave major plot holes and raise unanswerable questions by the viewer. Much like a film based on time travel, magic and wizardry has the boundaries projected onto the screen by the mind of the writer of the story. This doesn't always jive with logic.

Besides too many prolonged concerned gazes by Potter and his cohorts, Alan Rickman shines as professor Snape. His refined British accent and seriously sinister tone of voice create one of the more memorable characters from the franchise. His delivery of lines are always spot on in any situation or genre, he is truly a classically trained actor who is a chameleon on the screen - On a side note, to see his comedic chops on display, see Galaxy Quest - one of the best sci-fi comedies in recent memory.

Director David Yates again takes the helm after directing Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, which was the most recent installment, and he will finish up the franchise with the 2 part Deathly Hallows finale. The direction is fine, but the effects overshadow any flaws. It is hard to delineate between the 4 incredibly different director's styles, but they all follow a certain theme which adds to the continuity.

All in all, it was mildly entertaining, but was more of a set up for the grand finale. I could have done without all of the puberty relationship garbage - it got old very quickly, but I didn't read the books, so maybe I am expecting what is not there. I do expect the two final movies to be much more action packed. 6/10.

Bruno

Shameless, unscrupulous and brilliant. These are the most appropriate words to describe Sacha Baron Cohen's latest character that blurs the line between scripted comedy and reality.

Bruno is a gay Austrian talk show host whose area of expertise are fashion and a self-deprecating sense of flamboyant narcissism. Coming on the heels of the astronomically successful Borat, it is clearly expected that any character that Cohen presents to the masses will be irreverent, controversial and ultimately, hilarious. His goal throughout the film is to get famous. More particularly, to become more famous than Hitler. I know - who came up with this stuff? The comparisons between Bruno and Borat can't be avoided, but they are each distinctly original, if not both Eastern European and sexually liberal.

The film mimics the model of Borat in that unsuspecting celebrities, politicians, bigots and southerners (too easy of a target?) are introduced to this comic genius who continually pushes the envelope to places never seen on mainstream silver screens before. The focus of course is the homosexuality, and every taboo is exploited with the in-your-face matter-of-fact approach that only Cohen can pull off.

Bruno did lack the freshness that Borat brought to audiences, but it was almost like Jackass with each prank or stunt trying to outdo the last. He puts himself between Mossad and Hammas, takes classes to become heterosexual, goes hunting with some good old boys, and even seduces a 2008 presidential candidate. What makes the sequences so captivating is that Cohen never for a minute breaks character. At the most uncomfortable point in a confrontation or discussion, when any other person would say "time out - it's all a joke" he digs deeper causing an emotional train wreck fascination that you can't look away from no matter how much it makes you squirm.

This film is obviously not for the faint of heart, or the closed-minded, and that is the beauty of it. Controversial and offensive, it will spread through word of mouth for months and will ultimately make the producers millions. We are witnessing the evolution of entertainment where scripted situational comedies are no longer enough to quench the thirst of the spoiled American audience. What we need is something new - double entendre-laden reality blended with unsuspecting victims who make us feel intellectually and socially superior by comparison. Sad but true.

The finest scenes are when Cohen is faced with that singular moment where he is clearly improvising both in response to, and to provoke his comedic mark. Some scenes even seem downright dangerous, such as his little jaunt to the Middle East, and his appearance at an ultimate fighting match in the deep south (not to mention the swinger's party dominatrix).

The only complaint I have is one that can't be avoided. With so much buzz, and advertising, many of the scenes were not shocking enough, as they had already been discussed or shown in the previews. My preferred approach would have been a more bold move to show much less to the public beforehand and let the audiences take care of the advertising and marketing after release. This is of course much more risky, but would have delivered a more authentic audience response.

It sounds almost haughty to say that I appreciated this film for its artistic vision but that is exactly how I felt. Cohen is an unparalleled comic genius who owns his own genre and has carved out a place in cinema history and established his legacy through these two endeavors. I am excited to see what he comes up with next.

In the end, the joke is on our culture and our country as a whole. These people represent those living among us, and although personal beliefs vary widely and individually, there is still a stifling amount of intolerance, and what's more funny than authentic, uncomfortable intolerance? 8/10.

Moon

There hasn't been a good sci-fi space movie in awhile that hasn't been part of a franchise. Moon brings the genre back to basics in the style of 2001 where isolation and claustrophobia dictate the tone and direction of the film. Space movies don't tend to get much credit for cinematic vision, as it seems that the stretch of the imagination is just too much fiction and not enough science for most people. There are typically major plot holes, unnecessary heroics or just disappointing endings. Moon was just subtle and under the radar enough to pull off a creepy and intriguing story.

There is nothing new about the basic story; Man is alone on a remote outpost doing a job for a large corporation and is just 2 weeks shy of finishing his 3 year contract. He is beginning to go a little stir-crazy and then there is an accident. What happens next is a sequence of events that are eerily reminiscent of the Twilight Zone or the Outer Limits.

What makes the story great is the simplicity and suspense. Up to a point, the viewer has absolutely no idea what is happening, and as the veil is slowly taken away, everything is laid out nicely and tied up like a Philip Dick short story. Because of the minimalist approach, the film's success depends on the believability of the single actor (Sam Rockwell) and the requisite computer companion (voiced by Kevin Spacey).

Sam Rockwell takes a big chance with this role, but that's nothing new for him. His screen time is nearly 100% and there is nothing more than Spacey's hypnotic robotic voice for him to interact with. He rises to the challenge, and performs well in dual roles, clearly conveying unique personalities in each individual.

This film lends a certain feeling of nostalgia for the simpler, more character driven space films of the past. Recent attempts have relied too heavily on special effects, extravagant plot twists or aliens. These all have their place in cinema, but it is difficult to connect with the humanity of the story if there is not the emotional element.

The director is an unknown, with only one previous film on his resume. There is little to credit him for in this endeavor however other than solid pacing and good timing. Rockwell deserves the kudos for his performance as a man (actually two) who finds himself in a tragic and startling situation.

This is a good movie, but I would be hesitant to recommend it to those who dislike science fiction movies in the space venue. It is wildly unrealistic and futuristic, with a traditional distopic view of civilization on earth, but that is what makes a sci-fi film both conventional and captivating, right?

Spacey's HAL-like dialogue is monotone and gives just enough of an uncertain tone that you don't know whether he is friend of foe until the very end. Rockwell is yet again superb, and the story is clever if not a little bit recycled. 8/10 for sci-fi fans, 6/10 if you can't stand space movies.

Public Enemies

Michael Mann's latest crime epic follows John Dillinger during his reckless spree of bank robberies during the early 1930's which landed him as the number one target on the newly established FBI's most wanted list. Or so we are intended to believe. The true story is the detail of life during the tail years of the great depression, and the uprising of organized crime and the government's response to it. I would contend that the main character is not Johnny Depp and his suave, brash depiction of the legendary criminal, but Christian Bale's Melvin Purvis, who as J. Edgar Hoover's FBI super agent, brought down Pretty Boy Floyd, Baby Face Nelson and John Dillinger.

It is a tremendous story, and although I can't attest to the historical accuracy, it was done in a manner as would be expected from a Michael Mann crime drama. He has a tendency to romanticize or glamorize the criminal element in a way that garners endearment from the audience. Perhaps intentional, or possibly just a byproduct of his film making style, he did this with DeNiro in Heat, Cruise in Collateral, and now Depp in Enemies.

Keeping with tradition, Mann coupled two big name stars with an exceptional supporting cast, and although Marion Cotillard seemed an odd choice for Depp's love interest, she had the right look of a woman during that historical time. The most notable supporting player is Stephen Lang as Purvis' right hand man. He has been around a long time playing cops, criminals and cowboys mostly. His most recognizable role to date would probably be as Ike Clanton in 1994's Tombstone. Giovanni Ribisi also delivers a surprisingly strong performance as Dillinger's fellow fugitive Alvin Karpis.

The thing that distinguishes Michael Mann films from others is the completeness of the action scenes. There are no cuts, no audience assumptions, no easy getaways. Mann takes the time to show us exactly how a fugitive breaks out of prison. Or how a bank robber makes his getaway. Or how an assassin completes his job. Or how a gunfight starts and ends. It is the linear unabridged delivery that gives the story credibility.

Admittedly, I am not a fan of Johnny Depp. I never have been, and I don't suppose I ever will be. He is basking in his element however with this role. Christian Bale on the other hand, I have enjoyed in the past, but his last few performances have left something to be desired. This one is unfortunately no different. He shows us no real range of emotion which leaves us without any sort of understanding of the character of Melvin Purvis, and consequently no real connection.

What makes this film work, and makes it compelling is the authenticity of the action as well as the cat and mouse drama. You know how it is going to end before you step foot in the theatre, but the ride is fantastic. Tommy-gun fire fights between cops and robbers in classic Fords evokes a feeling of nostalgia for the gangster films of years past, but it is done with a modern realism which charges the film with adrenaline.

The action scenes are fantastic. This film takes me back to 1995's Heat with the 10+ minute shootouts and thorough character capturing sequences. Contrary to other critical reviews, the story was not confusing, plot lines did not cross, and there was not excess background plot noise. There was just enough to convey the message; audience immersion into 1933 Chicago and the rise of a new kind of criminal.

I only have two criticisms of scenes that detracted from the tension and realism of the story. Both involve Dillinger brashly walking into situations that no criminal, no matter how brave or confident would walk into. The point was clearly to show that the man had no fear and was narcissistic to no end, but it went a bit too far and spoiled the moment.

Other than that, I was very impressed with every aspect of the nearly 140 minute film. Michael Mann returns to form, and does not deviate from his trademark style. That style is what has made him the best crime drama director around today. 8/10.