Smart People

First Paul Giamatti in Sideways, and now Dennis Quaid in Smart People. Why does every intelligent yet cynical, self-deprecating writer/teacher with emotional detachment and women issues drive a Saab? Wait, I drive a Saab.

Smart People is a sharp dramedy by a first time writing and directing duo that combines a talented cast with great dialogue and a pragmatic view of dysfunctional relationships, even when the people are exceptionally gifted intellectually. There is not much more to the story than a character study of a widower college professor (Quaid) who is simultaneously striving for a department head position at the distinguished Carnegie Mellon University English Department, and trying to publish a book about some tremendously boring and pompous diatribe about the criticism of literature. His curmudgeon is endearing and respectable, but evokes sympathy because of the effect it has on his two children, played by the outstanding Ellen Page and the unassuming Ashton Holmes. Luckily, Quaid's adopted brother, the obligatory black sheep of the family, played by Thomas Haden Church is there to add levity to the mix.

Rounding out the cast is Sarah Jessica Parker as the former student and current love interest, but there was something important missing from her performance. I didn't buy her as a doctor, and there was never really any telling evidence to qualify her attraction to Quaid in the first place. Something just seemed out of place, but I can't put my finger on it.

Page filmed this prior to her hugely successful Juno, but the characters could be twins separated at birth, with one becoming the quick-witted rebel chick, and the other the academically overachieving, therefore quick-witted yet socially deprived symbol of unacknowledged teenage angst. Pretty much dopplegangers (I never tire of that word) without the sinister nature. Her performance is great, but as with Juno, she had great writing. Not to take anything away from her acting ability, but much of the allure has more to do with what she says and how it appears coming out of her sweet, innocent mouth than how she actually says it.

Thomas Haden Church is the glue that holds this film (and family) together. Although the story revolves around Quaid, without Church, it would have been far too dismal of a family situation and dysfunctional would have become tragic. He even evokes the spirit of Oscar 2007 and sports a hideous mustache that seems almost contrived even though it clearly isn't.

This is what I would call the first good film of 2008. Cloverfield was entertaining, but this one delivered more than just that. It was heartwarming, clever and well done. Quaid shows that he is truly one of the better actors around with a performance more on par with In Good Company, The Rookie, or Traffic than The Day After Tomorrow, or Flight of the Phoenix. He has made some questionable decisions over the past decade, but I have a feeling he is finding himself a niche as he rolls into his mid 50's.

Thomas Haden Church and Ellen Page are continuing to impress me as actors, and Sarah Jessica Parker? I am not sure. She may stay in the business, but it wouldn't surprise me to see her fade gracefully after Sex and the City. She just doesn't seem right in many of her past few roles. That might just be me though. 8/10.

30 Days of Night

Isolated in the cold, dark northernmost city of Barrow, Alaska for 30 days during the winter, a group of 150 people prepare for the annual attack of the elements, but they never anticipate being attacked by vampires. The premise arouses more than one nostalgic thought of John Carpenter's brilliant 1982 remake of The Thing. Based on a graphic novel, this valiant attempt at a modern classic is directed by David Slade, a music video veteran whose only other feature length film was Hard Candy (which was actually very entertaining).

On the last day before the annual 30 day winter of darkness, a stranger comes upon this small Alaska town and strange things begin happening; Sled dogs are slaughtered, cell phones are stolen and burned, and the town's only helicopter is destroyed. Hmm, kind of seems like someone wants to cut off the means of escape and communication. Fortunately many of the townfolk have made their way south for the duration, so the population drops dramatically, but once the last plane leaves, the rest of the townies are stranded. Where the film admittedly succeeds is in the pacing. There is not a lot of time wasted getting to know characters who are obviously going to meet their end in a nasty if not highly entertaining way. The events begin unfolding, and carnage ensues.

This is when the pacing dies and the story becomes absurd. Most of the town is wiped out by the intelligent, strong and bloodthirsty vampires, and a small group bands together and finds a hiding place. All of a sudden, it is 17 days later. The problem with this scenario is that it is a very small town of a few dozen homes and shops. There are dozens of vampires ravaging the town, and with their super sense of smell, wouldn't they search for and find the hiding individuals? Or would they just move on to another town in the middle of nowhere? Apologies for ruining an otherwise entertaining horror flick. These vampires hang around for 30 days feeding on stragglers, and the stragglers continue to make bad decisions that lead to mostly disappointing and uninteresting deaths.

I've got to give Slade proper credit, he tried his best. But vampire flicks are a tough one. You can't make it too cheesy, and you can't take it too seriously. There are the typical rules to follow, and Slade did fine by that. He even succeeded in creating some pretty grizzly visual effects including decapitations, various dismemberments, burning, and the staple of what I believe to be a good fright flick - possessed children. The whole concept of a horror flick is to scare the viewer, and the characters make obviously bad decisions that lead to their debatable deserved fates. However, I have a hard time stepping out of the objective "what would I do" role and accepting that these people are simply fodder for my entertainment. Knowing that without that entertainment, it would simply be a boring film is what makes it so diametrically opposed to conventional wisdom. Stepping outside of that conventional wisdom, this film was mediocre.

One thing that was never addressed was the looming questions where did they come from, how do they survive, and where will they go when the feasting is over? Although the answers may detract from vision of the graphic novel and subsequently the film, they remain nonetheless. I appreciated the strength of the ending, although the ambiguity was a bit unsettling. This genre is becoming more and more difficult to create quality works, and I have to give kudos for the effort. It was however, a less than satisfying film. 5/10.

The Ruins

The Ruins is a delightful cautionary tale written by Scott Smith, which I happen to think was the best book of 2007. I would highly recommend reading it prior to seeing the film. He adapted this screenplay from his own book, and 10 years ago he wrote and adapted a book titled A Simple Plan into a great little film.

The premise of the story is that a group of college friends are vacationing in Mexico when they hear of an ancient Mayan temple off the beaten path, and they decide to make the journey to it. Once they arrive, they discover that this is no ordinary temple, and their struggle for survival ensues.

The cast is mostly unknowns, but some may recognize Ashmore from the X-Men movies, or Malone from her impressive resume of independent film work. The strong protagonist is Jonathan Tucker from the Black Donnelly's, and Laura Ramsey is the eye candy. Overall, the acting was average at best. The women were annoyingly helpless and weak, and Tucker seemed to lack any real emotion in his expression. The only strong performances were by Ashmore who took a backseat role, and added some occasional comic relief, and Joe Anderson, who plays the unfortunate Mathias with a great German accent (he is English). Anderson was the centerpiece of one of the more squeamish sequences in the film, and he did great. The star of the film is really the story, and that carried both the absurd premise as well as the mediocre acting.

It was well done for a minimal budget, and was obviously filmed entirely on location. I could not shake the anticipation of knowing how it turns out, and the film was surprisingly faithful to the book. There were some minor details overlooked, but the adaptation translated well onto the screen and conveyed all of the eeriness and suspense that would be expected.

I had intentionally not read any of the reviews beforehand, and as it had not screened for the Seattle Times, I thought it would be a bust, but I was pleasantly surprised. There were minimal special effects, and much of the suspense and tension was psychological more so than visual. The effects that did arise were well done and realistic, mostly dealing with amputations, blood, and things of that nature.

I enjoyed the film despite the wildly vivid preconceptions that the novel gave me. Scott Smith is an incredible storyteller, and I am very much looking forward to his next piece of work. 7/10, with extra style points for not cutting out some of the more graphic sequences.

Across the Universe

If you've ever watched The Wall or Tommy and wished that there was a psychedelic film done to Beatles music, then Across the Universe is for you. I have to say, it starts off not half bad. I was reminded of Moulin Rouge, which I really enjoyed in spite of Nicole Kidman. The music is appealing and well done with enough homage to the original renditions that it is likable, and more importantly, recognizable to even the most musically challenged individuals. Done mostly chronologically, the songs elicit a nostalgia that is enjoyable and lets you forget the mediocre acting and story that is on the screen. For awhile.

The film goes on. And on. And on for a seemingly endless period of time. I must admit, I am a huge Beatles fan, and most of my favorites were sung, but there was one crucial song missing; Yesterday, the most covered song of all time. However, this oversight or intentional subversion, whichever it happened to be, did little to detract from the film.

Set in the early 1960's, converging story lines of characters with names found in Beatles songs highlight the decade of peace, love, war and civil disobedience. The main characters, Jude and Lucy meet, fall in and out of love, and reconnect after the scarring trauma of the Vietnam War. Really though, it is not as heavy as it sounds. The war scenes start with a bang, and end with slow motion singing and over the top visual effects. Taking countless cues from The Wall, this film is far from original.

The highlights are certainly the adaptations of the songs, and presentation. The choreography and some of the trippy visuals that accompany the musical interludes are thoughtful and clever. However, the story is stagnant and stale. The characters never fully develop, and although it is a light-hearted intentionally provocative and quite possibly one of the more creative displays of film making of the past year, it is ultimately not entertaining enough.

A great idea, and wonderful musical numbers, but everything else falls flat. Perhaps it is the depressing journey through drugs and the war, and maybe it is the music itself that brings the tone down a notch, but either way, the film as a whole fails. 6/10 for the musical presentation, but that is sadly generous.

Jumper

Doug Liman has had his ups and downs as a director. Coming off of the brilliant Mr. and Mrs. Smith, as well as the Bourne Identity and Swingers, he has become a big name in the action film genre. Somebody called this movie "The Matrix meets Bourne" and they must have been watching a different film than I was.

The tagline "Anywhere is possible" almost holds true. The premise of the film is that Hayden Christiansen, a 15 year old boy, discovers the ability to teleport to anywhere that he has seen with his own eyes. Initially it is an accident, but as with any superhero flick, he harnesses his power and begins to enjoy it. Presumed dead, he disappears for the next 8 years, travelling, stealing money and womanizing.

The visual effects are pretty impressive, but they do get old quickly. The jumper runs into another jumper with similar powers, his old high school flame, and the obligatory government agency that is chasing jumpers and killing them. This is where the movie gets ridiculous (as if it weren't already).

Rachel Bilson is drop dead gorgeous in the cutest girl-next-door way possible, but either she is the worst actress of this generation, or her character intentionally lacked any intellectual depth. Either way, it was annoying. The other jumper, played by Jamie Bell is the typical veteran who has all the answers, but is a loner and refuses to share information or resources. Samuel Jackson plays the leader of the mysterious agency, and makes a noble attempt at cool with bright white hair, but fails miserably because there is no development or explanation. Who funds the agency? Why are they chasing the jumpers? There is a laughable veiled explanation that teleporting is unnatural, and only God should be omnipresent. That doesn't hold much water, especially for a global travelling team of hunters equipped with the latest in wormhole technology (insert barfing sound here).

As expected, Christiansen puts himself, the other jumper, and Bilson in danger, but the reality is that they are all idiots. The hunters are equipped with high-tech stun guns that deliver massive amounts of voltage to the jumpers and inhibit their ability to concentrate on a place to teleport. The problem that I have is that if I had the ability to teleport, I would make sure that I never got caught in an electrically charged net. Christiansen should have done the same. Bell should have done the same. The movie would have been decent had they been wise enough to protect themselves.

I can suspend belief for a movie, but when it jumps the tracks of its own logic and rules, I get a little upset. The kicker came at the end, when there is a revelation about Christiansen's lineage. Possible sequel? Who knows. Hopefully the film won't make enough money to be considered for further production.

The effects and the premise were great. Even the allusion of superhero powers used for a self-promoting purpose is appealing. I liked that he didn't put on a costume and save innocent people. I kind of liked that he burgled banks, womanized and enjoyed his peaceful existence traipsing around the world, lounging atop the Sphinx or drinking at a pub in Ireland. The possibilities are endless. The problem comes in when the love interest is a complete dolt and the parameters of the superpowers are suddenly compromised by illogical elements.

I suppose that it would be too fantastic otherwise, but what began as a great idea was released as a pretty horrible movie. 6/10, for the idea and effects alone.

Sunshine

The premise of this film is simple enough; futuristic sci-fi apocalyptic tale where the sun is dying, and a crew is sent to nuke it into reigniting itself. The previews even made it look interesting, and Danny Boyle, although quite eccentric in his directing style, followed far too many space movie cliches to succeed with this one.

The crew of the Icarus II is the second attempt by a global consortium at this endeavor, and nobody can explain the first crew's mysterious failure. This sidebar story leaves little to the imagination, and ultimately ruins the film's integrity. As they proceed closer to the sun, things start going wrong, crew members start dying, and we are ultimately left in the dark as to what is even going on. There is too much shaky camera movement, there is absolutely no character development. In fact, I couldn't even tell you any of the characters' names even if I wanted to. Reminiscent of Event Horizon minus the gore, and obviously taking cues from Kubrick, Boyle absolutely muddles the story and inserts far too many predictable and redundant space movie scenarios.

Perhaps the best line of the film comes when a small exploratory crew docks upon the original Icarus and someone suggests that they split up. One of the characters spouts "Right, so an alien can pick us off one by one?" My sentiments exactly. The "twist" if you want to call it that is severely disappointing, and although some of the visual effects were dazzling and the premise is intriguing to say the least, there were some problems.

First of all, it is a crew of eight. Each one has an area of expertise and nobody else has any knowledge of that area. Why do space movies always follow this paradigm? Wouldn't it be better to have a larger crew so that in the case of catastrophic events, or even just an accident, everyone doesn't have to die? Second, I have little knowledge about the science of physics, particularly as it relates to the energy output of the sun and UV rays, and solar bursts, and everything sun-related, but many of the details seemed to be overlooked.

Overall, this film did not hold up to expectations. The cast was forgettable, and the story got out of control after some initial promise. It has been a long time since there was a truly good sci-fi space flick (1986), and I'm still waiting for the next. I won't give up on the genre, but I would not recommend Sunshine. 5/10.