Review of THINK LIKE A MAN (2012)

- Rated PG-13 for sexual content, some crude humor, and brief drug use.
- Starring Michael Ealy, Kevin Hart, Romany Malco, Gabrielle Union, Regina Hall, Meagan Good, Taraji P. Henson, Steve Harvey
- Written by Keith Merryman & David A. Newman (based on the book by Steve Harvey)
- Directed by Tim Story
- Running time: 2hrs 1min

This is a pretty typical multi-character romantic comedy. The premise is that Steve Harvey has written a book called Think Like a Man, and we see how this effects four couples. All four of the guys are friends. Dominic is the dreamy-eyed dreamer who longs to be chef, Jeremy has been with the same girl for years but has no intention of committing, Michael's mom always comes first in his love life, and Zeke is a womanizing playboy. Dom meets a strongheaded business woman who is sick of dating immature (and broke) guys. Jeremy's girlfriend is sick of his childishness. Michael meets a single mom who needs someone who will put her first. And Zeke meets a woman who wants to find a man who wants more than just sex, so puts him to the 90-day no sex test. All the girls read the Steve Harvey book in order to keep the relationship in their control, and it works... except when the guys figure out the game. Then they read the book too, and turn the game around on the girls.

There's nothing really original about this, but the actors really made it work. It's surprisingly funny. Credit goes to the male leads, as they display a likable and believable bond between them. Just seeing them sitting at a bar and just discussing relationship issues was entertaining. The dialogue is smart and funny. Kevin hart plays the guys' best friend who is going through a divorce and offers more of the silliest moments of the film. The actresses also attribute themselves wonderfully. Gabrielle Union (I can't believe she's 40, because she looks 25!) is terrific in this as Jeremy's longtime girlfriend. Never thought I would ever see a hot black girl wearing a nerdy Voltron shirt in my lifetime!

Yeah, the movie is cliched, and you can pretty much guess what's going to happen. But the enjoyment of this film is watching the characters hang out and interact with each other. Director Tim Story (Barbershop and the Fantastic Four movies), does a good job balancing the comedy and drama, much better than Tyler Perry (who usually overdoes both). If you like a good battle-of-the-sexes movie, it's definitely worth your time.

*** (out of ****)

Review of DAMSELS IN DISTRESS (2012)

- Rated PG -13 for mature thematic elements including some sexual material.
- Starring Greta Gerwig, Analeigh Tipton, Adam Brody
- Written & Directed by Whit Stillman
- Running Time: 1hr 38min.

This was my first experience of a Whit Stillman film. He made 3 movies in the 90's, but hasn't made a film in 14 years. For his comeback, he made a semi-surreal tale about a group of college girls who attempt to change the frat boy mentality of your typical college dude, as well as saving fellow students from depression and suicide. In reality, the girls are snobs who think they're better than everyone else and seem to do these helpful humanity activies to make themselves feel even more superior. They are led by Violet, who is satirically full of her self. She has a few followers as well that try and imitate her. But when newcomer Lily joins the group, she questions their ways and changes the routine in Violet's hypocritical world.

It's a hard movie to describe. It's actually kind of clever. I liked how it didn't seem to take place in reality, but in a sort of stylistic version of college life. The costumes are subtly colorful and there is a contrived way the dialogue is delivered. But it sort of works. Greta Gerwig completely embodies Violet, who has all the best lines. Every thing she says is passive aggressive, but there's a rhythm to it, and Gerwig just nails this. Analeigh Tipton has this innocence about her as Lily that is completely believable. I think she has this natural acting ability and will probably be the next big thing. Adam Brody is also pretty good as a sort of love interest for both Lily and Violet.

Stillman's script snarls with wit and snarky commentary on social organizations. He certainly has a unique style, and it makes me want to seek out his earlier films. Unfortunately, I felt like the film kind of petered out in the last act. The juggling of the characters started not to work. There were a few things that Lily did that didn't a whole lot of sense. Also, it felt like there were scenes missing. For example: Two characters fight with each other, and then a few minutes later everything is fine. I also thought the ending was a bit of a cop out. Even though I like musical numbers, and this one was very good, it felt out of place. Like the movie couldn't figure out how to end. I'm sure there was a point to it, and I might possibly understand and appreciate it more upon a second viewing. But, for some reason it just didn't feel right.

I have a feeling that this will find a following amongst hipsters, and those that enjoyed the Christian Slater movie HEATHERS (I love it too!) will find a similar (but far less violent) tone. I do think that Wilt Stillman is a truly unique artist, but I think I need to see it again to fully appreciate it.

**1/2 (out of ****)

Review of THE LUCKY ONE (2012)

- Rated PG -13 for some sexuality and violence.
- Starring Zac Efron, Taylor Schilling, Blythe Danner, Riley Thomas Stewart, Jay R. Ferguson
- Written by Will Fetters (based on a novel by Nicholas Sparks)
- Directed by Scott Hicks
- Running time: 1hr 40min

Nicholas Sparks is all the rage right now. Ever since THE NOTEBOOK (which I loved), he's been on fire. I also enjoyed DEAR JOHN, but didn't care for NIGHTS OF RODANTHE or MESSAGE IN A BOTTLE.

Zac Efron stars as Logan, a marine who finds a picture of a beautiful woman in the aftermath of a battle in the Middle East. He keeps the photo throughout his tour of duties and feels like it brought him good luck. Once he returns, he travels to North Carolina in search of this mystery woman in the picture. He finds her. She is a single mom named Beth who works at a farm living with her son and mother. Logan approaches her but instead of explaining why he came, he accepts a job offer to train dogs at the farm. He finds out during this that the picture was Beth's brother, who died in the war. Of course the two fall in love, but Beth's beer drinking Sheriff ex-husband doesn't approve, as he threatens their relationship many different ways. And what will Beth think once she finds out that Logan has her brother's picture?

I am not against cheesy cornball romances. I even enjoy crying a lot at movies. But this is way too much. Director Scott Hicks (responsible for Academy Award Nominee SHINE), has a wonderful eye for scenery and composition. The movie looks lush and beautiful, as it seems nearly half of the film was shot during magic hour. Unfortunately the story is TOO cliched. I usually don't care if a film is predictable just as long as it's well made. But, this is over-cliched.

I mean, as soon as the ex-husband shows up with a beer in his hand, asking for his son... LOOK OUT! I guess he's the bad guy? This character is so evil and bad that it gets to the point where it became a parody. I was laughing out just how much of a douchebag this guy was. Also, the romance is laughably over the top. When we first meet Beth, she is walking out of a barn with the sunset behind her and the soothing music just oozes out of the speakers. Come on, guys! Too much. And that's just scratching the surface.

The film is also lazy in it's writing. Instead of showing scenes with actual dialogue and character interaction between the two lovebirds while they were falling in love, the filmmakers just replace all that with countless montages. Seriously, I don't think I've seen this many montages in a movie all my life. If I were playing a drinking game and took a shot every time a montage came on, I would've been hammered before the first half was over. Montages are not a substitute for storytelling.

The acting isn't dreadful. Zac Efron is fine as Logan. Taylor Schilling is decent, though I thought she looked far too old for Efron (even though she's not 30 yet in real life). Blythe Danner is the typcial cute mom that gives good advice laced with smart comments, usually with a smug look on her face. Jay Ferguson probably did what he was supposed to do as the a-hole of an ex-husband, but his character is outrageous.

No, the big problem is just how manufactured this movie feels. There is not one real, natural, or genuine second in this movie. It's a standard, stock romance that felt more like the filmmakers were completing a checklist of "romantic drama" story cliches, than telling an actual story. There are much better full blown romances out there than this. I laughed a lot in this movie, and that wasn't intentional.

*1/2 (out of ****)

Review of JIRO DREAMS OF SUSHI (2012)

- Rated PG for mild thematic elements and brief smoking
- Directed by David Gelb
- Running Time: 1hr 22min


This is a documentary about an 85 year old man and his quaint little sushi restaurant. I have never tried sushi and probably never will. I hate fish. I hate the way it looks and the smell makes me gag. So I definitely was NOT the audience for this.

It's a pretty straightforward movie as it tells how Jiro Ono became an expert on Sushi, and how his sons followed in the business. This one caught me off guard. I was surprised how involved I became in Jiro's world. He's a no-nonsense, straight-to-the-point man with an adorable, but stern demeanor. He's a perfectionist, and is really hard on anyone who works for him, but I got the sense that it was all worthwhile for everyone. Apparently, this is the best sushi in the world. I liked how we really got to see the pressures of his oldest son and how he is preparing to take over the family business, though I felt a bit of reluctance since his father will be taking the credit for the sushi long after he passes on (which doesn't seem to be anytime soon). I also got a kick out of comments made from customers, as many said that they loved the food, but that Jiro is such an intimidating presence that they were uncomfortable. But all said it was still worth it. Jiro sure came across as a unique character. The film is also beautifully and articulately shot. The sushi looks wonderful and it almost made me want to try it.

I do think it got a tad long (even at 82 minutes), as I felt it didn't have enough material for a feature, but it would have made an excellent short. Overall, I still enjoyed it quite bit. I can imagine that if you are a sushi lover, then you'll be drooling over the delicious looking scenery, and maybe even convince you to make a trip to Japan just to try some of the food.

*** (out of ****)

Review of CHIMPANZEE (2012)

- Rated G.
- Narrated by Tim Allen
- Directed by Alastair Fothergill & Mark Linfield
- Running Time - 1hr 18min


Disney's 4th consecutive nature Documentary. They started back in 2009 with EARTH, and continued with OCEANS and AFRICAN CATS. I enjoyed both EARTH and OCEANS, but thought that AFRICAN CATS fell flat. That could also be due to seeing the far superior THE LAST LIONS (which was also a Doc about Lions) first.

Unlike the other Disney nature films (those had random images of animals in their natural habitat, without trying to tell a story), the filmmakers actually tell the tale of a baby chimp they call Oscar. His mother raises him, then when she disappears the elder ape takes care of Oscar. Also, there is a bad group of apes who are led by the "cleverly" (sarcasm) named Scar, who threaten to take over the "good" chimps habitat.

There is some good photography, as there usually is in these movies. There were occasional cute moments, like when Oscar is trying to break open a nut with various sizes of branches, but I ultimately didn't care for this. And the main reason is the narration. For some reason, Disney thought it would be a brilliant idea to have overrated and "shoot me in my face" irritating actor/comedian Tim Allen to talk over the ape action. What a horrible idea!

Unlike narrators of the past films (James Earl Jones, Pierce Brosnan), Allen makes wise cracks and silly voices while doing the commentary, making it (maybe) a step above America's Funniest Home Videos. Occasionally he would try to tell a story, but then he would just go into old Home Improvement bits. Yes, there's even a moment when he says "Power tools!" , and then proceeds to do his man bark, or whatever the hell he does that the majority of lower middle class Americans thought was so funny in the 90's. Inappropriate when doing an intimate nature documentary. His narration constantly gets in the way of even remotely enjoying the story.

And just when you were about to say, "Well, the silly narration is there to make it more entertaining for the kids", about 15 minutes into the movie, my 8 year old daughter whispers to me, "I hate the narration. He's trying to be too funny. I just want to see the animals". Yeah, that's right! Suck it, Hollywood! You don't need to play down to kids. They want to see good movies just like us adults. She was getting so upset at Tim Allen, that at one point she yelled, "Shut Up!" to the screen. I had to calm her down.

Now, I guess if you're a die hard Tim Allen fan, you'll probably appreciate his narration, though I'm 100% positive that this would have been a moving and touching Documentary if it was taken much more seriously.


*1/2 (out of ****)

Review of MARLEY (2012)

- [PG -13] for drug content, thematic elements and some violent images.
- Directed by Kevin MacDonald
- Running Time: 2hrs. 24min.


I never really heard anything by Bob Marley until I was well out of High School, and when I did I found it pleasant. But it wasn't until I heard the album EXODUS in it's entirety that I started to truly admire him. I have all of his major studio albums, so I consider myself a fan. I didn't know anything about his personal life, so I was curious to see how much this documentary would cover.

At nearly two and a half hours, Filmmaker Kevin MacDonald (TOUCHING THE VOID and THE LAST KING OF SCOTLAND) had seemingly limitless access to archive footage in order to assemble a very extensive look at the famous Reggae musician. This epic Doc covers everything a hardcore fan could hope for: His birth, his mysterious white father, his introduction to music, his first experience with fame and how he handles it, the many ladies of his life, how his music changed from ska to reggae, his energetic stage shows, the politics of his music, and ultimately his sickness and death. And much more.

MacDonald has structured the film fairly straightforward, mixing interviews with family and band members with rare archive footage. I was worried that I would feel the film's long running length, but for the most part it kept my interest. This is a true celebration of the man and the legend, as his music is played throughout the film's entirety, whether it's concert footage (which is awesome), sweeping photography of Jamaica, or just interviews, Marley's music dominates.

I'm happy that we get to see all sides of Marley. He comes across as a genuinely likable dude, but had a reputation as a ladies man, having several lovers (a text came across during the film stating that he had 11 kids from 9 different relationships, I think). I do think his music gets pushed to the background during the second half, as it focused a lot on the political happenings in Jamaica. That's fine, but I would have preferred to see more insight on the writing and recording of his most famous and important album, EXODUS. It's mentioned once ("EXODUS was a huge hit"). That definitely could've been expanded upon. Another couple of minutes wouldn't have hurt. I think that album is too important to just gloss over.

Besides that, as whole, the Documentary is engaging enough to entertain music lovers. Bob Marley fanatics are going to treat this film like the Holy Bible. I'm not quite there, but it's definitely worth two and half hours of your time.


*** (out of ****)

(EXCLUSIVE) Interview with CABIN IN THE WOODS director, Drew Goddard!!!

2 weeks ago I had the opportunity to interview the co-writer/director of the crazy new genre defying horror film, THE CABIN IN THE WOODS. Drew Goddard began his career working as a writer for Joss Whedon on Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and for JJ Abrams on Alias and Lost. He also wrote the script for CLOVERFIELD.

Enjoy the interview!



Austin Kennedy (AK): How’s it going?

Drew Goddard (DG): You know, it couldn’t be doing better. Really...

AK: Oh Jeez, where to begin... Thank you for making an awesome movie! I saw it last week.

DG: Oh, thank you! Thank you for saying that.

AK: It’s so awesome!

DG: It really means a lot.

AK: I loved it! It was one of those things though, when I was sitting watching it... I was like “Okay, I think I know where it’s going...” and then, “OH MY GOD!”

DG: (laughing at me geeking out)

AK: I was like, “YES!” I love how it opens with Richard Jenkins and Bradley Whitford, and I was like “What’s going on?” and then, BOOM! “CABIN IN THE WOODS” (I was regarding how the titles appear on the screen) That’s awesome!

DG: That’s right. We wanted to send out early to people that this was not your typical movie.

AK: How did the project start, was it an idea started by you or Joss (Whedon)?

DG: It was Joss’ original idea. We were looking for something to do together. And we were just talking about horror movies. We were sort of brainstorming sub-genres and stuff. He said, “I got this idea about a cabin in the woods...” he sort of had this basic construct of it worked out, and when I heard it, I was like “Oh, this sounds good”.

AK: I really think it turns the horror genre on it’s head. Do you think maybe that came out of frustration or a kind of retaliation on what was being turned out by the studios at the time?

DG: A little bit, but the truth is it came much more from a place of love than a place of hate. I think our goal was to celebrate the horror film than it was to tear anything down. I just love horror films. I love the genre. And certainly , when you’re celebrating something there is the need to sort of poke and prod it. Certainly we poke fun at certain places, but it all comes from a place of love.

AK: Was there any film specifically that influenced you?

DG: I can honestly say with this movie... every horror film I’ve ever seen.

AK: It’s like the kitchen sink thing.

DG: It really is.

AK: I definitely have some questions about some spoilers a bit later, but you’ve been writing for a while now. What decided you to choose this one, and how did you prepare for it?

DG: During my whole career, I’ve had so little of a plan. I’ve really just gone with what sounds fun at the time. Part of that is just working with people I like. Just finding my friends and just keeping that 12 year old spirit of “let’s just get our friends together and have fun”. You didn’t worry about stuff when you were 12, you just said “Hey, let’s play monsters”. And that’s been the spirit of my career. JJ (Abrams) calls and says, “Hey, you want to do a monster movie, but want to shoot it with a video camera?” and I’m like, “Yeah”.

AK: Did Joss suggest you direct it (CABIN), or did you jump up and say that you wanted to direct it?

DG: A little of both. I don’t remember “chicken or egg”-wise who said it first, but he knew I wanted to direct. He was actually pushing me to direct. He wanted me to direct as early as Buffy (The Vampire Slayer). He said, “You should direct an episode.”, but I wanted to get a little more experience. I knew enough to know that directing wasn’t easy. You need to train for it. You need to prepare. And so I felt like that the first few years of my career that I was preparing for this job.

AK: Did you feel like you were ready this time?

DG: I felt with CABIN that I was ready as you can be without actually doing the job. With directing, you just have to do it.

AK: Any special preparation for it?

DG: Not really. I feel like writing and producing for television was the best preparation I could’ve done. Cause in TV, the writer is sort of in charge anyway. You do a lot of stuff that directors do in features. You do a lot of talking to the actors and managing the set and stuff like that. So that was definitely the best preparation.

AK: When presenting the actors with the script, can you share any of their reactions, because I can imagine being an actor reading the script and being like “Oh my God!”

DG: We wrote the parts for Richard Jenkins and Bradley Whitford. We sent them the script first. We sent it to Richard first actually, and Richard immediately signed on.

AK: Awesome.

DG: I know. And we were shocked because that week he was nominated for an Academy Award (for THE VISITOR). I was like, “you’re nominated for an Academy Award, but you want to do this crazy horror movie”. And Richard was like, “Yes, this is exactly what I want to do. You don’t get opportunities like this. It’s different. It’s such a rare thing as an actor to be offered something that’s not like any other movie”. And he just wanted to be a part of it. And Bradley felt the same way, so they both said yes right away. With the kids we wanted fresh faces, we didn’t give the script out. We just auditioned. And we wrote a lot of fake scenes. They didn’t know that they were fake, but they were just absurd scenes. Like Pterodactyl attack. One of them had a hot tub with a creature in it, and it was molesting... They were just crazy scenes, but they weren’t in the movie. We just wanted to put these kids through their paces. We were just trying to find actors that would fit with what we were trying to do. None of the 5 of them had read the script until after we cast them.

AK: How did they react when they read it?

DG: They were pretty excited. They weren’t sure what to expect based on the sides I had given them. They were nice. They just believed in us. They just took a leap of faith.

AK: For me, if I read it, it would be one of those things that I would be like, “I ‘ve got to see that to believe that.”

DG: There definitely was a quality of “Are they going to be able to pull this off, it’s really sick”.

[this next portion of the interview, we talk about the finale so if you don't want to know too much, you might want to skip it and come back after you've seen it.]
















AK: For the finale, it must have been a blast brainstorming every single kind of monster and creature imaginable. Were you just writing them down like, “[spoiler]”

DG: I don’t want to give out spoilers, but yeah there was definitely a lot of times on this movie when I was looking around thinking, “I can’t believe I’m getting paid to do this”. Because this is what I would do. It feels like I’m 12 again and this is the ultimate horror monster movie in my toy box. It felt like “this is the dream”. I still can’t believe we got away with it.

AK: I was really into the movie and then the last 20 minutes... that just seems daunting as a filmmaker. Cause it’s so chaotic and there’s so much going on. How do you sustain that while you’re filming. How did you organize that?

DG: It’s funny cause it was so energizing. My experience as a screenwriter sort of taught me that it’s really hard to do a good 3rd act. You see it time and time and time again in movies where it’s like, “Oh, that started great, but then it just felt like that they didn’t know what they were doing here.” And in this one we knew that this was NOT going to be the case. I just knew. No matter what happens in the first two-thirds, once they got to the last third... "we’ve got something for you"!

(we both laugh)

DG: There’s something that’s very empowering about that. But that was the hardest thing I had to do was construct that ballet at the end. A couple of the shots in that final bit, I spent a year and a half working on. Just getting it right, just working with artists and figuring out how we were going to shoot it. We worked really hard on that.














[end spoilers]

[the publicist peeked her head in and told me that I had one more question left]

AK: So next you have Robopacalypse with (Steve) Spielberg (Goddard wrote the script and Spielberg is directing)?

DG: Because it’s Spielberg, I can’t say too much.

AK: Are you in pre-production?

DG: It’s been in pre-production, yeah.

AK: The script’s written.

DG: The script’s written, but it continues to evolve, as these things do. But it’s based on a book by Daniel Wilson. It’s a hard science look at what would happen if our technology turns on us. It’s sort of an epic sci-fi that no one does better than Spielberg.

AK: Do you plan on directing again?

DG: I’d love to direct again. We’ll see if they let me.

AK: Cool! Thanks a lot Drew. Pleasure to meet you.

DG: Nice to meet you!
.....................................

After I turned off my recorder, as I was heading out, I told him how I can’t wait to see his film with a crowd (as I only saw it at a press screening with only 10 critics in the theater). I asked him if he saw it at Butt-numb-a-thon, but he said he couldn’t make it. But he did see it with a crowd at SXSW and said it was pretty incredible.

He was a fun dude that felt like someone I probably would have been friends with when I was growing up.

Stay tuned for my full review on the film.