New Year’s Eve

New Year’s Eve - 118min – PG13

This movie is like listening to a story from your favorite uncle. You have heard it 15 times before but out of respect you let him tell it again. You give non-committal “Huh” at just the right points but you are really not engaged in the story. New Year’s Eve is really a lot like Gary Marshall’s earlier holiday film, Valentine’s Day. That one took place in Los Angeles and this one is in New York. I fear that his next project will be Arbor Day in Lebanon, KS. As much as I am a fan of his body of work this one only rates a red light. Sorry, Uncle Gary.

New York has a huge cross section of people and different feelings on the holiday that is the focus of this film. The movie gives us the sampling of those views spread over six different groups of people. With so much going on, it’s hard to really get behind any one story. You have spectacular cast with some really big names like Michelle Pfeiffer, Robert De Niro, Halle Berry, Hilary Swank, Jon Bon Jovi and Josh Duhamel, to name a few. Each one represents a different demographic of The Big Apple and we see them deal with life during that time of year in which we look at the past and hope for the future.

The plots weren’t bad, but it was just nothing new. The various elements seemed deliberately trying to make a quota with the heart strings. Have a military element? Check. Dying man? Check. Grinchy character that changes his view? Check. An affair to remember reference? Check. Heartfelt message of how we should all get along and look forward to a new year? Check. A bunch of plotlines from the 70s that we can rehash into a film about a holiday? Unfortuntaly, check.

The main issue I have with this film is it tries to make the emotional connection with too many people. They are trying to make the people of New York the focus of the film bit too large a cross section to capture accurately. I could not really get in touch with any of the characters. There were some gems but overall, it was a long walk for the same old pay off.

They try and make it a hook film with some misleading story elements and bring you to a conclusion that you were not expecting but it’s more of a neat trick than a really good story. The pacing of the film was choppy as it had to jump from person to person. If they cut out some of the stories and focused just a few of them it would have been easier to get behind some of them. Gary Marshall has directed some of my favorite movies. One film of his that I love is Nothing in Common. I loved that film. His better films have been ones that you would not give a second look. This one should not get a first look.

Resolved to not read any Spoilers this year? Warning they are here!!!

The only part that got be laughing was in the trailer, the scene when Seth Meyers is taking Jessica Biel way and telling her, “come on honey, nobody wins when pregnant women fight.” I laughed out loud at that part. It was nice to see him away from the SNL News Desk. The other part was when Penny Marshall asked the waitress if she was an actor. That was harsh but funny.

When Hilary Swank and Josh Duhamel don’t meet up when the film leads us to believe they are supposed to. Was a good switcheroo but not enough to make the film any better. I was very glad that I did not see that coming. Everything else was very predictable.

Some notable side characters that were bigger than the role called for. Cary Elwes was a doctor and was on screen for like a minunte. Alyssa Milano also took a bit part. I wonder if this was a bucket list requirement for each of them. Do a Gary Marshall film? Check.

I find it interesting that the entire population of New York in New Year ’s Eve will all stop and give attention to Hillary Swank explain why the ball is not dropping. Yep. Everyone in New York will stop what they are doing for an update. They are well known for their orderly behavior.

This movie was trying to get you to stop and think about your life vis-à-vis the New Year. What other films have made you look at your life in a different way?

Limitless

Limitless – 105m – PG-13

Warning! Do not go see this movie under the influence of alcohol. There are some seriously cool camera shots that will completely blow your mind. This movie made great use of blending the reality of what we see with what the character sees. I felt dizzy at times with the way the film was shot but it added a certain thrill. It’s a great what-if movie with a rollercoaster feel.

Limitless gives us a glimpse into what it would be like to have unlimited access to our minds. The premise of the movie is that we only use about 20 percent of our brain. With the help of this wonder drug a person can access and use 100 percent. On a side note that 20 percent thing is a myth here is a link to an article in the Scientific American. Reality aside, this pill takes Eddie Morra (Bradley Cooper) from an unmotivated, unthinking lout and turns him into an intellectual titan. He now has the ability to recall every memory of everything he has ever seen. He finishes the book that he has taken forever on in four days. He gets into Wall Street and makes millions in two weeks. The things that he could not manage in social activities he can now manipulate. He reconnects with his ex-girlfriend, Lindy (Abbie Cornish), and becomes a rising star in Carl Van Loon’s (Robert De Niro) company. This does not come without a cost, and we see some typical drug addict story elements.

One really great thing about this film is its use of camera shots strung together to illustrate how Eddie lives his life. Neil Burger did an excellent job of relaying that aspect through this film. This movie captures a lot more from his range than his previous films: Illusionist and The Lucky Ones. Burger did a wonderful job on his previous films, but this one is by far the best out I have seen from him. On two specific instances we have single long continuous shots of zooming camera angles that link together so it looks like you are zooming from one end of New York to the other. They are seamlessly tied together to look like one shot. Also some effects with a camera lens that show how his brain works that are truly brilliant, ratcheting up the lighting and color for after the drug is taken also make the audience feel like they are with Eddie when he juices up. From film makers stand point I really like how they did this movie, I so want to geeking out about some more shots but I don’t want to spoil the movie for people who have yet to see the movie. So if you see this film and want to talk further please send me an e-mail. My e-mail in in my profile.

One subtext to this movie that I think is under explored is the fact that Eddie’s powers are not earned, but given. The story misses the opportunity to expand this concept further. This under used point does not take away from the overall experience of the film and it’s a fun ride. It also bugs me a bit that this movie might be glorifying the use of drugs to better the mind. There’s a striking parallel between this drug and steroid use. I am still really just learning to look at films with more of an analytical point of view. Maybe my film classes have me thinking too much about subtext. Sometimes, there is no subtext -- just fun stories that are told.

This week’s question has to be if you had access to this wonder drug that made you smarter, would you take it?

Little Fockers

Little Fockers rated PG 13 98 min

I have never been a fan of this franchise; I am going to temper my review with a focus on the filming aspects then go into my own views of the film. The movie had no technical gafs, and feeling of the film was good, it had good tempo and it moved from scene to scene smoothly. The cast had good chemistry together and everyone was believable in their roles. I enjoyed the music and the lighting of the film. I am trying to look at the good things for this film and I am really coming up short. All of these aspects I have listed are really weak. Aside from doing a good job in making a film, I am now faced with the fact that this is not a movie worth making. Really it was hard for me to watch the talented cast and crew sell this movie with all of their hearts and souls and it falling soooo flat. It was like watching someone tell a joke that you already know and suffer through as they tell it badly. The Jokes were a rehash of the poor dynamic between Greg (Ben Stiller) and his father in law Jack (Robert De Niro). They mix in some of the awkwardness of Kevin (Owen Wilson) interest in Greg’s wife in the second film and hoped that it would be a good. The new members of the cast are the twins who are adorable in their perspective roles (Daisy Tahan and Colin Baiocchi) but are not enough of a draw to pull this story back from the brink. Putting in the new dynamic of twins and the quirkiness of parenthood and the stress people go through in this change of life is usually comedy gold but for some reason it did not pay off for them. I think the writer should have focused on the aspects of that underlying story instead of beating the dead horse of the previous films. Dustin Hoffman and Barbra Streisand characters were very enjoyable but again not enough to make this movie a win for me.

Paul Weitz takes the reins in this film taking over for Jay Roach. I have to say that both of these Directors are hit and miss with my viewership. For Paul Weitz I think his best work was on About A Boy. And Jay Roach best work was on the Austin Powers and did well on the first installment but should have stopped there. At the time of this post ther are rumors of a 4th in that series.

I would not recommend this film even if you are a fan of the other films. They are milking this for all its worth. The Cast may have a great time in doing these films but I would suggest they follow the Model of A Fish Called Wanda and Fierce Creatures. I have to admit they all work well together let’s just get them some better material to work with.