'Maleficent': Absolutely Malodorous

No movie studio knows when to let a good thing stand on its own, but if any of these powerful entertainment companies have squeezing blood from a stone down to a science, it's the good folks at Disney. Drive off director Edgar Wright from Marvel's long-gestating Ant-Man due to corporate meddling? Certainly! Push for a new episode of Star Wars every other year, and fill the time in-between with spin-offs to overly saturate the market? Absolutely! Whitewash and cleanse free of controversial topics those pesky "based on a true story" flicks, whether they focus on J.B. Bernstein or Walt Disney? Par for the course! So it's really no surprise that the company decided to remake one of their own tales from the vantage point of one of their most celebrated villains. Ironically, Disney's Sleeping Beauty is one of the company's lesser animated films. Yes, it had its basis in the original fairy tale and the variant La Belle au bois dormant by Charles Perrault, but even as a story it doesn't stand up compared to even fare from twenty years ago: the plot is illogical, the dialogue and music are corny, and the "heroine" is a void shell desperately in need of rescue. In fact, Sleeping Beauty's ONLY saving grace is its villain, the great evil fairy Maleficent, whose awe-inspiring presence and unique character design make her one of the greatest all-time animated creations.

... and is STILL a great character.

Naturally, Disney does what it can to screw that up in the first few minutes of Maleficent by giving the audience a painful - EXCRUCIATING - opening sequence, where we see young, totally-not-as-talented-as-Angelina-Jolie actors spit inane dialogue that could have been handled by animated sequences and the in-house narrator (Janet McTeer), who was already doing a fine job of laying out the exposition in a timely and appropriate fashion. Then there's the story, which insists that the future villainess (Angelina Jolie, who hasn't been in a movie since 2010's atrocious The Tourist) is not really evil, but forced into doing wicked things by MAN (in this flick, that word seems to be in reference to the gender, not the species), who seem to want to wage war against the mystical creatures over whom Maleficent rules, for no good reason. Really, none of the character motivations make any sense, as the only reason the kingdom of Man are so malicious and greedy is... because they're so malicious and greedy. There's never any exploration into WHY there's friction between these two next-door nations, as for the most part the magical realm seems quite content to keep to itself. So from moment one, you're already not buying the movie's premise.

Because the hot guy quotient must be filled. There are girls in the audience, after all!

The acting is at least solid across most of the board, though not completely. Jolie, returning to the screen after four years, picked a gem in which to make her return, as she casually and naturally personifies a character that remains powerful after 55 years. And it's not just the make-up, either (normally I don't bother to mention the make-up department, but they did an amazing job with all the characters, and not just the title heroine), as Jolie's charisma and talent do an amazing job, despite not having the best material with which to work. Not too far behind are Elle "not-Dakota" Fanning as Princess Aurora and Sam Riley as Diaval, Maleficent's lackey. Fanning has a much simpler role than Angelina (and it's not much of an improvement over her animated counterpart) but she does her absolute best to give Aurora a personality, which is more than I possibly could have asked. And while Riley falls squarely in the "comedic sidekick" genre, he also has his moments to shine. In fact, the best scenes of the movie often involve Jolie, either by herself or working opposite Fanning and/or Riley, and the trio present some of the film's most human moments. Sadly, good times pretty much end there. Sharlto Copley tries hard but is a disaster, and obviously not a good enough actor to overcome the deficiencies of a script that give him every cliched villain bit in the book. And the buffoonery of Imelda Staunton, Lesley Manville and Juno Temple as the three good fairies gets achingly old after their first appearance, and their smaller, computer generated forms suffer from extreme uncanny valley. Finally, Brenton Thwaites' obligatory appearance as Prince Philip feels unnecessary, most notably because his presence IS unnecessary by the virtues of the plot and the concept, rounding out a simultaneously talented and disappointing cast. Obviously Jolie was always going to be the star of the show, but they could have at least TRIED to surround her with more interesting stories and people.

Now, let's talk about the date rape.

Because seriously, you want to piss her off?

I know I'm not the first or only one who noticed this, but I'm honestly shocked there's not more of an outrage by parents who brought their young daughters to the theaters to see this. At the end of the first act, Maleficent is approached by the grown-up man (Copley) whom she'd fallen in love with in the first five minutes, settles into trusting him, is drugged, and then is violently stripping of her wings, which are not the source of her power but a powerful metaphor nonetheless. And in case you don't get the emphasis, it's nailed home in the following scene, which sees the woman awaken from her drug-induced coma, realize the physical violation that has come upon her, and break down emotionally and physically at the betrayal from someone she thought she could trust. She even has difficulty walking afterwards - to the point where she needs a cane to get around - and if that doesn't bring up flashbacks of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, I don't know what will. And THAT movie was deservedly rated R.

Evil, and big hats. That's all Man seems to be exporting these days.

And the sad part is, I wouldn't even argue that the scene shouldn't be here, as the near-silent performance by Jolie speaks volumes and creates extremely powerful emotions in those who witness it. I am a man and have never been subject to that kind of cruel behavior, nor could I ever truly empathize with that kind of trauma, but my God as a decent human being, I FELT her pain. It is by far the best scene in the whole movie, and while that might seem like faint praise when I finish I assure you it is not. That this scene even exists is both a revelation and a tragedy when you really think about what it represents.Honestly, my chief complaint is that Maleficent isn't a PG-13 movie, as many recent fairy tale adaptations have been, and this kind of scene would have been more appropriate for that audience, rather than the age 6-12 set that this was film was marketed towards. Because of that, this scene feels woefully out of place.

You're not your sister, but you'll do.

Further complicating matters is that after so poignant, so powerful a scene, the film just can't keep up the momentum. Both the script (Julie Woolverton, whose last atrocity was Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland) and direction (first timer Robert Stromberg, an award-winning Art Director) are completely lacking, disappointing when you consider the enormous potential this film had. There are a few decent scenes later on (most of which involve Jolie not just chewing the scenery, but dicing it up with her extra-sharp cheekbones), but the story is just so much of a mess that it derails the whole process every time you think it might just be getting started. However, the relationship between Maleficent and Aurora is given a ton of attention, and for the most part I believe this is one element that the filmmakers got 100% right. In this variation on the tale, Aurora believes the woman who put that curse upon her as a baby (which she knows nothing about, of course) to in fact be her fairy godmother, which goes hand in hand with Maleficent actually raising the child in secret, instead of the aforementioned doltish fairies who have no business caring for the her (again, the logic of Maleficent makes absolutely no sense) and developing feelings of her own towards the young woman whom she soon realizes she no longer holds a grudge against. That relationship (starting with the classic cursing scene in the castle throne room) is the only thing that keeps the movie from being a total train-wreck, but only by a few threads.

So, Robert Zemeckis was in charge of the CGI, right? That's why it's so bad?

The special effects are also shockingly uneven, with some of the more monstrous creature designs feeling so meticulously designed and gorgeous to behold (including a giant man-eating earth worm, tree-people warriors, and the obligatory fire-breathing dragon), while many of the elements take on a cartoonish appearance, most notably the atmospheric effects, but also the more "innocent" of the magical creatures. This also applies to the aforementioned Good Fairies, who never look remotely authentic when they're shrunken down to their smaller forms. The lack of chemistry between these two styles is jarring, and every time it upends the mood of the film, which definitely wants to be dark and brooding but just can't resist going down that comedic path every chance it gets. When you need your visual effects to keep up the spirits of your younger audience members, it helps when they look as though they were cut from the same cloth, something an Oscar winner apparently forgot.

Even at a distance, Angelina owns.

Disney plugged date rape into a family film geared towards young girls. And then they had the audacity to wrap a bad movie around it. Maleficent has its moments, especially when Angelina is deservedly front and center, and at the very least it's a visually appealing - if inconsistently so - couple of hours. But the story makes Snow White and the Huntsman look like Shakespeare in comparison, and doesn't have nearly the talent behind the camera to pull everything together. The story is junk, the motivations are insane, and the morals are all over the place, as there doesn't even seem to be a message behind all this pomp and circumstance. I think Jolie can do no wrong, but even if she gets nominated for an Oscar I don't think that would justify sitting down with your family and checking out this movie. It's easily one of the year's worst, and exists as proof that Disney needs to reign in on its cash-cow business methods. They wrung blood from that stone, but it's a funky shade of puce, and I really don't want any more of it on me.

Animal Kingdom

Well, here we are, still waiting for the big releases of 2012 to rear their ugly heads. I'm now two and a half weeks into the new year, and I'm still catching up on 2011's major releases. That's okay, though, as Hollywood assumes you're doing the exact same thing. This coming weekend is far more likely to be dominated by the 3D re-release of Disney animated classic (and one of my top 5 all-time) Beauty and the Beast than it is by the latest Mark Wahlberg crime drama. The industry knows that you're likely more interested in catching up on the December glut of award-nominated titles than anything else they will show you this month. It's sad but true: if Hollywood thought you cared about Contraband, they wouldn't release it in early January. Business on new movies is likely to pick up next week, as a trio of new releases look to actually compete for box office bank, and that might end the hope for titles like Iron Lady or War Horse to receive that one last push to box office success. Still, when there are plenty of quality films like We Bought a Zoo still open for business, that new stuff can wait just a little longer.

Matt Damon shouldn't be allowed to self-promote

Directed by Cameron Crowe, We Bought a Zoo stars Matt Damon as real-life writer Benjamin Mee. Mee, whose career as a respected journalist has come to an end at the hands of the failing newspaper industry, is also grieving over the loss of his wife and the mother of his two children just six months prior. Desperate for a change, Benjamin's plans to relocate his family intersect the needs of a zoo down on its luck. The closed animal sanctuary is looking for a buyer to take care of the land and animals before drastic measures must be taken, and Benjamin is enraptured with the idea of a new adventure for him and his kids. This does create some new problems, most notably a strain on both his bank account and his relationship with his teenage son Dylan (Colin Ford), who is angered at having been forced to move away from all his friends. With the help of his older brother Duncan (Thomas Hayden Church) and a dedicated zoo crew led by lead zookeeper Kelly Foster (Scarlett Johansson), Benjamin is focused and determined to re-open this zoo to the public and heal the wounds caused by his wife's tragic passing.

Frankly, I'm just waiting for her to kick ass Avengers-style

We Bought a Zoo returns director Cameron Crowe to mainstream relevance after a period of relative downtime since 2005's water-treader Elizabethtown. Crowe was a big deal in the late '90's and early 2000's, with hits Jerry Maguire, Almost Famous and Vanilla Sky beefing up an impressive resume. Since then he has laid low, making music documentaries and a Pearl Jam music video, but seeing this film reminds you why you were impressed with his work so long ago. Don't get me wrong: We Bought a Zoo is no Almost Famous, but there are enough similarities in the tone and raw film talent that you can forgive it while marveling at what elements have remained after so long a time. For one, Crowe remains a master at manipulating emotions, subtly predicting just how you the audience will react to a certain scene, cleverly ramping up the juice to build on the momentum or wisely cutting back to let your poor tear ducts recover. I specifically remember thinking that I was doing so well for so many of the film's more emotionally-driven scenes, only to nearly break down during the film's final act and cursing Crowe's name for making me cry in front of a friend who had agreed to see the thing with me.

"Hey, remember me? Award-winning actor in Sideways? I'm still relevant!"

Of course, the acting is Crowe's best way to engage viewers to what is happening in the film, and while there are no Kate Hudson's here (okay, I promise that was my last Almost Famous reference), the film is packed with enough genuine talent that even minor missteps are forgivable. Matt Damon is thankfully refreshing after a down 2010, and he combines honesty, kindness and just enough subtle flaws for a pitch-perfect performance as the lead. Benjamin Mee might not be a perfect person, but he's close enough and obviously tries his hardest to do the best he can be. While not as perfectly cast as Damon, Scarlett Johansson does more than enough to remind people why she was once one of the most sought after actresses in Hollywood. Sure, boiled down this is a typical romantic interest part, but Kelly's overall competence means that she'll never be mistaken for a dumb blond in this century. The wide net of talent manages to produce some very unconventional performances from the main duo's co-stars. Colin Ford and Maggie Elizabeth Jones especially stand out as Benjamin's children. Ford has more to do as older son Dylan, a shy and troubled teen with a fascination with death that manifests in his artwork. Ford's main job through the movie is to clash with the other personalities, especially in an adversarial tone with Damon. While perhaps flirting with the melodramatic, he does a good overall job with the material given. Jones, at seven years of age, doesn't need to be overly talented to work as an actress in a role that doesn't require much more than general cuteness.. However, she has a natural charisma that makes her a centerpiece of many scenes, and her line delivery and sense of comic timing is perfect. Thomas Hayden Church also makes a nice appearance as Benjamin's pragmatic older brother, and the relationship between Church and Damon is natural and fluid. Angus MacFayden makes a perfect eccentric, a zoo carpenter with an axe to grind and both mean and kind streaks that allow him to steal many scenes. And Elle Fanning is understated as a home-schooled assistant. Fanning, who in the past year has proven herself to be on par talent-wise with her sister Dakota Fanning, is a blend of awkward and shyness that fits perfectly with the character's history, and while her character feels more a means to an end than a real contribution to the story, it's good to see her still getting challenging parts like this on a regular basis.

Yup, you'll be smiling too

Of course, even such a well-cast, well-directed story can have its flaws. For one, there sure is a lot of swearing for a PG rated film, not something I expected going in. I know, swearing is a very real factor in everyday life, but the sheer volume used in We Bought a Zoo is curious for a family film, most notably in the usage by and around the children in the story. Sometimes it's used to comedic effect. Sometimes it's emotionally effective. Most of the time though it just feels unnecessary, and doesn't inspire me to recommend it for your kids. The tale is also extremely schmaltzy at times, to the point of being dangerously over-saccharine. I can't help but feel that this is intentional, but Crowe only barely crosses the line of believability on a few occasions (one of which had the entire audience gasping a breath through an obviously fictional faux pas).

It's a symbol of man's inhumanity against man! Get it?

And that's We Bought a Zoo's main problem; that it's a finely tuned set piece that leaves no loose threads and is almost unbelievable in its execution. For those errors, however, it is still a very engaging piece, and slowly learning how and why these people (especially Benjamin Mee) came to their current ideas and circumstances is a fun and thoroughly entertaining afternoon's delight. While far from perfect, this film makes for a nice return for Cameron Crowe to the big time, and is a solid, heart-warming film that you can enjoy with your family, albeit those you don't mind hearing select four-letter words. If you're burned out on dark, emotionally scarring works like The Devil Inside or The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, this is a title that will set your heart aflutter and remind you why you used to love movies as a kid.

Production Value

When the teaser trailer for Super 8 began appearing, it was clear that we as a people would not be receiving any detailed information about the film in question. When you're touting a big name like J.J. Abrams as your director, that's hardly a surprise; the creator of television shows Lost, Alias and Fringe, Abrams has long been known for withholding precious information from his audience to create a sense of mystery, under the assumption that it would bring more people in to explore the worlds he creates. To a high degree, his success on television is a testament to that idea. However, this isn't something he's done so far in the films he has directed. Both Mission Impossible III and his reboot of Star Trek were more or less straightforward stories with simple twists, and nothing was really kept secret leading up to their releases. Super 8 changed that, however. Playing out as an homage to the early works of Steven Spielberg (who also produced this title), later ads gave us little more than we had originally, including some recognizable cast in Kyle Chandler, Elle Fanning and Ron Eldard. Still there is little information about what the people of a small town in the 1970's is facing, as any images of the alien/monster/whatever remained hidden from view. I'm not afraid to say I was of two minds about whether I might appreciate Super 8 when it finally hit the big screen. On one hand, like many others I've been a fan of Abrams's work, and having loved his take on Trek I wasn't going to say no to more from this talented artist. On the other hand, I can think of better inspirations than Spielberg, who has gotten more cliche in his filmmaking in the past decade or so. Sure, if you want to be inspired by his early work (Jaws, E.T., Close Encounters of the Third Kind), go right ahead, but this is a man who has gotten used to living off the merits of his name and not necessarily his talent since these early films, and even when he he is credited as a producer you can tell the exact moment when he unofficially takes over from the director, his style obvious, obtuse, and unoriginal. His name alone is enough to make me wince these days, as reminders of how he ruined the last Indiana Jones film still ring in my mind. It would take a lot to prove to me that he couldn't ruin this particular title, despite the high levels of anticipation radiating from my friend Southland Dan. The two of us decided to take in the midnight opening, and now that I've sufficiently woken up, I can say that this film wasn't at all what I was expecting.

Well, there goes the neighborhood.

Helping his friends compose a short film for a local competition, Joe Lamb (Joel Courtney) witnesses an enormous train derailment near his hometown of Lillian, Ohio. After somehow escaping the insanely destructive crash with his life, Joel sees SOMETHING escape the wrecked train, but does not tell the others, who all swear to not tell anyone about what they saw, lest they get in trouble for being where they shouldn't. Soon, strange things start happening around town. At first it's just property damage and theft by unknown parties. That's bad enough until dogs start running away en masse, people begin disappearing and the military arrives to clean up their wrecked train with a an agenda that they don't plan to share with the locals. Soon Joe's Deputy father Jackson Lamb (Chandler) is butting heads with the soldiers and the teens realize something that had been on that train was responsible for what was happening to their small town, and decide to do something about it.

Is "movie within a movie" the new "dream within a dream"?

To describe Super 8 as E.T. meets Cloverfield with a dash of The Goonies tossed in would be perhaps oversimplifying things a bit. Yes, there is a group of kids who stumble upon a mystery involving conspiracy and an alien, and the alien is anything other than the Reeces Pieces-loving predecessors we're familiar with, hearkening back to the Abrams-produced 2008 film. Like many earlier genre films,.the creature barely makes an appearance on screen and is more a means to tell the reunification story of divided father and son Jackson and Joe. The scenes where it attacks are fairly classic, with the "victim" often turning to face it (off-screen of course) and screaming before they are taken away. It's hardly anything breathtaking, but the effectiveness of these scenes is based in Abrams's abilities as a director to make sure you're looking at the wrong place so that you're not expecting when something shocking comes to pass.

The military takes to confiscating any copies of subversive material... like this copy of "Princess Bride"

Of course, what makes the film so indelible is the sympathy of its characters. While many of the people portrayed in the film are really one-note parts, it's the quality of those notes that set the stage for the film's enjoyment. You expect strong performances from career actors like Chandler and Eldard, who are experienced character actors who play a Sheriff's Deputy and a drunk malcontent, respectively, and their animosity towards one another is one of the driving forces of the film. Their children, played by Courtney and Fanning, are even more impressive. Elle Fanning has done nothing but impress me since I first saw her in last year's Somewhere, and it's really scary to think that she will turn out more talented than older sister Dakota, who is already one of the best young actresses in Hollywood. Courtney also proves himself extremely talented, and while not as strong as Fanning acting-wise, he more than handles one of the few complicated characters in the film. The retinue of young actors cast as their friends are fun and funny, but are slightly hampered by being simplistic, such as Ryan Lee as a young pyromaniac obsessed with blowing things up. Riley Griffiths is the best character-wise of them as Joe's bossy best friend, but they all have their charms and provide many of the laughs that keep you smiling at the film even through its slight narrative flaws.

When describing this film to friends, be sure to mention all the perplexed stares

Those flaws are few and far between, however. Amazing special effects are in play here, with the amazing train wreck only the highlight of an overall well-done SFX team that makes everything look good even when they don't have to. Combined with the director's talents for creating amazing shots, that ability transforms the film to a whole other level. Still, that department is one of the few (besides acting) which came out flawless. Besides some confusion as to why the creature is kidnapping people and damaging property when it would probably just be better off simply going into hiding is never fully understood (except for the fact that without that, there would be no movie), the overall design of the creature when it is finally revealed will likely be disappointing to anyone who has already seen Cloverfield's beast. Perhaps it would have been a boon to bring someone else in and redraft some of Abrams's script (yes, he wrote the film, too) to work out some of the kinks, as the creature's motivation was lost to me on most issues.

Those looking for a new Goonies movie apply within

That doesn't hurt Super 8 for long, however, as the film manages to be charming, funny, and scary at all the right times, even if brains weren't necessarily in the Wizard's bag to begin with. With great acting, amazing effects and a commendable effort to take the sci-fi genre back to its heyday, it scores high as the #4 film of 2011. I'll be the very first to admit that I didn't have such high hopes for this release, and to be fair it's far from a perfect film. But it is a VERY good one, and one that you can't help but be charmed by. I had a smile on my face for about 90% of the film's run time, and the movies this year that have done that can be counted on only one hand. Abrams's ability is certainly trending up, and I'm already looking forward to the next film that he pulls from his sleeve.

Over the Rainbow

There's no doubt out there that Sofia Coppola is a talented filmmaker. 2003's Lost in Translation, her award-winning second feature film, is a modern classic and exhibited flawless performances by it's leads, Bill Murray and Scarlet Johansson. It spoke of loneliness, alienation and general ennui, all while in a dramatically different land. It was a haunting film, and one that many artists could have just as easily screwed up than replicated. Coppola's fourth film, Somewhere, has just been released, and seems at first to examine those same themes, while trading the exotic land that is Tokyo for a seemingly much more emotionally remote place: Hollywood.

Scaring Elle with his Christian Slater impersonation

In Somewhere, Stephen Dorff plays... wait, wait a minute. STEPHEN DORFF? Seriously? Wow, congratulations, Stephen! I mean, no offense, but you've NEVER been in such a high-profile film before. I mean, we always KNEW you were an actor, but your films have never been ones that people, you know, watched. I mean, will anyone actually ADMIT to having seen Alone in the Dark, or Shadowboxer, or Space Truckers? That's what I thought. I mean, yeah, I reviewed XIII: The Conspiracy earlier this year, but that was pure chance, not a concerted effort on my part.

Interesting fact (lie): Fanning has in fact been invited to more award shows than Dorff

So anyway, back to what I was saying. In Somewhere, Stephen Dorff plays Hollywood bad boy Johnny Marko, a big-time movie star who lives his life in the lap of luxury, driving around an expensive Ferrari and constantly in the beds of numerous beautiful women. Women want him and men want to be him, and from the outside it would seem he's living every American's fantasy life. On the inside, however, he's extremely dissatisfied and is only truly happy when spending time with his daughter Chloe (Elle Fanning), with whom he has always had a strained relationship due to his work.

...and yet, I can actually more believe Dorff as the big movie star than Monaghan

It's clear from the start that the same themes that moved Lost in Translation forward are ever present in this new film. That loneliness, alienation and boredom is what moves Somewhere's plot as well, but having it take place in Hollywood, where Johnny would seemingly be home, instead of in a strange, faraway land is almost more tragic. It's also reasonable to assume that Coppola took bits from her relationship with her own father, director Francis Ford Coppola, as inspiration for the story. But what's lacking is Translation's ability to pace effectively. We have to sit through several scenes that express excess, boredom, dissatisfaction, loneliness, anxiety and back to excess through dialogue-less, drawn-out scenes in which very little actually happens. While it conveys the film's mood well, it does little to keep the film's story going, while in fact alienating the audience as a result. The story in fact almost seems like a side-note, often over-shadowed by excessive moodiness and feelings of despair.

That reminds me... I need to get the new Rock Band

The acting possibly could have been better, but the focus is almost entirely on the film's leads. Dorff is actually subtle and sensitive as Marko, seeking what little enjoyment he can purchase from his glamorous lifestyle while only truly enjoying the time he spends with his daughter. As strange as the idea may be to feel sorry for a Hollywood big shot, I can actually understand what his character is supposed to be seeking. Marko is stuck on this continual roller coaster of false glimmer and idolization. What he wants is something real, and he rediscovers it when he and Chloe are thrust together unexpectedly. Dorff does this while showing us a side to his persona that we've never seen before. While she's not her sister Dakota talent-wise, Elle Fanning is more than adequate as the attention-starved daughter, Chloe. You can see in her eyes that she loves her father despite all his faults, even while silently disappointed in his bed-hopping ways and his lack of having been around. Fanning is simply a cute kid when she needs to be, but when the time comes to step up, she admirably does the job. Other roles which could have been expanded upon and made more interesting were unfortunately left alone, including those of Laura Chaitti, Michelle Monaghan, Lala Sloatman and Chris Pontius as professional and personal acquaintances of Marko. In practice they are mere window dressing to the duo that is Dorff/Fanning, and while that duo may not have the charm of Murray/Johansson, they come close enough for the audience to be sympathetic towards them.

"So tell me, how are you recovering from your masterbatory injury?"

If Somewhere could survive solely on the performances of its lead actors, it would be the perfect film. Unfortunately, it takes more than great acting to make a top-notch production. I can even overlook some unresolved minor plot points, since this is the type of film in which everything doesn't need excessive tying up of loose threads. With far too many slow patches, a serious lack of secondary players, and an ending that, unlike the rest of the film, is completely devoid of grace and subtlety, I honestly can't say that Somewhere impressed me as a feature film more than it's trailer had. Even the soundtrack headlined by the amazing band Phoenix can't raise the title completely from the doldrums of mediocrity. It may seem unfair to endlessly compare Somewhere to Coppola's earlier masterpiece, but to be blunt she put so many of the elements in that made that possible in the first place. And this film, as good as it is in parts, is no Translation. See it for the strong performances, but not much else.

Somewhere will put your kids to sleep. There, that's the tag line