Catching Up: Four Films on DVD

So as I've mentioned, moving to Florida and going to school put a damper on my movie-going plans for a bit. But as you might have noticed, I've been writing on a semi-regular schedule lately anyway. That's because I only have one class at the moment, so when I'm not doing assignments or working, I've actually had time to make it to the local theater. Though I'm not seeing EVERYTHING (and even when I was, I really wasn't), most of what I want to see I've taken the time to drive the ten miles to see. But what about those titles that came out between January and April that I had missed? Was there anything that I didn't get the chance at the time that I REALLY wanted to see? All I can say is thank God for the quick turnaround on DVD releases (remember when it was a year's wait?) these days! Otherwise, I'd probably have forgotten all about these four flicks before too long.

Okay, yes, I'm starting out with a film that technically doesn't count in comparison to the previous paragraph. But South Korean disaster film The Tower was definitely a title I'd been itching to see since I'd caught a trailer sometime last year. It was originally released in its native country in December of 2012 - where it set box office records - and expanded to several international markets the following year, though I'm unaware of any US releases. Director Kim Ji-hoon was inspired by the classic Hollywood film The Towering Inferno, and imagining what it would be like trapped in a burning skyscraper. He sets his story on Christmas Eve in the fictional "Sky Tower", a 108-story luxury condominium complex built for the enjoyment of the wealthy and privileged. When disaster strikes, leaving hundreds of people trapped on the higher levels, firemen can barely get to the fire to contain it, let alone rescue everybody. The story focuses on a small group of determined survivors as they attempt to escape the deathtrap, though it's safe to say that most won't make it out alive.

Did I mention he was three days away from retirement?

It's been a long time since we've had a really GREAT disaster movie, and with The Tower... you'll be waiting a bit longer. It IS quite a bit of fun, with explosions and collapsing structures and CGI effects beating much of what we've seen from our western shore this past decade. And yet it's disappointing that this film feels so westernized, being from the other side of the planet from the Michael Bays of the world. Some scenes are a little too gruesome (people cooking alive in an elevator, for instance), but for the most part the movie is your standard PG-13 action fare, from relentless (and physics-defying) explosions to basic character archetypes. The acting is quite good throughout, but suffers from a dearth of one-note roles that we've seen a billion times, from the single father (Kim Sang-kyung) and daughter (Lee Ha-na) separated in the tragedy, the woman he is in love with (Son Ye-jin), the rookie firefighter (Do Ji-han) and the veteran (Sol Kyung-gu) who is so dedicated to his job that you KNOW he's going to sacrifice himself at the end. There's even a pregnant woman, though I don't recall her name ever being spoken. Like The Towering Inferno, there is a ton of support cast present, and they all have the charisma to make an impression, even to the point of you liking them and not wanting anything bad to happen (well, for most of them). There's even a bit of comedy, in the form of a Christian group who break out into prayer and treat another fireman as an angel sent by God, to the point where he starts to believe them. But beyond the few leads, most of the characters don't get story arcs, existing solely as a source of expendable cannon fodder for the dozens of kills we're expecting to see.

This is really impossible.

The special effects are another downside to Ji-hoon's obvious infatuation with Hollywood cinema, as it's apparent the budget just did not quite support what he really wanted to show. The practical effects are used to great effect (whether it's torrents of fire or cascades of water washing over non-stuntmen actors), but when scenes call for major CGI use, they don't look nearly as realistic as they should. Distant shots of the fictional tower look like cardboard cutouts, and a scene where our group tries to cross a glass bridge that is cracking under their weight, you can see every single computer-generated imperfection. The story needed a face-lift, as well; there were two subplots concerning the owners of the building being warned of impending disaster and ignoring it, and the fire department prioritizing the rescue of politicians and the rich over the blue collar workers, but neither story goes anywhere, giving way to more death and destruction.

You might like these people, but you have no idea who they are.

But despite my griping, I actually did like The Tower. Yes, the script is manipulative and unfinished and the special effects don't always work the way they're supposed to, but you really care about these characters, since it's all too easy to draw comparisons between the story here and something like the tragedies of 9/11 (though as this is a Korean production, I'm sure the connection is merely unintentional). It's Western mentality also means that it's more open to American audiences than many Eastern flicks you'll see, so it's definitely worth a rental if you want to see something a little different from your usual fare, but not inaccessible.

For something more traditional, you can always check out Ride Along, the surprisingly funny movie starring Ice Cube and current comedian sensation Kevin Hart. For those few who aren't familiar with it (the movie broke box office records as the highest-grossing January domestic release), the story focuses on aspiring policeman Ben (Hart), whose life is going great, with his acceptance to the police academy and the love of Angela, played by Tika Sumpter. But Angela's cop brother James (Cube) isn't impressed, and gets the idea to take Ben on a 'ride along', and see what he does for a living. James hopes that by giving Ben the most insane initiation to police work, he can rid himself of an annoying hanger-on and what he considers an unworthy match with his sister.

So yeah, Ride Along is your formulaic buddy cop story, with the main exception being that one of the pair is not yet an actual police officer. And this is a film that really relies on it's pairing to work, as almost every single joke revolves around how tough James is versus how geeky and physically inadequate Ben is. The side characters serve little purpose other than as narrative tools, prodding the story from outrageous scene to outrageous scene with casual indifference and substandard dialogue. So it's a good thing that Hart and Cube have as much chemistry as they do, overcoming the shoddy story though genuinely funny gags and playing to their strengths as performers. It also helps that director Tim Story is in his element making lighthearted comedies (and NOT blockbuster flicks like Fantastic Four), and the movie benefits from an experienced hand behind the camera, as Story has worked on similar comedic fare such as Taxi and Barbershop.

...and the production truck just blew up. Keep filming!

But yes, by all intents and purposes, Ride Along is not a very good movie. The script (cobbled together by four separate screenwriters) is full of stupid ideas, ironically reminds viewers of the much better films on which it's based (most notably Training Day), has a stupid ending, and to make things worse the final product doesn't have a strong performance outside of it's co-leads. But it's Cube and Hart (who hasn't worn out his welcome yet after playing the same character in his last dozen roles) who effectively carry it to the point of respectability, if not quality. In fact, I'm glad I didn't do a full review of this movie, as all I would have talked about is how good the main actors worked, and it would have driven me crazy. This is brainless entertainment, and as long as you keep that in mind you'll make it through those 100 minutes in no time, and may be entertained just enough to have been worth it.

I wish I could say the same for Paul W.S. Anderson's Pompeii, which sees the director of fun popcorn films Mortal Kombat, Death Race and the Resident Evil franchise try his hand at channeling his inner Ridley Scott, and failing miserably. Similar to his unintended attack on literacy in 2011's The Three Musketeers, Anderson actually tries to tackle something that has historical and mythological significance - the destruction of the ancient city of Pompeii thanks to the eruption of nearby Mt. Vesuvius, only to turn in a final product that feels like the cloned baby of Gladiator and Volcano.

The sad thing is that there's actually a talented cast wasted here. Game of Thrones' Kit Harrington continues to pay his dues by appearing in whatever schlock will have him as a gladiator who is also the last surviving member of a Celtic horse tribe (wah wah, irony!), while Emily Browning (Sucker Punch) does her absolute best to hem the wretched dialogue she (and everybody else) is given into something actually presentable in a big-screen motion picture. The support cast is easily strong, with Carrie-Anne Moss, Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje, Jessica Lucas and Jared Harris filling their respective - if limited - roles well. And beyond the cast, the special effects are absolutely stunning, as Anderson's abilities working with CGI artistry cannot be understated. Argue if you want about how quickly death comes from Mt. Vesuvius, it looks GREAT. Even Anderson's worst movies are at least visually appealing, and that's absolutely the case here, where one-note characters will get offed in a multitude of imaginative ways (or, at least as imaginative as "death by volcano" gets).

"You wear nothing, Jon Snow..."

But, that's where all the good feelings end. It's apparent from the start that the director is out of his depth from the get-go, as he sets a chilling opening montage of ash-mummified Pompeii victims to a surprisingly upbeat, epic score, which is well out of place when we're being set up for the destruction of an entire city and its inhabitants. And it gets worse from there, as the script borrows every cliche and genre trope it can (or in most cases, can't) get away with. Character motivations are simplified to the point of stupidity, and the twists and turns are telegraphed a million miles away, meaning there are absolutely no surprises when all is said and done. That two of the three screenwriters were responsible for Batman Forever, but the third worked on Sherlock Holmes, so I'm shocked that the story could have gotten THIS dumb. My usual complaint about James Cameron's Titanic is that there was a whole ship full of interesting, compelling and complex characters, and the filmmaker decided he'd rather focus on two fictional, useless, boring individuals whose actors were far from their best. That's kind of what Pompeii is, only it manages to make Titanic look like a genuine masterpiece by comparison. And, let's not even get into Kiefer Sutherland and his head-shaking combination of poor casting and a mouth full of industrial strength cotton, though I will admit that as an actor he did make the most of his badly, badly, badly-written role.

You won't sway me with pretty faces and skimpy outfits... THIS time...

It's clear that Pompeii's mid-February release was an effort to try and make a quick buck when there wasn't much more genre fare available, but also sweep it under the rug before people could take too close a look. I'm glad I saw it, if only to confirm that Anderson will never be the director he hopes to become, only the director he is. The same man who brought us Event Horizon and Soldier is never going to give us Alien or Blade Runner or the movie he's obviously trying to copy here, Gladiator. This was a bad, bad effort to build Anderson's repertoire, only to discover that he has a definite, inflexible limit to what he can do on the big screen. As long as his movies are something innocuous like next year's Resident Evil flick, he is a perfectly adequate, semi-talented filmmaker. But when he goes out of his way to try and create something PROFOUND or IMPORTANT, his products aren't worth his time or yours.

Oh, thank god I followed up Pompeii with That Awkward Moment. This ribald, adult comedy was just the antidote I needed to the previous film's dour, pointless, cliched drama. The story focuses on three friends, played by up-and-coming actors Zac Efron, Miles Teller and Michael B. Jordan, as they live day-to-day in modern-day New York City. Jason (Efron) is a successful ladies man and book cover artist whose single life is upended when he meets Ellie (Imogen Poots), with whom he can connect on an intellectual and emotional level. His coworker and co-Casanova Daniel (Teller) is the single lifestyle's biggest champion, while also developing feelings for the trio's female friend Chelsea (Mackenzie Davis). And Daniel (Jordan), the responsible member of the group, has just been dumped and divorced by his wife and struggles to figure out what went wrong. The movies plays out much like season 6 of Sex and the City, where the show concluded after successfully finding matching romantic partners for each of the four main ladies by season's end.

Don't judge me, it was a great show.

In New York, the good-looking guys all run in packs.

The story relies on us liking these three guys who, for all intents and purposes, are the types that parents warn their daughters about with regularity. Naturally, their antics are never presented as malicious, dishonest or completely self-serving (as opposed to last year's Don Jon), simply as the way single life works in this day and age, as men and women who aren't attached just want to go out and have a good time. Heck, even the women out there just want to enjoy their single lives, as well. And it's a good thing it got three of the most charming young actors to play these roles, because I'm not sure any other actors could have pulled this off. Well, okay, MAYBE Jaime Bell. Efron of course has been around what seems like forever but now finally seems to have found his niche in adult comedies (see Neighbors for confirmation of this), much like Channing Tatum did in 2012. Teller and Jordan have emerged more recently, but have already shown an aptitude for comedy that translates nicely here. And the female cast is nicely represented by Poots (who looks younger with every film I see her in), Davis, and Jessica Lucas. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it's obvious this cast had a ton of fun working on this movie, as it would have been far easier for it all to fall apart under the tutelage of freshman director Tom Gormican, who also wrote the screenplay. It's obvious the actors involved worked well together, as it really shows up on the screen, whether the scenes are happy, sad, or somewhere in the middle.

This is kind of what I imagine Zac Efron looks like in his own mind.

Naturally, the movie has its share of issues. Despite the marvelous cast, the script (again, Gormicon is a relative newcomer) doesn't give them a whole lot to do, nor does it really explain much of a setting or backstory, beyond that the characters live in New York City, and have jobs doing... stuff. That we rarely see impacting their everyday lives. Beyond that, not all the big laughs work, although most do, and the plot follows many of the usual tropes for a romantic comedy, but with only the genders reversed (or just seen from the other point of view). The film also suffers from trying to appeal to both sides; on the one hand, guys will get into the immature humor and the bro-tastic central characters, while women get to ogle naked Zac Efron and will appreciate the romantic plot more, but there's little that actually appeals to both sides.

Nope, never mind. THAT'S what he looks like in his own mind.

Basically, That Awkward Moment looks like a male-centric SatC with a bit of Judd Apatow humor thrown in. That is to say, it doesn't reinvent the wheel (or even really try) but is charming and irreverent and gets by just fine. It'll be forgotten before too long, but hopefully helps provide career boosts for its cast, as this group is far too talented not to succeed in joining the next generation of Hollywood royalty. They help take this film from being a disappointing mess to an entertaining, if unambitious, time-waster. Worth a quiet night in.

That's it for catching up this week! Anything from 2014 I haven't reviewed on DVD that you want me my opinion on? Let me know and I'll see if it's something I can do. I'll be returning to new releases with the next few reviews, but hopefully soon I'll be able to catch up on all of this year's entries that I've missed, even the truly horrible ones. Hope to see you then!

Just Another Y.A. Blockbuster

Thanks to the box office success of Twilight and The Hunger Games, we can pretty much expect every semi-popular young adult novel to get big screen treatment in the near future. Every studio of worth out there will spend the next few years purchasing filming rights, throwing them at audiences, and seeing what sticks. We've already seen several examples of failures ranging from I am Number Four to Beautiful Creatures, and if there's something to be said for the adaptation of Veronica Roth's Divergent, it's that it stuck. Not "great" or "wonderful," or even "unique."That's because the story is so derivative of other, better material that it's bound to appeal to not only fans of the novels but any similar moviegoer curious enough to check it out.

The movie follows The Descendants star Shailene Woodley as Tris (God, it even rhymes with "Katniss"), as she navigates the trials of growing up in the ruins of a futuristic, post-war Chicago. Society in this world has been divided into five factions to maintain peace, and Tris is of the age where she can decide whether to stay with her family in the kind and selfless Abnegation faction, or join one of the other four groups, which pride themselves on traits like intelligence, honesty, and peacefulness. This is complicated when the test that helps students decide to what faction they "belong" fails to work on Tris, categorizing her as "Divergent" and unlikely to fit in anywhere. Naturally, Divergents are treated as enemies of the system, and our heroine tries to hide her nature by joining up with the brave, kinda-crazy faction "Dauntless", where she falls for the hunky instructor known as "Four" (Theo James). But when Divergent-hunters come calling... you know what? Forget it, I'm just going to stop right there.

She got tattoos! So you know she has an edge now.

There is barely a single word or sentence in that previous paragraph that could not be used to describe countless titles that have come out just in the past decade (except perhaps Abnegation... learn something new every day!), and that's Divergent's biggest, BIGGEST problem. Whether it's due to the direction of Neil Burger (Limitless), the screenplay by Evan Daugherty (Snow White and the Huntsman) and Vanessa Taylor (Hope Springs), or even Roth's novel itself (Or, most likely, a combination of all three), the biggest sin is that there is barely anything noteworthy or original to grasp onto and declare "Yes, this is why it's special!" For all the crap I give it, Twilight took a familiar concept (supernatural) and put a unique twist on creating its universe. The Hunger Games, while ostensibly a copy of the Japanese book/movie Battle Royale, still made itself original enough to stand alone (not to mention the casting of Jennifer Lawrence). Beautiful Creatures had an amazing and appropriate setting. I am Number Four and the Harry Potter franchise had excellent lore. Divergent DOES have an interesting premise, with the factions and the disparity between them, but barely touches on it in what amounts to a rote, romance/action story. Well, to be fair, it also has... umm... wait a moment... it has... ergh... well, no... I guess... excellent acting?

Why hast thou forsaken us, Kate?

Yes, Divergent is fortunate to have such an amazing cast assembled, because they absolutely needed the best. The characters are so one-dimensional that only someone with the chops of Ashley Judd, or Kate Winslett, or Maggie Q, or Mekhi Phifer, or Ray Stevenson could make it work. When Miles Teller shows up as the generic bully, he actually brings some gravitas to the role. When Tony Goldwyn appears on screen, he isn't just a blank slate as Tris' father, but actually shows some magnetism, through his voice if not in his poorly-written words (one character ironically wonders why people keep asking her the same question; it's because of the inept dialogue, dear). And it's a good thing Shailene Woodley and Theo James are such excellent performers; Woodley plays the worst kind of female heroine, whose actions are entirely based on what is done to her and not on any driving force behind her vanilla temperament; while James' character development begins and ends with "brooding hottie". And yet, both actors make the material work through sheer force of personality. The romance between them, while basic, predictable and cliched, ends up working by virtue of their great chemistry, and they do the absolute most they can with the material. If it wasn't for that, this wouldn't much of a film. Yes, there are a few legitimate duds in Jai Courtney and Zoe Kravitz (sheez, Divergent even has a Kravitz in the cast), but even they don't detract from the story too much when all is said and done.

Where Hollywood thinks women should be: out of sight and silent.

But the acting can't fully save a story that borrows from literally every genre and trope in existence, from The Matrix (one person throwing a system out of whack), to Logan's Run ("I'm hiding my secret from the ruling government!") to Starship Troopers ("Let's get tattoos!"). Seriously, if the villains were as smart as they are supposed to be, they'd have realized that their plot to take over the city has been done a million times before, and BETTER. It's almost as if Roth cobbled together this tale from all the pop culture references and Young Adult novels she had accumulated in her young life, with nary an original thought or idea. To be fair, that might be over-simplifying things a bit; I have yet to read the book, so I can't say how many of Divergent's problems stem from her writing and how much from the adaptation process itself. But if she had ONE original thought when she compiled her novel, it never make its way to the big screen. Even the faction system is not a truly original concept, and that's the closest Divergent ever gets to declaring its independence from standard YA fare. The story is so reliant on coincidence - from Maggie Q's first appearance to just about EVERY major twist and turn - that it defies all expectation for the audience to accept the plot as it develops. And I'd even go so far as to say that wouldn't necessarily a BAD thing, as long as the story itself is told competently and the actors do a good job with the material. In fact, Burger is a pretty good, if not great, director, especially suited to this type of non-risky script, as he proved in 2011's Limitless. Even though the script is the kind of hackery that would demand multiple rewrites if it not for the film's brand recognition, Divergent turns into a competent, if not standout, filmmaking product.

Get it? It's "Red pill, Blue pill!"

Divergent tries to push a moral of anti-conformity and self-identification, but ironically does it in the most conformist fashion possible, stealing from everything that has come before and not standing out even remotely on its way to box office success. Naturally, every YA movie adaptation wants to see the same kind of success as The Hunger Games, but Divergent could only WISH that it was as interesting, compelling and urgent as the movie whose success it would wish to emulate. It's definitely a BAD movie, and yet also a WELL-MADE bad movie that overcomes many of its narrative obstacles through heart and sheer force of will. If only the filmmakers had taken more risks, as the movie does nothing to differentiate itself from the bland, predictable tropes and cliches that have never been so transparently on display as they are here. If it had attempted to deviate from the terrifyingly dull norm it had set for itself, it might have turned into something great. As it stands, Divergent is just okay, and I think we'll see subsequent sequels Insurgent and Allegiant justifiably fall off in audiences as a result. Teen girls (and anyone who identifies with teen girls) will watch and enjoy anyway, but anyone else can steer clear.

Double Feature: Stoker & 21 and Over

There are two reasons I haven't really been writing lately. Two weeks ago it was because I was vacationing in Florida and did not see a single film in that time. Last week it was because this is March, and there's hardly anything worth watching, let alone writing about. I WAS looking forward to The Croods (look for my Open Letters review soon), but other than that I've been massively let down by most of the titles early this year. The big ones have either been disappointing or outright bad, and I admit it's been a struggle to look ahead and see the potentially great movies releasing in the next few months, from Iron Man 3 to Star Trek Into Darkness to Elysium. But the idea of gems hidden in the rough compels me to go back to the theater, and I'm going to tell you about two such titles, with the psychological thriller Stoker and the raucous comedy 21 and Over.

In the first, Mia Wasikowska plays India Stoker, a quiet, somewhat creepy 18 year-old whose mother Evelyn (Nicole Kidman) doesn't understand her and whose father Richard has just died in a car crash. While the two women try to recover from their family tragedy, they are visited by Richard's distant brother Charlie (Matthew Goode), who stays in their home in an effort to help them cope. But when people close to the family start disappearing, India wonders where Charlie has been her entire life, and how he will affect both her and her mother. Soon a new side to India opens, one hidden long away. She has to decide whether she wants the potentially-harmful Charlie gone from her life, or whether she wants him all to herself.

I've learned never to trust anyone with a Green Thumb.

Stoker is most notable for being the American debut of South Korean director Park Chan-wook, best known for the classic Oldboy. His movies are generally very adult matters, and this film earns its R rating not through graphic depictions of violence and sex (those are there too) but through the kind of psychological horror that not many modern filmmakers would touch. Chan-wok follows in the footsteps of Hitchcock, not just in content but creatively, as well. He creates perfect camera angles many couldn't copy and features exquisite scenes such as an erotic piano duet (yup, never thought I'd put those words together) and one bit in particular that focuses exclusively on Kidman's face and showcases her amazing talent. Speaking of the actors, Wasikowska and Goode play up the creepy to a perfect degree, though I doubt anybody would have expected otherwise. While Stoker also has a talented supporting cast, it's the trio of leads who really keep your attention and never allow you to grow bored.

Seriously. Wow.

Unfortunately, these are the best parts of Stoker, which opens up the floor to the worst as well. The story isn't properly fleshed out, with the narrative swerving into completely unnecessary territory all the time. It also takes its sweet time finding a rhythm, and while it does eventually settle into a groove that finishes out the final act, there was all this setup that you almost wish you hadn't had to sit through; if a movie is better when you've shown up twenty minutes late, then it's doing it wrong. There are also some serious logic problems that never get explained, character motivations that remain obscured to ridiculous degrees, and no real sense of urgency or responsibility for their actions. This is a good screenplay by Wentworth Miller (yes, the Prison Break actor), but it could have used a ton of polishing before shooting began.

The creepiest eyes in Hollywood.

I did like Stoker, but if I'm being fair this a movie with a hell of a lot of problems. It has a bunch of Hitchcock's flair but almost none of his dedication to quality, though at least it is a better debut for a Korean director than Kim Ji-woon's The Last Stand. Stoker has a few a surprises, mixing it's psychological thrills with erotic noire, and the result is a decent - if far from perfect - place to start. Still, this might be better off as a rental, as I'm not sure the experience from watching this can be appreciated in a movie theater when sitting in a dark home theater wrapped in a blanket is DEFINITELY the way to go.

Far less original (but almost certainly more irreverent) is 21 and Over, directed by the writers of The Hangover, Jon Lucas and Scott Moore. In it, former high school best friends Casey (Skylar Astin) and Miller (Miles Teller) surprise their Straight-A bestie Jeff Chang (Justin Chon) on his 21'st birthday, with the intent of giving him a night of drunkenness and debauchery. But troubles arise in the form of Jeff's strict father, who has scheduled a Medical School interview for him early the next morning. What start off as "just one drink" quickly becomes more than a dozen, and when Casey and Miller have an unconscious Jeff and no idea where they are, it's a race against time to get him into bed and somewhere on the way to sobriety before morning, whether that means infiltrating a sorority, escaping angry mobs, or outrunning the cops. They've got until 7 a.m. to set things right. Until then, everything that can go wrong, WILL go wrong.

Please leave your air horns at home.

21 and Over is a combination of The Hangover, Project X and any college antics movie from the 70's. In fact, despite the multitude of offensive statements, excessive cursing and insane situations depicted in the movie, there's very little in this film that could possibly shock its potential - and very forgiving - audience. Lucas and Moore are definitely following a path laid forth by their predecessors, blissfully ignoring minute complications like idiotic characters, offensive stereotypes and bad examples, thanks to the people watching that simply don't care about those things. Sure, ignore the fact that the next morning these guys are going to be suffering from some severe alcohol poisoning, and the rest of the film STILL doesn't make any reasonable sense.

This would have been a much shorter movie if they'd just had the one drink.

And yet 21 and Over's egregious sense of ego is actually what makes it so charming. See, the filmmakers realize and then explore exactly what guy friendships are all about. Best friends come back together after long periods apart and instantly remember what they loved about hanging out. Guys will eternally have their friends backs, even faced with long odds and impossibilities. Even when they fight, it's bare-knuckled brawling one minute and all-forgiven back-slapping the next. While Casey and Miller definitely have their issues with one another (like the guys from The Hangover), they don't hold back and keep their mouths shut, because that's not what guy friends do. But neither do they let it get in the way of their mission, and the pair never lose focus on what's important: getting Jeff Chang home and ready for his appointment before his father finds out.

It doesn't hurt that despite its sameness, 21 and Over is still a very funny, occasionally shocking good time at the theater. Is it better than Revenge of the Nerds or Animal House? No, but it hangs on nicely with the drug and alcohol-infused comedies of the modern era, and the cast of Astin, Teller, Chon and Sarah Wright make for a charismatic group of young actors worthy of your ticket purchases. Unapolagetically rude and crude, you can't get much funnier at the movies right now.

Party Time

Ever wanted to host THAT party? That epic, insane event that buries itself in into the memories of you and your guests and never lets go? A party where the liquor flows freely, everybody's inhibitions drop to next to nothing and people will speak of the events that transpire that night for years to come? Of course! There's not a person alive for whom that level of infamy would not appeal on some level, let alone the teens to whom Project X's marketing department is targeting. No, this isn't a remake of the 1987 sci-fi thriller starring Matthew Broderick and a chimpanzee. Thank God for that. Instead, producer Todd Phillips (best known for directing the Hangover franchise) brings us the ultimate party film, so that those of us who never experienced that kind of craziness could instead witness it first-hand on the big screen.

It's unpopular high school student Thomas' (Thomas Mann) seventeenth birthday, and his friends are attempting to put together the biggest party of all time to celebrate. With Thomas' parents out of town for the weekend to celebrate their anniversary, Thomas and his fellow unknowns Costa (Oliver Cooper) and J.B. (Jonathan Daniel Brown), along with Thomas' childhood friend Kirby (Kirby Bliss Blanton), have the house to themselves, with Oliver inviting everybody to what he assures them will be the celebration to end all. They also recruit AV club student Dax (Dax Flame) to record the entire series of events on his video camera. What happens that night defies all conventional odds, and irreversibly change the way these three are looked upon by their fellow classmates, neighbors and families.

Yup, these are your three heroes. Shake your heads in unison.

The film takes a long time to get going, as early scenes in which we are introduced to the three protagonists gets old fast. Of the boys, only Costa really gets to be too much, voicing the bad-boy tendencies that cause the events of the film to take place. Frankly, Costa is an annoying prick, wearing his welcome out quickly with a vulgar tongue, abusive attitude towards his supposed friends, and generally negative view of everything around him. Yes, he sets everything in motion that takes place that night, but until that happens all we see is an unapologetic asshole with a terribly skewed view of how the world actually works.

Beer Pong... there's no good party without it.

It's when the party really gets going that the story does as well, perhaps thanks to the fact that there are dozens of things happening at any given time, from skinny dipping in the pool to the discovery of ecstasy to endless booze-oriented hijinks. As you've probably guessed, the what was supposed to be a fifty-person event turns into much more, with over a thousand guests, midgets, insane stunts, police and assaults, not to mention an insane amount of sex. With Phillips and director Nima Nourizadeh in charge, this was never going to be a PG-rated title, and everyone involved is completely unapologetic when it comes to the adult content. Even as absurd as it all is, give the characters credit for reacting realistically to the madness around them. When a well-placed sign actually works at getting young women to strip out of their tops, the boys' reaction completely sells the scene, as they wonder at the fact that the stunt actually worked.

Oh, that poor animal...

Phillips and the rest of the filmmakers hired no-names to fill out the cast and party-goers present in Project X, and as you can probably guess, that means acting was not a major factor in either the film's creation or your enjoyment. Obviously, I've already discussed the annoyance that is Costa, but the other two boys aren't much better, with Thomas' nervousness and second-guessing causing you to grit your teeth in frustration, and J.B.'s complete lack of personality eliciting the requisite eye-rolling. Only a few actors, including the lovely Kirby Bliss Blanton and young vet Miles Teller (who is quickly rising in well-deserved popularity with roles in Rabbit Hole and the remake of Footloose) doing a ton with their limited contributions. Dax Flame was good when given a chance to contribute, but as the film's most interesting human character it was a shame that he was silently stuck behind the camera almost completely. In the end, the only real character of note is the party itself, like the film as a whole a seething mass of humanity and ethanol that is capable of just about anything and everything.

This is about when shit got unbelievable.

Project X also manages to inject a bit of life into the genre known as "Found Footage." Once and still a haven of cheap horror films, Found Footage has expanded horizons to include science fiction and superhero sub-genres. Now you can add "party films" to that list, as telling the party from such a limited perspective does wonders for making the audience feel as if they are part of the action on the screen. Unlike the forced and unbelievable sources of camera footage in Apollo 18 or last month's Chronicle, the idea that the entire thing is being recorded never feels out of place or unbelievable. 95% of what we see is from one supposed source, and the few limited deviations are both believable and effective without being distracting in the slightest. While it's unlikely we'll ever see another party film like this again, it was nice to see the Found Footage genre being used for good instead of more of the same.

The party only ends when the neighborhood is on fire...

The finale is unfortunately not really any good, as a contrived, dramatic finish was apparently the only way the screenwriters could force the party's conclusion in a timely manner. Combine that with the slow start and what is left is 45 minutes of awesome encapsulated by another 40 of suck. Phillips and Nourizadeh combine to create the ultimate wet dream, and to be honest this film is similar to the Hangover films in that they're obviously geared towards young teens and men. Still, if you can get past the mysogeny, gay-bashing and unbelievablilty of the whole ordeal and simply enjoy the mindless fun and excellent soundtrack of Project X, it can be an entertaining ride that can either help recapture your youth or give you a glimpse of what you missed out on when you were younger. It's the #8 film of 2012.

Get Your Dance On

I remember a long time ago reading the review of some dance movie (Center Stage, maybe?) and coming across an axiom that made perfect sense. The idea was that when casting for any film in which dance was a central component, you could either cast normal actors and hope they can learn to follow a beat, or cast dancers and hope they can act. While there are those few performers who can actually do both well, the act of corralling enough photogenic dancers into one room often proves far too difficult for studios to pull off. These days are a far cry from the 1980's, when you had legitimate movie stars in Kevin Bacon and Patrick Swayze who could act as well as they could move. Ask anyone who's seen The Eagle or GI Joe if Channing Tatum can really act. The answers won't surprise you. While they might do a decent job portraying pretty people with problems, most actors who appear in films like Step Up or Center Stage are barely passable when it comes to headlining major releases. It's lucky then that most people going to see these titles aren't interested in acting, at least not as much as they usually would be. When fans of the genre see a dance film, they're looking to see something new, a great stunt or move that will make them straighten up in their seats and ask "How did they do that?" Apparently that's now being sought in the past, with a remake of Footloose on the docket for today's review and Dirty Dancing announced for sometime in the foreseeable future. When the original movies are so beloved, is there anything more than bank to be gained by resetting the story in a new, modern era?

He's the annoyingly new kid on the block

When Boston native Ren McCormack (Kenny Wormald) moves in with his uncle Wes (Ray McKinnon) and his family in the small town of Bomont, he knew there would be some serious changes in his life. What he never expected was to find himself in the middle of a small town's battle between overprotective parents and their rebellious progeny. Three years ago, five high school seniors were killed in a car accident while coming home from an unsupervised public dance party. As a result of the tragedy, the town council led by Reverend Shaw Moore (Dennis Quaid) pushed into law a ban on public dancing, citing it as lewd and provocative and plain unhealthy for their children. Ren, a former gymnast and fan of dancing, leads his new friends - including best friend Willard (Miles Teller) and the Reverend's defiant daughter Ariel (Julianne Hough) - in an effort to repeal the ban, which threatens to permanently drive two generations apart.

Who knew Line Dancing could actually be fun?

The first thing to know is that while this is indeed a scene-by-scene remake of the original 1984 classic, care has been made to make this release more approachable to those who have no idea of the kinds of religious extremism that people still encounter first hand in some parts of the country. The concept to banning dancing and loud music is not solely based on religious belief, but also on the aforementioned tragedy acting to make the adults overly protective of their children to the point where they are smothering their expressive sides. The film and director Craig Brewer make a concerted effort to portray Bomont as a modern town that happens to be small, not an isolated community governed by conservative law. This often comes from characters protesting that they are not backwards hicks, that they have cell phones and computers same as any other town or city. There is even an early scene in which Reverend Moore questions what qualifies as progress, when that technology seems to be driving people apart rather than bringing them together. It's obvious that Brewer and his team wanted this idea to be a major driving force in the retelling, though sometimes it seems as if they try too hard (in one scene Ren finds a record of Quiet Riot, only to pull out his iPod and Voila!), especially since that focus in the story dies out about halfway through.

You don't mess with Quaid's "Don't Mess with Me" look

One element where the film definitely shows some progress is in the soundtrack, which remakes four of the original's songs (including a Blake Shelton adaptation of title track "Footloose") and includes eight new tracks all its own, eclectic in selection and even featuring some hip-hop, a by-product of the glut of street dancing films that have become oh so popular in the past decade. Every song is well chosen and produced, not surprising as Brewer was the director of the upstart hip-hop film Hustle & Flow which took Hollywood by storm and made a legitimate star out of Terrence Howard. Brewer knows music, and its clear that his influence is a good chunk of the reason that the soundtrack is as amazing as it is. That Footloose doesn't limit itself to country music is a nice change of tune, and makes each scene feel fresh and exciting.

Redneck vs. Ruffian...FIGHT

 

It's a shame that the attention on the dancing couldn't be as focused. It isn't that the dancing portions of the film are BAD; on the contrary, it's quite obvious that Wormald, Hough and company are highly talented performers who put their all into every nuanced movement. The problem is with the film's camera work, which seems fearful of focusing on the person in action for more than a few seconds before changing to a different angle or close-up, throwing off the rhythmic balance of the dance itself. One scene featuring Wormald angrily dancing solo in an empty warehouse is so sabotaged by the camera not allowing him to finish a particular step as to be somewhat frustrating, as a little more cooperation between the two would have worked wonders. Still, there's no denying the talent on display, no matter how much they seem intent on making you forget it.

Say it with me now... "Dawwww"

Of course I began this whole conversation by talking about the usual lack of decent acting in dance films. Footloose doesn't do a ton to dissuade that notion, though the level of acting talent is actually much higher among its stars than you would initially expect. Wormald obviously couldn't escape his very real Boston accent (the original film's Ren was from Chicago) and unfortunately his acting chops aren't so great that he can carry the film on his shoulders as the filmmakers would like. Still, he stands out every time he's asked to bust a move, and is probably the film's most talented dancer. He's well paired with Hough (she the owner of Hollywood's most beautiful blue eyes), who as a two-time winner of Dancing with the Stars is a far better dancer than she shows here. She is a surprisingly strong actress however, and eloquently portrays the struggles of a self-destructive small-town girl who can't find any middle ground in her turbulent life. While they're not the best pair of romantic leads, where the acting Footloose really shines is in its supporting players. Quaid is a silently strong force, his stoic look perfect for the film's conservative and hard-nosed but burdened and worried parent. Ray McKinnon is also a treat, underused as Ren's uncle Wes, who seems to be one of the few adults willing to give Ren a shot and take him seriously. But the real scene-stealer is Miles Teller as Ren's new best friend Willard. Teller, who stole his share of acclaim in last year's Nicole Kidman vehicle Rabbit Hole, might be the film's comic relief, but his journey from two left feet to impresario is as funny as it is heart-warming.

The newest batch of "Late Night" host tryouts is a packed field...

In all, I really enjoyed this remake of Footloose, warts and all. A feel-good movie for teens, anyone going in expecting a perfect remake is in for a rude awakening. Poignantly cast, immensely enjoyable and acutely charming, the film manages to overcome its own issues and make us focus on the spectacle of the dancing, while giving us a new, completely fresh look at the small southern towns we might have thought cliche in the past. It's not nearly good enough to place as Top 10 material, but a spot in the year's Top 20 sounds about right. A little tweaking would have made it perfect, but fans of the original and neophytes alike can be pleased with the product in front of them, flawed though it may be.

Hole in One

When all is said and done, 2010 might be remembered as the year of the indie film. Seriously, in a year when so many big productions have scampered to catch every dollar they can just to break even, the indie films are raking in the dough. Winter's Bone, Black Swan, The King's Speech, 127 Hours, and Blue Valentine have all earned their share of positive critical reviews, award nominations and relative box office success even in limited releases. In fact The King's Speech, in earning over $88,000 per theater its opening weekend, had the highest gross per theater for any opening film this year, surpassing another art house winner, The Kids are All Right. But it's not just the financial successes that are worth watching: if we followed that logic, I would be running out to see Little Fockers (hint: I'm not). Sometimes it's the award nominations that direct us to something we might not have given a chance to otherwise. In this way nominations play a huge role in guiding audiences to films they might not otherwise see to drive up box office numbers and make their small film more impressive in the eyes of voters. And damned if it doesn't work. How many films have you not at first seen, only to change your mind when it gets nominated for an Academy Award? Me too, and that's why this past week I took advantage of living near a multiplex that happens to carry the occasional limited release film to see the John Cameron Mitchell-directed Rabbit Hole.

"Hello, I'm Harvey Dent and I want to be your D.A."

Based on the stage play by David Lindsay-Abaire, Rabbit Hole is about grief and mourning. It's been eight months since the death of Becca (Nicole Kidman) and Howie (Aaron Eckhart)'s young son Danny, who was killed in an accident, and the husband and wife still have a hard time reconciling the sudden loss in their life. Visits to support groups don't work for Becca, who is bothered by those who try to justify their child's death by saying that it's God's plan. Stricken by grief, she wants to rid herself of the visual reminders of her lost child, wanting to go so far as to move out of the house they love. This puts her at odds with Howie, who relishes those same reminders and doesn't want to lose the image of Danny from his mind. As the two strain dangerously apart, each makes difficult decisions and try to learn to live with the emptiness that has come in their son's absence.

Yes, there is indeed Al Green playing in the background

Rabbit Hole received a Golden Globe nomination for Best Actress for this film, and when you watch Kidman's performance you'll understand why. Kidman doesn't just cry throughout the film (though she does her fair share) like you might expect in films like this. She shows several sides of grief in her performance, from sadness to depression to disbelief in others' attempts to help her cope. Everywhere she looks and everyone she meets in the course of the film remind her in some way of Danny, and Kidman does an amazing job showing even the tiniest traces of the strain that such things would put on her emotions. She does the big waterworks productions to excellent effect as well, but it's the restraint in her performance that really sticks out and makes it a must-see.

For God sakes, woman, don't let him get on the topic of shrimp!

Compared to Kidman, everyone else in the film doesn't quite stack up, but closest is Eckhart as the suffering husband Howie. Unlike Becca, Howie doesn't want to let go of Danny's memory, wants the help of others both familial and stranger, and regularly immerses himself in the memories of raising his son. Like Kidman, Eckhart doesn't just mourn in one way, and he varies from subtle to loud in his work. It's only because of Kidman's stellar performance that one could say he was lacking, and he does a fine job in his understated execution. Award-winning actress Diane Weist does an amazing job playing Becca's mother Nat, who underwent a similar process with Becca's deceased brother years ago. Weist is a great storyteller and her appearances in the film, though sometimes straining, always serve a purpose to push the movie's tale forward. Other great showings come from Sandra Oh as a member of the support group Becca and Howie attend, Tammy Blanchard as Becca's insufferable and immature sister Izzy, and Miles Teller as Jason, a teen who Becca befriends over the course of the film.

Life feeling like a Prozac commercial?

Of course, there's no guarantee even award-addled audiences will want to see a film in which the main plot device is the death of a child. It's particularly dark stuff, full of bittersweet memories and encounters, and the great performances by the leads means you the audience feels the same grief they do, albeit on a much smaller scale. The film is also a bit predictable, as you can guess some events before their occurrence and the characters take a few side-trips in their emotional roller-coaster journeys that are telegraphed a mile away, though their impact on the audience is still palpable enough as to be moving. Some off-beat pacing slows down the film at parts as well, but not poorly enough to detract from the tale telling.

The weirdest hand-holding scene EVER

For what it's worth, Rabbit Hole may not be a perfect film but is still a very comendable one. Even with the amazing performances by its star cast, it however has the risk of being completely overshadowed by even the other indie films this year, not just the big blockbusters. 2010 was a big year for working small, and I hope that Kidman's performance doesn't completely get shut out by the Portmans, Hathaways and Jolies that threaten to take over during this biggest of movie seasons. I would put this one in the same category as Winter's Bone, a sterling and emotional ride that may not leave you wholly fulfilled, but definitely makes you think about life and it's many existential mysteries.