Yesterday Was Our Independence Day!

I admit that I make mistakes. I generally post reviews in the order in which I see them. It makes things easier to keep track of, and even if I'm backed up and can't review a movie for several days, I have some way of pacing my writing. The only exceptions are my Open Letters Monthly posts, which are almost always reviewed upon my watching them and don't get in line behind the rest. That being said, yesterday I reviewed the independent film The Bling Ring, about a bunch of kids who stole from rich celebrities. Realizing now that yesterday was July 4'th, how could I completely miss the obvious and not review the most patriotic film in theaters right now, White House Down?

The second of two "terrorists take over the White House" movies this year (the first was March's mediocre Olympus Has Fallen), White House Down has some serious advantages over Antoine Fuqua's strikingly similar Spring effort. For one, this film is from director Roland Emmerich, who before this has already blown up the building at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue (Independence Day) and crashed a tsunami into it for good measure (2012). It's safe to say that if anybody knows how to tell a story in which a paramilitary group (led by an excellent Jason Clarke) breaks into the White House to capture President James Sawyer (Jamie Foxx) and take a number of others hostage, while on the outside the public can only watch in horror. The country's only hope? Failed Secret Service applicant John Cale (Channing Tatum), a former soldier and present police officer who had tried for the job to impress his estranged, politically-inspired daughter Emily (Joey King). Now, with Emily numbered along with the hostages and the President's life in his hands, John must find a way to help Sawyer escape while also rescuing his daughter. Oh, yes, and stopping a global terror plot that threatens to derail the President's Middle East peace offer. So, no pressure.

This is the man who will save the planet.

Surprisingly for a Roland Emmerich film, however, the strongest aspect of the movie might be the casting. When Olympus Has Fallen came out, it's only strength was a cast headlined by Gerard Butler, Aaron Eckhart and Morgan Freeman. It was an excellent collection of actors who almost allowed that title to rise above it's idiotic story, but White House Down offers just as strong a group, if not better, led by the charismatic pairing of Tatum and Foxx. Tatum has seen a huge upswing in his career after an excellent 2012, and continues that trend here as an everyman who finds himself in an impossible situation. Some critics have taken to calling White House Down "Die Hard in the White House", and on more than one front they'd be right, as there's plenty of common ground between Cale and franchise favorite John McClane. It's obvious that Emmerich was inspired by that series, including many references and Easter Eggs hinting at his love of all things Die Hard. But that would mean nothing if Tatum couldn't live up to the comparison, and he does so with gusto, matching up nicely with the A-level 80's action star in physicality, humor and overall acting ability (not to mention his white tank top). In fact, the only thing missing from Tatum's arsenal is a witty catchphrase, so essential to McClane's sustained survival over the years. Still, it's been a long time since Tatum was a dry portion of an underwhelming GI Joe movie, and he shows here that he's not taking any steps backward anytime soon. Foxx as well shows his versatility, and while his character doesn't exactly speak to the power of the Presidency that we've come to expect from men such as Eckhart, Bill Pullman or Harrison Ford, he comes darned close, and even makes up for any weaknesses thanks to taking part in the action and an easy back-and-forth with Tatum. The cast is handily rounded out by government types (Maggie Gyllenhaal, Richard Jenkins, Lance Reddick) and villains (Clarke, Jimmi Simpson, James Woods), all of whom play cliched-enough parts but who are talented enough to overcome that deficit.

The one in the middle will have the best career.

But while the film focuses on Cale and Sawyer and they're attempts to evade capture, it's young Joey King who steals the spotlight. You might remember her wonderful appearance as the China Doll in the otherwise-uninspired Oz the Great and Powerful, and here the precocious kid becomes the pro-American heart of the movie. What could have been a throwaway part becomes arguably the strongest role in the entire film, and an actress who has had a slightly under-the-radar career the past decade is looking to perhaps be one of Hollywood's biggest stars by the end of the next. If 2013 is any indication (Oz, White House Down and soon The Conjuring), she's well on her way.

That's going to take time to clean up.

Beyond acting, though, there's plenty of action in White House Down, thanks especially to Emmerich's experience in blowing stuff up and the significantly larger budget he puts to use. There's no doubt that this film feels much smaller in scale to his past works (even his Shakespeare conspiracy Anonymous had an epic quality to it), but that doesn't mean things won't explode in spectacular fashion when those situations are called upon. Explosions are loud, gunfire is constant, vistas are gorgeous, and unlike the ultra-violent Fuqua film, you never get the feeling that the director is upping the violence just because he's going for shock value. There might be tons of unnecessary violence in this movie, but never is it dull or completely without reason (the opposite of Man of Steel). Emmerich is of course a master of this particular craft, and his movie ripples with aftershocks from every explosive moment, keeping the film moving forward and the audience members on the edge of their seats

Just don't get on his bad side.

And while the story itself is quite dry and predictable (partly because this has been done before, partly because patriotism won't allow certain events to occur in a Hollywood script), the script never overtly preaches its allegiances or stretches itself beyond it's capabilities. It's a simple a popcorn film that happens to take place at the White House, and places Tatum's career firmly on trajectory to emulate that of Bruce Willis in his heyday. It's a lot of fun, and if studios were smart they'd plug Tatum right back in the hole and build a franchise around this character, as there's plenty of growth to be had. It would be way more fun than a continuation of the Die Hard series, whose recent trip to Russia was a mission to forget. White House Down, meanwhile, is an excellent way to spend a couple of hours this Independence Day weekend, and I just wish I'd thought to tell you that yesterday.

Open Letters Monthly: Jack Reacher

Sometimes what you really need to get through the day is a mindless action flick that doesn't challenge you but still leaves you feeling fulfilled. Thankfully, Tom Cruise has been pumping these types of movies out regularly since his early acting days, and his latest, Jack Reacher, might be just the thing to see if you're not interested in uber-violent revenge tales or Parisian musicals.

When a former Army sniper is arrested and accused of murdering five innocent people in a public park, he is asked to confess. Instead, he insists that it was not him and tells them one thing: "Get Jack Reacher." Reacher is a former Military Policeman with a killer investigative mind. When he puts the pieces together, he realizes that the arrested man has been framed, and starts to ask question and break skulls until things start to make sense. But a shadow group doesn't want him finding the truth, and soon target the unstoppable Reacher with a vengeance.

Jack Reacher is directed by Christopher McQuarrie and stars Tom Cruise, Rosamund Pike, Richard Jenkins, Werner Herzog, David Oyelowo and Robert Duvall.

Click here for the full review at Open Letters Monthly.

Hit Me Baby

So which is the real Killing Them Softly? One is the film that competed for the Cannes Palm D'Or this past spring, and received decent reviews overall, to the tune of 79% on Rotten Tomatoes. It was supposed to secure star Brad Pitt a Best Actor nomination and steal a lot of attention from bigger blockbuster titles during the awards season. The second film is one reviled by audience-goers, given a rare "F" rating on Cinemascore and bombing badly when it was released almost three weeks ago. That's a fairly wide gulf, and while critics and audiences have certainly disagreed on what makes for quality movie time (just look at any Twilight flick), rarely do their opinions appear so disparate when it comes to a potential Oscar darling. So which one is the film you should expect if you go to the theaters?

Frankly, I'm shocked that so many critics could get past the frenetic opening credits sequence to really get into the film based on George V. Higgins' 1974 novel Cogan's Trade. The jagged and frankly pointless opening sequence sets a tone that resonates through the entire film. As to the story, it focuses on the effect of two amateur goons (Scoot McNairy and Ben Mendelsohn) knocking over an underground card game, and the mob hitman (Brad Pitt) who is hired to find and make an example of them. The tale is set to the background of the 2008 Presidential election and the financial crisis that defined both that year and election, and as we see, not even the criminal underground is safe from the recession.

You just know it won't end well for these guys.

Actually, looking at the recession's effect on even criminal markets was a fascinating take on the subject, and in all honesty it's likely the main reason so much critical affection was given to this title. Every character has stories of falls from grace, for instance James Gandolfini as a hitman whose depression has spiraled into passions for booze and prostitutes. The economy is such that probation systems cannot help many reformed criminals, so that those men are forced back into the game to survive. Mob bosses are forced to work together by committee rather than risk alienation by carving their own path, and assassins must offer discounts to remain competitive. It's a unique take on the typical crime drama, and changes the rules and politics of the mob system. The violence is also stylish, with director Andrew Dominik taking the extra effort and making each hit feel like a visceral, important and rare occurrence.

Richard Jenkins is always good, no question.

Unfortunately, while Dominik has a flair for the visual, he rarely indulges it in film chock full of talk, questions, pondering and tons and tons of plot exposition. 100% of often-excellent performer Richard Jenkins' scenes take place with him sitting down and not doing a whole hell of a lot. The cast is full of talented performers but Pitt, Gandolfini, Ray Liotta and Sam Shepard are largely wasted on explaining basic concepts to both one another and the audience. Pitt especially feels pointless, spending most of his time talking instead of actually doing anything of interest. Only Mendelsohn and - most especially - McNairy stand out acting-wise, with Mendelsohn playing nicely as a grubby do-anything character with little-to-no morals and a penchant for disaster. But while his partner is amusing at best, McNairy actually manages to achieve the rare feat in this picture of being someone to root for. As the young Frankie he is forced into a corner as both a character and actor, and McNairy impresses with ample charm and talent. It's a shame most people won't see him in this, as he won't likely get recognition from the his excellent work on Argo, which saw him take on a much different appearance.

Could it possibly be a crime movie without this guy?

While I get why Killing Them Softly has received some positive press, I feel that this was a case in which a movie was overrated thanks to the quality of its cast and a few good moments than for being the powerful, allegorical tale that it was surely meant to be. It's certainly making up for that now, and might be remembered as among the year's worst. Killing Them Softly gets a few things right and doesn't skimp on the blood, but the rest of Dominik's work is a boring, trite and completely unsubtle waste of an hour and a half. Skip at all costs.

An Original American Horror Story

At the beginning pf the film I saw with Todd and my father this past weekend, we meet two industrial office drones (played by Academy Award nominee Richard Jenkins and Bradley Whitford) going on about seemingly everyday things, from cabinets at home to the importance of their company's secret project. Seems like they're competing with others around the globe, though the goal itself is not mentioned in this opening scene. This would be glaringly normal for a modern-day drama, and it certainly feels out of place at the opening of The Cabin in the Woods, the horror comedy that serves as the directorial debut of Drew Goddard, who also co-wrote the script with every fanboy's hero, Joss Whedon. It's been an interesting career for Whedon; he started out modestly, writing for Roseanne and Parenthood before we witnessed his career go through highs and lows leading up to 2012 and his upcoming blockbuster The Avengers. The Cabin in the Woods was actually filmed way back in 2009 and probably would be remembered as one of the low points of Whedon's career when the studio distributing it, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy, preventing the film from being immediately released. Following were a number of delays, including the purchase of the property by Lionsgate Films and a stated intent to convert the film to 3D. Eventually 3D talk was tabled, and to the joy of Whedon fans everywhere, The Cabin in the Woods finally made its release last weekend.

Hey, hey, the gang's all here!

On vacation from college, five students make the long trek to a cabin recently purchased by the cousin of school football star Curt (Thor's Chris Hemsworth). He, his girlfriend Jules (Anna Hutchison), and their friends Dana (Kristen Connolly), Marty (Fran Kranz) and Holden (Jesse Williams) are preparing for a good time, away from the rigors and demands of the modern world. But in this cabin lie secrets, and the five unwittingly unleash a horror that threatens not only their lives, but the lives of everyone on the planet were it ever to get loose.

"Man, I am looking GOOD."

On the surface, one would be forgiven to thinking that this is a standard horror flick with nowhere to go but down. To those I have the following to say: Goddard and Whedon. It's strange to see Whedon NOT in charge of the film, as Goddard worked for Whedon as a writer on Buffy the Vampire Slayer and its spin-off Angel. Yet when the script is as good as the one that these two have produced, it's easy to see that Goddard wouldn't necessarily have the most difficult time handling his debut film, thanks to excellent pacing, hilarious dialogue and twists that you won't (or gleefully do) see coming. Those office workers played by Jenkins and Whitford that I mentioned in the beginning? They ARE important, but you won't know how until just the right time. I had been worried that too much of those characters would spoil the narrative of the story, but Goddard and Whedon did an excellent job of not giving anything away until you absolutely needed to know what was happening.

The Jehovahs Witnesses have gotten a little more aggressive lately...

And the dialogue... if you've EVER watched an episode of Buffy, Angel or Firefly, you probably know what to expect from a Joss Whedon production. Goddard and Whedon obviously put a lot of themselves into writing the script, and that means there's always some choice quotes designed to illicit the absolute most laughter it can from the audience, even while gruesomely violent actions are occurring. And it's not just the script, but the perfect execution by the collection of actors that bring it to life. I'm not just talking Jenkins and Whitford, whose individual accomplishments by 2009 would have eclipsed even the combined might of their younger co-stars, but those young unknown actors themselves, who diverge themselves from typical horror movie tropes by playing fully-realized characters instead of caricatures. They're not all great; Connolly and Hutchison make good scream queens and Williams seems to only have one facial expression, though all three do more than is required in fulfilling their roles. Cabin was filmed Hemsworth was even cast as Marvel's thunder god, but even this early in his career he was more than a good actor. But the standout of the cast is Krantz, who was probably the best-known of the five principle actors when filming began. Krantz's pot-smoking jokester serves as the voice of the audience, and delights in every moment he is on the screen.

We know blondes have more fun... now it's time to see if they live longer.

The spoof nature is what makes The Cabin in the Woods both a throwback to the old-school horror films like Friday the 13'th and simultaneously a whole new experience in itself. Both Todd and I loved how the end result was a unique look not only at the horror genre but the horror movie industry in general. I won't give away any major plot points, but this is one of those films I would LOVE to see a second time around, knowing that Whedon and Goddard likely planted dozens of Easter eggs that we missed the first time around. It was a close finish between this film and 21 Jump Street for the best I've seen in 2012. In the end, it's Cabin as the year's #1 film by the slimmest of margins. Funnier than The Three Stooges, more honest than The Lucky One and less predictable than Titanic 3D, this is a film you shouldn't miss even if you aren't a fan of horror. Whedon and Goddard have produced a smart, funny and clever film, one that should reign at #1 for a good, long time.

Yup. You're gonna die.

The Ballad of a Drunkard

There are few in the United States who would not know who you were talking about were you to mention the name Hunter S. Thompson. A popular author, he is credited with the invention of "Gonzo Journalism", or planting yourself so deeply in the news story you are covering so that you are in fact the central character. His nonfiction books Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail still sell well forty years after they were first published, and are often reqired reading for anyone studying American Literature in establishments of higher learning. Known for his prolific drug and alcohol abuse, a complete inability (or unwillingness) to objectively cover stories, a deep hatred for Richard Nixon, and for his tragic suicide in 2005, Thompson has become perhaps more popular following his death than he ever had in his long career. Therefore it's almost sad that he has left no contemporaries in his wake; Gonzo Journalism has never seen a writer so regarded by the everyman, and that all Thompson might be leaving behind are his own words is all at once sad and hopeful: sad because there may never be another writer like him, and hopeful since as long as his words exist, so does his influence. But it's not his political work that we are here for today. In 1998 Thompson released his first published novel The Rum Diary to the public. After two failed attempts to adapt the book to the big screen in 2000 and 2002, bandying about such names as Nick Nolte, Benicio del Toro and Josh Hartnett, and with Thompson himself referring to the process as a "waterhead fuckaround" among other things, things finally got underway in 2007, with Bruce Robinson directing and writing the screenplay for the title, starring Johnny Depp as Thompson's autobiographical protagonist Paul Kemp.

Another adventure through sobriety

It is the 1950's. Paul Kemp has left mainland America for the beautiful shores of Puerto Rico, where he has taken a job as a journalist for the San Juan Star. The financially-challenged paper has him writing Astrology columns and articles about bowling alleys and American tourism, while ignoring major cultural stories as "uninteresting." The San Juan editor in chief Edward J Lotterman (Richard Jenkins) is only interested in selling newspapers, not telling people the news. As Kemp explores the ups and downs of this island, he is approached by unscrupulous businessman Hal Sanderson (Aaron Eckhart). Hal wants Paul to help them with his writing to build luxury hotels on an uninhabited island in the Caribbean, and doesn't care who he screws over to get it. Paul meanwhile is far more interested in Sanderson's fiance, the sultry and sexually provocative Chenault (Amber Heard), and wants nothing to do with Hal's gaudy rich lifestyle. Caught between a failing newspaper and an real love, failed novelist and rum enthusiast Paul struggles in his attempts to put words down on paper in his own voice.

Paul practices his "my eyes are up here" stare

Though English director Bruce Robinson hasn't helmed a motion picture since the 1992 thriller Jennifer 8, he manages to do a surprising number of things correctly in what is arguably his biggest ever stage. For one thing, he does a stellar job showing the gross division between the luxurious tourist sections of Puerto Rico and the island's destitute native villages. One is filled to the brim with ocean-front hotels, bowling alleys and casinos, catering to obese and gleeful white people, while the ghettos are littered with trash and broken vehicles, with cockfights and dirty children on every corner. In one otherwise notion-less scene, Eckhart's less-than-generous character shouts angrily at natives who watch his private beach from the jungle. The difference between the bright and sandy beach and the dark, foreboding jungle is so strong that you can practically TASTE the inequality present. Robinson surely knew what he wanted to portray most about this country's ownership of this small island, and from stories I've been privy to over the years there's little that has changed in the past sixty years, making this point as timely as it ever was.

Eckhart tries to teach Depp to act like a real person, to poor effect

Unfortunately, that's the best The Rum Diary can come up with, as the rest of the movie is a batch of seemingly but not necessarily connected set of scenes portraying everything from hits from psychadelic drugs to more literal hits, especially when Kemp and his associate Bob Sala (Michael Rispoli) are being hunted down by a lynch mob. A brief scene of Kemp and Sala debating who will be the next US President shows Thompson's intense dislike of Nixon, but the whole thing has little to do with the rest of the tale, a burden that many other scenes carry, especially in the film's final act. Worst of all perhaps is that Kemp/Thompson's writing voice is almost tossed aside, rarely making appearances and doing nothing to appeal to anyone other than Thompson's hardcore fanbase.

He might not be sober, but he can still drive... honest!

Speaking of which, one of Thompson's biggest fans is in fact Johnny Depp, playing a Thompson character for the second time in his career after headlining the cult classic Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. However, those expecting another performance to match those of Depp's more eccentric roles will be in for a heady disappointment. Obviously Depp can't be expected to match the manic energy of characters like Captain Jack Sparrow or Edward Scissorhands every time out. However, he has always seemed overmatched playing everyman roles, with last year's The Tourist a perfect example of the wrong that can come from casting him as such. He has his moments, but there is very little reason beyond bare-bones ideals to care about this alcoholic druggie with only slightly fewer scruples than his enemies, and Depp does little to raise this character above that low bar. Another disappointment is Eckhart as Hal Sanderson, a true shame since this is usually the kind of role that Eckhart could run away with on a bad day. Instead he is far too constricted by a script that portrays him as one-dimensional cipher, part of the 1% that people will blindly lash out against on principle alone. Richard Jenkins as newspaperman Lotterman is only slightly better, with at least a small amount of depth keeping him from the gutter. Jenkins pulls Lotterman up by the bootstraps, making a character who is undeniably cruel, but with perfectly logical reasoning behind his actions. A lack of real good guys is an ever-present issue with the film, with a greasy photographer played by Michael Rispoli and a neo-Nazi scrub played by Giovanni Ribisi the closest thing the film creates as allies for Kemp. With friends like these... at least the casting department got one thing undeniable right; as one of the few bright spots in 2011's worst picture nominee Drive Angry, Amber Heard gets another chance to showcase her talents as the film's main love interest. Though underutilized, Heard makes every moment on screen count far more than any of her co-stars, and even manages to coax some of the somehow elusive charm (usually in no short supply) from Depp's performance.

"Three Men on a Bike" just doesn't have the same ring to it...

With a lackluster tale that feels unfinished, broken in some places and unnecessary in others, The Rum Diary is about as far from a good day's entertainment as one can get without being a complete travesty. There are some good sequences early on, but that good will doesn't last as the film's second half is full of incomplete thoughts, harvested from the fringes of an altered mind. This isn't the film many think it should be, and it certainly isn't the film that Hunter S. Thompson - or any author for that matter - deserves as his legacy. While The Rum Diary isn't the bad movie I'd thought it might be, its lack of drive and focus turn it into a thoroughly mediocre one. When you consider Thompson's controversial career, calling a movie based on his works mediocre is really a worse fate.

Normal Norman

Well, I had a choice. Either I could see the uninspiring sequel to a little-cared about James Bond knockoff starring a famous British comedian, or I could see an indie film about a troubled teenager that can seemingly only have one destination. With all due respect to Rowan Atkinson (I loved the Black Adder series, but don't push your luck) and Johnny English Reborn, I'll go with the one that stars Richard Jenkins every time, and that's how I came to see Norman this past week. I had only seen the trailer a few days earlier, and was intrigued enough by such a shockingly honest take on disaffected youths that I made plans to see it as immediately as I could, before the wide release of four major motion pictures this weekend could prevent me from doing so. I knew of the film's theme - young disturbed man has a glimpse of hope while wallowing in depression - but the actual plot of the story was not yet known to me, and I was sure that my opinion of Norman would come directly from whatever choice of story director Jonathan Segal would decide to tell.

Teenager at school = social outcast

High school senior Norman Long (Dan Byrd) is going through a rough time. Okay, that's putting it lightly. It was hard enough losing his mother to a car wreck a few years back, an event from which he has never fully recovered. Now it is his father he is poised to lose, as patriarch Doug (Jenkins) suffers from stomach cancer that threatens to take him away at any moment. Unable to cope with this, Norman has withdrawn from just about everyone and has developed suicidal tendencies in response to the doom around him. Only the appearance of new student Emily (Emily VanCamp) seems to affect his life for the positive, as she truly appears to take a liking to him, and he to her in turn. With her help he can step away from the edge of Oblivion and start to take control of his life, but a lie of his own device threatens to undue all the good that has come of late, and Norman once again feels powerless in the face of overwhelming guilt.

Jeez, why did girls this cute never talk to ME in high school?

First and foremost, it's refreshing to see such topics as parental loss, first loves, depression and suicide taken as serious as they are, and told as such. Each is a major factor in the development of the Norman's script and characters, especially in the person of the film's namesake.Norman is no simply-depicted suicidal teen. Sure, he's got so much angst that it's practically leaking from his ears; with this much emotional trauma in one so young, who wouldn't? He also puts up a wall of self-deprecating humor, sarcasm and self-destructivism between himself and even those who would seek to help him, as he can't bring himself to face the hell waiting for him in the future. Hollywood doesn't usually depict its heroes this way. Sure, your average teenage sidekick might have more issues than David Pelzer could shake a stick at, but even they are never as depressed, mentally agitated and darkly cynical as Norman Long. And yet he has his good parts, brought out especially by the love he has for his father and his affection for Emily,. who is so much his perfect match it's scary (she quotes Monty Python at will; I wish I knew a girl who could do that). These qualities make Norman a young man you want to root for, despite his errors.

"The Talk" is always harder when you can't escape it

On the flip side of the coin, Norman's script and direction leave a lot to be desired. The film's big lie is the major problem: it's a cliched attempt at forcing conflict into a situation where one was not needed. Is the lie stupid? Yes. Are the people who have been lied to stupid for having believed it? Absolutely. But what makes the entire thing worse is that as bad as the lie is, Norman never tells Emily the truth until he absolutely has to, a grave sign of what's to come for anyone who has been in a moderately successful relationship. Is Norman stupid and inexperienced? Yes. Can this be expected? Yes, but the lie (or omission of truth, as it were) is such a huge mistake on his part that you can't help but be frustrated by his inability to come clean about the situation. While that's the worst part of Norman, the rest of the story is sadly slow and ponderous, only picking up interest when the lead is interacting with Emily or dear old dad. Too often you'll be checking your watch to see how much time has passed, a shame considering the film clocks in at a mere 97 minutes.

The best actor nobody ever talks about

A retinue of great actors at least stand front and center to do what they can with the minimal material laid in front of them. Byrd, who played a homosexual loner in 2010's feel-good teen drama Easy A, already has experience playing characters like Norman, which helps make his performance here authentic and beautiful. While Norman might at times be frustrating, it is the power of Byrd's work that makes us wish for better from his character, and hope that he can do better in the future. Jenkins is... well, he's Richard freaking Jenkins! Anyone who has seen him in the HBO series Six Feet Under or his Academy Award-nominated starring role in 2008's The Visitor already knows what a wonderful actor he is. Every time he appears in any role, I can't help but be excited about what I'm going to see, and Jenkins remains one of the few performers who never lets me down. VanCamp also impresses me with a surprising mix of maturity and nymph-like innocence that makes her not only a compelling love interest, but also a wonderful character in general. There is one scene in which she auditions for a drama club which is less than authentic (from one who was once a stage player, when you are on stage, you must "E-NUN-ci-ATE"), but that is a small gaffe in an otherwise strong performance. Secondary characters like Adam Goldberg as a frustrated high school teacher and Billy Lush as Norman's gay best friend are also deeper than they first appear on the surface, though the impact of both on the story as a whole is lost in it's muddling.

Is that a My Little Pony? What the hell?

I wish I could recommend Norman to you all, but sadly between the film's perpetually depressed state, dark themes, cliched storytelling and long stretches of boredom, the excellent acting and character development are all but brushed to the wayside. If a better story had been borne from this amateur attempt, I would raise it myself over the heads of truly fine filmmaking such as  50/50 and the like. However Norman instead appears destined to emulate the disaffected school students it honors by sulking off by itself and going generally unnoticed. I can't help but wish things had gone differently - especially with this cast - but one can only hope that these performers take what they learned on the set and become better for it in their future projects, which will hopefully be more memorable than this, the indie film equivalent of that silent kid in the corner.

Rom-Com Merry Go Round

Back in January, I reviewed a romantic comedy starring Ashton Kutcher and Natalie Portman called No Strings Attached. In the film, two friends decide to cast aside the emotional baggage of relationships and focus on the sexual gratification aspect with one another. No matter what happened, they would keep love out of the equation, and remain friends. Well, guess what? It didn't work then and it doesn't work in Friends with Benefits either, to nobody's surprise. Directed by Easy A's Will Gluck, Friends at least looks better than No Strings Attached on paper. While the earlier-released film has arguably the bigger star power (with the eventual Oscar winner Portman leading the charge), the overall production of Friends came off much more nicely in previews. This was thanks not only to the seemingly natural chemistry between stars Justin Timberlake and Mila Kunis, but hilarious R-rated scenes featuring Woody Harrelson and Patricia Clarkson. Though their themes would seem to be the same, I was expecting a better total film when I walked into the theaters to check out the newest of the new releases this past week. If at its worst it was still better than No String Attached, it could well be considered a success.

The closest Timberlake will ever be to a real woman?

When young headhunter Jamie (Mila Kunis) successfully convinces indie journalist Dylan (Justin Timberlake) to take a groundbreaking job at GQ, the two fast become good friends. With Dylan adjusting to the pressures of leaving his family behind in Los Angeles to endure the rigors of New York City, Jamie becomes his constant anchor. Both are recovering from major relationship breakups, and while they don't want to become boyfriend/girlfriend with the other, they DO miss sexual intercourse. Like, a LOT. So they decide to make a pact; no emotional attachment, no jealousy, just sex. Oh, and no matter what happens, the two remain friends. That lasts for a while, but as things continue, they begin to grow together, and before you can shout that you saw it coming from the opening credits, the two fall in love. But with their relationship history, is this unlikely pairing even possible in the long-term?

Yup, she's helping!

While the story in Friends with Benefits is at least well told, one major misstep is that it ridicules the romantic comedy genre while at the same time committing all its cardinal acts. Characters shouting that true love is a farce pretty much guarantees that true love is what they'll find, and no amount of attempted diversions will make the audience believe otherwise. This is surprising considering how unique and few retread steps adorned director Gluck's last film, Easy A. Other rote rom-com trends include gay best friends, parent-child relationship issues, and one character suffering from an illness that many of us know about but not too many people have to live with. It's depressing how such an up-front idea (casual sex) might have added to the genre had it not merely been made into a set piece, and a poor one at that. There's already been a better casual sex comedy released, but I won't be getting to Crazy, Stupid, Love until next week.

Let the vigorous humping begin

The acting is quite good, but to be honest I wasn't as enamoured with the leading couple as I'd hoped I would be. My criticism with Timberlake is the same as with most of his film roles: all style, no substance. He's portrayed as being just like most of us, a down-to-earth guy who cares about all the right things. The problem with this is that it's not a person, it's a character, and Timberlake doesn't have the acting chops to make it more than that. Sure, he can trade barbs in a charming manner with Kunis, but that's about the highest peak of his prowess in front of the camera thus far. Kunis is by far the better of the main couple, though it would still be a stretch of imagine her as anything other than a slightly older and more mature Jackie Burhart from That 70's Show. It would be obvious that the role was written for her even if the director hadn't admitted to it anyway, and it's too bad, since I think she has some actual talent and hasn't really had an opportunity to showcase it beyond 2010's Black Swan. The duo have some chemistry, but not enough to make the audience stand up and take notice. That's why it's a relief that the supporting cast is much better than the two leads in terms of stealing the spotlight. Woody Harrelson gets the most laughs as GQ's homosexual sports editor who plays the role of romantic advisor to Dylan. Every like he utters is a hoot; it's just a shame they're all in the trailer. Patricia Clarkson is also a joy to see on screen, though it would be fair to say her role here pales in comparison to her part in Easy A. Playing Jamie's sexually-adventurous mother, Clarkson doesn't get nearly as much attention as perhaps she deserves, but does the best with what she can, which includes some truly hilarious and outrageous settings. And Richard Jenkins once again almost steals the show in his scenes as Dylan's father. Honestly, the film could have focused on these three characters and been so much better, but sadly that was not to be.

"Awww" moments are thankfully few and far between

But these acting performances do not save Friends with Benefits from itself. The funniest and best scenes from the film are covered by the trailers, the story has been done to death a billion times before, we really aren't compelled to root for these two lead characters to defy the expectations and get together. Throw in tons of obvious product placement, unfocused and unnecessary use of pop culture references like Olympic snowboarder Shaun White and flash mobs, and the fact that the film quickly becomes the monster it at first decries, and liking this film should not even be an option. Plenty of charm and some good bits do elevate it slightly higher than No Strings Attached, but not by as much as you would think. If you really want to see a sweet, engaging romantic comedy, do yourself a favor and see Crazy, Stupid, Love. Now THERE'S a film worth your hard-earned money.

A Vampire Movie that DOESN'T Suck

Somehow by now I thought I'd be done with 2010's films. 2010 still manages to sneak in however, most notably in films that don't even make their way to wide release until 2011 but count towards 2010 due solely to extremely limited runs that qualify those titles for the big award shows. This is not one of those movies. In fact, it's probably my most surprising 2010 film success story. Here in Boston, the Coolidge Corner Theater is one of our smaller, independent theaters that often focuses on the art house films. On weekends, the theater hosts its Coolidge After Midnite series, which comprise of cult and horror films shown at midnight to a small crowd of dedicated viewers. This past weekend, the film was Let Me In, the American remake of popular Swedish film and novel Låt den rätte komma in, which translates to Let the Right One In. Hollywood has gotten a bit remake-crazy lately, with both this and the upcoming Girl with the Dragon Tattoo quickly converted from worldwide popular Swedish films into Americanized versions to market directly to a local audience. Since I'd yet to sit down and watch the original Swedish edition, I was hesitant to take in the remake. But since Let Me In had gotten good reviews and since I wasn't in a hurry to see the original anyway, I figured "why not" and so "Southland Dan" and I trekked to the Coolidge to give this unseen film a shot.

Moretz auditioning for the "creepiest kid alive" award

The story of Let Me In focuses on young Owen (Kodi Smit-McPhee), a smallish loner constantly bullied by others at his school and suffering from an aversion to swimming. His favorite past-times include visits to the local arcade and spying on his neighbors through his telescope. His parents are getting divorced, and he doesn't feel much connection to either his emotionally-disturbed mother or his absent father. He doesn't have a friend in the world until the day an odd girl (Chloe Grace Moretz) moves into the apartment next door.

Uh... yeah... you don't have problems at all

The story gets a little bit into a few side characters, but for the most part the film focuses on the two juvenile leads. Moretz of course is familiar to anyone who remotely heard of the controversy surrounding her foul-mouthed superhero Hit-Girl in 2010's Kick Ass. Here she gives an outstanding performance as Abby, the child vampire. Abby is lonely from several lifetimes worth of moving around, stuck in an apartment while the man who cares for her goes out at night to hunt for fresh blood. Moretz's creepy-yet-fragile performance is even better than that of Hit-Girl, proving that she's no one-hit wonder. While Abby has no peers, Owen is alone while surrounded by them. Smit-McPhee wasn't as heralded in his role as Viggo Mortensen's son in The Road, but that role paved a path to a very impressive performance here. The victim of bullying, divorcing parents and now vampire necro-voodoo, Owen has to be a type of victimized everyman, and Smit-McPhee does a great job playing the straight man to the what would be otherwise unbelievable. Other good performances come from Richard Jenkins as a man who has been taking care of Abby for years, and Elias Koteas as a police officer following the bodies left in Abby's wake.

Awww, did you start the cranberry-crushing party without me?

As for the themes present in this tale, Let Me In brings up topics not necessarily seen in mainstream Hollywood films. Bullying is a major topic these days, especially with all the new legislation being passed by the government banning it in schools, which makes seeing the odd duck Owen bullied by other boys at school feel so real as we see it on the screen. In fact, the film asks a great question by exploring why the other boys pick on Owen at all, and really makes sense when you see it happen. The themes of alienation and loneliness play out well through the two child leads, and the idea of parental divorce is actually one of the best displayed themes in the film. Owen lives with his mother and she appears in several scenes, but from the get-go we never really get a good look at her, as she's seen either out of focus or from behind. In the film doing so, we get Owen's feelings of disassociation from her by never REALLY seeing her at all.

No, he's a police officer... NOT a child molester. He gets that all the time

It's a shame when a good film like this has problems, so it's a relief when those problems translate to the mere cosmetic. Special effects were surprisingly uninspired when you consider this film was done by Matt Reeves, the director who made Cloverfield. Though sparsely used, effects of Abby jumping and running unlike a normal human look far too much like the herky-jerky motions the monsters from Japanese horror films like The Ring or Ju-on. The film also has a severe lack of interesting secondary characters, as it would have benefited from a bit more perspective. Still, that's no major flaw, and may be more due to the basis of the screenplay on the source material than anything else. When the characters are played by interesting actors like Smit-McPhee, Moretz and Jenkins, that can easily be enough.

It's okay! We've got Kick-Ass on DVD!

According to Dan, who had seen the original Swedish film, the story has a few differences but otherwise was almost identical to the first. From what I could tell in my viewing of the original's first twenty minutes, Reeves decided that he couldn't really change the setting beyond relocating Sweden to rural New Mexico. Even the apartment complex Owen and Abby live in is remarkably similar to the original. It's honestly kind of sad that despite the film and story's quality, there was next to nothing that Reeves added to make the film his own. Still, it IS an amazing film to behold; the retelling suffering a few awkward translation moments but overall not feeling like an ersatz release for the heck of it. Excellent acting, a well paced story and significantly few flaws propels Let Me In to #8 on 2010's Best Film list, a feat I really hadn't expected it to achieve. It's the best of both worlds: a modern day take on a classic vampire horror story. Definitely worth seeing.