Double Feature: Frances Ha and The Purge

This weekend is going to be a great one, I can just feel it in my bones. This is the End has already come out. Man of Steel arrives today. And expanded showings of Before Midnight and Much Ado About Nothing, plus the inclusion of The Bling Ring mean that there will be no shortage of movies to watch in the coming weeks. But I'm still playing catch-up on the movies I've already seen, so here are two about which I just don't have much to say.

Frances Ha is a title that makes no sense until the last few moments of a movie that clocks in at 85 minutes but feels much, MUCH longer. It's the story of Frances (Greta Gerwig), a mid-twenties woman trying to make it in New York City as a modern dancer. In the beginning, she lives with her best friend Sophie (Mickey Sumner) and everything is great. But when Sophie moves in with someone else, it throws Frances for a loop, and she spends the rest of the movie moving from place to place trying to find both a permanent residence and a secure life for herself.

Worst. Fight. Ever.

There is certainly a bit to appreciate here, but most of the movie is dragged down by a lack of momentum and the fact that Frances is almost unlikeable as a character. Let's be clear: Greta Gerwig is adorable, and her take on a not-so-young woman who still hasn't found her way in life is pretty much spot-on. Unfortunately, while Frances is at times impeccably introspective (when faced with the faux pas of not having a credit card, her revelatory response is "I'm not a real person"), she makes decisions that make you either hide your face behind your hands or want to reach into the screen and strangle her. The good news is that she's occasionally surrounded by very talented actors who make the waiting more bearable. Unfortunately, this is still a one-woman show that feels lazily directed by her boyfriend Noah Baumbach (Greenberg, The Squid and the Whale), and it seems to be willing to ignore any faults in our heroine while not really making her all that impressive in exchange.

Yeah, I need a drink too.

Frances Ha turns out to be one of those artsy-type films that plays great with reviewers (it's got a freaking 90% rating on Rotten Tomatoes) but most people won't really be able to get into. I can appreciate the sentiment of the movie, and the finale was definitely the happy ending that both Frances and the audience deserve. However, there's way too much boring stuff here to make it all that worthwhile, and so unless you watch nothing but independent movies, this is one you can safely skip.

The Purge, meanwhile, is another in the vein of "human vs. human" horror flicks. In the year 2022, our country has somehow been "reborn" and our new founding fathers have created a new plan to fight poverty and crime. Called "The Purge", it is one twelve hour evening in which all crime - including murder - is made legal, and all emergency services are suspended for that time, as an act of catharsis for the American public. It certainly seems to work; unemployment is at just 1%, and crime outside of the Purge period is at an all-time low. This year, the Sandin family's plan is to stay at home, lock the doors with the latest in home security, and get through the 12-hour period without attracting any attention. But one mistake results in them being targeted by a group of masked intruders, and when state-of-the-art security can't stand between them, the family discovers what they must do if they want to survive the night.

Killing rich whitey; this movie is like the 99%'s wet dream

Director James DeMonaco may have little feature film experience (his only other movie is 2009's little-seen Staten Island), but he definitely paints pretty imagery, especially when you take the idyllic gated community in which our family lives and compare it to bleak, dark nightmare of when the sun goes down. As a the man behind the camera, DeMonaco certainly seems to have an eye for imagery and how he wants to shoot a particular scene. His moods are energetic, and he definitely keeps The Purge at a quick pace on his way to telling of his intriguing concept.

Now I'm going to be seeing a ton of these masks come October.

Unfortunately that's all that's going for The Purge, a horror film that fails at scaring its audience even remotely. There are a few tense moments, but all in all the horrific bits are quick and painless, and never leave anything akin to a lasting impression. That's often because the characters themselves are irritating and unlikeable. Though there are a couple of recognizable B-listers here in Ethan Hawke and Game of Thrones' Lena Headey, the rest are unknowns and act like it, failing to improve upon the uninspired dialogue and ridiculous character designs. It's hard to feel bad for character who make the most ridiculous and idiotic decisions, and that's what happens here far too frequently. The social commentary is also extremely weak. The idea of 12-hours of illegality to battle crime is an inspired concept, especially in the argument it makes that the poor are still at a distinct disadvantage while the rich can hide behind bullet-proof windows, but it fails to hold up over the course of an entire feature. Combine that with a "WTF" ending that is more hilarious than it is frightening, and you can see why this wasn't released in the Fall with the more effective horror titles.

Peek-a-boo!

There really isn't much in the way of scary moves due out right now, with the better-looking ones (including Insidious: Chapter 2, the Carrie remake, and You're Next) not due out for at least a few months. The Purge's job was to fill that empty void until the new stuff came along, and from the box office receipts last weekend it looks like it served that purpose. It's just too bad that it's best recommendation is that it's the only game in town, as it had an idea that would have benefitted from a more polished script to tell its tale.

... While Rome Burns

Last year, acclaimed director Woody Allen released his most successful and arguably best film in years in Midnight in Paris. The romantic comedy, which saw Owen Wilson's young artist travel back in time to what he considered the best creative moments of the city he loved, was an astounding piece of film making. I didn't think it was one of the BEST movies that came out last year, but it IS one of the few from 2011 that I saw twice in the theater, and it won the Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay, while Allen and his movie were respectively nominated for Best Director and Best Picture. Midnight in Paris was simply beautiful, and there was no doubt that the next step by Allen would either barely live up to that high standard, or fail miserably in comparison.

Somehow, To Rome with Love manages to evade being totally eclipsed by its predecessor, but naturally it cannot stand up to the wonder that was Midnight. The story takes place in four vignettes, depicting both residents and visitors to Rome and their stories. In one, Jerry (Allen, in his first acting role since 2006's Scoop) and Phyllis (Judy Davis) visit their daughter (Alison Pill) and her fiance Michelangelo (Flavio Parenti). Jerry, a retired classical music composer, discovers that Michelangelo's blue collar father (Italian tenor Fabio Armiliato) has a natural operatic voice, and wants to help the mortician become famous. In the second, newlyweds Antonio (Alessandro Tiberi) and Milly (Alessandra Mastronardi) are in the city for the first time, where Antonio is hoping to impress his successful family and get a job in the family business. But Milly gets lost in Rome and Antonio must try to pass off a prostitute who mistakenly showed up at his room (Penelope Cruz) as Milly. In the third, John (Alec Baldwin) is revisiting the city he lived in when he was younger. He runs into aspiring architect Jack (Jesse Eisenberg), who lives with his student girlfriend Sally (Greta Gerwig). Sally's best friend and aspiring actress Monica (Ellen Page) arrives to stay with her friend for a while, and tries to seduce Jack along the way. Finally, Leopoldo (Roberto Benigni) is a desk-bound clerk whose life is turned upside down one day as he (for reasons unknown) becomes an overnight celebrity.

Yes, he's back and looking better than ever.

While To Rome with Love contains some of the more fantastical elements of Midnight in Paris, and is of course told in Allen's signature voice, but that's precisely where any comparisons come to an end. Rome is Allen's third movie in five years (the first two being Vicky Cristina Barcelona and Midnight) that focuses on a famous and beautiful European city. Unlike those films, Allen only sporadically captures the essence of the city in question here. While every shot in Midnight in Paris and many in Barcelona evoked wonder and awe purely in the visuals, there is little of that ability shown in Rome. Sure, Allen manages to get some lovely shots of the city through his lens, but compared to the constant "Wow" factor that he had accomplished previously, what we see is somewhat disappointing.

Alec's still got "it".

There are also major hiccups with the stories themselves, a shocker considering how much thought Allen usually puts into his written work. Both the newlywed and celebrity vignettes pale in comparison to their contemporaries. Benigni's piece, in particular, feels totally out of place, simultaneously railing against an establishment of unearned celebrity while acknowledging that, still, it feels good to be recognized. Despite Benigni's great work, the theme smacks a bit too forcefully, and the piece feels unfinished and unpolished. Cruz also is the best part of her vignette, as both Antonio and Milly are too stupid and uninteresting to fully get behind. Meanwhile, showing everyone how it is done, Cruz blows everyone she interacts with out of the water, a force of nature that I wish had been granted a better tale. While the other vignettes are not perfect, they do have plenty more to interest the viewer, from Armiliato's rise as an opera star to Jack and Monica's flirtations to just about everything Alec Baldwin. Allen's dialogue is at times razor sharp, reminding you why he has remained so popular for his entire career.

Say it with me now: "Rawr."

Sadly, these few positives are not enough to make for a great movie. The film feels rushed at points, and not just due to the filming pace. Allen's themes of celebrity and infidelity are nothing new, and in fact are simply rehashed from his previous works. While there are plenty of laughs, they are unevenly dispersed among the ensemble, with some character getting next to nothing for their efforts. Allen also seems to have set a record for characters based on aspects of himself (five, including Allen), and while he manages to create some unique female characters, his inability to make a man that is not himself stands out. And the acting itself is not much better, with only Baldwin, Benigni, Cruz and the surprising Armiliato doing better than their scripts would dictate. Allen himself stammers his dialogue even more than usual, making you wonder which of his takes did NOT make the final cut. And his was still one of the less dry performances in the entire film. All this speaks to lazy writing, and drop Rome from the underrated piece it could have been to the undeserving theatrical release it has become.

This is literally the best the film has to offer... and it's damned good.

This really can't be surprising. Woody Allen hasn't hidden the fact that he hates the film's title, which he only settled on because previous names Bop Decameron and Nero Fiddles were deemed too confusing by many people. How can we be expected to like a film when it's creator is not happy with an aspect of it? Still, there is a bit to appreciate about To Rome with Love, but if we're being honest with ourselves then it's just more burden than it's worth. This is a title that has certainly benefited from the weak summer schedule, and as a result it may get more attention than it really deserves come award season. If you REALLY can't wait to get your Woody fix, then you're going to go see this no matter what I say. But if that's the case then you already OWN this movie. It's already on your DVD shelf, if under a different title. You'd be better off re-watching the superior Midnight in Paris than seeing this new film on the big screen, so only die-hard Allen fans need apply.

"What do you mean, 'I'm the weakest link?'"

Arthur's Reign

For as long as I can remember, my father has maintained this opinion regarding film remakes: the original is always better. Just about anyone can finger dozens of films that prove this, from Psycho to Planet of the Apes, The Wicker Man.to Flight of the Phoenix, Godzilla to Poseidon. It's far too mundane pointing out these obvious atrocities however, with such obviousness do they make themselves. It's true that Hollywood too often gets lazy when it comes to these titles, thinking all that's needed to appeal to both an existing audience and a young, fresh one is a tried and true story with name-brand stars and CGI. And yet for all the times my father was automatically right, I've seen several films that throw his timeless theory out into the streets. True Grit. The Ring. 3:10 to Yuma. Dawn of the Dead. The Thing. Many people don't know it, but Martin Scorcese's Oscar-winning The Departed was actually a remake of the Hong Kong thriller Internal Affairs. When done right, a remake might be even better than the original, even if the chances of that are fairly remote. And so that brings me to this day's review. Arthur is a remake of the 1981 film that starred Dudley Moore as spoiled, drunken billionaire who learns the true values of life and love. Arthur was nominated for four Oscars, won two, and is to this day considered among the best comedies of all time. Though a remake featuring British comedian Russell Brand would at first seem to land nowhere close to the level of quality put forth by the original, there was still some chance that the film might actually be pretty good, most notably in the castings of Helen Mirren and Jennifer Garner to back up Brand. And so I chose it this past weekend over Your Highness and Soul Surfer, the best of the rest from last week's new releases (of course having already seen the amazing Hanna), hoping for the best.

...And this is largely how Brand won his Arthur role...

Arthur (Brand) is a the fun-loving heir to the Bach mogul empire who finds himself in a fix when his disruptive and media-drawing escapades get him in deep water with his estate, most notably his mother (Geraldine James), who has never paid much attention to him and placed him in the care of Hobson (Mirren), his nanny since childhood. Embarrassed by his antics and knowing the distrust others place on the future of her company thanks to them, threatens to cut off his inheritance if he doesn't stop his childish ways. To that end, she arranges his marriage to Susan Johnson (Garner), a smart businesswoman in her own right who has interest in Arthur, though he really can't stand her. Instead, he randomly falls for tour guide/children's book author Naomi (Greta Gerwig), and the two begin a wonderful friendship. Soon, Arthur must choose whether to accept the marriage and with it his inheritance, or risk loving Naomi in poverty.

...And then he convinced Helen Mirren the film would be a good idea...

Every film director has to start somewhere, and this time it was Jason Winer's turn to make a dreadful debut. Winer comes in as one of TV's better talents, probably best known as one of the directors of the Emmy-winning series Modern Family. I don't watch the show regularly, but every time I do I can't help but love it. The show often weaves hilarity with heart, not an easy thing to do on a regular basis. Unfortunately, what works for a half-hour comedy show doesn't seem to work itself out over a nearly two-hour film. To be frank, Arthur is not humorous. All the funny stuff (if you can call it that) appears in the trailers or commercials you've already seen, and there's not one bit apart that seems even slightly entertaining. Winer shares in some of the blame, but even devoted Brand enthusiasts would be stretched to find anything to latch onto, unless you were as drunk as the the eponymous hero of the film while watching. With the exception of a few instances, there's remarkably little to laugh at, and Arthur often tries to establish itself as a serious narrative, despite featuring Brand on its poster.

You can just see Garner plotting her prison break

Perhaps the film's biggest obstacle is that in this day and age, billionaires just aren't as likable as they used to be. Long ago were the days of Little Orphan Annie and other stories in which rich folk were portrayed as benevolent and whimsical, almost like they were too good to be true. Unfortunately, in recent years we as a nation have been witness to Bernie Madoff and multiple other high-profile magnates, many who made their money by cheating the underclasses out of hard-earned dough. Even lesser-known moguls worldwide are often given lesser sentences for the heinous crimes they commit, further exacerbating the problem. Working class people have become so cynical that they simply don't trust the ruling classes, and so asking them to see a film featuring one, even a supposedly fun one like Arthur Bach, is as tough a sell as you can make.

Gerwig unveils her newest invention: the smoking children's book

To that end it's difficult to tell if Brand's performance is the worst I've seen this year or actually pretty good. Playing to the hilt the "spoiled rich boy" image, he really doesn't do anything differently than you've seen before, even in 2010's Shakespeare adaptation The Tempest. Brand's strength is not in acting; he's a comedian, and from what some have told me, a damned good one. He's certainly got a memorable image, and a public persona that demands attention. All the roles he's played up to this point have capitalized on that and only that aspect of his celebrity, and therefore barely qualify as characters and more as caricatures of the actor involved. Arthur is to a degree likable, but not so much that you can understand the attraction he presents to not one but two female leads. Helen Mirren is possibly the standout of the crowd, not surprising to anyone who's seen her perform. Taking a gender-bender with the role that netted actor John Gielgud an Academy Award in the original film, Mirren is amusing and inspiring, even when she's not actually in the scene. Sure, it's a step down, but she's still Helen freakin' Mirren! Yet it's Greta Gerwig with whom I found myself smiling more when the young actress was on screen. As the young, smart Naomi, Gerwig plays to the blue collars in the audience, working wonders in the process. She also has great scenes with Brand, and those bits with the two together are among the title's best. I was actually disappointed with Jennifer Garner. The actress, whose disappointing career showed a much higher ceiling with her guest-starring role in 2007's Juno, is pure movie villain through and through. Using the arranged marriage as a stepping stone to fame and fortune, Garner's character is so unlikable to the audience that it's implausible that she could at all be appealing to her fellow characters. Minor roles by Geraldine James (in another gender-swap), Luis Guzman and Nick Nolte are fine enough, but nothing to write home about.

Arthur's opening night audience

Arthur might have had the potential to be among the year's biggest surprises, but will end the year struggling to not be among its worst films. Failing to crack the Top 10 right now is not the kiss of death it was in March, but to do so on such an epic scale is disappointing to say the least. I definitely would not recommend it to you, fair readers, as while this month would seem to be a weak one for film releases overall, that's still not excuse enough to spend your money on this turd. If you have to see one movie this weekend in the theaters, I can name a dozen movies off the top of my head, including Hanna, Win Win, The Adjustment Bureau, Jane Eyre and Insidious. There's simply no reason to let Arthur get anywhere near that list.

Pinnochio it Ain't

Romantic comedies can be tricky business. There are so many that follow the exact same format, dissimilar man and woman who gradually fall for one another over the course of the film. On occasion, that formula is turned on it's head and you get exceptional titles like When Harry Met Sally. Other times, the formula and the chemistry between the romantic leads works so well that you get a title that exceeds expectations despite covering no new ground; Love & Other Drugs.would be a perfect example. But the vast majority of the films in this genre rarely ascend to such lofty heights, content to market themselves to the current younger audience and distinguish themselves in little way from their contemporaries. The question is which tier contains No Strings Attached, directed by Ghostbusters director Ivan Reitman. Star Ashton Kutcher has held the theme close to heart, starring in films from 2003's Just Married and My Boss's Daughter to the more recent What Happens in Vegas, Valentine's Day and Killers. He's been in so many romantic comedies he's practically married to it. But co-star Natalie Portman has had such a varied career to this point that it's difficult to imagine her in such a film, especially when she's likely to win an Oscar for her psychological horror film Black Swan. So what happens when these two seemingly mismatched performers are asked to make a film that might otherwise get completely ignored under other circumstances?

"Okay, what's that smell?"

Actually, the result is not too bad. No Strings Attached has Adam (Kutcher) and Emma (Portman) as a pair of souls who met at a summer camp during high school. After many years as occasional friends, they decide to get together, but not in the boyfriend/girlfriend way. Emma has a problem with committed relationships, leading to the two becoming "friends with benefits," or more simply sex buddies. This works out well for both of them until Adam begins to realize that he's falling for his partner, which threatens to not only disable the couple's current train, but end their entire friendship in the process.

"Yeah, well... we bang"

As I mentioned earlier, Kutcher has done a bunch of these films, so you'd have to figure he pretty much knows what to do when the camera turns on. Of course, I wouldn't KNOW from seeing any of them; I haven't actively watched Kutcher in anything since 2000's Dude, Where's My Car, and so I'm not really an expert on his works beyond his role as Kelso in That 70's Show. Seemingly having not aged physically since 1998, Kutcher is a basic charming guy, but since he does it so well you'd think he was a modern day Carey Grant or Robert Redford, not simply playing a variation of himself. Adam is a somewhat interesting role, with the young man suffering father issues stemming from his father Alvin (Kevin Kline) being such a famous actor while Adam languishes as a Hollywood stagehand. While what Kutcher does is good, however, it's hardly a stretch from his public persona. Portman is much more interesting, with an aversion to commitment so intense she's almost neurotic. She simply doesn't believe in the idea of relationships because of seemingly eventual partings. If you're going to break up anyway, why put in all the effort and hard work? Portman makes the movie, and though her character's issues are the film's main impetus, she is never the villain or made to be the reason things don't go so as well as they could.

"The balloon is my apology for the smell the other night."

If only the film loved its supporting characters as much as it did the two leads. Kline is charming but something of an asshole as Adam's famous father. The film keeps reminding you that he's an asshole while adoring fans look at him and sigh. A side story featuring a budding relationship between Adam's friend Eli (Jake Johnson) and Emma's friend Patrice (Greta Gerwig) was interesting but did nothing to move the film's story forward. Cary Elwes was barely used in the film, and I wonder why his character was even kept in the script at all, so ineptly was he used. Chris "Ludacris" Bridges entertained with one-liners but otherwise was underutilized. Mindy Kaling and Olivia Thirlby are talented actresses whose casting here served no purpose besides providing familiar faces. The only secondary character used to good effect (besides Kline) is Lake Bell as a nerdy assistant at Adam's work. A little better use of these secondary characters would have allowed the main story to go a little more smoothly, whereas there were a few too many bumps due to lack of story cohesion.

Soup in bed?? On THOSE sheets???

While Ivan Reitman made his name writing and directing comedies in the seventies and eighties, he hasn't done a real romantic comedy since Legal Eagles in 1986, and it shows. As mentioned before, the story suffers from stutters and hiccups due to not having enough plot to really fill 110 minutes. It's also quite adult in it's look at human sexuality (which isn't bad) but goes over the top in parts (which is). The best scene involves Adam using a sort-of taboo situation to give Emma a mix tape, but there aren't nearly enough great scenes like that throughout No Strings Attached's story to make it easy watching. It's obvious the more adult content is meant to appeal to a younger demographic (ironic, yes) but it also seems that Reitman was not necessarily the best option to work on this, as the film doesn't feel unique to the generation its targeting. I can easily see this story being adapted as a more mature non-sexually-oriented title that can appeal to more than just a small demographic.

Ah, the awkward slow kiss... a classic

All in all, I actually LIKED No Strings Attached, though that was more in spite of it's faults than because of anything it did particularly well. The dialogue is actually quite snappy, the acting from the two leads Portman and Kutcher is enjoyable and the laughs do come enough to make me forget about the lousy story and underused supporting cast, at least in the moment. It didn't cover any new ground for the genre, but I certainly had more fun in this film than I did watching The Green Hornet; for this reason alone No Strings Attached makes #1 of 2011's Top 10 films. How much you want to bet the next film I see knocks that clean off?