Open Letters Mothly: Now You See Me

All-star casts can be hit or miss. For every The Departed, The Expendables or Oceans 11, there is Mars Attacks or this year's absolutely horrid "comedy" Movie 43. To balance so many A-list personalities at once is a magic act in and of itself, and that is the perfect segue into Now You See Me, which has two former Oscar winners and three former nominees among its actors. It's magic act is nothing short of impossible, and that's what makes it so intriguing a premise for the big screen.

One year after four street magicians were plucked off the street by a mysterious benefactor, "The Four Horsemen" are headlining Las Vegas when they pull off the impossible: transporting a man across space and time to help them rob a bank in Paris. When the FBI gets involved and can find no way to see how they pulled it off other than "magic", the Horsemen are free to go. Now it's a race against time as the law tries to figure out how these seemingly harmless magicians are creating the impossible, and its a race against the clock to stop them from completing their final performance.

Now You See Me is directed by Louis Leterrier and stars Jesse Eisenberg, Mark Ruffalo, Woody Harrelson, Melanie Laurent, Isla Fisher, Dave Franco, Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman.

Click here for the full review at Open Letters Monthly.

... 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?'"

Bombs Away

Oh, well. They can't all be Zombieland. The 2009 feature film debut for director Ruben Fleischer was a surprise hit, coming in number one at the box office and going on to become the highest-grossing zombie movie in the United States. It's success was instrumental to the subsequent surge in Woody Harrelson's acting career, as well as the notable rises of fellow stars Emma Stone, Abigail Breslin and Jesse Eisenberg, who went on to earn an Academy Award nomination for his leading role in last year's The Social Network. So it was no small hope that I carried into the latest collaboration between Fleischer and Eisenberg, the buddy comedy 30 Minutes or Less. Besides the obvious Zombieland connection, the trailers managed to convey the same fun atmosphere as in its predecessor, with some legitimately funny bits plus the addition of Parks and Recreations's Aziz Ansari with some particularly witty dialogue and delivery. However, there was still some concern, as the same trailers didn't seem to quite match the veracity of the original (Danny McBride is no Harrelson, after all) and my friend Anne predicted to me that it would be "horribly cheezy and a bit dull", despite the efforts of the trailer. It was certainly something to think about, but there really is only one way to be absolutely sure.

Remember; friends don't let friends rob banks drunk

Things aren't going well for Grand Rapids pizza delivery boy Nick (Eisenberg). The girl he loves is moving far away to Atlanta. Her twin brother Chet (Ansari) is also Nick's best friend, but the two have a spat when it's revealed that Nick has feelings for his twin. He hates his job, and is perpetually miserable there. This all comes to a head when he's kidnapped by two masked goons (McBride and Nick Swardson), who strap a bomb to his chest and demand that Nick rob a bank for them, or else they will remote detonate the explosive device and him with it. Given ten hours to complete the deed, Nick calls upon Chet to help him rob the bank, and the two must put aside their differences and come together as friends to make sure Nick doesn't make an infamous hole in the ground.

I can't put my finger on it, but something makes me like Eisenberg a bit more in this film...

Sadly, 30 Minutes or Less takes an interesting concept (loosely based on a true story) and doesn't go very far with it. Most of the humor is limited to what's shown in the trailers, and the story's complete implausibility doesn't seem to disturb the filmmakers very much, as they are quite happy to present us with an unfinished piece while calling it a work of art. What the film does do well is emphasize the two simultaneous buddy comedies, as Eisenberg and Ansari share scenes of equal importance to those of McBride and Swardson. Sadly, none of it is as funny as the trailers would have led you to believe, with far too much dialogue more vulgar than funny and lacking in any intelligence.

He's seeing that next Oscar nom just fading in the distance...

If either of the buddy groups comes out ahead, it's the pairing of Jesse Eisenberg and Aziz Ansari. Eisenberg's monotonous drone is already getting a bit old, and isn't used to its full potential as it had been in Zombieland. Still, he's serviceable enough in a comfortable role that melds his Social Network character with just the right amount of white trash. Ansari bounces off just as many walls as he needs to be entertaining, and easily carries the best lines alongside perfect delivery, almost as if the role had been written for him (it probably was, to be fair). It's really too bad his best bits are exposed in the trailers, though he still manages to carry over a few surprises to the theatrical release. Less entertaining are McBride and Swardson as the bumbling antagonists. McBride is just crude, and while that might appeal to some I can't get behind his character's complete lack of sophistication. One can't help but wonder where Woody Harrelson was as this was going on, as he could have one-handedly jump started this film. I know McBride can act (see his small part in Up in the Air for proof), so the fact that he's reached his pinnacle riding a hump of mediocrity is a bit disheartening. Swardson is slightly better and a bit more redeeming, but he's really not much more than a sounding board for McBride. The real surprise of 30 Minutes or Less is Michael Pena, who doesn't feature in any of the advertising but steals just about every scene starring him as the crazy hitman Chongo, who finds himself between these pairs of would-be leads. With the exception of Ansari he's the best of the bunch, and with respect he probably could have bested his co-star if he'd been allowed a few more opportunities.

Wait, didn't we do the Planet of the Apes film last week?

Earlier this year, I suggested that 30 Minutes or Less could be the funniest film of 2011. Well, that didn't quite pan out. While the laughs do increase towards this movie's conclusion, it's barely enough to even pale in comparison to better, funnier comedies like Horrible Bosses, Crazy Stupid Love, Paul and Bridesmaids. In this case, Anne was spot on: incredibly corny and not a little dull, especially in the first half; it's a huge disappointment for Fleischer and crew, whose bar might have been set a bit too high after Zombieland's success. Still. it's not a bad option for brainless movie fodder, but with so many other choices littering theaters this time of year, it's one for which you can afford to wait on a DVD release.

The Facebook Film

I don't go a day without checking my Facebook page. Several times. In fact, it's safe to say I'm pretty addicted to checking up on the status and info of others. Heck, I'm on Facebook RIGHT NOW, and a good chunk of people who read this blog are those of my friends who click on the links I put on Facebook whenever I put up a new post. To be sure, it's a huge part of my life, and for that matter for millions of people around the globe as well. Isn't it hard to think of a time before Facebook, with the impact it has on society today? And another film I recently posted about, Catfish, was about how Facebook and social networking had influenced affected communication between distant parties. So it was only a matter of time before a movie dedicated to Facebook's impact was released for general consumption.

Would you distrust these faces?

Director David Fincher doesn't want you to call The Social Network "the Facebook movie", and there's actually a good reason for that. Though the film does in fact chronicle Facebook's birth and rise to maturity from "humble" beginnings as an exclusive networking site for Harvard students to the worldwide phenomena we now know it as, it's far from the movie's main focus. That focus is squarely on Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg, whose genius birthed this creation and whose relationships between both friends and enemies set the drama for the story. Starting with Zuckerberg's girlfriend breaking up with him due to his ability to be an insensitive asshole (a theme throughout the film), Harvard undergrad Zuckerberg, played by Zombieland's Jesse Eisenberg, goes home, rants about how his ex is a bitch (on LiveJournal; Is that still around?), and on the spot decides to create a program that allows participants to vote between photos of two female Harvard students (hacked from Harvard's multiple limited social networking sites), for the purpose of deciding who was hotter. Shortly after crashing Harvard's limited computer network due to so many people using the program (Harvard, by the way, is portrayed by several school campuses that are NOT Harvard), Zuckerberg is approached by members of one of Harvard's elite cliques with the idea of creating a Harvard-exclusive social networking site that would essentially be an elite dating site for the men of Harvard. The site would eventually be known as ConnectU. Initially taking them up on the offer, Zuckerberg instead uses the idea of an exclusive site to create Thefacebook with best friend and fellow Harvard student Eduardo Saverin (your new Spiderman, Andrew Garfield) providing the financial backing. The film is told in flashbacks, with the current time showing Zuckerberg being sued not only by the ConnectU men who allege that Zuckerberg stole their idea, but also his former best friend Saverin who has been forced out of the management group at what has now become Facebook.

That's the future Lisbeth Salander on the left

The film is helped by the fact that the story is charming to a fault. While one can (and should) question a ton of the "facts" presented here, the story itself is compelling and interesting. It's a shame that it doesn't get into the nitty gritty of the actual program itself, as the scenes that do are some of the best scenes in the film. But the human interaction is the meat and gristle of the story, and thankfully that aspect of the film is masterfully manipulated. The use of the flashbacks from two legal battles to Facebook's founding and rise is excellently done, and sets the pace of the film well. While the product may in fact be less than entirely honest, if those sacrifices were made to create a more interesting film, I'm okay with it.

The mathematical code to attending Harvard? Maybe...

The acting is also exceptional here. Though it's unlikely any of the actors included will be up for major awards when the season arrives, it seems a shame that none would be recognized for their portrayals of these modern-day giants. Eisenberg was at danger of Zuckerberg being like most of his former nervous and antisocial persona, but while those elements are still in play here there's an aura of insensitivity here and also a tiny bit of humanity, which actually does a great job of rounding out the character. Zuckerberg is never fully vilified in The Social Network, but while he is not put in a generally good light Eisenberg does somehow maintain a bit of in-over-his-head confusion that manages to make the character at least somewhat sympathetic. Garfield is probably the only actor in this troupe who has a shot at some supporting actor nominations come this winter, and that's because he plays the most human character in the cast. As the spurned Facebook co-founder, Garfield has to run the gamut of good friend to reluctant financier to screwed-over former friend in one two-hour film. Garfield is also the one we're supposed to feel most sympathetic for, but there's a problem there that I'll get to later. Garfield certainly earned no demerits, however, and his performance is a revelation for those out there who didn't know he existed before now. And Justin Timberlake is charming as former Napster-founder Sean Parker, who becomes an advisor to Facebook and later it's president. Timberlake is someone who (in my opinion) has made his career in music and acting on the firm basis of his considerable charm and personality, rather than on actual talent. Parker is portrayed as a fast-talking, slick-thinking genius always on the lookout for the next big thing, and one whose extravagance and inflexibility led to being kicked out of two former companies that he founded. The character was practically written for someone of Timberlake's talent set, and Parker also creates the most turmoil in the friendship of Zuckerberg and Saverin that leads to their split as friends and partners through his seemingly-phony charm and obvious personality clash with Saverin.

Revel in your popularity while it lasts, Eisenberg

The film has a few issues, though they are big ones, mainly stemming from the ego of the director. Finch is usually known for his stylistically-shot films like Seven, Fight Club and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, but when he directs a biopic like this you would expect that he shouldn't even need CGI to tell this particular tale. Well, he didn't get the memo. In an early scene featuring two characters outside in what's supposed to be twenty-degree weather, it's plainly obvious that the steam coming out when they breath is computer generated, and plainly takes you out of the scene. But the big dereliction of director duties is staggering. Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss are twin brothers and Olympic rowers who are the main part of the ConnectU brain trust who sue Zuckerberg for stealing their idea, and are played by Armie Hammer. No, that's not a typo. Using a body stand-in and digital recreation, Fincher had Hammer play two parts while seamlessly inserting him into the scenes to play both parts (and neither twin is seen apart from the other). Hammer does a commendable job (and has the funniest line in the whole film), but Fincher could have saved a ton of trouble by, you know, hiring twins to play the parts. Though Hammer was good, it's not like he wasn't expendable, and it has to be chalked up to Fincher to make the job more difficult than it had to be. Yes, the job was seamless but he did it not because he had to, but because he could. Taking in this film means also taking Fincher's ego trip, sadly not a surprising development.

Sticking it to the Corporate man

The film's biggest problem, however, lies in the audience's inability to really sympathise with the characters. This is no fault of the actors, who all put on award-worthy performances, but instead in the characters they are asked to convey. We're supposed to feel most sorry for Garfield's character, but we're specifically told that Saverin had made $300 thousand dollars the previous summer in oil ventures. Though he's screwed out of major Facebook ownership over the course of the film, it's really hard to feel sorry for him because you know he's smart enough and knows the right people, so he'll be okay. Same with the Winklevoss twins, whose idea is obviously at least partially stolen by Zuckerberg, but who came from a rich background to begin with. In fact, let's face it: most of the characters in this film are in attendance at Harvard, which means that they either come from rich families or their families know influential people (or both). I've never really lacked, and have been both fortunate and lucky to have the support of loving parents and have never gone hungry or without necessities. I firmly believe myself to me middle-to-upper middle class, and have only been to one year at college and acknowledge my shortcomings from not finishing. However, I've also been accused of being or growing up "rich" from those who grew up with less than I did, and so if I can't find much sympathetic with these rich people who fight over stock options and millions of dollars, I can only imagine how true blue-collar audiences would feel about these same people.

The asshole at work... or is he at play?

Which still is not enough to derail what is a VERY good film. Fincher's hits outpace his misses in The Social Network, and while the ego trip and unsympathetic characters drag down the film a bit, it still manages to place #9 on my Top 10 Films list. In closing, I'm reminded of the Tina Fey bit when she showed up on Saturday Night Live in support of Hillary Clinton for the Democratic primary in the 2008 Presidential election. Admitting that Clinton was "a bitch", Fey went on to utter one of the more memorable TV lines of that year: "Bitches get stuff done." For Zuckerberg and others of his ilk, like id Software's John Carmack (creator of legendary games Doom, Quake, and Wolfenstein 3D), the same principle applies. Facebook was created by Zuckerberg because he was the right type of person to create it and he turned to Sean Parker to help expand it because Parker was the same type of person. If assholes get stuff done, I can at least respect them for having the audacity to do it.

It doesn't mean I have to like them, however.

Zombies in the Mist

End of the world zombie comedy? No thanks, I already saw Shaun of the Dead.

That's what I thought last summer, anyway, when Zombieland took number one at the box office and went on to become the most successful zombie movie ever. Despite the success, and despite the stellar reviews it received, I was not very enthusiastic about seeing the movie in the theaters. When Shaun of the Dead came out back in 2004, it was the critic's darling. All the reviewers loved it, and it seemed like everyone I knew, whether fans of zombie movies or just movie fans in general, would shout from the rooftops about how great this movie was. So finally I relented, but instead of this fantastic film that would be worthy of such praise, my response? "Meh."

It wasn't that I thought the movie was bad. On the contrary, I thought it was very clever, with some outrageously funny moments. It seemed to carry a good balance between respecting the source material while at the same time parodying it's cultural commentaries. I simply thought that the film didn't live up to the hype put upon me by people who seemed to think it was the best movie that came out that year. It's the reason I still haven't seen Hot Fuzz despite actually wanting to see it at some point. And it's why I waited almost a year to see Zombieland, despite much interest I had in the Woody Harrelson-fronted film about surviving after the worst has come to be.

The narrative for Zombieland is told by Jesse Eisenberg's character, called Columbus. Columbus is a college student who has managed to survive the zombie apocalypse by following his thirty-three rules of life, many of which somehow translate perfectly into surviving zombie attacks or surviving in Zombieland altogether. Some, like Cardio (1), Wear Seatbelts (4), and the Buddy System (29) make sense in real life as well as the endtimes. Eisenberg is headed cross-country to his hometown of Columbus where he hopes to find his family and see if his home survived what has happened to the rest of the world, despite not having been very close to his family to begin with. On the way, he encounters Talahassee (Harrelson), a somewhat crazy survivor who has made a business out of killing the undead, and to hear him put it, "Business is good!" Not only is Talahassee two cans short of a six pack, but he's on a peculiar quest to find Twinkies: "not just any box of Twinkies, the last box of Twinkies that anyone will enjoy in the whole universe. Believe it or not, Twinkies have an expiration date. Some day very soon, Life's little Twinkie gauge is gonna go... empty." Despite each of their eccentricities, the two decide to team up, if at least for the short term, and their chemistry and scenes together often make for the most enjoyable parts of the movie, as each mocks the other with mutual respect as fellow survivors would.

Before too long, the duo meet up with the sister con-girls Wichita (Emma Stone) and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin), who manage to rob and abandon them multiple times over the course of the film. The sisters are on their way to Pacific Playland, a California amusement park, where it's rumored that there are no zombies. Wichita merely wants Little Rock to be able to have fun at least once in a world where zombies are pretty much the dominant species. And so the sisters team up with our heroes, if only so long as to reach the park.

That's the plot in a nutshell, and though it's weak and nothing to write home about, it's fine because the movie is buoyed by it's characters and acting. Eisenberg (Who had a breakout year with this and his summer comedy Adventureland) is perfect as the neurotic Columbus, not only in his deadpan narration and comedy timing, but also in his body language, which manages to properly convey his fear and his incredulity to the situations in which he finds himself. But he's got nothing on Harrelson, who had some unique conditions for signing onto the project (including ecologically-friendly sets and director Ruben Fleischer not consuming dairy for a week) and proved he was worth it, putting together a kick-ass performance in which he owns every scene and makes this Twinkie-hunting, zombie-killing maniac believable and sympathetic. Who can say 2009 wasn't his year, as in addition to this film, he had a notable role in the action film 2012 and an Oscar-nominated one for The Messenger. Emma Stone may be known to most as Jonah Hill's romantic interest in the 2007 film Superbad, and while she is fine as older sister and con-woman Wichita, she's up at the same level as the other people in the cast. Abigail Breslin may be forever identified as Little Miss Sunshine, but she still does an amazing job here as the smart but still incredibly and impressionably young Little Rock. She outperforms everyone in her scenes, with the notable exception of Harrelson.

Although the movies does have problems, they are mostly trivial and don't overly affect the enjoyment of the film. Mostly, they are continuity errors, far too many to account for in print. Fortunately, IMDB maintains an extensive list of them, if you wanted to check them. Most of these could have been avoided, and can likely be attributed to the inexperience of director Ruben Fleischer and his crew, whether by haste or just plain error. . Obviously, if this movie had been made with a more experienced crew, perhaps these errors could have been avoided. Oh, well, woulda, coulda, shoulda.

I went into this film with no expectations and little idea as to the plot of the film, but even if I had, I'm not sure it would have altered the level of enjoyment I had during it's viewing. For a horror comedy, Zombieland doesn't skimp on the blood, gore and special effects, and manages that perfect balance of respecting the original source material while parodying it perfectly to fit the story. It's easily the best zombie film I've seen since Zack Snyder's 2004 Dawn of the Dead, and I'd heavily recommend to anyone interested in the genre as a humorous aside to the more serious Romero flicks. Toss in a hilarious cameo from one of the funniest actors alive, gut-wrenching laughs and more zombies than you can unload a shotgun at, and you've got one of the few movies from last year that I'd watch again and again without hesitation.