Copy + Paste

Surprisingly, Kimberly Peirce's Carrie is the ONLY horror film this year to get a wide release during the month of October. Considering the year we're having in the horror genre, that's really quite a surprise, as 2013 has seen a number of solid-to-great releases thus far, between The Conjuring, Evil Dead, Texas Chainsaw, and even some horror offshoots in World War Z and Warm Bodies. Sure, Paranormal Activity decided to sit the year out (and after seeing a trailer for the upcoming sequel The Marked Ones, I can't say I'm disappointed), but that's still no excuse to leave the traditionally scariest month of the year without the type of fare that exemplifies its reputation.

And is that one film a keeper? The original Carrie, directed by Brian De Palma and released in 1976, is a horror classic, often regarded as the best Stephen King adaptation of all time. Is a remake - even one featuring the casting of the uber-talented pair of Julianne Moore and Chloe Grace Moretz - really all that necessary? Pierce certainly has the female perspective that should give an edge to this particular remake, and her experience exploring gender identity and growth (just look at Boys Don't Cry, if you can), Carrie ought to have been a slam dunk. Add on top the claim that it skews closer to the themes of King's original novel, plus the added focus on bullying in today's society, and this could have been a remake to eclipse the original.

Detention didn't want her...

And in some ways, it does. De Palma's interpretation of the the classic novel - while still beloved today - was certainly a product of its time, and the campiness and outdated fashion and technology clash terribly with today's norms. If nothing else, Peirce does an excellent job modernizing the environment, even if she doesn't go far enough; one student films the infamous "tampon" scene on her phone and even uploads it onto the internet, but that new plot line doesn't really go anywhere significant. Certainly the bullying aspects of the original Carrie are more prevalent today than ever before, and Peirce highlights that fact well, not to mention the apparent inaction of those supposedly in charge (from unassuming principals to teachers who are just as bad as the bullies). As a modern adaptation, Carrie works because Peirce manages to take a 40-year-old novel and make it feel current and relevant.

Just for the record; this amazing actress is 16!

Carrie also features an excellent cast, with Pierce succeeding with not only her two leads, but a number of the younger actors whom you may or may not recognize. In the lead, Moretz is simply the best young actress working today. Her versatility has led to scene-stealing roles in multiple films, and this is just the latest example of an up-and-comer taking it to the next level. Moore is similarly well cast, the veteran putting in one of her best performances in years as Margaret White, Carrie's religious fanatic mother. She's always been at least a solid actress, but Carrie sees her take it up a notch, and with a lesser actress it might have been too much. Moore engages the audience with every scene however, becoming one of the film's stronger parts. Judy Greer takes a break from comedies to take on a more serious tone, proving she's suited for these types roles as well. And thankfully, the younger performers do their share as well, as talents like Portia Doubleday (Youth in Revolt), Gabriella Wilde (The Three Musketeers), Alex Russell (Chronicle) and Ansel Elgort (soon to be seen in Divergent) do wonders on the big screen.

Mother and daughter have never been so scary.

Unfortunately, Carrie just doesn't do enough to sufficiently separate itself from the original movie. While claiming that the film hearkens back more to the King novel, what we get is essentially a scene-for-scene (though not shot-for-shot) remake of the original, with updated dialogue being the only significant enhancement. Yes, the ending is slightly altered, but not in a way that makes the film any better or more distinctive. Peirce even rips off the multiple-angle blood spill shot of De Palma's exactly; it's a move that was surely meant as an homage, but merely draws attention to the remake's derivative nature. Worse, the special effects in that iconic scene are blatant CGI effects, taking you out of the moment you've been waiting for the entire film. Evil Dead surprised and pleased many by using more practical effects in their more gratuitous blood-letting, and Peirce can't be bothered to use a real bucket of (fake) blood for one climactic scene?

Because you begged to see it.

Carrie had all the makings of a great horror flick, and if it had been the first of its kind, I doubt I'd be so harsh on it now. But Peirce owes far too much to Brian De Palma's original to accept this new Carrie White as anything original, no matter how good the acting or how modernized the production values. Instead, Carrie exists as a testament against remakes, or at least ham-fisted ones that bring little new to the table. It should have been a modern classic, especially with no major horror titles coming out to challenge its dominance. Unfortunately, this new Carrie mainly makes one want to go back and see a true classic from 1976.

Life at Home

Well, it's now that awkward time between blockbuster releases. Last week Todd and I saw The Hunger Games, and now this coming weekend will bring the monster-mashing Wrath of the Titans and fairy tale family comedy Mirror Mirror to the big screen. In between, however, there's just not a whole lot of stuff out there to see. I've been pretty good at seeing most of the big releases so far this year, and there's nothing I feel I have to rent right at this second. I only ever use Netflix to catch up on old TV shows, and so pretty mush all of the films I watch these days are in the theater. for that reason. it's a good thing there's always something that slips between the cracks, and in this case that meant a showdown between Best Foreign Language Academy Award winner A Separation and new indie comedy Jeff, Who Lives at Home. Since I'm sure you can all see the poster to the left, you can probably guess which of those films won the coin-toss. This is nothing personal, Iran; I had a small window to catch a film, and Jeff simply had the better available showtime. This was a film that had caught my attention from the first trailer, thanks especially to its all-too-human family who seem to both despise and love one another at the same time. It was one of my more anticipated films for March, so I was happy that I was able to finally fit this particular title into my busy schedule.

"No, thank you, I'm very happy with my long distance provider..."

In this comedy by brother directors Jay and Mark Duplass, Jason Segel plays the titular Jeff, a pot-smoking thirty year-old slacker living in his mother's basement. Forced out of the house on an errand by mother Sharon (Susan Sarandon), Jeff becomes obsessed with the name Kevin, sure it will lead him to something of great importance. Meanwhile, his brother Pat (Ed Helms) is having issues with his marriage, and begins to suspect that his wife Linda (Judy Greer) is having an affair with another man. Finally, Sharon is trying to consolidate her frustration with her children when she gets an unusual surprise, the discovery of a secret admirer who apparently works in the same office that she does.

The look on his face says it all; this won't end well.

When the film first starts, we can learn a lot about how things are going to go. Jeff loves the movie Signs by M. Night Shyamalan, mostly for its idea that everything and everyone is connected in some way, and despite the 2002 film's apparent unevenness and issues, he appreciates how it threaded multiple narratives on course to the "perfect moment" at its climax. Well, what do you know? I just summarized Jeff, Who Lives at Home pretty much perfectly. Jeff takes a long time to find its feet, struggling through some early scenes with Segel that are barely watchable thank to Jeff himself, whose "unique" take on life takes a lot of getting used to. By this time you might feel as though seeing Jeff was a monumental mistake, but I promise you this: it does eventually get better. The show finally gets going when Jeff and Pat collide, as the main plot of the film finally gets around to being told. Pat's relationship issues are so realistic that you would swear they were written by your ex-boyfriend/girlfriend, and thankfully it is this aspect that drives the film for much of its narrative, taking a break from the existential mumbo-jumbo that began the whole thing. Unlike the plight of her sons, the story revolving around mother Sharon is never dull or feels astray, and its truly original tale is easily the best part of the whole film experience.

Why, hello creepy man.

The acting is at least good enough to keep things interesting, even when the story doesn't. You would think Segel to be perfectly at home as an oversized manchild, but unlike his usual over-animated roles in How I Met Your Mother and The Muppets, Segel plays Jeff's eternal optimism with a level of sincerity I've never witnessed from the actor. Segel is a big kid, but it's nice to see him stop and ACT instead of merely playing. The result is a nice fit for him, and a side I'd love to see more of in the future. Helms is also great, though he occasionally gets into the screaming mode that has already gotten a bit old after two Hangover films. Still, he gets to perform as a great character and run with it, and every scene with him feels completely honest. Sarandon does a wonderful job as the stressed, depressed mother of two disappointing boys, not a surprise to anyone who has seen her in action. While it might seem like a while since Susan Sarandon has made an impact on the big screen, it sure felt like she still had "it" when given the chance. Judy Greer and Rae Dawn Chong also do great work as Pat's estranged wife and Sharon's office friend, respectively.

She doesn't look a day older than Bull Durham

Unfortunately, the film takes a few too many cues from master Shyamalan in telling the tales of these three relatives. I already mentioned the slow opening, but too many scenes from the middle on feel contrived or simply pointless when compared to the big picture. Jeff especially feels out of place as the story takes off without him, hilarious since he's supposedly the film's titular character. That changes at the end, but even the film's supposed "perfect moment" feels forced, though I do have to admit that I never saw it coming. The film really gives too much credence to Jeff's mystical insight, and wraps up the family feud way too quickly to be truly believable. Still, the interaction between the main characters was great, propelling the material above the farce it could have been. The script could have used some cuts or revisions in some places, but on the whole the story felt sincere in its intentions, at least.

Jason Segel is a BIG man...

It's that sincerity that makes Jeff, Who Lives at Home watchable, if not necessarily good. This was probably a film better suited for DVD than the big screen, as the mindset for enjoying this might be so narrow as to encourage pausing midway through and coming back to it later. You might want to see this if you're really itching for an indie comedy, as long as you don't mind that Jeff is really far more dramatic than your average comedy. Otherwise, I'd avoid it, waiting instead for the new blockbusters coming out this weekend.

Up in the Family Tree

I finally saw the George Clooney vehicle The Descendants this past week. Why has it taken me so long to get around to seeing a title nominated for several industry awards and listed on dozens of best of 2011 lists? Well, ever since trailers started appearing this past fall (and it feels even longer ago than that) I can't say was all that impressed with the material or reasons presented for seeing this motion picture. Well, to be honest, there was only one thing about the film that really turned me from seeing this as soon as it came out: director Alexander Payne. Payne is an acclaimed director, but his previous films Sideways and About Schmidt, which his latest trailer are quick to mention, are not nearly the amazing releases that so many have celebrated over the years. Jack Nicholson practically SAVED About Schmidt from itself, and there wasn't one non-detestable character in Sideways. So here we come to The Descendants, a film that looks good on paper but has the demerit of including Payne as its main creator. Still, there was no way I was going to miss seeing this title amid the awards season, and so when the opportunity came to see it this past week with my family, I begrudgingly accepted. I'm glad I did, as I can easily say that The Descendant deserves its place among 2011's best.

We solve crimes

Taking place in urban Hawaii, The Descendants introduces us to Matt King (George Clooney), who is as worn down a man as you can find in the state of Hawaii (where the story takes place). His wife is in a coma from a boating accident, leaving Matt in the dubious situation of raising his two daughters Alex (Shailene Woodley) and Scottie (Amara Miller) by himself while she recovers. Matt is also the trustee of a family trust that controls 25,000 acres of land, which the family must sell due to the rule against perpetuities. The family was just about ready to sell the land when Matt's wife had the accident, and as the sole trustee, Matt has been trying to decide what to do about it. Doctors have told Matt that his wife is not going to wake up again, and by her own instructions the doctors are going to take her off life support, meaning she's only days away from passing. Now he is traveling around Hawaii, telling family and a few close friends about what is happening so that they can say their goodbyes. Alex has no interest in talking about mom, however, and when Matt confronts her on this, she reveals a secret he never knew; his wife was cheating on him with another man.

He might be a lesser-known Bridges, but he has his brother's hair

What separates The Descendants from its predecessors is that there are no gimmicks to detract from the story or message. This might be thanks to the source material, in this case the novel of the same name by Kaui Hart Hemmings, which I've never read but has doubtlessly become more popular since this film's release. Unlike in his previous efforts, Payne's characters FEEL genuine and three dimensional, with no stilted cliches mixed in. Matt's wife, played by Patricia Hastie, doesn't have a single line of dialogue, and yet is STILL completely characterized through the people who know her. This depth of character is what separates The Descendants from many of its contemporaries, and really draws you into the story, which without that depth might be far less impressive than it turns out. Another nice touch is the scoring. While we're told early on that living in Hawaii is the same as living anywhere else and is not really the "paradise" many call it, one unique aspect is the amazing soundtrack full of authentic Hawaiian music. This is the first American film to be scored entirely with that state's traditional music, and tunes from masters like Gabby Pahinui, Raymond Kane, and Keola Beamer are perfectly set against he beautiful sunsets and sandy beaches of many a person's vacation destination. While I wouldn't recommend listening to the music by itself (it's slowly paced and only for true fans of the genre) it does make an amazing accompaniment to the main show.

How much product to you think he puts in that mop, anyway?

Of course, those aforementioned deep characters would be nothing if not for the amazing acting in portraying them. There's no surprise that the best are Clooney and Woodley as the troubled and disconnected father and daughter, who each undergo transformations throughout the course of the story. Clooney is (as he always is these days) brilliant, but I was really lifted by the strength of Woodley's performance. 2011 proved to be a breakout year for several actors, and the Secret Life of the American Teenager star proves she has what it takes to be a lasting presence in mainstream film for years to come. Many of the side characters are played expertly by veteran performers, including standouts like Robert Forester as Matt's stern father-in-law and Judy Greer as a woman Matt meets while traveling the state. Another young prodigy is Nick Krause as Alex's friend Sid, a mouthy neanderthal of a teen who turns out to be more perceptive and helpful than he at first lets on. And Beau Bridges is masterful as Matt's cousin, one of the many who will benefit from the sale of the land. While he only appears in a couple of scenes, Bridges masterfully commands his scenes and is only behind Clooney and Woodley in terms of pure screen presence.

No backseat driving!

The film does have a few issues, however those that exist are nowhere near what I was expecting. The film does meander in a few locations, though those are thankfully easy to ignore. The biggest issue I had with the film was the opening monologue consisting of Clooney's voice over to set the story in motion. With the actor going on for seemingly ten minutes to start the film, I was afraid that Payne would take a "tell" instead of "show" approach when it came to storytelling. Thankfully, that voice work ends completely after story setup is finished, and the rest of the film is told from a far more subtle perspective, with character interaction, visual imagery and deft facial expressions moving us forward. Never are we confused as to what is going on, though the film does hold back some small details to keep the audience from knowing too much too soon. And the ending is thankfully free of ridiculous cliches or unbelievable plot resolutions, resulting in a refreshing change for your dollar.

Best Supporting Actress of 2011?

Despite all these great things, How The Descendants really surprises is by truly becoming more than the sum of its parts. Between the excellent acting, superb storytelling and deft direction (proving Payne has what it takes to make a truly great film), this film manages to crack the year's Top 10, coming in at number 10. Not bad for a film I had discounted early on, proving that prejudgment of a film or the quality of its trailer have no basis in how the final product will finally be. As for Clooney and company, if you're one of those people who watch all the Oscar films. than The Descendants was probably already occupying a solid portion of your radar. If not, take the time and see this truly worthy title.