Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World

Edgar Wright is now 3 for 3 (Sean of the Dead, Hot Fuzz, and now this) and he's reached the realm of guys whose work I will check out just because he's involved (joining Woody Allen, Christopher Nolan, and Nic Cage). Scott Pilgrim is one of the the most visually inventive films I've seen in years, and the way the story is told (where everyone appears to live in a universe that operates like a mid-nineties nintendo game) is wholly original. Really the film that it most closely reminds me of is Speed Racer, in that the style of the film drives everything around it, though in Scott Pilgrim's case the acting and script are better.

The plot follows our eponymous hero as he meets the girl of his dreams and then fights her seven evil exes in order to be with her. Along the way he of course learns something about himself, but that's beside the point. The parts are well cast (Kieren Kulkin and Chris Evans in particular) and the film manages to maintain a light and easy pace throughout. The one drawback is that it crams so much in (there are seven distinct battles obviously) that its difficult to care too much about the characters since everything whips by so quickly. Still, the film is really entertaining and you should see it. At least do it so it doesn't bomb, it deserves to do so much better than it has (and at least half to business of Grown Ups to restore some of my faith in humanity).

Piranha 3-D

Look, it has Piranhas and they're in 3-D. If that doesn't get you giggling then there is nothing I can say to get you to see this. Still a few thoughts:

-The film is a lean 82 minutes and doesn't waste any time on explanation or character development. We have a few character introductions, gratuitous nudity and public drunkenness, and then the bloodbath.

-Gratuitous is actually the best word to describe the film. The makers go out of there way to just make every aspect over the top and ridiculous. This is of course the perfect approach for a film about prehistoric piranhas attacking spring breakers, and it actually has a fairly light touch.

-Now I will say that this is the sort of film I have a soft spot for. Much like Lake placid (and to a lesser extent Eight legged freaks) before it, Piranha 3-D embraces the ludicrousness of its premise and just runs with it. Any sort of self-seriousness is death for a film like this, and Piranha studiously avoids it.

-Its always good to see Christopher Lloyd working.

-The way Ving Rhames goes down is perfect.

-The detail on the piranha attacks is actually one of the weaker aspects of the film. There's plenty of blood, but I would have appreciated more detail and not just a whirlwind of activity on the closeups.

-Another reviewer noted that we should forget Avatar and realize that Kelly Brook was the reason 3-d was invented. I won't say that its a completely incorrect sentiment.

-The ending cut is phenomenal

-Its interesting how all the films of this ilk use the casting of well known but past their prime actors as shorthand for any kind of character development. For instance the minute we see Christopher Lloyd show up as a fish expert we can already fill in his back story. Same for Jerry O'Connell as the doppelganger for joe francis. Thus ends the only legitimate film analysis in this review.

Its not a great film, but its a satisfying one that fully embraces what it is and revels in its excess. You could do much worse.

Inception

This is a really good satisfying film (I know way to go out on a limb there Eric), that takes an elaborate heist story and mixes with a the dream world of films like Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Its well executed, and gripping, and I think it would have worked just as well even if the ambiguity abouts its reality that's introduced at its end wasn't included. However since this is the element that's intended to generate the most discussion let me throw in my opinion on whether or not the whole thing was a dream or not, which I warn you isn't that interesting (needless to say Spoilers ahead):

Anyway I do think at least a portion of the film is taking place in DiCaprio's dream (how much I can't say), not because of the top's continued spinning, but because his kids look exactly the same age at the end as they did in his flashbacks. I suspect that the entire opening sequence is 'real' but sometime after the introduction of Ellen Page's character is when we start to spin off into the alternate reality. That's it. I'm sure a google search will yield a plethora of more detailed theories.

My real point, and what I think is the film's real strength, is that I can't say that my enjoyment of the film is effected one way or another by the 'reality' of what happened. This is what elevates it above a lot of other 'twist' films in that it holds up just fine without the change in direction. The ambiguity definitely adds some more room for thought, but just serves to enhance the story rather than dominate it. This places it closer to The Usual Suspects than say most of the works of M. Night whatshisname.

State of Play

This movie really didn't do much for me. Its not that it was bad necessarily, the cast was loaded (Russel Crowe, Rachel McAdams, Helen Mirren, Jason Bateman, Ben Afleck, Robin Wright Penn), and the story was kind of interesting. Unfortunately it really just became a muddle as it tried to be a detective/corporate conspiracy/political thriller all at once, while also shoehorning in a blatant attempt to justify the existence of newspapers against the encroachment of the internet. Too much going on (not surprisingly based on a mini-series) and none of it really grabbed me. I was also distracted by the casting of Ben Afleck as the crusading congressman. Its not that he did a bad job, but the character was supposed to have been roommates with Crowe and the same age as Penn, but he looked about 15 years younger. As a result it was difficult to buy their relationships, which of course are central to the story.

So anyway, not much to say. The film aims much higher than it actually hits, and is overall fairly mediocre and forgettable.

Salt

Salt stars Angelina Jolie in a role originally intended for Tom Cruise, and is pretty much a ninety minute chase scene. Jolie plays a CIA agent who one day is told that she is actually a Russian sleeper agent sent to the US to assassinate the Russian president. This of course throws her life into a tizzy, and she runs off to save her husband* and clear her name with the entire US intelligence apparatus chasing her.

* Quick tangent here - the actor playing her husband is one of the creepier looking guys I've ever seen. Like he should be driving a paneled van around the valley sort of creepy. Its so bad that it makes you question why Jolie would bother risking herself to save him. But I digress.

Anyway Jolie is convincing as a female Jason Bourne, and the action is generally well framed (inasmuch that the director rarely relies on the nausea inducing greengrass style school of shooting). Still the film's plot has so many holes and logical inconsistencies that you're actually questioning it as you're watching. I don't expect these type of films to be realistic per se, but they at least need to be consistent within the parameters of the film. Had the characters behaved at all rationally the film would have been a half an hour shorter (at least) and Jolie's character wouldn't have to go off at the end as a lone wolf (spoiler) to set up a really heavy handed and unnecessary sequel opportunity.

Anyway its not horrible, but the fact that I spent the last fifteen minutes questioning why any of this was necessary means it difficult to call it any more than passable.

The Sorcerer's Apprentice

After The Bad Lieutenant (and adaptation, and the rock, and the clips I've seen of Wicker Man, heck even after Con Air) Nic Cage has won pretty much permanent immunity from me (as much as the National treasure films have sorely tested that statement), so when I saw that he was starring in a Jerry Bruckheimer produced film playing a wizard I was hopeful that there would be enough trademark Cage insanity to offset what was a mediocre, at best, premise. The reviews were mixed to say the least, and that's probably the best way to think of the film. Its pretty up and down, and feels like they cut quite a few scenes in order to get down to its sub-ninety minute run time. Still, even though Cage feels restrained (I mean he's playing a two thousand year old wizard in New York, he should be anything but restrained) there's still enough touches to make the film watchable. If anything some of the throw-away gags (a modern wizard is posing on a Magic - The Gathering poster) are actually fairly clever. Its not quite enough to make me call The Sorcerer's Apprentice a good film, but its moderately entertaining and has enough Cage so that if I saw it on a plane I wouldn't be wholly disappointed.

Additional Note: I thought about this a bit more and I think the real reason the film isn't successful is that they try to force it to be a big budget action film, when the most interesting aspects are the character gags, and the few times they let Cage, Molina, Jay Baruchel, and Toby Kennel riff. Had this not been produced by Disney and Bruckheimer I think there actually could have been something interesting about an insane Wizard training a physics nerd in modern day new york. Probably would have been infinitely quirkier, with less rote action sequences and cliched love story. On the other at least they didn't cast Kevin James.

Hitch

I will have to admit that I only watched about thirty minutes of this. I came home from a gig it was either Hitch or a family guy rerun and since it was one from after season 3 I went with the film. Look from what I saw it wasn't that interesting and completely predictable but I do have two observations:

1) Will Smith is a charismatic guy. Seriously, he really has an easy charm and dynamism that even though he was playing a fairly thinly written uninteresting character I still found him watchable. This may limit the range of roles he's able to play convincingly since he's inherently likable, but still you can see why the guy's films gross a billion dollars.

2) Of course I may have felt that way because the third main character was played by the charisma sucking black hole that is Kevin James. Seriously we get it, he's fat and he falls down, but when your entire shtick is based on pratfalls (and not very imaginative ones at that) it gets old real fast. I actually cringed every time he came on screen and flipped back to Family Guy for a few minutes. I get that his films make a lot of money and more power to him, but he's rapidly becoming one of those guys who automatically causes me to consider seeing the new Kate Hudson film in order to avoid his presence.