Day 86 -- No Strings Attached

Released: January 21st, 2011

Starring: Natalie Portman, Aston Kutcher, Jake M. Johnson, Kevin Kline, Ludacris, Olivia Thirlby
  
Writer/Director: Elizabeth Meriwether/Ivan Reitman

Description: A guy and girl try to keep their relationship strictly physical, but it's not long before they learn that they want something more.

[Review may contain spoilers. Please watch movie before reading, unless you don't care. Most of these films have already been released for a while, so they should be readily available.]

***

Usually my choices for this project come from either an actress that I enjoy watching on screen, or a subject matter that seems interesting, or it's an indie that got a lot of praise. While this film does have Natalie Portman in it, which satisfies the first quota, she was not the reason I chose it. In my many hours of listing to podcasts, I heard Elizabeth Meriwether talk about the process of getting the film produced and how it was in process well before the very similar "Friends with Benefits". Well, at least the premise was the same.

Meriwether's writing style is easily recognizable in "No Strings Attached", especially for those who are fans of her TV show "The New Girl". Her quirky sense of humor is littered throughout the movie, and her propensity to create an independent and unique females character is what helps separate this movie from other romantic comedies. Even though it does fall into the traps of most rom-coms at times, her strong comedic writing make the jokes funny rather than eye-rollers.

The film's story consist of Adam (Kutcher) and Emma (Portman), who first met at summer camp when they were 14, and periodically run into each other over the next decade. After a night when Adam is drunk dialing everyone in his phone, he eventually passes out at Emma's place. They have spontaneous sex and leave the apartment. From this point forward, the plot takes a little bit of a detour from your stereotypical rom-com as male character is the one who develops feeling first, and the female character is the one who just wants sex.

No offense to Mila Kunis and Justin Timberlake, but the chemistry needed to make this love story believable require the talent and experience in the genre that Kutcher and Portman provided. The audience believed almost every second of their relationship. Obviously there were scenes that induced the groans that are natural while watching a movie of this ilk. The glaring example was the milkshake with two straws part of the "date" which was the weakest part of the movie's story. Only because almost every other convention in the film was written with a different spin, but this scene screamed lazy  But Kutcher and Portman's chemistry allows you to glance over this mistake something the other two actors wouldn't have been able to do.

I have to admit, I forget how good Portman is in a comedic role. Even though I've seen "Garden State", her comedic timing always surprises me. Probably more known for her dramatic roles and who can blame people after she won the Oscar for "Black Swan", Portman can hold her own and improve any film from any genre. She is one of the best all-around actors of our generation.

Kutcher has a niche, and this type of film is it. He was born to be the lead in romantic comedies. While some would see this as a derogatory comment, it's really a compliment. Think of how many actors try and fail to succeed in the genre. Ben Affleck wishes he could pull it off as well as Kutcher, and even Matthew McConaughey falls short in most of his attempts. Kutcher has the charm and timing to create an interesting character; it is impossible to not root for him to succeed. It's a skill and shouldn't be mocked.

There were very few moments or performances that disappointed me, which isn't to say this was the greatest rom-com ever, but it one of the best I've seen in a while. Meriwether's writing made me laugh out loud a few times and I never rolled my eyes at a punch line. Even the "period" scene was done in a way that was funny and interesting. The bit about Adam making Emma  a "period" mix-CD -- every song was about blood and flow -- was fresh and perfect way to show the progression that Adam's character had made toward showing his feelings for Emma. 

"No Strings Attached" succeeded because of it writing, acting, and it's terrific supporting cast, which included the always funny, Kevin Kline. Most rom-coms tend to follow a paint by number script that's all too familiar to veteran movie-goers, but Meriwether's fresh take on the genre gives us hope that a good story can actually exist in the rom-com world. 

Rating: 5.5/10 -- While it's fresh and new, it's still being held back by some conventions that I'm disappointed weren't changed. Kutcher and Portman look good together and create some good chemistry. A prime example of what a great support cast can do for a movie.

Day 85 -- The Poker House

Released: June 20th, 2008

Starring: Jennifer Lawrence, Selma Blair, Chloe Grace Moretz, Bokeem Woodbine, Sophia Bairley, David Alan Grier
  
Writer/Director: Lori Petty

Description: A dramatization of Lori Petty's teenage years spent in small town Iowa.

[Review may contain spoilers. Please watch movie before reading, unless you don't care. Most of these films have already been released for a while, so they should be readily available.]

***

Before going into the review, let's talk about the idea of a writer/director creating a movie based on their life. Most people would see that as the best way to make it realistic, but in most cases, it becomes an over-dramatization of the situation. The most realistic biopics are when the subject helps out, but is not directly involved in the production. This allows the movie to avoid a woe is me, emotional beatdown that can occur within a true story told by the person the film depicts.

"The Poker House" is a day in the life of Agnes (Lawrence) in 1970s Iowa. Agnes is the on-screen doppelganger of writer/director Lori Petty -- you know, Kit from "League of Their Own." Agnes is the eldest of three children, who all live in a whore house with their drug addict, prostitute mother played wonderfully by Selma Blair. Agnes is the most mature of the clan, and is completely independent from the craziness going on at the Poker House. She is a star basketball player and a budding poet, and appears to be well-like by everyone she knows.

But she falls into the same trap her mother does, and falls for the local pimp, Duval (Woodbine). Agnes truly believes that Duval is in love with her, but her fantasy comes crashing down when he rapes her on the living room floor. Her mother has no sympathy for her and chooses Duval over her daughter when Agnes threatens his life. The strong willed girl puts all of this drama behind her, goes to her basketball game and somehow single-handedly wins the game after arriving in the fourth quarter.

The performances in this movie are so much better than any other part of the production that I felt sorry for the actors. Lawrence, once again, is spectacular. She is a chameleon when the camera is on, and she always finds a way to take the character right to the height of emotion without over-acting the dialogue. All of the great things she does in "Winter's Bone" she does here, but the writing and direction are so subpar that I doubt many people even know about this movie.

Going in I already knew that Lawrence was the lead, and was expecting her typical A+ performance, but I was surprised by the supporting role of Chloe Moretz -- best known as Hit Girl from "Kick Ass". She has maybe five or six scenes in the movie, but she steals them all. The most entertaining scenes in the film involve her and David Alan Grier talking in a bar. Grier plays a local drunk who's tweaking during his day drinking, and Moretz is the youngest sister, who has stayed at the bar because she doesn't want to go home. There is one particular monologue by Moretz about Goldfish crackers that highlights the talent of this future star. She made up for the pitiful acting by Sophia Bairley, who played the middle sister.

If Lori Petty was going for an emotionally draining experience instead of a well-crafted movie then she succeed, but if she was trying to make a good film, she failed miserably. The movie is very choppy in its editing, confusing in its timeline, and anti-climatic in its ending. The drama of the basketball game was so weak that it elicited a yawn from me.

It felt like a collection of scenes rather than a well-threaded plot. Not much happened until the rape scene. I'm all for character building, but it needs to be done well to overshadow a weak conflict. The under the surface conflict of Agnes' relationship with her mother was told mostly through voice overs than actual dialogue between the characters. The lack of build-up makes the confrontation after the rape seem forced.

"The Poker House" has a really good movie somewhere inside of it, but the failure of its writer/director/subject makes the movie a giant mess that is hard to stay interested in. If it wasn't for Lawrence, Moretz and Grier, there wouldn't be anything redeeming about the film. It's the perfect example of the person behind the story getting too involved in the production, and making it all about her rather than what the real story should be. The lack of development of the supporting character is what makes this movie forgettable, and the polar opposite of a movie like, "Winter's Bone".

Rating: 4/10 -- The performances in this movie are the only thing that make it watchable. It is always intriguing to see breakout stars in the films they made before the notoriety. Lawrence and Moretz are always worth the time spent watching them perform.

Day 84 -- Chalet Girl

Released: October 14th, 2011

Starring: Felicity Jones, Ed Westwick, Sophia Bush, Brooke Shields, Bill Nighy, Tamsin Egerton
  
Writer/Director: Tom Williams/Phil Traill

Description: Pretty tomboy Kim Matthews, 19, used to be a champion skateboarder - but now she's stuck in a dead end job trying to support her Dad. Opportunity comes knocking in the form of a catering job in the one of the most exclusive chalets in the Alps.

[Review may contain spoilers. Please watch movie before reading, unless you don't care. Most of these films have already been released for a while, so they should be readily available.]

***

It is nice to see that other countries produce mind-numbing films just like America. Usually there's a mystique about British films in the U.S. in which most audiences assume that every movie produced is like "Sense and Sensibility" or "The English Patient".  But, alas, they make really terrible romantic comedies just like us.

"Chalet Girl" was originally chosen for this project because another movie with Sophia Bush in it ("The Narrows") has been pulled off Netflix. I was intrigued when I noticed that Felicity Jones, who I love in "Like Crazy", was the star of this film, and Bill Nighty never disappoints. But this movie follows every overdone archetype in the history of rom-coms. Rich guy falls for poor girl who is witty and unlike anything else in his life, but is also exactly like his mother. 

Yet, the one concept that is supposed to make it stand out was one of it's most blatant plot holes. So the story is about Kim Matthews (Jones), who was a prodigy skateboarder that disappeared from competition after a car accident killed her mother. This is all laid out in the first five minutes by a commentator covering a skateboarding event. We find out later that Kim quit skateboarding because she has flashbacks to the accident when she attempts to jump.

There are two things wrong with the concept in both idea and execution. Kim is built up as this nation-wide skateboarding phenom, but somehow she goes unnoticed in her small hometown. Now, I'm not saying paparazzi need to be following her around, but I find it hard to believe that she'd be able to work at a fast food restaurant in which hordes of teenagers would patronize on a regular basis. The commentator make it out to be that no one in England knows where she is, or what she is doing right now, and that is contradictory to how they introduce her a mere 30 seconds earlier.

Now let's move on to the tragedy holding her back, which has never been done before (*cough* "Blue Crush" *cough*). The one thing I don't understand is how exactly this car crash is stopping her from performing. I understand if something happened during a competition, but something like a car accident is hard to explain without using stereotypical feelings. Kim can do everything else involved with snowboarding except jumping because she see her car falling off an overpass, and this fear is the reason why she's stopped competing. The major flaw in this is that she snowboards down high peaks without any fear, but put a ramp in front of her and she freezes. The concept tries to create sympathy for Kim without really explaining the core reason why she's like this, and even when they try to it's very elementary and shallow.

Producing a movie with these two flaws would be enough to make any movie mediocre, but Tom Williams decided to throw in a poor girl falls in love with the son of the rich family she works for, and just to "spice" it up a bit, he was engaged. Unlike other romantic comedies, the fiance, Chloe (Bush), wasn't evil, she was the in-the-way girl, which is totally original. The love story was the most paint by number one I've seen during this project. And yes, it had the two friends who love each other, but don't know it yet B plot going on too.

With all of the failures in the script and concept, it was a shame to see solid performances by Jones and Westwick wasted in this movie. Jones, in particular, stood out to me because my only exposure to her was in "Like Crazy", which was more romantic than comedy. She has solid comedic timing, and is probably the British version of Anne Hathaway. Westwick is perfectly suited for being a leading man in rom-coms. He's charming, has sex appeal through the roof and is more than adequate in the acting department. I wouldn't be surprised if we start seeing him pop up in more once "Gossip Girl" is over.

"Chalet Girl" is a British rom-com with lots of problems that occur because studios are unwilling to take any chances with the genre. They know they can milk money out of girls no matter how recycled the material is, and with each passing year a new crop of young adult girls enter the movie-watching audience and ensure that money never dries up.

Rating: 4/10 -- Generic rom-com, who's only redeeming quality is the adorable Felicity Jones, whose beauty is hard to explain, but is obvious to those who watch her. Also, I chose the poster because the "snow-mantic comedy" line is too ridiculous to ignore.

Day 83 -- The Nines

Released: August 31st, 2007

Starring: Ryan Reynolds, Melissa McCarthy, Hope Davis
  
Writer/Director: John August

Description: A troubled actor, a television show runner, and an acclaimed videogame designer find their lives intertwining in mysterious and unsettling ways.

[Review may contain spoilers. Please watch movie before reading, unless you don't care. Most of these films have already been released for a while, so they should be readily available.]

***

Films that don't reveal what they are truly about for two/thirds of the movie can either be frustrating or brilliant. M. Night Shyamalan knows both sides of this, with "Six Sense" as the latter and "The Happening" as the former (plants, really?!). No matter how good you set-up the twist, the reveal is all that matters.

"The Nines" has a story that clear and convoluted at the same time. Throughout the films three parts, you get snippets of information about the truth about the world you are watching. The first part is all about an actor having a mental breakdown and slowly begins to realize that he might be in a "Truman Show"-esque situation; Part two is all about a screenwriter who is trying to create a new TV show, and he is also the subject of a reality show. Then, at the end of this section, we are lead to believe that he is in the most boring video game ever. Finally, the third part he plays a video game creator who gets lost in the wood, but by the end of this segment the audience and the character find out that "G" (Reynolds) is a god (get it "G").

The reveal is so clunky that I felt the need to say out loud to no one in particular, 'this is stupid.' The idea of the story is fantastic and on par with inception, but instead of leaving us with just one big question, "The Nines" leaves its audience with many small questions, which makes the ending confusing. Don't misconstrue this as a statement that everything should be spelled out for the audience, but rather, I'm campaigning for writers to know what questions to leave hanging and what ones to answer. You can answer questions and be mysterious, but if you leave too many loose strings, you undermine the entire first two acts of the film.

There are many ways to interpret the story of "The Nines". One is to take it at face value as a film about a god-like being that got too involved in the world he created, or you can take it like I did, as a metaphor for screenwriting. 

Before you roll your eyes, think about it, "G" can change the world with a single thought, and he says that the final world is his 90th, which can be equivalent to a writer's final draft. The two other examples that stick out to me is when "G" mentions to "M" (McCarthy) that the worst scenario, if he stops being involved, is the fiery destruction of the world, which is a reference to what could happen once a screenwriter hands his script over to a director. Finally, the line "S" (Davis) says during his "intervention"spoke to me as a writer, she says, 'If you stay, you'll keep changing the pine cones,' which refers to revision. The process of revision is a hard one because you start agonizing over the most minute details of your script or your world, or as she said, 'the pine cones'.

The performances were uneven. Reynolds only stood out in the middle section, McCarthy was great in the opening scenes, and Davis, and it may just be me, was painful to watch. The inconsistency is the byproduct of having actors play three completely different characters in the course of a 99-minute movie. It's obvious that none of the actors ever got comfortable in their role, and McCarthy especially had a hard time playing herself in the "Reality Television" segment. With all of the different intersecting moments and convolution in the story, the film needed about another half-hour to properly build the characters and clarify the story.

"The Nines" is an interesting idea that was just rushed to fit its run-time. John August did a really good job setting three different tones in each section so that the audience could understand that these were different world. Despite all of the good work he did, his failure to properly pace the reveal is the film's undoing.

Rating: 5/10 -- Inconsistent performances and uneven storytelling mar an otherwise solid film. Reynolds and McCarthy are good, but again, Davis pulls the quality of the film down.

Day 82 -- Mega Shark vs. Crocosaurus

Released: December 21st, 2010

Starring: Jaleel White, Gary Stretch, Sarah Lieving, Robert Picardo, Dylan Vox
  
Writer/Director: Nicole L. Selfman/Christopher Ray

Description: Whoever wins... we lose!

[Review may contain spoilers. Please watch movie before reading, unless you don't care. Most of these films have already been released for a while, so they should be readily available.]

***

The Sci-Fi original films are an event unto themselves and really shouldn't be compared to real movies, but they are produced and put on film so they deserve a review. I seriously think these films are conceived as a way to see how much ridiculous stuff can be put into a movie, and not for really advancing the art form.

I was surprised to see that there was even a writer for "Mega Shark vs. Crocosaurus". If you would have told me that all of the lines were ad-libbed, I would have believed you. The dialogue is terrible, the characters were poorly designed, and the plot was an ADD kids' dream, but I loved every minute of it.

Even the most stuffy critic has to admit that there's a place in the movie world for terrible, terrible films that put a smile on your face. Some of my examples being: "Mansquito", "Captain Ron" and "Killer Clowns From Outer Space". These film will never be taught at USC or NYU Film School, but will always stop me from channel surfing. It really takes effort to make movies this awful.

The second installment of the "Mega Shark" series (Yes, it's a series) features Urkel...er, I mean, Jaleel White as Dr. Terry McCormick, a shark "expert". He is currently attempting to invent a way to repel the mega shark using soundwaves, and isn't having much success. Meanwhile, Nigel (Stretch) has stumbled upon a giant crocodile in an African Swamp and captures it. After bring it to sea, he finds that the mega shark is feasting on the giant crocs eggs, and thus, the battle begins.

McCormick and Nigel are recruited by the U.S. Government to stop the two beast, which apparently includes blowing up Panama (yes, the real country of Panama is destroyed). They are lead by Agent Hutchinton (Lieving), who is a tough as nails agent that doesn't smile. The trio romp though Miami, Orlando (the mega shark eats all of the whales in Sea World) and finally ending up in Hawaii. This is where they eventual stop the creatures by blowing up a volcano (swear to God). Like I said, fun times.

Critiquing the performance would be like writing a review on a four-grade production of "Les Miserables". None of the actor are ever going to be nominated for an award or star in anything other than B-movies. The fact that I was missing both Debbie Gibson and Tiffany says something about the level of acting in the movie. But to be honest, we aren't watching these movie for the acting.

"Mega Shark vs. Crocosaurus" is another one of those movies that are enhanced by the introduction of friends and alcohol. It's not even close to being a respectable movie in terms of quality, but it's high on the entertainment. These movies are the reason "Mystery Science Theater 3000" is such a quality show, there's just so much to comment on.

Rating: 1.5/10 -- As a movie it's bad, but I will always watch it. Also, they are making a third movie where the mega shark battle a mecha shark. I know I can't wait either.

Day 81 -- St. Elmo's Fire

Released: June 28th, 1985

Starring: Rob Lowe, Demi Moore, Emilio Estevez, Andrew McCarthy, Ally Sheedy, Judd Nelson, Mare Winningham
  
Writer/Director: Joel Schumacher and Carl Kurlander/Joel Schmacher

Description: A Group of friends, just out of college, struggle with adulthood. Their main problem is that they're all self-centered and obnoxious.

[Review may contain spoilers. Please watch movie before reading, unless you don't care. Most of these films have already been released for a while, so they should be readily available.]

***

Every generation has an obsession with a decade before it, and reintroduce clothes and music into current styles. Whether it be the leather jackets of the 50s, or tie-dye shirts from the 60s, there's a certain curiosity of how things were before they were born. My obsession is the 80s, and how bat-shit crazy that decade appears from afar.

Which brings us to "St. Elmo's Fire" and one of the decades forgotten gems. Released during the Brat-Pack era of "Breakfast Club" and "Sixteen Candles", it features every member except for Molly Ringwald, and a more adult story than those previous mentioned movies. It follows a group of friends who have graduated college, and are now navigating the real world. They each represent a "type" of early-20s Yuppies in the 80s.

Demi Moore is the one who is living above her means, Emilio Estevez is the one who doesn't know exactly what he wants to do, Andrew McCarthy is a lonely, struggling journalist, Rob Lowe is the one who desperately misses college and can't adjust, Mare Winningham is the one who is the most put together but also is the most naive, Judd Nelson is the overachieving one who works in politics and likes to run around behind his girlfriend back, and Ally Sheedy is the blissfully in love young professional who doesn't know her boyfriend is running around on her. And despite the cookie cutter characters, the actors and the writer do as good job making them as 3D as possible, especially with an ensemble cast.

Despite this movie being made almost 30 years ago, there is a part of these character that we all relate to today. I find myself connecting to parts of Kevin (McCarthy), Billy (Lowe) and Jules (Moore) stories, and that is something special for a movie to do that to someone so far removed from the time period. This does not mean that the entire movie was great and close to the quality of a John Hughes movie. While I saw more parts of myself in this film than in, say, "Breakfast Club", I don't have the fond memories of this movie.

There are multiple plot holes and impossible storylines that have really uneven conclusions. Most glaring being Kirby's (Estevez) stalking of Dale (McDowell). He somehow figures out her schedule and at one point, follows her around in the rain. And at no point does she call the cops, even after he tracks her down to her mountain cabin -- which he discovered by threatening to kill her roommate. Despite his behavior, we are meant to see him as the sane, likeable male of the group, which I don't think it was thought out well.

The performances in the movie range from pretty good to dreadful. Not surprisingly, Lowe and Moore give the most dynamic performances, and Sheedy and Estevez are completely miscast. Outside of looking pretty, I don't know much about Sheedy's character; in both personality and story. She's drooled over by two best friends, in one of the most poorly executed triangles, but I don't understand why they want her. This arc would work best in a television series because over time the audience would get to know why each guy loves her, and choose a side. The idea of the story was good, but they put the three worst actors in the film in it, so it was painful to watch.

If you saw this movie when it was released, it was obvious who was going to have the best career. The most memorable characters in this film were Jules and Billy, and it was not even close. Lowe and Moore did the best job of making their characters feel real. The scene in her jeep when they are drunk and she was going to confide in him but he doesn't listen was powerful, and the payoff at the end when he stops her from killing herself during the movie's climax is great plotting.

"St. Elmo's Fire" is a good movie to compare with the dominate John Hughes films of the decade. It is the best non-Hughes movie of the Brat-Pack era. The plot is not offensive, but it's not anything special either. It tries to say something, but it's voice falls flat. It is a mess of convoluted, intersecting storylines that usual involve randomly interjecting a line to reminds us that they are all friends. It's a movie that could be much better as a TV show.

Rating: 5.5/10 -- Fun movie, which does a great job of using its score to enhance the scenes. Would have benefited from better casting in the supporting roles, but the standout performances by Lowe and Moore are the heart of the movie.

Day 80 -- From Paris with Love

Released: February 5th, 2010

Starring: John Travolta, Johnathan Rhys-Meyers, Kasia Smutniak
  
Writer/Director: Luc Besson and Adi Hasak/Pierre Morel

Description: In Paris, a young employee in the office of the US Ambassador hooks up with an American spy looking to stop a terrorist attack in the city.

[Review may contain spoilers. Please watch movie before reading, unless you don't care. Most of these films have already been released for a while, so they should be readily available.]

***

Spy-action movies are a genre that I don't think will ever go away. As long as people are fascinated by things that may or may not be going on behind the curtain. There's always a need for people to find entertainment in a group or field that is shroud in secrecy, with the government -- most notably, the CIA -- and the mob at the top of the list. But with this fascination comes the inevitable over-saturation of the genre, and the eventual fatigue by the audience until something truly great comes along.

"From Paris with Love" is the beginning of that fatigue. John Travolta stars as, Charlie Wax (really?!), an American Spy looking to stop a terrorist attack in France. He is teamed up with an employee of the U.S Ambassador to France named James Reece (Rhys- Meyers). After meeting each other, all your standard action movie quotas are met: The pair learn to trust each other, James kills his first person and doesn't know how to react, and Charlie has an affinity for big guns. The story movies along at a pretty quick pace as they try to figure out who is behind the drug ring that may have indirectly caused the death of the Secretary of Defense's daughter. But the pair stumble on to a plot to bomb a diplomatic summit meeting.

The big twist in the movie occurs when it is revealed that James' girlfriend had been spying on him the whole time they were dating, and that she is the bomber. It all concludes in a big action scene where James does things that would have gotten him shot on sight in real life. The scenes are pretty out there even for this genre, and they include Charlie destroying a vehicle with a rocket launcher, and James trying to dissuade Caroline (Smutniak) from finishing her mission by professing his love to her, which fails.

Travolta tries to incorporate two of his more famous characters that relate to this genre into Charlie Wax: Chilli Palmer and Vincent Vega. He wants Wax to be as smooth as Chilli and as lethal as Vega, but he just comes off as a parody of spies in the genre. He's nuts and a loose cannon, but also the best spy in the world. It's like the writers went to the spy character handbook and picked out a template. There is nothing original about his character, and Travolta does nothing to make it stand out. It's really a shame that he's fallen so far as a top notch actor, but I guess starring in "Wild Hogs" can do that.

Throughout the whole movie, I kept thinking that Rhys-Meyers would kick ass as Charlie. That's not good casting when your green, naive partner in the buddy spy movie looks just as bad ass as the "bad ass". There were even times when he out-acted Travolta, and it was hard to watch. But that does not mean that the character of James was well performed or well written, it just mean that he was able to rise above the material at times. The character itself has no real starting point in the story, and no real place in it, until the twist scene near the end.

The writing and direction was as paint-by-number as you could get in a genre that is full of copycat stories. If you couldn't predict what would happen next, then you obviously have not watched enough spy movies or you're in the 4th grade. Besides the predictable-ness of the script, it was very bland and didn't use Paris well enough -- it was the opposite of a Bond movie.

"From Paris with Love" is a run of the mill, popcorn action film with a very thin plot: bad guys bad, must stop bad guys. Even though the film has fun action sequences, I had a hard time not checking my phone or going on the internet. For all of its bluster and star power, it just isn't a very good movie, and possibly the end of this kind movie.

Rating: 5/10 -- Boring, but it's still an okay action film. Travolta needs desperately to jump start his career again, and when he does, he should call Tom Hanks.

Day 79 -- One Week

Released: March 29th, 2011

Starring: Joshua Jackson, Liane Balaban, Emm Gryner, Jane Spidell 
  
Writer/Director: Michael McGowan

Description: Chronicles the motorcycle trip of Ben Tyler as he rides from Toronto to Tofino, British Columbia. Ben stops at landmarks that are both iconic and idiosyncratic on his quest to find meaning in his life.

[Review may contain spoilers. Please watch movie before reading, unless you don't care. Most of these films have already been released for a while, so they should be readily available.]

***

Why does any director believe that a narrator adds any thing to a story. It goes against everything you are taught as a writer; it's telling instead of showing. Also, it really takes you out of the movie. If I wasn't watching this for the project, I would have turned it off like I did "Vicky Christina Barcelona".

"One Week" is the story of a man diagnosed with stage four cancer that has a very low survival rate. He decides that instead of starting treatment for the cancer, he's going to ride cross country (Canada) on his motorcycle. Thus begins a modern road movie.

Along the way he runs into several characters that all find a way to change his life, and make him understand what living is about before he passes. He smokes a joint with a cancer survivor who makes him realize that he may not be in love with his fiance, he has his bike repaired by a ranch owner who teaches him that he always should keep trying new things, and he runs into a hiker, who after a night of passion, helps him solidify that he want more in his life. These moments would all be boring segments if it wasn't for the charisma of lead actor, Joshua Jackson.

Jackson, like his "Dawson's Creek" cast-mate, James van der Beek,  has gotten much better at his craft with age. If it wasn't for Jackson's charm, the character of Ben would be completely unlikeable. But we deal with the selfishness and indecision because we inherently like Jackson. He has the rare ability to make you feel what his character is feeling without saying a word, and by the end, I wanted Ben to survive despite the odds.

Unfortunately, this movie was not a one-man show -- it was probably as close as you'll ever get, though -- and the supporting actors did nothing. Especially Liane Balaban, who played the fiance, Samantha. She was about as wooden and bland as you can get. Despite all of the emotion that should have been flowing through her, she was in complete monotone in every scene. She was way too calm and understanding for the situation. I would have taken one screaming argument, but alas, she took everything and gave up without a fight. Disastrous casting choice. And in terms of the road trip characters, none of them truly stood out and most of their scenes are forgettable.

The writing of the interactions Ben had and the conversations with his wife were spot on, but the side stories and especially the narrator, were very subpar. Outside of unneeded narration, making a character's small choices all of sudden help everyone he encounters is one of my major pet peeves. 

In two instances in the film, Ben indirectly saves a women from a train wreck by missing a doctor's appointment, and helps another fall in love by convincing her that she needs to visit her son. Both of these moments were completely unnecessary and after the revel that he wrote a book about his experiences, make Ben seem very narcissistic. These were the two reason -- side stories and narration -- why this film didn't get enough support to receive a limited release in the U.S., despite Jackson leading the cast.

The film gains a lot of points because of the story. While some of the telling aspects were bad, the idea that a man would put off cancer treatment to go live instead of start to die, is very compelling. The question of the movie is, 'what would you do if you had only one day, week or month to live?' And I think we would all want to have the experiences and the clarity gained by Ben during his journey. I really wish the script itself was better.

"One Week" is a film with so much potential that it's sad that the execution was so poor. The narrator added nothing, the side stories added nothing and the actress playing his fiance added nothing. All three of these could have easily be fixed: the narrator talks less, eliminate the side stories, and do a better job with casting. But sometimes indie films don't have much opportunity to see if something works before putting it in the movie, and I imagine it was especially difficult for this project because of the constant moving of filming locations across Canada. But that still doesn't excuse the terrible narration and the fact that a good director would have cut it from the script. It screams, 'look at me, I'm a clever writer,' but this is what happens with a mediocre writer/director.

Rating: 5.5/10 -- Could have been a powerful film if they left out the awful narration. Jackson is superb and is clearly carrying the rest of the cast. A very intriguing concept that is butchered by the writer/director. Did I mention that I didn't like the narration?

Day 78 -- Itty Bitty Titty Committee

Released: September 28th, 2007

Starring: Melonie Diaz, Nicole Vicius, Carly Pope, Deak Evgenikos, Lauren Mollica
  
Writer/Director: Tina Mabry and Abigail Shafran/Jamie Babbit

Description: High School grad and all American gal, Anna finds her purpose and herself after she hooks up with the radical feminists in The Itty Bitty Titty Committee.

[Review may contain spoilers. Please watch movie before reading, unless you don't care. Most of these films have already been released for a while, so they should be readily available.]

***

It is always interesting to watch a movie from a perspective that you are not all that familiar with in your life. Whether it's a movie like "The Help" that is told from the position of a black maid in the south in the 60s, or the Japanese in WWII. Many movie goers don't venture too far outside of what they know and what they can relate, too. But I feel that a movie's overarching story should not be a reason to avoid a movie.

"Itty Bitty Titty Committee" is told from a world that is the complete opposite of mine. The movie centers around a small feminist organization known as Clits in Action, or C(i)A, which for me is not a group that I've been around too much. As much as the movie talked about the ideals and beliefs of the group, it also told a good story.

A lot of movies that I have watched that involve homosexuals -- male or female -- tend to be more of the stereotypical variety, but the women in this movie are not. While some do look the part, they do not act it. Meat (Evgenikos), for example, looks like how most men see lesbians: short hair and wearing more masculine clothing, but she doesn't portray the mainstream "butch" lesbian. This especially comes through when she talks to Anna (Diaz) about not falling for Sadie (Vicius). The situation is treated just like a heterosexual relationship, and not some crazy story to make it seem more exotic. It help to show some close minded people that we are all alike.

All I kept thinking through out this film is how relatable all of character were. They weren't treated like alien beings that do and react to thing in a completely different way than everyone else. The actual conflict in this movie was the relationship between the women, and not the conflicts they faced because of their views of the world. Sure, some things were thought provoking, but the storytelling was spot on and it didn't feel like I was watching a propaganda film. It was much closer to a coming of age film.

Most of the credit for the likeable characters belongs to the actors. Diaz especially was brilliant as she transformed Anna from a naive teenage lesbian into a strong, independent woman who ends up leading the group in their most public demonstration: putting a penis on top of the Washington Monument and blowing it up on live TV (Spoiler: it was fake). 

The only actress I found myself constantly rolling my eyes at was Carly Pope. There were multiple times in the movie where I felt she was trying to hard to be a tough girl. The character of Shulamith was supposed strong willed and opinionated, not like a girl looking for a bar fight. She nailed this at times, especially the protest scene in Sacramento, but failed in most of her early scenes with Diaz. I realize she didn't trust her, but I felt her character would have had a more condescending tone than the confrontational one she had with Anna.

One of the big flaws with the film is that they had the most generic love triangle. The problem with most love triangles is that there's always one choice that's better than the other, and the film gives no consequences to the person that has been stringing along two people. They always end up happy. I would just once like to see the person at the top of the triangle end up unhappy, and the other two move on and find happiness. There was not one point in the movie from the moment they met that I didn't think Sadie and Anna would end up together.

"Itty Bitty Titty Committee" is an engaging movie that can be related to from any perspective. I went into the movie expecting bad acting and lazy writing, but I quickly became interested in the story and the characters. While it's not perfect, the movie is surprisingly watchable. It is definitely an example of not judging a book by it's cover.

Rating: 5.5/10 -- Solid characters and a story that doesn't get convoluted when it easily could have been. Even though it was less than 90 minutes, the was still some fat to trim, especially the scenes involving Anna's job -- there's no way she would have kept that job as long as she did in real life. Could have spent that time telling deeper backstories on the women.

Day 77 -- Brothers

Released: December 4th, 2009

Starring: Natalie Portman, Tobey Maguire, Jake Gyllenhaal
  
Writer/Director: David Benioff/Jim Sheridan

Description: A young man comforts his older brother's wife and children after he goes missing in Afghanistan.

[Review may contain spoilers. Please watch movie before reading, unless you don't care. Most of these films have already been released for a while, so they should be readily available.]

***

Sometimes filling your cast with powerful A-list actors can be a hindrance to your film because they don't really mesh together, and therefore, there's no connection to the audience. Egos come into play a lot, and some actors worry too much about number of lines rather than creating a great piece of art. Some people don't work well with perceived equals and need to feel superior to their peers.

"Brothers" fortunately suffers from none of these issues. Natalie Portman, Tobey Maguire and Jake Gyllenhaal all bring top-notch performances and the trio help raise each other's individual performances. Maguire, especially because this film came out in the shadow of the terrible final chapter of  his "Spiderman" movies, reminded us of how good of an actor he can be with the right script. He, along with Gyllenhaal, brings an intensity to this movie that I rarely see anymore.

Sam (Maguire) and Tommy (Gyllenhaal) are polar opposites as brothers; the former is Marine Captain and the latter is a ex-convict. After Sam is deployed for the fourth time overseas, he is captured and presumed dead. This leaves his grieving widow, Grace (Portman), all alone to raise the couple's daughters. Tommy, who has straightened himself out after Sam's death, offer to help and becomes a surrogate father, but he and Grace never really go past a kiss in the intimacy department. Just when everything goes back to normal, Sam is rescued, returns home but is not himself.

He becomes obsessed with the idea of Tommy and Grace sleeping with each other behind his back. This is where the emotion and the performances get turned up a notch, as Sam slowly becomes more and more disturbed -- eventually leading to a stay in a mental hospital -- Maguire begins to shine. The confrontation scenes between the trio are gut wrenching and tear-jerking, but fall just short of transcendence. This flaw usually occurs when one of the three goes a little too over the top with the emotion and makes the scene more soap opera-y than realistic.

Those moments are what keep the film from becoming a truly great film. Great acting, as mentioned before, is all about nuance, with the trick being the ability to make it look like your not acting. When the audience can tell you thought about a reaction, or can tell that you primed yourself before your line, they immediately get pulled out of the world and are reminded that it's a movie. Great films keep you engaged, while good films have lulls in them.

The direction was pretty good. The tone was perfect, and the camera work was almost spot on, but again, it fell just short of greatness. That seems to be the common thread of this movie: the parts are really good, but they just fail to make that final connection to ascend the film into the greatness level.

"Brothers" is a good movie that doesn't purposely shoot itself in the foot. There are just small mistakes that hold it back from it's true potential. These mistakes are not limited to one area as there are acting slip-up, directing miscues and editing oversights. It's one of those solid second tier films that needed one or two things to go differently for it to reach top tier status, which shows you how difficult reaching that level can be for a film.

Rating: 7/10 -- Very well done film that should be viewed by everyone. Reminds us all that Tobey Maguire can act, especially when he's paired with Jake Gyllenhaal instead of Topher Grace. Definitely, a topic most American can relate to today.

Day 76 -- Knockout

Released: April 26th, 2011

Starring: Steve Austin, Daniel Magder, Janet Kidder, Emily Grabinsky
  
Writer/Director: Evan Jacobs, Jack Nasser and Joseph Nasser/Anne Wheeler

Description: A retired boxer tries to help a new student, Matthew Miller (Daniel Magder), who is being targeted by bullies. While learning to box and stand up to his tormentors the young boxer must learn to overcome his tumultuous past.

[Review may contain spoilers. Please watch movie before reading, unless you don't care. Most of these films have already been released for a while, so they should be readily available.]

***

Fairly or unfairly, all boxing movies will always be compared to "Rocky" or "Raging Bull". And ultimately they fall short. The sweet science already has a built-in drama to it that is only lessen by a lazy or convoluted story. The audience needs to have followed a boxer or trainer through a real conflict in order to root for them during the big fight.

"Knockout" tries to tackle bullying and special treatment in high school by using boxing as it's main source of drama. Ex-boxer turned janitor, Dan Barnes (Austin), tries to help a new student who has become the punching bag for the school's star boxer. After Dan save him a few times, Matthew (Magder), asks him to train him, and the reluctant custodian agrees. Almost immediately, Dan sees heart and natural talent in his pupil, who apparent has inherited his grandfather's feel for the ring.

The very dumb Matt is tricked into a beat down by Hector, and the rest of the sadistic boxing club. Dan saves him again and eventually convinces the club coach to allow Matt to fight in the box-off against...wait for it...go ahead, take a guess...yep, his tormentor, Hector. Holy foreshadowing the act three climax, Batman!

Thankfully, Matt loses the match, but not after he knocks down Hector and gains his respect. Unlike "Legendary", this loss has no build up or emotion behind it like brother bonding moment in the former. There also a terribly written section where everything falls apart, but really doesn't for Matt at the end of act two. Despite, forging his step-father's signature, his parents still allow him to fight, but Dan loses his job. Matt's reaction to this is way too over the top. Mostly because the script gives us no reason to care if Dan has a job or not; now if he was supporting a family...

The writers are either terrible, or the producers got too involved in the creative process. I tend to lean toward the former because it's rare that a script handled by three people is interesting. There are just too many different ideas going into it that help it become a convoluted mess. The scripts tries for inspiration but quickly becomes very boring.

"Knockout" is a forgettable movie that was the perfect comparison for a film like "Legendary". Both movies try to accomplish the same thing but one gives it an earnest effort, while the other feels like a paint-by-numbers story. Once again, inspiration comes from well-written characters, not a well-conceived plot. If the audience can't care about the protagonist, then they will care less about the film's plot points.

Rating: 4/10 -- The boxing feels like a gimmick more than an actual part of the film's plot. Austin is good when he has to be menacing or mentor-y, but he lacks any real talent to deliver lines in a normal conversation. He should stick to action films; if Vin Diesel can do it...

Day 75 -- Legendary

Released: September 10th, 2010

Starring: John Cena, Patricia Clarkson, Danny Glover, Devon Graye

Writer/Director: John Posey/Mel Damski

Description: A book-smart teenager joins his school's wrestling team as a way to reunite his surviving family members, who split apart after the death of his father, a college wrestling legend, 10 years ago.

[Review may contain spoilers. Please watch movie before reading, unless you don't care. Most of these films have already been released for a while, so they should be readily available.]

***

Inspirational films are usually hit or miss in terms of quality and story. "Rocky" and "Miracle" are universally praised, but few talk about the sheer amount of bland and boring imitators that are filmed each year. The inspiration usually comes from the story itself, and requires no nudge from the script.

"Legendary's" main flaw is that there's a disconnect between the story and plot of the movie. Calvin Chetley (Graye) begins wrestling in order to reconnect with his older brother, Mike (Cena), who was a state champion. Mike has been absent since their father died 10 years ago. He is also estranged from his mother, who blames wrestling for everything.

Cal eventually convinces Mike to train him in wrestling. This is where the writer, or director, or editor missed a big opportunity to make this film more inspirational. They only showed Cal fail twice, and all of a sudden he starts winning. There was no build up of him getting close to victory, but falling short. It was too rushed and lack any real emotion in it. But the one thing I'll give them credit for is having Cal lose the title match even though he used the special "reverse cradle". I would have had to suspend belief too much if he had beaten a district champ.

The performances were pretty mediocre. When she was used properly, Patricia Clarkson was great, but she was vastly underused. John Cena's only poor scene was the bonding moment before the big match when he teased Cal about listening to opera. He delivered that line so unnatural that it made me cringe, but that was rare during the bulk of  his scenes. The standout was Madeleine Martin of "Californication" fame, who played love struck, Luli, and made me believe her love for Cal was real and not tacked on to the film.

"Legendary" falls just short of being a solid film. All that was need was a better training montage and more showing than telling in the story's main conflict which revolved around the Chetley family. The dad's death was dealt with in exposition near the end of the film. A flashback scene or even an old newspaper article would have been better than telling it through dialogue. Exposition never works, never.

Rating: 5/10 -- Solid story that was just missing something. The amateur wrestling was pretty realistic. Also, there was a WWE style entrace for Cal before the last match, which dropped the rating by a half-point.

May the Odds Be Ever In Your Favor

On this week's show we discuss a terrible movie that starred the Hogan Family, our soiler-free (hopefully) review of The Hunger Games, and a rapid fire version of the interrogation.

The Rundown:

Intro
Week In Review
Hunger Games discussion
Interrogation

Be sure to follow us on Twitter (@offthemarktweet) as I will be live tweeting Wrestlemania tonight.