Day 7 -- The Men Who Stare at Goats

Released: November 6th, 2009

Starring: George Clooney, Ewan McGregor, Jeff Bridges, Kevin Spacey, Goat

Writer/Director: Peter Straughan/Grant Heslov

Description: A reporter in Iraq might just have the story of a lifetime when he meets Lyn Cassady, a guy who claims to be a former member of the U.S. Army's New Earth Army, a unit that employs paranormal powers in their missions.

[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.]

***

Finally, a comedy that made me laugh. After the train wreck that was "Moving McAllister", it was nice to watch a well-structured comedy. It didn't hurt that "The Men Who Stare at Goats" had actual actors in each role, even the minor roles filled by Stephen Root and Stephen Lang were acted well.

Sure, the movie isn't an all-time comedy, but when the writing is good to pretty good and the acting is good to great, you have the formula for a solid movie-watching experience. From the opening scene of Bob Walton (McGregor) interviewing Gus Lacy (Root), who begins to reveal the secrets of the New Earth Army without much provoking from Walton to the final scene of a high Jeff Bridges and George Clooney flying away in a Helicopter, the entire movie takes absurd moments and makes them not cringe inducing. Sort of in the same vain as "The Big Lebowski".

Bridges, who once again is awesome as a stoner, steals the movie in the scenes he's in. If there was ever a role that fit an actor, this would be it. It's in the same vain of Keanu Reeves and Ted Logan, where the personality of your most famous character tends to slip through to your every performance. Luckily, for Bridges, he's a good enough actor that it's not as noticeable in his more Oscar worthy performances.

The meat of the movie is great comedic chemistry between McGregor and Clooney. These two appeared to be having a lot of fun with the characters and this came through in their performances. It's more than just being able read your lines, the actor needs to nail the nuances of the role, which both do to perfection. There are moments where you literally believe that Clooney's character is completely out of his mind, and that McGregor's is petrified for his life. If this relationship failed, the entire movie would crumble.

It is not a flawless movie by any means, there are moments that make me scratch my head. Maybe it's sacrilege, but the goat bit really didn't resonate with me. I know what the meaning behind it was, but I didn't find it all that funny. And Kevin Spacey's character was a bit of a throw away because it felt like they needed a villain so bad that they made it the most cliched one they could. He was good in the role, but I think it could have done without it. Even if they just had a change in leadership, and that's what disbanded the New Earth Army, would have sufficed for me.

My enjoyment of this film was probably enhanced by my viewing of "Moving McAllister" prior to this, but nonetheless it was an enjoyable experience from start to finish. It won't be on anyone's top-ten list, but it's not something that set the industry back decades, either.

Rating: 6.5/10 -- Good performances keep this movie entertaining enough that I wasn't checking the counter ever ten minutes.

Day 6 -- Moving McAllister

Released: September 7th, 2007

Starring: Mila Kunis, Jon Heder, Benjamin Gourley

Writer/Director: Benjamin Gourley/Andrew Black

Description: Rick Robinson is a ladder-climbing law intern from Miami with four days until the Bar Exam. Desperate to score points with his boss, he commits to a favor he can't afford. He ends up in a rundown truck headed to L.A. with his boss's possessions, his Hollywood-bound niece, and her pet pig. Amidst hitch-hikers, breakdowns, and assorted local yokels, Rick finds love, life and maybe himself in this trans-American road trip from hell.

[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.]

***

I know I warn about spoilers before the article, but I try to avoid them just so I don't potentially ruin a movie for someone. But for this "movie", I honestly don't care. The protagonist gets the girl. The end. Everything else in this movie is inconsequential. The jokes fall flat, the writing is bad, and the acting is absolutely horrendous.

Must like the last movie I reviewed, "Good Dick", the lead actor is also the writer. But that is where the similarities end. Benjamin Gourley uses way too many cliches in the writing of Rick and the performance of said character. He's supposed to be a kiss-ass guy that would do anything to get noticed, as well as being his law school valedictorian, but all he comes off as is a socially inept guy who would wither in a courtroom. It's easily one of the worst performance ever.

If that wasn't enough, he wrote the character of Orlie, played by Jon Heder, which was a bad mix of Napoleon Dynamite and his awful character from "Just Like Heaven".  I guess he was there for comic relief, but I didn't find him all that funny. I couldn't tell if it was Heder mailing it in, or that he had absolutely nothing to work with in the script.

If it wasn't for the on-screen charisma of Mila Kunis, who obviously was the reason I chose this "film", I don't think I would have watched past the first act. Her beauty is what attracts you to the screen, but her acting is what keeps you watching. Even though she didn't have much to work with either, she still gave far and away the best performance in the movie.

Gourley tried really hard to mix a road movie with the odd comedy of a Napoleon Dynamite, which was made more obvious by the inclusion of Heder, but failed miserably. There was also this Clark Kent to Superman transformation that involved his glasses, which he didn't wear for much of the third act. I don't know if that's what he was going for to make us believe Kunis' character would actually like him, or not, but I honestly don't care.

Rating: 2/10 -- Really failed in ever aspect of movie making. Looked like a "C" student's senior film.

Day 5 -- Good Dick

Released: October 10th, 2008

Starring: Marianna Palka, Jason Ritter, Mark Weber

Writer/Director: Marianna Palka

Description: A look at the relationship between a lonely introverted girl and a young video store clerk vying for her attention.

[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 way a movie starts will always determine how interesting it is. If it grabs you in the first 10 minutes or so, you're hooked, but if starts off weird and completely unbelievable, the movie never really comes together for you. "Good Dick" suffers from the latter. 

The way it set up the character's relationship is really creepy and stalker-ish.  Jason Ritter's character gets the address of Marianna Palka's character by stealing it from his work computer. He then, proceeds to sleep outside her apartment for about a week in his car as he knocks on her door every day in order to talk to her, and after she finally let's him in, the movie forgets the ridiculous beginning and becomes more realistic.

Once the movie moves away from the borderline illegal way that the couple meets, Palka's direction, acting and writing begins to shine. As her character backstory is slowly unraveled, she becomes more relatable as a person and therefore, her actions have meaning behind them. Her violent mood swing and odd behavior begin to make sense as Palka make wonderful choices in the role, especially later in the film. She does a good job of portraying a child-molestation victim in a very 3D way without resorting to cliches. You can tell she cared about this character.

Ritter's character's, on the other hand, feels more like a predator-ish guy than a nice guy. It's as though he's only interested in the girl at first because she enjoys soft core porn films, and is probably easy. And until it becomes obvious near the end of the film that he wants to help her, there is no sign that he wants anything but sex. Even his backstory is rushed and never explained fully explained. Just a weird character from start to almost finish. A little disappointed since he's the reason I chose the film.

There was never a moment where I wasn't uncomfortable watching this movie, and I didn't really hate it. There was a very well thought out story that was hampered by an awful beginning. Good cast with good performances but it never really recovered after the first act.

Rating: 6/10 -- Palka does a great job in her triple role, but a bad start kills an otherwise solid experience.

Day 4 -- Conversations with Other Women

Released: August 11th, 2006

Starring: Helen Bonham Carter, Aaron Eckhart

Writer/Director: Gabrielle Zevin/Hans Canosa

Description: When a man and woman flirt with each other at a wedding reception, the sexual tension seems spontaneous. As they break from the party to a hotel room, the flirtation turns into a night filled with passion and remorse.

[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.]

***

In movies, when something is different then any other movie you've seen, you tend to pay closer attention. Whether it be the storytelling in "Memento", or the video game like edits in "Scott Pilgrim vs. the World", a change in film-making has the chance to either enhance the movie or completely drag it down by repetition (I'm looking at you, Matrix Trilogy).

In "Conversations with other Women," director Hans Canosa uses a split screen the entire movie. One frame is reserved for Arron Eckart's character, and the other is occupied by Helen Bonham Carter's. What this allows the editors to do is splice in flashback scenes while still keeping the principal actors in focus, and the side of split that the flashback appears on depends on who's thinking about it. Being able to show emotion from a character in two different time period was pretty brilliant.

During the first act, this choice allows for the storytelling to feel more natural, and helps to reveal the twist of the movie in a very organic way. The promotion and marketing of this film did a great job hiding the fact that this was about a divorced couple reuniting for one night. This revelation comes to light as you begin to notice that the same young actors are being used in both flashbacks.

Add in that Gabrielle Zevin's writing is clever enough tha she doesn't have to outright say what the relationship is between the leads. She allows the audience to do some of the work by connecting the dots through the events that they mention, which doesn't happen in storytelling much anymore. Even the obvious reveal that they know each other still leaves enough mystery that you are excitied when you begin to unravel the story.

But the writing would be nothing without the extraordinary work of Carter and Eckhart, who occupy every single frame -- mostly two frames -- of the movie. Both do a tremendous job of keeping the audience engaged. Even inducing a fear that they might miss a great moment if they focus on one half of the screen.

While not one of her top performances, Carter -- was the reason I chose this movie -- shows her versatility once again, as the married, step-mother of three, who has decided to have one last fling with her ex-husband. Every choice made by her character is very believable, you feel her remorse when she goes in the bathroom to call her husband after her sex-filled night, but you also feel enough chemistry between her an Eckhart that it wouldn't be all that terrible if she stayed with him.

Eckhart's turn from confident flirt to desperate, jilted lover is pretty remarkable. It's not over acted, except in one scene where he starts pumping his arms up and down, and he convinces us that these completely different guys can inhabit one person. Sure, he still over-smiles and exaggerates his laugh at times, but at least with this character it's not as noticeable because most guys would act the same way in this situation. While it's not Oscar-worthy, his performance is the pay off for all the work he's put into his craft; he's not thinking, he's inhabiting.

A few very interesting film-making choices occur in this movie, but none of them really take away from the story. It's a well told story that shows exposition without ramming it down the audiences' throat. The split-screen flashback are something I would mind seeing in future films.

Rating: 7.5/10 -- Strong performances from Carter and Eckhart keep this move from being sleepy. Young directors and writers in the romance/drama genre should take note that this film never has a melodramatic scene, yet it is sad and dramatic. I know I have.

Day 3 -- Remember the Daze

Released: April 11th, 2007

Starring: Amber Heard, Leighton Meester, Melonie Diaz, Brie Larson, Lyndsy Fonseca, Alexa Vega

Writer/Director: Jess Manafort

Description: A glimpse into the teenage wasteland of suburbia 1999 that takes place over 24-hours, and the teenagers who make their way through the last day of high school in the last year of the past millennium. A glimpse into the teenage wasteland of suburbia 1999 that takes place over 24-hours, and the teenagers who make their way through the last day of high school in the last year of the past millennium.

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

***

There are plenty of teen ensemble comedies. Some focus on sex. Some focus on drugs. Some focus on cheerleading. "Remember the Daze" finds a way to focus on all three.   

Most movies in this genre either draw back to John Hughes era, or the first American Pie, but "Daze" uses a different template. The 2007 comedy has more in common -- including part of its name -- with a cult classic from the early-90s: Dazed and Confused. The Parker Posey/Jason London comedy about the last day of school in a small, suburban town in 1976.

During the opening scenes, "Daze" borrows a lot from its inspiration. It's the last day of school in a  small, suburban town, but the twist here is that its 1999. There's even the obligatory Y2K joke. Despite the eerie similarities to Richard Linklater's classic, this movie doesn't have the same charm. It tries very hard to capture that magic, and deliver unforgettable characters, but its fails. If it wasn't for my notes, I would have forgotten the names of most of the characters. The most useless, but surprisingly captivating and interesting, was Bree Larson as the younger sister of Heard's character. I wish they would have developed her more.

Here's a list of similarity: Incoming freshman trying to impress the seniors, a kegger in the middle of a field, destroying property (trash cans instead of mailboxes), and an older character who hangs around with the high schoolers, and a lot of drug use. Similar, but nowhere near as good.

But the one thing it had going for it, and the reason I chose it, was that there were a lot of female characters that were easy on the eyes. Amber Heard was who drove me in original, but the cast was a who's who of actress that have either had past success, or would go on to become part of pop culture. At the time of release, Heard looked on her way to stared with a starring role on "Hidden Palms," but it was a few of her cast-mates that would go on to successful TV work: Leighton Meester of "Gossip Girl" fame, and Lyndsy Fonseca of "Nikita", but better know as the Great White Buffalo from "Hot Tub Time Machine."

Meester and Fonseca have minor roles, but they out-act most of the leading actors. They do the best they can with very generic storylines. Meester is the goody-two-shoes, who finally does some thing irresponsible (take mushrooms while baby sitting), and Fonseca played the in the closet lesbian in a relationship with a friend, which they use to remind us of the time period. The one good surprise was the real of the lesbian couple, when Fonseca character walked in the bathroom and started making out with Melonie Diaz's character.

Mediocre. There no other way to describe it. I would watch it again, but I wouldn't seek it out. At times it looked like the writer copy and pasted from the "Dazed and Confused" script. But he missed one key element: the music. None of the music in this movie really reminded me of 1999 -- when I graduated 8th grade, so it should have felt like a memory  -- so the nostalgia factor, which Linklater really captured, was sorely really missed.

Rating: 6/10 -- Rent Dazed and Confused if you want to see this movie done well. Also, it's a good lesson in how to not make your material look too close to its inspiration.

Day 2 -- Moonlight Serenade

Released: December 8th, 2009 (Original filmed in 2005)

Starring: Amy Adams, Alec Newman, Moon Bloodgood, Harriet Samson Harris

Writer/Director: Jonathan Abrahams/Giancarlo Tallarico

Description: A piano player discovers that the lovely girl at the coat-check of a jazz club has the voice of an angel, and persuades her to form a musical act with him.

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

***

Where to start. This movie is terrible. And that is not a hyperbole. Everything from production, writing, directing, and acting -- minus Amy Adams, of course. She is the reason I selected this film in the first place, and I'm glad that she wasn't awful. Sure, she didn't deserve any awards for this, except maybe for carrying her fellow cast-mates.

A direct-to-video film, and boy does it shows it, Moonlight Serenade appears to be written by a high school girl who really loved musicals. It tries so hard to use the songs to drive the narrative, but it fails so bad. On top of that, the financial wizards plot really makes no sense. Actually, I shouldn't say that, it would make sense if they would have fleshed it out more. Rather everything was so generic. Protagonist Nate Holden (Newman) is an evil stock short-seller, then he falls in love with singer Chloe (Adams), then he decides to change gears and try to make other people money, he then gets fired, and in the end, finds happiness playing in a jazz bar.

Seriously, that's it. The plot was so easy to follow, and probably one of the many reasons this didn't get a theatrical release. I actually put a load of laundry in while the movie was playing, and I didn't miss an important moment. There was a lot of "paycheck acting" in this movie, too. Everyone seemed happy to collect their money and move on. The biggest culprit was Joey DeFrancesco, who was responsible for the movie's "music", as Frank D., the local jazz bar's piano player.

The only positive thing that came out of this movie is that Adams probably used her singing parts, which were actually quite good, to land her breakout role in Enchanted. I actually felt bad for her while watching this movie, but all actors go through it, and I bet its not the last time I see a great actress in an underwhelming feature.

Rating: 3/10 -- It actual made me hate jazz music for a while. It felt like a practice movie.

Day 1 -- The Answer Man

Released: January 18th, 2009

Starring: Lauren Graham, Jeff Daniels, Olivia Thrilby, Kat Dennings, Lou Taylor Pucci

Writer/Director: John Hindman

Description: A reclusive author of spiritual books, is pursued for advice by a single mother and a man fresh out of rehab.

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

***

There are these rare moments in films that I choose to watch where I'm drawn in by an actor or actress, but come to find out that there another performer in the movie that I didn't know was involved, and I get much more excited. The Answer Man is one of those films, which I had originally chosen because of Lauren Graham. The movie had two of my favorite scene stealing actresses: Kat Dennings and Olivia Thirlby.

Dennings and Thirlby have rather small parts in the film, but I was drawn to their characters every time they were on screen, especially Thirlby's Anne. Anne, the obsessive compulsive receptionist for Graham's character's chiropractor office, was played so innocently, and in such a contrast to her sultry roles in other films, that is was genius. Ditto for Dennings, whose portrayal of Dahila, a dim-witted bookstore employee, showed a side I hadn't seen in the normally sassy and sarcastic actress.

It's a wonder to me that an actress, like Thirlby, who can be so captivating on screen hasn't really made an impact in the mainstream. If you don't believe me, watch "The Wackness," which also has a breakout performance from Josh Peck. Hopefully, she'll be the standout star of the Judge Dredd (Really?!) remake, and make a little noise outside of the indie world.

Despite the attempts by Thirlby and Dennings to completely steal the movie, Lauren Graham, Jeff Daniels and Lou Taylor Pucci do a good job of holding down the starring roles. Arlen (Daniels) is a spiritual self-help author who hit the big time 20 years ago, and immediately became a hermit. He doesn't really interact with anyone until he throws his back out and need the help of newly licensed chiropractor, Elizabeth (Graham). As he readjusts to life outside of his home, he can't help but be the angry recluse when a recovering alcoholic, Kris (Pucci), come to his door seeking advice. From there it's you typical rom-com, where Arlen and Elizabeth begin to fall in love, but it's destroyed when Kris' Dad dies and Elizabeth sees Arlen's "true side". Then, Arlen is finally honest with himself, and everyone lives happily ever after. Ugh.

I felt bad for the cast because they weren't given much help with the script, even though some of the advice from Daniels' Arlen Faber was well written and/or researched that it actually makes you think. For the most part, the writing was mediocre because I really didn't care if Arlen and Elizabeth ended up happily ever after or not, which meant that everything up to that point wasn't well told.

Graham's character is a less-quippy Lorelai Gilmore, but she still makes us care enough about that the scenes between Daniels and her at least come off as believable. I believe if they had more scenes with her child, played beautifully by Max Antiselli, the audience would've cared more about her and Arlen. They tried to show her as this over protective mother, but I didn't believe it. Again, more scene with the kid would have been helpful.

Oddly, Daniels' character was both great and confusing at the time. His performance was a little over the top, but I can forgive it since he's Jeff Daniels and he made me laugh a few times. My real problem with his character was that I never understood why he acted differently toward Kris then he would with his own fans. I guess the explanation was that the popularity of his books was too much to handle and his fans reminded him of that, but something in Kris reminded him of himself. Maybe I missed something, but in a romantic comedy I shouldn't be guessing like it's Inception.

The only story I truly cared about was Pucci's recovering alcoholic, Kris. His arc was actually well threaded throughout the movie. Despite Pucci tendency to overact in the opening scenes, he showed his characters emotions well. I caught myself wondering what was going on with him while Graham and Daniels were on screen, which isn't meant to criticize their acting, but rather praise Pucci performance. His line reading and emotion during the scene where he almost relapses was one of the highlights of the film.

Overall, the direction was just fine. John Hindman did a good job of capturing the mood of the film, and made great use of his location. I may be bias, but I believe Philadelphia, mainly Olde City and Center City, provide a great canvas for any director to use. It can be upscale, and urban at the same time, very similar to New York, but not as overdone.

The ending was a real problem for me. Sure, it resolved Arlen's issues and the mystery surrounding the book, but it did little to really finish the other character stories. I guess I'm supposed to believe that Kris' money problem disappeared because Arlen showed up and sold some book, which by the way wouldn't he have to give part of the sales to the publisher. I digress, the ending wasn't one of my favorite, but it didn't ruin the movie, either.

Rating: 7/10 -- Kept me interested through out, but nothing really special about it. If you a fan of Dennings or Thirlby, it's a good early work to check out. Especially, if you've only seen Nick and Nora, and The Wackness. But it could have been much better.