La Pantalla Pequeña

Este artículo también está disponible en español.

Guess what “Hot Tub Time Machine” is about…



Remember the Good Ol’ Days? That period of time in your past when everything seems to have been better? You felt better, looked better and had a better haircut. A time when you had momentum. Some people call them The Glory Days. But these Days will pass you by (so goes the song), and you are left with nothing but fond memories. The new comedy, “Hot Tube Time Machine,” explores the thought that if you were able to go back to the “best days of your life,” you might not like what is waiting there. It’s easy to forget that that gorgeous girlfriend that was lost not only broke your heart, but also stabbed you in your eye with a fork.

“Hot Tub Time Machine” (the most literal title since “Three Men and a Little Lady”) is the story of four friends that haven’t been having the easiest of times. First, there’s Adam (John Cusak), whose lady-friend has just left him. That doesn’t seem to bother him as much as the fact that she took the television. All he has left is his 20-year-old nephew, Jacob (Clark Duke), who lives life vicariously through characters in a videogame in Adam’s basement. Then, there’s Nick (Craig Robinson), a failed musician who has been reduced to working at a dog grooming store named “‘Sup Dawg.” Finally, there’s the ever-lovable Lou (Rob Corddry), the resident asshole of the group, who accidentally tries to commit suicide in his garage while rocking out to Motley Crüe. This failed suicide attempt brings the estranged friends together again, and they decide to head to a nearby ski resort town in an attempt to bring a little joy to Lou’s life.

Their destination is Kodiak Valley, a place from their past that used to be a party Mecca. The boys are sad to discover that much has changed in the last twenty years. Kodiak Valley is now a rundown ramshackle village and, in a depressed funk, our heroes do the only thing they can think to do. They get drunk in a hot tub that they find outside of their hotel room. The next morning they wake to find themselves in 1986. They soon realize that they must do everything they can to replicate their past actions so as not to disturb the delicate fabric of the universe. Will Adam and Co. be able to get back to the future? Why is Chevy Chase involved? And what is the Great White Buffalo?

“Hot Tub Time Machine” is an extremely funny and original comedy from director Steve Pink. Pink has teamed with John Cusak before, co-writing both “Grosse Point Blank” and “High Fidelity” with him. Both of those films are smart and witty with heavy doses of dark humor mixed in. “Hot Tub” takes some of those elements and combines them with in-your-face toilet humor. The result is very refreshing as the film switches gears and operates on different levels.     

The thing that holds the film’s outlandish plot together is the skilled cast. Both Craig Robinson and Rob Corddry, who have been relegated to smaller, supporting roles in the past, give breakout performances. Corddry’s Lou is an extremely unlikable character that is somehow able to steal every scene he’s in. Robinson is wonderful at his music numbers and has a memorable scene involving a phone call to his nine-year-old wife. Crispin Glover also has a couple of great bits as Phil, the soon-to-be-one-armed-bellboy.

The movie does a lot right but there are a couple of things wrong. The costume design is a little one-note when it comes to the 80’s scenes. All the people seem to be wearing the same neon outfit. The “bad guy,” Blaine (Sebastian Stan), is a pretty one-dimensional character, but it could be argued that all antagonists in 80’s movies are one-dimensional. At least his name is Blaine. A handful of the jokes fall flat in the movie and the timeline isn’t always perfect (there’s a reference to “21 Jump Street,” and that didn’t debut until 1987), and for some reason in the film 1986 and 2010 are only 20 years apart. This drove me a bit insane.

As far as high concept films go, “Hot Tub Time Machine” is pretty great. Any film that features catheter humor, a soulful rendition of “Jesse’s Girl” and a parody of Motley Crüe’s “Home Sweet Home” video has got to rock.  It’s a look back to the so-called Glory Days that proves one thing that can be denied no longer. The 80’s sucked.

“The Crazies” bring the noise



You take the good, you take the bad, and there you have “The Crazies.” There are parts of this film that are cliché-ridden drivel that we have seen four hundred times before and will, no doubt, see again. Then there are moments of well-executed, tension filled horror that give you a nice, satisfying jolt. During the movie, these elements each take their turn presenting their case, creating a mixed bag of entertainment. In the end, however, “The Crazies” has more going for it than against it. If you are looking for a bit of the grisly gore, “The Crazies” has it for you by the crimson dripping spoonful.

Ogden Marsh is a small farm town in Iowa with the tiny population of 1260 law-abiding Americans. This number (as the trailer makes us firmly aware) is about to decrease drastically. The town is presided over by sheriff David Dutton (Timothy Olyphant), who is noticing a peculiar change in the behavior of his fine citizens. This starts out innocently enough as people merely stare off into the horizon, unresponsive to questions and their surroundings. It’s when they start lighting their wives on fire that our good sheriff becomes concerned.

Unfortunately, Big Brother is watching, and almost as soon as the town starts to fall apart, the military arrives to execute their “Containment Protocol.” With gas masks and guns, the military is just as threatening as the monsters. The sheriff gathers his wife, Dr. Judy Dutton (Radha Mitchell), and a few others and tries to make his way out of Ogden Marsh while avoiding both the ones that are trying to kill them and the ones that are there to “help.”

“The Crazies” moves fast and hard, setting up its scenario as quick as possible so it can get to the chopping and dicing.  This makes for a good time on the surface, but leaves the film’s characters underdeveloped and two-dimensional. Besides our married couple, David and Judy, all the peripheral figures in the film should be named “Meat.” The film also is treading on well-worn ground. Part of this is due to the fact that it is a remake of Director George A. Romero’s 1973 movie of the same name. While nothing is new and groundbreaking about the scenario, there are a handful of moments that make the film enjoyable.  There is one scene involving a room full of people strapped to beds and a pitchfork that is not to be missed.

The use of the military as an oppressive monster gives the movie a feeling that is reminiscent of an old Stephen King story that he might have written in the ‘70s. The film has a sense of paranoia that used to run through much of the horror and sci-fi fare of the past. To make the statement that no one is to be trusted and no one will help you is theme that will never lose its bite. Horror films of the last few years have been about individuals torturing each other (the “Saw” films, “Hostel”). In “The Crazies,” the system is out to get you, and that is much more frightening than some stranger poking needles in your eyes.

Kristen Bell deserves better than “When in Rome”



Kristen Bell is plenty likable. As an actress, she possesses charisma, charm, and is as cute as a newborn kitten wearing a French beret. Judging from her work in films like “Forgetting Sarah Marshall” and “Couples Retreat,” it is rather apparent that she can handle headlining her own film.

Ms. Bell’s first opportunity to make a name for herself is in the romantic comedy, “When in Rome.” In this film, she proves that she has the comedic timing and appeal necessary for this sort of business. She is enjoyable to watch as she stumbles and fumbles her way through Rome. The problem is practically everything and everyone that surrounds her in this mixed-up movie isn’t nearly as engaging as she is.

“When in Rome” opens in New York City, and it is there, despite the title, that most of the action takes place. Beth (Kristen Bell) has her dream job, as a curator at the Guggenheim Museum, and apparently that is enough to make her happy. She is bent on the belief that she doesn’t need love in her life to be fulfilled. Beth is, of course, a little more than skeptical when she gets a call from her younger sister, Joan (Alexis Dzenia). Joan is hastily getting married in Rome to a man she met two weeks prior, and wants Beth to be her maid-of-honor.

Reluctantly, Beth goes to the wedding where she meets Nick (Josh Duhamel), a handsome, winsome man who quickly sweeps her off her feet. Beth is about to give love a shot when she mistakenly thinks Nick is with another woman. Dejected, Beth wanders to a nearby fountain of love and snatches four coins from it. The four men that put the coins in the fountain instantly fall in love with Beth and follow her back to New York. Beth must learn how to break the curse while trying to find true love.

“When in Rome” tries to go in several different directions at once. The film wants to be a fantasy, slapstick romantic comedy with a heart and fails at being anyone of these things. This is director Mark Steven Johnson’s first attempt at this sort of film, and it shows. Known for making comic book adaptations (“Daredevil” and “Ghost Rider”), Johnson isn’t very clear on what tone he wants his movie to have. There are moments of broad comedy in some scenes and mystical elements in others. Most of the set-ups and pay-offs are so outlandish that it becomes impossible to invest in any of it.

There are a lot of talented people in supporting roles in “When in Rome,” none of which have anything all that inspiring to do. Jon Heder, Will Arnett, Danny DeVito and Dax Shepard as the four love-struck men are all wasted in moments that are supposed to be comic highlights. Even the graceful Angelica Huston comes off as two-dimensional in the role of Beth’s wicked boss. All these performers deserve better material.

Josh Duhamel and Kristen Bell have good chemistry together. Their moments together are the highlights of the film. It’s when anybody else is on the screen with them that the story loses focus. It makes you wish the two stars were in another film entirely. A movie that takes place on a deserted island would be nice. That way they could be left alone.

This article is also available in English.

Las grandiosas actuaciones no pueden salvar “Brooklyn´s Finest”

James Brown una vez cantó “It´s a Man´s Man´s Man´s World” (es un mundo del hombre). De vez en cuando algo viene para intentar reforzar este pensamiento. “Brooklyn´s Finest”, el nuevo filme del director Antoine Fuqua (“Día de Entrenamiento”), es una meditación de dos horas sobre esta teoría.

Ésta es una película acerca de un hombre muy masculino haciendo cosas masculinas con otros hombres como él para ver y apreciar. Muy macho para estar seguros. Más que otra cosa, esta mentalidad parece venirle más a una historia contada hace 20 años. Si la película tiene algunos puntos brillantes para ser admirados la experiencia en su conjunto parece anticuada y deslucida.

El filme toma lugar en un pequeño pueblo llamado Brooklyn (raro, ya sé) y lidia con las vidas de tres oficiales de policía en situaciones completamente diferentes. Está Sal (Ethan Hawke), un oficial de narcóticos que necesita mudar a su creciente familia fuera de su destartalada casa. La avaricia aparece y Sal se convence de que la única manera de poder proveerle lo necesario a su familia es sacando un poco del dinero de la droga que siempre lo está rondando. Entonces tenemos a Eddie (Richard Gere), un policía a una sola semana de su retiro. Después de años en las calles, Eddie está completamente desconectado y no puede encontrar una razón para preocuparse por algo. Finalmente está Clarence “Tango” Butler (Don Cheadle) que ha sido un policía encubierto por tanto tiempo que sus lealtades se han vuelto confusas para él. Su esposa lo ha dejado y se da cuenta que los criminales que ha tratado de atrapar significan más para él que cualquier otra cosa. Cuando le ordenan a Tango atrapar al gran hombre, Caz (Wesley Snipes), se debate sobre lo que tiene que hacer.

Si estas historias suenan ajenas unas a otras es porque, la mayor parte, lo son. Hay un punto de conexión acerca de la difusa línea entre lo correcto y lo malo pero es todo. Los actores principales comparten muy poco tiempo en pantalla y nunca interactúan realmente. Esto hace que la película juegue a tres diferentes cortos editados juntos para hacer una confusa mezcolanza. Pronto se siente uno perdido, sin saber realmente como es que personajes tan diferentes estaban haciendo cuántas cosas diferentes. Es sólo a la mitad de la película que es posible darse cuenta que sólo hay tres sub-argumentos y es ahí donde se centra. Algunas tramas son abandonadas por largos periodos y la reacción cuando vemos a Richard Gere otra vez es “Oh sí, él está en ésta. ¿Qué está haciendo?” Esta película está como los últimos 40 minutos de “Star Wars Episodio 1: La Amenaza Fantasma” durante toda su duración. Esto hace efectivamente “Brooklyn´s Finest” , que uno se desconecte.

Ahora, el lado positivo. Ethan Hawke hace un destacado trabajo en el rol de Sal que resulta el personaje más sobresaliente de la película. Hawke luce cansado y se transforma completamente a sí mismo. Desde la forma de caminar a la cadencia de su voz, se convierte en Sal. Richard Gere también hace un trabajo admirable. No se ve como un papel que lo hayamos visto interpretar antes y esto es refrescante. Don Cheadle lo hace bien en lo que da pero la situación de Tango no es tan importante y no tiene las complejidades que se les brindan a los otros dos actores.

“Brooklyn´s Finest” es una película de hombres. Este tipo de películas pueden ser excitantes y divertidas. Este filme toma el “acercamiento masculino” para ir un poco más lejos, sin embargo, una vez que te das cuenta que casi cada mujer en la película es una prostituta o una stripper, literalmente cada mujer en la pantalla, y que la única mujer a la que se le da algo de sustancia es Ellen Barkin e interpreta un rol tan marimacho que el hecho de que ella sea una mujer es discutible, ocasiona que sea un argumento flojo e incluso un poco ofensivo. James Brown pudo haber cantado que “Es un mundo del hombre del hombre del hombre” pero no olvidemos que esa canción fue co-escrita por una mujer.

Este artículo también está disponible en español.

“Mary and Max” will not disappoint



Stop motion animation is a seldom-practiced technique that is usually used to bring to life ghouls and creatures in such films as the original “Clash of the Titans” and “A Nightmare Before Christmas.” It is the stuff that fills your dreams and the method has a haunting, unreal quality which is why it is normally associated with Science Fiction and Fantasy films.

The new film, “Mary and Max,” now available on DVD and Blu-ray, uses this style of animation to its fullest extent. What makes this movie unique, however, is that it takes place in the real world with real people. Not a monster in sight. There isn’t one aspect of the story that dictates that it should be told in any fashion of animation yet director Adam Elliot uses stop motion as his medium to give his film a whimsical and charming tone. This makes for a unique and beautiful film that is a one of a kind work of art.

“Mary and Max” is the story of two lonely people that somehow find friendship with each other from half way around the world. The story begins in Melbourne, Australia in the 1970’s where we meet a lonely 8-year-old girl that goes by the name Mary Daisy Dinkle (Bethany Whitmore and later Toni Collette as an adult). Mary wants nothing more in life than to find a true friend, and randomly picks a name out of the Manhattan phone book and sends him a letter. That man is Max Jerry Horovitz (Phillip Seymour Hoffman), an obese man in his forties who suffers from a behavioral disorder and has trouble coping with the world around him. This pen-pal relationship spans more than 20 years and has its ups and downs. They teach one another the meaning of friendship and sacrifice and both go through life hoping to one-day meet.

This is the type of little seen gem that is a real thrill to discover. What begins as a quirky and interesting little film gains more and more momentum as it goes along. Most of the film is told through a wonderful narration delivered by Barry Humphries (known more famously as Dame Edna) that sounds like a well-crafted piece of literature. Phillip Seymour Hoffman does an outstanding job with the voice work for Max that is almost unrecognizable. The visual tone of the film is beautiful, told in almost complete black and white for Max’s world and a warm sepia hue for Mary’s life. There are moments of humor expertly mixed with dramatic moments that may cause tearing of the eyes. Seek this movie out. It deserves an audience and will not disappoint.

Denzel as an action star is not that believable in “The Book of Eli”



Denzel Washington sure does seem to be having fun in his new film, “The Book of Eli.” The gifted actor plays a hard-as-nails rouge warrior that can beat the tar out of anyone who crosses him, which he does numerous times throughout the movie. This must have been a nice change of pace for the fifty-five year old performer who is known for his more cerebral work. Mr. Washington has been involved in a thriller or two (“Man on Fire and “The Bone Collector”), but here he is able to karate slap and slice & dice with glee. As an audience member, it is a bit entertaining to watch the festivities for a while, but this wears off quickly because, unfortunately for Denzel, it’s just not believable.

“The Book of Eli” is set in a post-apocalyptic world that we have seen before in numerous other films. Cannibalistic nomads looking for their next victim populate barren desert landscapes that spread out as far as the eye can see. It’s in this lawless world we meet Eli (Denzel Washington) who is heading west on a mysterious mission that involves a book that he keeps closely guarded. He finds himself in a primitive town ruled by a power hungry man named Carnegie (Gary Oldman).

Eli quickly finds trouble in a makeshift tavern and easily disposes of a dozen ruffians. This gets Carnegie’s attention, and Eli is asked to join him on his quest to build an empire. Eli refuses and is able to flee the town with the help of Solara (Mila Kunis), a local girl who wants to join him on his trek west. Carnegie has learned of the book, however, and wants it and the power that it holds for himself. Eli must make sure the book reaches its destination and keep it out of the hands of the evil Carnegie.

At its heart, “The Book of Eli” is a revised version of the classic Western film: standard Good Guy vs. Bad Guy stuff. Directed by the Hughes Brothers (“Menace II Society” and “From Hell”), the film even looks like an old Sergio Leone flick with its washed out colors and desolate landscape. Where the direction falters is in the action sequences. The editing is too quick and jumpy to really get a sense of what is going on, and this was probably done to mask the fact that Denzel Washington is no Jet Li. Another distracting bit of business was the casting of Mila Kunis as Solara. She seems dreadfully out of place in this film because she is unable to shake off her modern girl edge. Not for one minute does she seem like a woman that was born and raised in a cruel wasteland.

The movie does have a couple of high notes. Gary Oldman is always an enjoyable villain, and it’s a thrill to watch him chew up the scenery. The musical score by Atticus Ross is haunting and original and is the true stand out of the film. The movie might have played better if it was not hot on the hills of “The Road,” with which it shares just a few too many similarities. Also, the film’s biblical themes are too heavy-handed and don’t really have any payoff.

The main attraction here is Denzel kicking people in the face and slicing off heads. If that is something that interests you, “The Book of Eli” has it by the bucket load. If not, stay at home and wait for the sequel to “The Great Debaters.”

“Youth in Revolt” is too pretentious for it’s own good



“Youth in Revolt” is an arty little film based on the novels of C.D. Payne, who writes like he just got out of an advanced English composition class and wants to show everyone how he can write so grandiloquently (see, I can do it too). When asked in a recent interview about the themes of his novel, Mr. Payne replied, “(the book is about)…the powerlessness of childhood and its incumbent terrors. The hypocrisies inherent in familial hierarchies and the irrelevance of ethics in an amoral world.” That’s all well and good and sounds incredibly educated. When you realize that the movie is really about a snotty, pretentious kid who is just trying to get laid at all costs, it becomes apparent that our Mr. Payne is making much ado about not much of anything.

“Youth in Revolt” is the story of Nick Twisp (Michael Cera), a 14-year-old child of divorce who is an aspiring writer and rather fixated on everything sex-related. Living with his mother (Jean Smart) in the Berkeley area, and despising every minute of it, Nick is more than happy to take an abrupt vacation to Clear Lake when his mother’s boyfriend, Jerry (Zach Galifianakis), wrongs some sailors and needs to skip town for awhile. It’s here on the sandy beaches of the lake where Nick meets his first love, Sheeni (Portia Doubleday), a young intellectual girl who is enamored with all things French.

The two have a nice little summer fling, and Nick is devastated when it comes time for him to go and be away form his love. Sheeni then hatches a plan that would get Nick back to Clear Lake so they can be together forever. Nick must misbehave to the point that he gets kicked out of his mother’s house to go live with his father (Steve Buscemi). Nick has a little problem causing the kind of trouble necessary to make this elaborate plan work, so he creates an alter ego, Francois Dillinger, to do the dirty deeds. Francois very good at causing chaos, and the troubles start to pile up for Nick a little too fast for him to handle.

The thing continually missing from “Youth in Revolt” is any sort of payoff. The film is full of unrealized promise and can’t seem to break beneath the surface of its situations or characters. The opening credits are accompanied with a cool stop-motion animation that introduces us to the world of “Youth in Revolt,” and there are a couple other uses of different forms of animation to get us from one act to another, but it feels gimmicky and proves to have no purpose. The cast is fantastic, lead by Michael Cera, for whom the role of Nick was tailor-made, yet none of the characters seem to develop. Plot points come and go with no resolutions. Characters die or are no longer needed, so they are freely dropped, never to be heard from again. In the end it all feels very one-dimensional.

There is a group of disillusioned kids out there that will surely lap up “Youth in Revolt” with a big, silver spoon. There will be throngs of college going types consistently quoting the words of Nick Twisp and Francois Dillinger. This film will have a cult following. But as the certain movies such as “Donnie Darko” and “Showgirls” have taught us, having a cult following doesn’t mean a movie is any good. It just means kids like to watch them when they’re stoned.