Ted

Logline: As the result of a childhood wish, John Bennett's teddy bear, Ted, came to life and has been by John's side ever since - a friendship that's tested when Lori, John's girlfriend of four years, wants more from their relationship.

Cast: Mark Wahlberg, Mila Kunis, Seth MacFarlane, Giovanni Ribisi

Directed by:  Seth MacFarlane

I saw this one a little while back just after The Amazing Spiderman came out. I wasn't sure what to think going into the theatre. IMDB had this rated at 7.7, Rotten Tomatoes at 68%, and a ton of people told me that it was a MUST watch. I'll admit, I really don't care for Seth MacFarlane. I don't like Family Guy and I've never liked his stand up routines. I find other comedians to be leaps and bounds ahead of him. Like I've stated before and will state again - comedy is purely preference, but reviewing this movie without touching on its comedy would be completely pointless. I'll try to touch on mostly story, which may make this review short, but here we go anyway...

Summary

John Bennett is a kid with no friends who, one Christmas, wishes his toy teddy bear would come to life and be his friend forever. He wakes up the next morning to see that his wish has come true... Fast-forward to when John is an adult and the craze around a real life talking teddy bear has died down considerably. John now has a girlfriend and must choose her relationship as a priority over his friendship with Ted - something he has never ever had to do in the past. Doing so becomes difficult and John struggles maintaining the balance between the two.

Review

This was a romantic comedy with the comic relief provided by a teddy bear. Everything about John and his girlfriend Lori's relationship is 100% been there, done that, nothing new to say about it. Except, we get to see Mila Kunis quite a lot in this movie, which is never a bad thing. That being said, the movie kind of works. How does a completely formulaic plot ever work? Well, this is my topic of the day...

Topic of the Day

I actually have two points.

1) To make a formulaic plot work, you need to twist it in your own way to make it unique. MacFarlane does just this - and he does it by creating a teddy bear that smokes pot, drinks, and hooks up with women. One of the keys to creative writing is taking 2 completely separate things, combining them, and making it work. A child sleeps with a teddy bear; it's an icon of innocence. Make that innocent icon do naughty things and it can open up a world of imagination and uniqueness.

2) Creating the perfect atmosphere to make the story seem real. It's weird isn't it? Me calling a story about a walking talking teddy bear real? I sat there the whole time and never thought to myself that this was over the top stupid. MacFarlane kept his film in control. He found the perfect medium between over the top & not enough - and he rode this medium all the way to the finish line. The absurdity of a teddy bear coming to life is a lot to take in. The fact that he smokes pot, drinks, etc. is enough out of the ordinary. Any more and the plot would have been bloated, disrupting the balance of the movie. Instead he focuses on balancing the two relationships and the conflicts involved in doing so as John tries to please both sides equally. John and Lori provide the rom, the bear provides the com.

Consensus

I didn't dive into the comedy aspect of Ted. I hate critiquing comedy as what I find funny, others may not, and vice versa. I particularly loved the cashier scene while Ted is bored at work and I loved the fight scene at the end. People who love Family Guy will have a ton of laughs, and even people that don't may as well.

I haven't been a fan of Seth MacFarlane in the past, but his directorial debut has opened my eyes to a Seth I never knew existed. I hope he continues his entries on the big screen if they're anything like this one. I think it can only get better with more practice.

This film fits somewhere in between worth the watch and well done - leaning towards well done though. 

6.7/10

Savages

Logline: Pot growers Ben and Chon face off against the Mexican drug cartel who kidnapped their shared girlfriend.

Cast: Blake Lively, Taylor Kitsch, Aaron Johnson, Benicio Del Toro, John Travolta, Salma Hayek

Directed by:  Oliver Stone

I decided I'd go back and review some recent material that is still in theatres. Because I started my blog mid-late summer I missed out on some good ones. Time to back track just a little bit.

Savages is supposed to be director Oliver Stone's (Platoon, Natural Born Killers) return to the dark side of filmmaking that he was once known for. It is also based off a highly acclaimed novel written by Don Winslow.

Review

Savages takes 40 minutes to actually dive into storytelling. Due to the absurdity of its logline and a bit of extra length added on to the run time, this kind of makes sense. They spend a lotttt of time showing the relationship between Ben, Chon, and O in order to make it somewhat believable. 

During this time the cartel interferes with their aspiring marijuana business and basically tells them, you work for us now. Ben doesn't want to get involved with pissing these people off - they already sent them films of men with their heads chopped off. Chon on the other hand is a war vet and doesn't show any weakness. They decline to work with them, but plan on getting out of the country as soon as possible.

During this time, Lado the boss of the cartel's force in California, wreaks havoc around town until given orders by the head of the whole cartel, Elena, who tells him to kidnap O to make sure they give in to demands. This is a clear cut high stakes story in which Ben and Chon are forced to comply with the cartel and every minute wasted is a minute in which O is being held captive. Makes for a pretty interesting story no? Drugs, Sex, Kidnapping, Heads chopped off, Cartels, High Stakes, etc. Oliver Stone's return is definitely dark.

Topic of the Day

Savages was going well and I was enjoying most of it.

However, there was an ending that I'd expect from a rookie director who doesn't know any better. Not from Oliver Stone.

BEWARE: I am criticizing the ending so do not read this section if you do not want spoilers.

Never ever ever ever ever ever ever have a duel ending. There is a reason why it has never worked. 

So, they've kidnapped Elena's daughter and they're making an exchange with the cartel for O to be returned to them unharmed. They do it in a valley in the dessert where both sides have snipers on opposite cliffs. The exchange turns into a bloody massacre as both sniper squads fire at each other and the two groups from the vehicles on the bottom do the same. O ends up brutally murdering Lado for raping her while she was kidnapped, Ben takes a bullet to the neck, Elena is capped down by Lado. With Ben on his death bed, Chon and O inject suicide needles and they all die together rather than living without Ben.

CUT TO:

O saying thats how she imagined it.

REWIND TO:

The beginning of negotiations where the FBI rolls in and Lado gets away in his SUV. Everything is completely different and everyone is alive at the end. Elena is taken in by the FBI and Ben & Chon are back with O.

This brings me to my point of the day. Do not make the audience feel like they are watching a movie. Instead, make them dive so deep into the story that when it's over they want to either keep watching or they need a moment to think really deeply about what the story meant to them. DO NOT everrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr make them think they are watching a film while there is still more story to tell. By showing an ending and then cutting back to another one, it made me realize it was a film that I was watching. Knowing this, the ending just didn't have any punch to it for me. It also took away O's sweet revenge, leaving me feeling unsatisfied that she never got it. It also left me unsatisfied because the ending with everyone dying was actually pretty good. I indulged myself in a story for 2 hours only to watch the last 11 minutes of the movie feeling like I was cheated.

Main Critiques

The film is filled with great performances. Benicio Del Toro absolutely kills every scene that he is in. His face as creepy as it gets and his dialogue made Lado a character/villain to remember. Ben & Chon had opposite personalities that were both acted out very well. I couldn't believe when I got home and looked up Aaron Johnson, finding out that he played the main role in Kick-Ass... blew my mind. Blake was the perfect O and even John Travolta had some scenes. 

Then there was Salma Hayek... Every scene she was in felt like she was either trying too hard or not trying enough. It felt like I was watching Salma Hayek and not the character of Elena. I couldn't believe any bit of her character, which sucked because Elena is the head of the Mexican cartel.

The movie took 40 minutes to get to the logline, which was kind of understandable, but definitely too long.

And then there was the ending, which I can't say enough bad things about. I actually really liked the film up to that point.

Consensus

Savages  is definitely a very dark and gory cartel flick with many great performances that overshadow the bad. Although the ending is atrocious and the film is filled with many flaws, it still gave a certain vibe that made me enjoy it.

6.1/10

Under the Red Hood

Logline: While a new foe who uses The Joker's old alias wreaks havoc among Gotham City's organized crime, Batman finds him disturbingly familiar.

Cast: Bruce Greenwood, Jensen Ackles, Neil Patrick Harris, Gary Cole

Directed by: Brandon Vietti

For a quick Friday review I chose this hidden gem mainly because my buzz for The Dark Knight Rises hasn't faded yet. What better than to review an animated Batman?

Running at just 1h and 15 minutes, Under the Red Hood is a quick and enjoyable watch. However, although animated, this rendition doesn't shy away from blood and death to entertain a child's demographic.

The movie kicks off with Robin tied up inside a building that The Joker has loaded plenty of explosive devices into. Being that most animated Batman films are made for kids, you'd expect Batman to roll in like a hero and save the day. Well, he doesn't. The building explodes and Robin dies.

Cut to the future where a new villain is present in Gotham City, the Red Hood. Now, prior to his appearance in this one, the Red Hood had taken the identities of a few different people; The Joker being one of them. With Joker killing Robin in the first scene, it all makes sense right? Wrong. The Joker is actually held up in Arkham Asylum in a body suit. So, who could be under the red hood?

I will not give away any more. Instead, I'll cut to today's topic and why this Batman worked for me.

This is primarily an action film. There are many explosions, fight scenes, and chases. So, what makes for a good action film? Why are some so boring?

Under the Red Hood works for me for 2 simple reasons:

1) It doesn't overdo itself and add scenes where character's are floating around on the screen without much happening

2) all of its action scenes had purpose.

Many action movies try to act like something that they are not. If the film portrays itself as constantly moving quickly in its trailer, it HAS to be like that when the film rolls or it will not live up to expectations. I understand that some editors rely on action trailers to bring people to watch their political dramas or whatever, but if the Genre says action and you intend on producing an action film, this rule always applies. There needs to be action. You can have a few scenes showing the protag's family life, developing a sense of backstory, but you cannot have the characters floating around the screen not advancing the plot for very long, if at all. All great action movies are great because they're fast paced and meaningful. John McClane is not sitting up in the elevator shafts of the hotel being taken over by hostages in Die Hard playing solitaire by himself. Every scene in that movie advances the plot, the little scenes with his wife provide backstory that connects the audience emotionally, but that's all they intend to do. Explosions, chases and fights are good tools for an action movie, but the plot has to keep a fast pace and this brings me to my second point...

Although the plot has to be fast paced, every scene needs to have some meaning that moves the plot forward. A guard is sent up to find out who rang the fire alarm. John McClane sneaks up, the two men fight, McClane snaps his neck. 1) John McClane is discovered by the bad guys. 2) John McClane now has a firearm. And to spice action movies up there can be comedy - like when he sends the body down the chute with a smart-ass letter attached to it. Every scene should be doing something that moves the plot forward to the eventual climax of the film.

Batman never added scenes that bloated the movie; every scene had a purpose to it. For example, Batman and Nightwing chase the Red Hood together throwing everything but the kitchen sink at him. The Red Hood deflects all of their attempts and leads them into a booby-trapped building that explodes. During this sequence, Nightwing is injured leaving Batman on his own, and they discover that The Red Hood has a knife that can cut Batman's cables (very few people could have a knife that sharp). They also learn that only a few people could provide that type of extensive training as one does not simply react that fast without practice. Three different reasons for that chase scene, ya got me?

Under the Red Hood is a slick and action packed animated Batman adventure. The plot flows nicely and the villains are well fleshed out. It reiterates Batman's defiance to kill and has other themes that develop throughout. If you enjoy Batman and like animated movies, I'd definitely give this one a try - it's done really well.

7.9/10

Throwback Thursday - The Night of the Hunter

Logline: A religious fanatic marries a gullible widow whose young children are reluctant to tell him where their real daddy hid $10,000 he'd stolen in a robbery.  

Cast: Robert Mitchum, Shelley Winters, Lillian Gish, Peter Graves

Directed by: Chris Laughton

The Night of the Hunter was filmed in 1955 and has since been considered a critically acclaimed classic. So much so in fact that the Library of Congress holds it in their National Film Registry as a milestone in cinematic history.

So did it really live up to the hype? What is a classic anyway?

The film starts off with children John and Pearl's father returning home in a hurry. We find out he has $10,000 and he hides it in a special location that only the two children would ever know of. He makes them swear to never tell a soul where the money is hidden, not even their mother. The police come and arrest him shortly after and he is sentenced to jail time where he would await his execution.

While in prison, he meets Harry Powell, a preacher and a serial killer. He figures, hey, why not talk to a prison mate about the money, what's he going to do from inside a cell? Well, he isn't in that cell for very long - and now he knows that the cash is attainable.

So he shows up to the children's home, seduces the mother and marries her. Of course she doesn't believe her children when they tell her Powell keeps asking where their father hid the money. Until one day she catches him asking.

Say no more.

Let's dive into the topic of the day first... what is a classic?

Straight from the dictionary, a classic means: of the first or highest quality, class or rank. It also means: serving as a standard, model or guide.

So, I think both definitions put together serve as a pretty clear definition that people abide by. A high quality film at the time of release that sets the standard for upcoming films. So, does that mean classics can go stale over the years? I'd argue no, because objectively viewers have to respect that films made 60-80 years ago are going to have values and issues from a completely different and even less sophisticated culture.

So, by that definition, is The Night of the Hunter a classic in my eyes?

I'd argue that most people would say yes. Apparently many great directors of today have been influenced by the way this was filmed (Scorcese, Coen Brothers). So, it clearly did set a standard. That's half of what a classic is.

Was it of high quality? Well, from a person who hasn't tackled critiquing many classic films - I can say this wasn't as memorable as others. Have I watched a mountain of old classic movies? No. But I've seen enough to compare and contrast.

I will say that one thing this movie has going for it is a set of good characters. We have Powell the serial killer who can sweet talk his way into anything he wants, two innocent and loyal kids, a gullible widow, a pushy best friend who thinks she knows best, and a valiant protector who takes care of orphans. Each character adds a different flavour to the story and takes you into a very believable world.

However, I am a fan of storytelling, and although this was filmed in 1955, I cannot forgive it for some glaring mistakes.

This will spoil the end - so follow the stars and don't read in between them if you care.

*

Powell is a character whose main attribute is his sly and charming speech that dwindle him into the hearts of anyone he talks to. The whole film he sneaks his way past everyone's walls of trust.

And then there is this scene. The kids run away from him after he kills their mother and discovers that the money is hidden in Pearl's doll. They boat down a river to a woman named Rachel Cooper who looks after stray children (convenience much?). Powell shows up and the kids scream that he is not their father. Rachel holds a gun to him and tells him he best be headed off her property. And then - Powell does something that irked me. He breaks his character and does something a man like Powell would never do. He yells to Rachel: "You haven't seen the last of Harry Powell. I'll be back for you come night fall. Be ready."

Now... a man who thrives off being sneaky. A man who is clever with every word he speaks. A man who is determined to get that money with all he's got. Does this sound like something he would say? Am I wrong here? This to me was a major breach of character and to me it ruined the whole final scene which could have been quite intense.

I was digging this movie up until this point.

*

Aside from a breach in character that threw the ending off tilt for me, this movie does have some solid messages in it. Kids are the strongest form of man, but yet so vulnerable - a Socrates philosophy with a twist to it. It also explores the notions of good vs. evil, and yes this has been done so many times, but not in 1955. It's hard to believe this was made just 10 years after World War II. The characters were all demonstrated very well aside from a glaring mishap near the end, and I believe in 1955 this movie would have creeped many people out.

Many people will consider this a classic for its style and technique. The film's story is solid for its time and each character is well acted. For me, this movie is definitely very well done, but it won't go down as a classic in my books as it was missing the high quality that I have been accustomed to from other films around that era.

7.8/10

Men in Black 3

Logline: Agent J travels back in time to MIB's early years in the 1960s, to stop an alien from assassinating his friend Agent K and changing history.

Cast: Will Smith, Tommy Lee Jones, Josh Brolin, Jemaine Clement, Emma Thompson, Michael Stuhlbarg, Alice Eve

Directed by: Barry Sonnenfeld

Men in Black 3 continues the franchise 10 years after the second film was released. I think this is largely due to the fact that many people were displeased with the sequel and only time could make the bad taste fade away. With Will Smith not doing anything new since Seven Pounds in 2008, fans of him might pop up just because they hadn't seen him in so long... 

Guilty as charged.

So, was it worth it to add another installment to the Men in Black series?

The movie starts right away by introducing it's antag. Enter Boris.

Boris is a huge, scruffy, human looking alien with goggles. He is so dangerous that he earned himself his own prison on the moon to keep him far away from Earth. They couldn't really have made this character to look, feel, or seem more Bad Ass without overdoing it. His nickname is Boris the Animal. 

So, what do you know, NASA or whoever operates the space shuttles to go to this prison, allows a woman to bring him a birthday cake for his birthday and 40th year being locked up in chains in a dark room. Yes, someone this dangerous is allowed to have cake once and awhile. In the cake is a little alien helper of Boris' and it quickly dismantles the guards and unlocks Boris' chains and body suit. Sloppy, but a decent introduction to a good villain none-the-less.

Agent K & J are going about their business as usual - J continuing to be the jokester and K continuing to be the stiff. They visit a Chinese restaurant because the owner is serving alien fish instead of Earth's fish and shit hits the fan. Boris shows up and it is revealed that K put him in that prison on the moon in the 60s and he regrets not killing him now that he is back and on the loose.

They head back to their homes and all of a sudden, K turns to dust.

Two problems with the first Act of this movie.

1) The time from the beginning of the film up until Agent J travels back in time is 36 minutes.

2) Agent O believes K was alive just one day prior after accepting his death 40 years ago because J has a craving for chocolate milk. This is how she decides it is necessary to send him back in time to save K's life...

First of all, the introduction was waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too long. Sure, they introduced Boris. Sure, they had a decent alien action scene in the Chinese restaurant - but there were 36 minutes of scenes that didn't push the story forward. Yes, investigating a crashed space ship & investigating a fishy restaurant (no pun intended) all leads to them finding Boris, but it seems like this happens all by coincidence. Even so, it takes way too long to make this happen. 36 minutes to get to the logline is brutal.

Second of all, that's just sloppy writing. I HATE it when writers make things up for the convenience of the plot. Agent J walks into MIB headquarters and K is gone; he thinks everyone is playing a prank on him. After speaking with O he says things that only K would say, which is impossible because K supposedly died in 1969. So, to prove that O believes him, the writers implement the fact that a craving for chocolate milk indicates a certain brain wave that would make J's story believable. C'mon. Yes, this is a movie about aliens, yes I don't expect it to be realistic, but this type of stuff doesn't cut it for me. I guess they were already 33 minutes in without time travel yet, so they just rushed out of present time as fast as they could, any way they could. So now we have the most sophisticated prison in the world infiltrated by a woman with a cake & Agent J's time travel supported due to a craving of chocolate milk.

Seems like MIB 2 all over again no?

Well it isn't. The story actually takes a huge turn for the better at this very moment.

At a runtime of 1h and 45min, we have about 1h and 11min of a solid film. It takes awhile to get there, and there are some holes to forgive along the way, but it is worth it.

J travels to 1969, steals cars and does anything he can to get to MIB headquarters. The HQ is similar but everyone is dressed in old attire - even the aliens. This is where we meet the young version of Agent K who is much more involved and lively, but still maintains the same tone and mannerisms as his older self. Josh Brolin nails this character. It's difficult to match someone else's character that has already been through two movies and it's even more difficult to add little twists to his personality. Brolin does both really well.

This is where the fun starts. They begin to work together. Numerous times Agent J asks K, "what happened to you man?" He responds with, "I don't know, it hasn't happened yet."

They have to stop Boris based on the little knowledge that J has from being in the future, without changing anything from the past so that everything stays the same in present day. Pretty clear goal. They work together trying to figure out where Boris is going to attempt an alien invasion. Since this has already happened in the past, there is a clear time frame set (a space shuttle launch) as to when this whole thing is going to go down when they figure it out. This isn't long from the point in time they're at - and if they don't complete their mission, Agent K dies. Stakes are raised to the max, time frame is set so there is a sense of urgency; characters don't float around doing nothing. Loved it.

Not going to give away the ending or how they get there.

There are only two things that I can say..

They meet a man named Griffin on their journey who is an absolute cook, but is definitely memorable for being funny and unique.

&

The movie reveals something at the end which explains a lot about the franchise.

So, was it worth it?

$615 million at the Box Office says yes, but so does the movie itself. I always seem to find conflict and inconsistencies in time travel movies, but not with this one. Except for the first 36 minutes, I enjoyed the story and it took me back to when I was a child to a MIB that I knew and loved. So yes, it was worth it because it was way better than the sequel and now people have something to remember this series by rather than being left with distaste.

A nice installment that has revived a popular franchise from the beginning of the millennium. Fun, action packed, with great characters, an awesome villain, and an excellent performance from Josh Brolin.

7.3/10

Friends With Kids

Logline: Two best friends decide to have a child together while keeping their relationship platonic, so they can avoid the toll kids take on romantic relationships.

Cast: Adam Scott, Jennifer Westfeldt, Kristen Wiig, Jon Hamm, Megan Fox, Edward Burns, Chris O'Dowd, Maya Rudolph

Directed by: Jennifer Westfeldt

 

Why choose to review Friends With Kids?

Well, anyone who stopped watching movies and TV in the past few years might not know it, but this cast list is filled with actors that have flown by under the radar. Everyone knows their faces, but I bet not many could attach names to them or vice versa. Hell, the movie itself actually flew under the radar...why am I continuing to 

prove this point?

For anyone who hasn't seen The Vicious Kind, you haven't really gotten a look at what Adam Scott has to offer yet. The film also features three stars from the hit movie Bridesmaids, Jennifer Westfeldt who acts AND directs, Edward Burns who is always forgotten about, Megan Fox being of the most attractive actresses EVER, and a man who needs no introductions as his TV series Mad Men just broke the record for Emmy nominations, Jon Hamm.

Pretty stacked full of people that not many people know of just yet or haven't seen in awhile.

So how did it work out?

Jason and Julie are neighbours and long time friends. They've never been intimate, never shared feelings for one another, but as friends they love each other. Their lives become altered when their two sets of friends decide it's time to have kids. Why would things change? Because any couple that has children inevitably sacrifices most of their free time to raise them. Jason and Julie find themselves constantly ditched at dinner reservations and at one point Jason's birthday is even forgotten about. Are they mad? 

Not really.

However, Julie is unsatisfied because she is reaching the point in her life where her birth clock starts to tick and time is of the essence. Casually dating has gotten her nowhere up to this point and she fears never being able to have a child. Jason is at the point in his life where he'd like to have a child too, but unlike Julie, he is completely content with dating as many women as possible. The two realize that they are in similar situations and decide that they could have a baby and not succumb to the inevitable sacrifice of romance that comes along with conception.

Their friends get offended that they think of them this way, but agree to support them.

Just like that, they have sex, cut to 9 months later & a baby is BORN.

Now what? We as the audience want to see how this is going to work.  

It wouldn't really be a movie if it doesn't work, right? The story needs conflict. How does this film go about introducing that? Well, pretty much just as any "friends with benefits" movies go.

The movie contains comical scenes and all, but I chose not critique it on that as comedy is the most subjective thing for critics to touch. Instead, I'll review the actual story.

Jason finds the stunning Mary Jane (played by Megan Fox) and very quickly falls in love with her. He thinks she is the one. When Julie finds out, she begins to get jealous of this. She sees Jason with the baby and how much he cares, she starts to think dating is pointless because she has everything she's ever wanted right in front of her, etc. Jason senses her jealousy and sets her straight. So, Julie begins dating a man named Kurt (Edward Burns) who is an absolute perfect model of a man for her; for any woman really. Mary Jane is turned off by the idea that Jason shares a kid and always puts herself and her acting career ahead of him and the baby. In fact, she finds children repulsive and never wants to have them. 

Jason begins to get jealous when he realizes how good of a man Kurt is.

Then the best scene in the entire movie happens.

Jon Hamm's character confronts Julie and Jason at a Christmas dinner table up at one of their cottages. He blames both of them for what's going to happen to the child when he grows older and begins to question why both of his parents aren't always around, shoving it in their faces that they made a completely selfish decision. Jason fires back at him stating that his relationship isn't something to be proud of either, as we noticed throughout the film, his wife becomes progressively unhappy with every scene we see her. Jason sticks up for Julie and claims that he loves her and has for his entire life.

This causes 2 things.

1) John Hamm to get divorced.

2) Julie invites Jason out to dinner.

At this dinner Julie confesses her love for him too and tries to kiss him, but he immediately stops her and tells her he didn't mean it in that way. To Julie this was a bombshell that she didn't see coming. She moves away from her apartment next to him, but close enough so that split-custody works, and keeps minimal contact.

This is the darkest hour part of the film as it shows scenes of her being depressed and scenes of Jason and Mary Jane continuing their relationship as complete opposites.

Jason realizes he made a big mistake.

To keep consistent, even though I basically gave away a lot of the movie in my review, I won't reveal the ending.

So, what can we take from Friends With Kids?

Don't have kids till marriage. You cannot cheat the system. If you could, there wouldn't be a system.

With such a big cast, there were a lot of characters to introduce. Luckily, this film knew how to do it RIGHT. Most movies that contain this many characters with stars attached to their names devote a big chunk of the runtime to introduce them all. This one doesn't. Most of the friends and minor characters are used for comedic relief. The film hinted at many small things with the minor the characters and it was easy to judge them based off of that - this helped the pace of the movie stay somewhat fluent.

The screenwriting was formula. Background - idea - debate - idea happens - conflict - midpoint crisis - all is lost - conclusion.

It all sounds pretty good up to this point no? Well, it floated. What do I mean by floated? I mean the story jumps over periods of time a lotttt. The story has no real time constraint to it. I was never sure when this was going to end and at times felt that conflict didn't pull me in. Both character's goals were made clear: have a child without sacrificing romance. It was obvious this wasn't going to happen. It was also obvious that one would fall for the other, it was just a matter of which fell first. It floated because some of the story was predictable, other parts were clutter, and sometimes the comedy was generic and bland, but I won't go there.

This film generated a cast full of really underrated actors, but didn't necessarily need to. But who am I to say that? I think the cast list is what drove me to watching this movie to begin with. So yeah, it got me there, but when I finished I was wondering why some of them even accepted a role so small. Yes, introducing too many characters and having too much emphasis on too many things is confusing and long, so its best the film didn't take that route, but that also makes for less than memorable performances throughout. I barely remember Kristen Wiig speaking a word. Weird, no?

This is a decent film to pop on when there is nothing else to watch. Adam Scott continues to impress me. Well acted, a bunch of time jumps, and a formulaic plot that stimulates some laughs and a very intense argument at Christmas dinner.

6/10

Cruel But Necessary

Logline: A woman secretly videotapes her family in the months following a divorce caused by her husband's infidelity.

Cast: Wendel Meldrum, Mark Humphrey, Luke Humphrey

Directed by: Saul Rubinek

Cruel But Necessary...

This film sets a serious tone right from reading its title.

Is it really necessary though?

The movie is filmed purely through home video and every scene is a cut from the actual movie that the lead character has made. The actual concept sounds intriguing - secret cameras put around a family that holds a bunch of secrets - a lot of potential things could be captured, both embarrassing and funny to watch.

The film's protag is Betty. Betty is your average office working mom, making less than she thinks she deserves. Betty's husband, Doug, is caught cheating in the opening scene as the whole family watches a recording of him in a phone call with his mistress while he believes the camera he is holding is turned off. It isn't.

The whole family watches and leaves after they listen to his excuses. The divorce begins and Betty decides to start filming EVERYTHING. She puts her camera in a bag she carries around town and hides it in many different locations throughout the film. She calls her project Cruel But Necessary.

During her project, Betty slowly slips into insanity. We find her mother stealing money from her, we see her son crying behind closed doors, we see her awkward relationship with a man she dates, and we see Betty slowly drift from normalcy to complete depression.

So, does this really work?

The answer is no.

It doesn't work for her & it sure as hell doesn't work for the audience watching.

Betty's character is set up nicely - viewers have sympathy for her as she loses her marriage and the home she has lived in for a really long time. Why wouldn't we care what happens to her? Well, to put it simply, you can't put a character in a bad situation and have the audience watching sympathise with her the whole time based ONLY on that. The character has to be likeable. Betty is not. Not one bit. Betty makes you want to put a pillow over your mouth and scream. She makes your skin itch. She irritates you.

Remember that director character in True Romance? Turns out he actually is a director & he directed this.

On dates, at work, in front of her son and ex-husband, Betty quotes philosophy and goes off on psycho-babble rants because she is depressed and lost. This is supposed to be tragic. Maybe it is tragic. It sure as hell wasn't thought provoking or exciting though. 

I commend the lead actress, Wendel Meldrum, for playing her role very believably. She was great. The director captured an unstable and on the verge of being mentally insane woman very very well. However, these are the only positive comments I have for the entire film. It's the story that fails miserably. Nothing out of her mouth has any meaning towards her ultimate goal. Her ultimate goal isn't even made clear. I had to really think before writing this review of what she was looking for and the only thing I could come with was that she was trying to make sense of life.

Life is a touchy subject. You can sit down and have numerous interesting conversations about it. Hell, you LIVE life every day. There are no answers, there isn't a solid belief, there are always contradictions and conversations will always conflict. These are fine for late night discussions over a beer, but for a movie, this is a recipe for disaster.

Wendel Meldrum - actress of Betty.

She doesn't find her answer. At the end the whole family sits around the TV and watches as her film rolls. Some get embarrassed by the truth. Some enjoy. It ends up being all about her son. But is it? Is it really about her son? She says it is... but I didn't see how. A bunch of psycho-babble, a scene with the mother stealing money, and some scenes of her son crying and coping with a broken home, all for... her son. Why? BEATS ME.

Unlikable lead character, a blurry plot, the subject of life being the main topic, disappointing scenes that don't meet expectations set by the logline, and a VERY confused point to the whole project = a dud movie.

2/10