In this "honorable mentions" review, we will be looking at a wide selection of films, as always, live-action and animated, serious and funny, good and bad- though hopefully this time the buffet is more varied than it ever has been before. Some reviews should be short and sweet, others may have a bit more material to discuss. Pick what suits your fancy: whether you've been interested in seeing one of these films for quite some time, or whether you simply wish to hear a fresh opinion on a film you've strongly loved or fervently hated since the weekend it came out. And hence I continue to place at your disposal, another list of ten films, albeit films a rather different level, arranged descending, more or less, in order of quality:
The Secret World of Arrietty
Director: Hiromasa Yonebashi
Starring: Bridgit Mendler, David Henrie, Amy Poehler, Will Arnett, Carol Burnett
Release Date: July 17, 2010
Running Time: 95 minutes
Rating: 3.5/5
When you watch a Hayao Miyazaki film, you can usually expect an exciting fantasy tale full to the brim with curious little ideas and endless imagination. The inverse of this rule is that by contrast, most other Ghibli films will seem underwhelming in absence of the Miyazaki weirdness. Whisper of the Heart is probably the best of the non-Miyazaki Ghibli films, as it managed to succeed through realistic and lovable characters and a small elements of fantasy as brought in through the daydream sequences, despite its own restrictive drama format. But films like Arrietty and From Up on Poppy Hill are a bit harder to sit through. The traditional style of animation guarantees that each film will be visually interesting- how can you not appreciate the beauty of film where literally every frame is a painting of its own? And in Arrietty the gentle, countryside watercolor vibe emerges strongest, especially as our attention is brought to the intensely bucolic imagery. But even if it is undeniably exquisite, we rarely see anything truly breathtaking on screen- only what you would expect to see in a story about small people living under the floorboards of your house. The premise is good enough to keep our attention, but the imagination has waded only a few steps into the ocean of its potential. Yet to its compliment, it doesn't ruin the good material that it's been given to work with. You can watch the characters on-screen, but they're more or less fairly simple, noting challenges you emotionally. There's Arrietty- energetic, bold, and adventurous as young female leads usually are. Her mother is high-strung, paranoid, and overprotective, as the mothers of young female leads usually are. Her father is understanding, but remains the strong and silent type, as fathers of young female leads usually are. These characters are really no more than an inch tall, and their connection to the human world is the young boy who befriends Arrietty and her family. He's kind, gentle, and appears to be in his early teens, and regardless of his function as a stand-in for the audience, he still remains one of the most boring and underdeveloped characters I've ever seen this studio produce. The Secret World of Arrietty is a good movie, don't get me wrong, and it's a pleasant movie. But its tired beginning, slow middle, and derailed ending will probably designate it as one of those films that will only be really enjoyable for the die-hard Ghibli fans, a group I can not say I include myself in.
Director: Tim Burton
Starring: Mia Wasikowska, Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter, Anne Hathaway
Release Date: March 5, 2010
Running Time: 108 minutes
Rating: 3.5/5
The first thing that most people can agree on concerning Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland is that it's a damn far cry from being a proper adaptation of the original Lewis Carroll source material. The story of Alice, as we know it, is the story of a confused heroine moving through a shifting and irrational dreamscape- yet I would argue that this also is a misconstruction of the original books. Lewis Carroll was a mathematician, and Wonderland itself is full to the brim with logic- it's just a different type of logic than we're used to. The two Wonderland books are more about game theory (hence recurring images of cards and chess) than they are about the subconscious mind, yet pop culture has transformed Carroll's universe into a sort of drug odyssey, a poster-child for surrealism. Both interpretations on the work are equally interesting, and both are equally accepted, so I don't see much of a reason to beat up on Burton for this film. The 1951 Disney's Alice in Wonderland was a distortion of the original story, but not a pollution of it. So naturally, neither is this film, even if it abandons all principles of surrealist storytelling to present a firmly structured plot that "makes sense". Even if it makes the Mad Hatter sane. Even if it provides a backstory for all of the characters. Even if it includes a prophecy that tells us what will happen for the rest of the movie. Even if it declares Wonderland (in this film, "Underland") to be a real place and not a dream. Even if it takes place after the events of the original tale, with an adult Alice returning to the fairytale world. Even if it basically turns the whole story into a loose reconstruction of the same plot from The Chronicles of Narnia. So then, will I pardon all these egregiously bad storytelling decisions? No, I will not pardon them- these are clear-cut mistakes. Alice in Wonderland has a lot of things wrong with it, but if you know what to expect when going in to this film, it's much less likely you'll be upset by them. What I'm saying is, that I despite obvious flaws, I don't think that Alice in Wonderland is a bad movie on the whole. Why? Because it's a lot of fun, that's why. Live-action actors are immersed in thick makeup, elaborate costumes, motion-capture, and fluorescent computer-generated environments. Even when you can tell that everything is fake, it's still beautiful to look at in all of its twisted glory. Burton gives a new spin to old images, and despite how we feel about it, the concepts of the film are still indelible. You can tell that the even most seasoned of actors are relieved to break out of their usual roles to have a little fun with these over-the-top caricatures. Alice in Wonderland is sugary-sweet, in that it's delicious for the eyes and ears, despite being bad for you. Entertaining, this film is a sure guilty pleasure for Burton fans, but it could easily be a guilty pleasure for pretty much anyone.
Director: Lena Dunham
Starring: Lena Dunham, Laurie Simmons, Grace Dunham
Release Date: November 12, 2010
Running Time: 98 minutes
Rating: 3.5/5
Anyone familiar with the term "mumblecore" should also be familiar with Lena Dunham's film Tiny Furniture, which is commonly recognized as a landmark film in the genre. It is in part a naturalistic drama, focusing on the mundanity of the everyday and the problems that face modern twenty-somethings who emerge from college only to find that they are just as unsure of their future as they were when they entered it. But it is also in part a comedy, finding humor in the absurdity of human interactions. Dunham plays Aura, a disillusioned college graduate apathetically seeking work whilst juggling her social life and family life. It's worth noting that Aura's mother and sister in the film are played by Dunham's real-life mother and sister- this, of course, leads us to wonder how much of the film is a thinly-veiled portrayal of many of the frustrations of Dunham's own life. Aura wanders amidst a world of budding artists, but they still all seem like a thin shadow of a much larger, much more sincere art world that probably hasn't existed for decades. This is evidenced from the art that they themselves do: Aura's claim to fame is an absurdist YouTube video of her stripping down to a swimsuit and swimming in her college fountain. At another point in the film, she learns that a YouTube celebrity is at the party she's attending, a guy most well known for his "Nietzschian Cowboy" video. Just don't ask. The film is actually quite funny in a few places: one that stands out in particular is the party that Aura's sister Nadine holds, where a bunch of teens sit around on couches looking disinterested and are declared "out of control" by Aura's friend Charlotte, who tries (and fails) to seduce them as a means of breaking up the party. Tiny Furniture is an enjoyable and, for the most part, memorable experience. My problem with it would be that it is too much like its heroine. The line between Dunham and the characters she creates is so blurred it's hard to tell whether there is a line at all, and this of course reflects on the picture as a whole. Aura is confused and questioning of her life, and in the end, we feel she settles for less- the same can be said of the film itself. A film can have a lack of solid story, but in Tiny Furniture there's a lack of a solid anything- this is especially unnerving when such a film arrives to its conclusion, as Aura pushes away everyone in her life that will help her grow, and embraces people who are clearly bad influences. So yes, the film is amusing enough. But despite the place that it holds in the history of a movement, it manages to be both preceded and followed by several films of much better quality (Frances Ha, cough-cough) with a lot of the same central themes and ideas.
Director: Sylvian Chomet
Starring: Jacques Tati
Release Date: June 16, 2010
Running Time: 79 minutes
Rating: 3.5/5
In recent years, it seems we've had a lot of "silent" films- films that may feature sound effects, music, and color, but function entirely without dialogue. The Artist was the modern silent film that grabbed everyone's attention, but most people take for granted that while The Artist managed to rake in Best Picture at the Academy Awards, a year earlier The Illusionist used the same key idea and yet failed to win anything so grand, and in fact struggled to secure the nominations that it did receive. Of course, the silent format can either feel necessary and genuine or gimmicky and pretentious, depending on the film. And while I firmly believe that The Illusionist came straight from the heart, an atmosphere of pretentiousness pervades every corner of the film. It's hard to identify where exactly the problem is- but if you take a look at all of the other animated films that came out in the exact same year, the lack of attention for this film seems almost... deserved, and I feel horrible saying that about any film, especially this one, but it's true. The Illusionist was inspired by the work of Jacque Tati... no, that's an understatement. It was practically taken from a screenplay already written by Jacques Tati that was never made, and while I feel glad that the film was made, many of Tati's family complain that the material had too much of a personal and emotional meaning for Tati that producing it in the wake of his death would be disrespectful. I have no authority over the matter, especially when the family of the artist is concerned, but in my opinion, the actions of director Sylvian Chomet only helped make more clear and real the message of love that Tati was trying to send to his own daughter- the film's exposure to the public hasn't changed or lessened that message. The relationship between an aging magician and a young girl he takes under his wing is representative of the love that Tati wished that he could have showed his daughter if he had more time. Rather, the movie has introduced this time-honored artist to new audiences. I've only seen one film by Tati, and even then, I was scarcely paying attention- but the title character of this film shares so much physically in common with the bumbling M. Hulot and his distinct mannerisms and movements that I consider this to be just as much a Tati film as any other. The magic of animation has enabled the performer to act posthumously, because of the enduring fingerprints that he has left on the art of pantomime (and physical comedy in general) and no animator could be more suited to this task than Chomet and his memorable caricatured style. That being said, The Illusionist, though being described by some as a comedy, will drive you to tears, or a depressed slump, at the least. The way in which the story is presented inevitably reminds me of every film that has confused sadness with realism, and which has confused realism with profundity. The attitude of the story shows a remarkable pessimism towards the fact that times are always changing, and yes, for some this is a very sad truth, but the tale scarcely knows how to find the silver lining. A melancholy hangs over the film, and it is melancholy that had to be there for Tati to appropriately convey his feelings, and also a melancholy that to be there for Chomet to be faithful to Tati. It drains the film's energy and enjoyability, but it doesn't make the film any worse. It's just important to understand that it doesn't make the film any better, either. In short, The Illusionist is the final chapter in a long story in the life of a great comedian- it is a strange dreamy little miracle that you won't regret seeing, but you probably shouldn't regret missing.
Director: Will Gluck
Starring: Emma Stone, Amanda Bynes, Thomas Haden Church, Stanley Tucci
Release Date: September 17, 2010
Running Time: 92 minutes
Rating: 3/5
Every great movie has its imitators. Just as Heathers was followed by its early nineties clone Jawbreaker, so was Mean Girls succeeded by Easy A. And I understand the two films have their differences, but honestly they're both kind of the same thing- a cautionary tale for high schoolers about the dangers of peer pressure and the importance of self-esteem- except Easy A has an unnecessary focus on sex. Seriously, the entire plot is about how a girl lies about having tons of sex when she's actually not having any. Okay, I suppose I should give some details: our story is told in flashback by our young heroine Olive (played by Emma Stone), as she sits in her bedroom talking into her webcam in what is apparently an effort to clear up a huge misunderstanding. Several weeks earlier, Olive was pressured by a friend into falsely admitting to losing her virginity. Later, a gay friend asks her to fake having sex with him at a party so that he may appear as "straight" in front of the rest of the guys. One thing leads to another, and soon every geek and loser is asking Olive permission to lie about sleeping with her to advance their own social standing, all to the detriment of Olive's reputation. Easy A sets itself up as a comedy by its good foundations and its clever marketing, and while it does have a few good laughs, it's never really that funny. By the time this film is in its second or third act, the situation that Olive has gotten herself into is far too serious for you to be laughing at anything else. What distresses me most is that the film attempts to be something of a moral fable, with the underlying message be "don't judge people for how much or how little sex they have, nor feel ashamed of what other people think of you"- now, if Olive didn't really understand this message until the end of the movie, then why the heck did she start dressing like a prostitute halfway through? I'm not against the message, but I am against how the heroine of the story makes inconsistent and misguided decisions and at the end gets out of it okay, with the movie painting her as the good person and blaming everyone else for being judgmental. I mean, she practically tore apart a marriage- correction: literally tore apart a marriage- and I know that she admits that she made some mistakes over the course of the whole thing, but she never really admits what she did wrong, specifically, or what was wrong about it. Instead, most of the blame seems to transfer onto other people like her schoolmates for judging her. In all seriousness, though, what kind of high school does Olive go to? Most of the students of your average American high school really don't care about your sex life- the way the rumor mill works is that no matter how famous or infamous the rumors about you get, you're forgotten about pretty much the next day. Easy A is really a paranoid left-wing fable that misconstrues modern high schools as being places where the religious still have control over society, when in reality characters like extremist Mary Anne (Amanda Bynes) are a small minority even in evangelical Christian circles. In fact, Easy A contains perhaps the most offensive caricaturization of Christianity that I've seen, not that they've taken it to the furthest lengths or anything, but because it's so easy to dismiss in context of the rest of the film and subconsciously adopt the film's biases. Meanwhile, Olive's parents are deliberately set up as the "perfect parents" because of their unbelievably liberal views and their gentle, smiling and dismissive methods of parenting, while the film ignores the fact that if they, with the exceptional levels of compassion and wisdom that they do have, had asked a few more questions and smartly intervened at the correct time, things wouldn't have wound up anywhere near as bad as they did. And finally, we have Olive, who is constantly surprised by the logical consequences of her actions- she pretends that she's the easiest lay in the whole school, and then acts totally shocked when some guy actually tries to have sex with her. If the film holds together in one area, it would be in the solidity of Emma Stone's performance, which proved a serious breakout performance for her as an actress and enabled her to star in bigger films like The Amazing Spider-Man and far, far, better ones like Birdman. Still, Easy A remains one of those films which is mainly remembered for stretching the limits of its PG-13 rating, both in content and attitude.
Director: Apichatpong Weerasethakul
Starring: Thanapat Saisaymar, Jenjira Pongpas, Sakda Kaewbuadee
Release Date: June 25, 2010
Running Time: 114 minutes
Rating: 3/5
Some films deliberately hide meaning from the audience; be it through non-chronological narrative, long periods of silence, or simply indecipherable dialogue (take note, this film uses all three of these techniques). In many cases, we have to develop meaning for ourselves, and the film's strangeness or lack of clarity is more of an invitation to look at things more closely. Other films will try to be confusing when they're really just pretentious and empty. I don't think that Thai art-house film Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives is one of the latter, but I don't think it's one of the former, either. I think that the filmmaker is very sincere in the subjects that he addresses and the way that he addresses them. But raving supporters of the film might be reading a bit too much into it- or maybe I'm not reading enough into it. I do take into account that the film greatly explores themes that are much more prominent and relevant in the culture of the country in which the film was made. But the issue with Uncle Boonmee's weirdness is that it's too detached and quiet for you to grow truly interested in what's going on, but unlike the art-house film that entertains by showing bizarre images and scenes randomly, Uncle Boonmee instead spends many scenes where nothing strange is happening at all, and it's just people talking, so we can't afford to become disinterested in the characters either. It's too cryptic for us to understand it the first time around, but it's too slow-paced for us to want to see it a second time. I do applaud director Apichatpong Weerasethakul (whose name I copy-pasted from the Wikipedia article because I'm too lazy to spell it out letter-for-letter) for his use of multiple types of film and methods of filming to aid his style of magical realism. At times, the story sinks into deep fantasy, and at others, the film seems just like your standard low-budget foreign documentary. When we see these characters driving their cars, moving around the farm, and staying in hotel rooms, it feels just as real as if we're seeing it with our own eyes. Yet the storyteller manages to infuse the modern Asian world- and all its technology, politics, and progressive culture- with just the slightest bit of magic and spiritualism to really throw things off. In the end, Uncle Boonmee really seems more focused on characters, places, and images than it does on events. We remember certain things- a young man wanders off into the woods because of a strange creature capture in one of his photographs. He discovers a group of ape-ghosts and copulates with one of them, and is respectively transformed into one, while a parallel incident takes place with a princess and a catfish, this time depicted far more explicitly. The most fantastic of scenes comes early on, as a family sits down to dinner, only to be greeted by unexpected guests: the ghosts of former loved ones. At the end, we're not really sure where we've arrived at or if anything has really changed. All we do remember are the places we've travelled through and the souvenirs we've brought with us.
Dishonorable Mentions
Director: Michael Apted
Starring: Georgie Henley, Skandar Keynes, Ben Barnes, Liam Neeson
Release Date: December 10, 2010
Running Time: 115 minutes
Rating: 2.5/5
You know, considering "Voyage of the Dawn Treader" was my favorite Narnia book, I was really hoping that they wouldn't completely butcher it in theaters. And... they did. The Chronicles of Narnia: Voyage of the Dawn Treader isn't the worst of failures- like Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland, it's able to redeem itself through some interesting and beautiful visuals and a basically fun story. But whereas Alice in Wonderland was able to gain guilty pleasure status by veering from the original plot completely, Voyage of the Dawn Treader slams all chance of that happening by making you slap yourself in the face every time the movie does something that wasn't in the book, or takes out something that was in the book, etc, etc. Compared to the first two books in the series, "Voyage of the Dawn Treader" presents more of an episodic approach reminiscent of Homer's "Odyssey". To release a film like that would have been a ballsy move for Walden Media, but somehow I like to think that a quiet, meditative and relatively plotless voyage across a magical ocean would have been better than the unnecessary tension and even more unnecessary plot devices that have been added to this film. In fact, the new elements that are brought in to Voyage of the Dawn Treader somehow manage to make it seem weirder and more incoherent than its source material, despite their obvious intent to do the opposite. What follows is a forced three-act structure on a structureless plot, with a contrived climax centering around the "fear island" where everyone sees their worst fears materialize around them in the form of some cheesy green mist that shamelessly plagiarizes from Jean-Pierre Jeunet's City of Lost Children. Instead of having the island of fear show up in due time, though, foreshadowing must be placed in every part of the story before it, so now a subplot involving slave-traders becomes involved, as well as an even worse subplot involving Lucy's desire to steal Susan's good looks (wtf?) and to salt the wound they've got to bring the White Witch back (dream sequence style) just because they need to emphasize the fact that they can't come up with a villain to top her. The White Witch is already defeated; we made it clear in the second film that she's not coming back; so stop it already, ok? If there is one good thing about it, it's the casting of Will Poulter as the character of Eustace Scrubb. The entire point of the character in the book was for him to be endlessly obnoxious. Poulter carries that across delightfully- and I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that it was just really good acting on his part. But no matter how much I get my hopes up, The Chronicles of Narnia: Voyage of the Dawn Treader pretty much ensures that a film adaptation of the next chapter, "The Silver Chair", will never happen, so shame on it for that. But I'm hearing rumors, so let's just keep our fingers crossed that there's hope yet for the series' redemption.
Director: Randall Wallace
Starring: Diane Lane, John Malkovich, Dylan Walsh, James Cromwell
Release Date: October 8, 2010
Running Time: 123 minutes
Rating: 2/5
I think I've mentioned previously that despite the countless action films and rom-coms I've been exposed to, nothing stands out to me as being the most formulaic than the small genre otherwise known as the "horse movie". It begins with a human character, usually female, caught at a more or less difficult time in life- due to either family troubles, financial troubles, or a mixture of the two. In some way, a horse will come into their possession, probably along with the acquisition of some new real estate. It is at this point where they form a close bond with the horse more intimate than pretty much every human relationship they have in their life. They can practically communicate. It's only natural that the next thing that they'll want to do is enter the horse in a race- because it rides so well, and what else are horses good for but racing? The horse in question will qualify either because it happens to be a former racehorse itself, or because owners (possibly with the help of experts and/or trainers) simply see a lot of untapped potential in it. There will be several setbacks amidst much social criticism as a race or two will be won, and at least one race will be lost. In the end, it will all come down to one big final race and we'll all be on the edge of our seats until the last lap, when it looks like the horse might lose, but then wins on the last second. Of course the horse wins. We wouldn't be making a movie about a horse if it lost the Kentucky Derby, now would we? I was so young and uninformed when my family dragged me to this film that the name "Secretariat" misled me into thinking it would actually be about a secretary filing papers- though that would probably be more interesting. I honestly remember little to nothing of the details of this film, but I can assure you, when I found out what kind of movie it was, I could predict everything that that was going to happen, seriously, I could predict every decision, practically every line these bland characters would utter. Frankly, I don't even need to remember most of the specifics because what I do remember is that it doesn't stray outside of the previously explained formula one bit. And while similar films have an air of naivety and Hallmark glaze about them, Secretariat is instead oozing with layers upon layers of melodrama. I remember taking a screenwriting course where the teacher referred to Secretariat as a keystone example of what a modern movie should look like. To bring this up here, I know, is unnecessary, but if I can succeed in getting my point account without sounding like I place myself above a much more accomplished and experienced screenwriter, then my mentioning it will not be in vain. It's okay to recognize the easy marketability of a film like Secretariat and appreciate that. What bothers me is not this speaker's praise of Randall Wallace's screenwriting or directing- what bothers me is that he seemed to lament that most other films today were not like Secretariat- that more films should be "wholesome" like Secretariat with a "heartwarming message" and "family values"- and I'm not against wholesomeness and family values. But films like Secretariat are bad examples because they have no boldness, no edginess. When films like National Velvet, Seabiscuit, The Black Stallion, and Dreamer exist, why on earth is it necessary to make a movie about Secretariat? It shows you can base a film off of a true story and still be unoriginal. They don't do anything different because they're too scared to, because formula is profitable. And this should be denounced, not celebrated. And perhaps, if one day the person I reference here should happen to read this, to him I say that he may feel free to ignore all of the other good, powerful daring films that have come out just that same year- but that he should know that everyone else will be ignoring Secretariat.
Director: Thor Freudenthal
Starring: Zachary Gordon, Robert Capron, Chloe Grace Moretz
Release Date: March 19, 2010
Running Time: 92 minutes
Rating: 2/5
It's becoming a more or less widely accepted idea today that the worst years of a modern person's life are those spent in middle school- this not as much about what happens to you as it is about the kind of person the middle school experience shapes you into. It's that awkward zone that's evolved in our culture where you're not allowed to be a child, but you're not allowed to be a teenager, either, so you're kind of figuring out how to be "cool" like the teens, and yet you can't escape the image of childish innocence that all adults will try to project upon you. Somehow, just being in those years between the end of fourth grade and the beginning of high school just transforms a good kid into one that intentionally tries to annoy everyone who shows any sign of being annoyed, a kid who not only thinks poop and pee jokes are hilarious, but who will repeat them over and over again, thinking that they're still funny the twentieth time around. The person I was in middle-school was the worst, most embarrassing version of myself that has ever been- and I can't speak for everyone else, but I'm pretty sure many in my generation would attest to the same being true with in regard to their own experiences. The reason I say this is because all of the main characters in Diary of a Wimpy Kid are middle-schoolers. It is a film directly intended for that age group, directly addressing all of the typical problems of that age group. It provides a voice for those who were formerly voiceless on the big screen. Now someone please silence it. I suppose I shouldn't be too harsh; after all, it does have its funny moments and I was, at the time, a big fan of the original graphic-novel-ish book series the film was based on. But then again, Jeff Kinney's "Diary of a Wimpy Kid" is not really the kind of book you can make a film out of. The full essence of it requires that it be realized in comic book form- when you see it on film, another level of reality is added to the characters themselves, but the overall effect is still greatly lessened. One thing that stands out to me was the addition of a new character to the franchise- the smart girl who reads books and sits under the bleachers during physical education- played by Chloe Grace Moretz, of course. Her character was interesting as a "voice of reason", but in spite of how prominently she featured in the trailers for the film, she had little to no involvement in the story at all, and in the end, no reason to be there in the first place. The idea of her being a possible love interest for protagonist and diary author Greg is both absurd and unlikely, considering Greg's responses to her in the movie, what with her being too smart for him and him being into hotter girls. Typical middle-schooler. It's almost like she's a character that's escaped from a much better movie and is just hanging out in this one to kill time. In some ways, I kind of appreciate it for its specific brand of humor, focusing on the grotesque aspects of suburban school life- be it a piece of moldy cheese on the basketball court, the special needs kid getting a sugar rush off of Halloween candy, or a multicolored secret freckle. It might be significant as the first gross-out comedy for kids, if things like that hadn't been done before. Instead, it remains the embodiment of the attitudes of its awkward heroes as it awkwardly searches for its place amidst scores of other borderline-crude live-action family comedies.
Director: Brian Levant
Starring: Jackie Chan, Amber Valletta, Billy Ray Cyrus, George Lopez
Release Date: January 15, 2010
Running Time: 95 minutes
Rating: 0.5/5
If to become just another money-making forgettable family comedy was the aim of The Spy Next Door, then it's succeeded excellently. Awards season for the previous year had just wrapped up, so in early January there was nothing much to see for the bored family and their audience of seven-year-olds I was asked to help babysit. Hence The Spy Next Door was the chaperone's logical choice. This isn't one of those bad movies that's infuriatingly bad, and it's not one of those bad movies that's so bad that it's good either. It's just... bad. In a disappointing kind of way, that is, it would be disappointing if we had any expectations to begin with. It's dull, embarrassing, loaded with every type of stock character and spy cliche, and the plot goes pretty much nowhere. The story begins with a mother leaving her kids to be babysat by her kindly geeky Asian neighbor, played by Jackie Chan, who is actually- you guessed it- a spy. Naturally, him being a spy just kind of leads to spy shenanigans, and before you know it, the kids are hopping in to help, and... oh gosh, the point at which this premise fell apart was before the movie even began. Clearly, no one expected it to be a good movie. In fact, practically everyone working on it knew it was going to be a load of total crap- yet it just kind of gets a free pass because who cares how bad family comedy matinees are, you know? No. Just no. The fact that a film with the budget that this one has can be made with such a degree of apathy just saddens me. More than anything else, I just feel an invasive sense of pathetic when I think of this film. I mean, the action scenes were done so obviously without any effort, the villains' evil plan is stupidly boring: trying to turn oil reserves into sand and hence bankrupting a large oil company and disrupting the whole American economy. Between the goofiness of the spies and the goofiness of the kids, I don't know how it manages to balance itself out- oh wait, it doesn't. There is a reason The Spy Next Door holds a 12% on RottenTomatoes.com, juxtaposed with the words "fails on every conceivable level". I can't imagine a single person that would actively planning on going back and watching this one, but if you are that person, and if what the rest of the critics are saying isn't stopping you, please listen to me: just don't.
-Julian Rhodes
No comments:
Post a Comment