"Duplicity" Movie Review

Ryan here and this week I’ll be taking a look at the Julia Roberts/Clive Owen vehicle, Duplicity (PG-13). In the film Roberts and Owen star as a couple of ex-spies who are now employed at competing multi-conglomerate corporations. Upon the revealing of a new groundbreaking product, Roberts and Owen mastermind a plan to scam the payoff for themselves. Rounding out the cast is Tom Wilkinson and Paul Giamatti.

Duplicity is directed by Tony Gilroy and I was a big fan of his directorial debut, Michael Clayton. I thought it was one of the better films of the past several years. Duplicity is a a slight departure from “Clayton.” Duplicity is a thriller but it’s more of a light-hearted thriller somewhat in the vein of Stanley Donen’s classic film, Charade. Overall Duplicity is not on the same level of Michael Clayton (or Charade for that matter) but it’s not a bad film. It’s a slightly above average film--and for the most part that’s quite acceptable at this time of year. As most moviegoers are aware the spring time is not when the studios role out their best material.

Gilroy's is a fan of non-linear storytelling and it served him well with “Clayton.” But with Duplicity the results are mixed. Initially the flashbacks that are developed in the narrative do add to the second-guessing of the plot, which Gilory is trying to establish. After all the movie is called Duplicity so I understand the need to keep the audience guessing. Unfortunately the film comes to its conclusion through a flashback that detracts from the pull of the story. It would have been acceptable if the clues would have led to this particular climax but when looking back on the film there's not much there that one could have pieced together to figure out exactly what was going on. The final “gotcha” moment completes the story but not in a fulfilling way. But overall Gilory's pacing of the story does suceed in amping the tension to an otherwise dull concept.

Another strength that Gilory has is the ability to bring out solid performances by his main players. Much of what makes Duplicity a watchable film are the performances by Roberts and Owen. Both of their roles are roles that demand a certain amount of charm and screen presence and they both deliver sexy alluring performances. They have good chemistry together and that allows them to continually play off of each other to the degree that the audience is not sure whether to trust their relationship. That conflict is necessary in a movie like this.

Also adding to the film are the performances by Giamatti and Wilkinson. They don't have a lot of screen time and their characters are more stereotypes than fleshed out roles but they give solid performances. I guess that shouldn't be to surprising considering that they almost always deliver solid work but it is always a joy seeing them on screen especially when they can purposely “ham” it up.

In essence Duplicity is a pretty good film. It is geared for adults and as an adult feature it succeeds more than fails.

Final grade: B-.

I don't know Curt Schilling...

MLB pitcher Curt Schilling announced his retirement earlier in the week. (And don't even get me started on how much time ESPN devoted to this as opposed to how much time they spent on Maddux's retirement).

But anyway...the debate with Schilling is whether he is Hall of Fame worthy.

And to be honest...I've been on the fence (which as I've said before is not a good sign). But after doing some research...I would vote no. And here's one reason why.

Let's do a little exercise here...

Pitcher A...

innings pitched: 3,130
career win-loss: 204-150 (.576 winning %)
career ERA: 3.48

Won one career Cy-Young.

post season innings pitched: 132
post season win-loss: 8-3
post season ERA: 2.59

Won NLCS, World Series & ALCS MVP

Here's pitcher B...

innings pitched: 3,261
career win-loss: 216-146 (.597 winning %)
career ERA: 3.46

Never won a Cy-Young

post season innings pitched: 133
post season win-loss: 11-2
post season ERA: 2.23

Won NLCS & World Series MVP

Now if you looked at these pitchers what would one conclude? That basically pitcher A & B are very similar...almost the same. Interestingly enough pitcher A only survived on the hall of fame ballot for two years...never getting more than 11.2% of the vote.

Who's who...pitcher A is Orel Hershiser and pitcher B is Curt Schilling.

I'm not sure how one reconciles the difference. Granted Schilling did have more good to-great years (roughly 9-5) but the bottom line is that there's not much cumulative difference between them, other than the fact that Schilling played for the Red Sox...and ESPN loves the Red Sox...so in effect we are going to be hearing this debate for years. And don't under estimate playing on the Red Sox. Jim Rice made the cut this year and that was highly questionable.

Because to me...one can only take the post season success so far. Look at David Cone...he won 5 World Series rings...was 8-3 in the post season...plus he won a Cy Young award and had a higher career winning percentage (194 to 126--.606) than Schilling. But what' s the big difference between Cone and Schilling's candidacy...oh yeah...Schilling had the bloody sock game.

I'm not taking anything away from Schilling's post season success...because it's remarkable but I don't think it puts him over the hump in terms of getting in the hall. His body of work...his cumulative numbers during the regular season falls short.

To me Schilling is in that class of pitchers like Cone, Hershiser...and maybe even Dave Stewert, Jack Morris, Dwight Gooden and Kevin Brown. These are pitchers who had solid careers...and some of them even had enormous post season success (like Cone, Gibson and Hershisher)...but that doesn't mean they are hall worthy.

The problem with Schilling is consistency. He just wasn't consistently good to great for an extended amount of time...and that's big for me and determining one's chances for gaining admittance. One just can't have flashes of brilliance...it has to be sustained.

"I Love You, Man" movie review

This week I'll be looking at the romantic comedy, I Love You, Man ( R). In the film Paul Rudd stars as a recently engaged man who doesn't happen to have any close male buddies. In search of a best man for his wedding Rudd crosses the paths with the eccentric character played by Jason Segal. Rashida Jones, Jamie Pressely, John Favreau and Andy Samburg costar in the film.

I Love You, Man is an enjoyable romantic comedy. This isn't a Judd Apatow production but it definitely shows his influence. The movie is a balanced meshing of the crude (language-wise) with the sincere. The movie lacks being consistently funny but there are plenty of laugh-out-loud moments. Overall the film is quite entertaining and will satisfy moviegoers of both genders. Yes, this is a good date film. It's not quite on the same level as last spring's romantic comedy hit, Forgetting Sarah Marshall but it's definitely one of the better films playing at local movie theaters.

In a lot of ways the movie is more “bromantic comedy” than romantic comedy. The film is about the Rudd and Jones character getting married but more-to-the point the film's focus is on Rudd and Segal's budding friendship. Some moviegoers might be turned off by a film that actually showcases two dudes forming a lasting friendship but don't be. I say this a lot about movies that I think are good—and it's simply that—I Love You Man works. It succeeds at being a humorous and at times a genuine romantic comedy. The ingredients in the film come to a fruition and produce a winning film.

There's no doubt that much of the film's success comes from the cast. Entertainment Weekly recently proclaimed Paul Rudd to be “the most lovable movie star on the planet”—and it's hard to argue that point. My respect for Rudd has increased steadily over the years. He's not the funniest comedic actor. He's not the most charismatic leading man but he is the most likable—I don't think there's any question about that. It doesn't matter how good or bad a film is. Rudd always enhances it. It's good to see him getting more leading parts because it allows him to more thoroughly demonstrate his everyman charm. The chemistry between him and Jones and him and Segal ground the film in plausible reality. Speaking of Segal, he continues to show that he can be a movie star as well as a TV star. He has an “interesting” screen presence in this movie but for the most part he succeeds in bringing to life a character that could have just been a caricature. This is Rashida Jones's first big break in a major motion picture and she definitely has the look and skill to establish a successful film career. Also stealing every scene they are in are Jamie Pressly and John Favreau. They play the stereotypical married couple that hates each other but their scenes are extremely funny.

I Love You, Man doesn't really suffer from any glaring weaknesses. What might hurt the film is what expectations people might have going into it. The movie is somewhere in between chick flick romantic comedies and rated-R Apatow romantic comedies. But the bottom line is that male and female moviegoers will both enjoy the film. I Love You, Man is a solid spring flick.

Final grade: B+.

"Year One" trailer

This movie looks pretty goofy but it still looks funny. It's pretty much Jack Black and Michael Cena doing their thing.

'Year One' Theatrical Trailer @ Yahoo! Video

Bracket Madness

It's that time of year where everyone fills out their brackets for the NCAA tournament. I don't think there's any question that the NCAA tournament is the best sporting event out there. I love filling out the brackets and watching the games. The suspense from day to day and week to week is unparalleled in the sporting world.

But it does stink when one's team (in this case--Indiana) is not in the field. Hence filling out the bracket just isn't quite as fun when The Hoosiers aren't playing. Even in years when it was a stretch for them to make the final four...I always held out hope for them to make a run. So consequently it is not quite as fullfilling filling out the bracket when one's favorite team is absent.

For what it is worth...I've got Louisville, Memphis, Pittsburgh and Gonzaga in the Final Four...with Memphis winning. I'm not to excited are confident in these predictions. I mean I have Memphis winning...how great is that?

The time of year also breeds another phenomenon...that of other brackets and tournaments for random things. For those that might be disillusioned with the NCAA bracket there are several alternatives.

Of course there's always a "hot women" bracket...thanks Q95.
Marisa Miller vs. Erin Andrews in the finale is quite a toss up.

If music is your thing...here's a classic rock bracket. My final four was Baba O'Reilly, Born to Run, All Along the Watchtower and A Day in the Life. Born to Run topped A Day in the Life in the finals...tough match up though. Although the seeding in this tournament defies logic...Turn the Page a #2 seed...Hotel California, Bohemian Rhapsody and Back in Black were #1 seeds (Stairway to Heaven was the other #1 seed...I can accept that...but I don't get most of the other ones).

Here's another one that I came across...it's the Tournament of Bad...put together by 670 The Score out of Chicago. It's a pretty funny bracket. My final four was Octomon, Rod Blagojevich, Dane Cook and heartburn. Dane Cook was victorious over Octomon. (In your face heartburn).

I'm sure there's more out there...those are just the ones that I've come across.

"Taken" Movie Review

In the action flick Taken (R) Liam Neeson stars as an ex-spy who goes to Paris to save his estranged daughter from a mob group that has kidnapped her.

Taken is not a “new” release but it has become a staple at local cineplexes. The movie has also become somewhat of a box-office phenomenon as it has remained in the top five at the weekend box-office for eight consecutive weeks. In this day in age of short attention spans that fact is quite remarkable. Films that do well on word-of-mouth are few and far between.

The question becomes—why has this movie resonated so much with audiences? Even the star of the film Neeson has weighed in on the subject by saying, “People are angry and disgruntled about the economy. They're empathizing with a guy who takes matters into his own hands. There's a catharsis that comes from that.” There is some degree of truth coming from Neeson. The world of Taken is very black and white. The bad guys are truly bad guys and the good guy (Neeson) is an uncompromising good guy. If one is looking for a complicated film that dives into the gray area of crime and punishment then this isn't the movie for that. Taken is escapist fare and generally speaking what people are looking for that especially when times are tough.

Ultimately that line of thinking is actually selling Taken a little short. Truth-be-told, Taken is a solid action flick. It's thrilling without being over-the-top. The action scenes, while nothing new, are well shot. But most importantly, the movie doesn't try to be anything more than what it set out to be—and that's an entertaining action movie. Sometimes there's something to be said for a movie that accomplishes it's objectives. This movie set out to be a ninety minute popcorn action movie and it succeeded in that.

There's no debate that the other side of the coin in terms of Taken's success is Neeson's performance. Liam Neeson is not Hollywood's typical action star (and Neeson himself would probably admit that). But nonetheless it's his cool performance that sells the movie. Neeson is an accomplished actor and his screen presence adds a lot of weight to the narrative and instantly adds credibility to the character and story. If a lesser actor would have had this role I'm convinced that the movie would not have been the hit that it has become.

For the most part Taken succeeds as a thrilling action vehicle for Neeson. The film does falter at times as there were a few instances when the story boarded on the line of ridiculousness. But with Neeson's steady hand he was able to reel the movie in when it seemed that is was crossing over to the absurd.

Ultimately Taken isn't a movie for everybody but for those moviegoers looking for a worthwhile action spectacle then Taken is the answer. .

Final grade: B.

March Madness

March Madness has begun. For proof...check out this little argument between ESPN's Dick Vitale and Jay Bilas.

Maybe Vitale isn't as in love with Duke as I previously thought.

More Watchmen...

I just can't help myself.

Watchmen Tour with Malin Akerman from Malin Akerman

Saturday Morning Watchmen

Just imagine if Hanna-Barbarra had the rights to a Watchmen cartoon...this is what it might have looked like.

"Watchmen" movie review

This week I'll be tackling the graphic film adaptation, Watchmen (R). The film is based on the acclaimed graphic novel by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons. When an ex-super hero is brutally murdered a chain of events begin to unfold that alarmingly leads toward a path of nuclear annihilation. Zach Snyder (of 300 fame) directs and the movies stars Malin Akerman, Billy Crudup, Matthew Goode, Jackie Earle Haley, Jeffrey Dean Morgan and Patrick Wilson.

For those not familiar with the graphic novel, Watchmen (published in 1986) is considered the “Citizen Kane”...the “Sgt. Pepper's” of the comic book medium. It's generally regarded to be the high point of the comic book as an art form. (Time magazine placed it on its list of the top 100 English language novels of the 20th century). The graphic novel, which I've read, is a multi-layered story that takes a hard look at how super heroes would actually exist in the real world. The narrative takes place in 1985 with the world on brink of nuclear war between the United States and Soviet Union. The story deconstructs the super hero myth but also adds layers of psychological resonance that significantly elevates the characters and the story. As you can tell, I'm a big fan of it. And I also thought that due to the complexity of the story that a decent feature film adaptation would be near impossible.

I was wrong. While the film is not without its flaws, Zach Snyder's Watchmen is a brilliant film. It's faithful (for the most part) in its adaptation while also being entertaining and engaging. It's a film that will probably perplex those that yearn for a typical super hero flick. Watchmen is not a traditional super hero movie. It's a film that is led more by its drama than by it's action. Snyder does do a good job showcasing what action there is but he let's the drama drive the film—as it should. The movie is long and that will probably bother some moviegoers but there's a lot to pack into this movie. Snyder left some big moments out but it would have been unfeasible to incorporate everything in the graphic novel into the movie. But I give Synder a lot of credit. He's kept the essence of the movie intact and didn't lose much of the substance in translation. Fans of the graphic novel will accept the movie and moviegoers who are willing to let the movie stand for what it is will also appreciate the merits of the film.

The movie doesn't boast any “big” stars but that isn't a problem because the hand selected cast all excel with their given characters. Crudup's monotone voice perfectly captures the detachment of Dr. Manhattan. Morgan effortlessly brings out the perverted machismo of the Comedian. Wilson excels in being the uncertain super hero. Goode successfully portrays the elitist egoism of Ozymandias. Ackerman sheds off the naivete of Silk Spectre and Haley brings to life the obsessive stubbornness of Rorschach. All in all the cast does a superb job bringing to life heroes that are just as flawed as everyone else. As an ensemble cast they really hold the film together and bring to life characters that most people are not familiar with.

During one of the crucial scenes in the film Rorschach states, “Never compromise. Not even in the face of Armageddon.” Unfortunately for Snyder he does compromise with some of the aspects of the movie. Chiefly among his concessions was the film's music. I like most of the classic rock and pop '80's songs used in the movie but I don't like them in context with the film. Blasting Hendrix's All Along the Watchtower works in most movies. It doesn't here. The Watchmen story is our reality but it isn't our reality. Consequently having songs that are familiar ultimately distract from the epic and serious tone of the film.

Snyder's second compromise directly factored into appealing to his loyal 300 fanbase. I wasn't the biggest fan of that movie. I thought it was all right. But it's clear that Snyder ratcheted up the depiction of violence in Watchmen to cater to his fans. Watchmen is a violent graphic novel but the way that Snyder depicts some of the violence in the movie is completely over-the-top and exploitative. More-to-the point this also serves to undermine the gravity of the film's narrative.

Watchmen is a flawed film but it's a skillful cinematic achievement for Snyder and company . The film might not be easily accessible to those moviegoers not familiar with it but I'm convinced that the film will appeal to both fan boys of the graphic novel as well as with other moviegoers.

Final grade: B+.

Wonder Woman movie

Unfortunately I'm not talking about a feature film ( I don't know why Warner Bros and DC Comics can't get a Wonder Woman film in production...but that's a complaint for another day).

What I am talking about is the latest direct-to-DVD animated movie from Warner Bros. Animation.

First there was Superman/Doomsday...than Justice League: The New Frontier...Batman: Gotham Knights and now that boldly named, Wonder Woman.

I watched it last night...and it is just as solid as the previous feature length animated movies. Now it is rated PG-13 and there are some intense action scenes but overall it's an entertaining spectacle that remains faithful to the Wonder Woman mythos.

The Waitress duo of Keri Russel and Nathan Fillion perform the respected voice work of Wonder Woman and Steve Trevor and both do a solid job. Actually I was thinking if a feature length production ever did get off the ground both of these actors could probably pull the rolls off...especially Fillion as Trevor. (although...Russel as Wonder Woman is a little more questionable).

Nonetheless here's the trailer for those interested:

More Overdue Oscar Talk

Last Saturday I talked about who was the most deserveing actor working in today's Hollywood that was most deserving of being an Oscar Winning Actor.

My vote went to Johnny Depp...and I stand by that.

Today...I found this guy's take over at Film Experience Blog. He has Depp second and while I don't buy his number one selection--in being number one on the list-- he did bring up some very respectable names that I didn't think of right away--namely Jeff Bridges, Joan Allen and Julianne Moore.

Click here to see his top ten.

"Last Chance Harvey" Movie Review

In Last Chance Harvey (PG-13) Dustin Hoffman stars as an estranged divorcee father who begrudgingly attends his daughter’s wedding in London. While there he meets an equally lonely single woman (Emma Thompson). Though seemingly not suited for one another the two quickly form a friendship that may or may not lead to something more. Joel Hopkins directs.

Last Chance Harvey, which is currently playing here in town, is a nice little movie. Granted that probably wasn’t the highest goal of the filmmakers—I’m sure most directors don’t set out to make nice little movies-- but that is about as nice as a compliment that I can heap on the movie. The movie’s predictable and offers nothing that people haven’t seen before but for the most part it’s enjoyable and—let’s just be honest here--it was only ninety minutes long. So that was good. Nobody wants to watch an overly long romantic comedy.

Without question Hoffman and Thompson are the reasons to watch the movie. They are both two great actors and seeing them interact on screen does provide a lot of charm for the movie. The two roles are not the most challenging parts that they have had in their career but neither one phones it in and both give genuine performances. Through no fault of their own, the movie lacks depth thus preventing either player from really digging deeper with their given performances. Let’s face it. Both could have given stronger performances if the material would have demanded it.

I also think that’s it noteworthy that Last Chance Harvey aspires to be a romantic comedy that is aimed at a more mature audience (Hoffman is 72 and Thompson is 49). Most contemporary romantic comedies are geared towards twenty and thirty year olds so it is respectable when a movie bucks that trend.

Last Chance Harvey hasn’t been tearing up the Box-Office so I don’t see it lingering around long at the cineplex. But with that said, Last Chance Harvey is the kind of movie that plays just as well on the small screen as it does on the silver screen.

All in all Last Chance Harvey excels in being a conventional film. Moviegoers aren't going to fall in love with it but they won't despise it either.

Final grade: B-.