If the clumsy title is any indication (what “Life”? What are “We” supposed to “Know”?) then, states Kimberly Gadette, we may be in for another rom-coma. But if it’s prettier than The Ugly Truth and livelier than Killers, perhaps there’s hope.

For critics who complain that the set-ups for rom-coms are all too predictable, this one’s certainly not been done before. Inventive? Sort of. Believable? Not on your life.

And yet the opening is still reliably formulaic. The Boy (Josh Duhamel’s Messer) shows up for a blind date with the Girl (Katherine Heigl’s Holly). He’s surly and rude, and she won’t stand for it. In what may rival the shortest date in history, he’s kicked to the curb within minutes. And so we have the usual set-up of instant enemies who will eventually go ga-ga for each other.

In a quick montage, we watch these two over a three-year period, their initial hostility transformed into aggressive teasing. Since they are the mutual best friends of the couple who had set them up (the Novaks, played by Hayes MacArthur and Christina Hendricks), whenever the Novaks have a gathering, Messer and Holly are in attendance – at the wedding, the baby shower, the first birthday of the Novaks’ baby Sophie (played by Alexis, Brynn and Brooke Clagett). When the Novaks suddenly die in a car accident – hold onto your rom-com hats, here comes mission, um, implausible – it turns out that without any prior conversations, the Novaks had appointed their two best friends as co-guardians of their child, with the stipulation that they move into the Novak home together.

We’re probably as confused as Messer and Holly as we try to factor in the obvious. What if one of the singles wants to someday get married and have a family of his or her own? What if living under the same roof becomes unbearable? And how is it that neither of these two supposedly responsible parents, now dead, thought to consult their best friends before they wrote this guardianship into the will?

Though screenwriters Ian Deitchman and Kristin Rusk Robinson have created some amusing supporting characters, and have peppered the script with very funny one-liners, it’s in their overall plotting that the film suffers. We want to enjoy the ride; but at the same time, this initial device of throwing two enemies together, neither of whom has had any child-rearing experience, into parenting an infant under the same roof is hard to swallow. Other glaring faults include the fact that the writers first introduce us to a churlish Messer, verging on the mean. Which makes the actor work doubly hard to win our affection. Surprisingly, we get no ensuing admissions from Messer as to why he first behaved like a cretin; we’re left to plug in that plot hole for ourselves.

As for the threat of the other lover (isn’t there always at least one?), we never understand why the smitten Holly decides that perfect Dr. Sam (Josh Lucas) isn’t “The One.” Again, we can assume the reasons on our own dime, but since we’re not the ones being paid to write the script, it would be nice to hear from the talent that did.

This is a case where the acting outshines the problematic writing at every turn. Heigl has returned from the lower depths of The Ugly Truth and Killers, back to her earlier, Carole Lombard-like glory. She is appealing and vulnerable, a beautiful klutz. Not only do she and Duhamel get to play for laughs, but they each get the opportunity to explore their quieter, darker sides. The loss of their beloved friends, the frustrations of rearing an adopted child, the fright balanced with relief when the possibility looms that that same child may be taken away.

And Duhamel, far more familiar to audiences as the humorless Major Lennox in the Transformers series, is a rom-com lately. (Avoiding all mention of last January’s catastrophic When in Rome. Seriously. Don’t mention it.) His easy charm, quick grin and generous demeanor blend with a genuine depth of feeling. The first time his Messer sees baby Sophie after learning of his friends’ untimely death, his eyes fill with such emotion that it catches us by surprise.

As for that oft-clucked lack of chemistry: happy to report that here, the heat’s on high. These two make a spirited, sparring couple, a delightful duo that may indeed prove to be the best rom-com coupling of 2010. (Sadly, given this year’s competition, it’s not that much of a contest.)

As for the assortment of supporting cast members, the spotlight shines brightly on the overweight diva neighbor (Melissa McCarthy, speaking with the only credible Atlanta accent in the film), bulldozing her outwardly-obsequious hubby who smiles as he mutters insults under his breath (Andrew Daly), the pushy social worker Janine (Sarah Burns) and the all-knowing 11-year-old babysitter (Britt Flatmo).

Though it won’t take your baby’s breath away, thanks to Greg Berlanti’s energetic direction and the combined efforts of an effervescent cast, Life As We Know It is one of the better rom-coms we’ve seen this year.

Rating on a scale of 5 infantile ideas: 3

Release date: US: 8 October 2010; UK: 8 October 2010
Directed by: Greg Berlanti
Written by: Ian Deitchman & Kristin Rusk Robinson
Cast: Katherine Heigl, Josh Duhamel, Josh Lucas, Hayes MacArthur, Christina Hendricks, Sarah Burns, Jessica St. Clair, Britt Flatmo, Melissa McCarthy, Andrew Daly
Rating: US = PG-13; UK = 12A
Running time: 112 minutes

More on IndieMovies:
Read the latest movie news and movie reviews. Watch free movies on the site now.

Craig is a sharp kid. He’s got a cool, supportive family. He goes to an elite Manhattan high school and will probably be accepted into an elite pre-college business program. He’s crushing on his best friend’s girl, and his best friend is kind of a dick, but otherwise Craig has a pretty good life.

Craig is also suicidal.

Anyone who thinks the first paragraph and the second ought to be mutually exclusive does not understand clinical depression—nor, necessarily, do Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck, the writer-directors of It’s Kind of a Funny Story. The filmmakers set their film in a mental ward, but it’s rarely clear whether they want you to laugh or cry at its long-term residents, the sight of whom nearly scares Craig (Keir Gilchrist) sane after he talks an ER doctor into admitting him. (Doc doesn’t think his suicidal tendency is serious.) The patients stare and shuffle, shout random thoughts to no one in particular, never get out of bed. When Craig first meets them—mouth agape in horror—he asks the staff if there’s a place “for people more like me.” Cue audience laughter?

To be fair, the teenager is mildly rebuked for thinking himself better than the others; still, many of these patients are too caricaturized for you to believe they’re there for anything but a giggle. It’s rather heartbreaking—you know their real-life counterparts exist—but so is the flip side: When Craig shows up at the emergency room at 5 a.m. asking for help yet is nearly sent home because he just seems like a kid with the blues, the doctor is both throttle-worthy and completely realistic. Few people who look at Craig see someone mentally unbalanced. Those who do, including the ward’s psychiatrist (Viola Davis), stress medication and communication about the pressures he’s feeling. Even Bobby (Zach Galifianakis), the middle-aged eccentric who takes Craig under his broken wing, seems to recognize a kindred walking wounded.

Until he doesn’t, that is. As Craig adjusts to life in the ward, befriending the freaks and chatting up the cute girl (a luminous Emma Roberts), Bobby’s relative togetherness starts to unravel. Slowly, the guy with the dry humor, dating advice, and short-escape plans isn’t so smooth when he has to face life outside the hospital. Which is also believable—but then the character turns into another there’s-nothing-wrong-with-you sounding board, suggesting that a little perspective is all a suicidal teen needs to climb out of a soul-sucking depression.

The message is contradictory at best and dangerous at worst, though it seems that Boden and Fleck, the team behind the indie hits Half Nelson and Sugar, at least intended to make a life-affirming film. Just as there are aching moments, there are soaring ones, including a shoulda-been-hackneyed group performance of “Under Pressure” and a jubilant going-away party. And the topic certainly isn’t too sacred to be mined for humor. (“I want to kill myself,” Craig tells the intake staffer. “Fill this out,” she replies.) The unimpeachable highlight of the film, in fact, is Galifianakis, who’s understated and charming as the melancholy Bobby; turns out that the lower the actor dials it down, the higher his appeal.

Gilchrist, best known as the gay son in Showtime’s The United States of Tara, is rather vanilla here, as the filmmakers clearly poured their colors into supporting characters. But the story may not have worked had Craig been a stronger personality. His milquetoast demeanor is what propels the debate over exactly how much help he needs. If only the answer wasn’t so fumbled and disappointing.

Life as We Know It Directed by Greg Berlanti

Life as We Know It, in contrast, knows how to take serious things seriously. Despite the presence of Katherine Heigl, director Greg Berlanti’s second film is more drama than romantic comedy—and a good drama at that. The plot’s not the only thing that offers something unexpected.

The film does begin with some typical Heiglisms. She plays Holly, a Type-A caterer who’s scrambling through her closet of at least 27 dresses until she finds the tightest wrap and the highest heels. Then she waits. When her blind date, Eric (Josh Duhamel), shows up, he’s an hour late. When Eric takes an obvious booty call and responds, “Really?” when Holly suggests they don’t have to go through with their mutual friends’ setup, they both get huffy and pretty much declare themselves Enemies for Life.

Cut to a couple of years later, when their besties Peter and Alison (Hayes MacArthur and Christina Hendricks) get married and have a baby. Through each of the milestones up until baby Sophie’s first birthday, Holly and Eric are shown fighting. So it’s a bit of a shock—though not so surprising in Movieland—when the happy couple dies in a car accident and leave custody of Sophie to the two people who can’t stand each other. Hijinks will surely ensue, right?

Mercifully, there are hardly any at all. First-time scripters Ian Deitchman and Kristin Rush Robinson deliver a story that quickly forgets its wacky introduction yet never brushes off the devastating turn of events that truly sets the plot in motion. Peter and Alison’s deaths are handled with understated taste—and are all the more gut-wrenching for it—and the needs of darling Sophie (played by triplets Brynn, Brooke, and Alexis Clagett) are kept in the foreground. Holly and Eric, after the requisite wha-wha-what? moment in which they learn of their new responsibility, don’t whine or bicker over stupid shit. Yes, they doubt they can make their situation work. No, they’re not happy about the upending of their lives.

But when Sophie is hungry or needs to be changed, it’s all about her, even if said changing elicits gagging and lines such as, “It’s like Slumdog Millionaire!” This is, after all, a comedy, but the jokes are generally dry and original and help the whole baby business be cute instead of cloying.

The romantic angle has to play out, too, but here the baby isn’t as much of a roadblock as Sam (Josh Lucas), a handsome pediatrician whom Holly meets at her bistro the day of her friends’ death. Of course, rom-com rules require that they meet again afterward, and get along quite swell. Of course, Eric is a little jealous. And with both Holly and Eric devoted to their careers (Eric works in broadcast sports and is eyeing a promotion), some crazy schemes will be hatched to smooth over the bumps in their schedules.

Hey, this film may not be exactly what you’re expecting, but the filmmakers and the marketing campaign can’t completely ignore the carrots they dangle. Life as We Know It is both feel-sad and feel-good, which is a tricky balance yet one that’s so satisfying when the film hits the right marks. “Hit” is not a word our stars may be used to when it comes to the big screen—at least not critical ones, anyway—but this movie may change that.

YOU WILL MEET A TALL DARK STRANGER

Considering Woody Allen, 74, makes a film a year, the question to be asked is not why so many of his movies are uneven, but why so many are to be treasured. Even in this past decade, there’s been Vicki Cristina Barcelona (2008), Match Point (2005), Hollywood Ending (2002), and Small Time Crooks (2000). Although none achieve the magic, wit, or depth of Crimes and Misdemeanors (1989), The Purple Rose of Cairo (1985), or Annie Hall (1977), they all are embraceable entertainments, worthy of numerous viewings.

You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger, however, is middling Woody. Not unwatchable as The Curse of the Jade Scorpion (2001) or as annoying as Melinda and Melinda (2004), the film still has a rushed quality to it. The proof is a horrendously off-putting voiceover (supplied by a dreadful Zak Orth) that is consistently employed to fill in plot points the screenplay is unable to incorporate with any grace.

The tale centers on upon a divorced couple, Alfie (Anthony Hopkins) and Helena (Gemma Jones). After 40 years of wedded life, Alfie has developed a fear of aging and winds up marrying Charmaine (Lucy Punch), a youngish prostitute, whom he satisfies with the aid of Viagra and his dwindling bank account.

A distraught Helena, at loose ends, seeks the aid of Cristal (Pauline Collins), a fortune teller, who convinces her of her former glamorous lives and a future romance.

Meanwhile, the marriage of the ex-couple’s daughter Sally (Naomi Watts) to a one-time promising writer, Roy (Josh Brolin), is falling apart. She’s attracted to her boss (Antonio Banderas) and he has the hots for his neighbor, a young guitar-playing woman in red (Freida Pinto).

All the ingredients are here for a successful Woody romp, but they never gel. Bookended between Shakespearean quotes and the tune “When You Wish Upon a Star,” the film seems more the product of a work-for-hire sensibility than an inspired act of love. The bon mots are few and far between. The cinematography by Vilmos Szigmond (Close Encounters of the Third Kind) is seldom flattering to the stars. And numerous scenes are awkwardly staged.

Yet Jones as the alcoholic, dithering Helena, Collins as her soothsayer, and Roger Ashton-Griffiths as her new beau, are splendid, and Lucy Punch steals the show. As she did in Dinner for Schmucks playing the nightmare ex-date of all time, Punch supplies a high-powered comic energy that makes you mope every time the camera leaves her presence.

In conclusion, my prognostication for this bit of celluloid is that it will encounter a short, overlooked run in the theaters and be favored with a few clicks now and then on Netflix. As Woody himself has noted, “If you’re not failing every now and again, it’s a sign you’re not doing anything very innovative.” – Brandon Judell

Mr. Judell is featured in the forthcoming documentary Activist: The Times of Vito Russo and has been edited out of Rosa von Praunheim’s New York Memories. In the fall, he’ll be teaching “American Jewish Theater” and “Theater into Film” at The City College of New York. He has written on film for The Village Voice, indieWire.com, The New York Daily News, and The Advocate, and is anthologized in Cynthia Fuchs’s Spike Lee Interviews (University Press of Mississippi).

-By Frank Lovece

For movie details, please click here.

The character actor DJ Qualls, an odd scarecrow whose eyes can turn
from befuddled to feral in seconds, creates a tortured and
believable loser in this excruciating exercise from writer-director
Vlad Yudin—whose bio says he completed “the NYU Filmmaking
Program,” i.e., a certificate from the adult-ed division, and which
should not be confused with an MFA from the vaunted Tisch School of
the Arts. That distinction helps explain how this indie
psychological seriocomedy could misfire as badly and explosively as
a cheap gun.

Poorly shot and lit, draggy and padded despite its short running
time and structured as a series of narrative hiccups, this
shot-in-2008 feature is also remarkably defecation-obsessed: One
character, a burger-restaurant manager, keeps talking about
“feces,” even in front of customers, and there’s a lengthy sequence
of someone using the toilet, with full facial expressions and
detailed sound effects. One janitor has brown stains on his uniform
after cleaning a toilet, with a plunger he brings into the kitchen,
while talking about feces. If this feces fixation had more than a
marginal relationship to the plot or to the characters, you could
rationalize it as thematically relevant. As it is, it’s just crap
in a crappy movie.

Qualls—who like co-star Nikki Reed is one of the four executive
producers—admirably gives it his all amid a sea of amateurs and of
such farfetched plot items as a motel clerk (Lawrence Feeney)
reading a porn magazine with his pants undone while a customer
waits to check in. Masturbation also figures into the hero’s
backstory. In a nominally naturalistic movie, all these
teen-horndog, gross-out comedy antics mesh badly and confoundingly
with what the filmmaker apparently intended as a trenchant story
about an alienated and potentially violent young man.

That would be Gregory “Joe” Wilkes (Qualls), a high-school dropout
and put-upon janitor at the rundown Burger Haven, whose martinet
owner (the talented William Sadler, sadly over-the-top as a
caricature) heaps gratuitous indignities onto this
lowest-of-the-low. On the day he’s fired, Joe’s finally had it, and
he buys a gun with which to go back and go postal. He winds up
taking a young woman (Reed) hostage but, not being a killer at
heart and not wanting to go to prison either, doesn’t know what to
do with her.

That could have made for an intense, two-character locked-room
drama a la William Friedkin’s Bug or even this past spring’s
surprisingly sophisticated, one-hour season finale of “Family
Guy”—which, ironically, also involved excrement but in a thoroughly
organic and logical way. Yudin instead intercuts pointless inserts
about the restaurant owner and his clueless interactions with
employees and others—none of which has anything to do with the
larger story. Add lame jokes about using a “meat extender” and
you’ve an idea of this ostensibly serious movie’s jarringly
juvenile tone. Even the film’s score can’t decide whether this is
an eccentric comic romance or an edgy portrait of a disaffected
loner.

Fans of roadside Americana will at least appreciate the film’s
documentation of the Hazlet, N.J., landmark Jim’s Burger Haven, a
former drive-in restaurant used as one of the film’s primary
locations. The decades-old joint, with its vintage 1960s signage,
has since closed, its place taken by an AutoZone car-parts store.

FILM  MOVIE REVIEW

Slackers as seen in Paul Gordon’s The Happy Poet. Photo: Paul Gordon

The Happy Poet **

by Jesse Cataldo on September 12, 2010 Jump to Comments (0) or Add Your Own

There’s definitely potential for humor within the realm of the green movement, with its locavore restrictions and organic produce, wholesome things that are just geeky enough to tease. Yet a film primarily about such a specific movement risks diminishing its reach, both through the insularity and modesty of its topic. This is the eventual result of The Happy Poet, a diffident, occasionally sly comedy that could have benefitted from a little more energy and range.

Nevertheless, it’s easy to forgive the problems displayed here, most notable being the lackadaisical personalities of the movie’s main characters. They speak in a natural style that’s often too authentic, replete with dumb comebacks and thoughts that trail off into silence. If dramatic realism was director’s Paul Gordon’s aim, this might be a plus, but this is a comedy, where real life needs to be leavened with some measure of humor. As it stands, The Happy Poet is still a relatively sophisticated example of the genre, weird, hopeful, and full of ideas.

A sharp wit is certainly buried somewhere beneath all the self-conscious mumbling that dominates the film’s discourse. The plot centers on Bill (Gordon), an Austin idler who leaves his corporate job to open a natural food stand. This dream is immediately punctured in the first scene, when a less-than-ample loan leaves him stuck with a converted hot dog cart, paid for on the installment plan. Bill decides to soldier on anyway, setting up shop in a downtown park, stocking his cart with hummus and eggless egg sandwiches.

The Happy Poet will inevitably draw mumblecore comparisons, both for its examination of a subculture and the inelegance of the character’s speech, but it separates itself by avoiding the willful ugliness and that so many of those films present. Gordon knows how to compose a shot, not in any virtuoso style, but carefully enough that many of his scenes attain a roughly handsome beauty. The message and story, aside from some hurried third-act resolution, match this intelligent carefulness.

A more accurate reference point might be Richard Linklater’s Slacker, linked further by the shared Austin pedigree. Yet this film, fully dedicated to a conventional narrative structure, isn’t nearly as experimental or vibrant. If it dared to be more of anything, faster or broader or stranger, it might even be great film. But like its sad-sack main character, whose closed-off personality makes him hard to fully understand or sympathize with, The Happy Poet is too reservedly rough around the edges.

• Director(s): Paul Gordon
• Screenplay: Paul Gordon
• Cast: Paul Gordon, Jonny Mars, Chris Doubek, Liz Fisher
• Runtime: 85 min.
• Rating: NR
• Year: 2010

•  Email
•  Print
• Share:

Comments

Add Your Own

srijeda, srpanj 28., 2010. 0:17

Piše: Dragan Antulov

POČETAK
(INCEPTION)
uloge: Leonardo Di Caprio, Ken Watanabe, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Marion Cotillard, Ellen Page, Tom Hardy, Cillian Murphy, Dileep Rao, Tom Berenger, Michael Caine
scenarij: Christopher Nolan
režija: Christopher Nolan
proizvodnja: Warner Bros, SAD, 2010.
trajanje: 148 ‘

U posljednje vrijeme se filmske kritičare u svijetu može podijeliti u dva tabora – u one koji svaki film Christophera Nolana proglašavaju remek-djelom prije nego što je itko imao prilike pogledati ijedan njegov kadar i one koji zbog toga izražavaju zgražanje ili čuđenje. Razlog za to je prvenstveno u tome što je Nolan pronašao ono što predstavlja Svet graal svakog holivudskog filmaša, odnosno reputaciju rijetke zvjerke koja je u stanju “umjetničkim” filmovima steći naklonost kritike isto onako kao što njegova “komercijalna” ostvarenja pune kino-blagajne. Među ovo potonje spadaju dva ostvarenja novopokrenute franšize o Batmanu, shvaćena kao sredstvo kojim Nolan kupuje strpljenje i podršku komercijalnih studija za “osobna”, odnosno umjetnički ambiciozna i “intelektualno stimulativna” ostvarenja. Najnoviji “umjetnički” projekt je Početak, SF-triler koji je, začudo, imao prilično dobre rezultate na blagajnama pa se može shvatiti i kao “punokrvni” blockbuster.

Radnja je smještena u blisku budućnost gdje su farmacija, psihologija i tehnologija napredovale dovoljno daleko da omoguće dijeljenje ljudskih snova. Kao i svaka tehnologija, tako i ova omogućuje zloupotrebe – u ovom slučaju je to neovlašteni ulazak u snove svjetskih moćnika iz čije podsvijesti stručnjaci kao što je Dominic Cobb (Di Caprio) iznose najpovjerljivije tajne. Cobba, koji je zbog svojih kriminalnih aktivnosti postao međunarodni bjegunac odvojen od obitelji, japanski tajkun Saito (Watanabe) unajmi kako bi upao u snove Roberta Fischera (Murphy), nasljednika njegovog glavnog poslovnog suparnika. Misija je teža nego obično, jer Saito traži da se u Fischerovu podsvijest umjesto krađe umetne ideja koja bi mogla dovesti do propasti njegovog imperija. Cobb za taj posao okuplja tim vrhunskih stručnjaka, ali će misija svejedno postati teška, i to zbog Mal (Cotillard), Cobbove destruktivne supruge koja stalno vreba iz njegove podsvijesti.

Svatko onaj tko bude tražio nedostatke u Početku na kraju će ih pronaći, ali će za to morati uložiti daleko veći napor nego što je u slučaj s mnogim slično razvikanim holivudskim ostvarenjima. Christopher Nolan još jednom dokazuje kako predstavlja jednog od tehnički najnadarenijih redatelja naše generacije – oboružan visokim budžetom, u Početku prilično efektno i s velikom dozom discipline dočarava svjetove koji istovremeno mogu pripadati i snovima i javi, odnosno u kojima je sve moguće. Ono što je u svemu tome najbolje jest da specijalnim efektima oživotvorene vizije ovdje, za razliku od većine holivudskih ostvarenja, služe zapletu i centralnoj ideji filma, a ne obrnuto. Nolanu, koji je napisao i scenarij, veliku je pomoć uz sjajnu glumačku ekipu dao i skladatelj Hans Zimmer, čiji je soundtrack za Početak jedan od rijetko upečatljivih ostvarenja filmske glazbe u posljednje vrijeme.

Ono što bi Nolanu mogao biti problem jest možda upravo njegov perfekcionizam, koji se kod nekih filmaša vrlo lako može izraziti i kao mrtvačka ozbiljnost, ali hladnoća prikaza radnje i likova. Mnogo ozbiljniji nedostatak, ako se to može nazvati nedostatkom, možda je i u nedostatku originalnosti, odnosno činjenici da su ideje i teme kojima se bavi ovaj film zapravo prilično često obrađivane na filmu.

Gledatelji, čak i oni koji su već zaboravili razvikani Matrix, će doživjeti niz deja vua. Za njega će djelomično biti zaslužan i Leonardo Di Caprio, čiji će se lik teško otresti sličnosti s likom u Otoku Shutter, koga je tumačio samo nekoliko mjeseci ranije. Usprkos svega toga, Početak zaslužuje preporuke; Nolan, čak i kada nije onako dobar kao fama koja se stvori oko njegovih filmova, gledateljima pruža zabavu za osjetila i intelekt na način koji se čini iznad mogućnosti najvećeg broja njegovih kolega.

OCJENA: 8/10

Komentari (4)

Tagovi