[Movie Review] Dinner for Schmucks (2010)

Dinner for Schmucks (2010)

Dinner for Schmucks is a film that features a great cast, a fairly talented comedic director and is the remake of a fairly successful French film. But, it ultimately fails because of a poor script that doesn't highlight any of the talents of the people in it. The premise is that promising business man Tim (played by Paul Rudd) is trying to climb the ladder of success to the 7th floor of the firm he works at, but in order to do so he must play a cruel game orchestrated by the head of the company that involves inviting a bunch of idiots to a dinner to see which one can be crowned the biggest schmuck.

The "making of" feature of the DVD makes the film feel so compelling. I mean you have Steve Carell as Barry, Flight of the Conchord's all-stars Kristen Schaal and Jemaine Clement, Ron Livingston, Zach Galifianakis and a host of other incredible comedians from Larry Whilmore to Andrea Savage.

I mean, the cast is a wet dream for any comedy director. I mean Sacha Baron Cohen is one of the executive producers. It feels like a fun improv movie that will feature many one-liners and will be fun to watch. But, it's not. Jay Roach (behind "Austin Powers" and "Meet the Parents") is a seasoned veteran in comedy. He doesn't shoot the film in any interesting way. It's a straightforward film that doesn't call attention to style, it's about the characters on-screen.

The question is who are we making fun of? The ending dinner doesn't really pull any punches. The film puts all the tension on these moments at the dinner scene and it falls flat. The idiot crew is well put together, but it feels like something that should be the basis of a sketch, not a full-length film. None of the characters are developed. The bosses of the company are one-dimensional and Carell's role doesn't fit well in the film. There's no doubt that he's a funny man, but the movie doesn't give him enough to work with. I feel like you just go from scene to scene of him being silly and at the end of the film we are somehow supposed to feel like Tim (Rudd) has changed.

Overall:

This film would have been a blast to make. The "schmuck ups" section of the DVD is almost better than the film. There is a great cast, but the film lacks a cohesive structure and any sort of character development or plot.

Rating: 2/10. It has some moments of comedy, but those are rare and fleeting.

R0tten Tomatoes: 43%

Rated PG-13 for sequences of crude and sexual content, some partial nudity and language.

Inglourious Bastards 2009 Trailer 1

The Third Man (1949)

“The Third Man” is wicked. It’s elegant, full of suspense, has wonderful characters, a superb plotline, and a very powerful musical motif. It is one of the best films that have ever been on this earth. It’s set in post World War II, when Vienna has been split up into 4 factions, each occupied by a foreign faction (Americans, the British, the Russian, and the French). In the chaos that envelopes, there opens up a black market for goods. Directed by Carol Reed and based upon a book by Graham Greene (published in 1950), starring Joseph Cotton as Holly Martins, a man who has just come to Vienna to visit an old friend Harry Lime (Orson Welles) who has some work for him. Martins, a struggling author who has written several western novels, comes only to find that his friend has died, run over by a passing car, or so it appears.

The plot takes a sharp turn and we are lead along by Martins who slowly unravels an intricate mystery tale before our eyes. Along the way, we meet up with the less-than-amiable Major Calloway (Trevor Howard), who believes that Martins should let well enough alone and leave Vienna as soon as possible.

The city, Vienna, itself is a character of its own. The night scenes looks spectacular shot in the classic film noir style. The harsh shadows and jilted camera angles give the city a feel of brooding menace. The streets seem to come to life at night with breaths of air and long shadows as its inhabitants make their way about the dirty underbelly of its winding roads. Robert Krasker won a well-deserved Oscar for cinematography.

One of the extraordinary things about this film is its mixture of comedy and suspense. It blends the two in a volatile mixture that brings us laughs at all the right times, but still makes us nervous as well.
As love interest Anna Schmidt (played by the lovely Alida Valli) puts it, “A person doesn't change just because you find out more.” As we find out more about Lime’s depth, we begin a search into the cavern of Martins soul, and the real treat is finding out who the third man really was.

Rating: 9.8/10

Rotten Tomatoes: 100%

Rated: PG for violence.

Here's a video of the beginning of "The Third Man:"

Kramer vs. Kramer (1979)

This is probably one of the best films to end the 1970’s. Sure, the previous year held "The Deer Hunter" (1978), also with Meryl Streep, but this film really springs forth debate on the questionable morays of the family unit. The 1960’s provided a time for change, and families began changing from the cookie cutter suburbia to individuals who had actual problems. Of course, I generalize, but "Kramer vs. Kramer" is an admirable film. It both defies and abounds by conventional storytelling.

The main character is Ted Kramer (played by the amiable Dustin Hoffman), a self purporting creative art magazine editor. He just got a brand new, big name, large lucrative account that he will be heading and everything seems to be going his way. Then Joanna Kramer (Meryl Streep), his wife, leaves him and his first grade kid to fend for themselves. The main story is between Ted Kramer and his son Billy (played by Justin Henry, who also got nominated for Best Supporting Actor being the youngest actor to ever get nominated) and how their relationship has been mediated by the woman in their life. Once she is gone, Ted is forced to be involved in his son’s life at a higher level than ever before.

At one point, Kramer drops off his son at the school, and before asking a teacher to escort Billy to class, he asks him, “What grade are you in?” It seems ludicrous that a father wouldn’t know what grade in school his son was in, but as Kramer often and not-so-subtly puts it, he was ‘bringing home the bacon.’ That is a strong theme in the picture, as Kramer slowly begins to realize that not only has to bring it home, but he also has to cook it and feed it to his son, which brings to mind a fairly humorous scene where Kramer tells his son he can’t eat chocolate chip ice cream until he has eaten his frozen dinner.

The film brings out originality that has been copied by many others to this day. No doubt, the performances by Hoffman and Streep and Henry are excellent. Not to mention the next door neighbor Margaret Phelps (Jane Alexander) who becomes very good friends with Ted as he is bringing up his son. Alas, all is not what it seems, and Streep comes back into the picture, this time wanting to take custody of her son because she loves him so. Thus, the title "Kramer vs. Kramer," alluding to a courthouse drama is unfolded and the story takes a very interesting turn.

Overall, the film was very enjoyable, but if you’re looking for a court house case drama, I would highly recommend the Sindey Lumet classic "12 Angry Men" (1957). A fine film to end the decade featuring great performances and a very memorable story.

Rating: 8.5/10

Rotten Tomatoes: 88%

PG: Adult Language, Brief Nudity, Adult Situations, Questionable for Children)

Awards: Best Actor (Hoffman). Best Actress (Streep). Best Director: Robert Benton. Best Picture: Stanley R. Jaffe. Best Adapted Screenplay: Robert Benton

The Shining (1980) Review

Montage, associations, wide angle lenses, zooming out, perfect lighting, powerful images, hypnotic and striking sound, dynamic acting, numerous takes, and a so-called egotistical and maniacal director. What do all these things have in common? Stanley Kubrick. And so it goes with "The Shining," a film adapted from the Stephen King novel of the same name. In order to get his cast ready for the film, Kubrick had them watch Roman Polanski’s "Rosemary’s Baby," "The Exorcist," and "Eraserhead." It is in the fine tradition that those horror movies set forth, that The Shining really expounds upon.

The beginning shot is of a car winding along mountains as Jack Torrence (played by Jack Nicholson) makes his way to a job interview at The Overlook Hotel. What would otherwise be an innocuous scene, is heightened by the Wendy Carlos score (an adaptation of Hector Berlioz's "Symphonie Fantastique") that chills to the bone as we follow this car to its destination of isolation. We watch this minuscule car from above, in an epic sequence as the credits roll down the screen and one gets a deep sense of dark foreboding. Cut to a shot of Jack’s wife Wendy (Shelley Duvall) and their young son Danny (Danny Lloyd) who are in the kitchen of their home in Colorado. They are waiting for Jack to return from his interviewer for the caretaker position at the hotel. Danny, has a gift, called the shining, where he can connect with people and events in the present, past, or future. He can see things that might happen, or didn’t, and his visions about the hotel are particularly terrifying.
As Jack is told in his interview, the job is one of isolation. It involves staying at the hotel over the winter and making sure all the rooms are heated and not damage is done. The last caretaker, a man who’s family you might get a chance to meet through the course of the film, got cabin fever. He murdered his two daughters in a hallway and mutilated their corpses and then killed his wife in a bathtub.


As Danny is told by Dick Hallorann, (Scatman Crothers), who also has the gift of the shining, “Some places are like people: some shine and some don't.” This hotel does, and Danny is told to never go into room 237 by Hallorann. But he does.

Masterful work of Steadicam inventor Garret Brown is exceptional. The tracking shots of Danny down the hallways in his tricycle are particularly intense, especially when we go through long hallways and winding lavish rooms. The camera gives us a sense of foreboding, as we instinctively look around every corner to see if someone/something is there waiting. And there are.
The lighting is exceptional in the film, and one of Kubrick’s trademarks is the zoom-out. He used this technique masterfully in the opening credits of A Clockwork Orange. He usually has a couple of sequences where he begins the shot with a close-up of the characters face, and then zooms out and we are given a context of the situation. It is very intense and definitely captivated my attention.

Overall, Kubrick is an exceptional director. Many critics have given his films poor ratings, only to change their “opinions” decades later because they reevaluated their work. It’s insulting to a man who dedicated himself to film and made such marvelous visual journeys to give him such poor reviews. Obviously, he put a lot of work and effort into the film, and the actors gave it their all and this is a great example of a classic horror movie that resonates with audiences and one that I definitely will never forget. The images of those two girls haunts me to this day.

My rating: 9.6/10

Rotten Tomatoes: 87%

Rated R. Run Time: 146 minutes

Fun Facts from IMDB:

-According to Stephen King, the title is inspired by the refrain in the Plastic Ono Band's song, "Instant Karma" (by John Lennon), which features the chorus: "We all shine on."

-This was voted the ninth scariest film of all time by Entertainment Weekly.

Children of Men (2006) Film Review

Alfonso Cuaron, director of “Children of Men,” is found of long takes. If you watch from a perspective of editing and camerawork alone, this movie is dynamic. It’s different from the fast cutting, montage driven films of today that seem to illustrate visceral over story. And not to say that “Children of Men” isn’t an enjoyable visual experience, it certainly is, but it has deep roots in unraveling a thick story. The film, adapted from the 1992 novel by P.D. James, drifts a little bit from the premise of the book, but Cuaron is famous for not reading the books of films he does (He never did read the Harry Potter : Prisoner of Azkaban). And I think there is always something lost when you move from medium to medium. It is hard to illustrate fluid thoughts in film, except by simple narration, and many filmmaker probably believe that they have to stay very close to the book, or else they will anger a dedicated fanbase.


The setting is England, 2027, and it is one of the last remaining citadels of relative calm as we are informed in a television ad that almost all other cities have fallen into tyranny and disarray. Some 18 years ago, the human world became infertile, and the story starts out with the youngest person alive (18 year old “Baby Diego) has been killed and the city mourns the loss. Inevitably, we are centered in on the story of Theo, a former activist whose wife (Julian) left him some years ago. Theo is a hard drinking, apathetic, gruff sort of man. He has the rough face of a man that has seen it all, and he has a sharp sense of humor that makes him an amiable protagonist. Along the way, we meet Theo’s friend Jasper Palmer (an excellent performance by Michael Caine), a photojournalist who spends his days smoking marijuana and caring for his reticent wife (she was tortured by the government and put in a catatonic state).
The film drifts from there as we meet up with Julian, who has joined a rebel group committed to overthrowing the government by nonviolent means (although carrying guns and killing government officials isn’t against their code of conduct). We travel with Theo as things get better and worse, and as his journey gets complicated by the surprise of a lifetime in a world slowly dying.
This movie isn’t perfect, though. It does have its flaws, and the narrative suffers from that. But, overall it is very good. The mise-en-scene is extraordinary, and we can see a parable of social commentary that most definitely will resonate with a post-9/11 audience. If you have a chance, you should definitely check out Cuaron’s other work (Y tu Mama Tambien) for he is a fine director. The extraordinary abilities of his crew to create such long-length shots is extraordinary. Although, it has been reported that CGI was used to stitch several shots together to look like a single take, but the effect is extraordinary. The One sequence is about 4 minutes long, and involves a trailing of Theo as he is traveling through the city, avoiding soldiers, bombs, and exploding buildings. Blood splutters onto the camera, and the film has the real look of a raw documentary, and it is fascinating to watch.

My score: 9.2/10

Rotten Tomatoes: 92%

[Movie Review] Gran Torino Review (2008)

Gran Torino

Clint Eastwood has really taken Hollywood by storm. From starring in the epic Sergio Leone spaghetti western classic ‘The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly,’ to going on to direct a host of award winning films, there’s not much Clint Eastwood hasn’t done, except for change his character. Always seen as a lethal force to be reckoned with, sometimes exacerbated by his trademark grimace, many critics have evaluated him as a subpar character actor. From the surly gym owner in 2004’ ‘Million Dollar Baby,’ to his newest role as Walt Kowalski, a retired bitter automobile laborer living in Detroit. The location is emblematic of a consumer crisis in America with car company’s like General Motors and Ford (where Walt used to work) are slowly paring down on production. As Walt watches his family members drive off in a foreign car he mutters, “Would it kill you to buy American?” A crisis is something that Walt is used to. He fought in the Korean War and bears the physical and mental scars to prove it. He tells it like it is, and scoffs at his sons and their families as he sees their incompetence and laziness.

But, Walt is kind of a softy as well. Underneath that coat of rough, there is something inside that gives him the capacity to reach out to the neighbors next door, a Hmong family who is repeatedly the victim of a rough gang in the area. Comedic at times, because Walt is a racist bastard, one can’t help but chuckle when in response to helping his neighbors out he says to them, “Get off my lawn.” This man who doesn’t necessarily care what he says or who he says it too brought several smiles to my face. The Hmong family next door is played fairly well, but often times have the presence of rookies. Walt feels real, and so does most of the characters but once in a while it really does hurt the film to use first-time actors.

This film is good, though. It’s filmed very well and Eastwood really brings a unique edge to things when he is left in charge (as well as starring, he also directed and produced the picture). The ending is fascinating, and it’s not what one would expect from Walt, but it’s something you might expect from Eastwood, who has perennially brought out the unconventional stories to audiences. A great performance by Eastwood really rounds this film out. I would just say stick to acting, Eastwood, because I didn’t particularly enjoy his musical performance near the end of the film.

Overall:

Almost all of use have some sort of precious object in our lives that we feel a certain attachment to. To Kane’s Rosebud, there is Walt’s Gran Torino. It’s a symbol for Walt in a world that is slowly being changed into something that he cares less and less for. But, he finds a way to make it through. But, ultimately when an aura of sacredness is placed on an object, it usually brings out other characters who want it just as bad. As Walt puts it, “What the hell does everybody want with my Gran Torino?” The film is intriguing overall. It doesn't really challenge much intellectual curiosity, but it gets the job done and is enjoyable to watch.

My rating: 8.9/10

Rated R for language and some violence.

116 minutes:

Rotten Tomatoes Score: 77%