WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE.

If I could summarize my feelings on this movie in 4 words, it would be: I blame Dave Eggers. To get it out of the way, I haven't read this beloved children's book, so I'm not familiar with the source material. That being said, let's get into the movie. Max (Max Records) has a crappy life with a mother (Catherine Keener) who loves him and a teenage sister who acts like a teenage sister with friends who apologize when they accidentally upset him. This, of course, is all reason for Max to go ape-s*** and be as rude as possible, including demanding fresh food, biting, and immediately running away when told he's acting out of control. Finding a strange boat, Max travels to a far-away island where he finds giant creatures, including the angry Carol (James Gandolfini); his partner, Douglas (Chris Cooper); the paranoid downer, Judith (Catherine O'Hara); her partner, Ira (Forest Whitaker); the bullied one, Alex (Paul Dano); the shy bull (Michael Berry Jr.); and the outcast, KW (Lauren Ambrose). Max pretends to be their king so they won't eat him, and, in the process, destroys their relationships further. Sounds like a grand time to me!

Before I can explain why I blame Dave Eggers, I must divulge the positive. The movie has wonderful visuals. Between the creatures (a mix of animatronics and CGI), the cinematography, the locations, and just anything to look at in general, it was gorgeous and gorgeously shot. Especially once Max gets to the island, it really does seem like a world unto itself.

There is also the great acting (and voice acting). Max Records does a brilliant job holding the whole movie on his shoulders. He's essentially the only human actor in the majority of the film. And for a child actor (hell, even in the realm of adult actors), he does one hell of a job. I also felt that the voice actors fit very well with their roles (the only awkward one was Lauren Ambrose as KW. I don't know why, but the voice seemed too young or light or something to me).

There's even the good soundtrack to match with the film. Now, outside the film, would I love the quirky soundtrack (like I did for, say, Juno)? I'm not sure. But it sure felt good and natural in the context of the film.

All that being said, with my liking of just about everything of the movie... why does the film leave me so... blah? I figured it out as soon as the credits started rolling and I saw the film was co-written by one Dave Eggers. And then it all clicked. I pondered the tone early on in the film, but I was sure of the issue as soon as I saw the name. You see, a while back, I attempted to read Eggers' memoir, A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius. With a promising title like that, plus ecstatic reviews talking about the humor, plus a really promising introduction in the book, I expected a lot from it. Then I started reading chapter one. It was one of the most depressing things ever. Sure, he tried to mix in some humor here and there, and sometimes it worked, but for the most part, it was just uncomfortable and awkward. There were some major tonal problems that made it hard to keep reading (which I didn't).

I feel the same issues followed him here. Again, I'm not sure how the original source was, but this didn't feel like any beloved children's book to me. It was too dark and adult to be for kids, but too--how can I put this--crazy and adolescent for adults. It's hard to describe. In particular the crumbling relationships between the "wild things" made it very adult with some deep undertones. Not to mention the beginning of the third act is essentially a horror movie.

It doesn't help that I was never sure who to root for or who to hate. There is no good guy or bad guy, essentially. But it was really hard to buy Max's dilemmas and empathize with him, because he mainly came off like a selfish brat. And Carol wasn't much better (granted, I'm aware they're mirrored characters... actually, I'm aware all the Wild Things are mirrors to Max's emotions, but still). When you don't really have any full-out likable characters, it's hard to enjoy a movie. And that's even worse for a supposedly children's movie.

There's also a strange transition between worlds. The beginning (which takes almost too long to get going) tries to set everything up as reality. Then it's just like BAM, we're in the boat heading for the island. Is it a dream? Is it real? Who knows? Then, when the ending comes (which isn't nearly happy enough for a children's movie), it isn't much better.

Overall, the visuals (in every aspect, including creature effects)? Oscar-worthy. The acting? Brilliant. The music? Good. So I blame the writing, mostly. The tone is too out of whack. I didn't really care about much, and I found myself constantly looking at my watch. I've read reviews saying that the magic of the book has been removed, and I could see how that's possible. I've also seen reviews saying themes from the book have been ignored, which I can also see possible. For such a beloved children's book, I know something had to be lost in translation. Because on all the technical levels, the film works outstandingly. But on a story/writing level, it really needed some polish. At least that's my opinion.

I Am McLovin! 

(P.S. Confused by my scoring? Don't be. While the review was a bit negative, I did enjoy things about it. It's just that the two sides balance out and bring it down to this level).

THE TAKING OF PELHAM 123.

I've been excited for this movie since I first saw the trailer. As some of you know, I'm a big fan of heist films. There's no bank involved here, but it's a hostage film, which falls in the same category for me. In the end, it all comes down to "how are they going to get away with it?" This one is about Walter Garber (Denzel Washington), a subway dispatcher with a shaky past, who starts seeing something going on with one of the trains, Pelham 123. Turns out that the train is hijacked by Ryder (John Travolta) and his crew (Luis Guzman being the biggest name). They want 10 million dollars in one hour, or Ryder will kill a hostage every minute they're late. They bring in the hostage negotiator, Camonetti (John Turturro), and they contact the mayor (James Gandolfini). I'm sure you know the drill from there.

Is the movie exciting? Yes. Does it have action and suspense? More suspense than action, but yes. Is there comedy? A bit. All in all, the movie is very entertaining. It's no Inside Man, but it's very good. In fact, I think for the first time in my life, I'm actually agreeing with Roger Ebert: “Nobody gets terrifically worked up, except the special-effects people. Oh, John Travolta is angry and Denzel Washington is determined, but you don't sense passion in the performances.” It's just another character that Denzel has done a hundred times. He does it well because he should be used to it by now. I did like Travolta, too. It's like a more over-the-top and angry version of Vince Vega. The movie isn't all action as the trailers make it out to be. A lot of it is vocal interaction and relationship building between Denzel and Travolta, which is the greatest strength of the film.

You'll probably be hearing a lot about the cinematography of the film, which can best be described as frenetic. The movie is very stylistic as it plays with the speed of movement (no abusive slo-mo... it works more with blurry). For the most part it works. There were only one or two times when I really thought "Okay, was doing it right here necessary?"

There's really not much to hate or even dislike about the film. It's done well, overall. Two of my three biggest issues are similarly related. One deals with a possible plot hole (that they bring up in the film, actually) about why they had to get cars to deliver the money all the way across New York. Why? Well, to have a car driving sequence. And this is the second issue. That had to be one of the lamest attempts at a car-fueled adrenaline rush ever. You know all those car crashes and whatnot from the trailers? It's not really during any car chase. It's basically from a couple stupid drivers getting in the way after the street should already have been cleared by police. It's like "Now that we have them driving the money across the city, how can we make it more exciting? I know, toss in some cars that shouldn't be there."

The third biggest issue is the ending, which was a bit too cheesy for my tastes, especially for a "heist" film. Heist films are supposed to be cool, not cheesy. I can't really say what it is, as that's spoiler territory, but I'll leave it at that.

This is a lot of negative, but I honestly really liked the movie. These things are only small portions of the film. The actors aren't exactly phoning in their performances (especially Travolta). The story is good, though there wasn't that last big POW! that most heist films like to give, which I think is part of what brings it down a notch or two. There's no real twist. Everything that should be a surprise, you see coming a mile away. And when it's all said and done, it (being whatever big plot device occurs) never really amounts to a whole lot. In other words, the movie had the potential of a 5, but instead falls at about a 4.


A Keanu 'Whoa'

Bizarre Noir #6: Fallen.

Welcome to the sixth of seven posts that will review bizarre noir movies! I hope you enjoy the series. For more information or previous entries, check the posts below this one.

------------

Fallen.

Year of Origin: 1998.

Director: Gregory Hoblit.

Why it's bizarre: It's a supernatural/horror/thriller.

There isn’t a whole lot to say about this one, though it’s a great one, nonetheless. Detective John Hobbes (Denzel Washington) has finally caught sadistic murderer, Edgar Reese (Elias Koteas). And it’s finally time for his death sentence. But during the whole death sentence thing, Mr. Reese speaks in funny languages and does some odd things. But Detective Hobbes simply shrugs it off. That is, until after Edgar is put to death, when people start being killed in the exact same way that Edgar Reese killed. At first, Hobbes and his partner, Detective Jonesy (John Goodman), think it’s a copycat killer. But after following some clues that lead to speaking with one Gretta Milano (Embeth Davidtz), Hobbes starts believing that it is, in fact, a demon named Azazel that can pass from person to person via touch. And now Azazel is seemingly framing up Hobbes as a murderous and crooked cop, much to the chagrin of police lieutenant Stanton (Donald Sutherland).

There’s a couple other good-name actors in the movie, such as James Gandolfini and Robert Joy, and the acting all around the board is really good. Elias Koteas does his role at the beginning subtly, yet maniacally. Denzel is good as always, and, hey, it’s John Goodman. And while James Gandolfini’s character is, for all intents and purposes, pointless, it’s still done pretty well. The only real shaky ground when it comes to acting is Hobbes’ nephew, Sam, but it’s a child actor, and they aren’t all Abigail Breslin's or Haley Joel Osment’s (whatever happened to him, anyway? He did some video game voice-overs…).

The story isn’t as sci-fi channel cheesy as it sounds. It’s done very well, and with a two hour time-frame, the movie is quite capable of pulling it off nicely. The scenes that involve chasing through large crowds with Azazel going from body to body are really cool. And the song (‘time is on my side’) that he sings and/or whistles throughout the movie is pretty creepy.

The cinematography is excellent, much like any good noir film. And speaking of noir things, there is voice-over narration by Denzel, done in a very Denzel kind of way. And along the same lines, there’s a nice twist ending that’s pretty awesome. Oh, and the music is classic cop/noir jazz saxophone, so it fits nicely with the rest of the feel of the film.

There’s not much else to say about this movie. If you like noir or movies that deal with the supernatural, you should definitely check this one out. It has a great cast and a really good story that culminates into a really good climax and awesome twist.

A Keanu 'Whoa'