Dreamgirls

Rated: PG-13 (for language, some sexuality and drug content)
Runtime: 131 minutes
Written and Directed by: Bill Condon
Starring: Beyonce Knowles, Jamie Foxx, Eddie Murphy, Jennifer Hudson, Anika Noni Rose, Danny Glover

Dreamgirls has been getting a ton of praise over the past few months, and somehow won the hearts of audiences far and wide, even nabbing (undeservingly) the Golden Globe for Best Picture (Musical or Comedy), trumping my favored flick, Little Miss Sunshine. Then the Oscar nominations came out and, lo and behold, Dreamgirls wasn’t nominated for top prize! And I agree with the Academy in not nominating it – this is not Best Picture material.

The story follows three young singers – Deena Jones (Beyonce Knowles), Lorrell Robinson (Anika Noni Rose) and Effie White (Jennifer Hudson) – who land a gig as backup singers for the legendary James “Thunder” Early (Eddie Murphy). When their manager Curtis Taylor (Jamie Foxx) gives them their own act, the girls cross over to the pop charts and become a national sensation. The movie basically follows their plight through stardom and all the usual drama that ensues.

To kick-start this maelstrom of criticism, the film lacks any sense of originality. If you were to combine the most recognizable and arguably stereotypical moments from Ray, Boogie Nights, Walk the Line, and What’s Love Got to Do With It? and watered it down to a semi-family friendly template you’d have Dreamgirls. It plays out like a made-for-TV movie of the week, or an episode of VH1’s Behind the Music.

The film is based on the Broadway musical of the same name, and retains the original songs while incorporating some new numbers. But unlike successful musicals like Moulin Rouge or Chicago, which deliver grandiose musical numbers with elaborate set design, a myriad of color, brilliant choreography and memorable songs, Dreamgirls falls flat with its uncharismatic renditions of songs that feel stagnant and unmemorable. Characters awkwardly break out into song as they walk to the spotlight of a blank stage in a dark theater and trade trite verses of (sometimes) poorly lip-synched harmonic conversation with one another as the camera ineptly fumbles about, looking for the right setup.

Which brings me to the cinematography and direction. Often the camera just circles about the characters as they sing, or is placed in countless different uninspired locations throughout the room. The shots are cut together in an uncharismatic, disjointed fashion that’s abrupt and altogether trigger-happy. It looks as if writer/director Bill Condon (Kinsey, Gods and Monsters) doesn’t quite know what he wants and is hoping for enough material to piece together in the editing room. And whenever characters are singing, the performances are stoic and unbelievably awkward. I can suspend my disbelief quite easily, and I am fond of musicals… but this just didn’t work for me.

I have to say that there is merit in the acting. Hudson, a former American Idol contestant, deservingly won the Golden Globe and Screen Actors Guild award for Supporting Actress and most likely will nab the Oscar. She is really good (though the staging of her singing sequences is very clumsy), but I have trouble seeing her ever playing a character who isn’t a singer. Still, considering she was voted off Idol (and before that nobody knew who she was) – good for her. Knowles is very strong in her role, and while not given material as dramatic as some of her costars, really holds a sense of maturity and nobility as an actress. Foxx is impressive, but still suffers from having set the bar too high for himself with his performance in Ray. Which brings me to Murphy. He won the Supporting Actor award at both the Globes and the Screen Actors Guild, which just outright ticks me off. He’s good, don’t get me wrong. Honestly this might be one of his best performances. But I can’t help feeling this recognition is mostly because he’s only done crap like The Adventures of Pluto Nash or The Haunted Mansion lately. He doesn’t have a ton of screen time and often comes across like he’s playing himself. To say that his performance is more deserving of an award than Jack Nicholson’s in The Departed (or any of that film’s cast for that matter) is flat-out offensive.

I didn’t hate Dreamgirls, despite the tone of this review. It’s alright for what it is. But when all is said and done, the narrative is incomplete and disjointed, and there’s not much convincing reason to care about anything that happens in the film’s 131 minute runtime. It’s incredibly predictable and caps off with an abrupt and unfulfilling ending. I’ve been trying to wrap my brain around why it’s getting so much recognition. I seem to be in the minority, but for me Dreamgirls is an incredibly over-hyped, over-praised film whose dreams of greatness shouldn’t come true.

My Rating: C –

Night At The Museum

Rated: PG (for mild action, language and brief rude humor)
Runtime: 105 minutes
Directed by: Shawn Levy
Written by: Ben Garant, Thomas Lennon
Starring: Ben Stiller, Carla Gugino, Dick Van Dyke, Mickey Rooney, Robin Williams, Owen Wilson

Normally I have a natural aversion to kids’ films (excuses being readily made for all things Transformers). But there is a fine line between movies geared towards kids, and those crafted with the entire family in mind as their key demographic. The distinguishable difference between the two categories is that kids’ films have nothing of merit or desirable value for those who have to sit through the thing as an accompanying guardian (i.e. talking purple dinosaurs or magical tank engines). But family films have enough to enthrall youth while providing under the radar gags and genuine entertainment for people over the age of five, giving the film a larger audience. I was skeptical of Night at the Museum. Sure it had Ben Stiller, but it didn’t look that impressive. Much to my delight, looks were deceiving – this flick is fun!

The story centers on Larry Daley (Stiller), a divorced father with hopes for the future that repeatedly render themselves into delusions of grandeur. When he takes a job as the night watchman at the Museum of Natural History to give his son a more stable father-figure (one who’s employed) and discovers that due to a mystical tablet all the exhibits come to life after dark… well, you get the idea.

The script, penned by Ben Garant and Thomas Lennon (both veterans of MTV’s cult-classic comedy sketch show The State, and Reno 911) is often quite charming. Granted it’s chock-full of all the usual Hollywood clichés, but there exists a certain admirable chemistry about the story – a sort of Jumanji/Toy Story hybrid. It’s odd seeing Garant and Lennon pump out a PG script, as I’m more accustomed to their risqué material, but they do well enough to make it work.

Shawn Levy (Just Married, Cheaper by the Dozen, The Pink Panther) gives probably his best directorial effort to date (not too difficult considering his resume). Not offering anything particularly praise-worthy, he does utilize effects to frequent success and keeps the camera in near-constant motion with lots of dramatic sweeps and whatnot, giving the film a somewhat larger-than-life aesthetic.

Stiller is actually really good, mixing his customary awkward goofball humor with a mildly poignant dramatic tone. Owen Wilson is fun, albeit extremely over-the-top (he and Stiller were only on set together for one day – their performances were combined through effects). Robin Williams holds his own, but is rather underused. This role is quite beneath him and it’s actually sort of neat to see he doesn’t have the ego to mind. I was particularly delighted with Dick Van Dyke and Mickey Rooney’s roles. Granted Rooney is reduced to a borderline insulting caricature, but Dyke is genuinely jubilant and emotes a performance with both heart and wit, giving the flick an added sense of class.

I particularly loved the bits with the Tyrannosaurus Rex skeleton, which constantly wants to play fetch with its own rib bone, shaking its tail each time in a manner that constantly reminded me of my cat, and the crazy monkey who repeatedly steals Larry’s keys and urinates on him. And for some reason I really got a kick out of the Easter Island Head who kept saying to Larry, “Hey dumb-dumb, me want gum-gum!” I have no idea why the statue head is so obsessed with bubble gum or why I keep quoting it to my wife whenever I want a piece of gum from her purse. That gag just caught me at the right time somehow.

Other problems: the story is somewhat rushed and several characters and plotlines are underdeveloped. But all things considered, for what it is, Night at the Museum is a fun family flick and makes for a great holiday cinematic excursion – one you can cart the kids to without having to sneak out to another screen to have a good time. Both my wife and I noticed a sort of juvenile glee about us as the credits began to roll. Who knows? You too might find yourself feeling like a kid again.

My Rating: B

World Trade Center (DVD review)

Rated: PG-13 (for intense and emotional content, some disturbing images and language)
Runtime: 129 minutes
Directed by: Oliver Stone
Written by: Andrea Berloff
Starring: Nicolas Cage, Maria Bello, Michael Pena

I have to admit that I was skeptical of cinematic adaptations of the events of 9/11. I knew that they’d eventually come about, but I worried that they’d either miss the mark or bombard audiences with big stars and flashy special effects. United 93 proved me wrong earlier this year as it still remains one of the best films of 2006 for me. But it had the advantage of objectivity – no Hollywood actors. Director Oliver Stone’s World Trade Center has several members of the Hollywood pseudo-elite: Nicolas Cage, Maria Bello, Jay Hernandez, Stephen Dorff, etc. My hesitance aside, I gave the flick a fair viewing. All in all, it’s not too bad.

The film focuses on two Port Authority police officers - John McLoughlin (Cage) and Will Jimeno (Michael Pena) - who become trapped under the debris of the once standing Twin Towers, and the heroes who risk their lives to rescue them.

Stone has always been a major contender for me as a filmmaker. He seems right at home when dealing with anything political or historic (see JFK, Platoon and Born on the Fourth of July). Thankfully redeeming himself for the atrocity that was Alexander, Stone’s efforts on World Trade Center feel more restrained. He almost regresses as if to take the spotlight of his visual bravado so that the events may be brought front and center. His cinematography is lavish, as usual, and his editing focused. There are moments where he hinges on style over substance (namely a vision of Jesus that channels visuals from The Doors), but for the most part he sits back and proves with ease that he really knows what he’s doing.

The film is hurt by the presence of Cage. Granted his performance isn’t half-bad, but he’s way too recognizable, which sort of takes you out of the moment (something United 93 never suffered from). The entire film is specific and does a good job of putting you in the characters’ shoes. You don’t even see the destruction as it happens, save for what those inside the building see. The limited focus on two characters helps the movie resonate the effects of that day on individual families, but the downside is a lack of scope. I sort of wanted to see the widespread effects – a more epic, catastrophic film that captured the big picture of 9/11. But I do appreciate how Stone forced us to associate with one angle of the tragedy. McLoughlin and Jimeno’s characters are everymen, representing all that suffered that day.

The DVD is a decent presentation, with deleted scenes and commentary. It’s also available in a two-disc special edition which is loaded with extra material.

World Trade Center is by no means a perfect film, nor is it the perfect tribute to the victims of 9/11. It is a worthy companion piece however, to that future Saving Private Ryan-esque account of the tragedy that is inevitably on the horizon. I’ve heard whispers of Oscar buzz for World Trade Center, but I don’t expect the Academy will hear them (they’ll honor United 93 before they’d honor this). Definitely one to check out, though.

My Rating: B

Pulse (DVD review)

Rated: UNRATED/PG-13 (intense sequences of sci-fi terror, disturbing images, language, sensuality and thematic material)
Runtime: 88 minutes
Directed by: Jim Sonzero
Written by: Wes Craven, Ray Wright
Starring: Kristin Bell, Ian Somerhalder, Christina Milian

I’m a horror movie junkie, and join the ranks of those who are disillusioned with the blandness and unoriginality (and sometimes wretchedness) of most recent Hollywood entries to the genre (i.e. Boogeyman). True I tend to like more than I dislike, but only a select few are really worth the effort. And it seems the trend is to either remake older classics or anything that gets made in Asia. Pulse falls into the latter category and is somewhat of a mixed bag.

Based on the film Kairo, the story follows Mattie (Kristin Bell – TV’s Veronica Mars), a psychology student who starts to notice signs of something sinister, kick-started by her boyfriend’s suicide. To attempt avoiding disclosing any more story elements than the trailer already reveals, the dead are trying to re-infiltrate the world of the living through our means of electronic communications – computers, PDAs, cell phones, etc. All the more reason to cancel a few bills.

The acting is half and half. Bell holds her own as a lead, and Ian Somerhalder (Rules of Attraction, Lost) does what he can with a moderate, undeveloped role. There’s very little character development, but in under an hour and a half, the real goal is atmosphere and creep factor. And on these points, the flick does deliver something of modest decency.

The look of Pulse is somewhat like your school’s head cheerleader - generic and cliché, but altogether nice to look at. With a decayed, putrid green-filtered visual scheme and a bleak, post-apocalyptic flare reminiscent of a George A. Romero zombie holocaust, the movie delightfully appears to rot away as if it were dying itself, along with any hope for the characters’ salvation.

The beings or whatever you want to call them, are jumbled. One time they’re represented by this recurring woman, others they’re a freaky blur with a gaping fanged mouth and no eyes, others they look like the aliens from South Park. They aren’t explained enough and while effectively creepy, are visually stoic and hopelessly lost in ambiguity. The threat isn’t dire enough as one can run away, or block them from entering a room with red tape. Yet characters still freak out. Who knows? Maybe these things are bored and just wanna talk.

Jim Sonzero’s direction is impressive, though far from astounding, seemingly influenced by Gore Verbinski’s efforts on The Ring. This movie feels like a more modernized, electronically-drenched derivative of The Ring and The Grudge (which seem to be constantly recycled into the stories now drenching modern horror). Some of the scares are cheap kinetic flashes accompanied by a burst of sound effects, but he does take aim at building an admirable level of tension. The movie has a sense of immediacy and the characters often feel it.

Wes Craven was a co-writer on the screenplay, which once meant something. I’ll always love the man for his immortal contributions to the genre, but as of late things haven’t been noteworthy to say the least (ahem: Cursed). The dialogue is real enough, but for the most part is bland. The characters are definitely stock, and it would be easy to write off (being that it’s a horror movie) the obvious point that everyone except Mattie is an idiot and keeps saying “everything’s fine” even though it’s obviously not (mass suicides, strange visions, unexplained computer messages from either a dead friend saying “help me” or a live webcam feed from somewhere that fills your screen and queries you if you want to meet a ghost, etc). And of course when all hell breaks loose it’s too late.

The DVD is packed with extra scenes, featurettes, commentaries and all the usual fare, and of course the “unrated” version of the movie. I didn’t see Pulse in theaters but there wasn’t anything too shocking for a PG-13.

I wanted to like this flick and when all was said and done, I didn’t hate it. But with undeveloped plot points and characters (some are completely abandoned), and a lackluster, anticlimactic ending that screams ambiguity, Pulse is far from flawed. Overall I liked it. But maybe I’m just pleasantly surprised because it didn’t suck THAT bad.

My Rating: C +

National Lampoon's Van Wilder: The Rise of Taj

Rated: R (pervasive crude sexual content, some nudity and language)
Runtime: 95 minutes
Directed by: Mort Nathan
Written by: David Drew Gallagher
Starring: Kal Penn, Lauren Cohan

I was a huge fan of the first Van Wilder. It was up there with Road Trip and American Pie and my favorite college comedy since Animal House. It gave National Lampoon credibility again and launched the careers of Ryan Reynolds and Kal Penn. Unfortunately it also starred Tara Reid, which sort of equaled the flick to a birthday cake some wayward bird happened to crap on – you sort have to eat around the bad part. Sequels are tricky – more often than not they’re worthless carbon copies or inferior attempts at lightning striking twice (read: studios craving more money). But still I cling to the hope that round two might catch me by surprise, or even surpass its predecessor. And so we have Van Wilder 2. Wow, what an awful flick.

Part two, titled “The Rise of Taj,” follows Van’s quirky little assistant from India, Taj (Penn). He’s left Coolidge College for graduate school in England, where he intends to enter the prestigious fraternity his father attended, The Foxes and the Hounds. Finding himself at the butt end of a practical joke, he is turned down by the frat due to a claimed “typographical error.” This leaves him to a frat of four campus rejects living in a run-down shack in the middle of nowhere. And so Taj sets out to transform their house into the party peoples’ place to be, as he simultaneously tries to woo Charlotte (Lauren Cohan), the girlfriend of the head of The Foxes and the Hounds.

To comment on the direction by Mort Nathan (Boat Trip) here would be asinine. All I know is someone should’ve spoken up in this production about the severe lack of humor. The story is simplistic and trite, with a horrendous script by David Drew Gallagher. Honestly it’s the same script as the first Van Wilder completely rehashed, only devoid of anything comical. To explain: the first flick involved a challenge where Van and the girl he’s trying to steal from a snobby rich kid play hockey, Van coming to terms with his father, a bunch of collegiate rejects becoming big men on campus, and a gross-out moment involving canine bodily fluid. The second flick involves a challenge where Taj and the girl he’s trying to steal from a snobby rich kid fence, Taj coming to terms with his father, a bunch of collegiate rejects becoming big men on campus, and a gross-out moment involving canine bodily fluid.

The acting isn’t anything special. Penn is normally very funny – he was great in the first Van as well as Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle. Here he’s stoic, as the script gives him nothing to work with. They actually got someone cute and not annoying as the love interest this time in Cohan. She holds her own here, but more than anything I’m just utterly thankful she’s not Tara Reid. The four rejects Taj takes on are incredibly underdeveloped. I can’t tell if along the way more people have joined the fraternity and we don’t get to meet them, or if the fab five just have random groupies.

The biggest problems here are the shoddy script and the lack of Reynolds’ charisma as the title character. I kept hoping for a cameo so that I might witness some sort of redemption, an early Christmas miracle if you will. Do yourself a favor and avoid this flick as if it were a plague on theaters. If movies were presents this season, The Rise of Taj would be a lump of cinematic coal. I can’t give it an F though – I’m grading on a curve because it doesn’t have Tara Reid.

My Rating: D –