Ron's Popcorn Reviews.com

1-4 STAR RATING SCALE

.5-, 1-, 1.5-, 2-, 2.5-, 3-, 3.5-, 4-

To be directed to any specific review, visit our Archives or click here

Movie Review by Ron Rapoport

Posted March 7, 2010

Is it really such a surprise that the first great movie of this young year comes from Roman Polanski, the masterful filmmaker who helmed such classics as Rosemary’s Baby (my personal Polanski favorite) and Chinatown? The director’s turbulent personal life is well-documented. He is the star of The Ghost Writer, the first great film of 2010. His name, tarnished by his mistakes, still means something when it comes to discussing and seeking out real cinema. His name is what will draw any true movie lover to this film. This is the work of a man who not only knows how to direct a thriller, but knows enough about film history and old-school technique to make this movie a classic.

Polanski is one of the great directors confident enough to rely on atmosphere and this is clear from the first shot of the picture. It begins on an ominous and chilling note: a dark and sinister night illuminated only by a lighthouse (which makes things all the more sinister) and a ferry. On this ferry is an empty car belonging to a dead man. This dead man was a ghost writer working for Adam Lang (Pierce Brosnan), an ex-British Prime Minister who can’t escape controversy. The picture then moves to London, where an unnamed replacement ghost writer (Ewan McGregor) is being sent to take over writing Lang’s memoirs. The Ghost (the character is unnamed for the entire movie) quickly realizes what he has gotten himself into.

Lang must stay in the United States in order to avoid extradition (perhaps this was in bad taste coming from Polanski), so The Ghost must come to his new boss’s beach house in Massachusetts. Now it’s all about atmosphere and setting. The gray skies. That lighthouse. The ominous waves. The rainy nights. They give the movie a haunting and mystifying quality. The Ghost meets Lang’s unstable wife, Ruth (Olivia Williams from An Education) and Lang’s assistant, Amelia (Kim Cattrall). He is trapped in this haunted house with two weeks to write Lang’s memoirs. He is further in danger when he starts to probe the mysteries surrounding Lang, who is now being implicated in war crimes. Now The Ghost must find his way around violent protestors, a gray and haunting island, and Lang himself.

Roman Polanski, regardless of his personal matters, is still a masterful filmmaker. This is his best film since Chinatown (I personally never liked The Pianist). I’d say The Ghost Writer is on a par with the director’s best work. It’s not Rosemary’s Baby, but it’s definitely up there with Chinatown. This is a flawless piece of direction and a nearly perfect composition of storytelling. A movie like this requires patience. It’s an intelligent political thriller, expecting its audience to think and evaluate. If you found Michael Clayton to be a great film, this is the movie for you. It’s slow in the sense that pieces come together at a steady pace. But what’s great about this movie and Michael Clayton is the filmmaker can divert your attention while the sinister uncoils.

Like I said before, a big part of The Ghost Writer is atmosphere. You walk into the theater and you become immersed into this world. The movie has this dark sly sense of humor that works perfectly when handled by Polanski. Every gorgeous shot of this picture tells a story of its own. That is what it means to rely on atmosphere, to let the setting tell its own story and divulge its own secrets.

Ewan McGregor delivers the best performance of his career. One reviewer commented that this is McGregor playing his usual role, as a slightly wimpy guy in the wrong place at the wrong time. That is a disservice to what this actor does here. McGregor plays The Ghost as a charming, intelligent, slightly audacious hero of sorts plunged into a world of conspiracies and secrets. He is never “wimpy” in these situations. Pierce Brosnan also delivers what may be the best performance of his career as an effortlessly smooth and charismatic politician. Polanski made a wise choice when deciding to leave Brosnan out for the middle portion of the film. We see him in the beginning and the ending. This is smart because it develops Adam Lang through other characters’ perspectives. It’s important we don’t know too much about him because that makes the final twist of the movie plausible and surprising, precisely because he is developed through other perspectives. Olivia Williams is perfect as Lang’s temperamental wife who always leaves doubt in the viewer’s mind as to her true intentions. Kim Cattrall perfectly underplays her part.

The Ghost Writer runs over two hours and you never notice the passing time. That’s how immersive Polanski’s movie is. I still don’t fully understand his film. There are many puzzle pieces and not all of them fit together when thinking back on the story as a whole. I have a feeling multiple viewing are required to fully realize the picture, but my initial impression, after seeing it and thinking about it, is that this is a near-masterpiece. Roman Polanski’s camera work is flawless. It’s his final haunting and beautiful shot that makes this movie worth remembering and returning to. In fact, I think that’s the best closing shot I’ve ever seen in film. It takes a ghost.

Movie Review by Ron Rapoport

Posted March 4, 2010

I saw Gary Marshall’s wonderful new film Valentine’s Day about two weeks ago. For some reason, I couldn’t find the time to sit down and write a review. Evidently, I found some now and in doing so, I was reminded of why I like this movie so much in the first place. Writing about this film brings back the joy of watching it. Roger Ebert wrote that a very good movie imprints certain memories and nuances, but its reality fades rather quickly, unlike with a great movie. Going by this criterion, I can’t say that Valentine’s Day is a great movie. I can say it falls between “very good” and “great,” because even though its reality faded after watching it, returning to its reality is as pleasant as watching even a great movie.

The story is one of those mellow “one day in the lives of city people” stories with lots of big stars. It is the romantic comedy equivalent of Paul Haggis’s Crash. The day is February 14 in Los Angeles. The most prominent storyline involves Reed (Ashton Kutcher), a romantic florist who proposes to his girlfriend, Morley (Jessica Alba), on Valentine’s Day morning and his best friend is Julia (Jennifer Garner) who is seeing Harrison Copeland (Patrick Dempsey), a married surgeon. Other intersecting stories include a U.S. army officer (Julia Roberts) returning home and meeting a charming man (Bradley Cooper) on the flight, a young couple (Topher Grace and Anne Hathaway) just starting out, a star quarterback (Eric Dane) considering retirement over a secret, and the sweetest is of a couple that has been together for decades (Hector Elizondo and Shirley McClaine) but must now come to terms with something one of them did in the past.

Each story is funny, sweet, and poignant. A few of them even have a twist you don’t see coming. Valentine’s Day reminded me of a movie from 2009 called He’s Just Not That Into You. I enjoyed that movie despite a wave of negative reviews and it was also stuffed with big names. There are those two similarities, but the major connection between these two films is that they are both romantic comediesthat avoid clichés, have genuine drama and authentic romances, and even when they do indulge in clichés, the movie still doesn’t feel phony. Still, both of these movies received negative reviews and I happen to like both. Then again, He’s Just Not That Into You is pretty forgettable while Valentine’s Day is definitely a more enjoyable and memorable film.

A negative attribute, which can be seen as a positive attribute as well, is that none of the intersecting stories are compelling enough to be standalone films. But maybe that’s a good thing, since one of the wonderful things about Valentine’s Day is that with all of these glimpses into the lives of different characters, the movie feels satisfying and complete. Without a small story involving Jamie Foxx as a cynical reporter, maybe the movie wouldn’t come off the same way. And no one really wants to see a compelling story only to be torn out of it and thrown into a new one.

Valentine’s Day is sweet, funny, entertaining, charming, and, when it wants to be, mellow. No one can come out of this movie and say this is a revolutionary masterpiece, but no one can come out of it and say they didn’t enjoy it. Gary Marshall is the man when it comes to making authentic romantic comedies. Think of Pretty Woman, Raising Helen, and even Georgia Rule. I am aware that I’m in the minority when praising his films, but I have a weak spot for Gary Marshall and his style of humor. It’s no surprise he completely won me over with this one.

Movie Review by Ron Rapoport

Posted February 20, 2010

Taxi Driver. Raging Bull. GoodFellas. Casino. The Aviator. The Departed. These are some of Martin Scorsese’s masterpieces. These are the products of the greatest filmmaker of all time. Yes, better than Alfred Hitchcock. Martin Scorsese is a master of filmmaking. A pioneer. A damn genius. My favorite director of all time. It genuinely pains me to say that a movie I have been anticipating since 2007 is the biggest disappointment I have ever seen. I have never been so upset about a movie. This movie is Shutter Island. I have literally been moping all day, contemplating whether to write this review. I’ll give it a shot.

What I am about to write is a lie. I will write it as though the ending of the movie doesn’t render this description pointless. In 1954, U.S. marshals Teddy Daniels (Leonardo DiCaprio) and Chuck Aule (Mark Ruffalo) investigate the disappearance of Rachel Solando (Emily Mortimer) on Shutter Island.  The island is home to a mental hospital for the criminally insane. Teddy and Chuck can’t get any answers and Teddy begins to enter a dreamlike state.

Now take everything I just wrote and forget about it. Most of it isn’t true.

I’m not going to discuss the direction. It’s Martin Scorsese. If you need me to tell you the direction is great, you clearly don’t know Scorsese. I’ll mention the score, because it is successful at becoming a character with its creepy and brooding sound. The acting is uniformly excellent. But none of that matters. Maybe I shouldn’t be a critic, because I am clearly writing about my emotions instead of writing about the film. I am not writing this review for you. I am writing it for me, to get my anger out. To maybe get over this nearly depressed state I’ve been in since I left the theater yesterday. For another movie, I would write like a normal person or a professional…whatever you want to call it. I can’t for this movie.

Teddy goes to the lighthouse to save his partner.

STOP

-

Shutter Island is a near masterpiece, full of surreal and lush dream sequences, excellent performances, amazing direction from the master himself, and a dark haunting gothic atmosphere. This noir instantly joins Scorsese’s other masterpieces. I’ve been excited for this movie since 2007. I’ve been thinking about this movie for a very long time. I am overjoyed that it turned out to be amazing.

-

Okay, Teddy goes into the lighthouse. Back to reality. An ending like this makes the rest of the movie pointless. It’s a deus ex machina if there ever was one. Despite my excitement for Shutter Island, for the past couple of days I’ve been a bit worried that my prediction for the ending of the movie would be correct. I thought of it and then said “NO! This is Scorsese. Get it together. He wouldn’t settle for such a generic conclusion used in way too many psychological thrillers.” I was right. The movie ended just the way I feared it would. The twist has been used many times in psychological thrillers. It’s no longer shocking. Just annoying. How could this be in a Scorsese movie? The dialogue is too elaborate and convincing. It’s like they wrote the movie as a straightforward mystery without the twist in mind and when they couldn’t think of a satisfying way to solve the mystery, they pulled a deus ex machina. That’s why it’s impossible. The movie wasn’t written with the twist in mind. It's technically not Scorsese's fault. The movie is based on a book. But Scorsese shouldn't have chosen the project. He does absolutely everything great in terms of direction. The movie begins and from the moment the Paramount logo appears, the mood of the film is already menacing. The dream sequences and hallucinations and flashbacks are all gorgeous (should be noted though that this isn't Scorsese's typical style). Up until that ending, this movie was great.

Shutter Island is based on a Dennis Lehane novel (author of the books on which both Mystic River and Gone Baby Gone are based on). Dennis Lehane and Martin Scorsese. How could this movie be bad? Both men took leaps from their genres, but still. Clint Eastwood made a near masterpiece with his adaptation of a Lehane novel. Ben Affleck of all people made a near masterpiece with his adaptation of a Lehane novel. And the one adaptation that isn't good is from Martin Scorsese?! He’s Martin Scorsese!

No wonder the movie was delayed from its Oscar season release. It’s not Oscar material. It’s a disappointment. For me, Shutter Island is the biggest disappointment ever. It almost feels personal. It was the movie I was most since 2007, and it was the centerpiece of 2009. When it was moved to 2010, I felt like I was being teased. I couldn’t wait. Imagine how I feel now. I’ve been moping all day. It's not a case of my expectations being too high, like with Avatar. This ending is just plain stupid and makes the past two hours pointless. Clearly I shouldn't be so upset about a movie. There are more important things in life. It's a movie. I don't care. After being excited for a movie for nearly three years, even when it was in developmental stages and was called Aeshcliff (yeah, I've been following this project for very long), being teased with trailers and delays, and basically thinking about it all day long on Friday until the glourious moment when I bought a ticket stub and thought, "three years, three title changes, and here we are. Finally," I think my state at the moment isn't completely overdramatic. When promoting the movie, Leonardo DiCaprio said of Scorsese’s deceptive character Travis Bickle, “I was never so emotionally betrayed by a character before.” I have never been so emotionally betrayed by a movie before. I think this is what heartbreak feels like.

Movie Review by Ron Rapoport

Posted February 13, 2010

Werewolves are fairly popular icons. They are used over and over again in movies, books, and television shows. But what about the werewolf? What started the phenomenon? That would be the classic Universal Pictures monster movie from 1941 starring Lon Chaney, Jr. Now, in a time when vampires are popular at the box office, Universal Pictures takes a bold step by trying to remake their own classic horror movie. With Benicio Del Toro in the lead role, this remake looked perfect on paper. The final product can be described with many adjectives, none of which are “perfect.”

Del Toro takes on the immortal role made so by Lon Chaney, Jr. Lawrence Talbot (Del Toro) is coming home for the first time since he was a young boy after the death of his brother. At first, not much is clear as to why he has been absent for so long or why there is so much tension between him and his father (Anthony Hopkins). One night when investigating his brother’s death, Lawrence is attacked and bitten by a beast, the same beast that killed his brother. Lawrence is looked after by his brother’s fiancée (Emily Blunt). But when the moon is full, Lawrence becomes the savage beast.

This remake of the classic Universal monster movie is dull, lazy, and an uninspired. The script trudges to the finish line with lame lines like, “if anything ever happened to you, I could never forgive myself.” You’d think with a cast like this, a screenwriter would be more inspired to deliver a really good script. The actors sleepwalk through their roles. Del Toro is completely wasted in a part that only he could seemingly take on after Lon Chaney, Jr. stamped his signature on it. The romantic subplot is devoid of any chemistry or emotion. Basically, you don’t care. You just want the movie to be over.

The Wolfman isn’t bad, but it’s not good. It’s just there. It’s one of those movies where you don’t really care if you see it or not. It’s certainly not worth the money it cost to make and definitely not worth the price of admission. You leave the theater with a feeling of indifference and aloofness. From the beginning of the movie, and even the trailer, I could sense this would be an uninspired remake but I was intrigued. With Benicio Del Toro in a role so perfect for him, I couldn’t resist. But after the movie I just wanted to go, “eh, who cares?”

There are, however, many compliments that can be paid to this film. First of all, the set design is incredible, evoking the correct moody and gothic atmosphere. The violence is fun and campy when you get past the grotesqueness of it. The scenes in a mental institution are very good and emphasize on the gothic tone of the film. Then when Lawrence escapes the mental institution, there is a spectacular chase through London. But after that it’s back to the tired and nonchalant pacing that I just didn’t care about.

The werewolf lore is all here, which is appropriate since the original sparked this lore. The full moon and silver bullet ideas are all on display but can hardly be called clichés since this is a remake of a movie that started these clichés.

The Wolfman has its moments for sure, but for the most part it is a mundane and uninspired remake of a horror legend. My opinion of the movie can be summed up in one phrase I used earlier in the review: “Eh, who cares?”

Movie Review by Ron Rapoport

Posted January 30, 2010

Blockbusters have a knack for avoiding intelligence. Producers accept an action movie as just an action movie and stay clear of any themes or ideas that could stimulate a controversy. That’s why producers love Michael Bay. He’s easy to work with because he avoids plot and still brings in the cash. And that is why The Book of Eli is such a surprise. It is an action blockbuster that has ambition and integrity and isn’t afraid to touch on some philosophical themes. And it offers a cool hero, a ruthless villain, some great action. And it’s entertaining while not being stupid.

Eli (Denzel Washington), who goes unnamed for most of the movie, is a traveler sent on a mission from god across a post apocalyptic landscape. He is a peaceful man with uncanny fighting skills. That means he will turn the other cheek unless someone poses a threat. Along his journey west he occasionally runs into “hackers,” ruthless gangs similar to the cannibals in The Road. Eli possesses the last existing bible and he will do anything to protect it. There are still makeshift towns with merchants and supplies and one of these is run by Carnegie (Gary Oldman). Carnegie, like Eli, is one of the last educated and literate human beings that survived the unspecified apocalypse. He sends out gangs to bring him books, hoping to find a bible and use it to become influential and powerful. And then Eli strolls into this town and Carnegie may finally get what has evaded him for so long, but not without a fight.

You can call The Book of Eli a slightly dumbed down version of The Road and I suppose in some ways it is, but I appreciate this movie for its boldness and ambition. A story like this doesn’t often sell. It deals with touchy subjects such as religion and misinterpretations of the bible. Clearly some producer respected this idea and let the Hughes brothers be creative. This is a powerful idea and its execution is almost perfect. It falls apart in the third act with a ludicrous twist that strays too far into fantasy, but this is an occasionally powerful movie.

The performances are first-rate from Denzel Washington and Gary Oldman. Mila Kunis is sort of the obligatory female lead but the Hughes brothers thankfully don’t make her the obligatory love interest. She has one powerful scene where she is almost raped and her eyes tell the audience of her loss of innocence. Denzel Washington is a kick ass hero and Gary Oldman is terrifically sinister and ruthless as Carnegie. However, the best scenes are with Carnegie because those are the ones that signify the themes of misinterpreting the bible and using religion as a weapon. Those are the ideas that make The Book of Eli thought provoking and challenging.

Maybe the conclusion is too tidy, but the problem with this movie is the wild card which makes you lose faith in the previous two hours of the film. Still, The Book of Eli is a satisfying action picture that is made more memorable by its ideas. Movies are made for many reasons, one of them being to tap into ideas argued about in the media. This movie does that while being other things. It makes you think and evaluate. As James Cameron said a couple weeks ago when accepting the Golden Globe for Avatar, “that’s the power of cinema.”

Movie Review by Ron Rapoport

Posted January 28, 2010

When trying to imagine what the new British drama Fish Tank is like, try crossing two much acclaimed movies from 2009: An Education and Precious, two movies that are polar opposites. Or just try imagining An Education ten times darker. It’s uncanny for a movie like Fish Tank to come out in January, a month that usually showcases lame comedies and clichéd horror movies. To be fair, this movie did come out in England in September, so it’s not like Hollywood has really made a great movie in the new year.

Newcomer Katie Jarvis, in a highly praised performance, plays Mia. She lives with her mother and younger sister in Essex. If you found the England in An Education to unromantic, you’ll be frightened at the England shown in this movie. Her mother, played by a terrific English actress named Kierston Wareing, is almost as bad as the mother in Precious. What makes the woman in this movie less evil is that her kids are practically as horrid…and she doesn’t throw frying pans at their heads. Mia wants to become a dancer and constantly gets in to fights with her peers. Then Connor, played by Michael Fassbender in an amazing performance, comes into her life in the form of mom’s new boyfriend. Now her confusion towards herself and her life is made worst. But hope is a dimly visible light with this man.

Katie Jarvis has received most of the praise for this gritty depiction of poverty in England, but the most powerful and challenging performance comes from Michael Fassbeneder of Inglourious Basterds. Jarvis, who is very good, can never quite transcend her emotions like Carrey Mulligan did in An Education or even like Gabby Sidibe in Precious. Fassbender is astounding as Connor, a charming man who always seems both too good to be true and a little cruel. Then the audience sees who Connor really is, and you see him as a completely new person, someone who is warm and kind but then again heartless and cold. It’s difficult to explain such a character without spoiling anything, but you’ll realize what I mean when you see this movie. Fassbender bases his whole performance on auras and vibes. His personality is never seen but sensed.

Fish Tank is a disturbing movie throughout, but the last 20 minutes of this movie may be too hard for some to handle. It makes you practically hate Mia and sympathize with Connor. The conclusion isn’t at all like the moderately uplifting one in Precious. It’s the complete opposite of the conclusion in An Education. Nothing turns out good for anyone, and that’s all you need to be aware of when considering if this is the movie for you.

The film is about people getting so far into a situation where there is no option to turn back. The characters don’t go in and get out; they probe until they can no longer leave without it being messy. Every time a character gets into a situation, director Andrea Arnold makes sure that the audience can sense the exact moment right before it’s too late. We see the moment when everything is decided for these characters and only a second before they could have gone on completely different roads had one of them made a different decision. They sink deeper and deeper in the fish tank that is their life.

The conclusion leaves the audience guessing as to how this would have turned out if this went differently. I guess you can apply that to every movie, but Andrea Arnold shoots this film so precisely that you are consciously dissecting each scene.

Fish Tank approaches greatness but Arnold takes a few turns towards the climax don’t serve the story well. They do however serve the character of Connor very well and give Fassbender the opportunity to show how great of an actor he really is.

Don’t mistake my comparison of this movie to An Education and Precious as a sign that I think it deserves to stand alongside those two films. They are far superior. But Fish Tank is as good as any movie you will ever see in the month of January.

Movie Review by Ron Rapoport

Posted January 25, 2010

Very few films can master the art of cynicism. Bottom line (a phrase the characters in this movie like to use), Wonderful World is not one of them. What a great idea, right? Matthew Broderick will play a heartless cynic who learns to love and appreciate the world he lives in through a series of mishaps. No, not really.

Broderick plays Ben Singer, a divorced pot smoker who almost hit it big with a kid-friendly soundtrack but is now stuck in a proofreading agency. He lives with a roommate, Ibou (Michael K. Williams from The Wire), and spends most of his time smoking marijuana and playing chess with Ibou, that is when he isn’t trying to appeal to his daughter. When Ibou goes into a diabetic coma, his sister Khadi (Sanaa Lathan) arrives from Senegal. She begins to live with Ben and they develop a romance. And now cynical Ben might change.

Ben’s bitterness would be understandable if the world he occupies was believable. Writer and director Joshua Goldin crafts this environment to serve Ben. Everyone around him is stupid and horrible, so of course the poor guy would be a cynic. Goldin had a character in mind and he wanted him to seem believable, so the solution is to make a world that is unbelievable so no one questions Ben’s mindset. Besides, a movie about being cynical is boring. Good movies about cynics have subtext, but this movie is completely focused on this guy being a cynic.

The casting is hit-and-miss. Broderick’s take on Ben is too uneven. Even before the obligatory transformation of the character, the character has rapid swings in personality. Michael K. Williams and Sanaa Lathan, both born in New York City, overdue their Senegalese accents.

As a whole, Wonderful World is an extremely average made-for-TV movie. No themes or ideas are compelling or original, or at least done in an original way. Ben Singer fails miserably to join the ranks of memorable cynical characters. This guy is no where near Paul Rudd status when it comes to amusing cynicism in movies. The film has a nice message, which is that our society has been taken over by greed. Ben’s argument as to why the city should pay damages could be a good argument against Gordon Gekko’s idea on greed. Ben disagrees. Greed is not good, Gordon. But the movie delivers this message in such a stale and under produced package. I don’t think Joshua Goldin can honestly say he worked hard on this movie. He half-assed the entire project and it shows.

Wonderful World wraps up the story in a satisfying fashion due to Matthew Broderick’s performance and convincing transformation rather than Goldin’s efforts. But to give him some credit, Goldin does direct the film into some very interesting territory. I like where it went but after reflecting and thinking about the entire movie, I don’t believe in how it got there.

There are some sweet scenes where we see how far Ben Singer has come since the movie began and they ring true. But one good scene with his daughter doesn’t compensate for the many phony scenes in between. I think Oliver Stone made his own point clear in Wall Street. He didn’t need Joshua Goldin to come in, misunderstand that Gordon Gekko is an antagonist, and show to everyone that Ben Singer has what it takes to take on Gekko. Bottom line, he doesn’t.

Movie Review by Ron Rapoport

Posted January 14, 2010

Vampires come and go. They have a period of bursting popularity and then fade away to become the fodder of some unknown filmmaker. At the moment, vampires are dominating the box office, the bookstores, and HBO. Twilight certainly isn’t loosing any steam in its demographic and True Blood is one of the best shows on TV. Soon enough the bloodsucker phenomenon will die down but not before the highly imaginative and original Daybreakers gets a shot in the big leagues. Can it be that the 2010 movie year is off to a fairly strong start (compared to other Januarys, this is strong)? And this is a chance for guys to see a vampire movie minus the sparkling Edward Cullen and the overdramatic cheesiness.

Daybreakers takes place in a highly immersive 2019 where an unspecified outbreak ten years ago caused most humans to become vampires. Humans are outnumbered and hunted by the police and the “vampire army” to be delivered to a company that will harvest and mass produce their blood. Humans are running low though. The blood supply is dwindling. Bromley Marks, a pharmaceutical company run by Charles Bromley (a wonderfully sinister Sam Neil), has their top scientist, Edward Dalton (Ethan Hawke) working to find a blood substitute. Studies have shown that when a vampire is deprived of blood for a prolonged period of time they mutate into “subsiders,” ugly creatures that look like orks, only with wings. Edward himself has started to show signs of long-term blood deprivation. He is recruited by a human resistance group to repopulate mankind and to maybe even save vampires from starvation and mutation.  

These vampires look like normal people if you can get past the golden eyes. They go to work, drive, and drink coffee. The Spierig brothers create a very dark and original universe in which a vampire goes up to a vendor and asks for more blood in his or her coffee. Basic vampire lore is here but it’s done especially well. The usual bloodsucker clichés are used to both satirize the lore and to innovate it. Their vulnerability to the sun is used to create something called “subwalk” that allows vampires to take strolls during the day in tunnels. The coffee idea is great. The whole plot is original, which can be understood from the trailer. It’s an intriguing premise to begin with and the Spierig brothers do so much with it that they don’t undermine it or the audiences’ intelligence.

This is a smart and allegorical film. The explosions (and there are a lot of them) actually make sense and aren’t there simply for the sake of using pyrotechnics. The directors do a really cool thing which is to make the vampires explode when they are stabbed and this causes a car to blow up when a rail goes through the windshield. This is part satire and part creativity. The Spierig brothers aren’t afraid to let their film be a really awesome B movie. They’re not taking the project too seriously (unlike the people behind the grossly pretentious Twilight saga) which gives it a darkly humorous and exploitative touch.

On a creativity and originality level, Daybreakers is up there with True Blood. However, True Blood doesn’t have to completely create a new world whereas this does. There are so many cool touches, like the coffee and the subwalk program, that make this an immersive experience. Maybe the storytelling tends to stray into some corny or conventional territory with the characters (there’s an obligatory love interest among other things) but I appreciate this movie for how it creates this world.

The movie will receive its share of criticism for becoming an all-out action flick in the third act (Avatar and District 9 are still praised) but the action is exciting which is what action is generally supposed to be. And Daybreakers is a unique and entertaining movie which is what movies are generally supposed to be.

Movie Review by Ron Rapoport

Posted January 9, 2010

Michael Cera is becoming the go-to guy in Hollywood for dark teen sex comedies about socially awkward dorks. From Superbad and Juno, it only seems natural that he would play Nick Twist in Youth in Revolt, the mother of all insane over-the-top dark comedies. Too bad it misses brilliance by a long shot. It goes from being nearly genius, to entertaining, to stupidly funny until it finally unravels in the final act and becomes a cartoon. The movie goes through these phases as Nick tires to reach the holy grail of all teen sex comedies: the female sex organ.

Nick is a nerdy loser in a small town living with his irresponsible mother and her cheating boyfriend, Jerry, played by Zach Galifianakis of The Hangover fame. After Jerry sells a few sailors a broken down Chevy and they come looking for him, Nick is dragged along by his mother and Jerry to a trailer park for a week so they can hide out. There he meets Sheeni, the girl of his dreams. To get her he has to be a badass, so he creates a dual identity named Francois Dillinger to aid him in his mischief (if you consider blowing up a restaurant to only be mischief).

Youth in Revolt has a great first 20 minutes. Galifianakis, who is becoming a household name since The Hangover, is hilarious and Nick’s deadpan humor is very well written. Then the movie falls down a couple notches and becomes a sorta funny/weird/over-the-top romp. After that this film become a complete cartoon, with characters so ridiculous they couldn’t even be believable in an episode of Spongebob.

Michael Cera is as funny as always but even his sheepish and deadpan style of acting can’t save the final act from being a loud and ludicrous parody. Ray Liotta is pleasantly evil as a cop who becomes Nick’s mother’s new boyfriend but he is denied much screen time. The movie turns into a depressing pastiche that wildly swings between tones. I for one couldn’t find anything funny about a father so fed up with his lunatic child that he is willing to call the police.

Youth in Revolt looked like it could be a great teen comedy, and judging by the way it began chronicling Nick’s journey to lose his virginity, it certainly could have been just that. We quickly stop caring about Nick and his quest to win Sheeni’s heart and begin to pity him. The character doesn’t evolve throughout his experiences but only deteriorates into a complete nutcase. Was this meant to be a parody of normal people and relationships? Perhaps, but I missed the joke. The darkness is taken too far and it’s not handled well. This movie would have been better as a ten minute YouTube video instead of a feature length film that for the last half hour feels like a drag.

There are parts here that make it almost worth renting and Youth in Revolt isn’t terrible as an HBO viewing on a rainy day but seeking it out in theaters, especially with so many good films playing right now, is a very unwise way to spend your money. It’s an interesting way to start off the 2010 movie year and it certainly doesn’t start off the year the way Bride Wars did in 2009. At least the first comedy of 2010 is actually funny.