That's My Boy

That's My Boy (R)

Grade: F

• Directed by: Sean Anders
• Produced by: Adam Sandler, Allen Covert, Jack Giarraputo, and Heather Parry
• Screenplay by: David Caspe
• Starring: Adam Sandler (Donald "Donny" Berger), Andy Samberg (Todd Peterson/Hans Solo Berger), Leighton Meester (Jamie Martin), Susan Sarandon (Mary McGarricle), Ciara (Brie), Vanilla Ice (Himself), Milo Ventimiglia (Chad Martin), Rex Ryan (Jim Nance)
• Cinematographer: Brandon Trost
• Music by: Rupert Gregson-Williams
• Studio:  Happy Madison Productions, Relativity Media
• Distributed by: Columbia Pictures
• Released: June 15, 2012
• Running Time: 114 minutes/ 1 hour and 54 minutes
• Language: English

I've been meaning to do this film review for awhile now, but I put it off for so long because of how terrible the film is.  Back in the day, as a child, I loved Adam Sandler films from "Big Daddy", "Happy Gilmore", to "The Wedding Singer".  And while they definitely weren't the best films critically, at least I could always get a few laughs from it, and some quotable material.  Not this time, though.  Like the past few Sandler flicks, which have had a lot more adult humor, this film reeks.  Thankfully, I didn't buy this film, I saw it on my friend's house on demand, but I wish I didn't because now I can't get it out of my mind.

The plot of this film starts with young Donny Berger in 1984, a big shot student who's got the hots for his teacher.  He's living out every kid's fantasy, but gets a welcome surprise when his wish comes true, and he has a sexual relationship with his teacher, getting her pregnant.  She goes to prison, so he is punished by having to raise the child, who grows up being a boy he names Hans Solo Berger.  Fast forward to 2012, Donny is a broke alcoholic, who has to raise $43,000 to the IRS.  Otherwise, he will go to prison like his teacher.  He has no means to get the money besides his son; the problem is, he's changed his name to Todd Peterson, and now they're estranged, so he'll have to find a way to get back into his life.

As I sit here typing, there is nothing positive I can say about this film.  It made me laugh, but lots of terrible films do that, and it didn't make me do it in a good way; it felt dirty throughout.  There was obscenities, terrible dialogue, violence, and cameos from famous people that should have given me a hint that this film was going to stink.  It's disgusting; I don't ever give spoilers, but if you find a guy having sex with a grandmother or his sister funny, then you'll find this film entertaining.  If I had to say anything positive about this film, it's that Leighton Meester, the actress who played Jamie, was attractive.  But other than that, use your brain on something more useful.  I wish I could say more, but there's nothing else to say.  To quote the late great Roger Ebert, Mr. Sandler, "Your movie stinks!"

No Country For Old Men

No Country For Old Men (R)

Grade: C

• Directed by: Joel and Ethan Coen
• Produced by: Joel Coen, Ethan Coen, and Scott Rudin
• Screenplay by: Joel Coen and Ethan Coen.  Based on the novel, "No Country For Old Men" by Cormac McCarthy
• Starring: Tommy Lee Jones (Sheriff Ed Tom Bell), Javier Bardem (Anton Chigurh), Josh Brolin (Llewelyn Moss), Kelly Macdonald (Carla Jean Moss), Woody Harrelson (Carson Wells), Garret Dillahunt (Deputy Wendell), Tess Harper (Loretta Bell), Beth Grant (Agnes), Stephen Root (Man Who Hires Chigurh)
• Cinematographer: Roger Deakins
• Distributed by: Miramax Films, Paramount Vintage
• Release Date: November 9, 2007
• Running Time: 122 minutes/2 hours and 2 minutes
• Language: English

"What's the most you ever lost on a coin toss?"

-Anton Chigurh

When I see a question like this posed to me, my instantaneous thought is to trading card games, such as Pokemon or Yu-Gi-Oh, since those are the things I've lost the most on when it comes to coin tosses.  Of course, when it comes to "No Country For Old Men" by the Coen Brothers, it's a completely different story.  Coin flips lose more than battles, they can cost you your life, but I'm getting ahead of myself. 

In the film world, few directors are more acclaimed and respected as the Coen Brothers.  They may not be a household name to the casual fan since they're not Spielberg or Lucas, but their films are just as good as there's.  Of course, it depends on genre and personal taste like everything.  The Coen Brothers films are usually a mix of being comedy, satirical, or thriller.  But then occasionally, they do "No Country For Old Men", which is a western, but really isn't since there are no saloons, no cowboys like John Wayne, and a villain unlike anything Texas has seen before.

Trying to describe a Coen Brothers plot to a film is like trying to have a quick walk through a maze; it just isn't going to happen no matter how hard I try because their films are hard to figure out.  Their plots start off making sense, but what their characters do during their films has you scratching your head, and saying "WTF"?!  This film is no different.  It starts off in 1980 with Llewelyn Moss coming across a drug deal gone bad.  Everything that went down there is over with, and he's about to leave, until he finds two million dollars in a satchel.  Like any normal person, he takes the money, but doesn't know that hitman and murderer Anton Chigurh is after him.  And on the trail of Chigurh is Sheriff Ed Tom Bell, leading to a chase that will lead to an epic climax.

My praise for the film starts with Tommy Lee Jones and Javier Bardem, who portray good vs. evil so well.  Jones is the sheriff who will do everything in his power to stop crime, while Bardem, who is Chigurh, does everything he can to wreck havoc, sometimes intentionally and other times not.  Bardem doesn't need an introduction since he's an accomplished actor, but this was the role that American audiences first really saw what he was capable of.  He was dangerous, yet an enigma at the same time.  And it's hard not to pay attention to his charisma and looks, especially with what he deemed "the worst haircut of all time".  Yet, we did pay attention, and because of that, Chigurh is one of film's great recent villains and performances, giving Bardem his much deserved Oscar.  Along with that, there's humor and tension in many scenes, keeping you on the edge of your set.

Even though I loved the performances in the film and the dramatic tension, there were many things I didn't like about it.  For one thing, as excited as I was for the film, I thought it dragged on a lot during certain scenes.  And when Llewelyn leaves the film for a time, the film just seems less interesting because the main character you've been following now is gone.  In a few films, like "Psycho", it worked cause Norman Bates was just as important and interesting, but as great a job as Tommy Lee Jones and Javier Bardem did, I don't think you can say any of their characters answered questions.  They just left me more confused, which was okay, but it left me feeling empty at many points during the film, especially the ending, which I won't even get into because it was such a letdown.

I know I'm in the minority giving the "No Country For Old Men" a C, but I'm doing it based on all the things I didn't like about it, and the fact that I have seen so many Coen Brothers films that I thought were better, such as "Fargo", "The Big Lebowski", and "The Hudsucker Proxy".  My grade is based only on the fact I didn't enjoy it, which is rare for me since usually I take everything into account when judging this film.  But you shouldn't think you won't enjoy this film, because if you enjoy the Coen Brothers, or just good, well-made films, this might be the one for you.  For me, this just wasn't, but it's clear the Coen Brothers are still on top of their game.

(500) Days Of Summer

(500) Days Of Summer (PG-13)

Grade: F

• Directed by: Marc Webb
• Produced by: Mason Novick, Jessica Tuchinsky, Mark Waters, Steven J. Wolfe, and Scott G. Hyman
• Screenplay by: Scott Neustadter and Michael H. Weber
• Starring: Joseph Gordon-Levitt (Tom Hansen), Zooey Deschanel (Summer Finn), Geoffrey Arend (McKenzie), Chloe Grace Moretz (Rachel Hansen), Matthew Grey Gubler (Paul), Clark Gregg (Vance), Patricia Belcher (Millie), Rachel Boston (Alison), Minka Kelly (Autumn)
• Cinematographer: Eric Steelberg
• Music by: Mychael Danna and Rob Simonsen
• Distributed by: Fox Searchlight Pictures
• Released: January 17, 2009 (Sundance), August 7, 2009 (US)
• Running Time: 95 minutes/1 hour and 35 minutes
• Language: English

"You weren't wrong, Tom.  You were just wrong about me."

-Summer Finn

He wasn't the only one; I was wrong too.  Zooey Deschanel's character, Summer Finn, says the quote above when she's talking to Joseph Gordon-Levitt's character, Tom Hansen, after revealing the truth to him following their breakup.  You may think that I'm spoiling some of the plot to you by revealing some of this, but I'm not.  The plot of this film is predictable.  Unfortunately, that's not the only flaw "(500) Days of Summer has".  It has many flaws, and that's what makes it a terrible film.

"(500) Days Of Summer" is about two people: Tom, an architect at a greeting card company, and Summer, a woman who doesn't believe in true love.  The film shows their time spent together over 500 days (like that's clever) in non-linear format, showing the ups and downs of their relationship.  We see them go through the ups and downs all couples go through, from their happiest moments to their arguments, which eventually lead to their breakup.  What happens from there is anticlimactic.

I realize I didn't say much about the plot, but that's because I don't think this film has much plot.  To be honest, this film doesn't have much of anything in it, besides a lot of fluff.  "(500) Days Of Summer" received acclaim from critics and audiences alike, but I can't see why that's the case.  The film has unlikeable characters, music blaring throughout the film (which is distracting), with a plot that is completely predictable and humorless.  When it comes to romance films, usually people hate them because of their predictability and cheesiness, but they give this a pass?  It doesn't make sense! 

Even looking at some of positive things people had to say of the film, like "it was realistic" or "Tom and Summer look good together", how could they think this?!  Sure, it's realistic that relationships are looked back on in non-linear format, but it's not realistic for a grown man to ask for love advice from his kid sister!  As for the characters, they're not realistic because they're both attractive, so I have a hard time believing they would struggle meeting somebody like real people would.  Also, their personalities made them completely unlikable.  Tom's a cynical asshole, while Summer is a fickle woman.  I honestly wish neither of them found happy endings, but we all know how these types of films have to end.

As you're reading this, you probably think I'm a monster and cynical, but watch the film, and I think you'll agree.  Personally, I've tried numerous times to ask a woman out, and have failed many times.  I saw things I did duplicated in this film, but I didn't feel sorry for the characters for the reasons I stated above.  When a film has this much wrong with it, it's hard to give a damn about it, which is how I feel about "(500) Days Of Summer".

In hindsight, "(500) Days Of Summer" never had a chance to succeed for me because I had high expectations of the film, as well as my own preconceived notion of love.  If you come into the film with an open mind, and believe love is what's shown on the screen, then you may like this, but I think anyone who's like me won't like this film because there are just better films and love stories.  Some of the critics said this film was like "Annie Hall" or "When Harry Met Sally", which are two classic love/romance films.  "(500) Days Of Summer" is like them, but only because it copies scenes from them.  It isn't original, it's just actors and actresses re-acting the scenes hoping to get some reaction.  The way this film is, I'd rather see a "Twilight" film for romance because at least Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson fit together in terms of paleness.  It's harsh, but it's the truth.  "(500) Days Of Summer" is titled what it is, but it should honestly be called (500) Days of Crap or (500) Days Of Hell because I never want to spend 95 minutes watching this film again for any reason.  If you want a real romance watch "Annie Hall", "Casablanca", "Manhattan", "When Harry Met Sally", etc, cause this film should hibernate for all seasons forever. 

Last Tango In Paris

Last Tango In Paris (NC-17)

Grade: D+

• Directed by: Bernardo Bertolucci
• Produced by: Alberto Grimaldi
• Screenplay by: Bernardo Bertolucci, Franco Arcalli, and Agnes Varda (French Dialogue)
• Starring: Marlon Brando (Paul), Marie Schneider (Jeanne), Jean-Pierre Leaud (Tom), Massimo Girotti (Marcel), Veronica Lazar (Rosa), Maria Michi (Rosa's Mother), Catherine Allegret (Catherine), Darling Legitimus (Concierge), Gitt Magrini (Jeanne's Mother)
• Cinematographer: Vittorio Storaro
• Music by: Gato Barbieri
• Distributed by: United Artists
• Released: December 15, 1972 (US)
• Running Time: 129 minutes/2 hours and 9 minutes
• Language: English, French

I know what you're thinking as you look at this poster with two people being intimate with each other.  What the hell is this film about, am I right?  Well, whether I'm right or not about how you feel, that basically describes how I felt after watching "Last Tango In Paris".  The film, which is described as an art house film, stars one of the greatest actors of all time, Marlon Brando, in a great acting performance, but even he can't save this film.

Brando plays a man named Paul, who mourns the death of his wife after she has committed suicide.  He goes to rent an apartment, where he meets a woman named Jeanne.  They have an instant attraction to each other, causing them to have sexual relations.  It's supposed to be a one time thing, but they like it so much, they want to keep on doing it.  The only catch is that they can't tell each other any personal information about themselves, not even their names.  Because of that, the film explores their relationship, and the difficulty trying to maintain these rules. 

The only positive I saw in this film was Brando's performance, which was enigmatic and polarizing.  We see two sides of Brando in this film, which are very interesting.  There's a positive, sexual, aggressive side that we see whenever he's with Jeanne, and we see a man in true agony when he mourns the death of his wife.  It's no surprise Brando nails it since the man was/is a legend, but it's a shock seeing the extent to which his feelings are magnified.  There's a great scene where Brando gives a soliloquy of sorts to his wife's body.  He pours all his emotion into that speech, and even though he's acting, it feels like everything he's saying is real.

In terms of the negatives, I don't know where to begin.  The pacing is long, which always bothers me for any film, but for this film especially, I could feel it.  I know the film had to give time to develop relationships and to show the past, but it didn't have to be this slow, especially when most of the dialogue is confusing.  The thing that really hurt this film though, and I mean REALLY hurt this, was the Jeanne character.  Marie Schneider did a good job acting and had good chemistry with Brando, but as a feminist, I was appalled at one scene that had sodomy in it.  I won't go into any more detail, but I was really offended by it, so this film took a huge hit because of that.

Bernardo Bertolucci is one of the most intriguing directors I've ever seen.  A film like this is really personal and focuses on relationships and psyche, but I've seen other films by him like "The Last Emperor", which is made on the grand scale.  The latter film is more my type compared to this which is art-house and misogynistic in some ways.  I'm not one to judge though.  Even though I didn't like this movie, and was disappointed in it because of all my expectations doesn't mean I don't think you would enjoy it.  It's just not for everyone as the rating and poster suggest. 

Django Unchained

Django Unchained (R)

Grade: C+

• Directed by: Quentin Tarantino
• Produced by: Stacey Sher, Reginald Hudlin, Pilar Savone
• Screenplay by: Quentin Tarantino
• Starring: Jamie Foxx (Django Freeman), Christoph Waltz (Dr. King Schultz), Leonardo DiCaprio (Calvin J. Candie), Kerry Washington (Broomhilda Von Shaft), Samuel L. Jackson (Stephen), Walter Goggins (Billy Crash), James Remar (Ace Speck/Butch Pooch)
• Cinematographer: Robert Richardson
• Studio: A Band Apart
• Distributed by: The Weinstein Company (USA), Columbia Pictures (International)
• Released: December 25, 2012 (USA), January 18, 2013 (UK)
• Running Time: 165 minutes/2 hours and 45 minutes
• Language: English

"Gentlemen, you had my attention, but now you have my curiosity."

-Calvin J. Candie

The words spoken above by Leonardo Dicaprio's character in "Django Unchained" represent how I feel before I watch any Quentin Tarantino film.  I always expect blood, over the top violence, and intricate dialogue, but the thing I usually expect most is to be entertained.  So far with "Reservoir Dogs", "Pulp Fiction", and "Inglorious Basterds", I haven't been disappointed, but I'm afraid the train stops with his latest film, which isn't terrible, but it isn't top-tier either.

The film starts off in 1858, where a group of slaves are being led by two white men known as the Speck Brothers.  As the brothers are leading the slaves, they encounter Dr. King Schultz, a German dentist who wishes to purchase a slave.  The brothers refuse to do business with Schultz, so he takes one of slaves by force, whose name is Django Freeman.  Django was chosen by Schultz because he is a bounty hunter that needs some help finding outlaws.  After collecting a bounty together, the two agree to partner up and go to plantations to find Django's wife, whom he was separated from when they got sold at a slave auction.  When they finally find the plantation she's at, they find out the owner is crazy Calvin Candie, and that getting back Django's wife is going to be harder than it looks.

Like any Tarantino film, the atmosphere is perfectly set from the moment from the film starts rolling.  The music is really engrossing, and sets the mood for the kick ass action that starts almost instantly.  There's a wonderfulness to Christoph Waltz's character Schultz that I just love in this film.  He's hilariously sarcastic with his actions, but at the same time, he shows he cares by partnering up with Django and teaching him how to act "white".  The scenes with Schultz and Django together are terrific because of the chemistry and charisma Waltz and Foxx have together, which is why it's a shame when Schultz is gone for part of the film.  When he leaves, Django means less to us since he is no longer a friend to anyone anymore and just a killer.  Sure, we root for him because we want him to get his wife back, and we've seen him suffer throughout the whole film, but there's a difference between killing with a plan, and just killing for the hell of it.  We've seen that before, and that makes the second half of "Django Unchained" predictable, unsatisfying, and long.

Added with that is what I view as laziness on Tarantino's part.  The screenplay is decent, but there are major flaws with it.  There's "Mandingo fighting", smart slaves/dumb slave owners, and scenes of little relevance like one involving a group of whites and bags.  I'm all for scenes with violence or laughter, especially when it comes to Tarantino, but not when it's dragged out, irrelevant, or written poorly, which I thought that some scenes were.  It was something I was extremely disappointed in, considering past Tarantino films could make me laugh or cringe without such obvious dialogue or presentation, like in "Pulp Fiction" (Marvin scene).

All in all," Django Unchained" isn't terrible, but it's not even close to his other three films I've seen.  The screenplay is weak, the violence looks fake, the pacing is slow, and everything is predictable.  When Jamie Foxx is on his own, they should have called the film "Django Chained" because he should stayed that way if he was just going to be another stereotypical killer, and not the hero he started out as.