skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Already cornering the award for “least hyped Tom Cruise movie ever,” Lions for Lambs has all the makings of an Oscar nominee; the ensemble cast du jour, three interlocking stories that don’t quite come together, and a very loaded subject matter. Yet, despite very strong performances (even from Mr. Scientology Cruise), a moving plot about the war in Afghanistan, and probing dialogue by The Kingdom writer Matthew Michael Carnahan, something is missing from this movie… oh right, the movie part.
Originally conceived as a play, and probably better off as such, Lions for Lambs is more of an elegy on the importance of standing for something than a film, relying on probing conversations rather than action to propel the story forward. The first and most engaging conversation takes place between Republican Senator Jasper Irving (Tom Cruise) and veteran TV reporter Janine Roth (Meryl Streep). Irving invites the skeptical Roth to his office for a one-on-one interview to discuss a new stratagem in Afghanistan that he is positive will decisively win the war on terror.
The stratagem, which began “ten minutes ago,” involves dispatching small teams of highly trained men to head off the Taliban at high points along the Afghani border. Irving insists that the military’s superior “intelligence” will reduce risk and increase reward, but the intelligence isn’t so accurate when the first copter sent to the mountains is shot down by a supposedly inactive machine gun. The scuffle renders the copter useless and strands two idealistic young soldiers, Arian Finch (Derek Luke) and Ernest Rodriguez (Michael Pena).
Meanwhile on the campus of an elite California University, Finch and Rodriguez’s former professor, Dr. Stephen Malley (Robert Redford), tries to incite slacker Todd Hayes (Andrew Garfield) to follow their example and apply his incredible potential towards making a difference. The film unfolds in relative real-time as one member in each duo attempts to inspire the other to action, whether it’s to feed America “a win” without question, to go to class more, or simply to stay alive.
Because the film is inherently static, the majority of it taking place in someone’s office, the script relies on powerful performances to keep the audience engaged. Streep and Cruise are the most successful, with a realistic back and forth that probes deep into the flaws of the government and media without vilifying either side. Luke and Pena drive the emotional center of the film and do a good job establishing a friendship built on similar struggles and goals, but they serve more as catalysts for the other two conversations than as developing characters themselves. Redford and Garfield have the most difficult job, stuck discussing what it means to get involved on a philosophical level. Though both play their roles with conviction, at the end of the day, two guys drinking coffee debating questions with no answers just isn’t visually exciting.
Still, the overall strong performances help momentarily distract the audience from the fact that the film never really went anywhere. Sure it brought up (not entirely new) issues, it challenged us to take action, maybe it even made us cry (guilty), but did anything really happen? As a play, I would commend Lions for Lambs without question, but once it becomes a film isn’t there supposed to be a little thing called plot? Something more than discourse on loaded political issues that have already been attacked ad nauseam?
The problem with turning away from this movie is that you then by default prove the message the film is promoting: that when faced with challenges, our country would rather change the channel than get involved. In that sense, this is the most genius film ever created because it inherently guilts you into seeing it and thinking about the issues it ponders. Ultimately that’s a guilt-trip worth taking, since no matter where you stand, you have stand somewhere, and you won’t leave Lions for Lambs without discussing it.
There’s a moment early on in The Heartbreak Kid where Jerry Stiller, playing movie father to his real life son Ben Stiller’s character, suggests his boy stop worrying about romance and instead follow him to Vegas where they’ll pick up chicks for a double team. The Farrelly Brothers’ script goes the other way instead, but the movie’s too few moments between Stiller and Stiller are so gut-bustingly hilarious it’s hard not to wonder how much funnier the film might have been had it ended up being about a 40ish man and his elderly father chasing hookers around Sin City. Instead, we’re saddled with what is basically another formulaic romance comedy, spiced up with classic Farrelly Brothers raunch artifice. Oh how they make Ben Stiller suffer. And it’s funny, except we’ve seen this movie dozens of times before. Unfortunately we haven’t seen that better father and son buddy movie. It’s as if Heartbreak Kid’s script were a Choose Your Own Adventure book, and the Farrellys chose the less entertaining path to follow.
The possibilities of a different movie might be tantalizing, but The Heartbreak Kid is entertaining enough as is. Though it’s a remake of a 1972 Charles Grodin/Cybil Shepherd movie, it’s standard Farrelly Brothers/Ben Stiller stuff. Ben is Eddie Cantrow, an aging commitment-phobe who when faced with the frightening possibility that he’ll never find true love, marries the next woman that’ll have him. It’s not till they’re on their way to their honeymoon that he realizes he may have made a huge mistake.
Rather than correcting that mistake or god forbid, doing the honorable thing and trying to make it work, Eddie makes the same mistake all over again. With his slightly crazy new bride Lila (Malin Akerman) holed up in their bridal sweet nursing a sunburn, Eddie meets a new girl at the hotel bar and instantly falls in love with her. The girl is Miranda (Michelle Monaghan) and she’s blissfully unaware that the cute guy she’s just bumped into is actually a recently married man.
The movie’s best moments happen when Eddie’s being tortured, because let’s face it, he kind of deserves it. Ben Stiller is great fun when he’s getting the shit kicked out of him and the Farrellys are better at making him miserable than just about anyone. Stiller’s scenes with Malin Ackerman are varying shades of hilarious, with Ackerman willing to do just about anything to get the kind of sick uncomfortable laughs a good Farrellys movie deserves.
Sadly Michelle Monaghan will probably get all the credit, since she’s the movie’s token dream girl. But the story of Eddie and Miranda is really where the movie falls down. Ultimately it’s hard to care if they get together since, let’s face it, Eddie is kind of an asshole. We know that Miranda can and should do better so it’s hard to root for Eddie to win her heart. The first half is where The Heartbreak Kid works best, since that’s when we get the least of Miranda and more of Ben Stiller interacting with Ackerman, Jerry Stiller, or other comedic sidekicks like Rob Corddry and Carlos Mencia.
Again I come back to the movie that might have been, a movie that forgets the love angle and pursues killer laughs instead of a happy ending. At least the Farrellys have the good sense to make Ben Stiller suffer for his sins and, even though it ends on a high note, the Farrellys can’t resist setting Ben Stiller up for more failure just as the credits roll. No matter how many times we’ve seen it, there’s nobody I’d rather watch fall apart than Ben Stiller.
Don Cheadle has a neat, and apt, summation of the stages of a film career: "The first stage is 'Who the hell is Don Cheadle?' The second is 'Get me Don Cheadle.' The third is 'Get me a Don Cheadle type.' The fourth is 'Get me a young Don Cheadle,' and the last is again 'Who the hell is Don Cheadle?”
With all the progress John Cusack has made in his career, what is he doing now playing what Cheadle would call “a John Cusack type"? Cusack has been on the verge for several years of escaping Lloyd Dobler once and for all, and with December’s Grace is Gone, he finally seems poised to pull it off. Martian Child however, is a complete retread: Cusack playing Cusack, except this time he’s got a kid in tow. At least it’s coming out before Grace is Gone, so it won’t be called a step backwards for the star, who really does deserve a hit.
Martian Child is based loosely on a story by science fiction writer David Gerrold, about his adoption of an eccentric young boy. Gerrold is single and gay, but since this is Hollywood Cusack’s version is a widower, having begun the adoption process before his wife’s death. Ready to quit wallowing David goes through with the adoption process and winds up with Dennis (Bobby Coleman), a boy who spends his time in a refrigerator box (since he’s allergic to the sun) and wears a weight belt made of batteries (since, without it, the Earth’s gravity would not hold him down). David is a science fiction writer after all, so these quirks appeal to him, despite warnings from his sister (Joan Cusack), slacker agent (Oliver Platt), and a stern adoption agency employee (Richard Schiff) that he has to eventually help Dennis learn to live among the earthlings.
The one person supporting David in his efforts is his wife’s friend Harlee (Amanda Peet), and wouldn’t you know it a love connection comes about by the end. The fact that Harlee and David barely spend any time together on screen doesn’t matter, because that romantic subplot has to find its way in there somehow, dammit. In fact, nearly all of Martian Child takes place off-screen, with the film hitting the high points—spirited bonding! tearful fighting!—and leaving us to fill in the emotional development. David tells Dennis to “stop saying that” when he asks “Was I bad?” but we’ve never heard Dennis say it before. Director Menno Meyjes doesn’t want us to join David on his emotional journey, but just trust Cusack to report back all the relevant details.
Cusack and Coleman play well off each other as father and son, but you get the sense that their interactions would be a lot more fun to watch if we got to see their relationship progress naturally, rather than being crammed into an awkward plot about “being true to yourself” and “learning to love again.” Not that there’s anything wrong with that of course, but other movies have done it better. With the sci-fi element so glossed over and confused as to be almost irrelevant, Martian Child is just a generic version of any other dramatic comedy about familial love—that is to say, not terribly interesting. Hang on until Grace is Gone, when hopefully we’ll finally see a project worthy of Cusack’s talents.
The term “psychological thriller” has gotten tossed around a lot this year, being attached to films ranging from those more aptly described as “torture porn” (Captivity) to those that really had nothing psychological about them at all (I Know Who Killed Me). So, when a movie like P2 comes along, scarcely advertised and, frankly, left to someone like me to review, expectations aren’t set very high. Surprisingly, P2 exceeds those low expectations and actually puts on an enjoyable, albeit flawed, show.
The concept for P2 is incredibly light. Rachel Nichols plays Angela, an overworked businesswoman who gets trapped in an underground parking garage on Christmas Eve. Unfortunately for Angela, the parking attendant on duty, Thomas (Wes Bentley), is quite psychotic and rather obsessed with her. In short order Thomas kidnaps Angela, leaving the remainder of the movie’s running time for Angela’s desperate attempts to escape.
So what sets P2 apart from other abduction “psychological thrillers” out there this year? Surprisingly, the script from director Franck Khalfoun and producer partners Alexandre Aja and Grégory Levasseur , which cuts down on the expected gore factor and leaves time for the limited cast to actually build some characters, putting predator and prey face to face for a couple of lengthy scenes instead of just making the movie about Angela’s nonstop escape. Although there is some gore at times (and I think at this point Aja has taken down as many dogs in movies he’s worked on as Michael Vick), it’s not the sole focus of the picture.
The time left for performances isn’t wasted. Rachel Nichols already proved she could play a believable victim in the Amityville Horror remake and those skills are put to excellent use here. Her terror and desperation are almost tangible. Even better, however, is the psychotic performance of Bentley, who mostly avoids an over-the-top performance and portrays a character who obviously has spent too much time watching the world through cameras instead of interacting with people.
The downside of the movie comes in the story’s final act, when it looks like the writers couldn’t figure out what to do with the story they conceived and had to depart from the interesting characters they developed in order to reach a clichéd, somewhat satisfying ending. Suddenly Angela is a MacGuyver figure, all subtlety is gone from Thomas, and the visual effects artists take precedence over the actors.
It also might have been nice if the movie wasn’t titled P2 and given something a little more threatening as a title. It’s not that the title is bland, but anytime a character walks past a sign for the parking level (P2), you can’t help but think something terrible is going to happen. It gets annoying to the point that you wish more of the action would happen on the other levels of the movie’s parking garage.
P2 actually offers a satisfying show with some decent performances that make the movie a bit more compelling than previous genre entries this year. That’s actually pretty high praise for a film in a genre that is quickly getting worn out. It’s far from perfect, but at least P2 has a little bit of psychological thrill to it.
Already cornering the award for “least hyped Tom Cruise movie ever,” Lions for Lambs has all the makings of an Oscar nominee; the ensemble cast du jour, three interlocking stories that don’t quite come together, and a very loaded subject matter. Yet, despite very strong performances (even from Mr. Scientology Cruise), a moving plot about the war in Afghanistan, and probing dialogue by The Kingdom writer Matthew Michael Carnahan, something is missing from this movie… oh right, the movie part.
