A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas

So, after wasting three hours watching a truly pitiful performance from my Bills, I needed to get my mind to another place; to cheer it up a bit.  So, with that in mind, I thought, what better way than to catch the new Harold & Kumar film.  A bit of mindless comedy was certainly what I needed.

A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas, is, well what you’d expect it to be.  It is filled with misadventures, drug use, sexual innuendo and a whole bunch of other slacker-inspired attributes.  But it’s funny, really funny. 

I’m assuming you’ve seen the other Harold & Kumar films.  Therefore I’ll simply say that you’re going to get a whole lot of the same type of humor and antics displayed in the previous efforts. 

What I’d first like to talk about is the use of the 3D technology.  I’ve been waiting for a film to take full advantage of 3D, and finally, of all the movies, the best use of this technology is on full display here in Harold & Kumar’s latest offering.  The 3D is at a constant throughout the film, with countless instances of goo, eggs, hands, canes, snowflakes and so forth, escaping the screen, seemingly inches from your face.  This factor alone made the film worth seeing, but there are a few other reasons to see this movie as well.

Briefly, the film is chock full of references to other movies, animation and live action, television shows, music, current events and more.  I won’t detail them all, but will say they poke fun at everything and anyone.  There’s countless stereotypical slants shown in different lights; there are countless knocks on the characters themselves as well.  In Neil Patrick Harris’ brief cameo in this film he says he’s not really Gay, that he only uses it as a front to get more women, obviously using different terminology.  There is also another instance where Adrian, Kumar’s “friend,” tells him that he told this girl that Kumar worked for the white house, to which Kumar replies, “yeah, who’d ever believe that,” a subtle yet obvious allusion to Kal Penn’s previously held role in the Obama administration.

But these types of things we’ve come to expect from the lovable stoners.  In this film however, there are two serious themes underlining the entire project. 

The main theme is how true friendship is incredibly important and can endure any problem that comes along the way, including major philosophical differences on love and life.  Time is of no consequence either when it comes to true friendship.  You can pick up where you last left off, despite the number of years since last seeing one another.  This type of thematic is threaded throughout the film and while spun in their particular ways of doing things, the idea is portrayed wonderfully.

The second theme I’d like to talk about is how the idea of family, particularly parenting is everywhere throughout this film.  In fact, with the amount of attention paid to this theme, I’d be inclined to suggesting it is in fact the main theme of A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas.  This theme is evidenced by:

1.            The idea of familial love:

A.     Harold’s father in-law, played by Danny Trejo, is an     intimidating man that strikes holy fear into Harold.  He thinks his wife’s father simply hates him, but as it turns out, he’s only acting in such a way to ensure his daughter is in good hands, of a man that truly loves here and will do what is needed to make her happy.

B.     There is a scene where the girl that Adrian is trying to “hook-up” with is caught in a precarious position just as her father walks into the room.  This father just happens to be a well-publicized crime boss and sociopath.  He proceeds to put hits out on Harold, Kumar and the rest of the people at the party.  As twisted as this may sound, he did it for the love of his daughter; that he’d do anything to protect her.

C.     Harold and his wife are trying hard to have a baby, which is offset by Kumar inadvertently impregnating his on again, off again girlfriend.  While Harold is shown as ready to take on the responsibility of parenthood, yet not in a position to add that role to his daily duties, Kumar is not ready, still living the immature lifestyle of the slacker-stoner, yet he is the one with this very real responsibility staring him in the face. 

D.     There’s a season, while Harold & Kumar are tripping out, where the duo are warped into a reality consisting solely of Claymation.  In this scene you see a moment where they are, while exaggerated to the nth degree, affection with a young boy they see as a squirrel in the tripping sequence, thus illustrating, albeit in an unorthodox manner, that they are there for that kid, as the evil snowman comes to kill them. 

E.     The protection of children aspect continues.  The duo is in Neil Patrick Harris’ dressing room when he is giving impromptu “acting” lessons to a beautiful dancer.  He is acting wildly inappropriate and eventually she leaves.  But the aside shows Harold & Kumar, while curious as to what will happen next, are disgusted and feel like they must do something to protect the girl from NPH’s appalling behavior.  The fact that they didn’t need to take action is not of importance, it’s that this disgust appeared in them, which shows they are moving closer to the point they’ll need to arrive at, in order to become the responsible and caring parents their “quest” demands.

F.      There’s a saying that any couple trying to have kids should get a pet, particularly a dog, first.  Apparently there is some real scientific data to suggest that pet ownership is a verified primer to parenthood.  While not a pet, Kumar does take offense to NPH’s berating of his waffle-bot.  NPH proceeds to give the wafflebot to him, which Kumar then agrees to this “adoption.”  Throughout the rest of the movie the robot is seen as a surrogate child to Kumar, where mutual “love” is clearly illustrated.  This step furthers Kumar’s transformation from loser-slacker-stoner to responsible-“adult”-parent.

G.     The converse is shown as well.  Todd, a friend of Harold’s, who happens upon this misadventure, has his baby with him.  While innocent in the regards that he personally, didn’t play any role in what happens to the child throughout the film, which I’m purposely withholding as to not spoil it, he’s also guilty of being a bad parent.  He’s guilty because a good parent would never accept a situation where his daughter would enter into situations that aren’t appropriate, let alone dangerous.  But because of his desperate need of friendship and his “pushover” personality he gives in to Harold & Kumar and join, with his daughter, on this much inappropriate journey.

Kumar grows up throughout the film and by the end you can see his maturity, sort of, as fully developed, where he’s reconciled his past life with his future life and in so doing he’s prepared to handle the responsibility of his current life.

Harold grows up throughout the film as well, but in an entirely different manner.  He starts off as the adult, but in so doing a part of him, a part that is still very real to him, is being repressed, and therefore he must learn to take control of his current situation, stand up for himself to his father-in-law, reconcile with his friend and bring back the part of his life he cast aside, the part that was missing.  It’s no coincidence either, that at the very end of the film, after all the atonement has taken place, that he’s presented with the news that his wife is now pregnant as well.

I was actually amazed I saw this theme in this film.  It came completely out of the blue and took me decisively by surprise.  Yet, after thinking about it for a bit, should it really have been that big of a surprise?  After all, the film is about Christmas, and what greater story about parenting is there?

Harold & Kumar deliver yet again.  Is A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas unorthodox, crude, and inappropriate for most audiences? Yes, but its also really funny and surprisingly endearing as well.

    

Tower Heist

There are those movies that live up to their billing.  Then there are those that sneak up on you, throw you a curve ball so to speak, in either a positive or negative manner.  Then you have those films that are just there.

Tower Heist is one of the latter.  With a story snagged from the headlines, a decent plot and a strong cast, a structure was certainly in place.  I’ve found through my years of watching movies, trying to get myself into this world and simply analyzing the heck out of everything I watch, that this particular layout I’ve described can move in one of three directions, which, in part, mirrors reaction itself, in a microcosmic sense.  While current events are a popular idea to play with, it’s rather difficult to catch the timing properly and is a feat accomplished more easily when working on a small-screened project.  Decent plot is almost a given in a good movie and a strong cast, doesn’t have to be one comprised of A-listers but typically this is the initial direction our minds take us when hearing that a film has a strong cast. 

So really what is this all about?  The current events angle is a positive, no matter how you cut it, unless, of course, you’re working on a period piece, but that’s not the discussion at hand.  The Plot will be looked into in a moment.  It’s the cast that creates the most interesting angle of exploration. 

I’ve found that ensemble casts, where big names coexist, regardless of the scale, are either put together out of happenstance, which is highly unlikely these days or as an attempt to increase the likelihood marketing will be a success.   While marketing and increasing the number of tickets sold are obvious in their importance, for profitability as well as exposure, it’s also an expensive way to cover up flaws and glaring weaknesses.  Unfortunately this explanation for the big name casts seems to be the primary reason whenever ensembles are seen.

Tower Heist has this ensemble thing going for it, although not your typical gathering of A-list talent.  I would say that the cast here is built around two main stars (Eddie Murphy and Ben Stiller), and then surrounded by an extensive list of B to A- stars (Casey Affleck, Matthew Broderick, Judd Hirsch, Tea Leoni, Michael Pena, and Alan Alda), which seems to be enough to add a bit of box office pop yet not taking any real headlines away from your two big names.  I do believe that if you’re looking to maximize your film’s star power, then doing it in a similar manner to the casting done in Tower Heist, seems to be a smart and effective manner of going about it.

Tower Heist tells the story of how an upscale apartment complex for the wealthy elite in NYC is sent into a whirlwind when the Tower’s most prominent resident is arrested for operating a Ponzi scheme and is confined to house arrest.  Meanwhile it turns out that all the characters who work at the tower have been affected by this scheme, some more than others.  Josh Kovacs (Ben Stiller), as apartment manager, takes full responsibility for these people’s losses and it’s this guilt, spurred by a coworker, and friend, Lester’s attempt at suicide after being scammed of his life savings, that sends him into action mode.

The movie then moves into filling in the plot pieces.  Tea Leonia plays an FBI agent, who takes a liking to Kovacs, where she winds up informing him that Arthur Shaw (Alda) has to have approximately 20 million dollars stashed away somewhere.  It’s this piece of information that sends Kovacs on his mission, an inciting incident so to speak.  He feels the responsibility for his employees and friend’s loss, and vows to do what it takes to get it back for them. 

He enlists the help of Mr. Fitzhugh (Broderick), a character who’s fallen on tough times and was recently evicted from the Tower, Enrique (Pena), a new employee who, along with Charlie (Affleck), Kovac’s brother-in-law, were fired for being there when Josh has a meltdown during a confrontation with Shaw.  But this assembly of criminals-to-be are rather pathetic in regards to criminal aptitude, therefore Josh must turn to Slide (Murphy), a guy he just happens to know who seems to be extremely proficient in all things thief-worthy.

The story moves on with the plot falling into place, a few antics along the way, but not enough of what you’d expect out of Murphy and Stiller.  In fact the film hardly highlights them at all, Murphy is not used properly and for all intents and purpose, Stiller’s just a guy in this film. 

There are funny moments, the best being where the inept thieves are prompted by Slide into stealing $50 dollars worth of merchandise from the mall, that really highlights the awkward and inexperience these men have in this regards.  The majority of the other funny parts to this film are hinted at in the trailers.

The film is a film you’ll enjoy watching while immersed in this world.  But it’s also a film you’ll think poorly upon hours after watching it, realizing it didn’t nearly live up to it’s potential and really, in retrospect, left a lot to be desired.  The main problems are the underutilization of Stiller and Murphy and the unlikelihood of this scheme working out.  Normally I suspend my disbelief and let things be as they are, but without risking a spoiler, the man heist is just, well, seemingly impossible, especially by this crew of misfit thieves.

As for the acting, in itself it wasn’t bad.  The problem wasn’t necessarily with the actors themselves, but simply for what each actor had to work with.  The best performances are by Alda, Hirsch, Leoni and Gabourney Sidibe (From Precious).  Each of these actors seemed to bring their particular characters more to life, with each offering a bit of something extra to the film as a whole, something that the others simply can’t say.

What I liked about the film was the story ripped from the headlines, and what this particular headline exposes.  Shaw is by all intents and purposes an elitist scumbag that feeds off the hopes of the downtrodden and economically deprived.  He takes everything they have and doesn’t blink an eye.  The fact that he has seen these folks on a daily basis for over 10 years says another matter altogether, this man doesn’t think twice about stealing from those close to home and it easily could be presumed that he’d steal from his own family if it came down to it.  For Shaw, it’s all a game.  He doesn’t care who he hurts because they are all expendable, replaceable to him.  I also found it interesting how this character was set to walk away from his charges, a point that offers a bit of fear for how the legal system works in general, let alone when it’s obvious to all that a crime has indeed been committed. 

Overall the film is fine. You’ll probably enjoy it as you’re watching it, but it won’t be something you’ll think about chatting up to friends or colleagues.  It’s an ok movie, nothing special, with its compliment of flaws.  Is it worth seeing?  Sure, but if I had the opportunity to do it over, well I’d wait until It hit the $2 dollar cinema or for its release on Blu-Ray. 

In Time

In Time, starring Justin Timberlake and Amanda Seyfried, certainly had potential and promise, yet failed to live up it.  The notion that society would take that next evolutionary leap is quite the interesting notion.  Why should anyone think that, in future societies, that man will not have created a system to prolong life for extended periods of time, if not institute a system where eternal life is possible?  We’ve already, through a better awareness for how the body works, regimented by proper diet and exercise, expanded our lifespans dramatically. 

But doesn’t this idea run counter to human biology?  I’m not that adept in this area, but from my limited knowledge I would certainly say so; that without some radical internal adjustments, it wouldn’t seem remotely possible.  But that’s why this is a movie, science fiction to be certain.  The concept in itself is an interesting one, as it provides the prompt for exploratory discussion.  This is the main reason I love when a philosophical construct is inserted into the basic premise of a book or movie.

Yet this film also, in raising a discussion on everlasting life, is also operating in a manner that goes completely against the teaching of the church.  With this system in place, God is now useless, to a certain degree.  To the best of my recall, I don’t remember seeing or hearing anything associative with religion.  Perhaps the people living in such a society are beyond prayer; perhaps they’ve simply given up altogether? 

While I’m not offended easily, I do find it interesting why any form of entertainment, would virtually throw down their gloves at religion.  Even when done under the radar, it boggles the mind.  Those building something that they intend to sell, hope to make profits from, and would be wise to avoid any such topic that could prove to be counterintuitive to their overall design.  Now, that all said, If the premise is intrinsically tied into edgy subjects than obviously there is both a case of purpose and not including such elements would be a bit of a loss, as it pertains to integrity.

Religion is a subtle attempt at ruffling feathers, whereas politics is a whole other ball of wax.  To be fair the criticism argued on talk-radio is both emblematic of what can and typically does take place when presenting “fringe” elements, as well as a bit overblown at the same time. 

The societies within this film are certainly a main part of the film.  Any attempt to water this down would certainly dampen the film.  However, those responsible for content, certainly have an agenda. 

The caste structure within In Time is broken down into zones.  It’s a system where the higher the zone, the more affluent the residents.  This is nothing shocking, in fact look around your own city and you’ll see this structure firmly in place already.  Where the film takes the extra step is by illustrating the tax structure in place in their fictional representative cities or zones.  The lower you are zone-wise, meaning the poor you are, the higher you are taxed.  The “ruling class” cite Darwin and thus equate money, in this case time, makes you more likely the fittest.  Yet in a society where everyone has the potential to live forever, that is if they can consistently buy, earn or steal enough time, then overcrowding would most definitely occur.  For this problem enter the timekeepers.

The timekeepers are simply policemen.  They ensure that time is allocated properly, that is ensuring that the higher zones contain the most time.  This idea, combined with the ever-present, almost daily, increase of the cost of living in the lower zones, means that a “natural” weeding out will take place.  It’s also extremely interesting how the “law” of this future time are not concerned with murder or any act we would most likely deem as criminal in this time.  Instead they say as such, only concerning themselves in keeping the status quo safeguarded.

While the philosophical and sociological elements in this film are pretty interesting to delve into, the film lacks in the majority of the other areas necessary for a good production.

First, the acting is commonplace.  There is nothing special by any of the actors in this film.  Olivia Wilde (House, Cowboys & Aliens etc…) and Matt Bomar (White Collar) do the best job in this regard, despite both of their characters being killed off within the first fifteen minutes of the film.

Next is a cinematography that offers nothing special outside a nice contrast between the highest and lowest population zones.  Other than that it’s a whole lot of continual repetition throughout.

Finally, the plot itself falls flat.  While the philosophical questions and socio-economic conditions are certainly the backbone of the piece, outside of motivation they’re second-seated throughout the entire showing.  What this film becomes then is a simple rehashing of Robin Hood, where the two main characters, travel around robbing banks and stealing time, all in an effort to level the playing field and assisting the poor.  While this is a noble premise, and I love the Robin Hood stories, it’s been done and putting the setting in the far off future doesn’t incite sparks as those previous “steal from the rich, give to the poor” tales have been providing for years.

The film, in my opinion, should have stuck to what I believe they wanted to do, which is explore the philosophical constructs further.  I won’t criticize the writers for deviating their course though.  They simply did what they thought they had to do to sell a film.  With that said the film would’ve been better off exploring it’s initial dynamics more profoundly, with unknown actors, and a much smaller budget, which would afford them the luxury of low overhead, meaning “arthouses” would be the likely locale.  And if we’ve learned anything in the past twenty years, arthouse films can make a profit.  If the film is good people will go see it, regardless of what type of cinema it’s showing in.

Overall the film is about a C+ if I had to provide a grade.  It’s probably one you’d rather wait for on Blu-Ray, DVD or even pay-per-view though.  If you still choose to go see In Time on the big screen, just keep your expectations in check, especially if you were drawn to this film based on the premises hinted at through its trailers.

The Three Musketeers Movie Review (2011)

The Three Musketeers is just another film, in a long, long line of films portraying Alexander Dumas’ classic novel on the silver screen.  I think I’ve seen every one of these “adaptations,” which I use that word very lightly, and each of them are slightly different than the ones that came before, but in a sense, aren’t they all really the same. 

I guess one can make that statement fairly accurately when talking about any remake, but in the case of The Three Musketeers, it’s never truly a direct remake, it’s always a bit of a plot variation here or there, yet they always feel the same.

Now I’ll say this, I love the legend of The Three Musketeers.  I love the films as well.  But just because someone really enjoys something doesn’t necessarily mean that thing is any good.  That’s the case here.  This newest version of the Musketeer lore is not very good.  The acting is a bit campy at times, which is expected, or just a bit flat.  The plot is pretty outrageous, but still predominantly light.  The costumes are pretty good, but not as good as some of those variations that came before.  But let’s be honest here, none of the Musketeer movies are very good, are they?

No, no they’re not.  But they’re fun, they definitely take you to a different time; they transport you to a different place.  They’re cheesy, they’re campy, and they’re, for the most part, poorly spun.  Yet none of this means they aren’t good.

I think by now you get where I’m going with this review.  The movie is not very good, yet it’s fun and well-worth seeing.  Hmm… isn’t that a bit contradictory?  Well, yes it is, and that’s probably a good thing in this case.  If the film were too serious, or they acting too crisp, well then it wouldn’t be those Musketeers we’ve come to enjoy over the years. 

What do you go to see a Three Musketeer film for then?  For me anyhow, it’s a mixture of most of what I already stated.  I go to see that campy comedic routine.  I go to watch the costume of history.  I love seeing these outlandish plots seemingly get resolved, but never quite the way you want them to.  But most of all, for me personally, you go see a Three Musketeer film for the swordsmanship.  The duels are always great and there really can never be enough of them.  On that note there are three really good duels here and a few other action sequences that, although while not predominantly entrenched in swordplay, they do display the agility often used in duels.  All in all this is fun film, if you expect what you should expect out of a film like this.  I guess though, that this only applies if you’ve never seen a Musketeer film before.  Now if this stands to be the case for you individually, I feel the above mentioned descriptions would be necessary.  But if you’ve seen, basically any, The Three Musketeer films before, well then this recommendation is easy.  If you liked any of the previous variations than you’ll enjoy this latest effort.  But if you didn’t like it, well, than you probably won’t like this one either. 

The Big Year

The Big Year, starring Owen Wilson, Jack Black and Steve Martin opened up yesterday, in most theaters nationwide.  Most of the time, when I go to see a movie, I have a pretty good idea what I’m getting myself into well before I arrive at the cinema.  I thought The Big Year would be a comedy in the mold of your typical Steve Martin film.  Well, as it turned out, I had no clue as to what this film was even about, not even remotely.  This movie turned out to be for the birds.  No, literally. 

Before seeing this movie I never even heard the term Birding before.  I had no idea that there is this culture out there were people would flock to locations all over the continent, all for the opportunity to watch birds.  Sure, I heard about bird-watching before, who hasn’t, but to the extent that people would travel all over the place, in a semi-organized, competition, well that was well beyond the scope of any knowledge I had about bird-watching.

But as it turns out there is such a competition and it’s called The Big Year.  Birders from all over dedicate a year of their lives to travel all across North America, all to see as many different species of bird they’re able to.  It really was quite interesting to watch, as rarely does a film come across where I’m actually learning about something new the entire time. 

The film has a documentary type feel to it at times, which really aids in the experience of realizing all the various “hotspots” birders travel to, and of course all the names and habits of many of the birds as well.  You also get an excellent look into what sacrifices and choices that many of these Big Year contestants go through in order to partake in the competition.  You see the high points, that exciting moment of physically viewing a rare species.  You get to see friendships that can form from meeting other like-minded people.  You get to see the negative aspects as well, from those who try to get a leg up on their completion, the negative light non-birders cast upon them, the loneliness of being away from your life for an entire year, and many of the harsh conditions these birders go through, just to hopefully get a glimpse of some special birds.

Aside from the birding environment, which is really the reason to go see this film, this film is about three men who enter the completion, and the things that go on in their lives, and how these external influences either assist or inhibit their birding efforts.  Each of the men come from different backgrounds, which is interesting in that, regardless of background, this activity becomes a symbol of unity and equality. 

There are a few major points in regards to the messages scripted.  The main one is that the most important thing about competition, is to enjoy yourself while you’re doing it, but also to savor all the extras that an activity, or life for that matter, can, and often does provide. 

It illustrates this point by showing a seemingly life-long friendship formed between Martin’s character with Blacks.  We see Black’s character grow closer to his previously disinterested and disappointed father, and we see a love-relationship that never would have happened if it weren’t for his passion for this activity. 

Martin’s character watches his life move from overworked CEO of a major company to a life where things are much slower paced, one that he can, and it does take him time to realize this, savor the important parts of his life, one of which is family. 

Conversely we see Wilson’s character, the reigning “Best Birder in the world,” and how his success basically consumed who he was.  He is constantly afraid that someone will overtake his record and because of this possession he winds up losing out on what was most important to him, life. 

There’s a lot to like about The Big Year.  You have three pretty decently drawn stories revolving around the three leads and how Birding has changed their lives.  You have some brilliantly shot footage, of course of birds, but also the environments of all the various locations these characters travel to.  The cinematography truly is outstanding, as is the great detail provided about the nature of Birding itself.  From the various species and their habits, they show how people can actually learn from the behaviors and instincts of birds, to the competition itself, which granted I came into this completely ignorant of it’s existence, but even so, it did a great job of teaching, where even those experienced in birding should learn a few new things about the activity.

The film may not be for everyone though.  If you’re the type of person that instantly changes channels when scrolling past NatGeo or Discovery or the type that isn’t into watching splices of individuals lives, and how different people react and are changed by various stimuli, then you probably wouldn’t care too much for this film.  But if your like me, and love learning, and enjoy the brilliance and beauty that nature has to offer than you should enjoy the film.  And the dramatic parts of the film are fine, which for me, was nothing more than a bonus in this case.