Reviews of `Date Night,' `The Last
Song,' `Hot Tub,' and more...
`Date Night' Hits All The Right Notes As A Solid Comedy

A couple of bored New Jersey-ites decide to mix up their routine with a trip
to the big city and find themselves mixed up in a murderous plot involving
gangsters, crooked cops and dirty politicians in the new comedy Date Night
starring Tina Fey and Steve Carell and directed by mainstream machinist
Shawn Levy (Night at the Museum 1 & 2).
Shawn Levy has never been what anyone would call an auteur. Levy is,
without a doubt, a craftsman but more along the lines of an amateur
carpenter than a master builder, his films unfold with a solid plan in mind
and end up as rickety, half completed disasters. To be fair, the half
completed parts can be quite entertaining and have proven exceptionally
popular.
How nice then that Levy's latest rickety contraption, Date Night, actually
shows the director becoming a better craftsman. Unlike the Night at the
Museum movies, Date Night has a quick pace, oodles of charm and more
than a few really big laughs. It helps to have a pair of very, very funny leads
to carry the audience over the trouble spots.
As Phil and Claire Foster, Steve Carell and Tina Fey do a remarkable job of
portraying a marriage with a little dust on it. The routine of once a week
dinners, lame book clubs and time spent with fellow dusty married couples
is so well evoked that you can't wait for the expected wackiness to ensue.
The wackiness arrives when Phil and Claire, frightened by the recently
announced divorce of a longtime couple/friends, break from the routine for a
night in New York City. They want to have dinner at a swanky new
restaurant in Manhattan but they don't have a reservation. When another
couple doesn't show, Phil boldly claims the reservation and the identity of
the missing couple.
That couple, unfortunately, happens to be the missing link between a mob
boss (Ray Liotta) and some dirty cops (Jimmi Simpson and Common) and
a shady politician. When the dirty cops come after the Foster's one wild
night ensues as they evade the bad guys with the help of a hunky security
expert played by a shirtless Mark Wahlberg.
The plot is creaky and as well aged as Claire and Phil's marriage routine.
The key to making it work lies with Carell and Fey's ability to sell the
goofball, over the top gags and sell they do, Carell and Fey make a top
notch comic duo. Scene after scene, whether Phil and Claire are sharing a
quiet meal, poking quiet fun at fellow diners, or running from a hail of bullets
or in a wild car chase, Carell and Fey make the most of their terrific comic
chemistry to draw big laughs.
If you like the Steve Carell and Tina Fey you know from TV then you will like
Phil and Claire. Director Levy cleverly plays the story to the strengths of his
stars and they reward him by taking thin characters and a well worn plot
and making something surprisingly, hilariously more of it.
With any other cast Date Night would crash and burn. With Steve Carell
and Tina Fey Date Night becomes a fast paced, laugh out loud riot; stay for
the credits which tack on a few more big laughs in Carell and Fey's
blunders and ad libs. Shawn Levy may never be a great director but with the
right cast and the right material he is an effective director and that is all that
was needed for Date Night.




`the Last Song': Hannah Montana Grows Up

Miley 'Hannah Montana' Cyrus, Nicholas 'schmaltz-merchant' sparks and
the family friendly folks at Disney are a combination that invites snark, that
malicious form of discontent expressed in sometimes angry, often biting
sarcasm. Each of these three properties has earned their fair share of
derision with weak in the knees pandering to the most simplistic of
audience expectations.
That said, I will attempt to fight back the snarky beast waiting to strike the
new Miley, Sparks, Disney movie The Last Song which, under the direction
of newcomer Julie Ann Robinson, is not really deserving of the cannon
fodder snark aimed in its direction.
Ronnie Miller (Miley) is a recent High School grad forced to leave New York
behind for her Dad Steve's (Greg Kinnear) beachhouse in Georgia for the
summer before she goes off to, well, at the moment, nowhere.
Though Ronnie has been accepted to Julliard she has no plans of going,
she gave up music several years ago when her parents split. Ronnie's main
goal will be to do her time at dads and get back to her friends and her mild
rebellion in New York. Along for the ride is Ronnie's little brother Jonah
(Bobby Coleman) who, lucky for dad, is much more enthusiastic about the
summer sojourn.
While avoiding her dad Ronnie encounters Will (Liam Hemsworth) and after
some required tension the two begin a romance that begins to lead
everyone to a better place. That is of course until the typical elements of a
Nicholas Sparks melodrama emerge to submerge the story in hokum,
predictability and a tragic passing. It wouldn't be Nicholas Sparks film if
none of the principles weren't on the verge of croaksville. (Damn you
snarkmonster!)
Sparks's script, commissioned by Disney specifically as a vehicle for Ms.
Cyrus, is the weakest element of what is otherwise a rather charming little
melodrama. Sparks cannot resist applying his trite formula of teen angst,
overblown dramatics and cancer to the story and that leaves director Julie
Ann Robinson room only to navigate around the many potholes created by
Sparks and co-screenwriter Jeff Van Wie. In a rather remarkable turn of
events, for the first 2 acts of The Last Song Ms. Robinson actually pulls it
off.
The Last Song begins with a little mystery involving Dad's background,
moves stiffly but effectively to Ronnie's unhappiness with the situation to her
opening up to the surroundings, in the form of saving sea turtle eggs on the
beach from predators and into her charming and effective romance with the
too handsome Will. Through it all Ms. Cyrus pitches her performance at just
the right level of teenage rebellion and little girl petulance.
The final act sadly coheres to the typicality’s of the Nicholas Sparks brand
of forced drama and earns the first of more than few groans. I should point
out that on my patented Nicholas Sparks groan-meter The Last Song was a
mere 6 groaner where his last effort, Dear John, was somewhere in the 30
to 35 range. So, that's quite an improvement really. (Snark!)
Even with the dithering final act, The Last Song remains a charming little
teenage romance that demonstrates that when under the guiding hand of a
director who cares Miley Cyrus has the talent to deliver something more
than her pop star persona. The performance here is genuine and enjoyable
and where I was once skeptical and dubious of Miley's acting aspirations I
now must admit she may just have a future in film yet.



Take a dip in the `Hot Tub Time Machine'

When The Hangover became the break out comedy of 2009 it was inevitable
that movies about 4 overgrown juveniles getting drunk while on vacation for
whatever reason would become a trend or even its own sub-genre. Just
watch the DVD shelves, it's coming. The first of what may be perceived as a
Hangover knockoff to arrive in theaters is Hot Tub Time Machine.
John Cusack stars as Adam an a-hole insurance salesman who has clearly
done something to make his girlfriend leave him; his house has been
ravaged by her moving out. Adam's buddy Nick (Craig Robinson) has it
worse, working as a dog groomer with a wife he knows is cheating on him.
Even still, there pal Lou is in worse shape; he may or may not have tried to
kill himself while rocking out to Motley Crue.
As a way of cheering up Lou, Nick and Adam have planned a getaway to
the ski resort where they spent many weekends in their hopeful youth.
Tagging along is Adam's nephew Jacob (Clarke Duke) who has spent far
too much time on his computer -his Second Life character is spending
three years in prison- Adam figures he needs some human contact.
The resort was once a hotspot but now it's a run down dump. On the bright
side, after a call to the front desk, the hot tub starts working. It works so
well in fact that it becomes a time machine and sends all four guys back to
1986. With the time space continuum at stake, and a physics lesson from
the original Terminator movie, the guys agree they must not alter the past
or else.
Hot Tub Time Machine plays like The Hangover with time travel. Rob
Corddry, best known as a correspondent on The Daily Show, plays the
Zach Galifianakis character, replacing creepy childlike naiveté with creepy,
intensity and slapstick. Cusack is the Bradley Cooper character all sharp
angry humor and Robinson is the sheepish one waiting to break out ala Ed
Helms.
The characters don't match exactly; Clark Duke gets far more screen time
than Justin Bartha did in The Hangover, but with the binge drinking and wild
time schtick the films are certainly in the same vein. Where The Hangover
played something of a comic mystery plot for big laughs, Hot Tub Time
Machine relies on heavy doses of nostalgia and clever references.
Cusack in and of himself as a reference to multiple 80's classics from Say
Anything to Better off Dead to One Crazy Summer. None of those films get
a direct name check but Cusack does ski in Hot Tub Time Machine, the
black diamond, not the K-12 unfortunately, and listen close and you might
hear someone shouting for their two dollars.
Crispin Glover drops in as another self referential 80's joke; Glover was of
course Marty's dad in Back to the Future, a film that earns a few laughs for
Hot Tub Time Machine along with any comedy about skiing. And yet still
another walking punch line, I mean that as a compliment, Chevy Chase
pops up in a funny cameo as the Hot Tub Repairman/time travel guru.
Hot Tub Time Machine then throws in one more fabulous 80's cameo that I
don't want to spoil; I'll just say Cobra Kai and leave it at that. Hot Tub Time
Machine bursts with aching nostalgia that will either delight or invite a
nauseous sort of state as one is reminded just how old they truly are.
Yes, Hot Tub Time Machine is easy to write off as a movie taking advantage
of the well plowed path of The Hangover but that film didn't have time travel.
That's certainly enough of a difference to allow you to forgive the many
familiar elements. John Cusack is excellent as always while the rest of the
cast brilliantly has his back.
If I may add a cheesy critic’s one liner to close: Take a dip in the Hot Tub
Time Machine. Ha!


`Alice' is a pale remake

The story of Alice in Wonderland is one of a teenage girl tripping down a
rabbit hole into a magical land where adventure awaits. The sub-story
however, is not onscreen but behind the scenes. It is an unfortunate story of
a once promising filmmaker with the potential of a game changer but who
sadly lost his way.
In Alice in Wonderland Tim Burton demonstrates that the promise he
showed as a filmmaker who deftly combined unique characters with
fabulous visuals has now devolved into a style over substance approach
better at aping other storytellers’ visions but lacking what made their stories
lasting and memorable.
The latest attempt to bring Lewis Carroll's wildest dreams to life stars
newcomer Ali Wasikowska as Alice a teenage girl of privilege destined to
marry a doofusy Lord (Tim Pigott Smith) and live out a sad existence as his
concubine and servant. Naturally, Alice is non-plussed about this idea.
As Lord doofus ahem Lord Ascot goes to one knee in front of everyone they
both know Alice runs off. It's not merely that she is horrified about getting
engaged to such a dope, she also happened to see a strange looking white
rabbit who seemed to be trying to get her attention. Following the rabbit,
Alice finds herself at a rabbit hole which she falls into and winds up in
Underland.
Underland is a magical, bizarre world of strange characters who act as if
they know who she is, as if she'd been here before. Indeed she has but she
doesn't quite remember it, even after being reintroduced to her friend the
wild haired, hair-brain the Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp) who informs her of a
particularly dangerous destiny ahead of her in in Underland.
This is extraordinarily rich material for a visual artist like Tim Burton and he
dives right in with broad strokes of CGI landscapes and eccentric makeup
and costumes. As Burton did with Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and
Sweeney Todd he takes his pal Johnny Depp dresses him in wacky
costumes and hair and aims to set him loose in a crazy looking world.
The formula unfortunately has lost its flavor in Alice in Wonderland. Both
Burton and Johnny Depp seem to have made Alice on auto pilot relying on
the things they have done before to carry this film to completion while
bringing little new effort to bare. Alice in Wonderland is a lazy, laconic
knockoff of what Burton and Depp have done before.
The diminishing returns in the career of Tim Burton are one of the saddest
stories to be told. After arriving with astonishing promise in the 1980's,
Burton has spent the past decade repeating himself with less and less
interest. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is a movie I really liked but
received much fair criticism. Sweeney Todd wasn't great but was at the
least a bit daring in approach.
Alice in Wonderland is simply bad. The filmmaking is lax from the cheap
looking CGI to the strangely muted colors. The pace is almost non-existent,
the movie crawls from scene to boring scene relying on our familiarity with
Lewis Carroll's story to keep us involved.
The 3D aspect of Alice in Wonderland is utterly unnecessary and only
serves to bring forward unfortunate comparisons to James Cameron's Avatar
which from a visual standpoint blows Alice out of the water, exposing the
films sluggish CGI and weak 3D posing.
It is clear now that the reason Tim Burton retreads so many famous stories
isn't a wont to bring classic literature to the masses but mere laziness.
Famous source material allows Burton to focus on creating fantastic new
worlds visually or at least that's the theory.
In Alice in Wonderland however, the famous source material gives Burton
the opportunity to relax and recreate the things he's done in previous works
with little invention on his part. The approach extends to his star pal Johnny
Depp whose lacodaisical Mad Hatter is a visual representation of the
laziness of the director and indeed the production as a whole.
Alice in Wonderland is the first major disappointment of 2010, a lazy rehash
of a well known story by a director resting on his reputation. It is
heartbreaking to see what has become of the talent of Tim Burton. So much
promise unfulfilled. We will always have Edward Scissorhands to remember
him by but what of the future, duller, droopy remakes of other people's
works with whatever existing tech best allows him to rest on his rep. It's
just sad.


`The Crazies' just might make you go crazy -- in a good way

In a world of been there, done that, sometimes the best a filmmaker can do
is improve upon the things that have been done before. That is exactly what
director Breck Eisner does with the pseudo-zombie flick The Crazies.
Eisner takes the elements we've seen before from movies like Resident Evil
or 28 Days Later or George Romero's oeuvre and simply does the same
thing better or at least with a neat twist.
The result is a smart, atmospheric, fast paced horror flick that entertains
from beginning to end with strong characters and a clever spin on expected
scenes.
Something strange is taking place in Ogden Marsh Iowa. In the midst of a
High School baseball game a guy everyone in town knows wanders onto
the field carrying a shotgun. The field is cleared and the man is confronted
by the local sheriff, Dave Dutton (Timothy Olyphant). Dave is eventually
forced to shoot and kill the man in front of most of the population of Ogden
Marsh.
Later, another fine, up-standing citizen of Ogden Marsh burns down his
house with his wife and child inside and no indication of a motive. Sheriff
Dave, being smarter than most movie versions of small town sheriffs,
quickly surmises something beyond mere coincidence in these crimes.
With his deputy Russell (Joe Anderson) and his wife Judy (Radha Mitchell),
Sheriff Dave discovers the sinister origins of what eventual military invaders
of the town call 'The Crazies.'
To give away too much of the plot would spoil the fun of this clever, quirky
and even humorous film. The humor is subjective and maybe unintentional,
but I laughed a few times at the unique twists and turns of this
exceptionally well made genre movie. Director Breck Eisner takes a highly
familiar premise and jazzes it up with odd angles and nimble inversions of
expectations.
Timothy Olyphant is the perfect star for The Crazies. He's handsome with a
relaxed, good ol' boy manner. His toughness was solidified by his role on
HBO's beloved Cowboy series Deadwood and he has a classic John Wayne
sort of swagger that makes him just the guy you want to be behind when
the stuff hits the fan.
Radha Mitchell is a slightly esoteric choice to play the sheriff's wife but she
has a number of effective scenes, especially as the damsel in distress late
in the film and one seriously butt kicking scene that will have audiences
cheering. A hint about Mitchell's big scene: keep an eye on the three big
redneck hunters who pop up at unexpected moments.
The Crazies is a genre movie that embraces its genre-ness; takes the
conventions head on and is effective for the minor twists on what is
expected. You've seen this type of movie before but you don't often see it
with this much visual wit, skill and savvy. The Crazies is, quite surprisingly,
one of my early favorites of 2010.



`Shutter Island' good, but not as great as its hype

This is one of the most difficult reviews I have ever had to write. Martin
Scorsese is, arguably, the finest filmmaker I have written about in my
lifetime. I have an unending amount of respect and even awe for the man
and his movies. Seeing one of his films is about as close as I come to a
religious experience.
So, seeing one of his films and feeling that film come up short of my
expectations is not easy. It's not that Shutter Island is a bad movie but
rather that I expect so much more from a filmmaker as great as Martin
Scorsese. To watch as he steps into one of the biggest movie potholes in
history is a little devastating for me.
Shutter Island stars Scorsese's most frequent, recent collaborator Leonardo
DiCaprio as a Federal Marshall named Teddy Daniels. Teddy with his new
partner Chuck Aule (Mark Ruffalo) has been dispatched to a place called
Shutter Island, a mental institute for the criminally insane, where a
patient/inmate has gone missing.
There is no possible way that the patient, Rachel Solando (Emily Mortimer),
actually escaped. Shutter Island is an actual island several chilly miles off
the coast of Massachusetts. Installed on what used to be a Civil War base,
Shutter Island is a forbidding structure that getting into is hard enough,
getting out is unthinkable.
And yet, Rachel Solando is missing and no one seems to know how she
got out. Why a Federal Marshall is needed for this case is a question never
asked. Rachel didn't get off the island and is dead if she did. The hospital
has a staff of ex-military and police officers for security who are searching
for Rachel when the Marshalls arrive.
Teddy has a secret of his own related to the island but I will leave you to
discover that. There are a number of nimble twists and turns to Scorsese's
storytelling in Shutter Island. The screenplay was adapted by Laeta
Kalogridis from a novel by Dennis Lehane whose novels Mystic River and
Gone Baby Gone have previously been adapted into excellent movies. Ms.
Kalogridis had an exceptionally daunting task in adapting Dennis Lehane's
novel for a script by Martin Scorsese and that may be where the film's
biggest problems lie.
The cinematic touches of Shutter Island are remarkable. Scorsese's eye is
perfectly intact as he and cinematographer Robert Richardson pay homage
to Hitchcock, noir detective stories and The Twilight Zone. Especially
effective are Teddy's artful nightmares which contain stirring and terrifying
imagery. For the visuals alone I could recommend Shutter Island.
The cast is solid as well as we continue to watch the evolution of Leonardo
DiCaprio through the eyes of Martin Scorsese. In his non-Scorsese work
DiCaprio's boyishness always seems to get played up. His pudgy cheeks
and wet eyes were the central image of the failed Revolutionary Road.
Scorsese pushes DiCaprio to be a man on screen and DiCaprio rises to
each challenge.
The rest of the cast is well populated with figures of menace and intrigue.
Ben Kingsley and Max Von Sydow seem as if they have played the roles of
the menacing doctor's at Shutter Island before. Mark Ruffalo perfectly
balances insistent camaraderie with his new partner with enough
skepticism to keep Teddy from suspecting him.

Emily Mortimer and Patricia Clarkson play two halves of a whole character
and could not be better at getting under DiCaprio's skin. Michelle Williams
rounds out the cast as Teddy's late wife and the less said about her the
better. It's a very strong performance but so key to the plot that I don't want
to spoil it with detail.

The final moments of Shutter Island are a massive disappointment. I cannot
go into detail because you might see the movie and disagree with my
assessment. I don't want to rob you of the chance to find the ending
satisfying. I didn't find it satisfying, indeed I found it insulting, especially
after the exhausting and exciting journey to get there.
Honestly, I predicted Teddy's fate from the first trailer I saw for Shutter
Island several months ago. I have not read Dennis Lehane's novel, choosing
to avoid it and avoid spoiling the film. Yet, I was able to predict what would
happen at the end of Shutter Island. I hoped Scorsese might find a way to
surprise or come up with a way to get the same conclusion in a less
predictable fashion. Instead, the structure of the plot makes the ending all
the more painfully predictable and irritatingly unsatisfying when it
comes.Shutter Island is exceptionally well crafted and everything that leads
up to the final moments is spectacular in its cinematic detail. Sadly, the
final moments are such a disappointment that recommending the film is
difficult if not impossible. I guess I can’t say don’t see it; there is too much
good work not to. Just be prepared for a disappointing end and the rare
occasion of being disappointed by Martin Scorsese.





Valentine's Day' is insipid crap

Garry Marshall, how do I loathe thee, let me count the ways. I have loathed
every inch of film you have ever cut and print. Every word on the page of one
of your scripts has been like a dagger in my chest. Your magnum opus
Pretty Woman is one of the most loathsome, irresponsible and despicable
fantasies ever crafted.
I still have nightmares of your attempt to make an S & M themed romantic
comedy starring Dan Akroyd and Rosie O'Donnell. In all seriousness, which
concentric circle of hell did you escape from? Mr. Marshall's latest bit of
awfulness is arguably his most banal, rendered so by having so much star
power you may be to blind to realize how you're being terrorized.
Valentine's Day is ostensibly about love and its many complications played
out over the hallmark crafted Holiday. 20 or some odd number of characters
each has an interconnected part to play in this series of failed single
romantic comedies wrapped into one massive failure.
Among the glitterati to loan there sheen to Mr. Marshall's failed vision of
comic romance are Ashton Kutcher as a flower shop owner and Jennifer
Garner as, prepare for the surprising twist, the best friend he's always loved
but didn't know it. He's just become engaged to Morley (Jessica Alba) who
is carrying on an affair with her blackberry. Meanwhile the best friend is
sleeping with a married man (Patrick Dempsey).
Don't worry, like all despicable married men in romantic comedies, he's
leaving his fabulously wealthy wife and children to be with his poor school
teacher mistress. I must say, I did marvel at Mr. Marshall's ability to cram
that many well wrung clichés into one storyline.
There are several thousand other stars in Valentine's Day including Oscar
winners (Julia Roberts, Shirley MacLaine), Oscar nominees (Anne
Hathaway, Queen Latifah), TV stars (Eric Dane and Dempsey both from
Grey's Anatomy, Kutcher and Topher Grace from That 70's Show) and even
pop stars and Twilighters (Taylor Swift and Taylor Lautner as the most vapid
characters in an entirely vapid movie).
There are still countless other well known people in Valentine's Day but who
really cares. At some point we in the audience belong to some weird
version of Hollywood census takers, right down to the questions of
demography as many characters are defined by their race in the most
statistical of fashion.
To count the ways that Valentine's Day is offensive would actually take
longer than my list of reasons for hating director Garry Marshall. The film
isn't merely a recycling dump of romantic clichés; it's also a garbage dump
of racial and sexual stereotypes. Oh. And don't even ask about sex
because despite the theme, sex is purely something that exists the night
before Valentine's Day and not the day of.
Ludicrously awful, Valentine's Day attempts to mask the odor of it's inanity
with a traffic jam of celebrity. The pretty people wandering in and out of the
50 or so failed movies jammed into this one movie fails to distract from the
sheer brainless insipidity of Valentine's Day.

`Percy Jackson' not a bad Potter rip-off

All Percy Jackson needs is a little forehead scar to complete the shadow of
Harry Potter that lurks all throughout this unexceptional effort to craft
another teen appeal sequel machine. Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The
Lightning Thief, based on a popular series of novels from an author achingly
jealous of the millions raked in by J.K Rowling, even goes so far as to hire
former Potter director Chris Columbus just to make sure you don't miss the
connection.
Logan Lerman is the titular Percy Jackson a gap model good looking kid
rendered a nerd for the purpose of making him relatable. As we join the
story Percy and his pal Grover (Brandon T. Jackson) are sitting by the pool
waiting for the plot to kick in. When it finally does, Percy finds out that he is
a demi-god, the long abandoned son of the god Poseidon (Kevin McKidd
from TV's Grey's Anatomy).
This is revealed to Percy after one of his teacher’s morphs into a bat winged
demon and tries to kill him for stealing Zeus's lightning bolt. Zeus is played
by that master of stern blandness Sean Bean (Lord of the Rings). Zeus's
bolt is the most powerful force in the universe and somehow he has allowed
it to be stolen by a kid who can hardly pass a 10th grade lit class. This
does not speak well of the Gods.
The embarrassment and anger is likely to lead to a war of the gods unless
Percy, Grover and Percy's assigned love interest, fellow demi-god Annabeth
(Alexandria Deddario), can find the bolt and the thief and return them to Mt.
Olympus which for tourism purposes is located in the Empire State
Building.
At least J.K Rowling had the inventiveness to create her own world from
scratch in Harry Potter, Percy Jackson rips the work of hundreds of years
for its remarkably dull characters. Drawing on centuries of stories about the
gods and their offspring, the story of Percy Jackson as adapted by Craig
Titley from Rick Riordan's unexceptional book series, manages to be dull
about characters with unlimited powers and astonishing back stories.
Then again, this is only the introduction. Percy Jackson is set to be a film
series and thus all that is required here is a primer on Percy and the other
lead characters including the aforementioned gods, best friend, love interest
and Pierce Brosnan as, arguably, the most dignified half-man half horse in
film history.
Maybe I shouldn't be so hard on Percy Jackson, the olympians and the
lightning thief. It is, like so many modern studio features, merely a sequel
machine meant to pump out just enough plot for us to come back next
time. Why should anyone really ask anymore from a film with such a
limited goal?
Sure, J.K Rowling and her film partners have taken her work and enhanced
and enriched it onscreen with each subsequent film to the point where the
film work is as grand as or even grander than it is on the page. But why
should every movie have to have such aspiration, especially when modern
audiences don't seem to require that much hard work.
Ah, Percy; for a compromised rip-off teen friendly franchise you're not so
bad.

`Dear John' a great showcase for Channing Tatum's abs!!!!!

Dear John is a romance starring actor Channing Tatum's abs and actress
Amanda Seyfried's eyes. As he takes his shirt off to reveal his ripples her
wide, deep eyes travel the lengths of his musculature and boom you have a
movie. This will be enough to satisfy the depraved teenage girls whose eyes
will also travel the full length of Mr. Tatum's tummy again and again.
For the rest of us however, those not inclined to stare longingly at Mr.
Tatum's Playgirl centerfold audition, Dear John is a dreary bore of romantic
cliché and moony mawkishness.
I already described the plot, he takes his shirt off, she stares, the end, but I
am sure some of you would like a little more detail. After all, Dear John did
not begin life as an adaptation of Jergen De Mey's bestseller The Action
Hero Body but rather as an adaptation of one of Nicholas Sparks's
astonishing series of simpleminded romance hits.
Dear John tells the story of John, how inventive right. John is a soldier who
while home on leave in early 2001 meets cute with Savannah (Seyfried)
when she loses her purse in the ocean and he dives in to save it. She's with
a boy when this happens but he has a shirt on, John doesn't and his
glistening, rippling self is all it takes for that guy to go away, hell I can't
even remember who he was.
John joins Savannah for a party at her home and an introduction to the
special needs child she spends time with seals their fate as lifetime lovers.
The love birds spend the summer together, her appreciating his repeated
shirtlessness, he staring longingly if emptily into her wide pool-like eyes.
Things are said but nothing is more important than their respective beauty.
Then John has to ship out and since this story is set in 2001 there is a
pretty big twist coming up, wink wink. Yes, 9/11 is a plot point in this dopey
romance and as the film manages to make sex, romance, mental illness,
war and death trivial even the deadliest terror attack in American history can
be rendered inferior when compared to the romance of two extraordinarily
self important beautiful people.
What is supposed to be dramatic and romantic is captured by director
Lasse Hallstrom in his typically vacant, pretty postcard style. It's a style
that is relatively well placed in a film about two pretty people being pretty
and for those who watch with the sound off, the style may enhance the
experience.
This is not an option of course for most theatergoers who will have to
endure dialogue so benign and simple you can hear the breeze emanating
in the characters ears as they speak. Cheesy platitudes meet at the
intersection exposition and bland pop music scoring to create a mind
numbing throb of vapidity.
An ode to the ab workout, Dear John succeeds in providing fantasy material
for those inclined toward Channing Tatum's rippling-ness. Otherwise, the
film is one massive bore that manages to trivialize war, sex, autism and yes
even 9/11. It's really rather remarkable that a film could be so offensive in
such a forgettable fashion. Dear John is so dull that I can hardly muster the
bile to be offended by it.





`The Wolfman' nothing to howl about

Andrew Kevin Walker one of the most daring and dark screenwriters
Hollywood has ever known. As famous as his script for Seven is, Walker
may be known better as the most rewritten screenwriter in history. Rewrites
of Walker screenplays include 8Mm, Sleepy Hollow and countless
un-produced properties from Superman to X-Men.
His work has been criticized for being too dark and violent for mainstream
audiences, despite Seven having made more than 300 million dollars
worldwide. It was with this in mind that Walker went to work on a remake of
The Wolfman in 2007. Today, The Wolfman is ready for the big screen and,
no surprise, Walker's work has once again been rewritten into a
compromised, mainstream ready version.
The Wolfman 2010 remixes Lon Chaney's classic creature with modern day
special effects wizardry. It is directed by Jumanji and Jusassic Park 3
director Joe Johnston as a wild ride of techno factory dreariness. Benicio
Del Toro takes the lead role of Lawrence Talbot an actor raised in America
but born in Wales.
Lawrence happens to be touring in England when his brother Ben is mauled
to death by some unknown creature. Ben's fiancee Gwen (Emily Blunt)
informs Lawrence of his brother's death and calls him back to his childhood
home where Gwen is staying with Lawrence's estranged father Sir Jon
Talbot (Sir Anthony Hopkins). Father and son parted ways when Lawrence
was a child and witnessed the aftermath of his mother's suicide by cutting
her own throat.
Lawrence spent years in a mental health facility before going overseas. His
return is warm enough for a father who put his son in a psych ward but the
undercurrents of discord are resonant in their halting conversations.
Lawrence gets on far better with Gwen whose grief rather quickly gives way
to a sad flirtatiousness that Lawrence welcomes.
Unfortunately, the romance has to be put on hold as Lawrence searches for
the beast that murdered his brother. The townsfolk blame a dancing bear
owned by local gypsies but Lawrence, visiting the gypsies, encounters a
woman, Maleva (Geraldine Chaplin) who has a different and far more
terrifying theory: a Werewolf did it.
Lawrence has no time to be skeptical of Maleva as soon the camp is
overrun by villagers and then the angry, ravenous beast himself. Lawrence
chases the beast into the forest and is bitten. When his wounds heal
startlingly fast there is only one conclusion, he will become a beast himself.
While Lawrence ponders his fate, Inspector Abberline (Hugo Weaving)
arrives and with suspicions cast on Lawrence he aims to keep a close eye
on him.
The plot puzzle that emerges in The Wolfman fits together well enough.
Sadly, director Joe Johnston's hyper-kinetic style does not seem to fit a
story that thrives on atmosphere and heightened emotions. Johnston cuts
to quickly, whirls and tilts his camera and relies on too many cheeseball
effects scenes for the gothic atmosphere to set in.
Watch The Wolfman and you find that stars Benicio Del Toro and Sir
Anthony Hopkins are making one movie while director Joe Johnston seems
to be making another. Del Toro and Hopkins halt and suspect and busily
feel each other out as fits a movie of a slower, more deliberate pace. There
are important father/son issues they hope to seed into the story. Director
Johnston leaves them no time for that however.
Johnston's charge is to make a fast paced monster movie with modern tech
and modern gore. Neither approach is wrong really but the two together are
ill-fit and the film falters for a lack of a singular vision. That vision likely
could have been writer Andrew Kevin Walker’s whose script the cast signed
on for and then saw rewritten when director Johnston came on board by the
more by the book writer David Self (The Haunting, Thirteen Days).
The failure to meld two visions into one movie is the failure of The Wolfman
and yet it is hard to call the whole film a disaster. Makeup and effects
legend Rick Baker's work on Del Toro, what little we see of it in the final
CGI heavy edit, is solid as is the work of Del Toro who cuts a strong figure
as the titular Wolfman.
It's unfortunate that once again Andrew Kevin Walker finds his work
compromised into a by committee, safe for the simpleton mainstream
crowd. Hollywood studios it seems are the first to underestimate the brains
and taste of the majority of audiences and that is part of the downfall of The
Wolfman.



`From Paris' with explosions

With so much butt kicking and bullets fired one still must marvel at the fact
that what most people cannot get around in the new action flick From Paris
with Love is John Travolta's bald dome. The shaven skull of Mr. Travolta is
the big buzz topic when anyone talks about From Paris with Love. This
despite the fact that it is the follow up from director Pierre Morel whose
Taken was one of 2009's most popular films.
Travolta's dome is indeed a bit of a distraction but thanks to a solid turn by
Jonathan Rhys Meyers and Pierre Morel's furtive action movie direction; it's
not too hard to get around John Travolta's ham and cheese performance and
bullet head.
James Reese (Meyers) is a handsome kid who seems like he should be
more than just a glorified bureaucrat's secretary at the American Embassy
in Paris. It turns out; he is more, though not much more. Reese is also a
secret agent but his career thus far has been mostly the busywork, laying
foundations for real spies.
Reese gets his big break when a bombastic American spy, Charlie Wax
(John Travolta), arrives in Paris. Though enlisted as Charlie's driver, James
insinuates himself as Charlie's partner only to find himself desperately in
over his head. Wax is a wildcard whose methods and motives are more
than questionable.
Soon Reese is a little high on some high end cocaine, as is Wax, and his
long suffering girlfriend Caroline (Kasia Smutniak) is beginning to suspect
something about his job that he's not telling her. She has an important
secret of her own, one that director Pierre Morel writer Adi Hasek use to
strong dramatic effect.
From Paris with Love lacks the intensity and drive of director Pierre Morel’s
Taken. Liam Neeson's frightening determination gave Taken an
unpredictable and dangerous quality that kept audiences on the edge of
their seats. From Paris with Love is much more of a classic, bombastic
action film in the vein of the Rush Hour films, minus the intentional comic
relief.
Don't get me wrong, there is humor in From Paris with Love but only some
of it seems intended. John Travolta chews the furniture, the scenery, his
fellow actors, anything in his path in his most outlandish performance since
Face/Off. Mostly, Travolta is entertaining. Occasionally, Travolta is so
hammy and over the top it's embarrassing. It's a tough act to balance and
when it doesn't work From Paris with Love doesn't work.
Jonathan Rhys Meyers is well cast as the fish out of water wannabe spy.
You have to love how game he is to follow Travolta and Morel's flights of
bullet riddled fancy but his best work comes in giving From Paris with Love
grounding in some sort of movie universe reality. When the film arrives at its
dramatic conclusion it can only work with Meyers because Travolta lacks
any pretense of believability in this universe or any universe.
There is plenty of fun to be had in From Paris with Love, especially if you
are a fan of Travolta at his most balls out goofy. If however, you are looking
for action and suspense along the lines of Taken, a relationship that TV ads
are eager to sew in your mind, you will find yourself disappointed. From
Paris with Love just isn't in Taken's league.

`Crazy Heart' good but not great Bridges

Very often the Oscars turn into the Lifetime Achievement Awards. That will
likely be the case with the Oscars this year as one of Hollywood's most
loved actors Jeff Bridges is the frontrunner for Hollywood's biggest prize. I
love Jeff Bridges; The Big Lebowski is my favorite film of all time. However,
his work in Crazy Heart is solid but not spectacular.
George Clooney is far more complex in Up in the Air while Jeremy Renner's
intensity and focus would be a winner in any other year. Bridges is battered
and genial but there is little depth to his drunken country singer Bad Blake
in Crazy Heart.
Bad Blake was once a pretty big star but alcohol and a lack of a good
accountant have laid him low. These days ol' bad can be found playing
rundown taverns and in an early scene, a bowling alley. There is still hope
Bad but he will have to clean up and swallow his pride a little. Bad's former
back up band member Tommy (Colin Ferrell) is now a huge star and he's
willing to give Bad a break if he'll take it.
While Bad's busy fending off Tommy and his second chance, a trip to New
Mexico brings him into the life of Jean a wannabe music journalist. She
wants and gets an interview that she hopes will be her big break. Bad is
quickly smitten with the much younger and very beautiful writer. His music
charms her into his bed and soon Bad is bonding with her very young son.
Where the story goes from there is for you to discover. Jeff Bridges makes
all the minor melodramatic turns affable and helps avoid most clichés.
Director Scott Cooper doesn't reinvent the wheel with his dusty, slightly
battered shooting style that does well to match Bad Blake's boozy and beat
up lifestyle.
The story of Crazy Heart is compelling because of Jeff Bridges warm,
welcoming yet sad charisma. However, it will no doubt feel a little too
familiar for the regular moviegoer. Just last year about this time Mickey
Rourke played a Bad Blake like pro wrestler who's demons were as strong
as his love for a younger women and his desire for redemption. The
Wrestler is more tragic than Crazy Heart which strives for something more
upbeat but the protagonists have the same banged up charm and self
destructive streak.
On the bright side, the music of Crazy Heart is top notch. This is classic
country with an edgy, bluesy energy amidst the twang. The great T-Bone
Burnett and newcomer Ryan Bingham create some authentic hits that you
will believe could have been hits from country music's recent past.
Jeff Bridges tops off his creaky charm with a surprisingly strong voice, yes
that is him singing. Also shockingly good is Colin Ferrell who captures the
modern slickness of pop country with a smooth confident voice that will
remind many of today's top male country stars.
The supporting cast of Crazy Heart, including Ferrell, Gyllenhaal and the
legendary Robert Duvall, are good but their function in the film is merely to
reflect the greatness of Jeff Bridges. That is a double edged sword as it
reflects both the strength and weakness of the performance.

Jeff Bridges has endless charm and remarkable ease on screen and that is
definitely part of Bad Blake but the character lacks depth beyond his
alcoholism. While one can believe that his talent alone would be enough to
get the much younger woman into Bad’s bed, there is nothing to give the
impression of why she falls in love with him.

The one night stand is authentic; the aftermath is forced for dramatic
purposes. Colin Ferrell and Robert Duvall merely exist to tell us how great
Bad Blake was or is something we only glimpse in Bridges’ performance. In
the end Crazy Heart has great music and some good work from one of our
most beloved actors. Jeff Bridges is fabulously talented but his work here is
merely charming and occasionally sad not the brilliant, Oscar worthy turn
that some have sold you. Buy the soundtrack and see the movie only if you
are a big Jeff Bridges fan or if you really want to be part of the Oscar
conversation around the water cooler.





`An Education' good, but not up to hype

Wading through the “A Star is Born” hype surrounding Carey Mulligan in An
Education is a bit of a chore. Coming to the movie late as I am (the film was
a hit at Sundance 2009); research is filled with endless paeans to her
brilliance and innumerable comparisons of Carey Mulligan to Audrey
Hepburn. If I sound a little bitter it has nothing to do with Ms. Mulligan's
actual performance. It's that I find it hard to move about the muck of
repeated praise and find my own feelings.
Carey Mulligan stars in An Education as Jenny a 16 year old with dreams
of Oxford University and romantic sojourns to Paris with some lovely boy of
her future. Jenny's parents, Jack and Marjorie (Alfred Molina and Cara
Seymour), don't mind the daydreaming as long as it doesn't interfere with
good grades and extra-curricular activities such as band.
Jenny's first real distraction arrives in the form of a sports car and the
charming cad inside. The cad is David (Peter Sarsgard) and while he feigns
interest in keeping her Cello from getting wet in the rain, his real interest is
apparent to everyone. Jenny is naive but not unaware. She accepts the ride
home and is soon accepting much more.
David offers Jenny the life she has daydreamed about; including that
romantic Parisian adventure. Meanwhile, he charms her parents so
thoroughly that he could have his way with Jenny in their home if he chose
to. If 35 year old David's designs on 16 year old Jenny weren't troubling
enough, he has even more sinister secrets waiting to be revealed.
An Education was directed by Lone Scherfig a Danish director making her
English language debut. Scherfig shows that a young girl coming of age is
a relatively universal story no matter your country of origin. Many a beautiful
young girl will find elements of their own lives reflected in Jenny's wide eyed
willingness to be seduced.
The script from Nick Hornby, only his second screenplay, the first not
based on his own work, is bittersweet, intelligent and warm in its way.
Jenny's life at home is not miserable or drab just realistically dull, as seen
from the perspective of a 16 year old girl. Hornby does a terrific job of
balancing the dull home life with the adventurous life with David, never
making either seem overly hellish or overly romantic.
Ms. Mulligan is a radiant presence who never overplays Jenny's youth or
faux worldliness. Her talent with Jenny is capturing the moment and one in
particular stands out. In a nightclub with David and his friends after a night
at the symphony, Jenny smokes her first cigarette. Watch the way she
balances Jenny's embarrassment with a desperate attempt to look like she
belongs. It's a little detail but so knowing and a great instinctual acting
moment. None of the other characters had taken notice, well aware of how
young she really is, but Jenny knew and that's what Ms. Mulligan knew.
Carey Mulligan adds these seemingly minor but brilliant touches throughout
An Education. Her supporting cast is right there with her. Peter Sarsgard
has not been this good since his degenerate performance in Zach Braff's
Garden State. Alfred Molina deserved an Oscar nomination for his
controlled doddering as Jenny's dad and Cara Seymour is the quiet soul of
the film, supportive, frightened but stalwart and trusting.
It's a fabulous cast and a very well told story. So what is holding back my
appreciation? There is a musty quality to An Education. The film is set in
the 60's so, of course, the filmmakers want to give a feel for the time, I get
that. What I am talking about is content not quality, it's an exceptional
re-creation of period. My issue is the values and ideas of the film that feel
old and dated. The link that baby boomers have to Paris as the embodiment
of sophistication and romantic adventure is severed for my generation. We
are more likely to think of New York or even London before Paris. The idea
makes the film feel old, even if it is true for the character and her time.

Emma Thompson's cameo as an officious schoolmarm holds one of the
film's other pitfalls. As she shoulders her way into the film as a
representation of authority the film simply doesn't need, Ms. Thompson’s
cameo sticks out and calls attention to her performance.
Finally, in the third act, another actress is employed to force the ending
back to an acceptable place for the simple audience. Olivia Williams plays
a teacher with convenient sympathies and paves the way to a much easier
ending than what may have been true for the situation.
These are minor quibbles really. An Education is in so many ways a
brilliant movie, maybe one of the best of the year. Just, be forewarned if you
are approaching An Education based on the amazing hype you may come
away as slightly disappointed as I am.



`When In Rome,' don't go see this movie

An explanation: In the past I have been accused of being too hard on kid’s
movies while going easy on cheesy romantic comedies. This is not
inconsistency or hypocrisy. The fact is that children with their still forming
brains in desperate need of development in the area of critical thinking must
be protected. Teens and adults, the audiences for cheesy romance, need
no such protection.
Fully aware of the dopey clichés of the romantic comedy, the teen and
adult audience can safely view even the lamest examples of the genre with
little damage. Occasionally, some of these overly familiar, simpleminded
romances are so simple and so aware of their limitations that our lowered
standards are appropriate and fair ways to judge them. Kristen Bell and
Josh Duhamel's When in Rome is a perfect example. Dull witted with
terrible supporting characters, the film has charms for the forgiving
audience.
In When in Rome Kristen Bell stars as Beth a museum curator who is
shocked when her little sister Joan (Alexis Dziena) shows up at her door
engaged to be married. Joan is getting married to man she met on a plane
and has known for about two weeks. He's from Rome and the wedding will
be there forcing Beth to drop everything, including an important bit of work,
to run off for two days.
At the wedding Beth meets Nick (Josh Duhamel), the Best Man. The two
have a couple of charming romantic and funny moments. With Beth flubbing
a couple wedding traditions and Nick's penchant for stumbling about, these
two bond quickly with each other and we with them.
Naturally, it is too early in the film for them to be together. Thus, Director
Mark Steven Johnson separates the two with a typical misunderstanding,
this one leaving Beth drunkenly dancing in the Fountain De Amore, the
Fountain of Love, where she steals some coins tossed by men searching
for love. The coins are enchanted and the men will follow her back to New
York to try to win her heart. So will Nick, but is one of the coins his?
Yes, the plot is lame and worse yet, several of the supporting performances
are abysmal. Jon Heder plays a terribly unfunny street magician. Will Arnett
wears a ridiculous wig and an even more ridiculous Italian accent as a
wannabe artist. Dax Shepard is an offensively self involved male model who
though enchanted struggles to like Beth as much as he likes himself.
Danny Devito is the only one among the group to salvage any dignity as a
sausage magnate tries to impress Beth with gifts of meat. Devito gets a
nice moment late in the film explaining the motivation behind his coin in the
fountain; it's all that keeps him from being as humiliated as Heder, Arnett
and Shepard.
The supporting players are, aside from Devito, pretty terrible but thankfully
not so bad that they sink the whole film. That is because Kristen Bell, in
her first starring role, and Josh Duhamel have such great chemistry. The
two former TV stars, she on Veronica Mars, he opposite James Caan on
Las Vegas, are just so darn cute together.
Bell has an edgy almost angry energy that is leavened by a great smile and
ability to roll with the punches as the humiliations pile up. Duhamel
undercuts his handsomeness with some good solid slapstick. Nick
stumbles, walks into walls and drops down shafts and Duhamel plays the
pain well. His back story as a former College Football star famous for one
shocking moment on the field plays to his clumsiness.

Do not be mistaken, When in Rome is far from great. The film requires a
great deal of patience and willingness to suspend judgment but for the
willing Bell and Duhamel make a charming and great looking pair. While
she smiles and takes her many humiliations in stride, he just stumbles
about and they never stop being likable. That was enough for me to
recommend When in Rome.

`Legion' brings out the devil in Sean

When a movie's opening voiceover narration intones that God lost faith in
humanity because 'he got tired of all the bullshit' you have to lower your
expectations. Unfortunately, there just are not expectations low enough for
a post-apocalyptic thriller as dopey as Legion.
Paul Bettany, one of my favorite actors, stars in Legion as the archangel
Michael, a General in God's Army. As God has lost faith in humanity, God
sends Michael to earth with a mission. Michael however, is not going to
obey orders. Seems God has ordered Michael to exterminate humanity.
Instead Michael travels to a diner in the middle of nowhere New Mexico
where a disparate group of people sits patiently waiting for the plot to kick
in. Among them are the diner's owner Bob (Dennis Quaid), his son Jeep
(Lucas Black), Bob's old army buddy Percy (Charles S. Dutton), A WASP
couple (Jon Tenney and Kate Walsh) and their bitchy daughter (Willa
Holland).
Most important in this group is Charlie (Adrianne Palicki) who is with child
from some anonymous hook up but by some luck happens to be the savior
of all mankind. As Michael informs Charlie, and us, if the baby is born he
will lead humanity out of the darkness. Before the baby comes they must
fight off God's Army of Angels lead by Michael's long time friend and fellow
Angel Gabriel (Kevin Durand).
The Archangel Michael is mentioned only once in the Hebrew Bible. It is
said that he will stand for the people of Israel at the end of days. Not that
the movie Legion gives a crap about the biblical arcana from which its main
character came from. Director and co-writer Scott Stewart merely uses
Angels and Archangels as a device for apocalypse. Legion exists only to
place Paul Bettany in fetish wear, long leather coat, bandoleer, and lots and
lots of guns, and watch him shoot people. He and the cast pile up a few
bodies and then die in a particular order until the screen time runs out.
Nothing much of interest happens and certainly nothing you cannot
anticipate without seeing the movie.
Dennis Quaid continues a sad, pathetic career decline. It's hard to recall
the last time Quaid was in a film worth watching. In Legion the most notable
aspect of Quaid's performance is his dopey lopsided haircut. Yes, he gets a
big moment near the end but by then you won't really care.

Paul Bettany is not the typical idea of a lead in an action movie. He brings
a different energy to the role than your average action movie star might but
sadly little more than looking cool in a leather jacket holding two giant
machine guns is required of him. We’ve seen him do more, we want him to
do more and we just don’t get it in Legion. Little more than an idea, Legion
drones and wheezes through a series of violent scenes briefly interrupted by
mindless expository dialogue before reaching its violent and predictable
end, Legion should be mindless fun but instead is just mindless.
Remember the opening narration I mentioned about God giving up on
humanity because God got tired of all the bullshit, I think I know how God
might feel watching Legion.


`Extraordinary Measures' proves Ford's still got `it'

Harrison Ford reminds me of a great athlete in the late portion of a career.
Not as embarrassing or sad as Joe Naimath with the Rams or Willie Mays
with the Mets, but Joe Montana with the Chiefs is a good comparison. Like
Montana in that late stage, Ford has lost a step but there are flashes of the
old mastery of the game.
Extraordinary Measures has moments when the Harrison Ford we love
shines through. Sadly, Ford is shuffled off screen far too often in favor of a
turgid family melodrama that would be more at home on the ABC Family
Channel than on the big screen.
Brenden Fraser is the star of Extraordinary Measures as John Crowley a
father of 3 kids, 2 of whom were born with a rare genetic disorder known as
Pompe. The disease will take the kids lives very young which presents John
with a very difficult choice. John can spend as much time with his kids,
alongside his wife Aileen (Keri Russell), or he can search for a miracle.
The search will involve flying half way across the country to Nebraska where
a scientist, Dr. Robert Stonehill (Harrison Ford) has a theory that could be a
cure.. All that stands in there way is cash, a lot of cash, and Dr. Stonehill's
cantankerous, off-putting nature. Can they raise the money, work together
and cure the kids or has John made the wrong choice?
If you cannot answer that question then clearly you don't see many movies.
This isn't a spoiler, the movie is based on a true story. Reporter Geeta
Anand wrote the extraordinary non-fiction book The Cure about the real
John and Aileen Crowley who did indeed risk everything to save their kids
and the historic medical breakthroughs that risk lead to.
There was no Dr. Stonehill however; he is one of many dramatic
contrivances made by director Scott Vaughan. Extraordinary Measures is a
movie built on melodramatic contrivances from Dr. Stonehill being based on
2 or 3 different brilliant doctors to the odd choice to change the ages of
John and Aileen Crowley's children from babies to precocious pre-tweens.
In reality John and Aileen Crowley's children were 5 months and 17 months
old respectively. In the film the kids are 7 and 9 and Megan Crowley, played
by Mereditch Droeger, is a precocious little plot device used with
saccharine glee to push and manipulate audiences with her cuteness.
The story as written by Geeta Anand in The Cure did not need such
melodramatic embellishment. The Cure is told with a journalistic urgency
that is a rush to read. It's dramatic because the story is inherently
dramatic, heart-rending and moving. The movie goes for a sappy movie-ness
that compromises the urgent drama in favor of faux uplift and the jerking of
tears.
Brenden Fraser is an actor I have liked a lot over the years but he is all
wrong in Extraordinary Measures. With his big wet eyes and doughy
physique, Fraser seems to mistake his physicality for dramatic acting. Keri
Russell is capable of far more than she is given to work with here. Shuffled
aside for the male bonding of Fraser and Ford, Russell cries on cue,
comforts the children and is supportive and that is the extent of the role.
Harrison Ford is not great at playing second fiddle. Though he has aged he
remains compelling and charismatic, more so than the younger Mr. Fraser.
The scenes they share, Ford is the more interesting actor with the more
complex and interesting character and Fraser suffers in comparison.
Returning to my earlier point about Ford compared to a great athlete, there
was a night in Joe Montana's final year when he threw for over 300 yards
and won a game in overtime on Monday Night Football. It was Montana's
last great game. Harrison Ford, I believe has that one last great game in
him but Extraordinary Measures is not it.
There are flashes here of the roguish, grumpy charmer that we came to love
all those years ago from Star Wars to Indiana Jones to Working Girl and
Regarding Henry. His late career has become something of a caricature,
Ford barking a line or two and going through the motions. Extraordinary
Measures is one of those performances but the flashes give you hope. That
one big game is still out there for Ford. Let's hope it arrives soon.


`Lovely Bones' is a lovely, well-made film

I have a general detachment from emotion. It's a guard against a young
child version of me who was too invested in his emotions and was known to
burst into tears at unfortunate moments. Other kids reactions to my
outbursts drove me inward to the man I am today. I am not cold hearted,
just well controlled, guarded. Peter Jackson's The Lovely Bones is the rare
film that broke through my guards and tapped the well of that emotional
young man I was.
The story of Susie Salmon (Oscar nominee Saorise Ronan, Atonement)
begins with her narration explaining first her name is Salmon, like the fish
communicating her innocence, eager to please nature answering a question
no one asked. She then stops you in your tracks with a matter of fact
statement "I was 14 years old when I was murdered on December 6th 1973.
From that moment on The Lovely Bones unfolds a story of murder, sadness
and heartbreaking purity. After revealing her murderer as a neighbor named
George Harvey (Stanley Tucci) Susie narrates her story from a place called
The In-Between, a place between heaven and earth constructed from
Susie's imagination.
Peter Jackson animates Susie's heaven with artistry absent from even his
Lord of the Rings movies. For the first time in his career Jackson makes
use of film tech to deepen his subject, not merely to animate it. The
stunning landscapes of Susie's In-Between are eye popping and reveal
aspects of her nature, her innocence, her longings and unfulfilled desires. A
crumbling gazebo holds a particular emotional attachment that I will leave
you to discover.
From her In-Between Susie watches how her death impacts her family. Her
father Jack becomes so consumed with catching her killer that he barely
notices his wife Abigail (Rachel Weisz) is drifting away. It's not until her cab
leaves for the airport that Jack realizes she is gone.
Susie also watches her killer, George Harvey. He has a past filled with
other murders but for some reason Susie's murder has a particular hold on
his conscience. He spends hours alone seeming to re-live each moment,
moments thankfully unseen by us in the audience. The choice to leave the
cruel details to our imagination is a controversial one; the book by Alice
Sebold went into obsessive detail.
For me, leaving Susie's suffering to the imagination was the right call; I
doubt that I could have endured watching the effervescent Ms. Ronan
suffering as described in the book. We are given enough detail to construct
the horror for ourselves and that is more than enough.
Transformed by makeup Stanley Tucci crafts a killer of remarkable
repugnance. Today, George Harvey would be the poster boy for creepy. He
looks like the picture of someone who murders children. A mumbling, ill
at-ease creep, George Harvey sets off alarm bells for his simple lack of
social skills. In the 1973 of the film however, he's just a slightly off shut-in,
on the surface.
Once he becomes suspect number one for for Jack and daughter Lindsey
(Rose McIver) who joins her dad's obsessive crusade, the film takes on a
pseudo murder mystery feel that enlivens the middle portion of the film. We
know he did it, they think he did it and we become desperately involved in
trying to will the characters to the clues we know are there.
This clever bit of populist narrative is just one of Peter Jackson's wise
choices. Jackson has made an art film crossed it with a thriller and topped
it all with a deeply emotional story of coming of age. It's almost too much
for one film to hold, changing scenes as this does from Susie's gorgeous
art-scape to George Harvey's dark chambers to the Salmon house
consumed by grief and the urgent search for justice.
Only a director as bold and daring as Peter Jackson could pull off such a
trick. His experience with the Lord of the Rings informs a good deal of The
Lovely Bones. In LOTR Jackson used technology as a construction device.
In The Lovely Bones that construction device becomes a painters brush and
the technology melts into the subconscious aiding as much in storytelling
as in craftsmanship.
Unlike George Lucas or James Cameron for whom CGI remains a
carpenters tool, Jackson see's technology in The Lovely Bones as
something to be woven into the fabric of storytelling. Susie's In-Between is
never merely a place; it's the state of her soul where her imagination and
desires take a physical hold.
Technology, story and character unite in The Lovely Bones to create a
deeply emotional experience that transports you into the sadness of a little
girl gone before her time. An examination of grief, unfulfilled desires, love
and death, The Lovely Bones is one of the most daring and original works in
years and one of the best films of the last year.

`Leap Year' should be a favorite to feminists

The women's liberation movement in the universe of film consists of
empowering women economically; they all get fabulous jobs in fashion or
real estate or owning uncommonly successful restaurants. The liberation
stops however once they have found a man. Such is the case of the new
romantic comedy Leap Year starring the plucky Amy Adams.
Adams stars in Leap Year as Anna whose job is setting up apartments for
sale. She doesn't sell the apartments; she merely dresses them for sale
and makes fabulous amounts of money doing it. In a rare twist, Anna has
already met a man, Jeremy (Adam Scott), who shares her love of status
symbols and just the right apartment.
Anna and Jeremy have been together four years and just before he leaves
for Ireland on a business trip Anna gets in her head that he is finally going
to propose to her, so convinced that she and a friend actually practice being
surprised when he asks. No surprise to anyone whose seen the film's
trailer, Jeremy doesn't ask and Anna is briefly devastated.
After Jeremy's left a plan is hatched, Anna will fly to Ireland just in time for
Leap Day, February 29th, a day in Irish tradition when a woman can ask a
man to marry her. Now, the liberated woman of today might ask why a
holiday is needed for a woman to ask a man to marry her. The makers of
Leap Year ladies are unconcerned with such questions.
The leap day thing is merely a device to propel Anna on a madcap dash to
Dublin. First her plane is diverted to Scotland then she gets stranded in an
Irish village called Dingle where she seeks a ride from one of the locals. The
only driver available is also the local pub and hotelier, Declan (Matthew
Goode).
Surprise, surprise, Anna and Declan immediately choose to dislike each
other. She's a shrewish, entitled bitch and he's easygoing, handsome
charmer with a secret reason for not trusting women. If your eyes weren't
rolling through the back of your head as you read that you have more self
control than I.
So, off they go on a trip across the Irish countryside arguing and uh-oh
falling in love with all of the requisite dopey rom-com roadblocks checked off
like a shopping list at a cliché outlet. No surprise then to learn, the script
comes from the makers of Made of Honor and Josie and the Pussycats.
We all know how this will end, anyone who’s seen the trailer for Leap Year
knows how it will end. It's a romantic comedy and experience tells us that it
is the journey and not the destination when it comes to the modern
rom-com. Sadly, the journey in Leap Year is mostly tedious.
I say mostly tedious because along the way, though all the predictable
beats are there, somehow a few grace notes sneak in. A script polish by
Oscar winner Simon Beaufoy likely brought the scene where Anna and
Declan clash at a wedding and then share a romantic walk in Dublin before
she meets up with Jeremy.
These few good scenes however cannot make up for the inept series of
clichés that precede them. Add to that the anti-feminist vibe of the whole
thing. In the end, after all of the predictable crap plays out Anna throws
everything away, the job she loved, the things she worked hard for just so
that she can live the life of a doting wife. Yes, she's in love but why does
that require her to give up all that she was.
Leap Year is yet another movie that affirms that all that really matters to
women is getting married and adapting her life to the traditional role of the
wife set forth by years of oppression. Choosing to be a wife and mother is
as feminist as getting into the rat race but Anna giving up herself to adapt to
what is expected of her is as anti-feminist a message as any movie of the
past decades.
I realize that I am not supposed to care. I get that the filmmakers don't want
to talk about this but the ignorance of these facts is a plague that infects far
too many modern so-called romances. Leap Year is just the latest
symptom of said plague.


`Daybreakers' starts off great,
turns into huge disappointment

It's such a disappointment. The first 70 minutes or so of Daybreakers is a
quite compelling Vampire thriller. The last 20 minutes, give or take a few,
are such a massive wrong turn that they make me wretch at the thought. I
was set to recommend Daybreakers but the ending is such a poor decision,
such a disastrous wrong turn that Daybreakers becomes an early worst of
the year candidate.
Ethan Hawke stars in Daybreakers as Vampire Hematologist Edward
Dalton. Edward lives in a future, 2017, in which vampires are the majority
and humans are hunted and farmed for blood. Unfortunately, the demand for
blood is soon to exceed the supply. It is Edward's job, at the behest of his
demanding boss (Sam Neill) is too invent a viable blood substitute.
Elvis (Willem Dafoe) has a better idea, he has a cure. Through some
remarkable accident Elvis has regained his humanity and he thinks that
with Edward's help he can figure out exactly what cured him and begin to
return the human race to dominance. Elvis and his partner Audrey (Claudia
Karvan) kidnap Edward and he is more than willing to help. Unfortunately,
he is being tracked by his brother Frankie (Michael Dorman) a member of
the military human hunters.
As Edward seeks the cure and his brother and boss come together to plot
against him there is an effective thriller with strong stakes and strong
characters. Approaching the finale the film has great momentum all it needs
is a satisfying end to cap the whole thing and make a pretty terrific genre
thriller.
Sadly, all that co-directors Michael and Peter Spierig is a gore-laden,
special effects finale that undermines Daybreakers' thriller tension in favor of
splatter movie ugliness. I don't mind gore, early on in Daybreakers a minor
character explodes and the scene is quite effective. The ending
unfortunately takes the gore to far, using it as a means to finish the movie
as if they just couldn't think of anything else.
The bloody finale is a trapdoor, an easy escape for filmmakers without the
imagination or talent to come up with something better. What a shame,
there is a pretty solid thriller under all of the viscera in Daybreakers.

`Nine' a middling attempt at Fellini

The musical Nine, from what I have gleaned from a borrowed copy of the
most recent cast recording starring Antonio Banderas, is a middling
attempt to bring Federico Fellini to the masses. Italy's legendary surrealist
director has, since his turn to surrealism after successfully defining Italian
cinema and culture in the 1950's, been a mystery to most.
Creative types have always felt they understood what the Italian master was
after and Maury Yeston, who wrote the music for the Broadway production,
was apparently one those creative types; so much so that he felt the need
to water down Fellini with tired song and dance and a three act structure.
Now, Yeston's watered down work becomes a slightly more sophisticated
but still wrongheaded movie musical. Oscar winner Rob Marshall is the
latest to see the need to explain Fellini's genius to the great unwashed and
like Yeston, he is a fabulous failure.
The story of Nine surrounds Italian director Guido Contini (Daniel Day
Lewis) who, pushed by his producer, is about to begin production of his
latest film Italia. This is despite the fact that he hasn't written a word of the
script. Guido has lost his inspiration and calls upon the many muses of his
past to bring a story to mind.
These muses include his wife Luisa (Marion Cotillard), his mistress Carla
(Penelope Cruz), his late mother (Sophia Loren) his long time star, Claudia
(Nicole Kidman) and a prostitute (pop princess Fergie) who taught he and
his friends a little of the birds and bee's decades ago. Meanwhile he seeks
advice from his best friend and costume designer Lilli (Judi Dench) and a
little ego stroke, among other things, from a journalist named Stephanie
(Kate Hudson).
Each of these women offer Guido a song or two, belting out their inner
monologues, mostly about what a genius he is, save Luisa who calls him
out for the bastard philanderer he truly is. If you have always held the
impression that directors are self involved egotists, these songs, this film,
will do little to disabuse you of that notion.
Nine is a shambling disaster for most of its run time. We are informed from
the first moment that Guido is a genius but he is never required to
demonstrate any kind of genius. When Lewis gives him voice for the first
time he might explain a little about Guido but it's hard to hear over the gales
of laughter elicited when his Italian accented singing is compared, not so
favorably, to Jason Segal's singing Dracula puppet in Forgetting Sarah
Marshall.
The rest of the cast are far stronger singers with Cotillard, naturally, the
standout, she won an Oscar for her portrayal of Edith Piaf in La Vien Rose
and proves again to be a natural singer. Kate Hudson is the surprise of the
singers. Hudson has the film's one original song, Cinema Italiano, and it is
the one really lively moment in the film, if not the most coherent or
necessary.
Rob Marshall dismisses narrative coherence for a series of Guido's
masturbatory fantasies, interrupted from time to time by his wife and a little
Catholic guilt. Every woman in the film is asked to bow to his brilliance and
their bowing is treated as evidence of his genius. Yet, never once does
Guido have to prove his brilliance. This might not be a problem if Daniel Day
Lewis gave Guido any dimension beyond a tortured libido.
Speaking of tortured, for a movie about Fellini, who’s fanciful work included
clowns, strolling musicians and endless parades, Nine tends toward a
dirge. From Day Lewis's tortured Guido's Song opener to the feature tune
Be Italian, sung by Fergie, the songs of Nine are a slog. Be Italian sounded
rather brilliant in the film's exceptional trailer but in the film it becomes not a
celebration of Italian culture but a command from a taskmistress.
Be Italian is a major misstep from Director Marshall who fumbles not just
the song, staged a little too much like something from his far better musical
Chicago, but the backstory. Fergie's prostitute is a turning point in the life of
Guido Contini, a moment that shaped the way he treated women the rest of
his life. Yet, do we see Fergie getting sexy and giving young Guido a truly
formative memory? No, instead we cut from Marshall’s lame staged song to
scenes of Fergie cavorting with child Guido and pals like a slightly creepy
babysitter.

`Did You Hear About The Morgans?' Did you hear they stink?

Hugh Grant's usual charm combines with Sarah Jessica Parker doing a
variation on her Sex and the City persona to craft an overly familiar romantic
comedy in the uninspired “Did You Hear About the Morgans?” Directed by
Marc Lawrence, this witless fish out of water story invites more scorn than
it deserves as it limps to its conclusion.
The Morgans, Meryl (Parker) and Paul (Hugh Grant), split up several
months ago. Paul cheated while on a business trip and Meryl rightly gave
him the boot. Paul, despite his one time indiscretion, wants desperately to
get his wife back or, at the very least, have dinner with her. When Meryl
finally relents the two have an exceptionally awkward dinner followed by a
walk in the rain that seems only to divide them further.
Unfortunately for both Morgans the walk ends with them witnessing a
murder and, having got an up close look at the killer, they are now prime
witnesses in a major murder case. How major? The feds want the Morgans
in witness relocation. Over their repeated objections the Morgans are soon
on a plane for Ray Wyoming a town that would comprise about two blocks
of New York City.
The Morgans are welcomed by their new protectors, the town Sheriff Clay
(Sam Elliott) and his deputy and wife Emma (Mary Steenburgen). Let the
fish out of water fun commence! If by fun you mean listening to Meryl
complain about everything that is not New York and watching Paul attempt
to charm a grizzly bear into not eating him.
”Did You Hear About the Morgans?” was a bad movie from the moment that
writer-director Marc Lawrence chose the hoary conceit that is witness
protection. The ‘been there-done that’ factor of witness protection comedies
is off the chart. Only the least inventive of filmmakers would attempt to
plumb these depths.. Then again, Marc Lawrence did write the script for
both Miss Congeniality movies.
I could sit here and take potshots at “Did You Hear About the Morgans?” all
day, that would be easy. The fact is, however, that even with the ancient
plot device the film is somewhat pleasant in tone and Hugh Grant can still
bring it even in the weakest, most familiar of roles. Yes, he could play Paul
in his sleep and launch the same self-deprecating jibes but you will laugh at
them.
You won't laugh loud, long or all that much but you will laugh and smile a
few times during “Did You Hear About the Morgans?” Grant is a star whose
ability to poke fun at himself seems an endless well of material. That said,
the whole of “Did You Hear About the Morgans?” remains stale, predictable
and not worth the price of a theater ticket.



`Avatar': Phenomenal visuals but more than a little preachy

New generation tech in service of a Bush era mindset, W or HW, Avatar is
James Cameron advancing film tech to a place no one has seen before
while also a response to American imperialism as Cameron envisions it.
The tech is phenomenal, the politics are so 2003.
The story of Avatar begins just as James Cameron was crowning himself
the King of the World. After his Titanic effort to bring an ocean set romance
to screen, James Cameron surveyed the landscape of movies and saw that
the form, as it was, could not capture his vision of his project.
So, the King of the World abdicated for several years, biding his time until
movie technology caught up with his vision. After seeing Peter Jackson give
life to Gollum in The Lord of the Rings Cameron finally saw something he
could work with. Employing engineers and film geeks Cameron went to
work advancing existing technology.. That was 2006.
Just about 3 years later, more than a decade after its conception, Avatar
has arrived.
Sam Worthington stars in Avatar as Jake Sully a former Marine who was
left in a wheelchair after a battle injury. Jake's troubles are increased with
the death of his twin brother, a scientist who was to shove off for a very
important mission. Since Jake has his brother's DNA he is capable of
replacing him and does on a mission to a place called Pandora.
On Pandora Jake's new life will have him taking over an Avatar, a human
hybrid of the planet's alien population called Na'vi. Jake's mind is transferred
somehow into the body of a 10 foot, blue skinned, Na'vi warrior. He will use
his Avatar to interact with the natives and convince them to move to another
home, opening the way for an industrialist (Giovanni Ribisi) to move in and
strip the area of a mineral called, I kind you not, Unobtainium.
Jake's mission goes off course when he meets a sultry Na'vi princess
named Neytiri (Zoe Saldana). She brings him into the Na'vi inner circle after
a sign from her god tells her Jake has an important role in the destiny of the
Na'vi. Indeed he does; Jake will become a true warrior and a leader after he
gives up his militaristic loyalty to his human masters.
No points for guessing that Jake and Neytiri fall happily into cross-species
love. The story is eerily similar to Dances with Wolves, minus Kevin
Costner's ludicrous facial hair. A soldier in a strange land falls in with the
natives and switches sides. I'm not spoiling anything unless you have
managed to miss every trailer, commercial or review of Avatar.
Even if you have been living under a rock James Cameron's exceptionally
weak script does nothing to hide its twists and turns. The script mindlessly
telegraphs its every plot machination and character choice. However, as
every other critic in the world reminds us, the plot is meaningless when
such wondrous visuals are offered.
There is no doubt about it James Cameron's remarkable dedication to new
film technology has rendered a mesmerizing digital landscape unlike any
ever before on screen. The characters are stunningly realistic; the
landscapes are marvelous and wait till you see the battles between flying
gun ships and Na'vi on flying lizard-like creatures. Cameron has even
rendered 3D in a way that isn't clunky and unnecessary.
For many the visual delights of Avatar will be more than enough to sell them
on the idea of Avatar as a great movie. And, I must admit, the tech is
phenomenal. I, however, needed something more.
The story told in Avatar is dopey, derivative and features dialogue so awful
as to have Michael Bay look down his nose. Expository dialogue,
sometimes necessary, is mind numbingly repeated throughout Avatar.
Worse still are the awkward attempts at humor, most of which are dated to
around the time Cameron conceived of Avatar.
Even worse still is Mr. Cameron’s preachy, dated subtext about war and
natives, 9/11 and terrorism. Cameron is not the first, merely the latest, to
exploit 9/11 imagery in order to manipulate the audience. The visual
reference to 9/11 is part of Cameron's throwback to the Bush era politique.
It's a rather scattershot bit of commentary that regurgitates liberal
complaints about a war for oil, in this case 'Unobtainium,' and an American
policy of pre-emptive war that could fairly be called imperialism. All well and
good except that these are the complaints of yesteryear.
Is it Cameron's fault that the zeitgeist passed him by? No, but he has to
take the lumps for being unable to adapt. He's made a criticism of a
President who is gone in an era when a new President looks forward to
ending the policies of the past. Whining about a war for oil (Unobtainium) is
exceptionally passé.
The soldier going native is even more dated. Dances With Wolves is over 20
years old now. The battle between the American government and American
Indians has inspired far better and far less preachy defenses of a native
people defending their way of life.
Returning, however, to the main point of Avatar, the technology, you will see
this movie because the tech is far too fabulous to be ignored. You really
must see Avatar just to say that you have seen what everyone will be
talking about in film culture until the next time Cameron revolutionizes the
medium. Just be prepared to ignore everything other than the visual
splendor.

`Princess and Frog' great family entertainment

Many of you are of the classic tale of The Princess and the Frog. For the
uninitiated, it's about a Princess who meets a frog. They kiss, he magically
transforms into a handsome prince and they live happily ever after. Disney's
take on this story transfers the settings to eary 1900's New Orleans, and
instead of having the frog turn into a prince, they turn a prince into a frog
and then the princess as well.
It's 1916 and Tiana dreams of living out the dreams of her late father. He
wanted to open a restaurant and serve the best gumbo in Nawlins. Tiana
has worked day and night for years and has saved enough to buy just the
right space. When she is invited to cater her rich friend Charlotte's costume
ball it should give Tiana all the money she needs to buy her restaurant.
Also attending the party will be the selfish, self involved Prince Naveen. All
the Prince wants is to dance, play jazz and meet pretty girls. Unfortunately
for Naveen, he's broke. His parents have cut him off and if he cannot charm
Charlotte into marrying him, he may have to do the unthinkable: Get a job.
Before the Prince can get to the party he and his squirrelly assistant
Lawrence are accosted by a voodoo witch doctor called Doctor Facilier. It is
Facilier who places the frog curse on Naveen while replacing him with
Lawrence in his guise. Naturally, Prince Naveen and Tiana's paths will
cross and in trying to reenact the fairy tale, Naveen passes along his curse
to her.
What follows is a trip deep into the Louisiana bayou, an encounter with a
friendly, trumpet playing crocodile, a brave Creole firefly and a visit to Mama
Odie, a powerful voodoo priestess who may be able to reverse the curse.
More important on this journey are a series of jazzy tunes courtesy of the
legendary Randy Newman.
The Princess and the Frog marks a return by Disney to classic hand drawn
animation, a genre they abandoned nearly a decade ago. The ascendance
of Pixar and Shrek had rendered hand drawn animation a dinosaur and
Disney was right to place its bet on Pixar, it may pay off with a Best
Picture nomination for Up, but that doesn't mean there isn't a place for the
classic style.
The Princess and the Frog makes a strong case for the warm, comforting
lines and colors that hand drawn has always thrived on. Combined here in
The Princess and the Frog with a welcoming story, wonderful characters
and great tunes, we see the form revived.
Princess and the Frog doesn't compare to say any of the Pixar movies, it
lacks the story sophistication of those remarkable films. As a film
specifically aimed at kids, this is the kind of movie you want your kids to
enjoy, if there isn't a Pixar movie to watch. The Princess and the Frog is
sweet and funny with characters of conscience, bravery and loyalty. I take
issue with the anti-feminist aspects of the story (why can't a woman be
happy and accomplished without a man around?) but that stuff will go over
the head of kids.
Race is another topic, on the fringe anyway, in The Princess and the Frog.
The movie does not explicitly address race but it is notable that Tiana is the
first African American Disney Princess. Beyond that, the film's main
cultural ingredient is New Orleans with its unique mix of African American
and French traditions.
With great songs, terrific characters and some laughs, The Princess and
the Frog is great family entertainment.


For more of Sean Patrick's movie reviews, click here.

copyright 2009 Sean Patrick


SEAN LEARY
JIM FISHER
NEWS OF THE WEIRD
SEAN PATRICK / FILM
TRISTAN ON STAGE
AMY K / MUSIC
JASON TANAMOR
RUBY NANCY
VIEWS
ASK A GAY GUY
LAURA ON LIFE
CONNIE WILSON
JOE CORMAN
JIM ALBRACHT
LEO KELLY
LOCAL MUSIC
TONI WILSON
MOVIE THEATERS
HANTON SOMMES
&
NEWS
SEAN PATRICK / DVDS
INVITING BLISS
BATTLING CRITICS!
Q-C LINKS
LOCAL THEATER
KIDS' STUFF
THE HAPPY CHEF
ON THE JOBS
MOMMY DIARIES
at the movies with...SEAN PATRICK
BACK TO HOME
WHAT'S THE GOOD NEWS?
Sean Patrick can be heard reviewing
films and discussing the issues of the
day every morning from 6 to 10 a.m.
on WOC-AM1420.
On the web: www.woc1420.com