Review: Hot Tub Time Machine

What can you expect from a title like "Hot Tub Time Machine"? Add one of the most reliable actors working today John Cusack, "Daily Show" Alum Rob Corddry, and Craig Robinson from "The Office", and you should be expecting something at least better than the title suggests. I'm happy to say, you do.

"Hot Tub Time Machine", is a film with no ambitions other than to make you laugh while you're in the theatre, make you laugh hard. It tries at times for poignancy, as it deals with the lives of three middle aged men who are disappointed with their lives. However, the poignancy doesn't last long, but it's nice to see they tried.

Cusack, Robinson, and Corddry all play three friends, who have screwed up their lives really bad, when Corddry's character attempts suicide, the others take him to a ski resort they went to when they were young. When they get there it's all run down, vanished like their youthful aspirations. However never fear, for they are about to travel through time via a Hot Tub with the help of a Russian energy drink. They find themselves in 1986, the same weekend the three of them spent together. Did I mention, Cusack's nephew played by Clark Duke is along for the ride, but he hasn't been born yet, he keeps flickering in and out a la "Back to Future", he also encounters his future mother who is anything but a model citizen.

At first, the guys try to remember what they did exactly so as not to ruin the space time continuum, but then they soon realize that this would be a great chance to rectify their mistakes of the past.

"Hot Tub Time Machine", is a title I like saying, which makes me think the makers of this movie were hoping to build a cult status around it, and that is indeed possible. It seems we have reached the point where the 80s must be parodied, not earlier where we were getting parodies from the 70s, that decade even had its own television show which parodied it.

For those who remember the 80s, or just the movies the decade produced, I think you'll get a kick from "Hot Tub Time Machine", or even if you're a fan of raunchy comedy in the vein of "I Love You Man" or "The Hangover", you'll also love this. "Hot Tub Time Machine" might've gotten lost in the shuffle, but thanks to the talented comedic performances and truly hilarious moments, it rises above to be something a bit memorable.

There are moments where the film seemed to be too full of gags, I definitely got the feeling it had been cut considerably as some shots seemed edited out, perhaps it will be revealed in the unrated version that will no doubt make its way onto DVD.

I'm not sure "Hot Tub Time Machine" is a film I'll see again, I got most of the jokes, it was funny, and it has fed my need for good comedy until the next one comes down the line. It isn't a bad little movie, it's not ambitious, but it will chase the blues away for an hour and a half.

Review: Me and Orson Welles

"Me and Orson Welles" is a love letter to the theatre, to youth, to the movies, and to Orson Welles.

"Me and Orson Welles" is a difficult movie to resist, it carries all the right elements of a crowd pleaser and it delivers, it's great Hollywood entertainment that isn't made much anymore, so it's a treat to sit and watch it.

The story of "Me and Orson Welles" takes place in 1937, only two years before Welles would make a splash with his radio version of "War of the Worlds" and four years before he would make film history with "Citizen Kane". Welles (Played here by Christian McCay) is the head of his Mercury Theatre company who are currently putting on a new production of "Julius Caesar" in New York. We see the production through the eyes of young Richard (Zac Efron), a young kid with aspirations who, after lying to Welles about playing the ukelele is hired on the spot in a small part.

The film takes place during the week before the show has its premier. At the beginning, it seems like the production is destined for disaster, thanks in large part to Welles' massive ego. Welles doesn't compromise his vision, he treats his actors and technicians as puppets who's only purpose is to serve his vision. However Welles is hard to resist, he's charming and charismatic, and he knows this more than anybody, we the audience are even charmed by him, this isn't accomplished because of Welles' personality, but because of McCay's uncanny performance of him.

However the real story of the film is young Richard, who throughout the week comes of age. Richard develops a relationship with a production assistant Sonja (Claire Danes), a slightly older woman with her own ambitions that causes some moral complications. Outside of the theatre, Richard also forms a bond between an eccentric young girl named Gretta (Zoe Kazan) who he meets at the beginning of the film in a music store. Gretta keeps popping up and as things in Richard's life seem to be less and less innocent, she remains the only honest person in the film.

In a darker sense of the film, "Me and Orson Welles" could really be about the sacrifice that one does for their art. For Orson, he sacrifices the people closest to him and alienates them, among them, his pregnant wife who is alluded to all too briefly. For Richard, he sacrifices his innocence, and is forced to grow up faster than he expected, for Sonja, she sacrifices her purity for higher ambitions.

All of these themes are in the film, but director Richard Linklater keeps them below the surface, and keeps things mostly light, and charming.

I enjoyed the look of the film, which makes you feel like you're in a depression era Hollywood movie. In fact the depression is never really alluded too, no doubt because this is the glamour world of theatre and art that Richard is entering.

The supporting characters are all colourful, and Linklater gives them all a chance to shine. However I would say McCay steals the show as Welles, after seeing his performance, I would say it was probably the most overlooked of 2009, and it's a crime he wasn't nominated for Best Supporting Actor.

I wish films like "Me and Orson Welles" are made more often, every once in awhile, I would catch myself with a smile on my face. Some might say it's a film that manipulates you, that charms you into liking it, well after seeing this film, you could say the same thing about Orson Welles.

See You At The Movies

I was sad to learn earlier last week that "At The Movies", the long running show which discussed and critiqued recent movies was being cancelled.

My earliest memories of the show happened when I was a kid, seeing Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert talk about the movies of the week. I was always fascinated about movies was interested in what other people thought of them, even though I didn't fully understand what they were always talking about.

I wonder what my parents thought of me watching Siskel and Ebert instead of something more conventional like "Hockey Night in Canada", which was the norm with my more athletic dad and brother.



In high school, I still watched "At The Movies", even after Siskel passed away and was replaced by the controversial Richard Roeper. I still liked the sparring but mostly the discussion. I think watching these guys helped me form my own opinions about movies.

My favorite show of "At The Movies" was always the year end Top Ten List. I would always check at Ebert's list specifically to see which films I hadn't yet seen, then seek these movies out. Ebert in particular opened me up to a lot of smaller films I probably wouldn't have known existed otherwise. Spotlighting smaller films was probably the most important aspect "At The Movies" had, otherwise how else would people go see them.



"At The Movies" has gone through a variety of formats and hosts, most recently with respected critics A.O. Scott and Michael Phillips, both of whom are very funny, intelligent, and thoughtful.

It has been said that "At The Movies" no longer seems relevant anymore thanks to things like Metacritic, or Rotten Tomatoes which gives movie watchers an overall view of what critics think of a certain movie. I disagree, what "At the Movies" brought was a discussion on movies, debates, arguments, conversation, and that is something which is sad to see go.

However I don't think the end of "At the Movies" is the end of that kind of television (Hopefully). Roger Ebert and his wife Chaz are at the moment creating a new show about the movies. There have been other shows on blogs, and on Youtube that have kept the legacy of "Siskel and Ebert" alive. The venues are limitless, it's as easy as making your own film and putting it on Youtube.

In high school, I couldn't help but think of myself as an outcast, when I looked at movies. No one there would give a second thought to people like Frank Capra, John Ford, Martin Scorsese, or the Coen Brothers. "At The Movies" showed me I wasn't alone, and that films were important enough to discuss and argue, just like any artform, I would hate to see that die out completely.

The Best Film of 2010 So Far

It doesn't really matter how long a film is, any length can be great. Look at Bunel's short "Un Chien Andalou", or Chuck Jones' "The Rabbit of Seville". The above film entitled "Plastic Bag" is 18 minutes long but it's a great film, I'm pretty sure it's the best piece of film I've seen all year up to now.

It follows the life of a plastic bag (narrated by legendary filmmaker Werner Herzog in his usual unique style). We watch the bag as it goes from a grocery store, to a woman's home, until it is discarded and is left to wonder the world.

The film becomes a rather touching poem, surprisingly considering it's about a plastic bag. The director is Ramin Bahrani, the man behind some of the best indie films being made, including one of my favorites from last year "Goodbye Solo".

Watch "Plastic Bag", you won't be disappointed.

Warning, the above video is partly cut off. "Plastic Bag" is far too special a film to be seen in half. Please search for it at Youtube.com to watch it in its full picture.

Breathless

What is difficult is to advance into unknown lands, to be aware of the danger, to take risks, to be afraid. (Jean-Luc Godard)

"Breathless" is probably, along with "Citizen Kane", the most important debut of any filmmaker. It's not just a film about youth, it's a youthful film, it's about the adventure, taking caution against the wind, it's about something new, cool, and exciting.

"Breathless" was the first film by Jean-Luc Godard, who was part of the French New Wave group of film critics. These critics turned to filmmakers who included Francois Truffaut, Alain Renais, Eric Rohmer, and Claude Chabrol. Godard was the odd man out, the loner, he was the last of the group to make a feature film, he considered his job as a movie critic as that of a filmmaker but without a camera.

While it's true, "Breathless" wasn't the first film by a French New Wave filmmaker, it is often mistaken as the first one. The reason behind this I think is it represented everything new in cinema that the new wavers were talking about, in his film Godard encapsulated a film revolution that was happening, and people were taking notice.

"Breathless" takes elements from genre film, in this case the film noir (with a particular nod to Nicholas Ray's "They Live By Night"). What Godard does is take the elements of this genre and frees them up, outside of Hollywood conventions and creates a new look, and a new feel for it.

The story begins with Michel (Jean-Paul Belmondo), a small time crook who steals a car, gets chased by police, and ends up killing a cop. He flees to Paris where he runs into an old lover Patricia (Jean Seberg). Patricia is a New Yorker working in Paris as a journalist, Michel wants to take her away with him to Italy where they can live, she is hesitant. This type of scenario is common in any type of crime drama, I don't remember if it was Godard or Truffaut who said it, but they believed the only thing you needed for a film was a guy, a girl, and a gun, and this is basically what "Breathless" has for its story.

But the film is a love letter to the romantic couple, in this case Michel and Patricia, there are even references to Romeo and Juliet who were the first romantic couple. Michel and Patricia are people who live in the moment, they don't think ahead, they don't care about the consequences of their actions, they are in love with eachother, but they know they shouldn't be (at least Patricia knows this). Michel is a young thug who probably isn't as tough as he pretends to be. He pictures himself as Humphrey Bogart, as he sees a picture of his idol outside a movie theatre. Patricia is more the intellectual, she's a journalist, she's more cultured, more attuned with the world, she can probably see her life without Michel. We find out she was in love with another fellow journalist, and in a press conference with a famous poet (Jean-Pierre Melville), she seems to enjoy his flirtations.

Michel and Patricia both have romantic flaws, and they may be aware of this, which gives the film it's inevitable tragic finale. Michel often thinks of death and describes himself being "tired". Patricia is compared by a colleague to a young girl who kills herself, she is not sure if she will turn out like this young girl.

With most of his films, leading up to "Weekend" in 1967, Godard often focuses on disaffected, or disillusioned youth. His characters are usually romantically, or politically charged, and it often leads to a tragic turn. But perhaps no other couple in Godard's universe are as fondly remembered as Michel and Patricia, perhaps because they are his first romantic couple. They represent the rebellion and exuberance that Godard demonstrated in this film. The most memorable scenes in the film come in Patricia's bedroom, where she and Michel stay for almost a third of the movie. Here Godard stops the movie, for twenty minutes, we forget Michel is wanted by the police, for that moment there are only two people who are important in the universe, it is where film is used as passing time between these two people who are in love.

So why is "Breathless" the most important debut for a filmmaker since "Citizen Kane"? I have listed my reasons above, it's a youthful film, it remains that, Godard has taken his lessons from film criticism and applied them to a new approach in filmmaking. Godard wasn't the first person to use jump cuts in his films, but he was the first one to make them stand out as they do, Godard threw continuity out the window by doing this, he was playing with audience expectations. Some critics of Godard have said his techniques were merely a novelty, however I would argue they had a purpose, they were there to create a new impulse in the viewer, a new way to react to a familiar scene. In this way, Godard was re-writing film language, and you can see his influence in the next generation of film students, perhaps most prominently in Scorsese films.

"Breathless" is a film that is aware of itself, so in this way, it's a romantic film that's ironic since it knows it's a romantic film. I suppose you could say, Godard's cinema was in fact all self-awareness. For him film was his way to discuss his own theories or philosophy. After "Breathless", Godard would move farther and farther away from linear storytelling in his films, until "Weekend" where he famously declared cinema is dead. Between "Breathless" in 1960 to "Weekend" in 1967, he made 15 films, they were all bold, experimental, radical, and youthful, I still feel cinema hasn't caught up with what he accomplished in those short years.

I'm not sure if "Breathless" is my favorite Godard film, of course, my favorite Godard film is usually the one I'm watching at the moment. I will say "Breathless" is the perfect start for the beginner, like every great film, it makes you think you're experiencing movies for the first time, and no matter how many times you've seen it, that feeling never fades away.

Movie Review: Alice in Wonderland

Do you know what would be great? If Tim Burton the director of "Edward Scissorhands", "Beetlejuice", "Batman", "Ed Wood", and "Sweeny Todd" got a chance to direct "Alice in Wonderland". Wouldn't that be the best combination between a director and theme? Tim Burton's "Alice in Wonderland" will have to remain a pipe dream, what we have instead is a Burton for-hire "Alice" by Disney, which is less enticing.

The "Alice in Wonderland" that is out now and breaking box office records is regretfully in name only. It borrows the same characters from the Lewis Carroll classic children's story, but takes away the whimsy, the wordplay, and Carroll's original intention. Instead, we get another fantasy adventure between good and evil, where Alice turns into a "Chosen One" who must defeat the evil Jabberwocky so the world can return to its proper order.

The Alice in this film is no longer a little girl, she is 19 and played by talented actress Mia Wasikowska. Alice remembers her first encounter into Wonderland only as a dream, one that she keeps having well into her young adulthood.

The opening sequence of the film in the real world shows off Burton's talents the best by satirizing upperclass society, showing off their own grotesque nature. I almost wanted Burton to follow these people which would make a much more interesting and terrifying film than what we have here. Alice is about to be engaged by an International Twit of the Year, when she sees that familiar white rabbit whom she chases down that familiar hole yet again.

Alice finds herself in Wonderland, which is now called Underland, she is met by the white rabbit, Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum, and the door mouse. Alice is under the assumption once again that this is just a dream, but the others tell her she has been sent because it is for told that she is the one who must destroy the Red Queen's evil Jabberwocky. Of course Alice doesn't believe this right away, she must first believe in herself, otherwise how else can she fight the Jabberwocky.

She is helped along in her journey by Carroll's unforgettable characters who are there as guides, not as the mischievous creatures who make her life a living hell. (Even the Chesire Cat the most mischievous of them all isn't given much to do.) The creatures we find out follow The White Queen (Anne Hathaway) who represents the good, and her sister The Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter) represents the bad.

Of the characters who help Alice, the most prominent is The Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp), who actually is given a backstory as to how he became mad, why this is relevant I don't know why, it was always more fun to think of him as just mad.

Tim Burton is a director who is at home in the grim and gothic fairytale stories, he has a delightful sense of humour that shows off well in the performances of Bonham Carter, Depp, and Hathaway. The problem with this "Alice in Wonderland" is I don't think Burton believes in it. I believe he would've excelled with the original story where Alice is tormented by these characters, who are full of clever riddles, rhymes and word play, all that is replaced here by an action story which is not his strong suit, so much so that I have never seen Burton such a slave to CGI.

I wouldn't be out of line to say that "Alice in Wonderland" is Burton's weakest film, when it should've been one of his greatest achievements. Burton should've stayed with his first instincts and stayed away from Disney.

How Do you Define Cinema in 2010? Part 2

I'm not sure I can answer my own question. What is cinema today? Has it stayed the same? Is it progressing?

I can't help but think of the time of the French New Wave. When Godard, Truffaut, Malle, Rohmer, and others were describing cinema in ways that were new to us, there was excitement in the air. Cinema was now regarded as an artform, the new wavers had different theories and terms such as mise en scene and auteur to describe the film climate.

Today we know all that, film can be described as an artform for sure, and as Tolstoy predicted it has become the artform of the 20th century. We are now into the 21st century and it still is the most popular artform of today, but it has expanded to new arenas, it has also been corrupted.

When we say cinema, we can't just mean film anymore. Cinema is now digital, it's now in 3-D, it's now on television, the internet, DVD, and blueray. It comes with special features including making of documentaries, audio commentaries, and special Easter eggs.

Now more than ever we can learn about cinema in the privacy of our own home, perhaps the class most suitable to take as correspondence. Cinema can now be practised by anyone and everyone, the French New Wavers can claim victory with that.

But let's look at Hollywood, whose films are the ones that are still the most popular and influential in the world. Where to start? Let me say this, Hollywood no longer seems to be interested in films, they are more interested in packages. Hollywood is the breeding ground for amateur filmmakers these days, journeymen with no independent vision but can deliver a package that can be sold to the largest consumer. Artists in Hollywood have become scarce, you will usually see them now in television since their way of thinking is no longer relevant in the multiplexes.

It's hard to tell whether filmmakers in Hollywood know what they are doing, or they have just given up on trying to do anything anymore. Going to the the movies is no longer magical, there isn't even art in movie theatres anymore, each one resembles the other so much, you might as well start showing movies at Wall-Mart.

Should we begin to blame the audiences? At the risk of sounding unpopular, I will say they are partly to blame. Godard describes movie audiences as being "neither stupid nor intelligent", that was in the 60s, I would say today's audiences are either "apathetic or intelligent". I believe the majority of people do demand more from their movies than they are already getting, this includes both young and old. Even at a young age, you are able to tell the difference between an image and a blur, that is in fact the two types of movies that are being made today. Some people have chosen to give up and choose the blur, while others long for the image. For the latter group, going to the movies is more than sitting in a dark room for more two hours watching something that doesn't matter, for the former group, they might as well go to a laser show.

I may sound "holier than thou" and elitist when I speak about viewer apathy, that is not my intent, but I cannot deny that it doesn't exist. Apathy comes from a loss in faith, these people have lost faith in cinema and that's thanks to it becoming a machine and not an artform.

There is hope for this however. The hope might not come from the multiplexes, but from the artists, the real ones who have chosen not to compromise and corrupt the moving image. They think independently, and they may have found a way to work within the system, but for most of them, they have found new outlets. They may not come from America, for we are globalized now and can experience new perceptions and new worlds than we might not have thought imaginable. They might come from film festivals or from students making their first short.

There is joy in these kind of films, because it is fresh, it's original, and it's compelling. To me these are the films that in time will define cinema in 2010, and hopefully I'm right.

In 1967 Godard proclaimed "Cinema is dead". I disagree, long live cinema!