Lovelace (2013)

It's funny to think how a term that's so prevalent in the vernacular was such a novelty back in the 1970's.  Who hasn't heard of Deep Throat, a pornographic film that transcended its genre, and is considered one of the most popular and profitable porn films of all time.  It also made it's star, Linda Lovelace, a household name.  Lovelace, gives us a glimpse into her life and the making of Deep Throat.

Linda Boreman (Amanda Seyfried) was a shy, reserved girl living with her parents.  Despite being over 18, they still were very strict and her mother Dorothy (Sharon Stone) was as an overbearing presence.  That's usually not a good sign, right?  After meeting Chuck Traynor (Peter Sarsgaard), the two of them quickly move in together and get married.  After a series of arrests and money troubles, Chuck convinces Linda to star in porn films.  It doesn't take a genius to see that Chuck has a similar, domineering influence over Linda, too.  Taking on the name Linda Lovelace, her first film is the aforementioned Deep Throat.  Due to it actually having a plot and it's high production values, as well as the girl-next-door appeal of Lovelace, it became a popular hit.  People lined up to see it.  For you younger folks out there, people used to have to go to an adult theater to see a porn.  You couldn't just open your web browser and conveniently find whatever you're looking for.

Linda's enjoying her fame and sexual liberation, and everyone seems to be thrilled with the success of Deep Throat.  For the first half, Lovelace is a fun, Boogie Nights-ish tale. The apex of this is when Linda attends a gala screening and meets people like Sammy Davis Jr. and Hugh Hefner (James Franco. Yes, that James Franco). It's also marks the point where a tone takes a drastic shift.  For a second, I thought something was wrong with my On-Demand, as I saw a few replays of earlier scenes.  Only this time, they are told from a much different perspective.  The second half of Lovelace tells a story of abuse, drug use, and forced prostitution, as Linda tells her side of the story for her autobiography.

Linda wanted to get this out there so people would be aware of what really happened and hope that other women don't make the same mistakes.  While this is compelling and you feel for her, I found it hard to connect with.  It's interesting that at the end, you see a clip from an appearance on the Donahue show where an audience member says to her that she also finds her hard to relate to.  I'm not saying that I don't believe her story, or that I don't understand the fear and inability to get away from Chuck, but for the first half of the film, Linda seems like a willing participant.  I keep coming back to the issue of tone, and there's where I think the disconnect was really felt for me.  The first half is light and sexy, where the second half is dark and depressing.  You've been enjoying Lovelace up to a point, and then they pull the rug out from under you.  I think it was a mistake to tell her story as two separate sides.  It would have been a stronger, and more sympathetic tale if the abuse had been clear from the beginning.

Also, with the way the film awkwardly looped on itself, it wasn't clear how much time had passed.  Only about six months span the time from when Linda and Chuck meet to when Deep Throat is made, and this goes by pretty quickly.  We later jump ahead six years to her already being remarried with a son who looked to be about 4 or 5-years-old, and according to Wikipedia was born in 1977.  Lovelace begins in 1970, six month pass, Deep Throat comes out in 1972, she divorced Traynor in 1974 and remarried also in 1974.  Unless we saw multiple six month and year jumps, the timing doesn't quite work out.

What kept me watching were the performances.  I thought Amanda Seyfried did a great job of being sweet and portrayed a wide-eyed innocence.  Later we see her vulnerability as she struggles with everything.  Also, I thought the makeup transformation Seyfried went through was pretty impressive.  It's not like she's wearing any prosthesis, but I could barely recognize the fair-skinned, blond, blue-eyed Seyfried, as the brown-eyed, freckled, curly haired Lovelace.  Looking at pictures of the real Linda Lovelace, there were likely a few actors that may have looked more like her, but I think it was an inspired choice.  I also didn't even recognize Sharon Stone as Linda's mother.  I actually thought it was Wendie Malick.  Peter Sarsgaard is also effectively creepy and scary as Chuck Traynor.  It's the kind of performance that would also have worked in a Sleeping with the Enemy-type thriller.  The strong supporting cast is rounded out with Adam Brody (as Harry Reems), Hank Azaria, Bobby Cannavale, Chris Noth and Robert Patrick.  There's not a weak performance in the bunch.  In fact, there's a scene with Robert Patrick towards the end that kind of got to me emotionally.

While featuring strong performances, the overall tone of Lovelace and subject matter make it hard to connect with.  If you're a fan of old porn, or like movies set in the 70's, I think you'll enjoy the first half, but overall this is a rental.  It's available on On-Demand now, but save yourself a few bucks and wait for Netflix.

2.5 (out of 5) Death Stars

Identity Thief (2013) - Movie Review

The real thievery is the money the filmmakers try to take from your wallet.

As someone that's had his identity stolen at least three times and used for some kind of credit card fraud (that's not an exaggeration), I can tell you that it's certainly no fun to deal with.  I've been fortunate that every time it's been something I've been able to clear up with a few phone calls, and I've never once had to involve the authorities.  You'd be surprised at how much the stores, banks and credit card companies will take care of for you. Granted, I didn't have the same extremes and nightmare stories that some of you have heard about, or like what the 'fake' Sandy Bigelow Patterson (Melissa McCarthy) does here in Identity Thief.

Lots of spoilers ahead, but it's hard to spoil a film that's so predictable.

We aren't just talking about some fake credit cards and running up some charges either. She's getting arrested and making large purchases (like cars), too.  Meanwhile the real Sandy Patterson (Jason Bateman), is a hard working accountant, with a wife (Amanda Peet), two cute kids (real-life sisters Mary-Charles and Maggie Elizabeth Jones), and a baby on the way.  He has a horrible boss (Jon Favreau), but gets some good news when a co-worker (John Cho) offers him a fat new job at a new company he's starting.  The good news is short-lived though, as the Denver authorities (led by Morris Chestnut) inform him that he's under investigation for fraud and skipping out on court dates in Florida.

Identity Thief already takes a bad turn at this point with this contrived, implausible setup.  Even though they pull the mug shot, and see that it's clearly not him that's committed these crimes, he's still under investigation.  Also, for some reason, his boss says he has to fire him unless he can clear up the charges.  Again, remember it's clear to everyone at this point that the 'real' Sandy Patterson is not the one that did these things.  'Real' Sandy is aware of 'fake' Sandy's whereabouts, but the Denver police say there's nothing they can do, which is absolutely not true in reality.  They also say they can't even call the Winter Park, Florida authorities to pick her up (also totally not true).  Huh?  So, 'real' Sandy says he'll fly down to Florida, pick up the 'fake' Sandy and bring her back to Denver.  The cops actually agree this is a good idea.  What?  Yes, send an accountant to act as a bounty hunter.  Makes perfect sense, right?

What's funny about the how the little the police are able to do here, is that later in the film, the Sandy's are forced to steal another person's identity (but it's okay because it's an asshole, one-percenter, so he deserves it), as part of their bonding adventures. Yet, just a few hours later the St. Louis police are arresting them for fraud.  So, the Denver and Winter Park police can't do anything despite multiple offenses, but the St. Louis police are on them after just one?  Is Identity Thief saying that the St. Louis police are just that much better, or were they so quick to respond because this time the stole from a one-percenter? Wait a second, I'm giving the film way too much credit for trying to say something.

A lot of times I talk about shutting off your brain and just enjoying a film, but Identity Thief is the type of film where the filmmakers have to assume your brain is already shut off to accept anything that happens.  The movie contradicts itself all over the place, and people don't react to things like normal people do.  This wouldn't have been so bad if the movie had actually been funny.  I was surprised at how few laughs there were.  If you've seen the trailer, then you've already seen every funny scene in the film, and they play out even less funny in the film.  If you've seen the trailer twice, then you've now laughed more times than you will when actually watching Identity Thief.  The humor is mean-spirited, one-note (how many times can you make the joke that Sandy is a 'girls name'), and much of it felt like bad improv.

One of the biggest fails of the movie is that they actually try to make Melissa McCarthy's character a likable person.  There's even a makeover scene where she walks into the room in slow motion and Jason Bateman is like, "Wow!"  Then, they make 'real' Sandy conflicted as to whether or not to still turn her in, and says she's not a bad person.  Sandy, can I talk to you for a second?  I can safely tell you that she is a terrible person.  She's a violent sociopath that ruins people's lives.  Are you already forgetting that her ruining of your life is why you're on this ridiculous adventure in the first place or that she's physically attacked you multiple times?  You've only been with her a few days, so you couldn't have possibly bonded that much.  Even taking the bonding out of the equation, do you really think she's reformed and truly remorseful after a just few days when she's clearly a career criminal with no conscience up to this point?

Did I mention yet that Identity Thief is almost two hours?  The length really hammers home how few genuine laughs there are. It could have easily been edited down to 90 minutes without difficulty due to all of the extraneous characters and subplots that didn't add anything to the story.  For example, you've got a duo of lousy hitmen (Genesis Rodriguez and T.I.) after 'fake' Sandy because of some fake credit cards she sold to a mobster, and now he's in jail.  It's interesting to note that this mobster is in jail because of her fake credit cards, but they can't seem to track down the 'elusive' Sandy for the same thing.  Plus, now her list of offences includes selling fake credit cards to the mob.  Then, there's a bounty hunter (Robert Patrick) after her that's portrayed as a bad guy, but he really isn't considering who he's after.  There's also a silly detour involving Sandy hooking up with a cowboy (Eric Stonestreet).  It's all supposed to add to the hi-jinx, but it just drags the movie down.  It's sad because I like the supporting cast, but removing all these extra characters and subplots might have actually helped you buy into 'fake' Sandy's redemption and their bonding on this road trip.

This time? YES!

Speaking of liking the cast.  I've always liked Jason Bateman, but once again he plays the same, ineffectual character that lets people walk over him and can't get shit done.  As the movie went on, I actually started to dislike his character more and more.  I just couldn't buy into the fact that he started to sympathize with her in any way.  While this felt like a vehicle for Melissa McCarthy to show off her comedy chops, I don't think she did herself any favors here either.  However, I do think both of these two will come out of this relatively unscathed since we all like them.  It's not even an issue with either of their performances, it's more that they wasted two talented people with a terrible script and poorly written characters.  Also, because I like Bateman and McCarthy so much, I kept trying to give the film a pass.  Then I thought, what if this film starred Katherine Heigl and Gerard Butler?  Would I be so forgiving then?

There's nothing original about Craig Mazin's screenplay, and the story itself is extremely predicable. The lack of originality and meanness of the script isn't a surprise since Mazin co-wrote on films like The Hangover Part II (which was basically the same story The Hangover with small substitutions), Scary Movie 3 and 4 and Superhero Movie.  So much is recycled that they use the same M.I.A. song twice in the movie. That same song that also appears in the trailer for the other Melissa McCarthy movie with Sandra Bullock coming out this summer (and that looks just as bad as this).  Anyway, I'm more surprised that Identity Thief was directed by Seth Gordon, who directed the much funnier Horrible Bosses, as well as several episodes of funny shows like Modern Family, The Office, Community and Parks and Recreation.  I don't understand how he didn't see that the comedy in this didn't measure up to other work he's done and how much of the story was so unnecessary.  He couldn't have brought in some of the Horrible Bosses writers to punch up the script or something?

It's early in the year, but Identity Thief has a lock on one of the worst films of 2013.  It wastes a talented cast with an implausible setup, predictable story, and lame, recycled humor.  It's dull and a real chore to watch, and I found myself growing angry with it the longer it dragged on.  I advise you to pass on Identity Thief, but I know that based on people involved some of you still want to see this.  If you really can't resist, please save it for rental.

1 (out of 5) Death Stars

Gangster Squad (2013) - Movie Review

Gangsters shoot about as well as Stormtroopers.

Here's an example of when a movie 'based off true events' misses the mark.  In Gangster Squad we follow a task force created to stop gangster Mickey Cohen's criminal organization.

Set back in the late 1940's, Cohen (Sean Penn) was a ruthless gangster that the LAPD was in danger of losing the city to.  It didn't help that many local police forces were on his payroll, and just as much a part of the problem as the gangsters were. Chief Bill Parker (a super gravelly Nick Nolte), puts John O'Mara (Josh Brolin) in charge of putting together a small, 'off the books' task force to stop Cohen.  O'Mara is an honest, but tough minded cop, and is told that he doesn't simply want Cohen killed, but he wants his organization destroyed to the point where any other gangster would be scared off from trying to swoop in after Cohen is gone.

Normally a movie like Gangster Squad is right up my alley.  It's slick looking, has a good cast, and I generally love stories about gangsters, especially when based off real people.  However, the whole time while I'm watching I can't quite figure out why it wasn't clicking for me.  After a bloody opening, I thought it was going to be the kind of violent crime drama that I enjoy, but it all felt very tame somehow.  Maybe because when I compare it to something like Django Unchained the violence didn't have the same kind of impact to it.

The story itself is also very thin and there's not a lot of depth to any of the characters.  They try to show that some of the squad members are conflicted over the level of violence they are using to stop the bad guys, and is there really any difference between the police and the gangsters, but they don't really go into it too much.  Will Beall's script was based off a book Tales from the Gangster Squad by Paul Lieberman, and neither he or the book have an entry on Wikipedia, so that ought to tell you something about how popular or critically acclaimed that book is.  If you're gonna base your 'based on true events' movie off a book, maybe you should go with one people have heard of.  I'm a little nervous now that Beall is attached to both the upcoming Justice League movie and the next Lethal Weapon.  I hope this isn't a sign of things to come.

There's also a love story between squad member Jerry Wooters (Ryan Gosling) and Cohen's girlfriend Grace (Emma Stone). As much as I like Gosling and Stone, I felt they were both miscast here.  Stone seemed too young and innocent to play the kind of sexy the role needed, not that there was much to the role in the first place.  Gosling's voice had a weird affectation to it where it he sounded like he was sucking on helium in between takes, and his voice wasn't consistent through the film.  I think the biggest missed opportunity between these two was that the great chemistry they demonstrated in Crazy, Stupid, Love was all but gone here.

A movie is only as good as its bad guy, but Sean Penn's Cohen wasn't very effective.  It didn't help that they put him in ridiculous looking makeup and spoke with a overdone accent that made him feel more like a Dick Tracy villain than a real person.  It also doesn't help the realism that even with the makeup, Penn doesn't look anything like Mickey Cohen.

Mickey Cohen, 1949.  The resemblance
 to Sean Penn is uncanny, huh?

Looking at that picture, you'd think that someone like Joe Pesci or even Bob Hoskins would be a better fit.

Gangster Squad is another movie where the bad guys with automatic weapons can't hit shit, but the good guys are all crack shots.  It's like they all went to the Stormtrooper school of marksmanship.  This allows a group of just five people to take on and defeat a much larger force of gangsters.  It's not like they employed any kind of tactics to give them the upper hand either.  The bad guys even make it easy on them by refusing to take any kind of cover when being shot at or just run right up to them as they're being fired upon.

Between the over-the-top performance of Sean Penn and the silliness of his henchmen, I couldn't figure out if this was meant to be a serious drama, or if they were going for more of a humorous angle.  Confusing this further was that this was directed by Ruben Fleischer, who was on more of a comedic track with his previous films, Zombieland and 30 Minutes or Less.  He's still one of my favorite up-and-coming directors, but he probably wasn't the best choice to direct if the intent was to make as serious crime drama.  I do think he did a good job with the look of the film, which was it's strength.

Gangster Squad is an example of a movie that's all style and no substance.  It's normally the type of film I eat up, but I didn't find it all that creative or original.  It wastes a talented cast with a very pedestrian story that can nobody can rise above.  It's ultimately pretty forgettable, but it's not a bad rental when you want to kill two hours.

2.5 (out of 5) Death Stars

Trouble with the Curve (2012) - Movie Review

I have a feeling Gus Lobel would love to tell those Moneyball guys to shove it!

Clint Eastwood plays Gus Lobel, a lifelong baseball scout for the Atlanta Braves.  Age is catching up with him and his eyesight is fading fast, but can't admit it or he's out of a job.  The organization is losing faith in him anyway, in favor of scouting players using stats and modern technology.  Gus is a purist that believes you certain things you simply can't know about a player by looking at a bunch of numbers. He prefers to rely on his senses and instincts.  I got a distinct anti-Moneyball sentiment from Trouble with the Curve, and if it comes down to a fight, my money will always be on Dirty Harry.

The upcoming draft has a huge talent the team wants as their No. 1 pick.  Gus goes back out the road to scout this kid and to prove he can still do the job.  His oldest friend, played by John Goodman, urges Gus' daughter Mickey (Amy Adams) to go along with him and make sure he doesn't screw up.

Oh, and Justin Timberlake is in this, too.  I almost forgot as they establish his character in an early scene, but then he doesn't appear again for a good 15-20 minutes, which really made me wonder why he was in the movie.  You learn that he's a former player that Gus once scouted and is now a scout himself for the Red Sox.  He and Gus seemed to have a close, almost father/son, relationship, but it's never really explored, which seemed like a missed opportunity considering the family dynamics of the film.  Naturally, he immediately has the hots for Mickey, and who can blame him, but the way his character came in and out of the film it felt he was thrown in there because they felt the movie needed a love interest.  It didn't help that it seemed that he was a little too immature for Amy Adams, and that's partially due to the fact that I know she's 38 while he's 31.  It didn't seem like the most natural pairing.  This is nothing personally against Justin Timberlake though, and I do think that he and Adams had good chemistry.

I'm getting off track, but I felt the main problem with the movie is that, once again, it's a movie that didn't quite know what it wanted to be, so it felt a little scatter-shot and uneven at times.  Is this a baseball movie?  A family drama?  Is it a romantic comedy?  I would have been fine with a movie about a stubborn, work-driven man and his stubborn, career-driven daughter reconnecting and finding some common ground over baseball.  Instead we got something that felt a little all over the place, and it suffered from having too many ideas going on.  As the movie is almost two hours, it would have benefit from a little more focus.

Another thing that hurts the film is how predictable it is.  You pretty much see where things are going to go from the outset and they constantly foreshadow plot points.  It's a minor complaint as it's not like I was expecting twists, but certain things just felt too obvious.  The conclusion was way too tidy, with every little thing being resolved by the end, and the conclusion was unsatisfying as a result.

Now we get to the strength of the film: the cast and performances.  Clint Eastwood gives a great, emotional performance   When it starts, he's the cranky and crotchety old man we've come to expect, but early on he has a very sweet and emotional scene, and it shows that there's some sadness there and more to him.  His back and forth between Amy Adams is both funny and heartfelt.  They really make you believe that she's a chip off the old block.  Both are overly focused on their work and push people away.  When you have a great actors like this, they are able to pull back just a bit, so that it doesn't feel melodramatic, which was another thing I appreciated.  They could have gone for a manipulative tear jerker, but thankfully didn't.

The rest of the supporting cast is great as well.  John Goodman is always a welcome sight.  Plus, you have a nice performance by Matthew Lillard, as a hot shot exec that you just want to see get his in the end. The T-1000 (Robert Patrick) is in this as well.  Justin Timberlake's performance was fine, even though I felt like he was just playing Justin Timberlake again.

This was a good first effort from director Robert Lorenz and writer Randy Brown.  Lorenz was smart to get out of the way of his actors and let them just do their thing.  Again, I think the main issue here is that he didn't try to reign in Brown's script a bit.  There were too many subplots and most weren't developed quite enough to have the impact they should have, and some felt like they really didn't need to be in the movie.  Another positive is that it's a much funnier movie than I was expecting, even though some of the humor felt a little easy, maybe even a little cheesy at times. The audience seemed to be really enjoying it, so maybe it was just me.

Overall, Trouble with the Curve is a charming movie that should please most audiences.  You have great performances and chemistry from the actors and a good balance of humor and emotional moments.  The drawback is the movie's predictability and lack of focus.  Whether you're a baseball fan or just want to see a nice family drama with some heart, it's an enjoyable film.  It's nothing you need to rush out and see though.  It's a good matinee or rental.

3 (out of 5) Death Stars