Your Highness

Director: David Gordon Green
Starring: Danny McBride, James Franco, Natalie Portman, Zooey Deschanel, Toby Jones, Justin Theroux, Damian Lewis, Rasmus Hardiker
Running Time: 102 min.
Rating: Unrated

★★ (out of ★★★★) 

Your Highness is a colossal misfire made with somewhat admirable intentions. How disappointing it is would largely depend on your perspective going in. Looking at the cast and director it's difficult to imagine this failing but given this approach to the material I'm starting to wonder how it could have worked with ANY cast or director. It at least appears David Gordon Green set out to make a medieval impossible quest action adventure stoner comedy and that seven words are needed to describe the genre to which it belongs was probably the first sign of trouble. The real problem is the comedy. If this had just been a throwback fantasy along the lines of Willow or even The Princess Bride it would have worked and for a while it looks like that's the vibe Green's going for. Unfortunately, that's trumped by his insistence that juvenile sex jokes and profanity you'd overhear in a grade school cafeteria are hilarious because they're taking place within a medieval context. They're not, and it detracts from what little does work, resulting in a mostly unfunny mess. And that you can actually tell talented people were involved in the making of it just oddly makes it worse.

Thadeous (Danny McBride) and Fabious (James Franco) are sons of King Tallious, with Fabious having proven himself the more valiant and successful, earning his title as the rightful heir to the throne. Thadeous, on the other hand, is a lazy screw-up who spends most of his days womanizing, drinking and getting high as he watches in envy his brother claim all the glory. Fabious returns from his latest successful quest with the beautiful Belladonna (Zooey Deschanel), whom he rescued from the clutches of the evil Leezar (Justin Theroux) and plans to marry. Crashing the wedding, Leezar steals he back planning to impregnate her with a dragon so he can finally take over the kingdom. With the help of his brother Fabious mounts a quest to get her back and take possession of a magic compass that will lead them to the fabled Sword of Unicorn, the only weapon capable slaying Leezar. Along the way they encounter Isabel (Natalie Portman), a warrior princess also seeking revenge against the wizard for her own reasons, but they'll have no choice but to trust her if they want any chance at successfully completing this quest.  

This should have just been a straightforward fantasy with some light comedy. Hardly any of the crude jokes supply laughs and seem to come at the worst moments, completely taking you out of a story, which in truth, had some potential. The special effects are surprising impressive, some action sequences are good, Steve Jablonsky's score is perfect and it's hard to find fault in the plot which pays homage to the type of fantasy quest movies you'd see in the 1980's. Had Green copied that approach, he wouldn't have had anything terribly original, but at least it would have been welcome entertainment in a forgotten, under-appreciated genre . Throw on top of that a few actors any director would dream to have at their disposal and it becomes even more puzzling he squanders it all for the sake of having them curse and make lewd sex and masturbation jokes that aren't only unfunny and ruin the well choreographed action sequences, but about as subtle as a sledgehammer to the head. Pineapple Express and it definitely isn't Monty Python and the Holy Grail, which seems to have had some kind of twisted influence on this project, though I'm still trying to figure out exactly how since it lacks even a fraction of that film's clever, subversive humor. Everything is broad and juvenile.

Some of the actors fare better than others, but they're all victims of material that does them few favors. James Franco looks like he'd rather be hosting the Oscars and given what he has to work with here I can't say I blame him. Danny McBride does exactly what's asked of him and what few do better in acting like a boarish, profanity spewing loser and while I can't say the performance is at all to blame for any the film's faults, I still wish he had a better outlet for his comedic talent than this. It's almost hard to believe Natalie Portman and Zooey Deschanel's paths have never crossed on screen until now and it should feel like a big deal. Instead, Zooey's an afterthought, looking bored and lifeless, not aided by the fact her character's barely given a line of dialogue. Portman makes much more of an impression and it wouldn't be off base to say she gives the film's most entertaining performance, as faint as that praise seems. At least she gets a few laughs and is right at home as a kick-ass warrior princess but unfortunately she doesn't show up until nearly an hour in and at times the wait feels excruciating.

The scariest thought rushing through my head while watching Your Highness was that there would have been a time where I would have laughed uncontrollably and forgiven all its flaws. While that time has clearly passed it would still be unfair of me to criticize anyone else who found enjoyment in it since there's a great deal of potential in the idea, even if Green abandons it in favor of aiming dirty jokes at an audience too young to see it anyway. But I don't think he "sold out," A film this bad could only be made by someone who believed completely in what they were doing. It just came out all wrong. A better idea might be to get the entire cast back together in a couple of years and re-shoot this as the epic dramatic fantasy it's crying out to be. It's nearly a guarantee that version would come out better, or at least supply more laughs.

(500) Days of Summer

Director: Marc Webb
Starring: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Zooey Deschanel, Chloe Grace Moretz, Geoffrey Arend, Matthew Gray Gubler, Clark Gregg, Minka Kelly
Running Time: 95 Min.
Rating: PG-13

★★★★ (out of ★★★★)

MAJOR SPOILERS FOLLOW

"This is the story of boy meets girl. The boy, Tom Hansen of Margate, New Jersey, grew up believing he'd never truly be happy until the day he met the one. This belief stemmed from early exposure to sad British pop music, and a total misreading of the movie, The Graduate."

So begins the opening narration of the anti-romantic comedy (500) Days of Summer, a movie that exposes some harsh truths and breaks a lot of rules we're not used to seeing broken in its genre. Starring two of the most talented young actors working today, I couldn't have guessed there would be so much to discuss when it's over that their onscreen pairing would be the LAST THING I'd feel like talking about. Forget about the film merely being worth the price of admission, I'd pay just to listen to two people have a conversation about it. When it's over it leaves you thinking hard and hits close to home with certain portions connecting more with some than others. That's to to be expected when its subject is the gradual disintegration of a relationship over the span of 500 days. The film's tag line reads: "This is NOT a love story." And in making that declaration it joins an exclusive club of movies frequently featuring an unlucky-at-love male protagonist struggling with relationships, often against the backdrop of a memorably hip soundtrack. Almost Famous, Say Anything, High Fidelity, Rushmore, Garden State, Annie Hall, and The Graduate all come to mind as examples of coming-of age dramas masquerading as romantic comedies. This is that...but in a way, it isn't. We have a main character who's extremely likable, but not not fully clued into reality, allowing himself to become the doormat for a cold, detached female antagonist. While couples will likely be arguing for hours as to who's really more at fault, the hilariously biting "dedication" that opens the picture indicates that the filmmakers are sure of their stance and at least have a wicked sense of humor about it.

Tom Hansen (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is a hopeless romantic whose job as a greeting card writer in Los Angeles couldn't possibly be a better fit since you get the impression he's the kind of person who actually believes the sentiments he's writing. But like many twenty-somethings, he feels as if he's just punching the clock. He went to school to become an architect but things didn't work out, as they sometimes don't. His entire world is turned upside-down when his boss' (Clark Gregg) new assistant, Summer Finn (Zooey Deschanel) arrives on the scene from Michigan and within the first few seconds of seeing her, he instantly knows she's "THE ONE". And he doesn't think he has a chance. Sadly, he's proven right, just not in the way he expects. The movie makes no bones about the fact that this won't end well for him. After some initial awkward posturing, they kind of fall into a relationship, if you can even call it that, since he's far more emotionally invested in it than her. The cynical Summer is Tom's opposite. She doesn't believe in soul mates or even the very notion of love and let's Tom know this from the start. She just wants to have a good time. No strings attached. Nothing serious. No commitment. On the surface he seems fine with it, but of course he isn't.

The story isn't necessarily told as out of order as you've been lead to believe from the ads and commercials. It opens at the end of the relationship and through flashbacks we're given the chronology of events that lead to the break-up. A counter shows up letting us know where we are in the course of Tom's 500 days so it's mostly a pretty straightforward narrative. The device works because it enables us to see bits and pieces of their time together before finally putting together the entire puzzle of what went wrong. We only have a general idea of the ending but this enables us to discover along with Tom the "how" and the "why." It isn't just a gimmick. In a particularly clever sequence toward end of the film Tom describes in excruciating detail all of Summer's most notable traits. The qualities that represented beautiful perfection to him earlier morph into ugly, disgusting flaws as the relationship heads past the rescue point and we're predisposed to side with him, being that the story's told from his somewhat slanted perspective.

First-time director Marc Webb (working from an unusually observant script by screenwriters Scott Neustadter and Michael H. Weber) employ many more devices (such as split screen, voice-overs, title cards, and musical numbers), none of which are groundbreaking, but feel like they are since we've rarely seen them utilized as brazenly in a romantic comedy since Annie Hall. The voice-over narration (provided by Richard McGonagle) recalls the detached objectivity underlining 2006's Little Children and though it's used more sparingly here, it's no less effective. Having first carved a niche for himself directing Regina Spektor music videos, Webb's playing favorites with the soundtrack selections, but it's understandable since few songs could fit the story as well (especially the brilliant use of Spektor's "Us" over the opening credits). Many have already complained that this is just another one of those "hipster" movies by the way the characters dress and the name-dropping of indie bands, most notably The Smiths. But the fact is many young people do dress like this and listen to that type of music. And some don't. Who cares? Regardless, these two did and I believed it. More importantly, it's actually key to the story, informing the decisions the protagonist makes.

Besides falling prey to mislabeling this as another quirky indie comedy, another misconception surrounding the film is that there's a gender reversal going on in the dynamic between the two (implicitly hinted at during a pivotal early scene), when it's actually our preconceived notions developed from watching other movies that's challenged. I'm willing to bet there are a lot more guys out there like Tom who do secretly want a commitment and are looking for "THE ONE," but just aren't allowed to show it. Similarly, there are probably just as many Summers who have no desire for a serious relationship and just searching for a good time. And, of course, the reverse is true as well. We've been weened on an unhealthy dose of dumb romantic comedies and stereotypical gender roles for so long that we've had it in our heads how male and female characters are supposed to behave. In that sense, this story re-invents the wheel by simply acknowledging our behavior can sometimes conflict with expectations.

The two leads share what you could almost call a negative chemistry with her being the vessel through which he channels his dreams and goals, attempting to make up for his own self-perceived shortcomings. He's doing all the work in the relationship and even during the good times you see how hard he tries to keep this thing afloat, a sure sign of trouble. It's almost exasperating to watch. He's not exactly in the "friend zone" but he isn't that far off and isn't even close to where he needs to be with her. In the biggest shocker for me, I actually had problems seeing what Tom saw in Summer, which is downright bizarre considering the insanely likable actress playing her. But maybe that's the point. Only Tom's supposed to see it. It's almost as if you took all of Zooey's characters from her previous movies and removed their soulfulness and sensitivity. Her usual quirkiness is dialed way down, as it needed to be for this part. Categorizing Summer as cold and detached isn't far off the mark. At one point she's labeled remarkably "average," but possessing an unmistakable aura that draws you in. And that isn't far off the mark either. In other words, she's an enigma of sorts, and the more we learn about her, the more complicated and inconsistent she seems. Obviously, the toughest part of the character to rationalize is that she isn't a bad person trying to hurt Tom, and that's easier to digest because of the protagonist's own insecurity issues. And the actress chosen to play her.

Casting Zooey Deschanel works on a couple of different levels, but mostly because many guys watching are guilty of holding the actress to same impossible ideal Tom holds Summer. At first, you think Zooey's stretching to play the role because it's so far from what she's done before. But is she? Chances are this character (flaws and all) comes closer to the real person playing her than any of the "Manic Pixie Dream Girls" her many male fans have assumed the actress must be like. Is it actually possible she isn't nearly as zany, flaky, quirky and extroverted as we suspected? That she was really a lot working harder than we thought in all her OTHER roles? This film presents that theory, and it's a good one, painting her previous work in a different light. While I can't go as far as to say she's "playing herself," there's probably more truth in that statement than obsessed Zooey admirers would ever want to believe or admit. Webb likely knew that and selected her as Summer because she'd sting the most. The director uses Zooey's most endearing qualities as a guided missile, aimed directly at the male audiences she's captivated throughout her career. Rarely is our perception of a character so influenced by our knowledge of the actress playing her.

What JGL projects perfectly as Tom is fake confidence. On the outside he seems to be well adjusted and have his act completely together, but on the inside turmoil brews. A pro at playing tortured characters in hard hitting dramas like Brick and The Lookout, Levitt is equally adept at doing the same in a looser way here, while also displaying the comedic chops we remember him having as a child actor. Tom doesn't act like a loser but thinks he's one and by holding Summer on an unattainable pedestal she becomes just as unattainable as he believes her to be, self-fulfilling his own negative prophecy. Of course the viewer can plainly see he's neurotic and wrong, so we wait anxiously for him to catch up to us, which doesn't occur until the final scenes, but by then it's too late (at least for him and Summer). When he punches a jerk hitting on her in the bar it's not to protect her honor as he convinces himself, but because this guy's cutting insult ("HE'S your boyfriend?"). brings his feelings of unworthiness to the surface. Hardly an act of chivalry, you'd see why she's not impressed.

Tom's wise-beyond-her-years 11 year-old little sister (played by a scene-stealing Chloe Grace Moretz) gives sound advice at just the right moments, which would be too cutesy if not for the ironic fact that she has a more realistic grasp on relationships than he does. It's an obvious gimmick, but still serving the themes of the story. When she informs him that just because he and Summer share the same bizarre interests it doesn't make her his soul mate, it's the kind of truthful observation likely to make a lot of guys watching cringe as uncomfortably as he does. His occupation is also key to the plot, as this is the rare film where workplace scenes are handled intelligently. Tom has a fair, understanding boss and cool co-workers willing to help him out. Plus, who wouldn't want to write greeting cards? Why he's unhappy at all, much less having a Jerry Maguire- like office meltdown in the third act (maybe the only scene that feels overly scripted) is clearer when considering it has nothing to do with what he's doing with his life, but what he isn't. Toiling away at a job he doesn't like while projecting his dream of becoming an architect (as well as all his other baggage) onto this one girl, who he hopes will solve all his problems. Ironically, she has just as much baggage, and has gone to the opposite extreme in closing herself off to feeling anything at all.

Summer isn't let off the hook, nor are female audiences approaching this as a date movie or "chick flick." If guys are predisposed to root for Tom because they can relate in some way, girls are equally likely to side with him after years of watching lesser romantic comedies telling them they should root for the geek, underdog, or "nice guy." This film dissects that myth, then blows it to bits. In the third act when Summer's actions arguably cross the line into pure selfishness (just enough, but not too much), it gives permission to females watching to abandon Summer's view and (falsely?) convince themselves they would never in a million years do what she did. You could argue all day and night whether she was engaged before inviting him to the party or it happened during it, and whether her invitation was cruelly insensitive or not, but the end result remains the same. That's why the most memorable character just might be someone we never even see or meet--Summer's mystery fiancee. It's a credit to the writing that even though we don't know his name, what he looks like or even the slightest thing about him, we can still try to guess, and ponder the troublesome possibility he could be someone similar to the guy Tom punched out in the bar.

Far from just gloom and doom, the film excels at capturing that initial feeling when you're first falling for someone and every emotion seems heightened. The morning after Tom beds Summer the funniest, most uplifting scene of the film comes in the form of a Hall & Oates musical number complete with an animated bluebird. Levitt makes the scene soar, making us want to reach through the screen and high-five Tom. There are moments in the movie you think (hope?) along with the protagonist that this could work, like their trip to Ikea where both at least seem to appear to be on the same page at the same time. But they weren't. As a memorable split-screen sequence in the film depicts, this entire situation revolved around EXPECTATIONS and REALITY, with the latter coldly winning out.

It's fitting in a movie that's as much about how we watch movies as it is about a failed relationship, that the key to this one centers around the ending of The Graduate, or rather Tom's "misreading" of it (at least as far as it's possible for someone to misinterpret an open-ended film). A one-sided, reductive reading is probably the better description, as Summer's tragic interpretation could just as easily be categorized as too extreme in the other direction. Yet another example of how the characters' attachment to pop culture isn't just there for window dressing, and in Tom's case, may unhealthily be influencing how he views life. It's the impetus for the break-up but I won't spoil the scene other than to say that nearly everyone will read it differently. And like The Graduate, how someone chooses to see it will probably say more about them than the film. Tom's ending is vaguely hopeful as the idea of fate is touched on, but unlike other movies in the genre, this one's more interested in exploring why people would believe in it than just merely acknowledging its possible existence. Summer may or may not have been "THE ONE" if there is such a thing but the closing minutes hint she probably entered his life as the catalyst for something bigger.

In somewhat of a breakthrough, the script doesn't take sides, presenting a free-thinking female lead who's an agent of action rather than a prize to be won. It acknowledges neither character is blameless, with Levitt and Deschanel's performances filling them with too much complexity for you to completely dislike either. Both have their issues, but at the same time actually seem real, making the same mistakes we would. He didn't get the message, while she was careless with his feelings, but the screenplay cleverly disallows us from viewing the film through the same one-sided prism Tom saw The Graduate. It isn't just about a failed relationship and there's a universality in recognizing that everyone's a "Tom" or a "Summer," or at least a combination of both.. That's not noteworthy until you consider this is supposed to be a romantic comedy. And how many of those ever provoke deep analysis or reveal life truths? Besides being a terrific coming-of age film that breaks formula, (500) Days of Summer also exposes how movies can reflect back at us whatever we want to see.

Yes Man

Director: Peyton Reed
Starring: Jim Carrey, Zooey Deschanel, Terence Stamp, Bradley Cooper, Rhys Darby, Molly Sims
Running Time: 104 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★ 1/2 (out of ★★★★)

Yes Man takes a potentially entertaining premise and dumbs it down, opting to tell the same bad joke over and over again hoping it'll eventually get laughs. Because there's actually some real truth in the concept the attempts at juvenile slapstick humor fall flat and Jim Carrey's zany performance feels like it's out of another film. If he's trying to cleanse himself of The Number 23 by retreating back into his comic safe zone he's trying too hard. Worse yet, the movie's trying too hard along with him.

The biggest shame is that this could have really been something if the filmmakers had trusted the premise and kept everything reasonably grounded. The best moments are subdued ones where Carrey isn't in Ace Ventura mode. Unfortunately those are few and far between and then the whole thing really falls apart at the end when the screenplay buckles, revealing itself to be lacking in either originality or ambition. But there is one truly great aspect that almost makes all of this bearable. And you know what (or rather who) it is. Do I even need say it? She's the only reason you should see this.

You're already familiar with the plot. Just take Liar, Liar and replace "telling the truth" with saying "yes." Carrey is bank employee Carl Allen, a depressed loner still recovering from his divorce from ex-wife Stephanie (Molly Sims) and who's most eventful activity of the week is renting a movie. All that changes when an old friend (John Michael Higgins) convinces him to attend a self-help seminar hosted by motivational guru Terrence Bundley (Terence Stamp, collecting a paycheck) dedicated to the power of saying "yes."

Carl promises to stop being a "no" man and say "yes" to every opportunity that comes his way, including giving a ride and all of his money to a homeless person. Stranded without gas and a dead cell battery he encounters the free-spirited, scooter-driving Allison (Zooey Deschanel). Attracted to her quirkiness, he begins to embrace life and realize that saying "yes" opens up a whole new world to him as he learns Korean and the guitar, takes flying lessons, and even gets a Persian wife from the internet.

There is one major distinction between this and Liar, Liar. Here the protagonist CHOOSES to take the challenge on by choice rather than having some silly, supernatural spell put over him where he loses control. That should have kept the film more realistically grounded and opened the floodgates for a more meaningful story. It was a wise decision, but the screenplay and Carrey are unable to capitalize on it, using the opportunity to instead revel in low-brow humor. But the biggest problem is that Carrey has difficulty playing a normal, functioning human being we can relate to.

He plays Carl not just as someone whose biggest problem is saying "no," but as an escapee from a mental institution with manic tendencies. Just watch him in a scene at a bar where he's supposed to be drunk. He looks like Jim Carrey imitating a drunk person rather than someone who actually is. Too often he overplays everything when a more grounded performance would have served the film much better. The only time Carrey was ever fully restrained was in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and it resulted in his greatest performance. That's not a coincidence. In his defense, the screenplay doesn't help. A sight gag involving the sexual advances of an old lady is disgusting and unfunny, using what should be a "can't miss" premise in the most brain dead way possible. Just the fact that the film thinks that being a male nurse is hysterical should give an idea of the level of humor we're dealing with here.

The movie works in the smaller, less showy moments, usually anything involving Carl's bank manager Norman (a very funny Rhys Darby) whose impressed with his new found motivation at work and also has a somewhat unhealthy obsession with the Harry Potter films. But it works best when focusing on his developing relationship with Allison. For this, Zooey once again reprises her role as pretty much the most awesome girlfriend on the planet, and as you could have probably guessed, she ups the ante on quirk once again. Just how quirky is Allison? She teaches a Yoga photography class, sings in maybe the most brilliantly named band in movie history and her scooter helmet has... GOOGLY EYES!

I hate continuously using the word "quirky" in every review to describe Zooey but it's true. And it's a compliment. It's funny how if any other actress had continued to play variations on the same role over and over again I'd rip them for it, but when she does it I cheer. Allison's offbeat characteristics would be irritating in the hands of another actress but in hers they're adorable. By now in her career we should feel as if we've been beaten to death by a quirky stick but I don't care. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. She can continue to beat me with with it as much as she wants.

A big fuss was made over the nearly twenty-year age gap between Carrey and Zooey and while Carrey's age is an issue, it doesn't cause the kind of distraction you'd expect. They do have chemistry, though it's not exactly the romantic kind. Where Carrey's age becomes a hinderance is in the situation. This feels like the kind of crisis a twenty-something would be having, not a middle-aged man. You sense the script was intended to revolve around someone much younger, then revised when Carrey came on board. That's especially apparent when you see Carl hanging out with his best friend (played by Bradley Cooper) who appears to be in an entirely different stage of his life. Carrey's a forty-something who's playing someone who's supposed to be a thirty-something in a story that feels like it should be revolving around a twenty-something. It's enough to confuse Benjamin Button.

As sexist as it may make me sound there is a small part of me (growing exponentially with each passing year) that wants to celebrate the fact that no matter how old a guy gets Hollywood will always have his back and cast a young, hot chick opposite him. Wrong to say, but honest. Plus, you figure it takes guys longer to get their acts together anyway before they're ready to settle down so it's reassuring to know that movies are preaching that we have as much time as we want! Whew, what a relief. You do fall for a person not an age, but we all know that's not why Hollywood casts older men opposite women young enough to be their daughters.

Thankfully though, Carrey and Zooey are likable and capable enough that they sell it and the pairing isn't creepy at all. The scenes they share together are the film's best and it's during them when the story really feels like it's clicking. So of course the idiot screenwriters had to to manufacture the requisite "fake crisis" to split them apart that's become a hallmark of all third acts in romantic comedies. And this one ranks among the most forced and unnatural I've seen. It's just lazy writing. Who made the rule that in all rom-coms the two leads have to get into a contrived, unrealistic fight before realizing that they love each other? This deserved better.

The film is based on British author Danny Wallace's supposedly much smarter 2005 memoir in which he really did challenge himself for 6 months to say "yes" to everything. I'd believe it's smarter. There's a great story in here struggling to get out. Not just a good one, but a great one. I wanted to love this film so badly because the premise is bursting with creative potential. I'm also tempted to recommend it just for Zooey but that would be doing a disservice. There are just too many problems with it. The saddest part is I'd watch this again before some of the nominated films of the past year. Yes Man may be a misfire, but at least it's a somewhat likable one.

The Go-Getter

Director: Martin Hynes
Starring: Lou Taylor Pucci, Zooey Deschanel, Jena Malone, Judy Greer, Maura Tierney, Jsu Garcia, Bill Duke
Running Time: 94 min.
Rating: R

***1/2 (out of ****)

One of the greatest gifts a movie can give is to make a promise, then actually keep it. Martin Hynes’ The Go-Getter makes two promises and not only delivers on both, but exceeds our expectations. It’s one of those films that when it’s over you’re not exactly sure what you’ve seen or what you thought of it but you know it was different and special. The story it tells is straightforward and really rather simple but the way it’s told is anything but. All of it is presented in a fresh and interesting way that we’re not used to, almost like a bizarre, surrealistic fusion of Into The Wild and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. And it’s unlike anything you’ve seen in terms of its performances, cinematography and music.

While it runs just over an hour and a half it feels much longer, and that’s a compliment. It’s filled with so many great ideas and is so ambitious that it feels epic in scope, bursting with moments of beauty that almost can’t be contained in a story so small. Yet somehow, Hynes (making his directorial debut) not only contains it, but guides it with care and intelligence the whole way through. Because it’s so unusual you may be fooled into thinking it’s better than it is, yet because the story it tells is so basic you could also be fooled into thinking its worse. The truth is probably somewhere in between.
When it was over I wanted to watch it again. Instead of asking people whether they’ve seen it the more appropriate question would be: “Was it your first time?” This takes multiple viewings to fully process, but I’m still trying to sort out the first one. I do know that with lesser talent involved this wouldn’t have been nearly as effective. One actor gives a surprisingly lived in lead performance and an actress, already among my favorites working today, continues to amaze. And she does it without even being on screen for over half the film.

19-year-old Mercer (Lou Taylor Pucci) lonely and reeling from the recent death of his mother impulsively steals a car from the local car wash and embarks on a road trip to find his long estranged older step-brother Arlen (Jsu Garcia) and break the news. Along the way he has a series of bizarre encounters with a hippie (Judy Greer), a pet-shop owner (Maura Tierney) and a porn director named Sergio Leone (Julio Oscar Mechoso), finding out from them that his long-lost brother may even be a worse guy than he thought.

Most memorably, Mercer reconnects with an old middle school crush, Joely (Jena Malone) a slutty, drugged-out vixen who travels with him to Reno. Malone plays her as more than that broad description implies. He thinks she’s what he wants but who he really needs is on the other end of a cell phone. It’s the stolen car’s flirtatious owner Kate (Zooey Deschanel) and in a neat twist she isn’t the slightest bit upset. Actually, she thinks it’s kind of cool and wants frequent updates on his journey.

There are many beautifully shot, creatively edited sequences such as Mercer trying to imagine what Kate looks like and a cowboy shootout dream sequence on the beach. The purpose of Mercer’s trip may be to find his brother but as the film progresses that’s not the encounter we’re most interested in. It’s him coming face to face with Kate, who just may be as lonely a soul as he is. He’s found his perfect match, but the closer he gets the more frightened he is that he’ll lose her. We see how he would be. By the time they do meet their relationship has come a long way since that first phone call.

A lot of reviews of this movie, a modest hit at Sundance last year, have slammed it for being soaked in indie film clichés. The road trip as a metaphor for self-discovery. The insecure man-child. The quirky girlfriend. I see the point, but that’s more a testament to the amount of independent dramas released in the past couple of years than any particular failing with this one, especially when the approach is this fresh. The sun-drenched photography by Byron Shah gives the film a unique look, almost as if it were made in another era. In fact, if I had just been blindly shown the film completely unaware of its release date I’d probably think it came out of the ‘60’s or‘70’s.

Why is it that films shot on a shoestring budget often seem to look better and more realistic than the most expensive big budget studio offerings? I have a theory that with less money the filmmakers are forced to come up with more inventive ways to use what they have, which can only make the film better. That’s exactly what Hynes does here and the look of the picture fits its story perfectly, as does the score provided by singer/songwriter M. Ward. Ward, best known as the “Him” in the folk duo She and Him with Deschanel, also briefly appears at the start of the film. This is one of those soundtracks where you don’t realize just how good it is until the movie’s conclusion because it never needlessly calls attention to itself.

Pucci, last seen atop a flying ice cream truck in my favorite film of 2007, Southland Tales, gave no hints in his few scenes there that he was capable of a performance with this much depth. It’s calm, soulful and restrained, lacking any deliberate attempts at pulling on the heartstrings. You’d think Hynes paints himself into a corner creating a character as interesting as Kate and trusting that when she’s revealed the actress will play her to meet expectations. That would be an issue if that actress were anyone other than Zooey Deschanel, who it seems was born to play this type of character. And this may be the first film she’s starred in that’s as quirky as she is. She’s not only what we imagined Kate would be from the phone conversations, but a whole lot more. It's getting to the point where I'm starting to wonder if Zooey is even capable of starring in a bad movie (no The Happening jokes please), and if she did, whether I could bring myself to acknowledge it. The mere presence in a film pretty much guarantees a certain level of success.
I think Hynes missteps a little as a writer in the third act by trying to provide too much of an explanation as to why Kate is so invested in Mercer’s journey. It feels a little contrived but that doesn’t make the outcome any less satisfying. The eventual encounter with Kate and the resolution to the story about his brother both pay off in a big way.

e all know the drill by now. An independent film is released that I tell everyone they should check out, they tell me they will, and it falls to the bottom of their queue, never to be heard from again. But this is different. It isn’t a hyped up independent film that insiders at festivals gushed about to sound cool but was met with widespread indifference when it landed in theaters. This has no buzz so there’s no possibility for disappointment.

While the film is far from easily accessible and not for everyone, even those who don't care for it would agree it isn’t forgettable. You just need very high tolerance for deeply personal, emotion-filled films to get on board. Yes, it’s self-indulgent and contains some very familiar elements but who cares when it looks and feels this good? You don’t watch a movie like this for the story, but for the experience. On that front it delivers. Hynes will probably go on to bigger and better things but with the Go-Getter he succeeds where other films have failed in showing us that life is about the journey.

The Happening

Director: M. Night Shyamalan
Starring: Mark Wahlberg, Zooey Deschanel, John Lequizamo, Ashlyn Sanchez, Betty Buckley
Running Time: 91 min.
Rating: R

*** (out of ****)

“This better be as bad as everyone says it is.”

It’s a shame I found myself muttering those words as I entered the theater to watch M. Night Shyamalan’s much-maligned ecological thriller The Happening. That’s never the mindset anyone should be forced to approach a film with but unfortunately it’s been an unavoidable situation with this one. For the thrashing Shyamalan and his actors have taken over this I was hoping they were justified because I don’t like seeing anyone thrown under the bus for no reason.

Sometimes it’s bad come to a film late after everyone’s verdict has been handed out, but this might be one of those rare cases where it's a hidden benefit. Knowing every detail of the plot and being prepared for every aspect of the film that people had serious problems with I was able to just sit back and analyze. That’s exactly what I did, but much to my surprise, I also had a really good time. Sure, Shyamalan struggles with tone from time to time and he’s still a better director than writer, but this works for what it is.

So no, The Happening doesn’t even come close to being as bad as everyone’s made it out to be. In fact, taken as a good old-fashioned B-movie chiller, it more than holds its ground. It isn’t nearly as effective as The Sixth Sense (which is overrated) or Unbreakable (which isn’t) but it tops Signs and especially Lady In The Water. I guess you could say that puts it on par with The Village, which I actually enjoyed. But forget about all that. What I really want to know is how the public would react to this picture if Shyamalan’s name weren’t on it.
Elliot Moore (Mark Walhberg) is a Ned Flanders-like New York City high school science teacher who is forced to dismiss class upon hearing news that a deadly airborne toxin has somehow been released in the North East. Exposure to it results in a catatonic trance-like states immediately followed by strange (and at times far too creative) suicides. The opening minutes are clearly meant to shake us with 9/11 imagery, as citizens hurl themselves to their deaths out of high-rise buildings. Elliot and his distant wife Alma (a very wide-eyed Zooey Deschanel), join his co-worker Julian (John Leguizamo) and eight-year-old daughter Jess (Ashlyn Sanchez) in fleeing the city by train to Pennsylvania, where the pandemic has yet to hit. That relief doesn’t last long.

The immediate suspicion as to the cause of this disaster is bio-terrorism but the physical evidence soon shifts to something more environmental in nature. Frequent Shyamalan detractors may be relieved to discover there’s no ”big twist” in this one. Without giving too much away I’ll just say this catastrophe involves plants and the wind. In other words, Al Gore was right.

This film benefits heavily from being somewhat realistically grounded, at least as far as thrillers go. An airborne toxin being released actually isn’t far fetched at all and in the past it has actually happened (pardon the pun). Here, the results of it are obviously way exaggerated and at times presented preposterously but at least it’s more believable than a giant sea monster attacking the East Coast.

As for it looking silly that characters are running from something that isn’t there, it doesn’t seem to bother anyone when actors against a green screen run from fake looking CGI, so the way I see it, this is a step up. I found it refreshing and original to see characters running from something actually in nature for a change, and at least Tak Fujimoto’s cinematography makes it interesting to watch. Trust me, if there were actually a neurotoxin in the air you would haul ass also.

It’s a relief Shyamalan has a premise with some realism that hits close to home because his iffy writing does create a few problems. Like how he has Alma pause at the most inconvenient, life threatening time imaginable to discuss her potential extra-marital affair or how everyone seems a little to eager to watch and listen to graphic suicides on cell phones. In a stupid studio marketing campaign probably meant to further sabotage Shyamalan’s career, this movie has been ridiculously trumpeted all over trailers and commercials as “HIS FIRST R RATED FILM.”

If anything, the R rating is a distraction and the really graphic scenes don’t exactly mesh with the rest of the picture, particularly one involving a gruesome lion attack. That and a memorable lemon drink line delivered by Betty Buckley’s crazed survivalist were the only two moments that caused me to laugh aloud. And I’m convinced that latter outburst only occurred because of a great review I read beforehand mentioning it. Had the rating been PG-13 and not showed as much the film probably would have been more suspenseful and flowed better, but that’s my most serious quibble.
Since the studio justifiably wouldn’t let Shyamalan appear in his film this time around some think that Buckley, whose character doesn’t care about the world and complains the world “doesn’t care about me,” is a Shyamalan surrogate. Since he wasn’t allowed in the movie he squeezed his way in through Buckley. Good theory, except the problem is the world seems to actually care way too much about Shyamalan… for all the wrong reasons.

Plus, after checking the credits I saw he already cast himself as “Joey,” Alma’s secret boyfriend, despite never appearing in the film. I’ll take that any day over him having a huge supporting role as a character whose “words will change the world.” This film may as well be Citizen Kane compared to Lady In The Water.

Despite popular opinions to the contrary, Wahlberg and Deschanel give performances that are completely appropriate for the material for which they’ve been given. I’d even go further and say they rise a level above it. I thought it was great to see these two actors playing against type in roles we never get to see them in and Wahlberg is believable as a passive, geeky high school teacher (particularly in an excellent early scene). As usual, Deschanel brings her natural, down-to-Earth quirky charm to the role and I really thought the two actors shared surprisingly nice chemistry together as spouses.

Maybe I was just relieved to see Zooey in a role other than someone’s best friend or sister and finally be given the chance to headline a big studio film. At the very least, it's a huge departure from anything else she’s done and if another actress were playing Wahlberg’s wife I guarantee you I wouldn’t have cared as much about the character or the story. I’ve actually heard some people say the fallout from this will destroy her career, which is just complete nonsense. This was a necessary next step for her, regardless of its immediate consequences.

While I wouldn’t put either actor’s performance on their highlight reel, they did a good job and in no way deserve the bashing they’ve received. I commend both for making a risky choice and they’ll make it past this just fine.
The exciting and suspenseful third act of the picture really benefits from Blakely’s energetic performance and many moments between Wahlberg and Deschanel’s characters that work really well, particularly a beautiful scene in a field at the end. It’s obvious the movie has a message, but it doesn’t feel like a message movie so much as an intelligent parable. The film is a little like last year’s The Mist in that it points out how the human race can fail each other in the face of a legitimate catastrophe. In its best moments there are also echoes of Hitchcock’s The Birds, an obvious inspiration considering the film’s theme of nature turning on man.

This is one of Shyamalan’s more introspective, restrained efforts and James Newton Howard’s haunting score helps the creepy cause, even if the tone occasionally conflicts with it. The film doesn’t completely get to where Shyamalan wants it to, but how many of his movies actually do? It probably could have benefited from an outside, objective eye at the screenwriting stage but even if you view it as a misfire (which I don’t), it’s easily his most interesting one. What works is suspenseful and what doesn’t is hysterically entertaining. For anyone who hates it no explanation is necessary because there are some admittedly funny scenes, but I just took it for what it was and enjoyed myself.

Am I guilty of going in with lowered expectations? Maybe, but I like to think if I went in cold I’d have the same reaction. I’d also like to believe anyone who doesn’t surf the internet regularly or closely follow the writer/director’s career bumps would enjoy themselves, and its box office performance supports my theory. If The Happening does end up ruining M. Night Shyamalan’s career it's not because it’s a terrible film, but because he’s being graded on a harsher curve than everyone else.