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.

How Movies Age (Part II)

The world changes and so does our culture, thus making it inevitable that a lot of movies will just stay stuck in their time period and age poorly, unable to keep up with the changing milieu. The cinematic landscape is always evolving and this is the argument I often use for defending Stanley Kubrick as the greatest director who ever lived. Every single one of his movies not only ageless, they seem to gain in importance and resonance with each passing year.

Even 1999’s Eyes Wide Shut, widely regarded as his weakest film, has picked up steam recently and now it’s actually not considered blasphemous to mention it alongside his other masterpieces. The same can now also be said for 1987’s Full Metal Jacket, previously considered another one of his weaker efforts but recently gaining in acceptance.

It’s hard to determine to what degree aesthetic choices, thematic elements or some other factors influence how a movie ages over time. For example, Roger Ebert thinks 1967’s The Graduate is a dated film. He cites the movie’s themes, not its visual style as an example. In his review he seemed almost insulted that we’re asked to cheer for the main character’s selfish actions throughout the story, chalking it up to the overriding idiocy of the time period in which it was made.

I can kind of see where he’s coming from but for me that just makes the film more goofy and endearing. It dates it, but not in a bad way. I think The Graduate is one of those that have to be looked at as a “time capsule movie,” and as that, it will never let you down no matter how many years pass. Its intentions are too good hearted and it’s executed far too well for time to do any serious damage to it. And there’s also the music, which has helped it considerably.
The surest way to guarantee your movie will age poorly seems to be to win an Academy Award for Best Picture. Maybe No Country For Old Men doesn’t look like such a bad choice to me because of the many terrible Best Picture selections the Academy has made in the past. In their defense, they don’t have a crystal ball telling them how these choices will look down the road but it’s still tough to justify Rocky winning out over Network, Taxi Driver and All The President’s Men, Kramer vs. Kramer beating Apocalypse Now, or Saving Private Ryan losing to Shakespeare in Love.

I’m one of the few who thinks that Rocky has aged terribly, but also would argue it wasn’t really all that good to begin with. I know many who would want to go a few rounds with me in the ring for saying that. It does have its fans. As the years go on I feel less and less sorry that Citizen Kane lost Best Picture because it has since received an honor far greater. Though it’s worth noting it took years for that to happen.

Then there’s the recent intriguing case surrounding 2005’s winner Crash. Like many, when I first saw the film I was blown away. Then about a week later I hardly remembered a single thing about it outside of Sandra Bullock’s supporting performance, and that probably had more to do with it being such a thrilling departure rather than her work actually being brilliant.

Now it’s difficult for me to look back on the film without laughing because it’s essentially a contrived, turgid melodrama with characters being thrown into racially volatile situations by writer/director Paul Haggis. Why couldn’t I see that then? Probably because the excellent (although at times overwrought) performances did a good enough job covering it up. Plus, the more movies I see, the worse (and sometimes the better) the ones I saw before start to look.
In my defense, audiences and the Academy were blinded as well because the other nominee that year, Brokeback Mountain, was being shoved down our throats by the media. You couldn’t turn on a late night talk show without hearing a “Brokeback” joke and it was a foregone conclusion that movie would win the big prize. People were sick of it and no one likes a frontrunner so they rallied behind Crash, a message movie that made everyone feel comfortable. It may have appeared at the time to be a brazen, risky choice to make for Best Picture, but in actuality it was just dumb and spiteful.

Time has revealed Crash to be a heavy-handed TV movie about racism, while Brokeback Mountain wasn’t just a movie about gays, which was what everyone was effectively fooled into believing by the media. All Crash’s victory helped prove is that Academy voters are apparently more comfortable with racism than homosexuality. You’d be hard-pressed to find anyone now who thinks the right movie won that year and the recent Heath Ledger tragedy has only added fuel to that fire. Crash looks dated as ever…and it’s only a few years old! That said, I'm not a huge fan of either film and had they decided to not give out a Best Picture Oscar for 2005 you wouldn't have heard any complaints from me. That's how weak a year I thought it was.

Interestingly, I also feel a lot less enthusiastic than I initially did about Million Dollar Baby’s 2004 win, which leads me to believe any film wth Haggis’ name on it just might have the expiration date of milk. So maybe the producers of The Best Picture nominees should sit in the Kodak Theater with their fingers crossed that their movie isn’t announced as the winner because it may end up having a longer shelf life if it loses. That’s good news for There Will Be Blood.

When I compiled my list of the best films of 2007 joked with people that they should wait a year or two then I’ll give them my real choices. Theres' some truth to that though. I actually had an easier time picking my ten favorite films of all-time because those choices had years of mileage behind them and my opinions on them were long established. Even with some of those though, my feelings are constantly evolving as I watch them repeatedly.

A couple of weeks ago the American Film Institute aired a television special celebrating the 10 best films in 10 different genres. Besides failing to acknowledge that “Horror” and “Musicals” are indeed genres, their perception of what constitutes one is pretty warped. To give you an idea where their minds are at, before the show I downloaded their ballot and discovered Legally Blonde was one of the nominees for the “Courtroom Drama” genre (what?)

These lists were done only so the AFI could flaunt the choices they already made when they named the 100 best films last year and throw some newer viewers a bone by including just a couple of recent choices. Everyone knows very few movies from the past twenty years stand a chance with them. I will give them credit for doing a great job in the “Science Fiction” category though and at least all their lists featured films of quality and merit.

That’s more than I can say for Entertainment Weekly’s embarrassing list of 100 “New Classics” in movies (Titanic at #3?) over the past 25 years. I know a list like this is completely subjective but it would have been nice if they didn’t just simply rank the films by counting their box office grosses and the number of gold statues they won. I can’t argue with their number one choice (Pulp Fiction) on merit, but I can argue they only put it in that spot because it was popular. The rest of their lists prove it.
They also ranked television shows (The X-Files at #4?) and albums (Green Day’s American Idiot at #6?). The magazine insists these lists were meant to spark debate but it doesn’t because no one would disagree that most of their selections are awful. It instead encourages eye rolling and disbelief at their views of what entertainment has aged well and I’m not just saying that because I don’t agree with many of the choices. I like to think everyone ignores lists like this but part of me believes we do pay attention to them and the media subconsciously effects how we perceive certain films are aging. After all, I like reading lists as much as everyone else, no matter how inaccurate I think they may be.

If we look at the movies we must also consider the actors’ future legacies that will inevitably be tied to them. Who will be the next Grant, Bogart or Stewart? Their choices determine their place in film history. Icons like Redford, Newman, Pacino and DeNiro have already secured their legacies, even if the latter two have recently put them in serious jeopardy by becoming parodies of themselves.

Everyone keeps heralding George Clooney as "The Last Great Movie Star” but his only important cinematic contribution came just last year with Michael Clayton. Most everything else he’s done has ranged from good to very good, or in some cases, just plain garbage. None of those categories qualify an actor for legendary status.Can you really picture anyone watching Ocean’s 11, Syriana or Confessions of a Dangerous Mind 20 years from now? More movies like Michael Clayton and he may get there, but it’s a long shot.

The best bet is, shockingly, Tom Cruise, the only actor who seems to know he's running a marathon not a sprint. I predict years from now no one will remember the couch jumping, Katie Holmes or the Scientology but rather that he gave memorable, criminally underrated performances in a wide variety of different roles under many brilliant directors.

They’ll remember Rain Man, Born on the Fourth of July, Jerry Maguire, Eyes Wide Shut and Magnolia. If you go back to the very beginning even his fluffy rookie movies like Top Gun, Cocktail and Risky Business were iconic roles. One hand washes the other since his presence in those films have caused them to age considerably better than they otherwise would have. I won’t say he hasn’t stepped wrong a few times but even those missteps served a purpose.

His latest film, Lions For Lambs may have flopped, but his performance was one of the best parts of it and he got a rub by starring alongside acting legends Redford and Streep. The guy isn’t stupid. As much as it pains me to admit it, he’s maybe the only actor who’s done everything and has done it exceptionally well in a wide variety of genres. He may or may not be off his rocker but when it comes to his career he doesn’t mess around. His upcoming role as a one-eyed Nazi in Valkyrie is generating bad buzz and even some giggles but if anyone through just sheer determination can make it work he can. History has proven it. He definitely isn’t the most talented but he may end up being remembered the best.
Lately, Brad Pitt seems to have taken a page out of Cruise’s book and has been going in a similar direction. This could be because actors like Cruise and Pitt are so well known as movie stars they have to work that much harder to gain ground with their film choices. They’ve done a good job picking up the slack. This year Pitt may have been robbed of a Best actor nod for The Assassination of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford but if this winter’s The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button is as good as its trailer suggests that oversight could be rectified, further benefiting his legacy. Of the newer generation of actors, Christian Bale is already starting to rack up enough great performances in wildly different and challenging roles to begin to compete with them.

As for the actresses, the field is narrower but that’s because for whatever discriminatory reason they’re given far fewer opportunities to carry movies than their male counterparts. If I had to pick I’d say Meryl Streep’s place in history is all but a lock and Cate Blanchett is one of the safest bets around. I think there's an overlooked actress who will eventually be remembered best of all when the final score is tallied but I’m saving that controversial theory for another date and place. How these actors are viewed will undoubtedly heavily influence how their films age over time.

So how will the movies of today be judged 25, 50 or 100 years from now? There’s no way to tell but we can speculate. My gut tells me that as far as directors go David Fincher and Paul Thomas Anderson are the only two are currently making films that seem to be gaining ground quickly. Too few years have passed to accurately determine how much but they’re getting there and both are relatively young and should have their best work ahead of them. A scary thought. Wes Anderson and the Coen Brothers’ work also seems to be holding up very well also. But really, who knows? Ask me in a week or two about this and it’s possible I’ll have to take it all back. All of this is full of subjectivity and speculation... but that's what makes it so much fun.

How Movies Age

The other day I woke up to a startling realization: I was considerably less annoyed that No Country For Old Men won the Best Picture Oscar than I was just a couple of months ago. Of course, such a statement would lead someone to make a number of incorrect assumptions. Those would be:

1. That I originally hated No Country For Old Men (I actually gave it three and a half stars and it made my runners-up list for the best films of 2007)

2. That I’m admitting I was somehow “wrong” about the film (there’s no such thing as being “right” or “wrong” about a movie. It’s a subjective opinion).

3. That I’m “giving in” to popular opinion on the film and letting it influence my opinion.

I suppose it’s a testament to just how well that movie was received critically that my mostly positive, almost four-star review of it could be misconstrued as being negative. I was having a conversation with a friend a little over a month ago about the film and they happened to be among the many who thought it was hands down the best of the year. Despite our mutual respect for one another’s opinions on film and other matters, I braced myself for a little squabble.

He knew I liked the film but was also one of those viewers who felt “cheated” and let down by the ending. Much to my surprise, he said he could see where I was coming from and rather than argue he just asked me to read this Chicago Sun Times letter to the editor. He said it was from a guy writing how the film basically changed his outlook on not just how he views, but life in general. I thought, “What a load of crap, the guy who wrote it is probably some old man” But I checked it out anyway.
I figured the author would have some heavy lifting to do in explaining how this well-made but mostly sterile and emotionally empty exercise touched him in any meaningful way. When I was done reading what was not only a beautifully written piece, but a passionate cinematic deconstruction of a film that clearly meant a lot to this man I was left pretty much speechless. Whether or not every piece of his analysis of the picture was exactly on point was irrelevant. Only the Coen Brothers could answer that, and judging from their Oscar acceptance speech, you probably wouldn’t get a lot out of them.

I was just impressed the film could even be analyzed so deeply because I never saw that much there. The letter just couldn’t leave my mind so I decided to give the film another watch, which would be my third. I have to say it was by far the best viewing which isn’t a huge surprise since the second was just really to prove to myself I was right in thinking it was overrated.

I still think There Will Be Blood is better and more deserving of the Best Picture Oscar but the gap isn’t nearly as wide now than it was a couple of months ago. If I were to review No Country For Old Men again now I wouldn’t go as hard on it for the ending. I still say it’s overrated and didn’t move me enough emotionally, but I can now at least understand why many would disagree. I definitely don’t expect any kind of pat on the back for revisiting or re-evaluating my opinion of a film but sometimes I think it sure would be nice to not be ridiculed for it.

You’d be shocked how many people are insulted if my opinion of a film evolves in any way over time for whatever reason. I’m willing to see any movie (even one I didn’t particularly care for) twice or more if it means there’s even the slightest chance I’ll take anything out of it I didn’t get the viewing before. So is my opinion “influenced?” I damn sure hope it is. When my mind closes and I’m not willing to hear alternate viewpoints on a film or consider new possibilities when I re-watch them then I may as well hang it up.
My recent re-evaluation of that film got me thinking about a much larger, directly related issue that’s been on my mind a lot lately: How movies age. As months and years go by perceptions of certain films tend to change and evolve and it can happen due to any number of factors. In my case, with the nauseating Oscar hype behind me, I was able to step back and consider a new viewpoint on the film and go in with a more level head. Now more than ever in this DVD age, multiple viewings play a huge role in our perceptions of films over time. No Country For Old Men is a meager example since it was released only last year but that my opinion of it is significantly higher now than it was months ago probably bodes well for its long-term future (at least in my eyes). Still, it’s too early.

When I reviewed There Will Be Blood I remarked that it’s more than likely to show up on the next American Film Institute List of the 100 Greatest Films. But I could be completely wrong. In a couple of years everyone could be going around referring to it as “that milkshake movie starring that guy with the funny voice.” I know, highly unlikely, but stranger things have happened. I always used to think all-time lists like theirs and those of Sight & Sound Magazine (both of which are updated every 10 years) showed a clear bias toward much older titles. They do, but part of me can’t blame them since it seems a lot of time and distance is required to properly judge a film’s place in history. But sorry, I still say it’s kind of ridiculous to claim that no film since 1941 has been better than Citizen Kane.

Whenever I assign a film with a star rating I’m doing it with a pencil since the very notion of star ratings is ridiculous in itself. It’s just a false attempt to hand out quantitative verdicts to something that’s anything but objective or quantitative. I try my best not to adjust a rating after I’ve given it because that just gives the whole system more credence than it deserves but it has happened on a few occasions. With most of my reviews there’s no need to look back but if there is a change in my opinion I’d far prefer to review the film again or express it in pieces like this rather than just adding or subtracting a star.

Lately, I’ve found myself in the strange position of defending 2006’s Miami Vice. I say strange because I bashed it very hard in my review but now when I talk with people about it I have problems naming anything I didn’t like. I've even caught myself calling it the "most beautifully shot movie of 2006" and complaining that Gong Li was overlooked for a Best Supporting Actress nomination. All this for a film I gave 2 stars to. Stuff like this doesn't happen often with me but it does happen. Maybe the proliferation of far worse big screen TV show adaptations has softened my stance or it could be it’s just one of those movies that needs to linger in the mind for a while (highly unusual for an action film).
Looking back I can now respect that Michael Mann didn’t treat the material as a joke and was serious about putting a real cinematic spin on the elements from his show. Did it all work? Of course not, but at least the project had artistic ambitions of some sort. Even if you think he failed, he at least did so with dignity, making the right creative decisions. It isn’t The Dukes of Hazzard or Bewitched. I’ve yet to re-watch it but it sure feels like I have because the movie's been playing in a continuous loop in my mind since. There's little doubt that when I do eventually re-watch it it'll look a whole lot better to me than it did the first time.

In the midst of all the internet controversy surrounding M. Night Shyamalan’s The Happening I read many critics and viewers reminiscing about better days in the writer/director’s career and all the potential that’s been wasted. They were reminded of the one time he was able to deliver a true masterpiece bursting with originality and creative energy. Except they weren't talking about The Sixth Sense. They were referring to Unbreakable, Shyamalan’s 2000 follow-up that flopped at the box office.

To say the film’s reception was lukewarm when it was released would be a massive understatement. Now it’s looked at as one our most original comic book movies and everyone’s begging for a sequel. So before Shyamalan goes back to Philly and hangs his head he can at least console himself with the fact that time has reversed Unbreakable’s failure and now it’s as respected as he’d hoped. I always thought I was the only person alive who liked the film so it's great to see it has so many fans.

This happens a lot with “cult classics,” which critics in general have always been awful at predicting. Of course they would be because the movies aren’t made for them. In this case critics really need serious from audiences because movie fans see something in those films that they can’t. Critics can sometimes get too close and become too caught up in objectively analyzing their script, direction and performances.
The cult classics slip through a little space in between those elements and connect with their intended audience in a special way. 90’s era cult teen films like Empire Records and Can’t Hardly Wait are good examples of this. Neither boast great performances or a brilliant script and flopped in every way when they first came out. But the critics couldn’t see what a relatively small segment of the moviegoing population could and what a few extra years would reveal: That both films nailed that time period and age group down perfectly.

Anyone that age or who grew during that period could relate to the characters and each were made with so much heart and sincerity that you couldn’t help but feel an attachment. It probably helped the nostalgia factor that some of the actors from those films went on to become big stars. The same can be said for the similarly themed teen comedies, Fast Times At Ridgemont High and 10 Things I Hate About You, both of which later gained a sizable cult following.

When you consider the number of movies released every year from all the studios the cult classic club is actually very small and exclusive. I know if I were a filmmaker and my picture won an Academy Award I’d be incredibly honored, but if I ever made a movie that became a cult classic you'd probably have to scrape me off the floor.

To have your movie acknowledged in critical circles is nice but there's something really special about knowing you skipped that step and headed straight to the average moviegoer's soul. It’s one thing to win an Oscar, but it’s another to have fans throwing conventions for your film once a year. There’s a reason you don’t see lines stretching for blocks with people dressed as Gandhi or Forrest Gump. They’re dressed as The Dude. Some movies are made for critics and others are made for fans. Really special ones are made for both.

10,000 BC

Director: Roland Emmerich
Starring: Steven Straight, Camilla Belle, Cliff Curtis, Joel Virgel, Affif Ben Badra, Mo Zinal, Nathanael Baring
Running Time: 109 min.
Rating: PG-13

* (out of ****)

A lot of people ask me why I’m so down on computer generated effects in movies. I’m not, I just prefer that the effects fit well within the context of the story, and more importantly, they look at least somewhat believable. Now, I won’t even waste my time answering. I’ll just refer them to 10,000 BC, which features some of the cheesiest effects you could possibly see in a film.

Anyone who thinks we’ve come far in movie technology may want to re-think that after the final credits role in Roland Emmerich’s latest misfire. We actually have come far, but unfortunately we’ve gone much farther in abusing those advances as a result. And just when I thought I couldn’t be more devastated over the recent passing of special effects wizard Stan Winston, something like this comes around and reminds us just how great he really was. Jurassic Park this is not. It isn’t even The Lost World.

What’s scarier though is that the effects are the least of this movie’s problems. It’s easily a career worst effort from Emmerich, quite an accomplishment considering this is the man who directed such bloated trash as Independence Day and The Day After Tomorrow. You could defend him and say that he deliberately set out to make a gloriously bad, campy B-movie (which would at least explain the laughable performances and aimless direction), but if he did, shouldn’t it be a lot more fun?

It has a few lively moments, but in trying to make an “epic” action adventure film, Emmerich succeeds only in making it feel epic in length, despite it clocking in at just 109 minutes. Laughing at the performances and effects grows old after about 15 of those. The rest is a just a wretched bore you hope will eventually come to an end. It’s proves true the theory that the months of January and February really are the dumping ground for lackluster releases. Now that they’re all hitting DVD at once, I’m having a pretty miserable couple of months.

At a time when CGI, I mean wooly mammoths, roamed the Earth a cliché filled voice-over narration from Omar Sharif informs us D’ Leh (Steven Strait) and Evolet (Camilla Belle) have been in love since childhood. However, they’re from different tribes and politics stand in the way of them being together. D’ Leh is also an outcast and somewhat of a coward whose father abandoned his tribe. When evil warriors arrive and capture his people D’Leh manages to escape but Evolet doesn’t. So begins his torturous journey to rescue her and free his tribe. Torturous for us, not him. In one particularly embarrassing scene, we must watch him attempt to engage in a sabertooth tiger in deep, intelligent conversation. He seems disappointed when he fails to get a response.

In another memorable moment he listens to the ramblings of some prophet, who is either deformed or inhuman I couldn’t tell which. Strangely, someone is actually able to translate what this creature-man is saying even though he really isn’t speaking in another language. He’s just mumbling incoherently. By the time the film gets to the predictable denouement I was so exhausted by all the talking and time wasting that I forgot what the purpose of the journey was to begin with.

Anyone who just wants to see this movie because of Camilla Belle, hoping that this role would do for her what it did for Raquel Welch in One Million Years BC will be sorely disappointed. That movie was at least bad in a fun way, and despite some early ribbing, became an iconic part for its star actress. In this, Belle, looks grungy and dirty most of the picture and more like a contestant on Survivor than a prehistoric cave dweller. Perhaps the funniest scene of the movie is when she cleans up later. I had no idea they had eye shadow or mascara back then because all of the sudden, by the last half hour, she looks like she’s ready for a Vogue photo spread.

Her performance does her no favors but she’s at least ten times better than her leading man, Steven Straight, who according to his credits is an aspiring musician and former Hollister model. That seems about right. He has this dumb, wide-eyed expression on his face, as if he’s wondering how he possibly got into this. So am I. He gets a lot of giggles with some of his line deliveries, especially while conversing with computer-generated animals. The only inspired performance in the film comes from Affif Ben Badra as Evolet's obsessed, psychotic capturer. He's at least effectively creepy.

Everything in 10,000 BC is inauthentic looking, from the costumes, to the make-up to the effects. If decades from now they ever decide to bring back Mystery Science Theater 3000 this disaster would make an excellent viewing selection for Crow and Tom Servo. It’s as historically inaccurate as can be but you don’t go into a big budget action spectacle like this expecting a history lesson, nor did I want one. But I do expect to at least be reasonably entertained and ask that I’m able to remain awake.

The only thing this really has going for it is that at least doesn’t look like it was phoned in. It probably took a lot of money and effort to make this look as bad as it does. Everyone does at least seem to be trying, except they’re trying to give us something completely misguided and awful. As much as movies like this deflate me, I’ll admit one good thing came of this experience. It was the trailer for The Dark Knight that preceded the feature. Packed into those two minutes were far more thrills and story than 10,000 BC could muster in its entire running length.

Fool's Gold

Director: Andy Tennant
Starring: Matthew McConaughey, Kate Hudson, Donald Sutherland, Alexis Dziena, Ray Winstone, Malcolm Jamal-Warner
Running Time: 112 min.
Rating: PG-13

½* (out of ****)

A deep feeling of embarrassment swept over me as I watched the very appropriately titled “romantic comedy” Fool’s Gold, which is neither romantic nor a comedy despite what its trailers have advertised. I was embarrassed in myself for spending $1.00 to watch it. I was even more embarrassed for anyone who spent much more than that to see it in a theater. But most of all, I was embarrassed for the actors appearing in it, specifically its two stars, since this film couldn’t have possibly come at a worse time in each of their careers.

A couple of months ago I was talking to someone about which celebrities we thought had charisma and it was a surprisingly short list. Not necessarily exceptional acting ability, but are just able to radiate charisma and charm onscreen. Both of us agreed Kate Hudson and Matthew McConaughey are two of them, even if both have been coasting on that attribute for far too long. It's finally caught up with them.

Up until now, even while making sloppy film choices, both actors were always the best parts of whatever failure they were starring in. How To Lose a Guy In 10 Days may have been awful, but they injected a certain energy and enthusiasm into the proceedings while sharing at least a fair amount of chemistry onscreen. I may not have been having a good time, but at least they looked like they were. Here they appear in a movie so bad that it drains them of any spark they may have had. It was only a matter of time, but finally they’ve caught up and look as bored as I am. I know the year’s still young but I’d be shocked if I see a comedy (or movie in general) in the remaining 6 months worse than Fool’s Gold, which is not only painful to sit through, but manages to plunge the depths of cinematic incompetence.

In the film’s overly complicated plot, permanently shirtless and grungy slacker Finn (guess who), gets a hot lead on a long lost Spanish treasure while sailing in the Caribbean. He brings it to the attention of his now ex-wife Tess (Hudson) whose working as a stewardess on the boat of multimillionaire Nigel Honeycutt (Donald Sutherland). In one of the most boring, long-winded dialogue scenes you could imagine, Finn tells Honeycutt and his visiting Paris Hilton-like daughter Gemma (Alexis Dziena) the sleep-inducing tale of the famed sunken treasure and soon they’re all on their way to find it. But also after the treasure are Finn’s old mentor Moe Fitch (Ray Winstone) and a gangster rapper named “Bigg Bunny” (Kevin Hart) who's hired The Cosby Show’s Malcolm Jamal-Warner (!) to kill Finn.

All of this nonsense and the film’s title may lead you to believe this is actually about a treasure hunt but it’s not. The actual treasure hunt doesn’t begin until the last half hour of the picture. The rest of its running time is spent watching McConaughey show off his six-pack, listening to Hudson’s character babble about her ex-husband’s sexual prowess, being asked to laugh at two cooks because they’re gay and listen to some really bad attempts at accents by the actors. We’re treated to Winstone attempting a Southern drawl (I think), Warner going Jamaican and Ewan Bremner as Finn’s sidekick inflecting (or rather inflicting) Ukranian.

The grand prize, however, goes to poor Donald Sutherland with his take on an aristocratic British accent, since all rich people must have a snooty sounding voice. But the worst part of this isn’t the actors’ poor deliveries of the accents, but rather that they were asked to do them at all. They’re unnecessary and pointless, adding nothing to the story. You could even argue if they were excised it would have made the bad performances a lot more bearable.

The film is also very violent for a supposed romantic comedy and there’s hardly a scene where Finn isn’t being assaulted or getting his ass kicked in some way. It continues non-stop for most of the movie and gets annoying. The guy is essentially a human punching bag who never stands up for himself, which needless to say, makes the character a little hard to root for. Even worse is Tess who complains about her ex-husband’s lack of money and ambition yet when he has a chance of finding this treasure she rides on his coattails like a greedy little gold digger. The ending of the film is a jumbled, action-packed mess as if all of the sudden they realized they had to make up for the lack of excitement in the entire first hour. I knew exactly what the final scene would be but what I didn’t prepare for would be how ridiculous the actors would look posing in it. I almost felt like crying for Sutherland and Winstone. Hopefully they were paid really, really well.

It’s sometimes said that an actor or actress giving an uninspired performance is “sleepwalking” through the film, but this is one of those rare cases where it’s literally true. Kate Hudson looks and acts tired and washed-out here, as if her alarm just went off and someone dragged her onto the set. I wouldn’t even consider it a performance, but rather a continuous series of flat line readings. As I watched I came to a startling revelation: Her career has turned into her mother’s. It brought back painful memories of Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russell starring together in Captain Ron, which might be an unfair comparison considering that disaster was still far superior to this.

It seems lately Kate has disappointedly decided that she’d rather be a movie star than an actress, which is a shame because she could have been both. Anyone who saw my list of my favorite all-time movies a couple of weeks ago should know just how much it pains me to bash Kate so you can just call this tough love The 8 years it’s been since Almost Famous it never felt so long ago as it did during this. I’ve been defending her choices ever since, but she’s making it increasingly difficult.

McConaughey doesn’t fare quiet as poorly mainly because it’s his comfort zone, but this marks his most uninspired work yet in his trademark beach bum role. If you don’t think this guy is being typecast then consider he’s starring in an upcoming film that’s actually titled…Surfer Dude. He started his career with some promise in films like A Time To Kill and Contact, but by just coasting on his natural charm and likeability he’s since fallen into an awful rut. His one recent attempt to stretch dramatically in We Are Marshall had disastrous results mainly because he’s so used to mugging in inferior junk like this.

In both actors’ defenses I’m only going this hard on them because I like them and want to see them in a good film for a change, with strong writing and a director who can properly channel their strengths. I’m wasting this space because I care, which is more than I can say for a lot of other less talented actors out there making similarly bad choices (paging Ms. Alba). They’re too good for this and should sit down and have a long talk with their respective agents, or better yet, just fire them.

There is one performer who at least manages to somewhat escape complete embarrassment. Alexis Dziena’s bratty rich girl character is annoying as hell but at least she’s SOMETHING. Dziena’s trying, which is more than can be said for anyone else. She’s also gets off the only funny line in the whole movie (involving alcohol), which I’m certain is the result of her delivery rather than the humor-impaired screenplay. Unfortunately, she’s made up to look like a 12 year-old hooker so when the older men ogle and lust after her I was waiting for Chris Hansen and the crew from To Catch A Predator to show up. If they did, we’d at least have something worth watching. The script’s attempt to infuse dramatic gravitas into her relationship with her father is perhaps the film’s most insane development, which is saying a lot.

The director (perpetrator) of this mess is Andy Tennant, whose previous films Fools Rush In and Hitch, while certainly not great, didn’t give us any indication he was capable of such an unwatchable atrocity. The only thing that ends up saving this film from the dreaded zero star rating is Don Burgess’ cinematography. It makes you want to go on a Caribbean vacation…with anyone but these characters. It’s nice to look at, but that’s about it.

It’s toss-up what’s scarier, how bad the film is or that it made box office bank. Probably the latter, but the good news for McConaughey and Hudson is that it means audiences are willing to see them in anything, so just think how successful they’d be if they actually starred in a good film, or even just one that's decent. If nothing else this movie can serve as a valuable teaching tool in film schools across the country. That there can be something as bad as this bad now is disconcerting, but the future is still salvageable. Take notes on everything Tennant and screenwriters Dan Claflin and Daniel Zelman did, then do the opposite. The result is all but guaranteed to be at least twice as good as Fool’s Gold.

Be Kind Rewind

Director: Michel Gondry
Starring: Jack Black, Mos Def, Melonie Diaz, Danny Glover, Mia Farrow, Sigourney Weaver
Running Time: 94 min.
Rating: PG-13

*** (out of ****)

They’ll be many viewers who will have major problems with Michel Gondry’s latest film, the VCR era comedy Be Kind Rewind. They’ll have difficulties seeing it as anything but a huge step back for the filmmaker responsible for such visionary achievements as Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and The Science of Sleep. They may even view it as a complete waste of Gondry’s talents.

While I can see where they’re coming from, I would urge them to take another look and pick up on the small touches that make this a trip worth taking. It’s the second movie in the past couple of weeks I’ve seen that’s about how we watch movies and what they may mean to us. Except this one’s also celebrates how we make them. It’s a fascinating mess that’s at times probably more a mess than fascinating but that it works at all considering its ridiculous premise is a huge accomplishment.

There are actually many times it comes close to failing completely since it wants to do a million things at once and through most of its running time only succeeds doing one of them really well. But by the end it won me over with its creativity and Gondry convinced me he knew what story he was trying to tell the whole time, he just took some crazy detours getting there. It will also go down as the most confusing chapter yet in the polarizing career of Jack Black. If you hated him before, you’ll feel even more validated now. Yet if you’re a fan, you’ll probably find this to be one of his more satisfying performances. I’m neither, so his manic work here really did nothing to sway my opinion of him in either direction. I still don’t know what to make of the guy as an actor.

Mike (Mos Def) an employee of the neighborhood VHS rental store Be Kind Rewind is temporarily put in charge by its owner, Mr. Fletcher (Danny Glover) as he goes on a little field trip to spy on West Coast Video, who rake in the dough by renting out DVD’s. This change in format is Fletcher’s last hope to increase revenue for the store, which is to be demolished and replaced by a new business complex if he can’t bring it up to code within 60 days. Mike spends most of his time at the store hanging out with his best friend Jerry (Black) and obsessing over a story told to him by Mr. Fletcher about legendary jazz musician Fats Waller who supposedly was born in that very store. Fletcher’s final (and for a while indecipherable) instruction to Mike before leaving is to “Keep Jerry Out.”

It’s good advice because after the hyperactive and over ambitious Jerry suffers an electrical shock while attempting to sabotage local the power plant he becomes magnetized, erasing every video in the store he touches. They panic and figure the best way to solve the problem is to re-shoot the films with their camcorder and cast themselves as the leads. It starts with Ghostbusters and Rush Hour 2, but when word gets out just how entertaining their versions are they’re taking requests and filming most of the stores’ catalogue. The process of them recreating these films is referred to by Jerry as “Sweding” (as in coming from Sweden) a term that seems destined to enter the pop culture lexicon if this movie catches a cult following. Lines are forming down the street for these hometown celebrities and the pressure is mounting to raise enough money so Mr. Fletcher’s store isn’t demolished.

At first I wasn’t quite sure what this film wanted to be and it took a while to find its groove. It actually reminded me a lot of Clerks, not just in setting, but in terms of tone and the types of characters that are presented. There are even arguments with batty customers, like the loyal Miss Falewicz (played memorably by Mia Farrow). That gets thrown for a loop when Gondry introduces the magnetism element to the story, which feels more like sci-fi but then that is quickly discarded when it no longer serves the purposes of the story.

With the video store potentially being demolished and its fate depending on two down on their luck losers I thought we were being set up for a clichéd feel-good comedy as well. It is, but ends up going a little deeper than that and is memorable in that it gives Danny Glover his best supporting role in years. It was great to see him finally given a real person to play for a change and he takes full advantage of it, giving his best performance in years. He has a hilarious scene where he’s browsing the DVD rental store taking notes, as if categorizing films by genre is the most ingenious thing he’s ever seen in his life.

What works in this film REALLY works and it’s obvious right off the bat what that is: Their re-creations of these films. I could have probably watched these all day and the only thing I didn’t like was that there weren’t more of them. The big joke here for movie fans will be that you could argue some of their versions, which in quality resemble those bootlegged tapes you’d get off the street (not like I would know or anything) are more entertaining than the original films. That’s definitely true of Rush Hour 2 and the laughs keep coming as they shoot homemade versions Robocop, The Lion King, Driving Miss Daisy, 2001: A Space Odyssey and When We Were Kings.

It’s ingenious how Gondry uses these junkyard props and just two or three actors to create these homemade movies and the entire exercise can almost be viewed as a celebration of not only independent filmmaking, but creativity in general. It was central to the story that these movies look really bad, but bad in a fun way so you’d understand why all of Passaic would be camping out on the sidewalk to see them. Those are difficult waters to navigate but Gondry does it perfectly. At one point there’s a thrilling montage showing us the movies theses guys are shooting (all at once) as their titles pass across the screen. Its moments like that that help give the film some focus and bring clarity to all the different tones fighting for screen time.

You never know which Jack Black will show up when he’s headlining a film. Will it be the insufferable, annoying actor who tries way too hard to please (Saving Silverman, Nacho Libre) or the one capable of great work when a good director reins in his manic tendencies (High Fidelity, King Kong, Margot at the Wedding)? This may be the first time both show up in the same film and battle for dominance. He starts off rough since at first the plot is just one big excuse for him to go over-the-top but when the film starts to find its dramatic focus so does he and the good Jack Black eventually wins out, if just barely.

Mos Def counter-balances him well with a low-key performance and when the extremely likable Melonie Diaz enters the picture as the third member of their crew things get even better because the three leads have great chemistry together. What started out as Clerks starts to feel more like Clerks 2, which isn't a bad thing at all. Against my better judgment I really started to care what happened to all three of them and the fate of Fletcher’s video store.

The message Gondry is trying to present here is clear. It’s a statement against today’s mass commercialization of movies and in taking us back to the VCR era he’s trying to remind us of a time when it was all about passion rather than the big bucks. Mike and Jerry’s homemade movies could very well be viewed as a shot against all those mindless big budget remakes Hollywood has felt the need to punish us with these past few years. Except these remakes are made by fans with a genuine passion and respect for the original, a trait severely lacking in all the blasphemous big budget disasters we've suffered through.

I was waiting to see if the movie would bring up what should be the obvious issue of copyright infringement or just ignore it. Much to my delight, Gondry put it in. Sigourney Weaver’s appearance as a corporate big wig protecting the studio’s rights was clever and funny, and a reminder that those who needs their rights protected the least often get the most help. Everything pays off at the end with a near-perfect and somewhat ambiguous finale that delivers its message clearly without hitting the audience over the head with it. I’m betting some may even find themselves moved. It’s no coincidence that the best movie these guys end up filming isn’t a remake.

Coincidentally, a couple of weeks ago I hooked up my VCR again and was amazed just how terrible the quality of VHS tapes looked. I actually watched those? We’re definitely spoiled now with this technology and I don’t miss the format but I agree with Gondry that there’s been a lot of change both inside and outside the film industry since we abandoned them…and much of it hasn’t been good. Despite a really rough start this movie is too creative and contains too much heart for me not to endorse it. Material like this, in the hands of another writer or director could have been a real disaster. Instead given the wacky, gray area Gondry’s working in, Be Kind Rewind ends up being be a lot smarter and funnier than it should have been.

The Bucket List

Director: Rob Reiner
Starring: Jack Nicholson, Morgan Freeman, Sean Hayes, Beverly Todd, Rob Morrow, Rowena King
Running Time: 98 min.
Rating: PG-13

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

When you have two actors the caliber of Jack Nicholson and Morgan Freeman headlining a film together for the first time certain expectations accompany it, all of which are incredibly high. If you’ve seen any of the commercials or trailers for The Bucket List you already know they play two terminally ill cancer patients who, with only less than a year left to live, make a list of everything they want to do with the time they have left.

It’s a “can’t miss” premise I assumed that if executed even half as well as it could be would still have the potential to be one of the most entertaining and emotionally moving pictures of the past year. Instead, it ends up being a dreary slog and a harsh reminder that even the best actors still need intelligent material to support their well-intentioned efforts.

That it still almost manages to get over the hump is a testament to the skill of these two acting icons, who share a great onscreen chemistry and for the most part deliver terrific performances. They deserve none of the blame and the amount that can be placed on director Rob Reiner is surprisingly minimal. It’s a breezy, predictable film with an uninspired screenplay that too often goes on autopilot, so in love with its central idea that it completely forgets to develop it. Instead it seems more concerned with long-winded soliloquies, mundane philosophizing and marital strife. I was actually worried the two central characters would bore themselves to death before they completed the list and we got to a resolution to the story.

Hard-working blue-collar auto mechanic Carter Chambers (Freeman) has lived a life plagued with some regret despite a healthy marriage to his wife of 47 years with whom he has two sons and a daughter. When he’s diagnosed with terminal cancer he ends up sharing a room with the hospital’s cranky billionaire CEO Edward Cole (Nicholson), who’s also dying of cancer. The roommates get off to a rocky start but before long they start to hit it off and become fast friends, commiserating over the pain of chemotherapy. I really enjoyed the first half hour of this picture when these two guys were getting to know each other and Reiner was smart enough to not try anything fancy and just let the two actors play off one another. The result is we get to know and care about these two characters and they come off as real people, not stereotypes.

When the idea of the bucket list is introduced everything goes downhill. I say “introduced” because I’m convinced that only if screenwriter Justin Zackham had physically walked onscreen himself and handed the list to the actors could its appearance have come off more clumsy and obvious. What started as an emotionally involving story of two men from different backgrounds growing closer turns into actors reciting clumsy dialogue to explain the purpose of the list, which is one of the most unambitious “to do lists” you’re ever likely to read from anyone who’s near death. Here’s a sampling:

1. Go race car driving
2. Go sky-diving
3. Go on a safari
4. Get a tattoo

There’s more (much of which is barely completed by the end of the film) but it doesn’t get any better. I know these guys are supposed to be up there in years, but that’s the best they could do? The script introduced an interesting aspect to Freeman’s Carter in the beginning when we find out he’s a history buff whose ambitions to teach fell by the wayside when his wife became pregnant. Wouldn’t he want to follow through with that life goal and earn his degree? Scenes of Nicholson and Freeman in a frat house surely would have been more entertaining than any of the above options. It sure worked for Nicholson in a far superior comedy about a man entering the twilight of his life, About Schmidt. Wouldn’t they hit Vegas? I mean, really, who wouldn’t hit Vegas with only a couple of months left to live? What about past girlfriends? This list is the centerpiece of the film so it’s important that it seems like someone dying of cancer wrote it, not a Hollywood screenwriter.

I wonder if Zackham actually asked cancer patients what their list would look like, and if he did, something tells me at the top wouldn’t be: “WITNESS SOMETHING TRULY MAJESTIC.” The only audience likely to be moved by that is the studio executives Zackam pitched the story to in meetings. What’s funniest about the list is it’s often forgotten about for most of the film so the two main characters can drone on and on about the ghastly pallor of death and their shattered family lives. It’s a shame because with two actors who project so much energy and an important message about embracing life, this movie could have really inspired people who have gone through a similar situation, or known someone who have. Instead, because of the script’s laziness a film that should be striking a universal chord comes off as a picture aimed only at the elderly.

Another problem is a very poorly written and even worse acted supporting character. Looking at the credits you probably think I’m talking about Will and Grace’s Sean Hayes, who plays Edward’s sarcastic but loyal assistant, but he actually gets off some great lines and his interplay with Nicholson was a highlight of the film. I wish there was more of it. The offending character is Carter’s wife Virginia (broadly caricatured by Beverly Todd), who objects that her husband is going on a silly road trip rather than staying with her and fighting his illness. That’s a perfectly reasonable complaint for a loved one to have and I commend Zackham for thinking to put it in. Unfortunately, she’s portrayed as a raving lunatic.

All Todd does is scream and nag as if she’s carefully studied clips of Thandie Newton’s performance in The Pursuit of Happyness. There’s a rational argument in there somewhere but it doesn’t come through, and as a result, she comes off as selfish and unlikable. Carter should have added "FILE FOR DIVORCE" to the bucket list. She’s so bad that when he has a chance to cheat on her with a prostitute (played by Rowena King) I was hoping he’d do it. He’s more than earned a freebie after putting up with this woman for 47 years. I found spending five minutes with her challenging. Reiner has to take most of the blame on this one for thinking it was a good idea for her to carry on like that. In attempting to give Carter resonating marital difficulties he forgot that we actually have to root for the couple for it to work.

The film fares better with Edward as he’s given a much better sub-plot involving his estranged daughter, although even that isn’t as effective as it should be because of the long-winded back story accompanying it. The film does really start to find its footing in the last half hour and a big part of that is due to Jack Nicholson’s performance, which never wavers throughout but really kicks into high gear as we approach the finish line. The list miraculously reappears as if everyone suddenly remembered there were still items left to check off and Nicholson really delivers here, almost saving the film. We know how this will end but the script does find a clever way to surprise us within the context of its predetermined outcome. Unfortunately, there were just too many problems earlier for the story to pack the full emotional punch it could have.

The two leads carry this entire film on their backs with very little help from the screenplay but I’d say Nicholson does the better work, if only because he has the more complex character while Freeman’s old wise man routine is starting to get a little too familiar. You could argue he’s just giving us another variation on his role as God from Bruce Almighty here. His character also narrates the picture, which is physically impossible for obvious reasons, but Freeman’s voice-over work is always so good I was willing to give that a pass. I

It’s impossible to hate this picture because it’s heart is in the right place and the premise and performances hold your interest. But it could have been so much more. There’s nothing wrong with a film being sappy or predictable, but for too much of its running time The Bucket List just phones its story in.