Hit & Run ★ ★ ★ ½

Release Dates
 

Australia:  6th September, 2012; USA 22nd August, 2012; UK12th October 2012
Other Countries: Release Dates

 

SWIFT & FUN

 

          The actors were clearly having a good time. The audience was laughing around me and I had the occasional giggle, so if you are looking for a bit of light fun with attractive leads, you won’t be disappointed with “Hit and Run”.

The film is written, co-produced and co-directed by the lead, Dax Shepard.  He does a great job playing the laid-back Charlie Bronson, hiding away in witness protection living idyllically with his soul mate Annie (Kristen Bell).   These two have a real chemistry on screen and it is not surprising as they are a real life couple.

Shepherd appears to have a penchant for rounding up mates and making films and it was whilst doing press for ‘Brother’s Justice’ (a mockumentary film with many of this same cast) that the idea for ‘Hit and Run’ was launched. “We kept getting asked what we were going to do next, and we just started saying we were going to do a car chase movie,” Shepard recalls. “We had no script or premise – we just knew we loved car chase movies.  And because we had said it, we knew we would have to deliver.”

The film, in fact, had no casting director. “We didn’t cast any strangers,” Co-Director David Palmer explains. “They all got paid SAG scale for a low budget movie – because they all love Dax. There’s a friendship and trust and sweetness about him that just brings everybody together.” Notes Shepard, “This was pro ably the worst work environment that most of these actors have had in years.  It was chaotic, but everyone really had a good time.”

In ‘Hit and Run’, Charlie Bronson (Dax Shepard), a get-away driver for a bank robber gang is in witness protection.  He places his life at risk when his girlfriend, Annie (Kristen Bell) is offered an interview for her dream job in LA.  He decides rather than losing her he will drive her to LA despite his case worker Marshall Randy Anderson (Tom Arnold) forbidding him to leave.  There is an ongoing joke involving Randy’s inability to control his gun and his car which works very well throughout the movie.  In fact, Tom Arnold’s Randy is a standout character.

Unfortunately, Gil (Michael Rosenbaum) the jealous ex-boyfriend alerts Charlie’s old gang leader, Alex Dmitri (Bradley Cooper) and the rest is a car pursuit that evokes shades of the classic 1977 Burt Reynolds ‘Smokey and the Bandit’ but in our current era’s ribald style humor. There are many well known actors in bit parts; Sean Hayes, Kristin Chenoweth, Beau Bridges, Jason Bateman to name a few.

Whilst ‘Hit and Run’, isn’t going to drive away with any awards, as my companion commented, "its good fun, good laughs and at the end you feel good."  And if I think back to my first viewing of ‘Smokey and the Bandit’, I think I felt much the same way.

 

Le Chef (The Chef) ★ ★ ★★

Kindly Reviewed by John Richard

Release Dates

Australia:   14th June, 2012

Other Countries: Release Dates

Perth West Australian FilmGoers: Click here for Luna Palace Website session times

LE CHEF

An established chef in an upmarket Paris restaurant is handicapped by the acting CEO of the company which owns the restaurant to make the chef lose a rating star. The loss of this one star will mean that the restaurant (Cargo Lagarde) comes under the full control of the holding company and the chef will lose both his employment contract and the apartment that comes with it.  Is this the premise for an entertaining and funny film?  Oh yes, it is!  Filled with many moments of smiles and as many of loud laughter, this French film starring Jean Reno and Michaël Youn entertains from start to fin.

Writer/Director Daniel Cohen takes us behind the scenes in several Paris restaurants to expose the frantic efforts to bring the clientele fine food, on time and with a minimum of fuss.  The story is often told that watching a swan glide through the water the observer is unaware of the frantic paddling beneath the surface which generates the swan’s journey.  This is what the film exposes us to as we witness the frantic efforts of the gaggle of chef’s in the kitchen.

Jackie Bonnot (Michaël Youn) is a well-trained and skilled young chef who cannot retain a job in a kitchen for more than a few days before he finds himself being marched out of the door over culinary differences.  His partner Beatrice (Raphaelle Agogue) is expecting their first child and is keeping them financially afloat.  After losing yet another job Jackie promises that he will take any job on offer.  He accepts a six month contract to paint the outside of a retirement home.

Elsewhere, Alexandre Lagarde (Jean Reno) is facing his own demons.  He is suffering the chef’s equivalent of writer’s block and cannot decide on his (required) upcoming new spring menu.  He relies on this to retain the critics’ support and the attendant star rating for his restaurant.  Lagarde faces the additional pressure of hosting his daily TV cooking show, avidly watched by millions of French women (and men presumably).  Fate steps in and Jackie and Lagarde join forces to attempt to salvage the situation.  At times more like combatants than allies they forge a relationship where each acknowledges the other’s skills and specialities.

Attempting to subvert Lagarde’s success, Stanislaw the acting head of the restaurant’s holding company sets out to torpedo every move Lagarde makes to save his reputation and his beloved restaurant.  Far from being contrived situations we witness the cut-throat initiatives by big business to globalise a franchise of up-market restaurants regardless of the effect this may have on the chefs or the restaurants’ clientele.

Clever writing and directing by Cohen seamlessly bring in several sub-plots which only serve to further entertain the audience.  Sympathy and empathy are evoked by the storyline and fine deliveries by the main protagonists.  The audience becomes immersed in both the ongoing struggle and the apparent failures of Lagarde and Jackie to achieve their objectives.  The supporting cast are without exception well cast and do not attempt to control anything more than their allotted parts.  Although the conclusion seems inevitable and predictable Cohen delivers a finale that leaves the audience both laughing and wanting more.

In recent years Jean Reno has entertained audiences as a tough guy in both Hollywood and French/European productions.  It is well worth remembering that Reno has had many previous outings in the comedy genre and has always delivered great performances earmarked by his impeccable comedic timing.  Michaël Youn, perhaps not as well-known as his famous co-star, has nevertheless entertained audiences in over 20 films and proves to be Reno’s equal in this fine French film.

Today few films deliver comedy in both the volume and quality that studio promoters want us to believe.  Often the humour is of the schoolboy type toilet humour interspersed with language that makes many audience members cringe.  Le Chef is genuinely funny and entertaining whilst providing the audience with an insight of the restaurant trade with all its foibles and petty squabbling.  With a running time of only 84 minutes this film proves that good writing, directing and editing can tell a story without having to resort to unnecessary padding.  All the parts of the story fit together perfectly and the audience is satisfied with the process of storytelling and the story itself.

Thank you to John Richard for this review.

Men in Black 3 ★ ★ ★★

BACK IN BLACK AND LOOKING GOOD

Release Dates
Australia 24th May, 2012 UK 25th May, 2012 USA 25th May, 2012

Other Countries Release Dates

                As the song goes, ‘Here Comes the Men in Black…’ I wondered before the preview why they went back again, when they had pretty much done everything they could do with one and two. Yet, as I proudly wore my ‘Men in Black 3’ T-shirt on a Grade Six school excursion the next day, it all became clear to me as all the kids asked, “What is ‘Men in Black’”?

               It’s been fifteen years folks since the first one—yep, fifteen years, and ten since the second. So, there is a whole generation just waiting to be charmed by the idea that aliens live amongst us and the Men in Black (MIB) organization are Earth’s secret protectors. So why would they go back? Because there was one secret never revealed: Who really is Agent K?

                 “The Men in Black movies are about the relationship between Agents J (Will Smith) and K (Tommy Lee Jones)?”says Will Smith. “This movie brings that home – it’s about the power and origin of their relationship. It’s actually an idea we’ve had for years – we had the concept before the second movie – but it needed time to mature. What we had to do was elevate the story, and the only way to do that is to go deeper, deeper into the characters, deeper into the revelations that the movie would reveal.

               In Men In Black™ 3, Agents J (Will Smith) and K (Tommy Lee Jones) are still together but ten years on J is still puzzling over his partner’s irascible and secretive personality. Suddenly after the death of MIB commander, replaced by O (Emma Thompson), K disappears and nobody at MIB remembers him. Time has been altered and K now murdered in 1969 by Boris The Animal. K and J deduce that Boris must have time jumped back and killed K, before Boris loses his arm in a fight with K, and then installs an Earth protection system to stop Boris’s race, the Boglodites from invading.

               J time jumps back to 1969, where he meets a younger version of K (Josh Brolin) and thus begins the fun and games of rediscovering a very different K to the 2012 version. Although, he is still an unruffled character, gone is the cranky, worn exterior revealing a more open and sanguine K. “What happened to you?”asks young J constantly.

               But 1969 is not about reunions or solving personal secrets, as J announces to a stony faced K, “We’re running out of time, we’re running out of clues and there’s an invasion coming. So, we need to go right now.” And go they do, following a trail of murders hoping they will lead to Boris. Along the way, there is much alien and secret-uncovering fun and you will spend this part of the movie, wondering how Josh Brolin pulled off the young K character so convincingly.

                “I’ve seen the first film 45 or 50 times – I’m not exaggerating,” says Brolin. “I’m a huge fan of the chemistry between Tommy and Will. Tommy’s voice has a cadence to it that’s very specific to Men In Black – it’s very different from the way he speaks in life. I just listened to it and listened to it until I started dreaming about it. My friends would tell me that I sounded like him. I’d go out to dinner, and I’d hear, ‘You’re ordering like Tommy.’”

               Comments Director of all three MIB’s, Barry Sonnenfeld, “We shot the acts sequentially – we had Tommy playing K in the first act, then Josh came in playing K for the second act and almost all of the third act, and then in the last week of shooting we got Tommy back,” “What I found amazing was that I kept thinking I was directing one actor; the performances were so consistent that it was hard for me to tell where Tommy Lee Jones ended and Josh Brolin began. For me, it’s not about Tommy playing K or Josh playing K. It’s just K.”

               The 1969 story line answers all questions and in the closing scenes is a satisfying reveal of the real secret of the black suited partners’ relationship. Along the way, there is much sliming, much slick banter, a fabulous scene with Andy Warhol, and a truly fascinating, sweet alien, Griffin (Michael Stuhlbarg) who sees all timeline possibilities (and could be, in fact, a 1969 version of Robin Williams).

               There is sincere homage paid here to the MIB franchise and fans will not be disappointed with what truly feels like a fitting final chapter to a very cool idea. So many times when studios mine an empty franchise, filmgoers walk away knowing they’ve just been had for a quick buck. Even though some of the jokes are repeats from the previous two, and we miss Frank the Pug, do take the kids and prepare for some fun, because this time “They do make this look good”.

JUST FOR FUN

Here are the trailers for the first two Men in Black films.  Will Smith has not aged. Perhaps he is an alien?

,

21 Jump Street ★ ★ ★ ★1/2

SAME ADDRESS, BRILLIANT RENOVATION

Nope, never did!   Just wanted to state up front that I have not seen one minute of the original eighties series, 21 JUMP STREET, which set Johnny Depp on the road to stardom.  But my husband has and he was bouncing excitedly down the theatre corridor to the screening of the new 21 JUMP STREET Film.

Apparently it was a very cool series. Well it had Johnny Depp, so that I get.  However, a lot of these old hit series do not translate well into modern film.  They tend to become corny, cash grabs, that fade quickly onto DVD.  I can remember a very bad experience with MOD SQUAD (one of my faves of the seventies) where , half way through the screening, I couldn’t stop my feet from removing me from the cinema.  Yes, it was that bad.

So the question you are going to ask me is: Does it live up to the series?

The answer, drum roll please, or should I say machine gunfire in the air, is…

Yes. It (insert swear word starting with F here)ing does live up.  I add the swear word because it deserves its MA15+ rating in Australia and R in the States. The profanity and sex jokes run from the opening scene until the last car chase.  But these guys make swearing funny—very, cover your mouth oh that is terrible, funny.

21 JUMP STREET, pairs Schmidt (Jonah Hill) and Jenko (Channing Tatum) as enemies in high school who find themselves graduating as friends from Police Academy.  Schmidt is the smart nerd and Jenko the good-looking muscled and not so bright other half of the team.  After fumbling a park arrest on the bicycle beat, they are transferred into the secret Jump Street unit, run by the tough Captain Dickson (Ice Cube), whose charming turn of phrase constantly includes four letter words, Mother, and the slang for the male appendage.

From there they are sent undercover to a high school—youthful appearances and back packs in tow—where they must track down the dealers and suppliers of a new designer drug. Jenko thinks he has the undercover persona worked out, having, only a few years before, been top dog at school.  They soon discover that everything is not what they expected and Schmidt can’t resist rewriting his bad High School nerd memories even at the expense of the case and his friendship with Jenko.

The film is not a remake of 21JUMP STREET but, according to producer, Neal Moritz and executive producer Tania Landau, more an update of the premise. They admit that it wasn’t until Jonah Hill became involved that the project really came into focus. 

“It’s a great concept,” Landau says.  “Two young-looking cops go undercover at a high school, and against all odds, bust a drug ring.  We make a lot of action movies, so that was how we saw the direction for this project, too.  But things changed when we had lunch with Jonah and he suggested doing it as an R-rated action comedy.  Suddenly it all fell into place.”

Jonah Hill, who also executive produced and wrote the story, along with screenwriter Michael Bacall, says that it started with a simple question: "I asked myself what would it be like to relive the most important time period of your youth—high school.  You think you have all the answers that you didn't have then, but then you get back there and realize those answers are all wrong. You then immediately revert back to the insecurities and problems you had when you were seventeen."

Bacall explains, “At first, nothing goes as planned for the characters.  These guys treat it like wish fulfillment—‘Oh, if I only knew then what I know now’. But all of the information that they have no longer applies.  Jenko—who was always the cool kid back then—falls in with the nerds, and Schmidt—the nerdier of the two—falls in with the cool crowd.  It’s a total role reversal.”

It’s this role reversal concept that elevates 21 JUMP STREET to more than another tired action comedy cashing in on an iconic series.  Put a slick script together with two actors, who are clearly having the most fun you can have whilst being paid millions, and you have one very cool action comedy.

Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum enjoy perfect chemistry together and the film never forgets it has one job, to make us laugh and then make us laugh some more.  If you want to see the original series buy the DVD.  If you want to see what could be one of the best comedies of 2012, see 21 JUMP STREET.  It is (beeping) awesome.

The Artist ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ Hugo ★ ★ ½

The Artist  Release Dates: Australia  2^ND February 2012
USA 20th January 2012      UK 30th December 2011   Other countries

Hugo Release Dates: Australia  12th January 2012  Other countries

WHEN SILENCE IS GOLDEN

 

A film reviewer is a film lover and we happily take the good with the bad, watching the hundreds of movies a year that our passion demands.  We groan restlessly at the bad ones and buzz enthusiastically when we watch something truly remarkable.

 For many of us, slightly older film buffs, our love affair began with black and whites and—I know I am aging myself—silent films.  After school I would sit enthralled watching the antics of the Keystone Cops and the Marx Brothers—no, I wasn’t born in that era; they were reruns in the sixties.

But as time and technology marches on you expect more from your cinema experience and I must admit I am now a big “Blockbuster” fan with all the technological bells and whistles.

So, this week, I watched both ends of the spectrum dealing with the same subject matter—The Artist and Hugo. The former preview I attended, thinking how can a black and white, silent movie be as good as its PR?  And the latter viewing carried with it great anticipation.  My reaction to both, though was very different.

The Artist, set in Hollywood 1927, written and directed by MICHEL HAZANAVICIUS is the story of George Valentin (Jean Dujardin) one of Hollywood’s reigning silent screen idols.  He is the epitome of gorgeous leading man stardom, carrying the swagger and arrogance to boot.  Early in the story he crosses paths with young dancer Peppy Miller (Bérénice Bejo), and it is clear there is chemistry but circumstances separate them before anything can progress.

 Two years later, talkies are arriving and George sticks his head in the sand as Al Zimmer (John Goodman), head of Kinograph, shows him this exciting technology.  The rest is almost a ‘Star is Born’ story as George’s star wanes just as Peppy’s rises.

In Hugo, directed by Martin Scorsese, and set in 1930s Paris, Hugo Cabret (Asa Butterfield) is an orphan living in the walls of a train station.  He spends his time avoiding the Station Inspector (Sacha Baron Cohen), whilst attempting to solve a mystery involving his late father and an automaton—a kind of a wind up clockwork mechanism robot. With the aid of his new friend Isabelle (Chloë Grace Moretz), he eventually uncovers the secrets of an embittered shopkeeper Georges Méliès (Ben Kingsley).

The film is captured beautifully with superb lighting and rich, deep colours and stunning 3D sweeping views across Paris and through the train station.  The setting is as intricate and detailed as you will see in any film, and the actors would have spent most of the filming before green screens, in order for the digital artists to later weave their considerable magic.

            Without giving too much away the story is really about maintaining the preservation and respect of early black and white film. Hugo is Scorsese’s tribute to the origins of filmmaking, just as The Artist is Michel Hazanavicius’.

              My experience of both films, though, is poles apart and is not due to whizz bang effects.  In the initial twenty minutes of The Artist I felt myself rebelling against the lack of technology.  I didn’t want to watch a film without colour or sound—and try opening a packet of crisps quietly in a crowded cinema during a silent film (not easy). 

              But as the frames flickered by, we the audience were drawn in to this world to the point where you forget there are no spoken words.  All you see is an age old story, superbly acted and crafted, unfolding before you.  By the time it is over, you understand you’ve just participated in something magical.

              The whole family attended Hugo, and despite its mastery of all things film technological, my nine year old’s comment half way through was, ‘Too much talking. It’s a little boring.’  And yes, I agreed.  With everything thrown at it, it failed on the one point which is important to a book or a film; it was too wordy and too determined to prove its point.

              With Hugo’s current, wide release, box office gross only $55 million (USA) against a $170 million estimated gross and The Artist’s current $12 million (USA) against its $15 million estimated gross on limited screen release, I hope a message has been sent to Hollywood.  Tell the story first and use the special effects to supplement.  Keep your scripts tight and show, don’t tell.

              And from  the mouth of a nine year old critic, to those who wield the big cheques, too much talking is boring, no matter how pretty your picture or fabulous your Director.  I realise I am going against critical opinion but Hugo fell far short of its promise and premise and it is not a film for children despite the advertising being aimed squarely at them. 

If you desire a rare treat and want to skip lightly from the theatre with your heart uplifted, I promise you that you will find the silence of The Artist is golden.

Young Adult ★ ★★ ★

Release Date: Australia 19^th January, 2012, Other Countries

EVERYTHING BEAUTIFUL IS MADE UGLY

In watching “Young Adult”, directed and produced by Jason Reitman, there was some personal satisfaction for me, in the disaster that had become Mavis Gary’s (Charlize Theron—“Monster,” “The Road”) life.  

In being one of the unattractive skinny girls at school, I worked out that to survive you need a plan.  There was a boy in my class, surprisingly popular considering he was overweight.  There was one simple reason.   He was funny.

So, armed with humour, two shiny long haired popular girls became my friends.  Thus, began my popularity by association. When the miracle of boobs occurred, I ended up tall and curvaceous and with the most gorgeous boy in the school as a boyfriend. The best part though, was that I got to keep the personality.

Mavis lives a lonely, messy life, enjoying one-night stands she instantly regrets, in an apartment that borders on squalor. The series of young adult books, for which she ghost writes, have been cancelled and she has just received an email from her ex-high-school sweetheart with a taunting—for Mavis—picture of his new baby.

 This set up is played beautifully in the opening scenes.  By the time Mavis decides she is going to visit Buddy Slade (Patrick Wilson—“The Switch,” “Lakeview Terrace”) to rescue him, from what she imagines is an unhappy marriage, in a town where nobody in their right mind would stay, we already know we are in for a fun ride.

On her first night back, Mavis, hooks up with Matt Freehauf (Patton Oswalt “King of Queens”, “The Informant”), another former classmate who suffered such a beating at school that he now still carries a limp and other handicaps.

Matt becomes her humorous conscience and accomplice as she single-mindedly pursues Buddy, ignoring that he is clearly happily married to Beth (Elizabeth Reaser—“New Moon,” “Eclipse”).

If you like your comedies dark and lacking in redemption, à la “Bad Santa” and “Seinfeld”, then you will laugh at the outrageous behavior of Mavis.  She is never going to grow up or grow a conscience, thus remaining a perpetual young adult.

As Reitman says, “Hopefully Mavis is a character that the audience has never seen on screen before. I think that there’s a long history of male characters that we love to hate but there’s actually very few female characters that we love to hate. It requires great writing and great acting and that’s how I think this movie is going to work because Diablo Cody wrote a hell of a screenplay and Charlize knew exactly how to walk that tonal balance—that very fine razor’s edge of being brutal with people and yet very human and very funny.”

Theron is at her finest here and there would be few actresses who could carry off her cringing, unsympathetic attitude to others without overplaying it.  Theron was helped, literally, to get into character by Mavis’s wardrobe.

Reitman believed that her clothing should reflect the disconnect between Mavis’ public persona and her private self.  “We needed to establish a separation between how Mavis looked at home when nobody was watching vs. the character she created every time she went out. There was almost a sense that she was putting on different weaponry depending on her agenda,” he says.

Theron recalls, “Jason was the one who came up with the concept that she was a slob and that was really helpful for me. I came in wearing a pair of sweats during our second costume fitting. We were looking at photos of a series of possible costumes and I remember this vividly—there was a moment where Jason took a step back from looking at the photos and took a long beat, just staring at my sweatpants. He said something like, ‘Hmmm, get those in a bigger size.’ And that’s pretty much what I wore throughout the movie.  I would just roll them up and shove them in a corner in my car, drive up, put them on and we’d go straight to work.”

My one criticism of this witty, well crafted film is that it needs another twenty minutes.  From the very beginning we are treated to the unexpected indulgences of Mavis’s fantasies and opinions and when the ending arrives that, too, is unexpected in its brevity.

Still any time spent with Mavis is a good time, brief as it is, cringingly honest as it is, and redemptive as it is for all of us high school ugly ducklings.  Beauty is always in the eye of the beholder but in ‘Young Adult’, ugly is made beautifully funny.

JOURNEY TWO: THE MYSTERIOUS ISLAND ★★ ★

Release Dates: Australia 19^th January,  USA  10^th February,  UK 3^rd February

Other Countries

IT’S A JOURNEY FOR LITTLE PEOPLE

All aboard folks, it’s another journey film.  Don those 3D glasses and we are off and running from huge lizards, flying through storms, falling through gigantic eggs, and diving into oceans to escape lava.

This time around, after unlocking a secret code transmitted by his missing grandfather, Sean Anderson (Josh Hutcherson) of the predecessor Journey to the Center of the Earth, and his step-father, Hank (Dwayne Johnson) decode a puzzle hidden within three books—Jules Verne’s Mysterious Island, Jonathon Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels and Robert Louis Stevenson’s Robinson Crusoe. The code reveals the position of The Mysterious Island, and they set off for the Pacific to look for Sean’s adventuring Grandfather (Michael Caine).

Along the way they gather Kailani (Vanessa Hudgens) and her Father, Gabato (Luis Guzmán) who fly them to the Island, only accessed, they discover, through the eye of a storm.

Once on the island, they encounter the result of the ‘Island Rule’, a genuine evolutionary theory which imagines that, over the course of evolution in an isolated environment, large things can become small and small things become large.  

Thus, we have on The Mysterious Island, dog-sized elephants and bees large enough to ride.  How you steer a bee is not explained but the characters certainly seemed as adept as Star Wars Tie Fighter pilots.

This is one for the children and whilst the quite ridiculous dialogue and behaviour of the characters is redeemed somewhat by Michael Caine and the comic talent of Guzmán, most adults will be thinking, sink the island and please take Dwayne Johnson with you. But the kiddies will probably love it.  My eleven year old critic commented, ‘It’s better than the first one by miles.’ The nine-year old laughed uproariously at Gabato’s antics.

It’s a bit of fun, with intriguing use of Verne’s imaginative literary creations, and special effects that will keep most children between the ages of eight and fourteen very happy. Adults please note, whilst visiting the island, keep your brain switched to low and just enjoy the ride.  Don’t analyse the plot holes or you will certainly fall off.  And before you see the film, do explain to your children first, “No, you are not getting an elephant.  Yes, they are cute, but they get big.”

We Bought A Zoo ★ ★★ ★

DVD Release Date: April 3, 2012.

Release Date Australia :  26^th December 2011  Other countries



YOU WILL LOVE THE HUMANS

The trailer for We Bought a Zoo does not do this film justice. 

There should be a disclaimer after it, which reads: ‘This montage of one liners does not truly portray this film. We acknowledge we have made it seem ridiculously over-the-top schmaltzy.  In reality it is a well-crafted, beautifully acted and delivered piece of cinema.  You may suddenly find tears rolling down your cheeks when you least expect it. In fact, more than a few tears, a few times.  We hope our poor effort at promotion will not put you off a family movie you would really enjoy.’  Now that I have got that off my chest, on with the review.

What I like most about movies like this, is that they remind me of what is important in life.  Even if the wonderful idea, that family is everything, only stays with me for the five minutes it takes to get to the car—before the arguing starts about who sits where—then I say ‘good job’.

Okay, I am going to admit it—as a mother of two boys, nine and eleven, I sometimes hide from them.  The fighting, the whining, the constants demands are something that makes my brain fizzle and my temper rise quicker than the volcano in Journey to the Centre of the Earth. 

So, I’ll take anything that caps that feeling for a little while.

And when I attend a screening—especially in December where there is a preview every second day— expecting to experience a yawn fest of schmaltz I’m usually not in the mood to receive great messages of wisdom.  A side note, my husband and kids were also not excited to see this one either.

So, when We Bought A Zoo, which at first appears to be just another Hollywood formulaic movie, begins to weave its tale, I was surprised to find that none of our family were yawning.  We were surprisingly engaged.   Even in the first thirty minutes, it was clear this movie was turning into something special.  And I should have known because Cameron Crowe, the writer director, has managed this surprise before.

 If you asked me did I want to see movies on the following subjects, high school kid follows rock band to score an interview for Rolling Stone magazine (Almost Famous); sports agent develops a soul and falls in love (Jerry Maguire); selfish publisher goes on weird adventure after an accident (Vanilla Sky), I would have said, ‘Sounds OK but I don’t care if I miss them’.   Yet, they were all surprisingly enjoyable and I would have to say memorable, because I can still recall their plots years later.

We Bought A Zoo sounds average as far as plots go but the way it is told is anything but average.  Freelance adventure journalist, Benjamin Mee, a recently widowed Father to an obstinate and non-communicative teenager Dylan (Colin Ford) and adorable six year old Rosie (Maggie Elizabeth Jones) has had enough.  He decides they need to make a new start away from life’s stresses.

Whilst looking for houses, they come upon the perfect home with plenty of land and a large house.  But there’s a catch.  It also comes with a private zoo, run by a close knit and eclectic group of people led by head zoo keeper, Kelly Foster (Scarlett Johansson). 

Benjamin follows his own repetitive advice which will all make sense by the end of the movie—‘All you need is twenty seconds of insane courage’—and buys the zoo.  Looming over their heads, before they can reopen the zoo, is the zoo inspection by Walter Ferris (John Michael Higgins), a tough cookie who seems dead set against green lighting the place, as he happily hands out expensive renovation lists.

Amongst the inside look at the chaos of running a private zoo there is a drama with a sick tiger, teenage angst amidst first love, money worries, and wonderful lines delivered perfectly from little Maggie Elizabeth Jones. She is so adorable, that if asked I may have traded one of my own kids for her.

Probably one of the best lines in the film, delivered by Duncan Mee (Thomas Haden Church), Benjamin’s brother, is also the best way to describe why this film works so well.  ‘I like the animals but I love the humans,’ says Duncan.

We can all understand struggling with parenthood, friendship, loss and love and wanting something better for our family—it’s part of being human.   I love it when we hopeless humans are given a beautiful glimmer of hope. Even if it is only for the 124 minutes duration of a movie which inspires us enough, that we turn to our kids and say, ‘You drive me nuts but I love you.’

I promise you, if despite the bad trailer, you decide to brave seeing this movie something amazing will happen, you just might love the humans too.

Jack and Jill ★★ ★ ½

Why when Sandler falls down, he keeps his crown

Let us first address the elephant in the room.  Jack and Jill (Dennis Dugan, 2011), has universally not received good reviews.  Adam Sandler movies do not impress film critics.  Yet, his movies are graced with cameos and starring roles from some of the best actors in the business.  Drew Barrymore, Christopher Walken, Donald Sutherland, Don Cheedle, Leslie Mann, Eric Bana, and of course, Jack Nicholson are some of the respected thespians with credits in his films.

In his latest offering, Jack and Jill, Sandler’s taken a step beyond, casting Oscar© winner Al Pacino as himself.  Pacino, though, doesn’t play the serious tough guy this time; instead he is a Pacino losing-his-marbles who is obsessed with Jill. He first arrives in the film alongside a cameo appearance by the cool man, himself, Johnny Depp and spends the rest of the film lampooning himself.

So, if Sandler’s movies are as bad as his critics claim, why then do all these box office actors deign to appear in his critically panned movies?  The answer I believe is simple; they think his material is funny. They get his humour, just like most of the audiences that happily pay to see his movies, get his humour.

When I go to see an Adam Sandler movie I’m not expecting to see a thought provoking piece nor find myself changed in any way.  I’m not even expecting to remember the plot a year later. Although strangely enough I can remember most of his film’s plots, whereas ask me about some of the superhero ones and you will draw a blank stare.

What I am expecting, when the poster says starring Adam Sandler, are people falling over a lot and being whacked by objects, Adam’s character the brunt of some kind of one-joke running gag, and co-stars that appear to be having a lot of fun being downright silly.

And in varying degrees every time I see a Sandler movie, I get exactly what I expect and exactly what I want—a silly ninety minutes of slapstick, and toilet humour laughter.  Now what then is there to complain about when a movie delivers exactly what it promises?

The latest addition to the Sandler stable is ‘Jack and Jill’, in which he plays both lead roles—seamlessly stitched together I might add.  Prepare to find yourself forgetting that it is actually him in the role of Jill.

Jack has a great life, with his wife Erin (Katie Holmes) and their two children.  Every year his twin sister Jill, who is the relative from hell, invades his life.  She arrives to stay Thanksgiving weekend and comes with a long list of activities she wants to enjoy during the visit.

Jill, through a twist of fate meets Al Pacino, who is instantly attracted to her, pursuing her relentlessly in some very funny scenes.  Sadly, for Pacino, his love is unrequited. However, in order for Jack’s plan—of having Pacino star in one of his commercials—to succeed, he needs to convince Jill to stay longer than the planned weekend and somehow change her mind about Pacino.  The rest of the plot is pure Sandler formulae, where in the end Jack realises family is what matters.

My kids love Adam Sandler movies.  Sitting next to them at the Jack and Jill screening, listening to their enthusiastic laughter as Sandler’s Jill punches a guy through a door, wreaks havoc in a swimming pool with a jet ski and destroys Pacino’s Oscar with a bat and ball, it occurred to me that there are not many comedies I can see with my kids.  There is no swearing.  There is no sex and the violence is Punch and Judy style, without a drop of blood.  It is just slapstick and gags, pure and simple.

As a kid, I loved Saturday afternoon movies with the Three Stooges, and Jerry Lewis and Dean Martin—Jerry Lewis at one stage was my favourite actor. I suspect in their day they also copped a fair bit of criticism for their mindless slapstick humour.  Yet, I adored them and they are a fond part of my childhood memories.

I am probably going against the tide of critics who hate Adam Sandler films, when I suggest that Sandler is the Jerry Lewis of our day.  He is funny and he is good at what he does, which is making audiences laugh.

As one friend said of his movies, ‘You need to check your brain at the theatre door.’  And you know what, at the screening I attended there must have been a very full brain check cloakroom, because there was a heck of a lot of laughter filling the theatre.  Laughter is what Sandler aims for and laughter is what he delivers.  How can you rate that badly?