Comments Off on Liar Liar

Liar Liar

Posted by: |

This Friday I saw Liar Liar, a Jim Carrey comedy in which a son who misses his father makes a wish that dad (that would be Jim Carrey) can’t lie for one whole day.

The short version: Midway through the movie I already wanted to come back and see it again. Jennifer Tilly says it is “All of Me crossed with Kramer vs. Kramer.” So I hope you liked those movies because they make a great Liar Liar.

The long version: Every time I talk about a Jim Carrey movie I try to remain aware that there are slews of people out there who find him to be sophomoric, over-muggy, and stupid. If the only Carrey movie you have ever seen is the first Ace Ventura, you might have that impression. But if you’re like me and my moviegoing partner (Kevin), you let yourself laugh at Jim Carrey’s antics and curse yourself for falling for it. Each Carreysim that passes it becomes easier and easier to relax and admit I am enjoying the hell out of myself!

So, this preface is merely to say that I am working with the assumption that you already like Jim Carrey. I am becoming a bigger and bigger fan of his each film (yes, even Dumb and Dumber surprised some hoots out of me – damn me!). If you are NOT a fan of Jim Carrey, my strong recommendation would be to see Liar Liar and THEN pass judgement on his comic talent and his ability to hold a movie together with something other than his butt cheeks. His character is more mature in this movie, and most (95%) of the time he is not doing the rubberfaced diva act that turns some people off.

I ramble on because Jim Carrey is one of those actors people tend to remain negative about – if they saw something they didn’t like, and when the hype wave makes him more ubiquitous, they just wanna resist more. But to you non-believers out there, this might be the Carrey movie that breaks you. It has truly unrealistic and outlandish moments, sure, but they are fueled by his desperation. The rest of the movie (once you accept the no-lies spell) is extremely real and honest. Oh, and it’s really funny! Did I mention that part?

Whew! Now on with the actual review!

The crux of Liar Liar is that attorney Fletcher (Jim C.) is destroying his relationship with his 5 year old son by being a lying flake. By having to tell the truth all day, he undergoes a transformation – for the better of course. While on paper this sounds awfully hokey, it really works well for the movie, balancing the wacky Carrey moments with real warmth, without being gooey.

I am sure most of you have seen the previews and thought to yourself, well, I know those jokes now, why should I see the movie? I am sick to death of memorizing a gag from a preview and finding out it’s the biggest laugh of the movie, and watching what should have been a peak comic moment flop within the whole context of the film because I have seen the joke a zillion times. Liar Liar does no such injustice. The bits you see in the preview are end pieces stuck together with even funnier stuff between them than they show in the teaser. And there’s plenty more where that came from!

The previews hint at a treacly sub plot of family and an adorable child (the son’s birthday wish, tinkling music, etc.) but this child (Justin Cooper) and Maura Tierney (Audrey/mom – you would recognize her from NewsRadio) and Jim Carrey (dad) have a truly involved relationship. For you Cary Elwes fans out there (all three of you) he plays Audrey’s boyfriend.

T. Fletcher’s conflict with himself (the emotional one – you’ll have to see the movie to see the physical one!) is extremely genuine and I even misted up at points. Carrey is actually a very gifted actor whose audience doesn’t want to see him be serious. His TV movie Doing Time On Maple Drive should be rereleased so he has a chance at more opportunities than playing a guy who can…well I don’t want to give anything away, but when he goes into the courthouse bathroom, watch out for funny! No, it has nothing to do with body functions.

I tend to grow impatient with kids in movies, either because they are Hollywood style precocious or act10 years older than they should be. Fletcher’s son Max was very real, very sweet, and best of all, not trying to be as funny as the lead. It’s great watching these two together – and the more I feel for the “serious” part of the film, the more hilarious becomes Fletchers battle with himself. He isn’t *told* that he cannot tell a lie for a day – it just sort of happens. It’s as if a cosmic ventriloquist is physically manipulating his vocal cords to say “YES” even as his mouth and brain and demeanor are trying to say “NO.” (Boy it’s tempting to give something away) – the examples they give in the preview sound mean spirited rather than just sounding like enforced honesty – but he is terribly embarrassed by the words that spew out of his mouth. We like his kid as much as he does, so we feel his pain that his truth-telling contortions are causing him. Bust a gut funny is this!

The supporting players are funny (even Oscar nominee Jennifer Tilly!) and the Carrey machinations are funny, it’s all funny. The director, Tom Shadyac, used to be a stand-up comedian himself and he knows how to use the rhythm and tempo of Jim’s performance to propel the movie rather than to drag it down, SNL-style.

My vote: Full Price Feature (need a sound cue right here – how about cha-ching!)

Author note: This was my very first review, and it started me on the path to where I am now. I just wanted Jim Carrey detractors to give him a chance, and so I emailed this to a bunch of my friends, who essentially said, “keep doing it.” Thanks, guys. And thanks, Mr. Carrey.

MPAA Rating PG-13
Release date 3/25/1997
Time in minutes 87
Director Tom Shadyac
Studio Universal

Comments Off on Orgazmo / Cannibal the Musical

Orgazmo / Cannibal the Musical

Posted by: |

Orgazmo is not an NC17 movie. I actually saw this at a test screening in June or July and signed a paper saying I was not a reviewer and that I would not tell anyone what I thought. Well the freakin movie is released now, all bets are off. The friend I saw the movie with agreed with me that there was nothing NC17 about the movie, but it was likely the church would picket it. Well, it is certainly, from a religious right standpoint, more worthy of picketing than The Last Temptation of Christ, but it’s not very harmful. I could be wrong, coming from my background, but I also don’t picket movie theatres – I tell you what to spend and then I let you make the choice.

It is a silly, funny, pleasant movie about a Mormon (Trey Parker) who accidentally becomes a porn star, Orgazmo. It has no real nudity at all but LOTS of very graphic talk the likes of which I had forgotten since my college days. It is very very very sarcastic in its representation of religion in general and more specifically, the church of Jesus Christ and his Latter Day Saints, aka The Mormons. To Trey Parker (yes, that Trey Parker, the cute one)’s credit, Mormons are not depicted as evil, like many church bashing comedies tend to do, but they are depicted as hopelessly out of touch with their bodies and therefore with reality or fun. However you will take that, do, but Orgazmo is still no NC 17 movie by a long shot. There is more skin on Melrose Place and more graphic talk…well, OK, nowhere else. But it’s just talk. It’s also a great parody of the silly fringe genre porno movies, the ones that turn out material like Edward Penishands, and Grosse Pointe Spankings.

The concept of the film, a Mormon “accidentally” becoming a porn star, is quite silly, and there are no boners, er bones about that. It is very silly, and quite funny and quite uplifting, too, in it’s hell-in-a-handbasket way. If you don’t know what a choda is (and our test audience almost universally did not, despite the star’s sidekick being named ChodaBoy), it’s the perineum, aka the ’tain’t. Look it up. I am alarmed to admit that I recognized some genuine porn actors in the movie with cameos and one even with the coveted role of the Sperminator or some such bad guy. Well, I do have a male roommate! Porn happens. Knowing that these people were actual porn stars, however, lent the film a cachet I am certain it did not intend – that of pretender to the Boogie Nights throne, a gentle movie about the rigors of the porn industry. I dug it overall, it’s just not all that good. Better than your average Troma film, that is certain.

Re-released only a month or so earlier, Cannibal the Musical (another Trey Parker and Matt Stone venture from a few years back) is another example of simple comedy turned merely amusing. It’s silly and definitely low rent, just for laughs, but also kind of endearing. An 1883 band of explorers vanishes and only one man survives, and he tells his tale of woe from jail, largely in song and flashback, as would be expected. Parker has a nice singing voice, actually, and it’s hard to imagine Mr. Garrison being much of a singer. Unlike what I heard about Baseketball, Cannibal and Orgazmo are only using the lads’ fame to get bankrolled, not suck in audience hoping to hear a Cartman impression. I predict Orgazmo and Cannibal will eventually get some play on cable and then win their following, as the silly, enjoyable but still probably pretty offensive future cult favorites they seem destined to become.

MPAA Rating BC-17-language, drug use, crude sexual humor, blasphemy, what else?
Release date 10/23/98
Time in minutes 90
Director Trey Parker and Matt Stone
Studio October Films

Cannibal the Musical
MPAA Rating R-violence, drug use, brief nudity I think too
Release date 1996
Time in minutes 92
Director Trey Parker and Matt Stone
Studio October Films

Comments Off on Waiting for Guffman

Waiting for Guffman

Posted by: |

Now, before I get started, I want to point out to those who are thinking, “Isn’t she a little biased to be writing this review?” that, yes, I am. I had the privilege of 2 weeks on the set of this film, which is why I waited until I saw it again last night before I wrote a review. Knowing stuff they cut out, I was disappointed and frustrated with the released version, but on a more objective viewing, I feel I can safely say that this movie will appeal to people who
find humor in the following venues:

Small towns
Community Theatre
Bad Theatre
Mock Documentaries
Dry, deadpan humor

If this stuff is not your cup of tea, the 82 minutes selected for your viewing pleasure (from 60+ hours of footage!) will probably just float on by. If you are like me, however, you will find it very funny – there are understanding smiles kind of humor, and laugh out loud kind of humor.

It’s a mock documentary, in the tradition of Spinal Tap and Smile, of a small town, Blaine, in Missouri putting on a musical for it’s 150th birthday. Christopher Guest stars and directs, and with Eugene Levy (of SCTV fame) wrote the outline around which the actors improvised all their lines (except those in the actual musical). Levy is in it as well, as a not-funny dentist-cum-actor, as are Parker Posey (an indie film favorite), Fred Willard (Spinal Tap, anything Martin Mull has ever done), Catherine O’Hara (Beetlejuice, SCTV, The Home Alone movies), and many more faces you will recognize from film and TV. You can see me, too!

Anyway -Corky St. Clair (Chris Guest) hopes to attract the eye of a Broadway producer, and they mount this ridiculous show, which chronicles high points in Blaine’s history. Blaine has been visited by a UFO, been the Footstool manufacturing captial of the world, among home to some great characters, improvised by everyone. The songs in the show were written by Christopher Guest, Michael McKean, and Harry Shearer of Spinal Tap fame. It’s gently amusing and not at all mean spirited. I myself recommend it highly! It’s had great reviews too and a great web page – I can’t quite say full price feature because it’s not quite the pure genius of Spinal Tap or Living in Oblivion.
But there is the bonus of looking for me! :) I counted last night – I am in four scenes but there are 7 shots. One is a stretch but the first person who can name all seven shots will win….something!*

*prize may vary due to geographical location of the winner
Note: as of August 2010 this prize has yet to be collected.

MPAA Rating R – language
Release date 1/31/97
Time in minutes 84
Director Christopher Guest
Studio Columbia Pictures

Comments Off on Scream


Posted by: |

I grew up watching horror films. I saw them too young and too many – and Michael Myers still scares the crap out me even when the film has nothing but crap left in itself. Writer Kevin Williamson clearly shares the same nervous fondness for the genre as myself (and clearly, many others) do – he has managed to make a movie that is both genuine scary movie and arch parody of scary movies. It’s the film’s very self-awareness that makes it different from all the rest. Instead of following the time-honored horror rules that it so carefully details, it leads them – the virgin is immune from death, we are told, but what if she gives it up! oh heavens that wasn’t supposed to happen!

The movie begins with Drew Barrymore and goes somewhere totally different – and by the end you are so amazed that they took you there so adroitly, so smoothly, and yet with so many geniune yuks, you want to see it again! At least, that’s how it was for me. The characters mock the very archetypes they end up playing – and they weave in and out of Red-Herringville with smooth abandon. A groovy cameo by the Fonz himself (as the high school principal) is a nice nod to we who have grown up freaking out that Freddy will come in our sleep. Watch for funny horror cameos and winks here and there.

My favorite moment involves parallel action between the characters’ viewing habits and the reality all around them. I don’t want to give anything away but it involves a van, Jamie Kennedy, and Jamie Lee Curtis. It sums up what I love about Scream. It’s smart, but it’s not too smart – it hands you some information and hides other information – it dances around, pointing you in the direction it wants, but upon repeat viewing it doesn’t suffer like movies like The Game do.

Grab some friends, a big bowl of popcorn, check all the locks in your house…and obey all the rules! This movie makes ’em and breaks ’em! Woo hoo!

MPAA Rating R -graphic horror violence/gore, and language
Release date 12/20/96
Time in minutes 111
Director Wes Craven
Studio Dimension Films

Comments Off on That Thing You Do

That Thing You Do

Posted by: |

Dismissed as fluff by critics and audiences alike, That Thing You Do is perched delicately on the pop culture crest of rock and roll as fad and lifestyle, jazz as high art and street art, and the first wave of the one hit wonders. First time feature film writer/director Tom Hanks does not make the Woody Allen mistake of casting himself as the lead in a role he was so clearly meant to play. Instead he casts new(ish) face Tom Everett Scott as the Tom Hanks guy, a good hearted, artistic, sensitive guy who is also sensible and gentlemanly. The catchy title song was played a thousand times a day on the radio in 1996 and maybe that kept everyone away. If so, it is their loss.

It’s not just good because it’s an exuberant breath of fresh air and has great production design. It’s good because it takes a tale of naïve ambition and incredible good fortune and turns it into a perfect time capsule parable of its time, with fleshy characters and themes of success versus fame versus art, and the marriage of jazz and rock and roll.

Hanks’ unerring eye cast then-obscure and now-desirable stars as Ethan Embry, Steve Zahn, Tom Everett Scott, and Jonathan Schaech, who fulfill the boy band credo of four different types to appeal to all different folks, with easy, natural chemistry. And then he taught them to play their instruments over 5 weeks. Liv Tyler’s groupie girlfriend, in those innocent pre-Rolling Stone days, adds poignancy. Hanks makes this big splashy colorful movie feel like an intimate indie film.

It’s a story that was lived out hundreds of times in the 1964 in which it was set (with impeccable detail), and again in the mid-eighties after the next major rock musical innovation. Instead of jazz, the 1980’s had electronica scoop every one hit wonder out of the bars and bowling alleys of America and England.

Sheer, pure teenage joy is difficult to sum up in words, let alone successfully recreate with a team of 200 union artists. The scene that brings That Thing You Do home for me is the scene where their song gets its first radio airing. I won’t tell you any more, in case you haven’t seen it, but it is a sequence like that which brings us to the movie theatres.

MPAA Rating PG

Release date 10/4/96

Time in minutes 108

Director Tom Hanks

Studio 20th Century Fox

Comments Off on Forgotten Silver

Forgotten Silver

Posted by: |

(with the short, “Signing Off”)
The short, Signing Off, was a wonderful New Zealander farce about a DJ going to extraordinary lengths to honor a request. It’s definitely not realistic but it is really clever and funny. And even poignant – the NZers, like their British cousins, have managed to hold on to the art of keeping characters sympathetic while making them funny, a skill all but lost to Hollywood.

Anyway, Colin McKenzie directs and I swear I will see everything else he does based on this short. Bruce Lynch’s music was very exciting as well. It’s nutty and funny – a DJ’s last show after over 20 yrs, and his one remaining listener makes a request – he will do anything to honor it – including dive into a rat infested sewer and…well, it’s great chucks, mate.

Forgotten Silver is a mockumentary shot entirely in the realm of artifice (not conceding to reality as Spinal Tap and Waiting for Guffman and When God Spoke do) and in the style of A&E’s Biography. It’s absolutely true to the bowing and scraping homages we Americans produce – but it too is New Zealander. One of the co-directors/writers is the venerable Peter Jackson, better known for Meet the Deedles, Heavenly Creatures, and Dead Alive. The other is Costa Botes.

I took shamefully few notes but Forgotten Silver details the prodigious life of a “lost” filmmaker and his incredible advances that were lost to history…until now. Production Designer John Girdlestone had a daunting task to create “historical” equipment and stagings for the archive photographs of the film genius XXX. This supergenius filmmaker, posthumously inducted into the pantheon of cinema greats such as D.W. Griffith, Orson Welles, and more, created the first talking picture in 1908, the first color film in 1911, but madness and poverty and the usual tolls drove him into obscurity.

I think my companions and I were the only ones who either knew enough about basic film history to get the anachronisms, or the only ones who knew it was a joke. Without a hint of irony the credits thank the widow of XXX and make no attempt to destroy the illusion. Lost cities built by hand over a decade for an epic film slashed into pieces by Miramax? Indeed. My companions and I were laughing uproariously, for the first half. The second half slowed down some but was still very interesting and beautifully executed.

It will surely be as elusive to find in the video stores as any of the late genius’ work, but if you can see it, do see it.

*Note: There is a DVD of Forgotten Silver available via Check Hollywood Video.

Comments Off on Emma (compared to Sense & Sensibility)

Emma (compared to Sense & Sensibility)

Posted by: |

There comes a time in every woman’s life where she needs to curl up with a pizza, some Reeses Peanut Butter Cups, and Jane Austen, and last weekend was just such a time. I picked Emma at the store because I hadn’t seen it since it came out, and even though I had also *read* it, I completely forgot my impression of it. Plus it had Ewan McGregor in it. Did I mention Girl Scout cookies?

After greatly disliking Gwynneth Paltrow in Great Expectations, I was horrified to find myself adoring her again in this film, and the multitude of wonderful people who join her – Jeremy Northam, priming himself for the conjugal spanking of a lifetime, Phyllida Law and her daughter, Ms. Thompson – not Emma, but her sister whose name escapes me – it didn’t even occur to me to write anything down at this stage in the game. Emma Thompson’s sister (to that actress, I sincerely apologize) is big in British TV and not so much in film, but she gives an excellent performance as the poor spinster friend to Paltrow’s Emma. And Toni Collette – how underappreciated she is!

I had forgotten how true to the book this adaptation was, and I appreciated by proxy how true to the source material Clueless is as well. I have always like Austen’s women leads, they are strong but neurotic, insecure but confident, lovely yet stupid at times as well – they are perfectly normal people, trapped in this unwittingly sexy period when restraint was the order of the day and gossip and wordplay were art forms. Oh, I wish I could conjure such magical times in my immediate social circle!

Ah well. Yet despite the restraint and British stuffiness and decorum, the mood is so genial and comfortable – I can’t stand the formality of a regular mid-week sit down dinner, much less servants and dressing for tea!

After traipsing through a pleasant, winsome, sunny British romantic tale, I said, well, geez, I have to watch Sense and Sensibility again. Watching the two films together, it is difficult to imagine the germs of the books coming from the same author – true, the films have different casts and directors, but Sense and Sensibility draws more deeply from the well of melodrama (in the best sense) with a wider range of pain and joy than in felt in Emma. Emma is an adolescent tragedy that turns out well – Sense and Sensibility is a more dire, heartfelt exploration of women’s predicaments and feelings. Emma was written 5 years after S & S – could it be Austen just lightened up? Or is Ang Lee (director of S & S) simply more sensitive to the issues underlying the plot?

The bottom line is, who cares? They are both excellent books and movies in their own right, and neither actually lose anything when contrasted to the other. And I want to buy them both on DVD when available. The sexual tension is a bit more exposed in Emma, perhaps because it is a more “Hollywood” film. And frankly, there are way hotter guys in Emma as well, and a greater number of lovely ladies. The incomparable Kate Winslet’s sensibility is a keen match to Emma Thompson’s sense; while both actresses are thought of as those personalities in real life, it’s their sisterly affection that sells us on the contrast.
Rent them both and you will see. Neither will disappoint, even on repeated viewings. My 10th grade English teacher was right – there is a reason these books become classics, and it’s because they’re freakin’ great.

*Author’s note, much much later in time: While Emma remains a delicate froth of a movie, Sense and Sensibility always makes it onto my top ten list of all time for its sheer perfection of craft and content, casting and color. if you are trying to choose, Sense should win every time. Also: enjoy Clueless as a brilliant modernization of Emma!

MPAA Rating PG
Release date 8/2/96
Time in minutes 121
Director Douglas McGrath
Studio Miramax

Sense and Sensibility
MPAA Rating PG
Release date 12/14/95
Time in minutes 135
Director Ang Lee
Studio Columbia Pictures

Comments Off on Babe


Posted by: |

Hi again!
This weekend, the Best Boyfriend in the World and I went to see Babe, a Universal Studios talking pig movie, not to be confused with Gordy, another talking pig movie.

First of all, I am not going into why we went to see it, I normally shy away from fluffy kiddie treats, but this movie was GREAT! It was funny, it had a good message for kids (tolerance and generally being nice are the ebst ways to make it in the world), the technical aspects of the talking animals were astounding–thanks to Jim Henson’s Creature Shop, they didn’t wiggle their lips like Mr. Ed, they talked! Animatronics and some computer wizardry and we were transported to a (well, almost) timeless barnyard with real characters and lots of great personalities.

The story is from the British children’s tale, The SheepPig, and it’s of Babe, an orphaned pig (yes, just like Gordy), who comes to the Valley and tries to fit in to his new non-pig family…but it’s more than that. It was funny, and tragic, and visually fabulous–shot in Australia, this is no regular Valley! I recommend it for adults and kids alike, but if there is anyone who can’t find something to like in this film, he is too cold for this world. The irising between scenes got a little old, and the singing mice were a tad too Chipmunks-y, but both myself and the Best Boyfriend in the World (so named because he not only took me to see Babe but also Gordy because I got them confused at first! What were the odds we’d be having a talking pig renaissance?) had a great time!

MPAA Rating G
Release date 8/4/95
Time in minutes 91
Director Chris Noonan
Studio Universal Pictures

Comments Off on Powder


Posted by: |

Now I have read all the press on Powder, and I went to go see it, completely forgetting about the director’s spotty personal past. I want to say at the outset that at no time did I find Powder to be homoerotic–the scene many reviewers describe as the camera lingering over the hot body of one of Powder’s fellow students I had interpreted, sitting in the theatre, as a very Elephant-Man-like moment of envy on Jeremy (Powder)’s part–he wanted to have hair on his body and head and skin colored skin and be normal and to be accepted, as we all do, even if only at some point. The camera looks at the student lovingly but also enviously–who among us has not at some point, particularly in adolescence, seen something in someone and wished to have that effortless beauty or to fit in. I did find the scene to be a tad sexy, but no more sexy than any shot of an attractive young man. There are so many comparably lingering shots of women in film these days, I wonder that this take in particular was so dissected.

Read On

Comments Off on Nine Months

Nine Months

Posted by: |

Warning: At this point in my life I am *not* interested in having kids so please don’t flip out if you think I am a deviant for thinking this. This is humor writing as well as a review.

Read On