(Very) Short Takes: "MIB 3", "Madagascar 3", "21 Jump Street", "The Intouchables".

Sometimes adaptations of TV shows work better than they should, which happens to be the case with 21 Jump Street. Recurring to the modern fad of bromances, this one has former high school enemies Morton Schmidt (Hill) and Greg Jenko (Tatum) become best friends during their training at Police Academy. The geek learns from the jock (no need to point out who plays what, right?) and soon the roles are once again inverted when they're sent back to high school on an undercover assignment. The film doesn't really make an effort to be much more than it should be, although it has to be said that when compared to recent comedies, this one -gasp-is surprisingly funny throughout. Hill and Tatum don't stretch their acting muscles beyond what we know them for, but the screenplay and the high-spirited direction of dynamic duo Lord and Miller make it pleasant, sometimes hilarious(despite moments of massive eye-rolling) and actually rather sweet.

Those who take so much pride in belittling Hollywood for its mundane, lowbrow sensibilities, and brag about the wonders of European cinema should be eating their words while watching The Intouchables. The movie isn't just proof that even the French can do crappy cinema, it's also proof that they have seen something they want to emulate in the lowbrow Hollywood movies they criticize so much. This "feel good" flick, was "inspired by true events" and shows us how Driss, a poor man from the Parisian projects (Omar Sy) injects new life to lonesome, millionaire tetraplegic Philippe (Francois Cluzet). The movie feels like a montage of everything that's wrong with how movies choose to treat their audiences - there is nary a moment that doesn't feel calculated and overstudied - and while its magical negro center might be excused by France's lack of racist self-awareness, there is much to be said about the way in which it reduces its characters to silly archetypes, nothing but shadows of real humans.

If you enjoyed Madagascar and Madagascar 2, this unnecessary sequel is just what you were looking for. There isn't much to add to this series which by now has become a purely money-making enterprise. This time around, the escaped zoo animals join a circus and travel across Europe as they try to avoid being caught by a psychotic Animal Control officer. The movie is aimed at children who will undoubtedly be enthralled by the simple humor, visual gags and colorful situations. Thinking adults however might be offended by the film's complete lack of subtlety, especially because there aren't any cheap jokes it shies away from (including countless punches at how Europeans are "weird"). From its use of Katy Perry, to the way in which it avoids taking any real risks, this is one of those movies you know were better than the previous chapter but still won't remember the day after you've seen it.

Men in Black 3 seems to be rooted on a strange thirst for 90s nostalgia, that has invaded movie screens recently. While the first installment was groundbreaking and helped establish Will Smith as the king of summer movies, the ten years that have gone by after the sequel have proved that time isn't always forgiving. Tommy Lee Jones practically disappears for the entire movie and is replaced by Josh Brolin (never a bad thing to be honest) who plays a younger version of his character. The film's time-travel premise gives path to many plot holes, confusion and all the issues brought on by bending time, but despite its shortcomings (Will Smith isn't half as charismatic onscreen as he used to be) the film results rather enjoyable.

Grades
21 Jump Street **½
The Intouchables *
Madgascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted **
Men in Black 3 **

Sheet-y Saturday.

Where we take a look at posters for upcoming features.

Even if this poster is absolutely ridiculous in terms of laziness (Nancy Meyers much, anyone?) there is something about Meryl Streep that always makes everything better. Her sly look and smile in this picture, accompanied by the title of the book she's reading, tell us more about the movie than the trailer! Apparently the marketing team was aware of this and they decided to concentrate just on the picture and make the rest a mess of typography, colors (where should I read first?) and unreadable taglines.  

Charlize Theron is badasssss and that's pretty much all there is to this.

Which of these two do you think represent their movies best? Excited about post-Oscar Meryl?

Captain America: The First Avenger ***

Director: Joe Johnston

Cast: Chris Evans, Sebastian Stan, Tommy Lee Jones

Hayley Atwell, Neal McDonough, Dominic Cooper

Hugo Weaving, Derek Luke, Stanley Tucci

Out of the large universe of Marvel superheroes, Captain America has always been one of the strangest because unlike say, Spider-Man or Hulk, despite their US headquarters, he doesn't really represent a global cause. The stars and spangles on his uniform appeal specifically to Americans and no, the rest of the world does not consider the US of A to be its savior. In fact it's essentially intriguing to ask oneself why would a studio bother in making and distributing a film about such a specifically American icon when the country has unarguably been losing more and more prestige as a mediator of nations. Oh wait, there we have the answer...

In reality this film isn't so much a prequel to The Avengers or yet another money making blockbuster, it's basically a propagandistic piece that tries to recover the very American idea which says that the prouder you are of the USA, the more you will make foreigners admire you.

This sounds like a tough sell after the disastrous international consequences brought about by the Bush administration and the mixture of antipathy and pity brought on by the inefficient Obama government.

Each of these factors make Captain America: The First Avenger a complex beast because it's meant precisely to work as the sort of nationalistic fluff made during the war, designed to attract young men to enlist and young women to drool over their efforts. So, what's the best way to convey this without getting flack from liberals and extremist praise from conservatives? You make the movie an homage to the lost art of propaganda, you set it during the era when it thrived, you bash in the method's techniques and surreal patriotism and you get to have your cake and eat it too.

This is precisely what director Johnston does for this film, he borrows the retro aesthetics of his superb The Rocketeer, throws in some modern quips to satisfy comic book fans and even casts non-distinctive actors (can anyone tell the difference between Atwell, Sienna Miller and Claire Danes?) to fulfill the promise that anyone can become Captain America.

Chris Evans pulls off the all-American handsome blue eyed, blonde hair look as super soldier Steve Rogers, who starts out as a Benjamin Button-ized skinny young man with good intentions who catches the eye of a Nazi-escapee scientist (the always wonderful Tucci) who realizes he's the best subject for his new program. Rogers then is injected with a serum that - in the best fairy tale way - creates a physical manifestation of his inner values. Therefore the meek Rogers who hates bullies and never says no to a good cause turns into the obscenely muscular version of Evans we already know. Problem is that before he escaped Germany, the good scientist also conducted the experiment on the insane Dr. Schmidt (Weaving) who turned into a supervillain trying to destroy the world by means of Nordic god weaponry.

The film then becomes a brisk adventure that recalls 30s and 40s serials, the film exudes a lovely Indiana Jones spirit and the art design and costumes are spot on. The film is often at its best when it inadvertently gives us glimpses of the futuristic views of the past. Cooper is a scene-stealer as crazily seductive engineer Howard Stark (Iron Man's dad) and he shows absolute joy in a manic Howard Hughes inspired way. Gotta love that he gets to pull off the mustache now favored by hipsters the world over, while staying true to the aesthetics and customs of the era he's in.

For all its talk of American pride and honor, the film can get quite sneaky at times and you might find yourself rooting for the Captain's illegal operations. Perhaps all changes in times of war but to justify invasion in this day and era feels like an ethical conundrum, even in the name of blockbuster joys. Best of all is that Johnston never denies his intentions, at one point Dr. Schmidt reminds the Cap that he's not an emblem of nations, that his cause is in the name of one particular country. Of course he ignores him and despite our best efforts to keep neautral, we keep on cheering for him until the very end.

Sheet-y Saturday.

Where we take a look at posters for upcoming features.


The upper half of this poster is a thing of beauty. Simple illustrations to make a powerful point.
The lower half is a mess though. Not only is it a total ripoff of things that have been done better before but the images and credits are so conflicting.
For starters the movie is called Company Men, emphasis in "men", yet we have the awesome Maria Bello right in the middle of that testosterone party looking all lost and confused.
What's weird isn't that the lack of her name among the credits makes this seem like some misogynist Neil Labute experiment but that once you realize she's the only one in that group who doesn't have an Oscar (or a goddamn nomination for starters!) makes it all seem more unfair and just plain bad.


This movie is honestly making me think of this too much.
But just how cute was Matt Damon in the 30 Rock season premiere?

Interested in either of these movies?
Also I just realized this edition of Sheet-y Saturday paired Ben and Matt, I promise it was totally unintentional.

In the Valley of Elah *

Director: Paul Haggis
Cast: Tommy Lee Jones, Charlize Theron
Susan Sarandon, Jason Patric, Josh Brolin

Someone has got to tell Paull Haggis that it's time for him to stop oversimplifying life and people.
His newest venture as writer/director feels like what would've happened to the immigrants from "Crash", if they'd joined the army and gone to Iraq.
Tommy Lee Jones plays Hank, a Vietnam veteran, who lost one son in the army and is faced with potential tragedy when he learns that his son Mike (Jonathan Tucker) has gone AWOL after returning from Iraq.
After going through some bureaucratic troubles regarding jurisdiction, he teams with detective Emily Sanders (Theron) to discover what happened to his son, in the process learning about how much the army changed since he retired, how much of his son's life remained unknown to him and the emotional consequences brought on by war.
What begins as a promising, if necessarily, desolate account of a country unprepared to face the return of the men it sent off to fight for freedom, quickly reveals itself as another shallow attempt at depth that has become Haggis' trademark.
Just what is this man's necessity to make everything a complete extreme? For example when Hank encounters a school worker who is raising the US flag, he just has to ask him his nationality, which turns out to be El Salvadorean, later Hank becomes suspicious of a soldier because he is Mexican and must have connections with drug dealers.
While we never come to think that Hank himself is a bigot, Haggis' need to remind us of the multicultural population of his country make for an awkward statement. He doesn't need to portray an example of every minority to remind us of their existence.
Add to this a Biblical reference (the Valley of Elah is where David fought, and defeated, Goliath) and Haggis has got himself a way to please every pseudo thinker out there.
Just what the metaphor has to do with the movie is never quite clear (is it about Iraq and the USA? about the army making the investigation tough? about justice vs injustice?). But hey, if you got a spiritual reference you can wash your hands from the responsibility of having to justify it. (Best represented in an unintentionally funny line where Hank says the story is true because "it's in the Koran").
Later we have his take on Theron's character; the lone woman detective (who is also a single mother) in a man's world. She is disrespected, has a tough time being taken seriously and has to cook dinner and read a bedtime story to her son every day. But perhaps it's a nod to Theron's capacity of playing these roles, where her beauty should repel the person she's portraying, but she's become quite good at it. Nor the tomboy or the sex icon, she underplays her scenes, perhaps out of disinterest, but maybe just maybe, out of her seemingly growing capacities as an actress. She makes the most out of cliché quips and sometimes achieves the look of exhaustion and disappointment one would detect in someone like Emily.
The one reason why the film remains watchable is Tommy Lee Jones. His rugged face could've pretty much expressed everything we would need to know about Hank.
But the actor digs deeper and comes up with a slowly evolving performance. Hank begins as a movie character, but Jones turns him into the unsung voice of parents everywhere who are just beginning to cope with the consequences of their vote, their children's decisions or their blind belief in a system that doesn't care about them.
Jones makes this conversion feel transcendental.
If it was up to Haggis he would've made it about someone who goes from being a Republican to a Democrat.