Author: Alton Williams

Love & Other Drugs ***

Anyone who has seen the trailer for Love & Other Drugs could easily be forgiven for expecting yet another tired and predictable Hollywood romantic comedy with little to set it apart from the countless other films released this year that such a description could be so readily applied to – bad marketing department.
Whilst you probably wouldn’t know it based on the generic trailers and marketing campaign, however, this is a film that can actually be set apart from the rest of this year’s Hollywood romcoms in several ways. For starters, there’s the fact that, rather than being some piece of made up fluff, the film finds its inspirations in a very real source, that of the non-fiction book Hard Sell: The Evolution of a Viagra Salesman by Jamie Reidy. Reidy spent nine years working in pharmaceutical sales and his book offers a self-deprecating look at the life of a drug rep, climaxing in his selling Viagra – hardly the most obvious inspiration for a romantic comedy. The second thing that really sets the film apart from the rest of the romcom crowd is that it isn’t directed by some guy who only ever seems to direct romantic comedies but rather a director often known for more hard hitting films – Edward Zwick, the director of such films as ‘The Last Samurai’, Blood Diamond and Defiance, and who hasn’t directed something on the lighter more comedic side since 1992’s Leaving Normal. Out of the trio of writers working on the film – Zwick himself, Charles Randolph and Marshall Herskovitz – there are also some fairly hard hitting credentials, Randolph having written or co-written the screenplays for films like The Life of David Gale and The Interpreter. These edgier credentials certainly go a long way to set Love & Other Drugs apart from the crowd, even if the casting of Jake Gyllenhaal and Anne Hathaway – who have demonstrated themselves to be very capable actors – does scream somewhat of Hollywood casting beautiful people in the leading roles. But, do all the things that set this film apart behind the scenes also set it apart in terms of the final product or, like so many other promising romantic comedies released this year, does it prove to be one last romantic dud before the year is out?

It’s 1997 and Jamie Randall (Jake Gyllenhaal) is a smart but unfocused med school dropout who has the knack to sell pretty much anything but whose thing for the ladies keeps landing him in trouble and wandering aimlessly from one job to the next, much to the disdain of his parents, James (George Segal) and Nancy (Jill Clayburgh), who wish he would be more like his brother Josh (Josh Gad), the rich owner of a computer software company. He continues in this way until he tries out being a pharmaceutical salesman and discovers what just might be his path to the big time. At first things don’t quite work out for Jamie, much to annoyance of work partner Bruce Winston (Oliver Platt), as he must contend with Trey Hannigan (Gabriel Macht), a suave drug rep from a rival pharmaceutical company, but soon Jamie discovers that his way with the ladies just might be what he needs to move forward as he charms Cindy (Judy Greer) in order to make his way to Dr. Stan Knight (Hank Azaria) in the hopes of signing a new client. Jamie gets far more than he counted on, though, when he meets the beautiful Maggie Murdock (Anne Hathaway), a fascinating and alluring free spirit who won’t let anything or anyone tie her down, not even the fact that she has Parkinson’s Disease. An affair immediately breaks out between Jamie and Maggie, the one thing that they are both adamant about being that it will be casual, just about sex. Soon, however, they are both surprised by their growing feelings for one another and what started out as just a sexual relationship grows into something far more serious. But, with Jamie’s career soaring upon his realisation that he has a gift for selling the new drug Viagra and Maggie’s condition worsening, can their relationship really be more than just a fling?

Sex – this is a central theme in Love & Other Drugs and based on this statement alone you might have a pretty good idea of what the film is going to deliver – LOTS of nudity, both male and female (Jake Gyllenhaal and Anne Hathaway spend considerable amounts of screen time not wearing any clothes and they’re not the only ones in the film who get naked at some point), LOTS of sex scenes, LOT of innuendos and double entendres in the dialogue and a hell of a LOT of dick jokes. This is very much an adult romantic comedy, raunchy and racy, open and unrestrained rather than watered down to accommodate younger viewers, a movie that really does seem to be designed with grown-ups in mind. You have probably already guessed that this isn’t a movie that offers a whole lot of surprises and you would be right in this assertion as, while the film does manage to avoid many of the clichés that have plagued so many other romantic comedies of late and with that avoid becoming the typical romcom, it just can’t avoid going the obvious route with many of the gags, the humour delivering a reasonable hit rate but the laughs coming every now and then rather than non-stop. The humour is hardly sophisticated and often very crude but when it scores a hit it proves really very funny, although when it scores a miss it proves rather lame instead. While the film does often prove very funny, it is unfortunately lacking in other key areas. Not merely a romantic comedy but a film that has a much more serious side to it, the film falters when its more serious aspects find themselves heavily sidetracked in favour of the humour, even though the often very sweet and heart-warming nature means that we can just about forgive this to a point. On its own terms the serious side is handled sympathetically and effectively, the fact that the humour doesn’t cross over into these scenes perhaps a strength as it means that there are no jokes at the expense of those with Parkinson’s Disease but this doesn’t change the fact that the romcom aspect and the serious side go together awkwardly, seeming forever apart and never coming together as one. It almost feels like we are watching two different films stuck together, one a serious emotional drama and the other a lewd crude sex comedy. Independent of one another it is fairly plausible to see either working really well but together they never quite gel. Dick jokes just don’t really go with the more emotional stuff. With this we get a plot that feels rather disjointed and an overall film that, despite all its hard hitting credentials, simply isn’t hard hitting enough. While the relationship at the heart of the film does prove reasonably believable and quite sweet, it is hard to really accept the more serious emotional elements when they are mixed with so much content that is played entirely for laughs and, aside from a few scenes, little deeper insight is provided into the difficulties that people living with Parkinson’s Disease face on a day to day basis. What’s more, other opportunities to provide serious insight are also not exploited. For instance, while it appears that the film might provide us with an insider’s view on the dog eat dog world of pharmaceutical sales, the interesting insights that the film seems to be promising never manifest themselves, the only insight we get into Jamie’s job coming in a few early scenes and the majority of the film focusing entirely on his relationship with Maggie. Portraying a relationship built on sexual encounters rather than romantic dates – the relationships starts out casual, all about sex with no strings attached, before it develops into something so much more – makes for a slight change from some other recent romantic comedies, even though this isn’t the only such film this year to so go this route, and the way the relationship unfolds is logical and believable in the context of the story – for the most part at least. Despite apparent efforts to avoid falling into the traps that many romcoms fall into and even looking as though it might succeed at times, the plot eventually succumbs to predictability. Late on in the film Jamie says “Sometimes the thing you never expect to happen does” – not in this film it doesn’t, this film ends exactly as you expect. Still, despite its flaws the writing here provides us with a solid storyline and dialogue that rings true and excellent line delivery by the leads really pulls it off quite well. Jake Gyllenhaal brings on the charm with a performance that is both charismatic and convincing, it becoming very easy to buy him as a smooth operator who can both sell anything and have the ladies falling at his feet while Anne Hathaway is delightful and upbeat, sharp and quick with the comebacks, perfectly capturing the spirit of a free spirited woman who just wants to enjoy her life while she still can, the two of them sharing a strong chemistry and means we really do want things to work out for them. Additionally, when the Parkinson’s Disease symptoms begin to emerge, Hathaway does a good job at portraying them and the difficulties they pose for her character. In fact, both leads fare as well in the emotional scenes as they do in the more comedy orientated ones. Elsewhere in the cast, as a rival drugs rep, Gabriel Macht proves to be the perfect asshole while romcom regular Judy Greer puts in her usual sweet appearance as one of Jamie’s conquests. Overall, Love & Other Drugs is a very slickly made production that sadly suffers from something of an identity crisis. If it went either the all serious or all comedic route it could potentially impress us in a big way but as it is it seems stuck somewhere between the two camps, never making the two differing aspects really interact with each other in any meaningful and effective way. If you are looking for a comedy rather than a serious drama you will hold greater appreciation as it the humour that ultimately wins out but if you want greater depth this will seem like a wasted opportunity. Still, despite its flaws, this is still better than many other romantic comedies released this past year. Love & Other Drugs? More like Like & Other Drugs.

—————————————————————————————————————————————

Review by Robert Mann BA (Hons)

Jonah Hex **

Boasting one of the most bizarre and disparic creative teams behind the camera that I have seen in a very long time – director Jimmy Hayward’s only previous directorial credit was the family animated feature Horton Hears A Who!, screenwriters Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor (who are currently filming another supernatural comic book adaptation
in the form of the sequel to 2007’s Ghost Rider) are contrastingly known for the extremely adult (and completely mental) actioners Crank and Gamer and Friends star Matt LeBlanc has a credit as an executive producer (what the…?) – and based on what is perhaps one of DC Comics’ most obscure properties, the Jonah Hex comic book series written by John Albano and illustrated by Tony Dezuniga, Jonah Hex was probably always going to be a tough movie to make work at the box office if not creatively as well. From a commercial perspective adapting a z list comic book character was never really likely to work and when you throw in many of the ingredients that make up this film it is little surprise that it was such a colossal failure at the box office – it only cost $47 million to make but returned even less, earning a mere $10 million in the states. Lead actor Josh Brolin, while proven to be very capable in the acting department, has yet to establish himself as a box office draw who can open a movie to solid numbers while Megan Fox, whose appearance in this film was much hyped despite her only appearing on screen for a very limited time, has proven herself to be box office poison when appearing in any movie that doesn’t revolve around giant robots battling one another. Additionally, the film received some of the year’s worst reviews and when factored in with the surprisingly scant running time of only 78 minutes – a running time that might even be considered short for a straight to DVD Disney movie – it becomes apparent that the critics weren’t too far off the mark with this one, although Jonah Hex is still far from being the worst movie you will see this year.

During the American Civil War, Jonah Hex (Josh Brolin) was a rebel who fought on the side of the Confederate Army under the leadership of the vile Quentin Turnbull (John Malkovich). When he decided that he couldn’t go along with the atrocities being committed by his superior, however, he turned on his compatriots, resulting in Turnbull enacting bloody vengeance that resulted in Hex’s family being brutally murdered and Hex himself being scarred for life. Somehow crossing over the plane of death and back again, Hex emerged as a changed man, complete with supernatural powers, and, since hearing of Turnbull’s death in a fire, has aimlessly walked the earth aimless, making ends meet as a ruthless and infamous bounty hunter, his only human contact being in the form of a ‘relationship’ with strong willed prostitute Lilah (Megan Fox). When Army Lieutenant Grass (Will Arnett) tracks down Hex and informs him that Turnbull is very much alive and is building a “nation killer” super weapon, Hex is only too keen to assist in tracking down the man who killed his family so he can get his revenge. But Turnbull and his number two Burke (Michael Fassbender) are close to launching an attack that could destroy the United States of America once and for all and, as the only one standing in the way of this insidious plot, Hex must decide what is more important – his personal revenge or saving the world as he knows it.

Coming across less like True Grit and more like Wild Wild West (only without the latter film’s sense of fun), Jonah Hex emerges as a very conflicted film. The supernatural elements (which, apparently, are a significant deviation from the source material which demonstrated the character as having exceptional abilities but not necessarily supernatural ones) often feel shoehorned in and the lack of a more realistic edge to the Western aspects of the film prevent the film from being as thrilling or intense as it could be. The story feels very rushed and underdeveloped, us getting thrown right into events without much due care or consideration and little backstory being provided for Hex aside from a brief piece of exposition explaining why he and his family are targeted, leading into the depiction of his family’s murder itself which last mere moments, fails to make a substantial impact due to the film shying away from portraying the innate brutality of the events and really lacks any kind of emotional punch. Additionally, an animated sequence showing us how Hex goes on to become a bounty hunter seems cheaply constructed and comes across as a poor rather than stylish way to show us how Hex becomes the man we see for most of the film – actual plot would have been a far more effective way to portray this, but sadly anything resembling plot here is minimal, what we do get being a complete mess with too many conflicting ideas, none of which manage to emerge triumphant. With the scant running time of 78 minutes it really feels like a lot of stuff is missing and the lack of depth that results means that the story meanders rather than flows. Visually speaking the film is not without some positive aspects – the make-up on Josh Brolin is very effective, his facial disfiguration proving suitably convincing and the look of the Wild West is captured well through some decent and costume design and realistic looking props – but the effects generally prove just passable rather than impressive, there is no visual or creative flair on display, no artistry to the cinematography and the scale of events is too small, the film feeling far from epic. The film does, however, deliver a number of reasonably enjoyable comic book style action sequences and the acting also isn’t too bad, everyone doing a decent job at authentic sounding period accents, Josh Brolin being a pretty good choice for the lead and doing a very solid job despite being underserved by a mediocre script – Neveldine and Taylor really are better at visuals than they are writing – while John Malkovich and Michael Fassbender make for competent villains, Fringe fans will enjoy a brief appearance by Lance Reddick as a gunsmith and Megan Fox, playing a hooker (what else) really looks the part, though she is just eye candy more than anything else. So, Jonah Hex is not a film that will fully satisfy anyone – comic book fan or movie fan – but with such a short running time it definitely doesn’t outstay its welcome and it proves to be an averagely entertaining way to spend 1 hour 20 minutes.

———————————————————————————————————————————–

Review by Robert Mann BA (Hons)

Gulliver’s Travels 3D *½
Gulliver’s Travels 2D *½

If you’ve been to the cinema at all in the last four months it is very likely that you will have seen at least once (or, if you see as many films as me, many times) a certain Orange advert encouraging viewers to turn their phones off while the film is showing, an advert featuring Jack Black in Gulliver’s Travels.
Like many moviegoers you may also have thought that the advert was just that – an advert – but as hard as it may be to believe based on the poor production values on display in that advert (even though, as an advert, it does prove rather amusing – for the first couple of times at least, less so after you’ve seen it so many times that you’ve lost count), Jack Black’s Gulliver’s Travels is a very real movie and one that has already been pegged to be one of the worst movies of the year and has already become one of the biggest box office disasters of the year in the states where is opened to simply dreadful numbers over the Christmas weekend, a period regarded to be one of the biggest of the year for cinema-going in America. A modern reimagining of Jonathan Swift’s classic tale, Gulliver’s Travels 2010 was always destined to royally piss off literary purists and likely make Swift himself turn in his grave – I haven’t read the original book but I’m pretty sure it didn’t feature Gulliver urinating on a fire to put it out or battling a giant (or, should I say, average size?) robot – but with Monsters Vs Aliens director Rob Letterman (in his live action directorial debut) and writers Nicholas Stoller (Fun With Dick and Jane, Yes Man and Get Him to the Greek) and Joe Stillman (Shrek, Shrek 2 and Planet 51 – that last credit not being one to brag about much) forming the creative team behind this latest take on Swift’s famed fable and the cast including a range of popular and talented comedians, including numerous recognisable British faces, you would probably at least expect a comedy that delivers the laughs even if, as evidenced by both the Orange advert and the actual trailer, not so much the effects – particularly the 3D, this being yet another post production conversion of a 2D movie and one where, unlike previous conversions, they didn’t even bother to do a decent job of converting the trailer to 3D. So, is Gulliver’s Travels actually worth travelling to the cinema to see or, as many have foretold, is it indeed one of the worst movies of the year and one to be avoided at all costs?

Lemuel Gulliver (Jack Black) is a lowly mailroom worker at a newspaper who has no ambition in life and whose crush on his object of affection, travel editor Darcy Silverman (Amanda Peet), is destined go nowhere because he can never get up the courage to ask her out. Everything changes, however, when a new employee gets promoted ahead of him, prompting him to decide to try and make a move on Darcy. Things don’t work as planned, though, and, instead of getting a date, he finds himself going off on a travel writing assignment to discover the secret of the Bermuda Triangle. At sea, his boat encounters a vortex and shortly afterwards Gulliver awakens to find himself captured by an army of little people lead by General Edward (Chris O’Dowd). Gulliver is taken to the tiny kingdom of Lilliput where he is at first viewed as a beast by all its people – including King Theodore (Billy Connolly) and Queen Isabelle (Catherine Tate) – aside from the caring Princess Mary (Emily Blunt). Gulliver is thrown into prison where he meets Horatio (Jason Segel), a commoner who has become imprisoned as a result of his attempt to court the Princess, and a friendship is formed. The people of Lilliput change their opinion of Gulliver, however, after he foils an attempted attack by their enemies and is hailed as a hero. Soon, he is made their new General and, seduced by his new found status, he begins to take advantage of their hospitality, much to the disdain of General Edward who turns to the side of Lilliput’s enemies. When Gulliver is exposed for who he really is and defeated he finds himself faced with a life changing choice – stay a little man or stand up and show that he really is big on the inside.

As expected following the poor quality 3D conversion seen in fellow 20th Century Fox Christmas blockbuster The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, the 3D on display in Gulliver’s Travels really isn’t very good. Just as with that film it certainly doesn’t detract from the viewing experience, providing crystal clear picture quality with no loss in colour or brightness as a result of wearing the darkened glasses and there are some noticeable instances of 3D every now and then, such as the opening credits sequence in New York City, the fight with the robot and a few shots every now and then that do look almost fully three dimensional but these are rather few and far between and add nothing to the experience of the film, the 3D here definitely offering no value for money. Technically speaking the 3D may be of the same standard seen in Narnia but this is a film that doesn’t lend itself so well to the 3D medium, not being based so heavily around action and effects – i.e. the things that 3D tends to actually enhance on the screen – but rather comedy, some of the most noticeable 3D effects being in scenes where the 3D offers no real enhancement whatsoever, with the possible exception of the robot fight sequence which is, incidentally, rather reminiscent or something out of Spy Kids 3D: Game Over, the film that was embracing 3D before it became cool again. Considering that the 3D here isn’t very good – although technically not bad either I might note – it comes as something of a shock that the 3D is perhaps the best thing about the film…no kidding. If what you want from this film is spectacular visual effects you will be in for a huge disappointment. Most of the effects we get here are passable at best, often looking rather cheap and delivering nothing that will wow you. The same goes if you are looking for a film that is exciting as excitement is something that is also in short supply here. With the exception of the robot battle sequence this is a very action deficient film and what we get fails to be thrilling or spectacular, obviously making no use of the third dimension and being played entirely for laughs. This could be forgivable if the film actually generated the laughs but if you are looking for a comedy that truly delivers the goods in this arena you will also be sorely disappointed. The humour here is mostly very puerile and juvenile – Jack Black’s comedy style is love it or hate it at the best of times anyway so you should have a good idea of what to expect without even seeing the film – and the hit rate of the gags will be close to zero unless you are a very undemanding viewer, by which I mean you find the sight of Jack Black’s Gulliver urinating on a fire to put it out funny or the sight of cannonballs bouncing off his flabby shirtless body hilarious or him being given a wedgie by a robot side splitting or you are brought to laughter by the many lame and unwitty pop culture references and in-jokes. The humour here is aimed clearly at the very lowest common denominator and unless you are in this group – which the person behind me at the screening clearly was, given how loud she was laughing – you are unlikely to have much fun with this film. So much comedy talent is wasted here with pretty much everyone in the cast, with the possible exception of James Corden (star of my worst movie of last year – Lesbian Vampire Killers), having demonstrated considerable comic talent in the past but here rendered unfunny as the result of atrocious writing. Jokes – nonexistent. Dialogue – abysmal. And plot – what is that? There is very little evidence of an actual story we can care less about here and the tendency towards complete absurdity – the idea that the little people of Lilliput could build Gulliver a giant full size mansion is absolutely ridiculous – and convenient plot devices – the bad guy is only able to build a giant robot because on board the boat that Gulliver crashed in there is a magazine with an article on how to build your own robot – only serves to bring more attention to how bad the writing in general is. The cast make their best of the extremely bad script but, as well as not being very funny, their acting still comes off very bad here, even the actors who are generally very good faring badly. It’s certainly very hard to see why the currently in vogue Emily Blunt would drop out of Iron Man 2 (she was originally set to play Black Widow, the role that eventually went to Scarlett Johansson) to do this. One of the most likable performances actually comes from Amanda Peet, who is given nothing of real note to actually do. It’s almost embarrassing to see such genuine talent as what is on display here so completely wasted as rather than laughing I just found myself cringing and no more so than when at the end everyone breaks out into a musical number of War. Clearly director Rob Letterman, who did such a good job on last year’s Monsters Vs Aliens is considerably able at live action than he is at animation. Even by Jack Black’s own rather low standards, Gulliver’s Travels is a huge disappointment and while it may perhaps prove watchable in a watch for free on TV kind of way it is certainly not worth paying to see at a cinema, especially at the inflated 3D ticket price. Simply put, Gulliver’s Travels 2010 is a desecration of Jonathan Swift’s classic tale that might not just have him turning in his grave but also coming back from the dead to enact bloody vengeance on the people behind this monstrosity of a film.

————————————————————————————————————————————
Review by Robert Mann BA (Hons)

Meet the Parents: Little Fockers ***

When it was released back in 2000, the first Meet the Parents film took a concept with great comedic potential and turned it into a film that tickled the funny bones of both film critics and movie-goers alike, proving to be both a critical winner – it was at 84% positive on website Rotten Tomatoes – and a box office success that would kick start a new comedy franchise.
Four years later, the second instalment in the franchise was released in cinemas – Meet the Fockers. This sequel was not so well received by critics – only 39% positive on Rotten Tomatoes – but the combination of an impressive ensemble cast – joining the already star studded ensemble was Dustin Hoffman and Barbara Streisand, an inspired piece of casting – hilarious trailers, a huge marketing push and a fair amount of controversy – in order to actually be allowed the call the film Meet the Fockers the filmmakers had to actually prove that there really were some people with that surname – ensured that the film became even more successful than the first, with it being clear that most moviegoers did not agree with the majority of critics on this one – I know I certainly didn’t, I actually thought it was hilarious. The huge success of that sequel immediately prompted talk of another film in the franchise and the rumours began to spread that that film would be entitled Little Fockers but I somewhat doubt anyone thought the third chapter in the series would take another six years to make it to the screen. Things haven’t turned out so rosy for Little Fockers (marketed as Meet the Parents: Little Fockers in case anyone has forgotten all about the last film), however, with a string of bad omens indicating that all did not go well during the development and production of this film. Original director Jay Roach departed the project (although, given that he directed this year’s abysmal Dinner for Schmucks instead, perhaps this isn’t such a bad thing) and was replaced by Paul Weitz, whose most recent project Cirque Du Freak: The Vampire’s Assistant proved to be a huge let down, Dustin Hoffman left the project due to both Roach leaving and his own unhappiness with the film’s script (although he was later convinced to return for a few scenes, not coming cheap though) and the studio, displeased with the work that Weitz was doing on the film, even contemplated getting rid of him in favour of Along Came Polly director John Hamburg but opted not to as it would have resulted in a dispute with the Directors Guild, deciding to fix the film’s problems in post production. Now that the film is finally here the result is not as pretty as you might have hoped although not as ugly as you might have feared either. This time critics have absolutely massacred the film – the Rotten Tomatoes rating on this one is only 11% positive – the controversy that so helped the last film is absent, hype and buzz have been pretty minimal and trailers have been rather on the unfunny side but the film does just about manage to transcend all the negative buzz…

Finally, after a decade of trying to charm his way into the good books of his father-in law Jack Byrnes (Robert De Niro) – including providing him with two grandchildren, twins Sam (Daisy Tahan) and Henry (Colin Baiocchi) – Greg Focker (Ben Stiller) has finally been welcomed into the Byrnes family circle of trust. Things, however, aren’t all rosy for Greg as constant demands from both his nursing job and his home life are putting a strain on his relationship with wife Pam (Teri Polo) and when Jack suffers a heart attack and proclaims that Greg must become “the godfocker” things seem set to become even more stressful still. In order to finance his children’s education at a prestigious private school, Greg takes a second job as a spokesperson for a drugs company, working alongside the beautiful and fun loving Andi Garcia (Jessica Alba) but when the Byrnes’, the Fockers – Greg’s parents Rozz (Barbara Streisand) and Bernie (Dustin Hoffman) – and even Greg’s one time (and perhaps still) love rival, the rich and spiritualistic Kevin (Owen Wilson), descend on Greg and his wife Pam for the twin’s birthday party, Jack’s suspicions about the moonlighting nurse come screaming back. Cue misunderstandings, covert missions and hilarious farce as Greg has to jump through hoops to prove once again that he is worthy of Jakes trust and the future patriarch of the entire clan.

By now you have probably heard many critics proclaiming Meet the Parents: Little Fockers to be, well, not very good. I don’t completely agree with the assertions that many have made but also must agree that they aren’t too far from the truth, this film indeed being the weakest in the Meet the Parents trilogy. From the outset the film suffers from the simple fact that much of what we see here seem tired, the whole setup seeming rather stale third time around and the Focker thing feeling old, been there and seen that. This is not a film that offers anything even remotely new, the humour generally being predictable and obvious – vomit gags, fart gags, sexual references and innuendos and comical misunderstandings are what we get here, just as with the previous films – rather than smart and witty and that the hit rate of the gags is middling only serves to suggest that there isn’t much life left in this franchise. This isn’t to say that the film doesn’t deliver laughs – it most certainly does, in the form of some rather naughty set pieces, inappropriate conversations between Rozz and Bernie being overheard by Greg, occasional instances of physical comedy, misunderstandings a plenty and of course the interactions between Greg and Jack, notably the climactic showdown involving a ball pit and a bouncy castle, which proves obvious but amusing nonetheless – but the film never proves really hilarious and there are far too many gags that completely miss the mark – the whole Andi Garcia/Andy Garcia thing is ridiculously overdone and just lame, a scene involving Greg cutting himself while carving a turkey is gross rather than funny and numerous references to The Godfather only raise slight giggles rather than belly laughs. The storyline also feels rather stale, offering up a weak plot that just retreads old ideas rather than embracing new ones and, somewhat surprisingly given the title, makes little of the kids, the focus once again being on the adult characters, notably the simmering conflict between Greg and Jack. The reduced roles for many characters doesn’t help much either. While in no way bad – and, in fact, really rather good, certainly among the best things in the film – in their roles, there is a sense that Barbara Streisand and Dustin Hoffman are only in it for the paycheque, their screen time being very little and the latter accounting for little more than a prolonged cameo appearance – and one that doesn’t even connect that well with the crux of the story, excuses constantly having to be given as to why Bernie is absent in key scenes (all of his scenes were added in post production). The rest of the cast make the best of the weak script but virtually all fail to overcome its flaws, Robert De Niro, Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson certainly proving amusing but hardly delivering at the standard seen in the previous films while, as the only major new addition to the cast, Jessica Alba plays hip, crazy and drugged up pretty well but adds little to the ensemble. Even an appearance by Jinx the cat can’t transcend the weakness of the writing that is on display here. Additionally, god only knows why the likes of Harvey Keitel and Deepak Chopra appear in cameos here, their appearances contributing nothing of note to the film that unknown actors couldn’t deliver and just seeming pointless and irrelevant. Aside from Streisand and Hoffman of course the only performer that truly stands out here is Laura Dern, playing the headmistress of the prestigious Early Human School, but here screen time too is very limited and she doesn’t feature nearly enough. So, Meet the Parents: Little Fockers is an underwhelming follow up to the hilarious films that preceded it. It’s not without its moments of course – Jack discovering Google and coming across a rather hilarious YouTube video where Greg is talking about him at a medical conference is very funny, be sure to stay through the credits in fact – but given the talent involved this really should have been truly hilarious instead of what it actually is – a mildly amusing but completely unmemorable threequel.

————————————————————————————————————————————

Review by Robert Mann BA (Hons)

Burlesque **

The passion project of Screen Gems – a studio with the one of the highest hit rates in the industry due to the low production budgets of most of their releases and a tendency to only invest in projects that seem fairly reliable, along with the fact that they usually only invest higher amounts in proven properties – chief Clint Culpepper’s boyfriend Steven Antin, Burlesque is a prime example of what happens when personal issues get in the way of business decisions in the film industry.
Boasting a production budget of $55 million – the second biggest in the studio’s history behind only Resident Evil: Afterlife, a film that had earned its $60 million as a result of the success of the preceding three films – this is a film that caused so much strife between the two in the form of budget, scheduling and creative decisions that they have now apparently broken up after 20 years…ouch. The resulting film is one that is extravagant and perhaps even garish, so much so that it has already been touted by many to this year’s answer to last year’s catastrophe Nine. If the film has anything going for it, though, it would be the return of Cher to the big screen, playing her first major role since 1999’s Tea with Mussolini, as well as the acting debut of fellow singer Christina Aguilera, perhaps the only two things for which the film has earned itself any attention, the former earning the most with her publicity appearances including an appearance on The Graham Norton Show last week. With a title that pretty much says it all, Burlesque is not a film that pertains to surprise us in any way but does it at least achieve that much sought after designation of bad movies in being so bad that it is good?

Ali (Christina Aguilera) is a waitress tired of her mediocre existence in Iowa. She moves to Los Angeles hoping to become a star with her singing voice and dance moves but things don’t seem to be going in her favour until she stumbles across The Burlesque Lounge, a grand burlesque theatre whose best days are seemingly long gone, its owner Tess (Cher) and co-owner, her ex-husband Vince (Peter Gallagher), struggling to raise enough money to pay off their mortgage before the club is repossessed while costume guy Sean (Stanley Tucci) does his best to keep Tess looking on the bright side. Ali is immediately entranced by the spectacular world of burlesque dancing and tries hard to become the club’s latest dancer but Tess is reluctant. So, with the help of bartender Jack (Cam Gigandet), she gets a job as a waitress at the club, hoping that the opportunity will come to impress Tess and take her place on the club’s stage. Her persistence pays off and Tess agrees to give her a shot but in the process she gains an enemy in the shape of the club’s leading act, the bitchy Nikki (Kristen Bell). An act of sabotage by Nikki, however, results in Ali’s incredible singing voice being revealed to the club and Tess realises that Ali might just be what is needed to save the club. And restore it to its former glory. As Ali’s star skyrockets she finds herself getting attention from two potential male suitors, firstly the kindly Jack and also charismatic entrepreneur Marcus Gerber (Eric Dane), the very man determined to buy the club and tear it down. As she finds herself immersed in the art of burlesque, Ali must face up to some challenging life decisions.

Burlesque is a film that only really has one thing going for it and that is its dance numbers. Extravagant and over the top just like the kind of thing you might expect to see at a show in Las Vegas, the numbers feature some very good if not overly memorable choreography (they were both associate choreographers on Nine for which the choreography was also not regarded to be that great by many critics) by Joey Pizzi and Denise Faye and if you like your dance routines to be sultry and seductive you will love every minute of them. Just like the setting of The Burlesque Lounge itself – which boasts some extravagant set design – the numbers bring together sleaze and seediness with a feel of class and sophistication, the dance moves all very suggestive and the costumes – also very extravagant – extremely revealing. Suffice to say if you enjoy watching dance routines that are full of sparkle and glitter and laden with sequins you will be very appreciative of this aspect of the film. The sequences also boast some very good singing even though some numbers only feature the character lip-syncing to the lyrics of famous singers rather than performing themselves – something that is made note of in the film. When the real singing begins it is hard to fault, Christina Aguilera – who is the executive music producer on this film – being an excellent singer and Cher being even better, both given some very good lyrics to work with and superb music to back them up. The problem with the film, though, is that while the singing and the dancing is good, very little else is. The acting is weak, good actors like Stanley Tucci and an entertainingly camp Alan Cumming being wasted in largely insignificant roles while Christina Aguilera and Cher just can’t act as well as they can sing, even if the mother-daughter sort of dynamic that forms between the character just about works and they do generally prove passable. The only really positive thing I can say, surprisingly, is about Kristen Bell who proves to be far more capable of playing the bad girl than at playing the nice girl as seen in this year’s When in Rome and You Again but even she is hardly much good here. The blame for this, however, is as much Steven Antin’s (who both writes and directs) as it is the actors, the storyline being completely predictable and obvious – it is one that you will likely have seen before many times, a classic rags to riches kind of tale, only robbed to genuine interest for the audience – the characters being paper thin in terms of development, the dialogue often cheesy or corny – e.g. “What’s Ali short for”, says Sean, to which she replies “Alice” prompting him to say “Well, welcome to Wonderland” – but never memorable and generally quite lacklustre and clichéd, and with that the many dialogue based sequences completely failing to interest. The resulting lack of interest for the scenes that fill in the story for the film is something that feels far more like a collection of music videos loosely strung together than a complete movie, a film that boasts lots of flash but very little substance and becomes rather repetitive as it progresses, being sensational in terms of its musical numbers but completely mediocre with regard to everything else. No doubt some people won’t mind these flaws and will in fact love this film but I certainly didn’t and factor in the fact that I really can’t see why this film would cost $55 million to make then you have something I can’t really recommend much. There is the occasional instance of beautiful cinematography, the opening shot of the sun shining about a remote Iowa town being particularly noteworthy, but this is little saving grace for a film that may look snazzy from the outside but is completely hollow on the inside. Suffice to say, Cher’s much hype return to the big screen proves underwhelming. There is really one thing and one thing only to see Burlesque for and that is the dance numbers and even those, I suspect, may not be everyone’s cup of tea.

————————————————————————————————————————————
Review by Robert Mann BA (Hons)