The Rum Diary

The Rum Diary

I approach this review with caution.  There is no actor I respect more than Johnny Depp.  I will see any movie that he is in whether it looks like something I want to see or not.  Depp’s literary idol and personal friend was the late Hunter S. Thompson and he has been trying to get this movie made since before he was Captain Jack Sparrow.  It finally got made, but this movie will only find a niche market as it takes a certain type of person to appreciate Hunter S. Thompson (and that kind is rapidly disappearing). Thompson harkens back to the age of the hippie counter culture of the early 1960’s and his stories glorify excessive drug abuse and anti-establishment behavior.  The characters don’t really connect to modern sensibilities and there is very little that seems noble about a story that derives most of it’s nobility from drug abuse and poverty.

The Rum Diary is about a down and out writer, Paul Kemp (Johnny Depp), who departs the fast-paced capitalistic society of late Eisenhower era New York City for the pristine sunshine and beaches of Puerto Rico.  Paul fits right in as a writer for the local San Juan Star newspaper run by the downtrodden editor, Lotterman (veteran character actor Richard Jenkins is always a pleasure).  It’s a newspaper circling the drain and staffed by a ragtag group of reporters and writers who have reached their wits end and given up on life.  They spend their days drinking and getting high as they see their lives unraveling, but have no drive to stop it.  Puerto Rico is shown as the last stop for people who have no more options in life (a little insulting and arrogant I thought).  Thompson sees nobility in this type of despair and self abuse.

Kemp crosses path with a local kept woman name Chenault (played with arian protestant beauty by Amber Heard).  Chenault’s benefactor is a local developer named Sanderson (played with equal arian disdain by Aaron Eckhart).  It is Sanderson’s goal to develop the island into a tourist paradise at the expense of the local proletariat.  The story is straight out of the Marxist handbook, while much more impactful in the sixties, almost seems cliche and hollow (if not naive) in today’s world.  Sanderson strikes up an unlikely friendship with Kemp and hires him to write favorable articles about his plans for developing the island.   

Kemp continues to dwell in his  bottom feeder world as he makes friends with his fellow journalists.  Each of his friends are a character study in trying to out despair the other. The King of rock bottom is Moburg (played by another actor I revere, Giovanni Ribisi).  Moburg is a borderline street person who shows up to the newspaper offices only occasionally to collect his paycheck.  Moburg is so drug addled that he spends his day trying find extreme new ways to get high.  His performance is meant to be comic relief  (and it is often amusing), but glorifying this type of extreme drug abuse, while not necessarily offending my sensibilities,  I don’t find it appealing in a protagonist.  Ribisi is a fantastic actor and I have great admiration for his performance here despite my misgivings. Chenault’s character is played generically sexy.  She struggles with living a life of privilege (or is she a bored and spoiled socialite) and Kemp tempts her from her kept lifestyle by his supposedly more noble life of hangovers and hovel living.  

I have no problem with political movies that have agendas I don’t agree with.  As long as they are good, I can still enjoy them. The Motorcycle Diaries (semi-interesting that both these movies have ‘diary’ in the title) is a perfect example of a film that isn’t about Marxism directly, but it definitely gives it a sympathetic nod.  It was a fantastic and beautifully made film in which I didn’t necessarily agree with its’ politics, but admired the film greatly.  The Rum Diary not only does not make it’s case, but it is just downright boring.  I find nothing noble about people wallowing in self degradation and addiction and I find nothing inherently evil about other people striving to develop impoverished areas through Capitalism.  As far as I’m concerned it’s a social argument that’s long over (except maybe in California).  

Johnny Depp still remains one of my favorite actors and this film does show case some of his incredible talent.  I admire his devotion to getting a pet project made.  Other than that, this will be a quickly forgotten film that might only find life in a niche DVD market, much like the other Thompson/Depp collaboration; Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.  I considered this as a 2 hour waste of time that I will never get back.  At the very least, they could have show cased the beauty of Puerto Rico.   A missed opportunity.

I rate this film * star.

I gave it a star because I’m giving the film the benefit of a doubt for the several times I drifted off.

The Tree of Life

        I consciously passed on going to see The Tree of Life as I knew that it was an ‘art’ film.  A colleague of mine urged me to see it as, while he can’t say he enjoyed it, he was interested in my take on it as he was still thinking about it days later.  I think that is as good a description as any for the movie.  

The Tree of Life is a highly abstract movie and like viewing any work of abstract art, how one describes it says more about the viewer than what the film may or may not be trying to say.  Let me say that Terrance Malik’s creation is an incredibly beautiful visual and auditory odyssey (it even says in the beginning credits that it is best viewed at high volume).  If you are looking for a coherent storyline then you will be disappointed.  What you can take from the montage of images is that this is the story of Jack (played in adulthood by Sean Penn), a troubled man in the modern world trying to come to grips with his childhood and troubled relationship with his authoritarian father (played by Brad Pitt).  The story is non-linear and is more a series of images and feelings set to music and poetry.  It captures moments rather than a story from growing up in Waco Texas in the 1950’s.

The movie opens with news of the death of Jack’s younger brother (we assume it’s from Vietnam, but it never explicitly says so).  For the first 30 minutes of the movie we live the moments of a grieving mother and a father full of regret.  The movie then takes a unique turn and for the next 30 minutes gives us a visual opera of the birth of creation.  This is the most abstract part of the movie, but at the same time the most riveting.  The imagery of the birth of creation, to the creation of the earth, to the arrival of life is some of the most incredible cinematic artistry I have ever seen.  The power of the images are only heightened by an incredible operatic movie score.  Much like an abstract painting, you are not always sure what you are looking at, but you know when it  touches and moves you.  Words are not always effective (and sometimes a hinderance) in trying to describe it.  It must be experienced to appreciate it (or dismiss it).

The images are filled not only with the fire and power of creation, but also the rhythms of life.  The movie records rhythm from the very core of the universe to the smallest creature that begins to evolve on Earth.  The camera follows the formation of life as it it struggles to leave it’s primordial ooze and survive on land.  While this unfolds following our belief in evolution, there is definitely a feeling of God or something majestic in the grand design of it all.  I couldn’t avert my eyes during the odyssey.

As the creation montage ends and one is still reeling from what they just saw we witness the birth of Jack.  We feel the insignificance of his birth after witnessing the grand design, but we realize his part in the tapestry of life and he fits seamlessly into the rhythm of existence.

The next part of the movie doesn’t really tell a story per se, rather it paints a portrait of feelings and memories.  There is no individual significance to each of the moments portrayed, but as the film progresses you begin to see the pattern in the tapestry of his life and there is a certain majesty to it’s commonness (How’s that for an assessment of a piece of art?  Pretentious and contradictory).  There is nothing extraordinary about Jack’s life.  It was probably the experience of countless others from the time period, but it fit perfectly into life’s grand design.  

As the movie draws to it’s final chapter all the moments and people of Jack’s life are drawn together and we share with Jack his feelings of forgiveness, love, and release.  These moments are as abstract as the creation of the universe, but treated with equal awe and wonderment.

It’s difficult to review a movie that does not necessarily have a traditional storyline.  It’s hard to strike a balance where you will either sound like a pretentious bohemian poser or an unsophisticated dolt.  The movie doesn’t easily lend itself to review.  I will say that whether you like or dislike the film, Terrence Malik must be respected for his vision and artistry.  Unlike some works of abstract art that is dismissed for it's banality, one can feel the power and force of this work.  I’m not sure I can recommend it to anyone, but I have to admire and applaud the craftsmanship.

I rate this film **** (strictly for form, not enjoyment)

Real Steel

       I’m a little late reviewing this movie as I was not highly motivated to go see it.  Before I get into the criticisms of this movie (and there are many), let me start off by saying that I did have a good time and enjoyed myself.  This movie targets the same demographics as the Transformers series, but unlike the Transformers, there is a story and characters we cared about.  If I had to describe this movie, it would be Transformers meets Rocky meets Rokem’ Sokem’ robots (the child hood game).  

The story takes place in the near future where robots have taken over in the boxing ring as the public constantly wants bigger and badder entertainment.  Charlie Kenton (Hugh Jackman) is a once fighter who had a title chance before robots took over.  He is now a small time boxing promoter trying to scrape by in underground robot fighting.  His life is a mess and he continues to spiral downwards with no end in sight.  When Charlie hits rock bottom, he discovers that an estranged girlfriend of his died and his  9 year old son Max (Dakota Goyo), whom he barely knows, suddenly comes back into his life.  Through a series of questionable legal maneuvers (only in the movies), Charlie finds a way of making money by agreeing to take care of his son for the summer until his deceased wife’s wealthy sister can take care of him.  Charlie plans to leave Max in the care of his girlfriend (Evangeline Lilly), but Max forces Charlie to take him along by confiscating his keys (I rolled my eyes too).  What follows is a no holds bar foray into the world of underground robot boxing.  I didn’t know they would even let a 9 year old into those type of clubs, but hey, it’s a movie.  As the stakes are raised, Charlie and Max must assemble a robot that will take them to the ultimate robot championship, while finding each other in the process (I know, I’m wincing as I write this).

Again, I enjoyed this movie, but I also felt that the enjoyment was manipulated and not organic. This was cookie cutter film making.  The movie followed the underdog genre as close as a paint by numbers landscape painting kit.  Like a paint by numbers set, you appreciate the picture after it’s done, but there is no satisfaction and just a bit of guilt for how uninspired it is.

One thing I never overcame was Hugh Jackman.  He was supposed to play a down and out over the hill man hitting rock bottom, but frankly, Hugh is just too good looking for this role.  He is as clean cut and chiseled as he has ever been and he flashes his charming smile more often than George Clooney at a Sports Illustrated photo shoot.  He looks like a guy at the top of his game as opposed to a bottom dweller.  They throw in a 5 o’clock shadow, but even that is emaculately groomed. Then of course the thing I hate the most; precocious kids.  I’m not sure why writers consider obnoxious know-it-all kids to be endearing, but Max really was annoying.  And I never bought how a 9 year old can navigate the adult world better than any adult.  Especially the underground world, where any kid would be wetting his pants dealing with shady characters and brutal situations.  Max has no problem talking smack to leather clad mohawked drug addicts.  Max just proceeds along teaching his father wholesome family values while dwelling in cesspools of humanity.

I will say that I am thankful they tried to develop the characters, but it was just all so contrived that not only could I predict what was going to happen in the next scene, I could almost predict what the next lines of dialogue would be.  

The villains were generic rich bad guys and I’m still not quite sure how the down and out father and son team managed to score a world title fight with a few months, but of course they did.  I’m not going to give any plot spoilers other than if you’ve seen any Rocky movie then you’ve seen this.  I even read somewhere, that some of the choreography was taken directly from Rocky IV  (Sugar Ray Leonard was a consultant for the rest).

This would be a great movie to take any kids in your family and have everyone enjoy it, but if you are looking for something even marginally sophisticated, then move on.  There’s a lot of emotional heart-string tugging and a lot of vibrating bass in the soundtrack to give the film the illusion of gravitas, but it’s about as heavy as a helium balloon.

Fun, but I can’t recommend anything other than a family outing.  

I give this film **stars

Ides of March

Ides of March is an intriguing movie of how the political process works in America.  The movie follows the final days of a close Democratic primary battle in Ohio.  The thing I really liked is that this movie had little to do with political ideology.  This could very well have been a movie about a Republican primary. It illustrates how little ideology has to do with how campaigns are run and the compromises and back room deals that even the most idealistic candidate must make in order to win.

The film follows the campaign of Governor Mike Morris (played presidentially by George Clooney) as he campaigns to win the Ohio primary, a must win State if one wants to win the Presidency.  The story is told through the perspective of a young, up and coming, and idealistic press secretary; Steven Myers (played by one of my new favorite actors, Ryan Gosling).  Gosling is in his element here and delivers another knock out performance.  Like Tom Cruise, Gosling can act with intensity, yet Gosling doesn’t have to demonstrate it over the top like Cruise.  You can sense the power behind his subtle facial expressions. Gosling had no trouble holding his own with veteran actors, Clooney, Giamati, and Hoffman.  No dismissive accomplishment when you consider Clooney had a mullet and was appearing on bad sitcoms when he was Gosling’s age.

Phillip Seymour Hoffman plays Myer’s boss, Paul Zara and the great Paul Giamatti plays the opposing press secretary, Tom Duffy.  Again, political ideology is not the focus of this film as it takes place almost entirely in the Democratic circle.  Republicans are barely mentioned.  Myers lives and breathes the campaign and is the one person who is not a realist among the ensemble.  He truly believes in Gov. Morris and is able to justify his spins to the press as what is necessary to propel his righteous candidate to the White House.  What he doesn’t know is that political story spinning to the press is the least of the evils that must be done in the game of politics.  His boss Paul warns him that he must be careful in idolizing great men as, like anyone, they will invariably disillusion you. 

What we don’t realize is the depths of amorality that Steven is capable of when pushed.  The director does a credible and capable job at revealing the change in Steven as his illusions crumble around him. You see that no matter who you are, ideals will eventually give way to reality in politics.  Steven becomes more adept and ruthless than either he or the audience thought he was capable.  The young intern Molly (played seductively by Evan Rachael Woods) is the catalyst that starts Steven’s downward path (or correct path depending on your point of view).  As a scandal breaks out when the Governor is accused of having an affair with the young intern, all chaos and panic breaks loose in the campaign.  Paul mentors young Steven; a candidate can start a war or drive the country to bankruptcy, but his campaign can’t survive an intern scandal (or something to that effect).

All the players, including the idolized Governor Morris, start to show their true talents in politics as they make compromises and back room deals in order to keep the campaign alive.  Each person, including the young and naive Steven, try to orchestrate Machiavellian moves in an escalating game of one up-manship.  Not only are they fighting their opponents in the other camp, but they soon turn on each other.

The film is powerful and flows like a suspense and intrigue movie.  It doesn’t tell us anything we don’t already know or haven’t heard or suspected about politics, but to see it laid out before us is truly sobering.  We see that ultimately, the person who wins has had to put his ideology on the back burner to achieve his position.  Republican or Democrat, it doesn’t matter; all that matters is winning.  It’s a tough pill to swallow, but one that makes us realize why things really never change significantly, no matter what we are promised on the campaign trail.  I give this movie top marks for superior acting performances from a superior ensemble of actors.

I give this movie ****stars

50/50

      Inspired by the true life illness of the film’s writer Will Reiser, 50/50 takes us on a journey through cancer that is as comedically touching as it is heartrending. This film could have gone overboard by making a depressing film about a 27 year old who discovers he has a rare aggressive form of cancer or it could have been an inappropriate obtuse comedy making light of one of the most serious things that could happen to a person.  Instead, the film blends the two resulting in a spiritually uplifting, yet sobering film of a tragedy that could happen to anyone.  The film’s script and pacing is nothing technically impressive, but the talents of Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ana Kendrick, and Angelica Houston bring nuanced and powerful performances that leave us emotionally drained as well as immensely amused.  The film illicits tears from both laughter and tragedy.  Not an easy mix.

Adam (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is a twenty-something NPR writer who is living the life of any young person in Seattle.  He has a semi-serious relationship with a beautiful girl named Rachael ( the lovely Bryce Dallas Howard), a hilariously obnoxious best friend (Seth Rogan playing Kyle [Seth is writer’s Will Reiser’s real life friend who he based this character on]) and a life of coffee and political debate that is progressing just as it should at his age.  The one thing detracting from his ideal life is a prominent back ache that won’t go away.  Adam reluctantly goes to have it checked out. The scene where Adam learns of his illness from an indifferent and distracted Doctor begins the journey that makes us realize this isn’t just a typical movie.  The director and the incredible acting of Gordon-Levitt captures the roller coaster of emotion through tight camera shots as opposed to dialogue.  Adam learns that he has a 50/50 chance of survival. The scene becomes more powerful as Adam tunes out the doctor’s medical ramblings and his emotions turn inward.  I was never a fan of Joseph Gordon-Levitt as a child actor on ‘3rd Rock from the Sun’.  I thought he would grow up to be another failed cliche Hollywood child actor.  I was completely wrong. I feel he has already turned in an impressive body of work and I don’t even think he has hit full stride yet.  His work on ‘500 Days of Summer’ was inspired and his role in ‘Inception’ shows that he can hang at the blockbuster level.  I’m looking forward to what’s next from him.

Back to the film; Adam turns to his girlfriend Rachael for support.  She says she will stick with him as that is what society demands of us, but she is too distracted by her artistic self-centeredness to be of any real support and becomes more distant instead of closer.  Adam’s obnoxious best friend Kyle does his best to keep Adam’s spirits up, but really isn’t able to express the true emotional support needed.  However, throughout all of Kyle’s bluster you can see his true depth of emotion and affection for Adam even if he can’t demonstrate it.  Angelica Houston plays Adam’s mother.  She is so overbearing that Adam reluctantly tells her in anticipation of her reaction.  She is already caring for Adam’s Alzheimer suffering father and this is another burden threatening to break her.  Ms. Houston could have played the overbearing mother comedically over the top (and she does), but she also infuses her character with an incredible strength, that despite Adam’s reluctance, he comes to rely on.

Adam joins a cancer group in the hospital and they all sit around each week receiving their chemo therapy.  This group imparts comedy as well as wisdom as long suffering cancer patients.  Veteran actors Matt Frewer and Phillip Baker Hall bring emotional depth to their comedic roles.  They try to brighten Adams outlook, but behind their goofiness you can see the sadness in their eyes that cancer as struck someone so young as Adam.  As bad as cancer is for them, it is something they realize comes often during the later years in life.  It breaks their heart to see young Adam so ill even as they struggle with their own diseases.  

Some of the most poignant scenes are between Adam and the hospital psychiatrist, Katherine (Anna Kendrick).  Anna is only 24 years old and Adam is her 3rd patient ever.  Her earnestness and frequent professional missteps are charming.  She struggles to maintain calm and professionalism, but her inexperience does not allow her to keep that objectiveness.  You sense that both Adam and Katherine are trying to keep their emotional distance, but they can’t and you see both their walls crumble as their therapy progresses.

Whatever qualms I have about the television style pace in the beginning of this movie are quickly forgotten by the third act.   As Adam faces life and death, the acting rises to powerful and emotional levels by which only the hardest hearts couldn’t moved.  The gambit of emotions where you laugh, cry, stare transfixed, and squirm uncomfortably in your chair show the true talent of the Director, Jonathan Levine and show that all of these actors are the real deal.  It’s a small film with many flaws, but has a big emotional impact.

I give this film *** 1/2  stars

Drive

      Drive is a film about which I’m not sure how I feel.  It is nothing what I expected, but it held my interest the all the same.  Seeing the trailers, I expected something along the lines of ‘The Transporter’ or maybe even something akin to Steve McQueen’s 1968 classic ‘Bullit’.  The film didn’t resemble either of those two.  Reading some other reviews, many critics compared it to Clint Eastwood’s ‘Man with no Name’ Spaghetti Westerns due to the lead character’s mysterious personage.  I see what they are talking about, but as the film progressed, I thought what it was most comparable to was the hit TV series of the 1980’s, ‘Miami Vice’, but not in a bad or cheesy way.  The film is highly stylized and it values  visual aesthetics over dialogue.  This sounds like a bad thing, but artistry in films does not always have to come from the story.  A skilled film maker can sometimes paint a vivid and intriguing atmosphere with a minimalist dialogue or plot.  Sometimes the viewer gets a more satisfying experience by filling in the story themselves while being swept along by the film’s beauty.

The hero of the story is simply known as Driver (Ryan Gosling).  He drives for hire, whether as a stunt driver for movies during the day or as a getaway driver for heists at night.  He is mysterious and his impassive face betrays no hint of his past or where his life is heading.  He is the best and anyone who meets him knows it.  Ryan Gosling is someone I have raved about this year (and it seems he is in almost every movie this year as well).  He is an incredible actor whose choice in roles are very odd yet respectable, but they haven’t made him a household name yet.  Many of the movies he has done I have not liked, but I really respect his incredible talent.  I feel he was snubbed for an Oscar nomination in ‘Blue Valentine’ and I feel his work in ‘Lars and the Real Girl’ should be required viewing in any acting class (it was too small and quirky of a film to catch national attention, but if you get the chance, see it).  This movie, once again, demonstrates his ability.  Under a lesser actor, the character of Driver would have all the depth of a cardboard box.  Gosling infuses worlds of meanings into an emotionless character who usually responds with monosyllabic responses. The camera lingers on his emotionless face and the audience project their own feelings onto him as they try to decipher what’s going on behind his stoic eyes.

As I stated earlier, this is an exercise in style.  The visuals are not a typical action film palette of quick change jerky camera angles or 360 degree pivots.  The film takes it’s time and allows you to take in the nuances, right down to the subtle creak of Driver’s gloves.   I sometimes think that European directors make unorthodox choices when they try to do action films (this time not in a good way) and the Danish director Nicolas Winding Refn is no exception.  The movie is oddly paced to say the least and the soundtrack is completely inappropriate to what we are seeing on screen.  Where Quentin Tarantino is able to skillfully choose unorthodox music that fits perfectly, the music in this film felt overly synthesized and a throwback to 1980s genre films.  I felt it really detracted from the film.

Back to the story; Driver lives a solitary life of driving for hire.  It is not until his neighbor Irene (the vulnerable Carey Mulligan) and her son enter his life that he begins to soften.  The imminent release of her husband, Standard (Oscar Isaac), from jail changes their dynamic and Driver attempts to retreat back into his life of solitude.  Unfortunately, Standard brings his troubles back to his family and when Driver realizes the whole family is in jeopardy, he offers his driving services for a heist to help Standard square away his mob debt.  The heist goes horribly wrong and Driver finds himself in a situation where the mob is after him and Standard’s family.

Albert Brooks (Defending Your Life) does a great job playing out-of-character as a local mob boss.  Brooks is known for his comedic acting, but he plays the gangster Bernie Rose as an affable, yet definitely slimy and sinister person.  Ron Pearlman plays his partner with equal menace.  If we are talking sheer acting, then I want to spotlight Driver’s down-on-his-luck employer, Shannon (Bryan Cranston).  Once I thought Bryan Cranston would be a pigeon-holed comedic actor due to his work as the bumbling father on ‘Malcom in the MIddle’.  His work since then has been nothing short of extraordinary.  He made a dramatic name for himself on the ground breaking TV show ‘Breaking Bad’ and he further proves his abilities in this film.  Shannon was once a former stunt man himself, but since falling on the wrong side of the mob he is a broken man who runs a garage repair shop and helps Driver find driving gigs.  He is a tragic character for, while he tries to look out for Driver, his loser nature causes nothing but problems.  He can’t help himself, it’s who he is.  

In deference to the critics, I can see the connection that could be made to the Clint Eastwood Spaghetti Westerns, but other than the silent loner who saves the day for ordinary people from oppressive bullies plot, I did not see much more in common.  Sergio Leone’s movies were almost operatic in nature  (the Ennio Morricone soundtracks certainly helped).  Drive does not have that feel.  It’s more of a fashion show.  Striking camera shots and daring (yet realistic) choreography.  Don’t go to this film if you are expecting an action movie.  This movie doesn’t spoon feed you the story, it makes you add your own meaning and dialogue.  It’s worth seeing, but is not necessarily a satisfying movie going experience.

I give this film *** (because I give credit for uniqueness)

Bucky Larson: Born to be a Star

      Bucky Larson: Born to be a Star is my nomination for the worst movie to come out this year (that I’ve seen).  I really, really wanted to like this film.  I appreciate Happy Madison films (Adam Sandler’s production company), I love Nick Swarsdon’s stand-up comedy.  It’s great to see 80’s icon Don Johnson in a out-of-character type comedic role, and quite frankly, the premise of this movie tickled my arrested developed funny bone.  The story is about a naive bucktoothed midwesterner who decides to go to Hollywood to become a porn star after he discovers his parents were marginally famous pornstars in the 70’s.  Despite being woefully under-endowed and a virgin, he is convinced that it is his family destiny.  I thought, this HAS to be funny, or at least have some good laughs.  Much like when I thought my parents would love the movie ‘Pee Wee’s Big Adventure’, I was wrong.

The movie is a one joke premise that is played over and over which by the end of the movie we realize it wasn’t all that funny to begin with.  Creative comedic minds like Adam Sandler or like Mike Myers once came up with concepts and characters that resonated with the movie going public.  It made them rich men.  Unfortunately, for every ‘Waterboy’ or ‘Austin Powers’, there is a ‘Little Nicky’ or ‘The Love Guru’.  Their characters and humor miss more often than not.  Bucky Larson has Adam Sandler’s humor written all over it (he was a co-writer) and it just missed it’s mark (I’m not even sure he was facing the target).  I will still say I respect the kind of creativity it takes to come up with these stories and movies, but it is like mining for gold.  You have to sift through a lot of mud and sludge and you only occasionally hit gold.  This movie falls into the sludge category.

What’s so depressing is that there is a lot of talent and potential in the movie.  Don Johnson, playing out-of-type as the once great porn director; Miles Deep.  Don shows that he is not just another pretty face (albeit aging one).  He really showed some comedic timing and was probably one of the only highlights in the movie.  Christina Ricci played the requisite love interest attractively and capable.  I think the reason she was really cast is she is one of the few actresses shorter than Nick Swarsdon. Even Stephen Dorf (the “never was one” actor) playing porn legend Dick Shadow channeled Brett Michaels humorously. Also, the usual cast of support actors that are in most Sandler movies all do their usual interesting job.  Despite all of this (and even smiling through a good portion of the film), I felt this was just an awful movie.  The gags were self congratulatory for no reason and just not funny.  There was a scene when Christina Ricci’s character Kathy compared a burly biker looking guy in a restaurant to Chewbacca from Star Wars.  There was plenty of pause in the dialogue to allow for the audience to laugh.  I could hear crickets during the awkward pause as we waited (not exactly with bated breath) for the dialogue to resume.  I have to confess that the endless parade of spoof porn titles throughout the movie was always good for a smile, but not much more made me laugh.

I wish I could go into plot points, but the first paragraph of this review pretty much sums up the entire movie.  This reminds me of one of those Saturday Night live skits that they turn into movies without the benefit of ever having been on SNL before.  Mike Myer’s struck gold with Wayne’s World and now everyone thinks they can all strike gold with these type of character sketch comedies (even the Waterboy was based off a SNL skit).  Bucky Larson MIGHT have been funny in a two minute sketch format, but I wouldn’t bet money on that.

The movie was directed by Tom Brady (not the football player although I think he couldn’t have done a worse job) and I have a feeling this will not exactly enhance his career.  I hope that Nick Swarsdon gets his big break someday because I do feel he is a comedic talent, but much like the late great John Candy, I think his niche is supporting comedy.  I don’t think he is leading comedic man material.  Hey, that’s not so bad.  It’s worked for John C Reily and you can have all the benefits of a movie career without all that pesky fame bothering you.

I give a hats off to Don Johnson, but other then him, this movie is a colossal waste of time and money (for both me and the studios).  I hope the studio exec who previewed this and said; ‘Yeah, let’s release this’, loses his job.  I really have only myself to blame as I tried to talk myself into seeing ‘Contagion’ this weekend, but I convinced myself this would be a better time than watching a plague movie.  Once again;  I was wrong.

My first ever zero stars