Funny, Sad, and Everything in Between

I Love You Phillip Morris (2009) - dir. Glenn Ficarra & John Requa - 4,5 stars

The posters showcase a gay couple with two pooches, Barbie-like hair and glowing skin.  They carry the trademark smile that Jim Carrey is famous for. The whole thing beckons like a straight-up comedy from the wrapper, but the film's deep and thoughtful handling of the true story of Steven Russell and Phillip Morris makes Ficarra and Requa's film a highly enjoyable experience.


Steven Russell is a cop who does well and means well. On the surface, he is in a loving marriage with a religious wife who would make any Texan proud. But God wants him to come out, and so he does after a car accident forces him to reassess his life. He reveals to his wife that he is gay and he has been having affairs.  He moves to Miami, gets a boyfriend and starts living the sex-and-the-city life. However, as they mention in the film, being gay is expensive. Clever as he is, Steven beats the system with fraud and becomes a con man to get beautiful things for himself and his lover. All's well until finally he gets caught and put in jail. This may sound like the end of the story, but actually, it is just the beginning.


His time in jail brings love to his life when he meets Phillip Morris, and for love, he's ready to do anything. The following 80 minutes or so surprise, delight, depress and force the viewer into fits of laughter. This crazy, clever, romantic man does what he can to make sure they stay together despite circumstances and enjoy what life has to offer. It might just be the best romantic comedy for those who hate traditional romantic comedies as it is littered with dark themes that remind us we're watching a true story.


With his performance as Steven Russell, Jim Carrey once again proves he is an actor with range. The Carrey we watch is not the same one we've seen in any of his screwball comedies; it's closer to his performance in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. His trademark smile is still there, but his portrayal is inherently believable and convincing. Similarly, Ewan McGregor matches Carrey's performance with his wide eyes, naiveté, and Southern accent. The great performances of the leads are coupled with an astute script and effective editing that drives home the surprising tactics of this con man. At more than one occasion, I found myself as deceived as anyone else in the film. 


Overall, the film has the right amount of all things essential to make it a great film. This is one that shouldn't be missed so go buy your ticket!

Glorified, unimaginative monster bashing

Clash of the Titans (2010) - dir. Louis Leterrier - 2 stars


I must admit I wasn't expecting much to begin with when I went to see this remake of the 1981 classic, but even so, the film was underwhelming. Made in typical cash-cow style that dominates Hollywood remakes, the film pays too much attention to the action and graphics and not enough to the characters or the mythology. It's one of those films that assumes a certain viewership demographic and goes for it. As such, it is riddled with unimpressive acting and predictable dialogue. This is not to say it will not be successful financially, as there will be scores of people signing up to see the Kraken monster in 3D.

The story is based on Greek and Nordic mythology. In a time when humans start to rebel against Olympus, the Gods decide to teach their creations a lesson by unleashing a Titan that would set havoc on them. The plan is that the Gods will intervene and save the humans, which will inspire them to go back to their devout ways and pray to the Gods. The prayers are important as they keep the Gods immortal.  The twist in the story is that there is a demi-God among the humans named Perseus who has a personal score to settle with Hades. Hades, on the other hand, has his own agenda involving Zeus and the rest of the Olympians.  For vengeance, Perseus ends up traveling the ancient world killing one famous creature after another to destroy the Gods' plans, while Hades makes his underground agreements to get his dream. Still reading?  Good.

As you can tell, the story is actually quite elaborate, and considering the depth that exists in Greek mythology, it could have been turned into a fully-fledged fantasy world. There were some moments in the film where Leterrier obviously tried to emulate the Lord of the Rings feel cinematically, but overall, the film cannot create the sense of disbelief that Peter Jackson had so masterfully accomplished in his trilogy. Instead, Leterrier's attempt feels very unimaginative and canned. The monsters die as quickly as they appear with almost no backstory for any. Medusa didn't exist just to be slain by Perseus. She has her own story and it's a damn good one. In Leterrier's film, their stories are diminished into seconds and they just exist for the action sequences, which dominate the 106 minutes. Seeing these creatures get beheaded and killed with no justice to their story made me feel a bit sad. Furthermore, the film simply jumps from one monster to another with some heroic leadership speech thrown in the middle to give just enough incentive and need for the characters to go on. The script is obviously not a highlight for this film.

The attention to detail that should have been paid to the script has all been used for the graphics. The monsters are pristine and realistic in their 3D glory and the action sequences make the most of the technology. However, due to the aforementioned issues, the action sequences don't have much heart in them as the viewer doesn't care who or what is being killed. It's just a glorified monster bash.

To add insult to injury, the acting in the film is mediocre with a lot of stereotypical performances. Perseus (Sam Worthington of Avatar fame) is a meathead with heroism thrust upon him, Hades (Ralph Fiennes) is a bad God who apparently smokes a lot in Hell and has to bend to get places as one can tell from his osteoporosis, while Zeus (Liam Neeson) decides to wear full, glittering body armour in Olympus for some odd reason and speaks with a very low voice. Why doesn't anyone really think through what these Gods would live like up there and try to reinvent their world? It's boring to see these stereotypes even in 3D.

If all you'd like to see is some 3D popcorn film, by all means be my guest.  But if you're looking for something with a bit more thought put into it, avoid Clash of the Titans. Don't say I didn't warn you.

Carell-Fey duo needs a better script (or none!)

Date Night (2010) - dir. Shawn Levy - 3,5 stars

Never, ever, take someone else's restaurant reservation. One little white lie can take your life off the rails. That is pretty much the premise behind the new comedy from Levy. Starring the poster children of US comedy, Steve Carell and Tina Fey, the film has to satisfy a lot of expectations on the comedy front. It ends up as an enjoyable night out, but the action takes over from what could have been a funnier film given the improvisation geniuses involved.

Phil and Claire Foster (Carell and Fey respectively) live a quiet life in suburban New Jersey with their two kids. Their marriage seems boring, tiring and extremely ordinary; so ordinary in fact that they don't even remember their date nights - the nights without the kids - and even when they do, it feels like a chore. One of these date nights takes a wrong turn when Phil, in a desperate attempt to save his marriage, tries to take someone else's reservation for a romantic dinner. That lie propels their relationship into resolution; that is after they've been kicked, chased, shot at, among other things that include some extremely funny references to robot sex.

The action in the film takes centre stage with elaborate sequences that are thrilling. Long car chases follow breaking-and-entering, which definitely keeps the film going at a nice pace. However, this also means that the comedy is a bit dispersed so it never reaches a crescendo to sustain itself. This seems a bit endemic in Levy's films from the Pink Panther to Night at the Museum, where the comedy cannot sustain itself and relies heavily on action sequences.

Overall, Date Night is an enjoyable film with some good action and a few good laughs. It doesn't take any risks and plays on a tested-and-true Hollywood formula. However, with the Carell-Fey duo, I was expecting something better than Levy's other films. One thing that I'm sure of after seeing the film is that we'll see more from the duo as they're a good comedy couple. They work off of each other's energy and lines extremely well, which shows off in the small portions of the film where they were ad-libbing and improvising. If you want to see more, stay until the end of the credits and you'll be treated with some extra takes that are well worth it.

Burton Disappoints with Alice

Alice in Wonderland (2010) - dir. Tim Burton - 2 stars

Burton is a director with a very distinct view of things. He tends to show the beauty in some of the most unlikely characters, embrace the dark and review a new good within it. Some might say he is the Mad Hatter of the world of cinema. However, his latest is a disappointing experience. It is slow, boring, conventional and so not Burton. It seems Disney has pulled on the reins.

The story is loosely based on Lewis Carroll's famous work. I say loosely because the screenplay written by Linda Woolverton imagines Alice's return to Wonderland,

where pretty much only the characters remain intact

. Alice is now a teenager starting to show signs of puberty by way of trying to define her individuality. So, at the most opportune moment, the White Rabbit pulls her down the hole once again in an adventure where she will determine not only the destiny of Wonderland but also her own.

The Wonderland she returns to has been ravaged by war and left rotting. She's given the treatment of the savior, but she must first acknowledge it herself. Pretty standard fare, isn't it? Good work, Woolverton.

The story goes in starts and stops. At points, the action picks up but is not fueled enough to propel the viewer throughout the entire film. I felt a bit like Alice growing and shrinking again and again; it felt tiring. The dialogue also isn't very polished, as some of the most memorable characters of the story never get a good line. The focus is obviously on the Mad Hatter and the Red Queen, who have the best lines and scenes. On that note, both Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter live and breathe these characters. I cannot imagine someone else doing a better job. On the other side of the fence though, Anne Hathaway feels awkward and fake as the White Queen. She wants to be over the top for Burton but ends up out of place. Nicole Kidman would have made a better White Queen, especially since she's used to quirky stories from working with Baz Luhrmann.

Leaving the story and the acting aside, the set and costume design are fantastic. This is the one place where Burton seals the deal and delivers. Wonderland is brought back as a gothic forest complete with intriguing animals and insects. From the Red Queen's digitally-enlarged head to the Mad Hatter's green eyes, from Alice's pale skin to the creature animation, the visuals are wonderful.

The visual kudos cannot save this film though from what it is: a boring, conventional children's story; so not Burton. I especially cannot forgive how the Mad Hatter's charisma, built so meticulously by Depp, is completely destroyed towards the end with what might seem a harmless act. I cannot spill the beans completely here as there might be some of you still wanting to see the film even after reading this.

All in all, i

f I were the Red Queen, I would have said "Off with his head!"

Pretty, ain't it?

A Single Man (2009) - dir. Tom Ford - 4 stars

Tom Ford has an eye for beauty. In his directing debut, almost every shot is carefully designed in terms of mise-en-scène. Wong Kar Wai influences are abundant in the camera movements, the fleeting moments that seem to rise out of reach so fast like a red balloon. He is also lucky to have fine performances from his leads, Colin Firth and Julianne Moore. It all points to a fantastic debut, but the film is a little too slow and beautiful for its own good.

The film traces a day in the life of George, a silent, rather awkward, gay college professor during the America of the Cuban crisis who is going through his own personal crisis: his partner's death. The film makes copious use of flashbacks and voiceovers to reveal the entire story. Throughout the day, the subdued colors of his regular routine brighten up when he interacts with others who make him feel desired and alive again. This type of mood coloring works perfectly as it gives visual cues of George's unsettled feelings and uncertain future. In general though, color is used very effectively throughout the film along with every aspect of the visuals. Ford makes sure that his film is pretty to watch indeed, which unfortunately does become distracting. At more than a few occasions, I felt that the scene was almost too put together, the colors too perfect. I still haven't decided whether or not it was because I knew this was a fashion designer's film. Thank God the prettiness isn't skin-deep though. Colin Firth and Julianne Moore give incredible performances as both are best at the types of characters they play in A Single Man. It feels as if George was written for Firth to play. I'm not surprised that he won the BAFTA for best actor.

Finally, the film is decidedly conservative when it comes to its homosexuality. Yes, it is about a gay man directed by a gay man, but the film doesn't try to use sexuality as a reason for George's suffering. He is just like any other man and he grieves as such. His reaction to the events in his life are not due to his sexuality. I really liked this subtle treatment of the subject matter as it could have derailed the film completely.

One last thing: I really resisted while writing this review to not go into the debate that's been raging through the blogosphere, but I can't resist! "A film by Tom Ford." This phrase has been causing a lot of debate in film critic circles. How much of this film is Tom Ford's? Can he really claim that this is "a film by Tom Ford" considering it's his debut feature? Should it have simply read "directed by Tom Ford?" Are we now living in an age of self-proclaimed auteurs? An auteur by theory is defined by critics based on their body of work. Truffaut and Godard were auteurs as was Fellini. What signature is there in A Single Man that one can identify to be Tom Ford's? We have never seen a film by him before, so how are we expected to look out for that certain signature? I believe the designation is indeed premature, but I guess we'll have to wait and see if Ford can prove us all wrong.

All things aside, it is very obvious that Ford really wanted to make this film. He wrote the script along with Christopher Isherwood, financed, produced and directed it. I feel that regardless of the auteur theory, the man deserves some acknowledgment. But I don't want to go as far as to say he's an auteur, as I don't want to infer that if you've got the money, you can be an auteur nowadays.