ADRIFT, NOT AT PEACE & BUSY DOING NOTHING: a review of "Greenberg"

“GREENBERG” Written For The Screen and Directed by Noah Baumbach
Based on a story by Jennifer Jason Leigh and Noah Baumbach
** (two stars)

“Can’t pretend that growing older never hurts.”
-Pete Townshend
“Slit Skirts”

I am compelled to begin this review by stating at its outset that I did not like this movie. I didn’t hate it. I don’t believe it to be a bad movie. But, I just did not like it very much at all and I have to admit that my reaction confounded me.

Now that I have begun writing reviews for your reading pleasure and consumption, as well as to continuously exercise my creative muscles, I am purposefully not reading official critic’s reviews until after I have written my own, so as not to be influenced. (Of course, I am aware of reviews general tone and I still cannot help but to watch “At The Movies” but I think you know what I mean.) That said, once I walked out of the Sundance movie theater showing “Greenberg,” the new film from Writer/Director Noah Baumbach (2005's "The Squid and the Whale") and starring Ben Stiller in the titular role, I found myself walking towards the giant sized poster of this film. The life-sized advertisement contained an enlarged version of the complete review from the Wall Street Journal, and I had to stop and skim through it. Upon reading, I again realized that the movie I saw and the movie most critics are seeing were two different films, almost entirely. This was a movie that seemed to travel right up the middle of the alley of my personal interests. The film’s Writer/Director is one I have long admired. The rare dramatic turn from the film’s leading actor is one that had excited me. Most importantly, it was the subject matter that spoke loudest. Ant ultimately, it was akin to having all of the ingredients for a great meal, preparing it as best as possible and nevertheless, it refuses to taste good. “Greenberg” slipped through my fingers as I didn’t connect to it. My mind wandered frequently and I was emotionally unengaged for much of its seemingly stagnant running time. My viewpoint has run in the opposite direction of the general consensus.

Baumbach’s “Greenberg” shares many similar themes with the just released “Hot Tub Time Machine,” and in fact, if you took that film’s whirlwind party animal character of Lou and made a dramatic feature surrounding him, you may end up with a film like this one. The life of Roger Greenberg, at the age of 41, is currently in a simultaneous state of arrested development and emotional precariousness. Recently released from a mental institution after a nervous breakdown, Greenberg has been invited to Los Angeles from his beloved New York by his brother to house sit for six weeks as they take a family vacation to Vietnam. Despite his apparent OCD, intense social awkwardness, severe depression that leads to several verbally violent outbursts, as well as being a prisoner of his own past, Greenberg obliges. After his arrival in L.A., he is reunited his with past in painful passages including, Beth (Jennifer Jason Leigh), the other half of a failed relationship and Ivan Schrank (Rhys Ifans in a performance of precise and tender sorrow), a college friend and former band mate, currently going through the agony of his own marital separation. Greenberg is endlessly sarcastic as best, brutally acerbic at worst and narcissistically nihilistic all of the time. His rage at the world is constantly hurled to all around him including via various acid drenched letters to all corporations that have offended him in some way (a Starbucks, an airline, New York Mayor Bloomberg, etc…). Yet, there may be light, however slight, on the horizon in the shape, form and body of Florence Marr (Greta Gerwig) a 20ish college graduate and personal assistant to Greenberg’s brother’s family, with whom Greenberg strikes up a tentative affair.

At its core, Ivan sums the film up best, when he pointedly states to Greenberg to “embrace the life you never thought you would have.” This is a concept that is also at the core of nearly all of Baumbach’s previous films, especially his 1995 debut feature “Kicking And Screaming,” which featured Eric Stoltz in an exploration of post-college ennui and the trepidation of engaging with the continuous passage of life for fear of its inevitable disappointment. In many ways, Greenberg could be one of that film’s over-educated, sardonic, literate and extremely tenderhearted characters, now at the beginning of middle age and constantly perplexed at how he fits into the world at large when even his pop-culture references do not even contain the smallest level of kitschy glee anymore. Greenberg’s crippling fear is one of becoming obsolete to all around him and it is caged in a wall of nearly impenetrable self-loathing, which of course, forces everyone away. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy that he is forced to engage with during his six week stay as he, like the characters in the aforementioned “Hot Tub Time Machine,” discover that their cherish youth wasn’t much to cherish anyway. Heavy resentments still linger in the hearts of his former band mates as they continue to blame Greenberg for the loss of their one record deal offer. And a feeble attempt to rekindle Beth’s old flame is terribly pathetic. However, Greenberg is a character who does not want to make you stone the screen. This is due to Baumbach’s extremely perceptive writing, of course, but also in huge portions to the performance of Ben Stiller.

Ben Stiller is uniformly and unquestionably excellent in the leading role. With this performance, all is forgiven after toiling for too many years in one painful derivative comedy after another. I have always felt that he is one of those actors that is much smarter than the material he has been given and here is his chance to prove it as he is front and center of material I feel is of equal weight to his talents. He creates much humor and sympathy for a character that otherwise would become frustratingly tiresome and one-note. At times, he reminded me very much of Anne Hathaway’s blisteringly brilliant performance in Jonathan Demme’s extraordinary “Rachel Getting Married” (2008) as he also portrays a person who receives very little and unforgiving support from the people that should understand and forgive most. This is shown mostly in several sequences where Greenberg check in with his vacationing brother, and their phone conversations, most of which surround the care of the brother’s ailing German Shepherd named Mahler, reveal a history of resentment and history of vengeful family roles. Stiller masterfully finds the venom in the humor and the humor in the venom, all the while presenting empathy for a character many of us would walk away from…just like the people in Greenberg’s life. Stiller is remarkable.

“Greenberg,” the film, is not about a story or plot. It is a film of mood and behavior, as well as a dual character study (more on that shortly). I am not always in need of a film to provide me with easy answers where characters are universally transformed and tremendous life lessons are learned. I greatly appreciate and even love many films where characters are more informed rather than transformed. As I watched, I was reminded of films like Jim Jarmusch’s “Broken Flowers” (2005) and even Cameron Crowe’s “Elizabethtown’ (2005), where those films’ deliberate pacing and off-kilter rhythms approximated a certain pattern of how life is really lived and how a person’s progress is always taken in baby steps. As we view the progression (or lack thereof) with Greenberg, we are given a similar trajectory with the character of Florence Marr. The personal assistant to Greenberg’s brother is mousy to the degree where she nearly exists as a doormat. Unsure of her place in the world and also unaware of the tools to monkey-wrench herself into it has led her into a state of being as adrift as Greenberg. Yet, it is their relationship that provokes her (possibly for the first time) to discover what her voice may be. Florence begins to realize what she may want out of her life and most importantly, what she may want to discard by simply saying the word, “No.”

But, here’s where the film ran into huge problems for me and also where the divide between myself and the major critics has run the deepest. Greta Gerwig has been receiving glowing attention for her performance as Florence Marr and I am truly unaware at what the critics in her corner saw, as I did not see the same attributes in any conceivable way. It is not a bad performance by any means, let me please make that clear right up front. She possesses a certain weary, awkward grace along with her inviting, warm smile. She seems to represent that person where the sensation of perhaps, “love at eighth sight” may exist. She grows on you, as she also does on Greenberg, but this is nothing approaching the “star making performance” hyperbole that is being banded about heavily. Gerwig gives a quiet, nuanced performance but she is so nuanced that it is almost to the point of near narcolepsy with her languid, woozy line readings and overall demeanor. Nevertheless, she does what she can as the character felt poorly underwritten to me. For all of her screen time and equal weight to Greenberg in the story, I never, ever felt as if I knew this person. The details, apparent and implied, in Greenberg were just not there for Florence at all. Engaging in meaningless sexual trysts, offering petite mutterings of gratitude to gracious drivers, and jangling along to Paul McCartney’s “Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey” are signs of behavior, not character development. These are things that she does, but they don’t tell us who she is. Even a late-film trauma is something that just happens to her and it does nothing to serve the character at all. This weakness makes her half of a dual character study decidedly weightless.

The film “Greenberg” reminded me of the most was Sofia Coppola’s sublime “Lost In Translation”(2003), which also featured two adrift souls who somehow find a certain profound connection in an alien place. Coppola weaved her film by suggesting that the souls of the characters played by Bill Murray and Scarlett Johannson were destined to become intertwined, if only for a short period of time and it could ONLY be these two souls. In “Greenberg,” however, I could see how Florence’s soul would have been affected by Greenberg’s acidity but I not fathom if Greenberg’s soul had been touched specifically by Florence’s or if he would have behaved in the exact same way with ANY woman. Their relationship was unconvincing and since that is a huge portion of the film, “Greenberg” unfortunately succumbed to a deadly tedium.

Just as I felt the character of Florence Marr was underwritten, I felt this film was decidedly underdirected as well. True, Noah Baumbach is not a visual stylist but his previous films all contained a certain inner momentum. "Greenberg” is too wry and dry for its own good as it seemed to have no momentum at all and scenes just laid flatly on the screen. I do realize that the film’s deliberately laconic pacing and atmosphere is designed to reflect life’s natural rhythms as well as the inner states of Roger Greenberg and Florence Marr’s apathy and melancholy, but I found myself unable to connect as there are too many sequences filled with long, awkward pauses and silences. There are great moments sprinkled throughout the film including a terrific extended party sequence where Greenberg, high on cocaine and desperately wanting to listen to Duran Duran’s “The Chauffeur,” launches into an explosive rant laying waste to all of the 20somethings around him. The same sequence also features the heartbreaking moment when Ivan has to painfully express to Greenberg that it is his own self-absorption and unwillingness to try and engage with anyone other than himself that has stripped him of any lasting connections. That the basis of friendship is a “give and take” process and Greenberg’s method of endlessly taking has become irrevocably damaging. But, those sequences are too far scattered from each other and what remained was an unfocused, undisciplined feature. “Greenberg” begged for some tightening to go with Florence’s much needed character development. As it currently stands, it was an honest attempt that refused to captivate and allure and it finally drifted towards an interminable place I was thankful to leave.

Before I close out this review, I am also compelled to share this short cinematic tale with you. Back in college during one of my film courses, we were assigned to view Francis Ford Coppola’s groundbreaking and celebrated psychological thriller, “The Conversation,” from 1974. Gene Hackman starred as Harry Caul, a surveillance expert, who grows increasingly paranoid and disturbed by his implicit role in a potential conspiracy and murder plot. It is a story and character study that details Caul’s crippling detachment and loneliness and I was bored senseless during that viewing. It was a film where seemingly nothing, and I mean absolutely NOTHING happened. Gene Hackman just paced around in an internally agitated state and that was it. There was even a stage where I nodded off and came to a few minutes later and there was Hackman, still pacing around. I was dumbfounded as to why that film had been so celebrated. But, I have to say that upon that initial meeting, “The Conversation” simply had not revealed itself to me. I would occasionally stumble upon it on cable TV over the years and I would find myself somehow drawn in. At first for a few minutes. Then, for maybe an hour and finally, the entire film. Now, I completely understand its legacy and have joined the choir in singing that film’s praises. It is the type of film that a major studio just would not make today. The complexities, the subtleties, and crucially slow pace which demands an audience’s acute attention is not what major studios want these days and can somehow only be found in most independent features.

Perhaps Noah Baumbach’s “Greenberg” is that type of film. One that needs time to resonate fully. I have not rejected this film completely and would even concede to watching it again once it hits DVD. Maybe if I take a subsequent trip, the film would fully reveal itself.

And then again, maybe it already has.

SAVAGE CINEMA'S SHORT TAKES #1: BOYS WILL BE BOYS

And now, the WORLD PREMIERE of a short new feature. When I began to write reviews, many of them were decidedly tiny and as I found myself wanting to delve deeper into the films and my thoughts about them, the reviews became the ones you see today. This series is designed to further house old reviews I wrote and are more on the brief side.

To begin, I would like to piggyback from the previous review and foreshadow the next full length review by focusing on a few raucous comedies from Ben Stiller and the Judd Apatow factory.

"DRILLBIT TAYLOR" Directed by Steven Brill (2008)
** (two stars)
Is Judd Apatow the new John Hughes? With his now patented mix of the sweet and profane, Apatow is the current "King Of Comedy," with an assembly line of no less than FOUR features scheduled to open in theaters this year. So it seems perfect that Apatow's first 2008 entry is a collaboration with frequent player Seth Rogen (as the film's co-writer) and based upon an original story idea by John Hughes from over 20 years ago. Unfortunately, the result is surprisingly toothless, perhaps hemmed in by its own formula and PG-13 rating.

"Drillbit Taylor" follows the first adventures of a trio of high school freshmen who enter their first day of high school to be menaced by a sadistic bully. Enter Owen Wilson as the titular character, a homeless, Army deserter, con-artist who befriends the boys under the guise of being their bodyguard as well as substitute teacher but who secretly has plans to rob their affluent surroundings. Will the con-artist learn the value of true friendship? Will he find true love with the sexy English teacher (Apatow's wife Leslie Mann)? Will the boys have their coming of age through a confrontation with the bully? If you have never seen a movie before, you will probably have no idea of the answers to these questions. Most likely you have and everything occurs just as you would expect with no surprises, artless and plodding direction, and overall sanitized nature that goes against what has made many of Apatow's productions--from the extraordinary "Freaks and Geeks" through "Superbad" and "Knocked Up"--such an absolute pleasure. There's nothing wrong with a formula movie, but if it doesn't play with its own conventions, the proceedings can come out stale.

That said, "Drillbit Taylor" isn't awful by any means. It has a breezy, non-offensive charm and gentleness due to Owen Wilson's laid back presence. The movie truly seems to like our three heroes and we do wish them victory. But, as a warning to Apatow, what ended up derailing John Hughes from his throne was an amass of increasingly half-baked features that streamed from his assembly line at a rate of two films a year (with 1991 as a high with four films). I don't want that to happen with Apatow, where frequency outweighed quality. Better luck next time with April's release "Forgetting Sarah Marshall."

Originally written March 21, 2008

"FORGETTING SARAH MARSHALL" Directed by Nicholas Stoller (2008)
**** (four stars)
Judd Apatow and his band of merry men are back on track with this painfully observed and performed romantic comedy, this time written by lead actor Jason Segal. By now, the plot is familiar. Kristen Bell plays the titular "Sarah Marshall," an actress on a "CSI" styled television show. Segal plays Peter, a musician who composes the music score for the program but dreams of crafting his "Dracula" themed rock opera...with puppets, no less! Sarah dumps Peter at the opening of the film and to assist with his healing after the mortifying breakup, Peter high-tails it to Hawaii only to find Sarah at the same hotel, now dating rock star Aldious Snow (Russell Brand).

The set-up is prime "rom-com" material, but as with previous Apatow films, the formula is turned inside out with a variety of colorful supporting characters (represented by the Apatow Repertory Players, Jonah Hill and Paul Rudd), fully developed leading characters who continue to reveal themselves well into the "third act" and again, painfully observed moments into relationships as they may seem in real life.

It takes the road where "The Break-Up" (2006) never had the guts to travel. That said, this film is not as funny or as raucous as "The 40 Year Old Virgin," "Knocked Up" or "Superbad." The humor is more minutely presented, thanks to Segal's sharp screenplay. In fact, this film reminded me of an equally squeamish and painful romantic comedy, written and directed by Albert Brooks--1981's "Modern Romance." Enormous credit must be given to Jason Segal who gives an absolutely fearless performance and not just for the full frontal. He is so vulnerable, so wounded, so pathetic and most importantly, so very true, that watching his nearly two hour emasculation may be a bit much for some. At points, you just ache for him and only want his happiness. Thankfully, he is rescued by Mila Kunis, whose breezy and seemingly effortless performance as the woman who lifts Peter's spirits, equally lifts the movie every time she is around. And please forgive the "mash note" quality of this last piece but I have never seen "That 70s Show" and I have no idea who Kunis is. But...good God, she is truly, truly stunning. And as lovely as Ms. Bell is, I would easily forget Sarah Marshall if Ms. Kunis was around!

Originally written April 18, 2008

"PINEAPPLE EXPRESS" Directed by David Gordon Green (2008)
**1/2 (two and a half stars)
With the vintage Columbia Pictures studio logo to begin the film, "Pineapple Express" is a 21st century update of the 80s action comedy. Unlike some of Producer Judd Apatow's mega-hits, this film, co-written by Seth Rogen and directed by David Gordon Green, strives to remain on the fringes and ultimately succeeds. I have a strong feeling that after the initial buzz wears off, the future of this movie will be proudly delegated to cult status and I envision this being screened at many parties on DVD for years to come.

As it stands, it is a ragged hybrid of rambling stoner dialogue, a few genuinely touching moments, wild, improbable and violent action sequences, as well as a healthy serving of homo-erotic humor and I believe that Apatow and his faithful crew wouldn't have wanted it any other way. Unlike "The 40 Year Old Virgin," "Knocked Up," "Superbad" and "Forgetting Sarah Marshall," where the plots contained universal appeal that anyone could relate to (relationships, break-ups, sexual anxiety, the teen years), the greatest success of "Pineapple Express" may rest with those who truly understand what is it like to be constantly stoned (as Seth Rogen and James Franco's characters are from one end of this film to the other) or have at least experienced the sensation. If one hasn't, like myself, some of the humor may be a little lost and for every hazy sequence that works (Rogen and Franco playing leapfrog in the woods) there may be another that just doesn't.

That said, I do have to give great credit to James Franco as Saul the drug dealer. His performance is so charmingly lucid and with subtle line readings, he hints at Saul's extreme loneliness and the disappointment he feels concerning the direction of his life. I almost wished the film followed his character and Seth Rogen's was the sidekick. Yet, they make an effortless team and I give the whole film a mild endorsement.

Originally written August 6, 2008

"WALK HARD: THE DEWEY COX STORY" Co-Written and Directed by Jake Kasdan (2007)
*** (three stars)
Comedy is hard and parodies have to be especially so. For every "Airplane!" there's many films on the level of an "Epic Movie." I have to say that I was reluctant to see this film in theaters because I was nervous that the parody would inevitably run out of steam. Now on DVD, I was very surprised to see how strong the film actually is and it is another success for Co-Writer/Producer Judd Apatow and his compatriots, most notably the talents of Co-Writer/Director Jake Kasdan.

Yes, this film is a pastiche of "Walk The Line," "Ray" and nearly every single biopic and "Behind The Music" program you've ever seen. With the infectious and joyous performance by John C. Reilly at the helm, we are carried through the four decade career of the Johnny Cash-ish Dewey Cox as we witness his tragic upbringing, the birth of his innate talent, the years of addiction and rehab, his redemption and final performance...all the hallmarks of the standard biopic and set to the strikingly well-written songs (the Bob Dylan parodies are a highlight). Every possible convention of the biopic is affectionately slaughtered (one of which is the standard of having the lead actor play the character from teenage years to old age) and while the film does have some misses and slows down a bit in the final third, "Walk Hard" is smart, scathing and highly entertaining.

Originally written Spring 2008

"TROPIC THUNDER" Co-Written and Directed by Ben Stiller (2008)
***1/2 (three and a half stars)
I had all but given up on Ben Stiller. I was so tired of his continuous run as the sexually frustrated nebbish who flirted with disaster and was constantly subjected to meeting parents and being confounded by women named Mary or Polly. It was just too much of the same thing and I feared he was going to go the way of Meg Ryan--more roles that were all the same. Thankfully, Stiller has re-emerged with his satiric teeth bared, extended and ready to chomp with his adrenalized and boisterous satire "Tropic Thunder."

I do have to agree with some critics that some of the biggest laughs occur right at the film's start but that's not to say the film nose-dives the rest of the way. In fact, the characters are so very well drawn, their motivations are precise and clear and unlike the awkward blend of violence and comedy from "Pineapple Express," this film makes everything work together, especially in a couple of "Python-esque" bits of gross-out humor. Nothing is sacred but the target is firmly placed on Hollywood, the powers that be and the Method Actors lost in a madness of their own making.

All of the performances are right on course, with Robert Downey Jr. (on a roll) giving another career making performance as Kirk Lazarus, a five time Oscar winner now portraying an African-American soldier in a bid for one more accolade. What could've been a disgusting return to the minstrel show becomes a razor sharp dig against all of the inner and outer transformations some actors go through for a role--including Downey Jr. for this one! Jack Black does seem to be the odd man out a bit but he gets a gut-busting laugh as his heroin addicted comedy star aching for artistic credibility is shackled to a tree, going through heroin withdrawal, desperately trying to negotiate his release. And then, there's Tom Cruise as the volcanically vulgar and grotesque studio head, Les Grossman, whose litany of expletives and full-on gangsta dance moves have to be seen to be believed. Back to Ben Stiller. I am so glad he's back. His duties as co-writer, producer and director for this are all top notch and I have to say, it makes me more anxious to see his upcoming collaboration with Cameron Crowe.

(2010 SIDE NOTE to this review: As it stands, the collaboration between Stiller and Crowe for a rumored project entitled "Deep Tiki," is currently not happening as both men are eyeing new projects. I do hope, however, that they team up for a project in the future.)

Originally written August 15, 2008

DO I DARE DISTURB THE UNIVERSE? *%@& YES!!!: a review of "Hot Tub Time Machine"

"HOT TUB TIME MACHINE" Directed by Steve Pink
***1/2 (three and a half stars)

Now this is what "The Hangover" should've been!!! Despite that film’s massive pillaging at the box office last summer, Director Todd Phillips’ ode to extreme male bonding (i.e. stupidity), while exerting a decent amount of comic mystery, was unfortunately a not terribly funny affair. In my original review of that film, I declared it to be “coarse, crass, and callous,” and not in a supportive way. What surprised me most about that film was not only how much I detested the three leading characters but I was also stunned that it also succumbed into the worst of creepy throwback attitudes and depictions of women. To add the proverbial insult to injury, after viewing “The Hangover” a second time, what little that had worked initially for me already didn’t hold up very well. Since the comic mystery of the missing groom-to-be and the forgotten pieces of their night of debauchery had been solved after seeing the film the first time, I could not help but to become painfully aware that the film was loaded with several slow-paced passages that limped along from one set-up to the next. It had a lack of energy to go along with its’ redundant, repetitive and much too derivative comedic depravity, which ultimately robbed the enterprise of possessing an original comedic voice.

Now let me turn you to a film which not only knows how to get the job done, it definitely possesses an original comic voice. Life long friends, Director Steve Pink and Producer John Cusack have correctly figured out how to take similar elements of the male driven vulgar comedy and give them all a fresh spin. The resulting film, “Hot Tub Time Machine,” is a raucous, riotous, extremely tasteless, volcanically puerile, and downright hysterical and surprisingly melancholy film, which bests “The Hangover” in every possible way.

The pain and ennui of middle age and lament for lost youth has already settled uncomfortably into the lives of Adam (John Cusack), Nick (Craig Robinson) and Lou (Rob Cordrry). Upon returning home from another miserable day of cubicle drudgery, Adam is dealt a significant blow by the departure of his live-in girlfriend, along with most of his furniture and possessions. Nick is deeply in love, yet not quite happily married as he fears his wife is cheating on him. Nick has also traded his dreams of musical fulfillment for a soulless dead-end job at ‘Sup Dawg, a canine themed pet store/animal clinic. As the film opens, Adam and Nick race to the hospital to find Lou (crudely nicknamed “The Violator” due to his hard partying nature) recovering from carbon monoxide poisoning due to drunkenly singing and playing along to his beloved Motley Crue’s “Home Sweet Home,” in a closed garage clouded with exhaust fumes.

Hoping to cure their ills with one more fraternal blast, the trio-along with Jacob (played by Clark Duke), Adam’s 20-ish, introverted, tech-geek nephew-decide to take a trip to the ski lodge they frequented 20 years earlier, a location which also holds their most cherished memories. However, the years have not been kind to the almost empty and dilapidated resort. Yet before the gang can descend into another round of middle aged disappointment and failure, they step into the suite’s hot tub for an evening of sudsy, alcoholic fun. After a spillage on the electronic controls, the foursome are transported-like Marty McFly in Doc Brown’s DeLorean-back to the ski lodge of their heyday: the Winterland festival weekend of 1986, the exact point in time where all of their lives took dramatic turns for the worse. Realizing their ridiculously unplanned predicament, the group is faced with the chance to either right the wrongs of their past (and risking the potential damage of the butterfly effect) or allow events to play out at they had before. Will Adam choose to break up with his gorgeous and “tight” old girlfriend Jennie (Lyndsey Fonseca), the “Great White Buffalo” of his past, all over again? Will Lou defeat Blaine the rich bully (Sebastian Stan) who once roughed him up? Will Nick chase his musical dreams once and for all? Then, there’s the completely misplaced Jacob, who wasn’t even born in 1986, who somehow runs into his younger and horny Mother (Collette Wolfe). And of course, there is the question of how they will ever find their collective way back to 2010. Perhaps that cryptic repair man, played by Chevy Chase, has all of the necessary answers…

In Rob Reiner’s immortal rockumentary parody “This Is Spinal Tap” (1984), guitarist David St Hubbins (played by Michael McKean) states, “It’s such a fine line between stupid and clever.” Steve Pink and John Cusack have straddled this very thin line confidently as they dole out stupid and clever in equal amounts. While it may not function as everyone’s cup of tea, for me, it worked wonderfully and on various levels as well.

As a 1980’s pop culture satire, it succeeds in ways that the highly celebrated Adam Sandler vehicle “The Wedding Singer” (1998) just did not. I despised “The Wedding Singer” for so many reasons, most of all because it presented a 1980s I never knew and frankly didn’t exist. I lived through the 1980’s. My entire adolescence existed in the 1980s and “The Wedding Singer” seemed to have absolutely no knowledge of that time. It was an 80’s fun house where every sight and sound was depicted as a knowing pop-culture joke. It was tiresome and just not funny. In “Hot Tub Time Machine” however, we do get our fair share of leg warmers, jheri curls, pastels, Walkman cassette players and an MTV that actually showed music videos, but those images do not fuel the film as a whole. In fact, after those sight gags are presented, the 80’s references we do receive are sly and subtle nods to ‘80s movies. We are treated to many mirrored moments that are engineered to remind us of “Back To The Future” (1985), “Pretty In Pink” (1986), “Red Dawn” (1984) and even several films in which Cusack himself appeared (Try to spot the references to “Sixteen Candles” (1984), “Better Off Dead” (1985), “The Sure Thing” (1985) “ and even 1989’s “Say Anything…”). Thankfully, these are all presented without throwing a neon sign on the movie screen and pummeling the audience with easy, obvious material.

Pink wisely gives his film a rapid comic velocity. Paced like a cross between a classic screwball comedy and an underground “hellzapoppin’” mania, the jokes, sight gags, and one-liners are all hurled with unabashed glee. Even the gross–out gags, of which there may a few too many, race by, make their cheerfully nasty point and move on.

John Cusack is the perfect straight man as he is constantly attempting to wrestle some sort of control over chaotic situations. His status as an unconventional and wonderfully convincing romantic lead plays out in a few sequences where Adam strikes up a friendship with April (Lizzy Caplan), a traveling music journalist for Spin magazine, currently on the road with Poison. Cusack and Caplan have a nice, quiet mid-movie courtship sequence where he delivers a sad, grim monologue that rivals, and is possibly a nod to Phoebe Cates’ infamous “Why I hate Christmas” speech from Joe Dante’s “Gremlins” (1984).

Craig Robinson, previously seen in scene stealing smaller roles in 2008’s uneven “Pineapple Express” and “Zack And Miri Make A Porno,” continues his comedic mastery of the deadpan delivery. He raises every scene he is in effortlessly. Clarke Duke is his equal with deadpan remarks, reactions and observational humor and his sweetness is a fine counterpoint to the flailing zoo around him.

Rob Cordrry takes the role of the requisite party animal to epic proportions with his blistering performance of Lou. He is an alcoholic and walking psychopathic hellion. He is the id on cocaine with three remaining and endlessly fighting brain cells at his disposal and Cordrry attacks and embraces this role completely by letting go of any inhibitions, heading full throttle and never blinking.

I must also express how much of a pleasure it was to see Chevy Chase, reminding us all, in just a few sort scenes of why he is one of the greats. And Crispin Glover as a one-armed bellboy is just golden and the center of several brutally funny moments.

Before I go any further, I have to return to “The Hangover” for a moment as I continue to ponder just how that film went wrong for me when “Hot Tub Time Machine” was blissfully right. As I stated at the head of this review, I hated the three leading characters. These stupid, boorish men didn’t seem to know or care how stupid and boorish they actually were…and perhaps, neither did the filmmakers. The film loved these guys and their behavior, the film seemed to be arguing, was justified and deserved. For all of the mishaps and unfortunate situations, nothing really horrible happened to them. “The Hangover” was too in love with its terrible trio and by the film’s conclusion, their supreme irresponsibility was not only revered and justified, it was rewarded. Being a “Bad Boy” gave them everything they wanted, they were unchanged from the experience and why should they be as there were no real consequences?

With “Hot Tub Time Machine,” Pink, Cusack and their collaborators obviously are in love with their characters as well. But, they are knowing of their collective stupidity which enhances the comedy. Yet, it is also critical of their foibles, failures, and fears, which gives the film some dark and unexpected weight. The film has built in a knowing poignancy to the material that simultaneously lets you in on the joke and laugh at these characters as well as understanding how they became miserable middle aged men. Adam, Nick and Lou could be spiritual brothers to the sad men of Ray Romano’s excellent new series, “Men Of A Certain Age.”

Also, in some respects, “Hot Tub Time Machine” reminded me of Director Harold Ramis’ finest film, “Groundhog Day” (1993) which had Bill Murray’s misanthropic weatherman forced to eternally live the same day until he devises a way to get his house in order. “Hot Tub Time Machine” may make a sloppy conceptual mess of the space-time continuum but it has a firm hand on the wheel of time and karma, as the characters are also forced to relive various moments and failures of their lost 1986 weekend in ways that differ slightly from how they remember. Like the brilliant and dizzying concepts shown within the plotting of television’s “Lost,” some events cannot be changed and matters of fate and destiny will remain no matter what you do to change the end results. Moreover, the film is clever and smart enough to depict that their cherished youth wasn’t that much better than their middle age in the first place.

I cannot deny the pleasure of a subversive John Cusack comedy. Their “anything goes” spirit has always been infectious, whether in the aforementioned teen comedies “Better Off Dead” and “One Crazy Summer” (both written and directed by Savage Steve Holland and from 1985 and 1986, respectively), the music industry satire “Tapeheads” (1988) or even Cusack’s own polarizing, raging political satire and passion project, “War, Inc.” (2008).

I have to say that I have never had a desire to return to the 80’s, a decade Cusack’s character Adam refers to glumly as “the time of Reagan and AIDS.” But, with “Hot Tub Time Machine,” I am already looking forward to a return trip.

SAVAGE CINEMA COMING ATTRACTIONS FOR APRIL 2010

It is just amazing to behold how productive this blog has been for me. It is creatively fulfilling and I am honored by everyone who has even taken some time to visit.

For the month of April, I have some upcoming reviews planned for you including...

1. John Cusack's new comedy "Hot Tub Time Machine."

2. "Greenberg," the latest from Writer/Director Noah Baumbach.

3. Let's see if I can get myself to the new rock biopic "The Runaways" as well as the new Judd Apatow produced and Nicholas Stoller written and directed comedy, "Get Him To The Greek," a sort-of sequel to "Forgetting Sarah Marshall."

4. More reviews from the archives will make their debut appearances on Savage Cinema, including a new series of older, shorter reviews entitled, "SAVAGE CINEMA'S SHORT TAKES."

5. And we'll see about this one...I am currently involved in a Spike Lee phase, as I have been pouring through his post "Malcolm X" material, including the excellent "Crooklyn," "Clockers," "Get On the Bus," as well as the engaging misfire known as "Girl 6." I am tossing around the idea of possibly writing about my ten favorite Lee "Joints" but most of all, I am still hoping to view, write and premiere my review of his latest, "Passing Strange."

Life always has its nasty habit of getting itself in the way of any plans we all may intended to pursue but these are the hopeful coming attractions for this month.

See you when the house lights go down...

A GUILTY PLEASURE THAT IS JUST PLAIN GUILTY: a review of "Obsessed"

In the last post from the archives for "Orphan," there was a reference to a previous posting...a posting that I hadn't placed onto "Savage Cinema" yet. The following review is that elusive posting. Perhaps you can take this backwards reference as something "Salingeresque" or something out of a Tarantino film...OK, yes it is a huge stretch but I thought I'd go for it.

Originally written September 3, 2009

"OBSESSED" Directed by Steve Shill
** (two stars)

I have a confession to make. If I am at home flipping through channels and discover that a certain movie is playing, I will ALWAYS stop on said channel and watch to my heart's content. Now, I must inform you that this is not a good movie in the least. It is actually fairly negligible but I cannot turn away, and it never gets old. Brace yourselves...The movie is: "Friends 'Til The End," a television movie starring Shannon Doherty as a college student trapped within a "single white female" scenario with some blond rival who wants to steal all aspects of her life, including her role as a lead singer in a college 10,000 Maniacs styled band. Doherty handles her own singing in the movie's many musical numbers and I have to report that the songs aren't half bad and a music video sequence set in a desert with a phone booth is a high point. But the story contains every possible cliche you could think of within the "...from hell" genre (i.e. The Teacher From Hell, The Stepmother From Hell, The Neighbor From Hell, etc...) and the entertainment value is priceless!

While I have to again state that "Friends 'Til The End" is not a good movie in the least, sometimes the very best thing in the world is a good bad movie. One where the laughs are completely unintentional and you cannot believe that at any point during the filmmaking process all parties involved felt they were onto something tremendous. I have had quite a few guilty pleasures in my life and I am always on the lookout for something new. I have to say that I had high hopes when I first saw the trailer for "Obsessed," a new thriller starring Beyonce Knowles but sadly, aside from the climax (more on that later), it did not deliver the goods.

"Obsessed" begins with happily married couple, Sharon and Derek Charles' (Knowles and Idris Elba from HBO's astonishing series "The Wire") arrival in their new home. With an infant son in tow, they marvel at this lovely next step in their lives together as Derek has just received a massive promotion within his company as an assets manager (Their happiness is an act christened with a PG-13 lovemaking sequence on the bedroom floor with a ceiling mirror to boot!). The very next day, Derek meets Lisa Sheridan (Ali Larter from "Heroes"), a vampish new temporary secretary who makes it quite clear of her carnal intentions. Lisa's seemingly harmless flirtation turns to stalking and when Derek rebuffs her charms at an office party and later when she slides into his car wearing little more than flashy undergarments, she becomes OBSESSED with her pursuit, thus placing Derek's career and marriage in jeopardy.

All of this has the marking of a hilariously passable "Fatal Attraction" knock off at best but with it's turgid pacing, weak characterizations, and anemic motivations, the movie doesn't spring to life until its inevitable and almost screamingly funny climax where Knowles and Larter finally face off--in high heels inside of a not-too sturdy attic. Watch your step!

The biggest problem for me is that it was a movie that was solely designed to reach a certain ending (Knowles beats the tar out of Larter). Unfortunately, it forgot to place anything else of note in the entirely of the film up to that point and that makes the whole thing a slog. A favorite guilty pleasure of mine happens to be the "dramatic thriller" about wife abuse, "Enough" starring Jennifer Lopez. Now that was also a film solely designed to have a certain ending (J Lo beats the tar out of her violent husband) but from the very beginning, "Enough" had more than enough preposterous and extremely (and again unintentionally) comic situations. The melodrama was cranked to 11. The absolute omnipotence of her husband was outrageous. The presence of a hysterically whiny child, Noah Wyle as a villain and once Fred Ward arrived as J Lo.'s long-lost absentee father, it just couldn't get any more laughable. And THEN J Lo. goes through combat training. "Enough" never knew when to quit and that's what made it a terrific example of the good bad movie.

Couldn't the filmmakers behind "Obsessed," do anything to serve their actors better? Knowles is truly wasted in a part that really required her to do little more than sit at home glamorously with her baby. Idris Elba, so compelling, ruthless, and deeply charismatic as the swaggering drug lord Stringer Bell on "The Wire" has been completely stripped of all of his attributes and transformed into a strikingly bland hero. Only Larter seems to be having any fun and she's not doing anything much different than her typical performances anyway.

So, ultimately, I did not get my wish for a new guilty pleasure to be added to my personal archives but I'm happily waiting for the next time "Friends 'Til The End" shows up on cable.

THE BADDEST SEED OF THEM ALL: a review of "Orphan"

As I think about Vera Farmiga's deserved Oscar nominated performance in the brilliant "Up In The Air," I wanted to post a review I wrote about one of the films she performed in that I am certain gathered the attention of filmmakers seeking new talent.

Originally written November 5, 2009

“ORPHAN” Directed by Juame Collet-Serra
** (two stars)

Be careful of what you wish for…

The very day after I wrote my previous review, in which I decried the lack of creativity and even honest attempt at making strong films through formula movies, I happened along “Orphan,” a new horror/psychological thriller featuring the demonic wrath of an orphaned 9-year-old girl, which she unleashes upon an unsuspecting family. While this was indeed an above average entry in the “…From Hell” genre, its beastly unpleasantness made for an ugly enterprise that ceased it from becoming truly memorable as a horror film I would ever want to re-visit.

The plot is simple and pure formula as “Orphan” contains ingredients familiar to anyone who has ever watched “The Hand That Rocks The Cradle,” “The Omen,” or any one of a host of Lifetime movies. Kate and John (attractively played by Vera Farmiga and Peter Sarsgard) are in the process of seeking to adopt a child. While they are already the proud parents of pre-teen Daniel (Jimmy Bennet) and deaf kindergartner Max (the absolutely cherubic Aryanna Engineer), the couple is hoping to alleviate their grief over a recent miscarriage. Enter Esther (Isabelle Fuhrman), the aforementioned 9 year-old girl who hails from a Russian orphanage, dresses in archaic clothing styles (including ever-present odd bands around both wrists and neck) and possesses a prodigious artistic talent…as well as a mean streak only Satan could appreciate fully. Esther instantly bonds with John, quickly makes herself at home with the family, starts school and then things begin to spiral murderously downwards and will, of course, lead to a final confrontation between Esther and Mother Kate.

All of the familiar elements are present to ensure the “…From Hell” formula clicks along properly. The Mother is the suspicious heroine that no one believes, the secret of Esther’s violent tendencies are known only to helpless victims (in this case, both of Kate and John’s children), and the heroine’s sanity is called into question, most notably for this story by her husband, as the story builds in intensity. Esther always remains angelic-TOO angelic-which indubitably belies her escalating rage which is released upon school bullies, defenseless animals, and to the people who would reveal her secret in the story’s final twist—which I have to say I never saw coming but unlike the brilliance of the twist in “The Sixth Sense,” this twist is a gargantuan howler.

Yet, what sets this film apart from most films in the genre is that there is not an ounce of laziness to the proceedings. It is as if the filmmakers are exclaiming to the potential audience, “You want a “Bad Seed” movie, well…HERE’S a “Bad Seed” movie!!!” Director Juame Collet-Serra and the screenwriters are out to deliver on their intent and the care they placed within the story’s pacing, editing, casting and performances is evident. Farmiga and Sarsgard give very strong performances as the married couple. Farmiga, with her long face and sorrowful eyes, certainly gives you a heroine to wring your hands over while Sarsgard, given the thankless role of being perhaps the most clueless husband in the history of this film genre, a certain believability. Young Isabella Fuhrman completely embodies the role of this demon child. With a Russian accent that always remains unsettlingly creepy and her cold, hollow eyes, she makes for a strong villain-one you would hope to never cross paths with on any playground anywhere. Most successful is the atmosphere created by the cinematography, which is engulfed in dark shadows and the shrouds of nightmares. The feeling of dread throughout the film reminded me very much of David Fincher’s relentlessly grim serial killer masterpiece “Se7en.”

However, it is that very effective grimness that hurts the film overall. It’s not necessarily a matter of tone though. For this film, it is a matter of violence in general and violence towards children in particular. After enduring the film’s opening and grisly dream sequence (a sequence I HIGHLY recommend my pregnant readers or more sensitive Mommies to skip over—perhaps the film’s first five minutes), we are subjected to acts of Esther’s formidable cruelty in a gratuitous degree. Yes, this is an R Rated film and a certain amount of gore is to be expected but why show us several close-up blows to the head with a hammer when only one or two would’ve sufficed? Why many stab wounds, complete with squishy sound effects, when just one or two would’ve been enough? You get the picture, I am certain.

But then, there is the entire production of placing young children in jeopardy, always a cinematic cheap trick and one that has to be handled with a certain delicacy to as not be wholly offensive. It is also a matter of context, as well. Think of the terrorized children in Steven Spielberg and Tobe Hooper’s classic “Poltergeist,” the young hero of M. Night Shyamalan’s “The Sixth Sense,” the small child in James Cameron’s equally classic “Aliens” or even Linda Blair in the granddaddy of them all, “The Exorcist.” Perhaps the fantastical settings of science fiction and the supernatural allow the viewer to be a tad removed from the concept of a child in mortal peril. Even more real world entries have typically shown a fair amount of restraint when it comes to how much danger to place a child into. With “Orphan,” the gloves are off and the effect slides the film over the line into bad taste. Is there any real reason why Esther must prove her threatening malevolence by holding a gun in the face of the small deaf child, and even suggest they play a round of Russian Roulette to boot? Is there any reason why she must place the older child into a coma and THEN try to smother him? And then, there are the acts of violence the two children are forced to endure and view, including that fateful stabbing I previously mentioned.

A friend of mine, who runs a local video store, expressed it best to me as we discussed this movie amongst ourselves. He said, “I think this film is really designed for that fraction of the viewing audience that actually doesn’t particularly care for children and in fact, might even hate them. But, what about the larger fraction of the audience who actually loves children and just wants to see a good horror movie?” Great point and while I do not chastise the filmmakers for going this far, especially as I chose to see this film on my own volition, I do have to put into account the feelings I had while watching. I simply wasn’t enjoying it anymore. I couldn’t continue to subscribe to the fantasy placed in front of me and the film began to feel hideous and I could not escape this revolting feeling inside.

I have this theory when it comes to my relationship with television and movie violence. It is a bit difficult to explain but please bear with me. I feel that there is an unwritten contract placed into effect between the viewer and the filmmakers each time a ticket is purchased or the channel has been turned to a specific program. I feel that I am placing my trust into the hands of the filmmakers to just tell me a good story. If there is an amount of violence, it will be handled within the context of the genre or story. It will also be handled to solely serve the story and not entirely rely on shock value—although some shock value is necessary (i.e. Stanley Kubrick’s “A Clockwork Orange” or even that final shot in Tarantino's “Inglourious Basterds” for instance). When images become gratuitous (a perception that lies within the heads and hearts of every individual viewer), I feel that the contract has been broken to an extent…or at least, I just don’t want to buy what they’re selling anymore. That’s what happened for me with this particular film. As I said before, I know the film’s rating, I understand the characteristics of the genre and knew full well that any violence would be pitched to a certain degree. Yet, as I watched a child, nearly burned to death and dangling from a nearby tree screaming for his Mother to save him while Esther coldly looks on anticipating his death, any entertainment value had been lost on me. The contract had been effectively broken.

“Orphan” certainly delivers on its promises. That cannot be denied. But, I just didn’t want what they were selling after a while.

ALL BOW DOWN TO THE SULLEN, SOUR GIRL: a review of "The Twilight Saga: New Moon"

“THE TWILIGHT SAGA: NEW MOON” Directed by Chris Weitz
* (one star)

When I first wrote and published my review of “Twilight,” I was politely chided by a few friends for possibly being too soft on the material. I respect and understand the critique yet I will stand by that original review as I thought the movie as a whole—while I didn’t care for it-- was not all that bad. In many ways, I stand by those same sentiments when it comes to “New Moon,” the second installment of Stephanie Meyer’s blockbuster series, now directed by Chris Weitz (“American Pie,” “About A Boy,” “The Golden Compass”) taking over for Catherine Hardwicke. I know fully well that I am not the audience for this particular film, characters or genre. I know there is a certain shallowness and emotional fantasy that is part of this romance novel experience, which ultimately does not appeal to me. I know this whole enterprise is a sexual cautionary tale, a plea for teenage abstinence, which can allow a safe avenue for young female followers to explore their own budding sexuality. I know that this film knows exactly what its audience wants and is more than happy to deliver accordingly. But, does that mean that I cannot critique it? Well, I am going to try my best to be fair. Because while I thought its visual presentation was a marked improvement over the first film, my overall feelings towards “New Moon” are indeed of a much harsher variety.

As our next episode begins, it is Bella Swan’s (again played by Kristen Stewart) 18th birthday, a day which almost concludes in tragedy as her blood, drawn from a paper cut, inadvertently ignites the passions of Jasper Cullen, the vampire family member of her true love, savior and protector, Edward Cullen (reprised by Robert Pattinson), also a vampire. Yet, for Bella, the near miss with death is a source of disappointment as all she wants for her birthday is to become a vampire and be together with Edward for eternity. Edward, however, resists Bella’s urges-as well as his own-and for the protection and purity of her soul, decides that it is best to break up with her and move away with his family from the dreary landscape of Forks, Washington.

After Edward’s departure, Bella becomes submerged into a dangerously deep three month depression, during which she makes near suicidal choices and is continuously plagued with nightmares. Eventually, she re-ignites a friendship with the newly buffed out Jacob Black (Taylor Lautner), who is, unbeknownst to her, a werewolf...who of course, carries his own passionate feelings for her.

A love triangle is born yet that is not all that sits on Bella’s plate. She is still being pursued by renegade vampires led by Victoria, out for Bella’s blood in revenge for the death of Victoria’s love in the first film. A treaty between the vampires and werewolves in nearing dissolution. And then, there’s even a creepy ancient aristocratic vampire secret society housed in Italy called the Volturi to deal with, which may also bring about Bella’s long awaited reunion with Edward…but will it be too late?

Now, I have to admit, once this story got going, I thought to myself that this series is finally beginning to go places and then, I was somewhat surprised to discover that it didn’t. The shallow nature of the first film sadly remained and for a series that is now proclaiming itself to be a “saga,” the lack of development is a more than a little disappointing.

A saga, by its very nature, tends to promise a broadening and deepening of its plot and characters to create a richer environment and experience for the audience. Think of the “Harry Potter” series, either the films or especially the wonderful books written by J.K. Rowling. That seven-part saga lives up to its intentions by creating a collective of characters who do indeed grow and change over the course of seven years. Even Harry Potter himself is forced to confront even the most unpleasant aspects of his nature in order to fully realize his destiny. If he had stayed the exact same character he was in the first novel and film, I would be hard pressed to say that anyone would have cared a whit about the outcome.

With “New Moon,” the situations and landscape are developing, with the addition of new characters, locations, and complications. Yet the characters remain unchanged from the first film and the way everything is handled and presented is painfully simplistic and superficial. It’s difficult to build tension concerning characters’ outcomes when the storytellers don’t seem to be that engaged themselves. Every moment is painted with the largest of brush strokes and (figuratively, of course) only in primary colors. There is no subtlety or shading which means that the depth necessary for a building narrative is non-existent, therefore severing any chances for a real emotional connection.

As I stated earlier, the production values, cinematography and special effects are much improved over the first film. A chase through a forest set to a brooding and electronic Thom Yorke song selection is effective. However, the film is sluggishly paced and feels lifeless for a story that is supposed to contain so much to wring your hands over. When Anna Kendrick shows up for a couple of brief scenes as Bella’s “frenemy” Jessica, her comic energy and snappiness brought the film instantly to life. I almost would love to see this story with her as the lead instead!

Again, I will concede that perhaps this series is not even meant to go any deeper than the surface as I have been told the film version is very faithful to the plot and tone of Meyer’s book. The clumsy allusions and parallels to “Romeo and Juliet” from the first film return in even more awkward presentations. All of those shirtless werewolves running around purely to make the ladies in the audience whoop and holler feels like a nearly feature length version of the volleyball game scene from “Top Gun.” (And I did have to wonder what happens to their cargo shorts and pants when they become SO HOT and transform…but, hey, that’s a whole ‘nother movie!)Pitifully, sequences meant to have passion or pain are unfortunately and unintentionally comic enough to become laugh out loud howlers.

Take the break-up sequence for instance. Here was a section I thought, before it actually began, that just may begin to give the story a taste of the depth that has been lacking from the start. But no. It was torturous to watch, with swelling strings of the background score providing additional commentary over the emotionless dialogue spoken with a shocking slowness by Stewart and Pattinson. Honestly, folks, feigned dramatic pauses and so-called meaningful glances into each other’s eyes or into the distant skies do not instantly create passion, yearning, romantic longing and sexual heat. Beyond the writing and directorial pacing, the major sins of those sequences come from the horrid acting, which is decidedly worse than the first film.

In the role of Edward, Robert Pattinson does what he can when walking in slow-motion towards Bella through the school parking lot, but I have to say that he is acting solely by hairstyle and pasty makeup for the entire movie. Thankfully, he gets off easy as he is not on display that much past the opening sequences, the climax and a few intermittent “Obi-Wan Kenobi” appearances.

The biggest problem(s) of “New Moon,” happen to be so intertwined that I am not certain where to begin first. It is a chicken and the egg conundrum and the elephant in the room. What I am about to confront are the largest obstacles of “New Moon”: the performance of Kristen Stewart and the character of Bella Swan.

Kristen Stewart is a very curious actress. She has been rightly cast in the roles she has previously been given and she performs quite well in them. She has never stricken a false note and she is served well by her material. Her performances in Sean Penn’s “Into The Wild” and especially in last year’s wonderful “Adventureland” have been career high points. The problem for her is that every character she has portrayed has been cut from the same cloth, therefore displaying Stewart’s complete lack of dramatic range. Stewart has been relegated to playing a collective of sullen, sour, self-consciously dark girls with hair in their faces for so long now that it seemed perfect casting that she ultimately landed the part of Bella Swan. Yet, in “New Moon” this part may be her undoing as this film showcased a flat-out terrible piece of acting. Unlike Pattinson, Kristen Stewart is in nearly every scene of this film and the cracks in her talent are blindingly shown. She has no emotional range whatsoever, playing every moment in the same, flat, monotone meant to depict some intense stage of teenage misery yet she comes off as someone who had just rolled out of bed, stumbled onto a set, didn’t know or understand her lines and wasn’t terribly motivated being there in the first place. It is not arrogance I witnessed, just uninterested detachment which made it impossible to find a way into this character.

The depression sequence is the film’s key aforementioned howler. It is a spectacular failure of a sequence, designed to try and enter more into Bella’s inner world and endless sadness due to Edward’s absence. The camera circles around her as she sends 6000 e-mails into the void and we are hysterically given the winter of Bella’s discontent…all set to Kristen Stewart’s completely unengaged and unchanging expression. Having a pouty face just isn’t enough yet that was all she was able to muster. That said, I again have to express that I have been told that this is essentially the character of Bella Swan and this is faithful to her.

In the first film, it was obvious that Bella was an audience stand-in, the conduit for the wish-fulfillment fantasy being set in motion. In this film, I just cannot see her appeal and am actually quite confused by it and the messages she seems to be putting forth, especially to that legion of young girls in love with this series. Bella Swan is a profoundly insufferable leading character! She is completely selfish, self-indulgent, horrifically narcissistic, entirely unable to see past her own needs and desires and completely willing to draw any and everyone into her cauldron of self-pity. Yet…EVERYONE is obsessed by her. She gets to have not one but two boys falling all over her, plus all manner of vampires and werewolves hunting for her and does she honestly deserve all of this attention anyway?

In the film’s first few sequences where we are endlessly presented with the knowledge of Bella’s 18th birthday. It feels as if the entire town of Forks was given a Facebook alert to which she can morosely feign discomfort and shun each present and birthday wish. But, later, she cruelly pulls out the “birthday card” towards Edward as she inflicts sexual pressure upon him for her own gain. It was as if she said, "If you really loved me, you would just make me a vampire!"

Bella Swan is an emotional infant. She wants what she wants when she wants it without any regard for the people and consequences that surround her. Her treatment of Jacob is awful, as she completely uses him and toys with his feelings, simply because her other plaything is not there. Some would argue that this is representative of some teenage girls and their experiences but folks, this is not a docudrama. This is a romantic fantasy interested in only the surface of things, and I do not believe that "New Moon" is that savvy or insightful.

For some reason, it really disturbed me once the film reached its climax when Bella races to Italy to save Edward from the Volturi because there was not an inch of concern for her Father, Charlie and the potential amount of anguish her disappearance would put him through. When Edward initially leaves Bella, he urges her to not do anything reckless and to essentially not commit suicide, if not for herself but for Charlie. Her rescue attempt blatantly showed how well Charlie ranks within her heart. Look, having not read the books, maybe I am missing Bella's positive attributes. But, this is what is on screen and she is being served cinematically by Kristen Stewart who is seemingly unable to hit certain notes and in the case of this film, it wasn't working even for one minute.

For a series that contains so many parallels to "Romeo and Juliet," I actually have one of my own to share. In one of my high school English classes, after we had completed our own study of "Romeo and Juliet," our teacher quietly asked the class what we had thought of the play. The classroom remained uncomfortably silent for what seemed to be eons until one girl raised her hand sheepishly and offered the following opinion: "It was stupid!"

The silence that had already existed in the classroom became frigidly silent as if we all felt that this one girl's statement would eventually sound the death knell for us all. But, we were proven wrong when our teacher plainly asked her, "Why?"
"Well...it was just so stupid!" she began. "I mean--they're just kids and what do they even know about love! And anyway, I don't even think Romeo even loved her at all. He liked that one girl at the beginning and then suddenly he's all in love with Juliet?! That's so dumb. I think he's just in love with being in love! And then...they just die! It was just such a waste!"
"And that's why it's a tragedy," our teacher said succinctly.

When I think of the love story between Edward and Bella thus far, and certainly after this film, this is essentially how I am feeling. It all seems so...stupid. Bella Swan is not virtuous. She is not heroic. She's just the next contestant on MTV's "My Super Sweet 16." And frankly, I am actually wondering if she even loves Edward at all. I think Bella Swan is in love with Bella Swan and her self-imposed misery. She seems to want Edward just because she wants him. When she cannot have him, she wants him more, no matter the costs to herself, to him and in regards to this story, the fate of the vampire and werewolf worlds. She possesses all of the toys in the game and if it is not played her way, she will take her bat and ball and go home to presumably sit stone faced in a chair writing 6000 more e-mails into the void.

If this is the great love story of the 21st century then I want no part of it.