Surf’s Up

Ever since the documentary “March of the Penguins” captivated audiences in 2005, it seemed that Hollywood just couldn’t get enough of the loveable creatures, at least in animated form. One year after the aforementioned documentary was released, some audiences delighted to the musical/dance themed animated movie “Happy Feet”. This brings us to the 2007 release of “Surf’s Up”, which served as a different kind of animated fare for the tuxedoed creatures. The reason being is that it was more of a sports themed mockumentary of sorts that focuses on penguins (go figure) who love to spend their days surfing. It’s a surprisingly original idea, and one that grabbed my attention more effectively than any of the other penguin-centric movies being released, not to mention the terrific voice cast (which I will grant “Happy Feet” boasted great vocal performers as well), and what appeared to be a more fast-paced, fun, and less politically motivated movie than some of the other entries of its kind.

“Surf’s Up” is the tale of a young penguin named Cody Maverick (Shia LaBeouf) who dreams of one day competing in a surfing contest named for his idol, surfing legend Big Z (Jeff Bridges). After gaining acceptance into the competition, Cody quickly discovers that his quest for winning may just be more difficult than he thought, and that the only way for him to truly become a winner is to learn that sometimes winning isn’t everything.

After watching the tiresome “Happy Feet” I wasn’t looking forward to yet another movie focusing on the flight-less birds that Hollywood had suddenly become enamored with. However, upon viewing “Surf’s Up” I was pleasantly surprised to find that I actually enjoyed the movie from start to finish. I think the reason I enjoyed this movie more than expected is partly (perhaps obviously) due to the writing team of Don Rhymer (“Big Momma’s House 2”), Ash Brannon and Chris Buck (who also served as directors on this movie) being smart enough to keep the movie just a fun ride for both children and adults. For every slapstick moment or age-appropriate joke for children, there would most likely be a sight gag or double entendre slipped in for adults to get a kick out of as well. As a parent I am always very appreciative of a so-called “kid’s movie” that actually takes into account the fact that the target audience will most likely be accompanied by their parents or some other adult guardian; thus, these prescient writers take the effort to actually include some jokes aimed solely at those members of the audience above the age of 10.

Giving life to the animated characters on the screen was a rather talented ensemble of actors and actresses. Shia LaBeouf seems to break out an early version of his quick-witted, fast-talking character of Sam Witwicky from “Transformers” to create his character of Cody. For the most part Shia seemed the ideal choice for the young, somewhat arrogant surfer wannabe; however, there were a few instances where his voice just didn’t seem to fit together with the character’s mannerisms, causing the vocal performance to feel slightly disconnected from the action onscreen. This problem could have been a hiccup in the voice-over process, because if memory serves correctly during those moments it almost sounded as if his voice was echoing for no obvious reason. Whatever the case may be, the problem wasn’t massive, and it didn’t detract too much from the movie, it was just something I thought should have been caught in the editing process of the final film.

Along with Shia we have Jeff Bridges (“Iron Man”), Jon Heder (“Napoleon Dynamite”), and Zooey Deschanel (“Yes Man”) voicing the various friends that Cody meets along the way to the competition. Jeff Bridges’ character of Big Z sounds like a distilled version of his character “The Dude” from “The Big Lebowski”, but since the target audience of this movie would be too young to have seen that film, there’s no harm in reproducing the character once more for another role; not to mention that character’s speech pattern, attitude, and general approach to his daily life makes for an ideal fit for Big Z. Jon Heder offers the majority of the big laughs, mostly for the kids though, as Chicken Joe. Joe is… well, he’s a chicken, as the name suggests, who hails from Michigan and hopes to be recognized as one of the surfing greats among his fellow penguin competitors. Thankfully, Jon didn’t seem to bring any of his annoying Napoleon Dynamite attributes to this film, which was a good thing for me since I despised his work in the aforementioned comedy bore. Rounding out the primary supporting cast members we have Zooey Deschanel as a penguin lifeguard overseeing the competition. Zooey isn’t given a whole lot to do in the movie, but she is granted a few moments of the spotlight to spout off some rather cute and funny one-liners. One other cast member of note would be James Woods (“Hercules”) who plays a Don King-esque promoter (complete with wild, stand-up straight hair) for the competition. His role isn’t very large, and truthfully comes off as a glorified cameo in the end, but Woods’ trademark fast-talking, schmoozing nature is a perfect fit for the character, and is a dead-on ringer for the animal kingdom’s answer to Don King.

Even with the necessary inclusion of a talented voice cast, every animated movie must also employ top-notch animation to fully flesh out the characters movements, mannerisms, and quirks on the big screen. The talented crew of Sony Pictures Animation really did an excellent job with their second feature film (the first being the lackluster “Open Season”) of bringing such a strange idea of penguins going surfing to life. From the characters to the environments to the surfing action, everything about the production looked terrific to the point that it’s quite hard to find something to really single out as being outstanding or innovative. Although I must say that there is one nice touch that sets this computer animated movie apart from most others; the use of an older film stock appearance employed for some of the semi-flashback sequences gave the mockumentary style a more realistic feel, given that old film footage is used so frequently in almost every single documentary, especially sports-themed ones.

While “Surf’s Up” was nothing more than just another case of a Hollywood studio jumping onto whatever bandwagon is popular at the time, it is arguably the best entry from that fad for audiences to enjoy. A good story that was wise enough to include both kids and adults in on the jokes, a talented cast, great animation, and a novel concept to make a mockumentary style children’s movie elevates “Surf’s Up” well above its competition in every way.

“Surf’s Up” is rated PG for mildly crude humor.

Saw 5

Well, it is now official the “Saw” franchise has without question reached the shameful level that most horror franchises reside upon, meaning every subsequent film will be worse than its predecessor. After viewing “Saw 4” I was really gaining the sense that this series was descending into mediocrity, and existed solely for the purpose of providing more blood and gore, with little to no story in the process. With “Saw 5” my suspicions have been proven correct, and the series is officially standing still in my opinion; offering no true chills or interesting storytelling, devolving into just another a run-of-the-mill horror franchise at best.

“Saw 5” does what all the previous sequels have done, which is pick up directly where its predecessor left off. Special Agent Strahm (Scott Patterson) is investigating the grisly murder scenes left in Jigsaw’s bloody wake; and the deeper he digs the darker the revelations become. Attempting to put an end to Agent Strahm’s investigation is Detective Hoffman (Costas Mandylor), who just so happens to have been one of Jigsaw’s twisted accomplices all along. As these two men close in on each other, a new batch of subjects are fighting for their very lives amidst a series of traps that Jigsaw set into motion prior to his death. Who will make it out alive? Only time will tell… Let the games begin, again.

As far as most horror movies go, the story is generally not focused upon all that much past the initial film, as the series generally becomes all about the mayhem and the murder in the sequels. However, when the first film in the “Saw” franchise hacked its way into theaters in 2004, boasting a much smarter script than most of its kind; it appeared that perhaps the story was going to have a much more equal share of the screen time as the blood and gore in this series. This stayed true through a majority of the first three films, but by the time “Saw 4” was released to theaters in 2007, the story was quickly becoming quite thin and stagnant.

With “Saw 5” the writing duo of Patrick Melton and Marcus Dunstan, the same writers that penned the previous installment, took the very thin, new layer of story that they had applied in “Saw 4” and attempted to build upon it in hopes of stabilizing this weakened series. Instead of moving forward they keep this new story revolving around the very same events that were chronicled in the previous films. Since the groundwork for their new story was laid in “Saw 4”, this time all they are trying to do is add a new piece into an already far too convoluted and increasingly ridiculous puzzle, by expounding on yet another accomplice to Jigsaw. Along with this new accomplice, who by the way we hadn’t seen prior to the fourth film in the series, we are also supposed to believe that Jigsaw had also set into motion another group of people to be tested while he was going to be most likely murdered by one of his test subjects (watch “Saw 3” for better understanding on this plot development). Do the writers really expect us to just continue going along believing that this man really planned all of these events into a several day period, while at the same time preparing for the inevitability of his own murder? Apparently so, but the thought process behind this plot isn’t working for me anymore.

Not to mention, the usage of coincidence as a plot device is being implemented far too liberally in this film. This problem began creeping its way into the series with “Saw 4”, but by the time we get through “Saw 5” it is essentially the main crux of the story, and the only way this storyline is even continuing. I guess it’s just further evidence that the writers are just plain lazy and unwilling to actually commit any real thought into creating a truly intriguing story; instead they take the approach of beating an already dead horse until it is virtually unrecognizable.

For those that have stuck with the “Saw” series from the beginning one staple of the franchise is the usage of very unique and inventive death traps that the victims are required to survive if they hope to regain their life. Over the course of the previous films the traps have consistently remained sick, yet undeniably creative in design. However, in this film the story isn’t the only thing that seems haphazardly thrown together, the traps themselves are the most unimaginative in the series. I’m sure to some this may seem like a strange complaint for a movie, but if you have seen any of the previous films in the franchise, then you know where I’m coming from on this. I’m not complaining that the film had less torture than its predecessors, just that the traps are apparently another example of the series’ steady decline in creativity and freshness.

The cast of “Saw 5” continues the tradition that began in “Saw 2” which was gather together a bunch of unknown or relatively unknown actors and actresses to play the parts of the would-be victims, while the more recognizable actors that had at least been established in one of the previous films provides the link to past installments. Returning cast members Costas Mandylor and Scott Patterson (“Saw 4”) provide most of the stronger moments within the film, but even that’s not saying a whole lot for the movie. Actor Scott Patterson reprises his role as Agent Strahm, and this time he appears to be giving a somewhat stronger performance than his last outing; yet he still appears too wooden in several scenes, so his portrayal looks forced and makes for a difficult time believing him in this type of role. Costas Mandylor seems to be unable to decide if he wants to commit to the role and give us a decent performance (as he does in a few spots) or if he’s just going to phone it in (as he appears to do a majority of the time). For the supposed replacement of Jigsaw, Costas’ character of Detective Hoffman isn’t nearly as interesting as his mentor.

Speaking of Hoffman’s mentor, the one true highlight of these last couple of sequels is the inclusion of Tobin Bell’s character Jigsaw in flashback sequences. Besides his brief voiceovers, that are used in the various tape-recordings delivering the instructions for how to survive the death traps, Bell only appears in the film approximately five to ten minutes tops. Even with his role being relegated to cameo status, Tobin generally does the best he can in the small amount of time he’s given, but even his performance isn’t above criticism. Unlike his appearances in the previous four movies, Tobin seems to be enjoying his role less and less; perhaps this has something to do with the realization that the only reason he is even in these films any longer is to keep some measure of stability within the dying series. If I were Tobin, I’d consider letting the character’s involvement die out soon, especially since the character’s actual death occurred two films back.

As for those chosen to embody the new crop of victims in Jigsaw’s twisted game, at least the casting was a little better than the last couple of films. Most of these people I hadn’t seen in any other film and/or television show, except for actress Julie Benz (“Rambo”); but at least they all tried to put a little effort into their roles. Even though Julie is a much more established talent than most of the victims of this film or any of its predecessors (not counting the first film which had a better cast); Julie doesn’t really get to do all that much in her role. It seems to me that the victims are now viewed as nothing more than fodder for the traps by the series’ writers, unlike in the first film where the victims had a much more developed story arc. In “Saw” time was devoted within the script to fleshing out the victimized characters so the audience could be able to invest in them to an extent, but since then less and less time and thought has been put into character development (a major pitfall for almost every single horror franchise).

Uninterested in correcting the mistakes of the previous films that have been leading the series into mediocrity, the writers, and their director David Hackl (second unit director on “Saw 3” and “Saw 4”), go to great lengths to stay the course, to the point that the franchise is essentially a pointless mess of unoriginality and laziness. The only other attribute I can apply to this film is that it has taken the title of “Weakest Film in the Franchise” from the previous installment, so congratulations on that achievement.

“Saw 5” is available in rated R and unrated editions both contain violence, gore, and language.

Lakeview Terrace

How far would you allow someone to push you before you begin to return in kind? That is the basic plot of “Lakeview Terrace” starring Samuel L. Jackson and Patrick Wilson. It’s a story of two men who find themselves locked in what seems like an unending battle of one-ups upon each other. For those of you that love movies and have seen your fair share of them, you may be thinking, “Didn’t Sam Jackson already do a film just like this several years ago with Ben Affleck?” The answer is yes, and the film was “Changing Lanes”. So, what could possibly make an actor of Samuel L. Jackson’s caliber want to do a virtual retread of a film he already did, especially when said film was quite good, albeit depressing. The only reason I can think of is that “Lakeview Terrace” could be viewed as a movie with more of a commercial appeal than the former, but if that is the primary reason (aside from the considerable payday Sam undoubtedly walked away with), was this endeavor a worthy one?

“Lakeview Terrace” focuses on a young couple (Patrick Wilson and Kerry Washington) as they begin to settle into what appears to be their dream home in the most ideal of neighborhoods. Everyone in the neighborhood seems pleasant, and as an added bonus they discover they have an officer of the LAPD (Samuel L. Jackson) living just next door. But, as the newlyweds quickly discover things may appear too good to be true, as their man of the law neighbor soon begins interfering in their daily lives in some very intrusive and increasingly creepy ways. The only question is how far will this couple allow themselves to be pushed before they choose to fight back?

If I were in charge of creating a film, and had even the slightest glimmer of hope that said film could become a hit, there would be a few aspects of the film that I would want to make sure were in perfect working order before I would even begin production. For starters, the script must be top-notch. Without a solid backbone to base the movie off of, what hope does one have of crafting a movie that will entertain audiences and keep them talking about the experience for days to come? Second, the casting must be ideal. If the cast doesn’t work well, it doesn’t matter if the script is Shakespeare or a modern classic, it will fall flat if not handled with the proper care from those speaking the dialogue. Lastly, I would try as hard as I could to keep my movie as original as possible (a feat that is harder and harder to accomplish these days), or at least avoid using tired, old clichés and predictability so that the audience will stay interested in what I’m putting on the screen. In the case of “Lakeview Terrace” some of these items were utilized to a degree of success, while others either failed miserably or seemed to be completely ignored.

As far as the story goes, “Lakeview Terrace” was well-paced, with a good story that features plenty of suspenseful moments to keep the thrill-factor up for a majority of the film. Writers David Loughery (the upcoming film “Obsessed”) and Howard Korder (“Stealing Sinatra”) have managed to take a decent premise (albeit one that has been used quite often in films), and imbue it with a hefty dose of tension to keep the audience paying attention; however, the characters are either far too clichéd or just plain unlikable to really invest ourselves in. Despite a fairly well-paced story, the movie fails in the end because I just didn’t care about the main characters at all; and for a movie like this to succeed I believe you have to be able to choose a side in the conflict or else what’s the point.

In regards to the cast, each member did well with their respective roles, even if some were overtly unoriginal and tired. For Samuel L. Jackson the part probably seemed good in conversation, but I have to think that after reading the script he should have been able to figure out that his character and the one-ups in the movie have already been done before with much greater success in previous films. Truthfully, I’m surprised he even signed on due to the fact that the basic plot for the movie is nothing more than an updated and sleeker version of his previous work on “Changing Lanes”. Whatever his reasons, at least Sam did a good job in the role, as he usually does; and surprisingly he actually delivers a more restrained performance than most, a slight change of pace for one of his many characters.

Alongside Sam Jackson we have Patrick Wilson as the new husband next door. Prior to this film I had seen Patrick in the movie “Little Children” opposite Kate Winslet (“Titanic”) and I have to say that not only did I hate that film, but I also couldn’t stand Patrick’s character either. Something about him is irritating to me, I don’t know if it’s his demeanor or presence or what, but I have a hard time actually liking any character he plays. So for this movie I did my best to suspend my loathing of Patrick, in hopes of becoming invested in his character in order for the story to work better. It turns out this was a wasted effort because the script only devotes a small amount of time early on in the film to making him seem like a likeable person, before he begins to retaliate against Sam’s character, while at the same time becoming insensitive and mean to his wife.

Speaking of Patrick’s onscreen wife, Kerry Washington does a nice job in the role, and is really the one likeable person out of the main characters. Surprisingly, her part seems very limited despite being onscreen for a decent amount of time throughout the movie; it’s just that the writers don’t seem to give her all that much to do except be mistreated by the other two characters in the film. What’s strange about her character, is that she is established at numerous times throughout the movie as a fairly strong-willed, opinionated woman, lending to the school of thought that she wouldn’t put up with too much crap from anyone. However, over the course of the film she never once stays truly angry about anything going on around her. While her character may be the most likeable in the story, she is also the most unbelievable in terms of what she puts up with from not only her neighbor, but also from her husband. A man who supposedly loves her, yet never seems to show any kind of remorse regarding things he has said and done. So for her to put up with all that without fighting back on her own, seems like a bit of a stretch given her character’s basic make-up.

“Lakeview Terrace” should have been a great thriller, and many of the necessary components were in place to make it so; however, the unlikable characters, somewhat unoriginal story, and characters for that matter, diminished any chances of me truly enjoying the movie. As for the film’s director, Neil Labute, this was a better effort than his previous work, the dismal “The Wicker Man” remake, but still not a great movie, so better luck next time.

“Lakeview Terrace” is rated PG-13 for violence, language, and sexuality.

Max Payne

Video game film adaptations always seem to be hit-and-miss with both their quality and audience approval. For every successful entry into the genre (“Resident Evil” or “Lara Croft: Tomb Raider”) there is an equally unsuccessful one to counter it (“Doom” or “Alone in the Dark”). Continuing on in the tradition of the less than stellar entries we have Mark Wahlberg’s latest actioner, the disjointed revenge thriller “Max Payne” based upon the popular video game series of the same name.

“Max Payne” follows the revenge-laden path of the titular character (Mark Wahlberg), as he is embarking on a quest to bring to justice those responsible for the murder of his family. The further Max goes to solve the crime, the more twisted the answers he finds become, and what he discovers may just push him to the very brink.

As a fan of the two video games centering on the character’s rather violent exploits, “Max Payne” and “Max Payne 2: The Fall of Max Payne”, I was leery of how accurate the film adaptation would be to the source material. When I found out that Mark Wahlberg (“Four Brothers”) would be portraying Max, I gained a little more faith in the production, because Mark had said he wouldn’t have done it if the story didn’t have enough substance to sustain his interest; thus allowing myself to become cautiously optimistic about the end product. However, upon its release reviews of the film were less than stellar, not exactly a surprise given the type of film; but despite the criticism the movie went on to produce some decent box office numbers, leading one to wonder if perhaps the movie may be better than expected. Having now seen “Max Payne” for myself, I believe that even though it is fairly faithful to the first video game especially, the movie is such a jumbled mess that I find it hard to believe that anyone could really enjoy it.

For starters, the story is obviously attempting to be a semi-complicated mystery/whodunit, yet the actual screenplay is far too simplistic to appropriately service this style of movie. The film would have been much better served by a screenplay that devoted the proper amount of time and effort into developing the mystery rather than teasing the viewer with snippets before heading off into the next overblown action sequence. Typically in mystery movies there is always a twist somewhere along the way, generally involving a character whose motives you thought you knew, but it turned out you couldn’t have been more wrong about. Just as I suspected would be the case, “Max Payne” did its best to incorporate one such twist; however, the under-developed storyline caused the twist to be easily deduced way before it ever occurs, completely removing any kind of suspense or anticipation from the equation.

Another problem with the story is the sense that many key scenes are missing from the final film, due to characters seemingly popping up out of nowhere; yet somehow aware of what all has transpired and ready for action on whoever’s side they’ve chosen. I know that sometimes in a film the viewer is to assume certain characters have had some sort of dialogue off-screen that filled in some gaps, this is usually mentioned in passing within a scene to give the viewer a clue that this has occurred. However, in this film no such clue is given, and this assumption has to be made far too often; to the point that it quickly leads one to presume that the script, as written by first time screenwriter Beau Thorne, was so paper-thin, that no thought was ever put into actually bridging the gaps in the story or fleshing out any of the characters’ relationships along the way.

Action director John Moore (“Behind Enemy Lines”) brings a stylistic flair in the vein of “Sin City” or “The Spirit” to the film, utilizing a lot of neutral colors with splashes of bright reds and other colors here and there to accentuate the action. I did appreciate that John took a few moments within the film to incorporate the bullet-time effect into some of the action. Even though this effect has been massively over-used ever since “The Matrix” made it popular, it is a staple within the video game, so as a gamer I was glad to see its inclusion. The problem with the bullet-time effect is that when it is initially employed in the film, the context doesn’t really make a whole lot of logical sense (much like the rest of the movie), and the effect while appreciated feels wasted in the end.

Speaking of the director, I do feel it is only fair to dump some of the story’s faults onto him as well, since he would have had some say in the final cut of the movie. Perhaps, next time he should think about elaborating on some plot points instead of glossing over them to move onto the next action scene. I will say that John and/or the editor of “Max Payne” was wise enough to keep the momentum of the film moving along quickly, so as to not allow the audience a whole lot of time to realize just how weak the storyline truly was, until after they’ve finished watching it.

Mark Wahlberg was a good choice to portray the tortured soul of Max Payne. Although criticized for a lack of emotional range in the role, I felt Wahlberg played the character the exact way as he is portrayed in the video game. Plus, when a person’s family is completely wiped out, I don’t see that same person being all smiles too often; no, I believe he or she would probably be a pretty depressing person to be around. As a testament to Mark Wahlberg’s performance, even though he is fairly one-note emotionally throughout the course of the movie (there are a few instances of happiness from Max sprinkled about), he still is able to keep the viewer entertained, despite a meager script.

Supporting cast members are mostly comprised of cameo appearances within the movie, which harkens back to my complaint that characters just pop-in at random and are gone just as quickly as they appeared. A few of the cameo and/or supporting characters were played by Chris “Ludacris” Bridges (“Crash”) as a member of Internal Affairs investigating Max, Chris O’Donnell (“Batman & Robin”) as a former co-worker of Max’s late wife, and Olga Kurylenko (“007: Quantum of Solace”) as a woman who may be linked to what led to the murder of Max’s family. Truthfully, the only real supporting cast members that had more than five to ten minutes of screen time were Mila Kunis (“Forgetting Sarah Marshall”) as an assassin that assists Max occasionally while trying to find her sister’s killer, and Beau Bridges (TV’s “Stargate: Atlantis”) as a former cop and confidant of Max. Beau seems to get the lion’s share of the screen time out of all the supporting characters, and he does a good job with the stock character he is given to play; but his part in the overall scheme of things is so easily deduced that he seems wasted in the role.

Heavy on the violence, yet light on the story, “Max Payne” is one video game adaptation that knows how to bring the action of the source material to life on the big screen; but fails to deliver a story that even begins to resemble that of a good movie, let alone a decent video game. If you are a fan of the video games then you may enjoy “Max Payne”, but my guess is that you’ll wish you would have just spent the two hours playing through the story rather than simply watching it.

“Max Payne” is available in rated R and unrated editions both contain violence, language, and sexuality.