No Glory at the Glow of Rebirth

Fame

*1/2 out of ****

Directed by: Kevin Tancharoen

Starring: Naturi Naughton, Walter Perez, Kay Panabaker, Asher Book, Kherington Payne and Collins Pennie

Running Time: 107 minutes

Fame, a modern “reinvention” of Alan Parker’s Oscar-winning musical (not to forget the hugely popular 1980s television series), is a big and beautiful, but remarkably bland and emotionally blank update.

By replacing toe-tapping musical sequences with forgettable hip-hop numbers and by removing the weighty issues that made the original so compelling, this new model is a major step back in nearly every regard.

The New York High School of Performing Arts is back in session, now populated with an overwhelming class of teenagers whom are treated as big kids rather than young adults.

These cool cats include young rapper-wannabe Malik (Collins Pennie), stiff but hard-working actress Jenny (Kay Panabaker), beautiful and bodacious dancer Alice (Kherington Payne) and freestyle musician Victor (Walter Perez).

But the only name we’ll remember (as the title song encourages) is Naturi Naughton. She is Denise, a young girl who refrains from raising her voice to her strict parents, who insist she pursue classical piano. Instead, she raises her voice in another regard: by singing rock and hip-hop.

With Raven Symone’s face and Jennifer Hudson’s vocal range, Naughton is a standout. Her rendition of “Out Here on my Own,” the only song from the original film or stage musical that received any screen time here, is a highlight. That 3-minute rendition has soul, something that the rest of the PA student body sorely lacks.

What’s curious (and tragic) is that the four teachers, whom are rarely used, are more fascinating and consistently fun to watch than their students. Bebe Neuwirth (dance), Charles S. Dutton (acting), Megan Mullally (singing) and Kelsey Grammar (music, no longer the hardest profession in the world) fill up the roster with tough if compassionate educators. They elevate the material.

While the veterans are great, the amateurs miss the mark. Kevin Tancharoen’s direction, making its screen debut, is confident yet unsatisfying.

His extensive background as a choreographer for musical specials and premiere pop-artist concert tours is apparent in the film’s grand production numbers. But, as evidenced in a Halloween party sequence, as well as the film’s bizarre Lion King meets Sister Act graduation finale — a far cry from the triumphant “Body Electric,” — they are erratic and out-of place.

And while Fame certainly has flash, its script has no flair. The dialogue wouldn’t suffice a first draft of Glee’s worst episode, with the several premises coming off as recycled rather than rejuvenating.

However, what really sours this sugar-coated Performance Arts class is that there are almost no barriers separating these pesky kids from achieving fame. The story-lines, watered down to service those who have just graduated from High School Musical material, fail to be engaging or challenging.

There are a couple of bitter rejections, fewer reality checks and virtually no cutthroat competition. The only thing stopping these kids are their stubborn parents.

The film ultimately comes off as saying that it is easy to claim success: if you do your homework and try hard… and have perfect shiny faces, you’ll make it. Holden Caulfield would’ve hated this movie.

Maybe they should’ve dropped the “F” from the title and put an “L” in its place, or replaced the "M" with a "K".

It’s suitable that the croon of “Dogs in the Yard” is absent from this remake, since there’s no bite to be found. And it’s not the performances or glittered-up direction that drive this into the ground; instead, it's how blatantly Fame ignores the reality of what it’s like to be a performer struggling to find and maintain success.

By butchering every inch of authenticity from the original film’s bones (not to forget the stage musical and television series), this Fame isn’t much to remember.

Dazzling! (With a Chance of Predictability)

Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs

***1/2 out of ****

Directed by: Phil Lord and Chris Miller (and a lot of people!)

Featuring the voice talents of: Bill Hader, James Caan, Anna Faris, Mr. T, Bruce Campbell, Andy Samberg and Neil Patrick Harris

Running Time: 90 minutes

Don’t know what to do as you anxiously await the big-screen treatment of Maurice Sendak’s beloved classic Where the Wild Things Are?

Well, we’ve got another adaptation straight from your little one’s bedside table just for you; thankfully, it’s a scrumptious appetizer, a 92-minute delight brought to you in three gorgeous dimensions.

Based on the book of the same name by Judi and Ron Barrett, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs is a bountiful buffet of furious family fun. It is as dazzlingly animated as it is dizzyingly funny, but it also packs in some meaty moral observations (although your kids probably won’t get them). It also has Neil Patrick Harris as a talking monkey.

“Have you ever felt you were a little bit different?” asks inventor Flint Lockwood (voiced by SNL’s Bill Hader). Teased for the failures of his wacky inventions, he takes a job in a bait shop in the town of Swallow Falls, owned by his disapproving father (James Caan).

Now, Swallow Falls is a gray, dreary place, situated on a small island miles off the coast of the Northeastern United States. While it thrives on its sardine industry (think Sea World with much less pizzazz), the town reaches rock bottom when its main sardine corporation goes bust.

Flint, to help energize the town, begins work on a machine that transfers water into food. But a power surge used to test the machine leaves Swallow Falls in manic disarray and unleashes the gadget into the sky like a hyperactive balloon.

Alongside a new pal, wannabe weather girl Sam Sparks (Anna Faris), Flint gasps with exhilaration as cheeseburgers descend onto the town.

With these tasty treats falling from the sky, the mayor (Bruce Campbell) plots to use these succulent storms to his advantage. He dreams up a plan to turn the struggling Swallow Falls, now renamed Chew and Swallow, into a tourist attraction of dramatic – wait for it – portions.

But while the forecast starts off as friendly, as the requests pile into Flint’s laboratory, the machine begins to act a little bit curiously. What follows is unlike any disaster flick you’ve ever seen.

Meatballs is the first film from Sony Pictures to use their animation rendering software. And they don’t even bother to take it easy. The images on screen are big, bold and breathtaking. The colours are sharp, vibrant and plentiful. In other words, get ready for your eyes to pop (thankfully, those 3D glasses will keep them from popping out too far).

And say what you will about the 3D technology that’s recently invaded our multiplexes. While it can be a distraction that darkens the screen and lightens your wallets, Meatballs has a bright, crisp transfer. It is not done sorely for amusement but as a way to bring the audience closer into the beautiful pallette on screen. This is how you use the technology, fellas.

With the exception of the monstrous shifts in weather, however, the film is largely formulaic. The disapproving father, the misunderstood outcast and the power-hungry (well, in this case, REALLY hungry) mayor are cut-and-paste from past animated efforts. While these personalities are not entirely unique, there are plenty of situations in this film that are unlike anything you’ve ever seen.

I mean, you have a kid wake up for his birthday to find out that it has snowed ice cream (all of the children are doing snow angels – faces down ). You also have a tornado of spaghetti wrecking the town, in one of the film’s later sequences, eerily reminiscent of a scene in the cheesy disaster flick The Day After Tomorrow, but done with more – wait for it – taste.

Meatballs also contains a platter of eccentric voice talent. At one end, you have modern SNL folk Bill Hader, Andy Samberg and Will Forte, while at another, 80s television stars Neil Patrick Harris and Mr. T. Then there’s cult favourite Bruce Campbell. And Al Roker is voicing a weatherman (as if that’s a stretch).

The movie is packed with visual gags and frantic fun. But it also says something about the effects of consumption, obesity, and even solid waste that many youngsters won’t catch.

These moral observations don’t come quietly; for example, the leftover food is stored in a giant mountain which later collapses and destroys much of the town. Also, one of the film’s young characters goes into a coma from eating too much sugar (and while this scene is bitterly abrupt and overdramatic, it may teach your kids a lesson).

Do you remember the moment in Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory where Gene Wilder opens up the doors of the chocolate room and all that anyone can do is marvel at the imagination of the edible excitements before their eyes? That is essentially what Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs is like: just animated, in 3D and 89 minutes longer.

Do me a favor: grab the family, grab the extra dollars for the extra dimension, and savour every minute of this grand bowl of fun.

The Talented Mr. Damon

Movie: The Informant!

*** out of ****

Directed by: Steven Soderbergh

Starring: Matt Damon, Scott Bakula, Joel McHale, Melanie Lynskey

Running Time: 108 minutes

From its breezy 1960s musical score to its eccentric use of voice-over to its title’s unusual exclamatory finish, Steven Soderbergh’s The Informant! is not your typical corporate-crime drama.

Adapted by Scott Z. Burns from the nonfiction book "The Informant" (notice the absent exclamation mark), it is a smart, if slight take on an audacious whistleblower, elevated by Matt Damon’s sharply comic performance.

Damon packs on the pasta (30 pounds of it), borrows a hairpiece and moustache from Ned Flanders and unleashes one of his finest and zaniest performances to date, of the intelligent (but not so smart) Mark Whitacre.

At the film’s start, Whitacre is a rising executive of the agri-business powerhouse Archer Daniels Midland (ADM). He is an Ivy League-graduate and biochemist, his uncompromised knowledgeable of corn’s business benefits making him rich enough to bring home the bread (another starch) for his family.

He’s doing this, however, by dealing in price-fixing with ADM and their other competitors. But when he is pressured to investigate a source of contamination, FBI agents arrive to probe Whitacre on his previous conversations with overseas rivals.

After much encouragement from his wife (Melanie Lynskey), he opens up to one of these agents, Brian Shepard (Scott Bakula, in a role a quantum leap more sophisticated than anything he’s done lately). Whitacre informs Shepard of his involvement in ADM’s price-fixing and that he wants to clear his slate by slicing the rungs off their corporate ladder.

Soon recruited as an informant to expose their illicit activities, using wires, tape recorders, hidden cameras and the like, Whitacre helps the FBI secure a case against ADM. Yet as the investigation seems like a home run for the Bureau, Whitacre has a scheme of his own. To spoil any more of this delightfully convoluted true story would disservice you, but it is at this midpoint where the film motions, using past Soderbergh titles, from an Erin Brockovich to an Ocean’s 11.

Whimsical is usually not the first word that comes to mind when you describe a film’s shady, crime-infused protagonist. That’s why Mark Whitacre is such a unique concoction; had the film not been a true story, it would be easy to pick apart the story’s ridiculous inconsistencies. But it’s not.

This intriguing tale is so much easier to accept because of Matt Damon’s excellent portrayal of the bipolar whistleblower. He is controlled lunacy, a very efficient executive on one hand, an airy daydreamer on the other who calls himself 0014 upon becoming an informer and engages us with random witicisms that he finds amusing (done via voice-over).

These deft comic touches could be one-note or irritating had a lesser actor been in Whitacre’s shoes; thankfully, Damon is endearing without being cute. The Informant! contains a strong performance, but it is not an exclamation point of Matt Damon’s career, just an indication that he is on his way to portraying more complex, intriguing characters.

The rest of the ensemble is particularly effective. Soderbergh employed many comic actors (such as Arrested Development’s Tony Hale) and stand-up performers (like Patton Oswalt) in heavier, dramatic roles. These curious casting choices remind us that while this may seem like a straight-up drama, this is a farce behind the curtains.

While Soderbergh is certainly a capable director, The Informant! is an entertaining but slight entry in his filmography. While usually a director fond of aesthetics, his latest has very little visual style.

The picture is grainy, the camera movement is mostly stagnant, and the sets are poorly lit (and on a few instances looked - quite obviously - like they were shot on a studio backlot).

Also, beware of the film’s poor marketing. It is advertised as a zany comedy, but the laughs are mostly sporadic. This is a drama, albeit with a few comedic touches and quirks. It’s only funny because it’s, well, true.

There is much amusement in The Informant!, but we buy it all thanks to a smart script and a shrewd but endearing performance by Matt Damon. Despite some directing tics, this is a refreshing (and unbelievably ridiculous!) addition to the corporate drama genre. Well, I guess that explains the unusual exclamation mark.

Revolution "9"

Movie: 9

Rating: **1/2 out of ****

Directed by: Shane Acker

Featuring the voice talents of: Elijah Wood, John C. Reilly, Jennifer Connelly, Christopher Plummer, Martin Landau

Running Time: 79 minutes

Like the doll-like creations that populate 9, animator Shane Acker’s directorial debut, the film is spectacularly and imaginatively designed, but also feels incomplete and emotionally stagnant.

Expanded from Acker’s Oscar-nominated animated short, 9 is a bold and amibitious first feature.

It’s set in a dismal and decimated industrial landscape, after mankind has been demolished by hyperactive machines. The only inhabitants left in this wasteland are “stitchpunks,” tiny rag dolls with metallic hands, bodies patched up with cloth, binocular eyes and numbers emblazoned on their backs.

One of these stitchpunks, #9 (voiced by Elijah Wood), wakes up in a laboratory one dreary morning to find that it’s the end of the world as he knows it. And he doesn’t feel too fine, walking out into a dim, barren ghetto, needing to hide from the mechanical menaces who swarm the skies.

On this day, #9 meets a kind and elderly scientist stitchpunk, #2 (Martin Landau). When this new companion is attacked by a beastly machine and then carried off to a looming industrial tower in the distance, #9 sets off to rescue his friend.

However, #9’s early efforts to save #2 only awaken mechanical beasts whom are even more treacherous. And thus, he teams up with a troupe of stitchpunks to destroy the perilous machines.

They include: #1 (Christopher Plummer), the shady and domineering leader; #5 (John C. Reilly), the trustworthy and highly-intelligent engineer, #6 (Crispin Glover), a heavily troubled artist, and #7 (Jennifer Connelly), the reckless and physically robust warrior.

Technically, 9 is a bona-fide masterpiece. Acker is an assured animator who has created some fascinating visuals. The hazy backgrounds have the haunting, oozing qualities of a Dali painting, and the film’s numerous creatures are stitched with meticulous detail. The monsters in this film have such imaginative structure and movement, we can only wish that Acker dethrones Michael Bay as the director of future Transformers movies.

9 also zips along at a breakneck pace, ensuring that many of the action sequences are downright thrilling.

However, at only one and a quarter hours, there’s too much frantic violence and not enough character development. There is a time for action and mayhem and a time to break from the action and mayhem and enhance our interest in the story and characters. 9 unfortunately leaves these latter moments aside.

There is, however, one cheerful scene where many of the stitchpunks find a record player, put on the classic “Over the Rainbow,” and get a chance to dance, frolick and interact with each other. It is a beautiful moment and much needed change of pace for the characters; unfortunately, the film then goes right back into nonstop violence.

Furthermore, the stitchpunks have little personality or emotional depth. They refuse to branch off from their generic archetypes to become fresh, unique characters. If only the animation had sacrificed a few of its dimensions and given it to this slew of stitchpunks.

And while 9 is far too intense for younger audiences, the film’s rudimentary dialogue is geared toward schoolchilden. The lines, at certain points, seem to have been mechanically programmed for these characters.

Acker’s vision is unique, but 9’s environment is an all-too-familiar one. The film’s flashback scenes depicting war between humans and hyperactive technology instantly bring Terminator’s Judgement Day to mind. As well, the murderous machines, originally built to assist humans but whom have ultimately become a tamperance, recall 2001: A Space Odyssey and even Wall-E.

If 9 will be remembered for anything, it’ll be as a sharply crafted debut from a young visionary. While its technical aspects are stunningly complex and entirely dazzling, the story elements and characters remain too generic to ensure that the film can be remembered as anything more.

Trashing the Oscars, and Loving It!

To start, I would not like to thank the Academy.

In the midst of a sweltering summer of box office admissions, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) announced that they had decided to broaden the Best Picture race at future Oscar ceremonies - expanding the number of eligible nominees in that category from 5 to 10.

Academy president Sid Ganis remarked that the board’s decision to double the number of nominees may make the highest honour in show business “more interesting and less cloistered.”

While studio executives took this news with general enthusiasm, the public has been only moderately favourable to this decision. The former half say, “Great, now there’s more room for excellent movies to get the recognition they deserve,” while the latter half notes, “Has the Academy finally lost all common sense?"

I am, sorry to say, in that latter group. Here’s why:

1) The night of the Academy Awards is the most heralded night in all of show business, has been so for over 75 years, and will remain so for decades to come. It is an important part of cinematic history. Filmakers’ and actors’ careers change significantly (usually in a good capacity) after receiving recognition from the Academy.

That is precisely because the Academy Awards are the best of the best; it's the cream of the crop of award ceremonies celebrating a medium adored by billions of people.

Simply put, by doubling the top category, the prestige, the validity and the inviolability of the Academy Awards is sliced in half.

2) The Academy wants more people to watch their telecast. In years where massive blockbuster hits (Titanic, the Lord of the Rings installments) have competed for the top prize, viewership was at its peak. However, the nominated films from the past five years have made a small dent at the box office, none of them grossing over $150 million in North America.

Voters had their chance to nominate Warner Bros.’ The Dark Knight for the top prize last year, and given its triumphant critical acclaim and $1 billion in worldwide box office, it would have been well-deserved. They didn’t.

Instead, Academy members put The Weinstein Co.’s The Reader into their final spot on the ballot. While initially a box office dud, due to a ruthless multi-million dollar campaign, however, company exec Harvey Weinstein bought his company’s film into the Oscar race.

The decision to nominate the pesky-little-indie over the boisterous-behemoth left many uninterested to watch last February’s ceremony.

The Academy thinks that more room for nominees will ensure that high-profile blockbusters have a better chance of getting nominated, and ergo, viewership will rise. Still, even with 10 nominated films, full-fledged award campaigns from independent studios that swing Academy thought still thwart the certainty of a major studio hit receiving a top nomination.

Rather, I believe the Academy should admit their mistakes in nominating a movie not because of its quality but because of another’s full-fledged marketing campaign. They should ensure that this episode doesn’t repeat.

When they have the trust of the public majority, we will watch in greater numbers. But ten movies instead of five in the Best Picture category just solidifies how insecure the Academy really is to gain a few million viewers.

3) If you expand the Best Picture category, why fail to broaden all of the other categories? If ten films are praiseworthy enough to win a “golden guy,” why aren’t ten directors, or editors, or visual effects supervisors?

The actual Best Picture statuettes themselves are not given to the film’s director or screenwriter, but rather its producers. This decision gives the studio the upper hand over the creative production team behind the year’s best films. This is yet another way where the head honchos of Hollywood get another chance to grasp the gold, leaving the real artists behind, without a nomination.

4) By year’s end, are there really going to be 10 films worthy of winning Best Picture? You see, a nominated movie for this category should not just be an excellent film, but one that many can agree upon as the year’s Best Picture, if by chance it wins.

Sure, there have been crowd-pleasers like Star Trek and The Hangover, and well-reviewed independent hits such as The Hurt Locker and (500) Days of Summer. But while a plethora of good movies have been released thus far in 2009, it is rare to find that modern-day classic that really deserves the crowning achievement of a Best Picture Oscar (although, in my book, Pixar's Up is a solid contender).

That leaves many of the eligible spots for the autumn and holiday releases. Unless we really are dawning upon a new age in cinema during these next 4 months, I don’t think we’ll see eight or nine films that legitimately deserve the top prize hit theaters.

Five's company, ten’s a crowd. The board’s decision to broaden the top category may seem friendly to the studios, but eventually the Academy has to own up that they’re tampering with entertainment’s biggest night. Don’t be surprised if there’s a crash at the end of this Oscar race.