A Lukewarm Video Game Spin Off Sunk by a Stupid Story

NOTE: When searching for stock images of Lara Croft on Google, make sure Safe Search is turned ON. The internet can be a creepy place.

The subject of pre-pubescent dreams and Puritanical controversy, Laura Croft wasn’t just an over-breasted videogame heroine.  She was an icon.

With her first game in 1996, the pixilated diva became a sensation in the gaming world.  Known for Indiana Jones style adventuring, duel wielding pistols and those god forsaken attacking dogs, Tomb Raider was an instant hit.  As the Tomb Raider games lessened in popularity, Hollywood decided to release a movie cash in to spur flagging sales.  The result was Laura Croft: Tomb Raider, a meandering and senseless Indy rip-off saved only by the sheer will of the perfectly cast lead actress.

The lucky gal playing the back-flipping archeologist is Billy Bob era Angelina Jolie.  The casting in a word, is spot on perfect.  Not only does Jolie look the part, she wraps herself in the campiness of being a flesh and blood video game chick.  With some impressive wire assisted athleticism and a natural sexuality, Jolie elevates the weak directing and painful script to barely passable.

Unfortunately, this is a script better left deleted from the memory banks of film history.  Ready for the story synopsis?  Laura Croft is a world renowned adventurer who seems to have it all.  A giant mansion, a doting butler, an in house computer geek who builds her robots to fight: all the pieces are in place for her to have a swell life.  Only problem?  She’s missing her long deceased daddy and life’s gotten boring.  The wakeup call comes in the form of a globetrotting quest in search for a mystical time shifting thing-a-ma-jig.  Also in the hunt for the magical MacGuffin is the nefarious artifact hunter Manfred Powell and the Illuminati.  Yep.  The Illuminati.

Normally, stay out of the way stories can work in the action/adventure genre, but the tale in Tomb Raider is overly complex and poorly structured.  If you’re going to do an Indiana Jones ripoff, you need to create engaging characters we can go on the ride with.  Jolie’s Lara aside, the cast goes through the motions, providing just enough to move the pointless story along.  The winding script and surprisingly clunky direction by Simon West doesn’t help matters, leaving the action mushy and unfocused.  It doesn’t help some of the set pieces are just plain stupid, the dumbest being a Cirque Du Soleil style wire fight where the wires are in plain view.

Known for being less than stellar, video game adaptations suffer from one major flaw.  The fun of a game is your control over the action.  Your personal skill determines success or failure and as a result, your investment into the experience.  Movies are enjoyed passively and require more effort on elements like acting, cinematography and pacing to keep viewers hooked.  While many games are closing the storytelling gap, Tomb Raider is perfectly suited for what it was the night I watched it: a free flick on Amazon Prime to while away a rainy evening.  Not the worst video game adaptation ever made but that’s not saying much.

Score – 50%

A Very “Un-Star Trek” Sequel That Satisfies Every Step of the Way

The captain, the newbie and a pointy eared Vulcan enjoying an awkward moment.

When J.J. Abrahms decided to reboot Star Trek in 2009, nobody was quite sure what to expect.  A half century old franchise with legions of die hard fans, the task had to be daunting.  The balancing act between fan service and mass appeal is a tough trick to pull off.  Let’s face it.  Paramount isn’t going to spend $190 million on a movie only the Comic-Con crowd will see.  Luckily for fans and studio execs alike, the end result was a nicely balanced success, proving you can appease both sides of the film-going audience.  Despite the glowing reviews, there was a small but vocal contingent who felt the new version was too “actiony”.  The slow, methodical pace of the original series was replaced with modern day jump cuts and hyperactive battle scenes.  Fair warning: if your Star Trek taste is more in line with a Shatner brawl than Sulu kung fu, you will absolutely hate Into Darkness.  Everything in this sequel is bigger, faster and more epic than the 2009 debut.  In fact, this is the most “Un-Star Trek” iteration I’ve ever seen.  But as the by-line says, when you have a film as tightly made and satisfying as this one, I couldn’t care less.

Knowing to not mess with a good thing, the fantastic cast remains intact from the original.  Chris Pine still shines as new timeline Kirk, Zachary Quinto’s Spock is the best actor on the ship and Karl Urban’s McCoy impression still rocks.  Much like their last outing, the cast feels like a genuine crew, an important component to the overall chemistry.  The newcomers also fit right in, including the Enterprise’s new science officer (Alice Eve), the man of many motives, Admiral Marcus (Peter Weller) and a mysteriously dangerous antagonist played by Benedict Cumberbatch.  With so much of the film’s freshness riding on the villain, Cumberbatch ‘s steely gaze and threatening ambiguity easily eclipses Eric Bana’s role in the previous flick.

It may not look like much, but Benedict “Awesome Name” Cumberbatch is down right menacing in Star Trek Into Darkness.

The story is deceptively simple.  After a terrorist attack rocks the core of Starfleet, Admiral Marcus tasks Kirk and crew to hunt down the perpetrator, John Harrison.  Their goal?  Locate his hiding place on the Klingon homeworld, fire a massive payload of undetectable photon torpedoes on the planet and high tail it out of there before they start a war.  The easy setup paves the way for a web of continually surprising intrigue and double crosses, thanks to a well orchestrated script.  Abrams serves it all up in a tightly directed package that manages to serve the characters and our love of inter-stellar space battles in equal measure.

As I mentioned in the opening, the film has a quicker, more modern pace than the original series which may alienate some die hards.  Luckily, there’s some good news: it’s never done at the detriment of the characters.  Spock and Uhura have relationship squabbles, McCoy is deliciously cantankerous and Scotty (Simon Pegg) still yells at the grubby looking green guy who hangs out with him.  The series’ trademark humor is intact and even the rousing score is spot on.  My only critical nitpicks lie with some of the performances.  Zoe Salanda’s Uhura has some rough moments and Chris Pine is fantastic when a wise acre, not so much when he’s emotional.  And while fan service is required for the fanatical, some of it is oddly placed and almost off putting.

It’s easy to be cynical about reboot summer blockbusters and as one of the biggest, Star Trek is not immune.  More focused on phasers and torpedoes than space exploration, the new series pushes the franchise in a higher octane direction.  Trekkers may cry foul but the facts are undeniable.  J.J Abrams’ second tour of duty upon the USS Enterprise is one of the most satisfying adventures I’ve seen all year.  With a fine cast, impressive set pieces and some nifty twists and turns, New Star Trek 2 wraps up everything I loved about the first into a well made sequel.  While some internet reviewers have chosen to pick apart the plot holes, I’m struck by how little I noticed any of them.  Getting swept away is part of the fun of movies, even when my critic hat gets blown into the black abyss.  It may not feel like my daddy’s Star Trek but it’s awesome all the same.

Score – 90%

Or The Creepy Sexual Relationship Between FDR and His Sixth Cousin

Don’t let the flowers fool you.  Strange moments are afoot.

When you hear the name Franklin D. Roosevelt, what comes to mind?  The New Deal?  Leading America out of the Great Depression?  The only US president so beloved he was elected to office four terms in a row?  Yeah, me too.  In fact, FDR is one of my favorite American heroes.  An inspiring figure who conquered a debilitating illness to dominate the political landscape of the 30’s and 40’s, Roosevelt is a shining example of strength in the face of adversity.

According to filmmaker Roger Michell and his latest endeavor, Hyde Park on the Hudson, FDR’s legacy is his alleged affair with his sixth cousin.

To put how ridiculous this focus is, let me offer the following perspective.  Imagine if somebody made a movie about George Washington but focused on how he kept his wooden teeth clean while crossing the Delaware.  What if I made a movie about Thomas Edison centered on the relationship between him and his barber.  120 minutes of hair clippings and banter about baseball’s Boston Red Caps.  And to quote the great Patton Oswalt, imagine a film about the time Albert Einstein had really bad food poisoning for four straight hours.  Hyde Park on Hudson not only tells a story nobody needed to hear, it does so in such a Lifetime movie fashion, its 94 minutes feels like an eternity.

Essentially an English tabloid wrapped in a historical event, Hyde Park is set in 1939.  Roosevelt (Bill Murray) is spending more and more time at his country home and has invited his sixth cousin, Margaret “Daisy” Suckley (Laura Linney) to keep him company.  They go on long drives, have painfully slow conversations in his study and do creepy things in fields of flowers.  The first thirty minutes of the movie sets the stage for theatrical disaster.  Rather than show us their blooming relationship, the film resorts to an every five minute voiceover, telling us how much she is falling for the Prez.  This leaves Linney, who is generally a very reliable actor, free to do nothing on screen.  The character is there for the ride and has no effect on FDR or his handling of the country.  When you craft a film around a historical footnote, you get a great deal of dead space.

See Laura Linney. See Laura Linney make this face through 90% of the movie. See the audience yawn. Yawn, audience, yawn.

The other piece of the equation isn’t much better.  Murray’s FDR is accurate and at times interesting, but he’s failed by a clumsy script.  Instead of fulfilling the promises of the whimsical trailer, screenwriter Richard Nelson paints Roosevelt as a creepy old man looking to get his rocks off.  I’m all for showing the darker side of American icons, but when you do so with no service to the story or thought of why your subject is looking for something on the side, it becomes exploitative.

Luckily, this tone doesn’t maintain all the way through.  The center of the film is a visit to Hyde Park by King George VI (Samuel West) and his wife, Queen Elizabeth (Olivia Coleman).  While Murray finally gets a chance to spread his presidential wings in his dealings with the English royalty, it’s too little too late.  Issues with the film’s pacing, spiraling narrative threads and an OCD level of attention to the supposed sexual scandal, dooms the film to a big old helping of blah.

In the hands of the right filmmaker, any story can be told and told well.  Unfortunately for Hyde Park on Hudson, none of the pieces properly fit.  Bland artistic direction, a script without focus and some terrible performances by usually great actors sentence this movie to a lifetime in the bargain bin.  Outside of one scene where FDR makes an impression on the young king of England, Hyde Park on Hudson does nothing to tell us more about the famed president other than a historically fuzzy tryst nobody cared about in the first place.  Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to write that biopic about Washington’s wooden teeth.  I’m thinking about calling it Dentures Across the Delaware.  Can’t be any worse than this.

Score – 40%

A story of growth and change along the Mighty Mississippi

Sometimes in the world of cinema, names are everything. Big time actors, directors of note and impressive, punctuation heavy movie titles help drive box office receipts. So what does the latest film from director Jeff Nicholas get to put on the movie poster?

Mud.

Just Mud.

As a result, many filmgoers may have passed this flick by in favor of flashier, more colon heavy offerings. When faced with a choice among Star Trek: Into Darkness (oooohh), The Great Gatsby(ahhhh) and topsoil mixed with water, it’s no wonder the film has gone relatively unnoticed. Luckily for those wiling to get their moviegoing hands dirty, Mud is a wonderfully paced film of growth and humanity. Like its predecessor Take Shelter, Mud is not only a must see, it’s bound to be included in my Top 10 of 2013.

Set in riverside Arkansas, Mud is the coming of age story of two local boys, Ellis (Tye Sheridan) and Neckbone (Jacob Lofland). While on one of their water bound adventures, the kids stumble across a small island and an odd sight: a boat suspended in the branches of a giant tree. Living in the boat is the strange Mud (Matthew McConaughey). Mud is waiting for the love of his life Juniper (Reese Witherspoon) and with help of his two young friends, they put a plan in motion to reunite the twosome.

While the synopsis has a bit more detail than I usually provide, the crux of the film has little to do with the initial set dressing. The central themes of Mud bare more than a striking resemblance to a modern Mark Twain, touching on the fragile innocence of young love, loyalty and the hardships of simple living. Nicholas also proves he’s fantastic at capturing nature and using setting as more than a pretty backdrop. Long pans of the ever flowing Mississippi River give the film a sense of constant motion, another theme woven into the story. With the entire film shot in Nichols’ home state, the film also has a very authentic feel, giving the excellent characters a real home base to work their magic.

And what a wonderful cast it is. McConaughey’s Mud is a complex and interesting character. Half rebel, half saint and just a little bit dumb, you’re never sure of his intentions. Opposite McConaughey are two young newcomers, Tye Sheridan and Jacob Lofland. Tye in particular is exceptional in a difficult lead role and the homegrown Lofland, selected from thousands of local kids, lends an authentic flavor to the pair. Supporting roles from Reese Witherspoon as the flighty Juniper, Sam Shepard as river bound hermit and a cameo by frequent Nichols collaborator Michael Shannon, round out an expertly selected cast.

If Shotgun Stories was his foundation and Take Shelter was the framing, Mud is the glue that cements Nichols as one of those aforementioned directors of note. While the picture may not have the movie poster bang of the other names in the marquee, if you care enough about film to be reading my reviews, this is a movie worth standing in line for. Besides, Star Trek will be out for at least another month. Catch this one while you can.

Score: 9/10

Scotch, Scotland and a Wonderfully Warm Adventure.

The boys of The Angel’s Share showing the local law enforcement their better halves.

Three years ago, spurred by a mutual love of film and cheeseburgers, my friend Regine and I started a tradition.  Every month, we grab dinner at New York’s 5 Napkin Burger and then a flick.  Our picks vary greatly.  One month, we’ll catch the quiet loveliness of The Beginners, the next a raucous wide releaser like Bridesmaids or Hot Tub Time Machine.  Our monthly movie is always an adventure, an opportunity for me to put away my critic hat and see something I’d never seek out alone.

So when this month’s movie night came ‘round, I had a rare request from Regine:  Let’s see something funny.  A quick glance at Rotten Tomatoes confirmed my fears.  Every comedy out at the time looked dreadful.  I could sit through the Burt Wonderstones of the world and write a bad review, but there had to be something special amongst the early April dreck.  Luckily my prayers were answered in the form of The Angel’s Share, a wry, vulgar and wonderfully warming film that ranks high on my list of 2013’s pleasant surprises.

Directed by the prolific Ken Loach (The Wind Shakes the Barley), The Angel’s Share starts out with a rogues’ gallery of lightweight criminals getting sentenced for a variety of hilarious misdemeanors.  Amongst their ranks is Robbie (Paul Brannigan), a small time hood trying to leave behind the thug life of his Glasgow upbringing for the sake of his pregnant wife.  While doing his court ordered community service, he befriends Harry (John Henshaw), the head of the work program along with a band of malcontents also doing their time.  As Harry and the boy get closer, Robbie begins to learn about the world of single malt Scotch and discovers his extensive palette.  With some newfound skills and his merry band of misfits at his side, Robbie searches for redemption in the world of fine Scottish whisky.

But don’t think this is Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas with kilts.  The film pivots around Robbie not as a drunken mad man, but as a recipient of hard luck trying to break free from his hoodlum past.  Paul Brannigan portrays Robbie in a stoic and serious manner, giving us an emotional pivot when things get a little gross or a little hilarious.  Robbie’s hard yet soft demeanor provides a believable and easy to root for protagonist, nice when surrounded by a colorful supporting cast.  The band of misfits Robbie hangs with include Mo, a sticky fingered shoplifter, Rhino, the most supportive of the group and Albert, a complete moron with giant ears.  Despite their obvious roles in the plot, the actors all give it a strong go in their respective roles, creating an odd but endearing family.

The lads and one lass enjoying a laugh along with the audience.

Loach, director of almost 40 films nobody has heard of, directs the film with care and control.  According to a dear friend of mine who grew up in Scotland, Glasgow is a dangerous place and Loach perfectly paints that picture in a tense opening third.  But when the movie opens to the hills of the highlands, the tone relaxes, even as the team hatches a hard to believe plan.  I’ll spare you the specifics in case you want to catch it yourself.

The film also has a very authentic feel to it.  From the accents to the locations to the slang used by the gang, the movie uses the country as a character.  This helps support the sometimes outlandish scenarios and schemes by providing a realistic anchor to the story and the comedy.  Oh yeah.  Regine wanted a comedy and the film absolutely delivers, especially if you’re a fan of the dryer variety.  Albert is the source and butt of most of the jokes, but his light hearted demeanor never makes the humor come off mean.  And, just in case the prospect of Trainspotting style accents has you worried, the film is being released in the US with subtitles.  While they do ruin the timing of some of the jokes, the subtitles didn’t bother me in the least.

As I mentioned in my previous review, the end of April / early May is a time for the great bloodletting of American cinemas with the intention of clearing the way for the big boys.  Like The Place Beyond the Pines earlier this month, another gem has emerged from the dirty coal mines of springtime cinema.  With subtle humor, great characterization and a giant helping of heart, The Angel’s Share is a lovely time at the cinema, regardless if you’re looking for something funny or not.

Score – 85%

A Small Town Drama With Big City Aspirations

If I can’t give my female readers a shirtless Ryan Gosling doing his best, “Ca$h Money” pose, than I am a terrible film critic.

Remember the saying, “April showers bring May flowers”?  The same goes in cinema.  April is the Hollywood awakening, a time when the occasional tulip creaks forth from the early year sludge to make room for the blockbusters of May.  The dreck and discarded may make up January through March, but there’s always a couple of blooming roses at the start of spring.  Derek Cianfrance’s follow-up to the critically acclaimed Blue Valentine is one of those shining sunflowers.  A film of depth, complexity and emotional weight, The Place Beyond The Pines is an excellent way to say good-bye to the cinematic doldrums and ease your way into the madness of summer.

After the unexpected success of Blue Valentine, Ryan Gosling is again at the lead of the film playing roughneck motorcyclist Luke Glanton.  When returning to a small town with a traveling circus, Luke discovers he has a son in town, courtesy of a one night stand with a working girl named Romina (Eva Mendes).  Wanting to care for the boy, he stays in town to attempt a re-connection with his infant son, despite Romina’s relationship with another man.  On the other side of tracks is Avery Cross (Bradley Cooper), a local police hero who learns the corrupt side of small town law enforcement.  Throughout the course of fifteen years, Avery and Luke’s lives intertwine personally and in the outcomes of their respective sons with sometimes shocking results.

If there’s one thing Blue Valentine taught us, it’s Cianfrance has an uncanny knack for directing actors.  Once again firing on all cylinders, Gosling portrays the bad boy with a heart with his signature quiet intensity.  From Brick to Drive and now with Pines, Gosling is fast becoming one of the finest anti-hero actors of this generation.  While we all know Gosling is superb in everything he’s in, its Cooper who shines the brightest.  If you thought Silver Linings Playbook was a fluke, his performance in Pines will make you a believer.  Cooper’s work is finely tuned and while the character leaves little room for range, it makes up for it in subtlety.  Never thought I’d say this, but Bradley Cooper is the real deal.  The rest of the cast fills out the world nicely, including a fantastic supporting role by Ray Liotta as the local crooked cop and Dane DeHaan (Chronicle) as Luke’s grown up son.

If I can’t give my male readers a pistol brandishing Bradley Cooper doing his best, “Police! Get On The Ground!” pose, then I am a terrible film critic.

Despite the excellent direction, Cianfrance broadens his filmmaking playbook with sometimes mixed results.  The action scenes (yes, action scenes) are filled with headache inducing shaky-cam shots but due to some excellent editing by Jim Helton and Ron Patane, the ill effects are reduced.  The director’s inexperience also comes out in some of the gear grinding required to make the twisting story work.  There are many left turns and convenient coincidences in Pines and while good character work holds everything together, you need to stretch your disbelief a bit to stay in the picture.

In the end, there’s a lot for film fans to love here.  Excellent performances and lovely direction mask some of the storytelling leaps of faith the movie takes to reach its satisfying conclusion.  As the weather gets warmer, the din of Hollywood blockbusters can be seen on the horizon through internet trailers, gaudy billboards and the clacking of a thousand keyboards.  If the coming tide is an inescapable wave of air conditioned noise, Derek Cianfrance’s The Place Beyond The Pines is a sound proof shelter against the coming storm.  Even at its most intense, there’s a layer of quiet in this film that prepares you for coming summer season.  Worth at least one watch, The Place Beyond The Pines is a lovely piece of filmmaking that perfectly bridges the Season of Schlock to the Season of Rock.  Enjoy it while you can, film fans.  Enjoy it while you can.

Score – 90%

I Dreamed A Dream of Films Gone By

Just another day on the set of Les Miserables for Oscar winner Anne Hathaway.

Very few genres are as bi-polar as the movie musical.  With few exceptions, films in this category are either awful or amazing, with very little room in the middle.  For every Chicago, West Side Story or Sound of Music, you get The Phantom of the Opera, the film adaptation of Rent or even worse (shudder) Across the Universe.  Despite the best intentions of talented artists and filmmakers, it’s a tough task to replicate stage productions on the silver screen.  The biggest problem is the difference between film and stage acting.  Stage musicals require actors to be theater filling big, filmmaking is about small, controlled intensity.  Get the balance wrong, and your version of Miss Saigon is going to play loud and overpowering.  Despite some of the expected pitfalls of the source material, Tom Hooper’s film adaptation of the Broadway sensation avoids many of these issues and the result is a satisfying success.  This isn’t Catherine Zeta-Jones in thigh highs, but Les Miserables is a daring and stirring attempt to put a Broadway phenomenon on the silver screen.

Right off the bat, your enjoyment of Les Mis will largely depend on your tolerance for Broadway style music.  Like the play, the film is completely sung from beginning to end, so my recommendation for novices would be to check out some of the tunes online.  If you can’t get though three songs without switching to videos of talking cats, pick another movie for your Friday night.  Another stumbling block is the melodramatic storyline.  Encapsulating two decades of a criminal turned local leader (Hugh Jackman), the French captain looking to put him away (Russell Crowe) and a working girl turned concubine (Anne Hathaway), the subject matter is dour.  Face it, friends.  The movie’s title translates to, “The Miserable” and the poster features the saddest looking girl known to mankind.  It’s no spoiler to say things aren’t going to be peaches and cream for the movie’s protagonists.  Unless you’re courting a manic depressive or Grumpy Bear, this is not a date movie.

Grumpy Bear is cautiously apathetic about his Les Miserables date night.

Of course, it didn’t become a worldwide sensation for nothing.  The music is achingly beautiful and the actors charged with delivering the tunes run from passable to phenomenal.  Most musicals rely on studio overdubs for the final product, but Hooper took the brave route of using the set recordings for the final audio take.  What you lose in vocal perfection, you gain in genuine performances and for the most part, the gamble works out.  Anne Hathaway’s performance of the haunting I Dreamed A Dream is a cinematic highlight of the year, proof positive of the director’s decision.  Hooper also injects the film with energy through sweeping camera work, and an eye for good pacing.  Rather than fill the screen with grand theater style sets, Hooper’s Les Miserables focuses on the actors and the great performances delivered by the cast.

Without that, this movie would have sunk under the weight of its own melodrama and still may for many film fans.  Like I said in the opening, this is not for everyone.  The story is dour to the point of depressing, Russell Crowe simply can’t handle the vocal task of Schonberg’ sweeping score and it’s Broadway.  Some viewers lack the stomach for the medium and that’s just fine.  Those who like a good weepy soap opera backed with astounding music will find plenty to enjoy in the latest film version of Les Miserables.  The movie contains some outstanding vocal performances, lively camera work and maintains much of the power from original stage presentation.  It’s a rough road to 19^th century Paris, but when it’s executed with this amount of skill and care, it all works out in the end.  Grumpy Bear tested, film fan approved.

Score – 85%

Sing Song and Once-lers and Corporate Greed

This Flick Is As Shallow As A Ratty Old Thneed

The Notebook Doodle Lorax laments his own film adaptation.

Of all of the peeves I keep as pets, there are three that drive me up the wall.  Cotton balls, that dopey ZZ Top song currently playing on the office Spotify and the excuse, “Relax.  It’s only a kid’s movie.”

Sorry, John Q. Public.  In the immortal words of Jules Winnfield, “Allow me to retort.”

Films designed for youngsters too often get a pass from the critical community.  When we see sloppy writing, poor direction and hyper-caffeinated animation, we assume we’re too old to enjoy it.  The film is not for us.  When we like a kiddie flick, our comment is, “A children’s movie the whole family can enjoy”.  We’re surprised to find something Little and Big Johnny can enjoy in equal measure.  Such a novel breath of fresh air.  To that, I say balderdash.  Good movies are good movies, regardless of your age bracket and it doesn’t take someone with a drivers license to tell the difference.  Something tells me that even Jamie’s two year old nephew would stare blankly at the latest film adaptation of The Lorax and go back to playing with his trucks.  It may keep him from fussing for 85 minutes, but that’s about it.

First some background.  Penned late in the career of Dr. Seuss, The Lorax is one of the darker stories in the famed writers bibliography.  A cautionary tale of corporate greed and environmental responsibility, the 1971 book presents a world gone wrong and warns kids to not let it happen to them.  More of a fable than anything else, the power of The Lorax is in its ability to send a powerful message with a simple story and more importantly, respect the intelligence of young readers.  While director Chris Renaud (Despicable Me) is obviously a fan of the original, he looses sight of the book’s quiet power in favor of a big, noisy mess.

The saving grace of the film is the core material.  The central story of a boy visiting the mysterious Once-ler to learn about the demise of the Truffula trees are the best bits of the feature.  There are some genuine chuckles, the pacing is mostly spot on and you get a real sense of regret from the reclusive entrepreneur.  The important elements from the book are there, from the strange payment the boy has to make for an audience with the Once-ler to the ominous “Unless” rock outside his home.  The film also feels “Seuss-ian” in the animation and art design.  Even the principal voices, including Zac Efron as the young Ted, Danny DeVito as the titular Lorax and Ed Helms as the ambitious One-ler, all do acceptable if unimpressive work in their respective roles.

Sadly for film goers, the good bits take up a mere fifteen minutes of screen time.  The rest of the movie is exhausting, message muddling filler.  The first offense is the contrast heavy Thneedville, the mecca of commercialism and plastic trees our protagonists live in.  Not even Betty White can save the town scenes from devolving into eye straining visual noise.  If some films make their point with a hammer, The Lorax repeatedly beats you over the brains with a candy coated bulldozer.  We get it.  Nature is good, greed is bad.  No need to sing a horrific song about it.

The second major problem is with the young boy’s love interest, Audrey (Taylor Swift).  Shoehorned in solely to push the story along, this inclusion completely ruins the whole point of the story.  In the original, the unnamed boy is curious where the pretty trees went.  In this version, he wants to find one to impress a girl.  Boo, filmmakers.  Boo.

The rest of the feature is mired in Hollywood mediocrity.  It’s as if the producers were ticking off the “Kiddie Flick Checklist”.  The film’s called The Lorax, so forget the fact he’s a metaphor in the book.  We need the little guy to send the Once-ler down a raging river   Kids like sexless romance, so let’s hammer in a love interest.  Youngin’s can’t pay attention, so let’s throw in car chases, C grade Broadway show tunes and stinky jokes to keep them entertained.  After all, they’re just kids and this is a kids movie.  Right?

Wrong.  Kids aren’t stupid.  Dr. Seuss recognized this in 1937 when he wrote his first children’s book, And to Think I Saw it on Mulberry Street.  A child’s greatest asset is their imagination and the best films of the genre are those that enhance and nurture that creativity.  From the virtual sandbox of Toy Story to the magic of How To Train Your Dragon, children’s’ movies can do more than be electronic babysitters.  They can inspire as they entertain.  2012’s The Lorax does none of those things, creating the same ear splitting din we’ve been handed by Hollywood since computer animation became the norm, not a novelty.  Maybe I’d be kinder if I weren’t such a big fan of the good Doctor but something tells me the little nephew inside would still be snoring away.

Score – 40%

The Story of the Search for South Africa’s Adopted Son

Take a look-see at the nominees for Best Documentary from this past year.  They include AIDS epidemics, the Israeli secret service, familial turmoil in the West Bank and the cover-up of rape victims in the US military.  Difficult subjects of depth, intrigue and emotional weight.  So who ended up taking home the trophy?  A movie about the mysteriously short career of a Detroit based musician.  While the film ducked under the same radar as its subject, a viewing will prove the Academy made the right choice this year.  Searching For Sugar Man is a profoundly human story full of mystery, surprise and some of the best music you’ve likely never heard before.

Ever hear of a seventies era folk rocker named Rodriguez?  Just Rodriguez?  Before Searching For Sugar Man, neither did I.  This Swedish doc explores the extraordinarily brief career of the Detroit based singer/songwriter.  In the Motor City, he cut a pair of records, released them to a public ripe for his Dylan-esqe protest sound and sold about ten copies before fading into obscurity. So why didn’t he hit it big during an era of unrest?  How come his biggest fan base resided a continent away?  Why did he disappear into the ether, leaving behind fractured stories of his suicide?  The answers to these questions are most of the fun in this doc, full of twists, turns and redemption

Right off the bat, the music is placed front and center throughout the film and for good reason.  Even with only a sampling of songs, the craftsmanship and tenacity of the recordings are astounding.  Socially conscious folk with a revolutionary edge, the music of Rodriguez catches your ear and never lets go.  In fact, the opening thirty minutes of the movie almost comes off as a strange episode of VH1’s Behind The Music but as the mystery unravels, you get sucked into the personal story of this mysterious artist.  As the cliché goes, sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction.

It also doesn’t hurt the film is beautifully photographed, using a combination of 8 mm film, animation and an iPhone app after director Malik Bendjelloul ran out of money.  From the gritty exteriors of Detroit to the streets of South Africa, Searching For Sugar Man is well framed and for the most part, well paced.  The only low points are some obvious filler between the opening and the central reveal but when the movie hits its stride around the fifty minute mark, it never looks back.  You can also make the argument the director really pushes his subjects to amplify the drama, but all that is forgivable given the care he gives the mysterious guitarist.

Filmed on a shoestring budget, simply for the love of the material, Searching For Sugar Man is a touching and empathetic piece of filmmaking.  With a fascinating and exceptional central subject, the movie becomes a celebration of talent and beauty in a year full of bitterness and pain.  While the doc may not pack the punch of the other nominees, I walked away happy to have met somebody so quietly wonderful, both behind the guitar and in everyday life.   A lovely film about an extraordinary person.

Score – 90%