The Incredible Burt Wonderstone (2/5 Stars)

Uninspired is probably the best word for this movie. It was directed by Don Scardino a name you probably do not recognize. This is his first movie although according to IMDB he has done quite a lot of work directing all sorts of Television series, 30 Rock most notably.  His style is barely noticeable and I won’t mention him anymore in this review. The movie has four writers. They include Jonathan Goldstein, John Francis Daley, Chad Kultgen, Tyler Mitchell. I would not be surprised if there were even more writers than that as the movie has the feel of something put together by committee and by that it is overly broad story within a fill-in-the-blank structure and devoid of uniqueness or creativity. Here, I am going to describe the story very briefly: It is about the redemption of a once successful traditional Vegas magician, Steve Carell, who has fallen on hard times because of his egomania and the appearance of a new type of stuntman magician, a la David Blaine. The magician with the help of his beautiful assistant reconnects with his childhood inspiration and stages a comeback. There is a contest at the end where he out-magics the competition. The End.

Does that sound familiar to you? Well, it should. It is a marketing pitch for a movie you have already seen before, perhaps something starring Will Ferrell and concerning sports. I bet this movie was green-lit for production before it was even written.  The studio got a room of writers together, gave them that paragraph pitch, and ordered a PG-13 script written. The result is a movie that very much feels like it did not need to be made and in a way wasn’t made by anybody in particular. It’s nobody’s movie.

I think the telling clue here is the lack of any decent magic in the movie. None. The best tricks we see are some sleight of hand that barely conceal the fact that Steve Carell and Alan Arkin, his childhood inspiration and now ex-magician, did not even bother to learn sleight of hand in preparation for their roles. There are easy cuts that allow one to recognize it is not their hands much like the way one can tell people in movies hardly ever really play the piano. The movie has a cop out reason for this and that has to do with Burt Wonderstone, Carell, and his partner Anton Marvelton, played by Steve Buscemi, being worn out has been magicians that have not changed their act in ten years. Yeah, but even ten years ago they must have had a decent trick in order to get famous in the first place. You would think we would see something of interest at some point. It never happens.

Now consider the character of Burt Wonderstone himself. His main personality trait is being bored. He takes very little joy in his work, has lost all feelings of brotherhood for his long-time partner, and goes through the routine of seducing groupies as if it is something he feels his status requires even if he does not particularly enjoy it. Truly this is Steve Carell’s least inspired character so far. I would like to draw your attention to one particular failed joke. Burt Wonderstone has been fired from his big Vegas job because his act is terrible and has been informed by his agent that he has no money because he has made nothing but terrible choices. So he is now broke and living in a motel. His assistant, played by Olivia Wilde, comes over to check up on him out of the niceness of her heart. As they are talking, she mentions her own aspirations of becoming a magician in her own right. Burt thinks this notion is silly. Why she asks. “Because,” he states, “you are a woman.” Now true this is misogynistic, but it is also lazy and stupid and those qualities are what I really want to talk about. There is no particular reason for Burt Wonderstone to be misogynistic. I have never heard of a glass ceiling in the world of magic. This isn’t like Will Ferrell’s “Anchorman” where the story was about a news team boy’s club being invaded by a female news anchor. In this movie, it just seems to be there because this movie’s story structure is based off other casually misogynistic movies and so a casually misogynistic main character was just another box on the checklist. Nobody bothered to ask whether the character or plot required Burt Wonderstone to not respect women or put in any sort of effort to make the joke anything more than simply a demeaning comment about women in general. You can, I argue, make fun of a woman. I’m not saying you should not do that, but the joke should have some logical connection to the woman who is the object of ridicule. That brings us to another inexplicable problem.

This is a comedy and like so many other comedies has not hired a comedian for the main female role. The assistant is played by Olivia Wilde, who is not funny. At all. Does not even try. What is she doing in this movie? All she does is look like Olivia Wilde, sit there passively as Burt Wonderstone insults her, and make out with him at the end. Would it kill the makers to cast a comedian who could adlib a couple funny lines where the all male writers were limited in their imagination as to what a woman character could say? It would have been really easy. For instance they hired the very funny Gillian Jacobs from the TV show “Community” for a bit part in this movie. In that bit part she got more laughs than Wilde did in the entire movie. Let’s say 1 to 0. Why on earth couldn’t she be cast as the assistant? I mean she isn’t a supermodel like Olivia Wilde, but she sure isn’t ugly either. Did nobody think about this possibility?

To be fair, there is one thing that transcends the rote nature of this movie and that is the performance of Jim Carrey as the David Blaine-ish magician named Steve Gray. Steve Gray is not really a magician as much as he is a performer of ridiculous acts of self-immolation. In one particular trick he doesn’t go to the bathroom for a straight week. That was pretty funny. Jim Carrey, now 50 years old, and no longer a box office draw (i.e. without studios developing entire movies devoted to his unique brand of comedy) has done the smart thing and started showing up in digital shorts, hosting Saturday Night Live, and taking supporting roles that allow him to still put in superior work. I mean he could be doing the Eddie Murphy thing and keep insisting on being the lead role in inferior movies, each one worse than the one before. This movie isn’t that good but Jim does turn his fifteen minutes of screen time into consistent laughs. I think what we really need is a movie based on or just with the cast of “In Living Color.” That would be something else. 

Argo (3/5 Stars)

“You’re an associate producer at best,” says Alan Arkin to Ben Affleck during a telling moment. Ben Affleck is playing a CIA exfiltration expert in what is also his latest directorial effort, the historical action thriller "Argo." Affleck is speaking to a Hollywood producer played by Alan Arkin who has agreed to put up a front for a phony movie to help the CIA smuggle several Americans out of Iran during the 1979 revolution. The fake movie is a sci-fi epic titled Argo. Affleck will fly into the Iranian capital, Tehran, under the pretense of scouting locations for the fake movie shoot, find the six Americans who are hiding out in the Canadian embassy, disguise them as part of his film crew, and then fly them out of the country via the Tehran International Airport. This is a true story. At this point in the movie Arkin and Affleck are doing a bit of casting. Which American will be the screenwriter? Which will be the cameraman? Which will be the director? Affleck puts out the idea for himself as the director. Arkin shoots it down. “You’re an associate producer at best,” he says.

Two things are happening here: First and more obvious is the clever self-referential self-deprecating joke Affleck is playing on himself. His character is being told nobody would believe him as a director in the very movie he is directing ha ha. Second and less obvious is a demonstration of an actual critical element of movie casting. Specifically, the utility of casting a movie star. It has been said that casting a well-known star saves fifteen minutes of exposition. For example: when Bruce Willis shows up in a movie the audience subconsciously should expect a no-nonsense action-oriented character because they have seen that actor play that character effectively many times before.  So the movie can skip that one scene where the character establishes his badassness (if it would for some weird reason want to). We already know Bruce Willis is badass.  

Now what do you think of Ben Affleck? If you are like me, you do not automatically think “Director” either and I say this with the knowledge that he has competently directed two movies already. When I think of Ben Affleck, I think of a lightweight actor that tried a bunch of times to be tough in the vein of Alec Baldwin and never really pulled it off. I think of all those years he was fodder for dumb romantic leads in bad movies. I think “Bennifer.” And I think of that time he stood next to Matt Damon clutching an Oscar for “Good Will Hunting” and was pretty sure that was a Roger Avary type of Oscar. This history is what my subconscious delivers when I see Ben Affleck in a movie.

Now this does not mean that I think he is a bad actor. A movie that is well cast will simply recognize and capitalize on audience expectations. You can see this marvelously done in what is perhaps Affleck’s best movie, “Changing Lanes,” in which he plays a naïve pretty boy junior associate at a corrupt law firm. Nor does this mean that Ben Affleck is miscast in this movie! He just needs to be less of a major character and more of a supporting one. Much less of a major character.

There is a gross flaw in “Argo,” and it is a result of an imperfect understanding of what the central and most interesting conflict is in this story. The movie starts with a riveting scene in which the American embassy in Tehran is overtaken by a riot of Iranian protestors. We see how the six Americans from the visa office escaped while everyone else was taken hostage. We see them go into hiding at the Canadian embassy. And then these six people are bizarrely ignored for most of the movie as the story focuses on the CIA coming up with a plan to exfiltrate them by going to Hollywood and teaming up with a Hollywood makeup designer and producer to create a fake movie as a front for the operation. There are scenes in which the CIA and Hollywood argue over the screenplay, negotiate its purchase, and throw a party in which it is read and advertised by the press. I ask you, is this more interesting than what six Americans hiding for fear of losing their lives are going through for three months? I submit that it is not.

The worst effect of all this attention being paid to the plan being developed in the USA is that it is already vetted and explained by the time the Americans in Iran hear about it. All the good objections are stated, all the other plans are explained away, and all the work is done. When it finally gets to the people that matter we are already two thirds of the way through the movie. The six have not been given any depth as characters and when the movie finally focuses on them, only one is given a substantial role, and that is merely as a contrarian voicing all the objections we have heard before. At the end of the movie we have learned almost nothing about the people being rescued.

Imagine what this movie could have been if it were less enamored with CIA spies and Hollywood producers and more with the ordinary people being thrust into an extraordinary situation. It could have stayed with the Americans after they arrive at the embassy, we could have learned a little about their personalities and histories, we could have learned about their daily routine of hiding, we could have seen the scary developments happening in Iran through their eyes. For example there is a scene where Ben Affleck arrives in Tehran and sees from his cab window a dead man being hung from a construction crane. Why couldn’t the six be the ones to witness that? Would not that have a greater effect on them. And then two-thirds of the way through the movie, Ben Affleck, can show up on the doorstep with some cockamamie scheme to smuggle them out of the country in full view of everyone by disguising them as a film crew for a sci-fi epic named “Argo.” What a great way to use Ben Affleck's lack of credibility to enhance the suspense of the storyline. Would you trust Ben Affleck with a plan like that after watching the world disintegrate into chaos before your eyes? No of course not. That would be ludicrous. Therein lies the natural center of suspense and conflict for this movie. 

How does this movie build up tension? Well, by lying about what really happened. This movie will have you believe that the six Americans got away with merely seconds to spare. Seconds. I didn’t say minutes or even hours. I said seconds. When the final plane is taking off (I really don’t think I’m spoiling anything. We all know they successfully escape) a jeep full of angry Iranian soldiers is racing practically parallel to the plane trying to get the pilot's attention. I don’t need to check Wikipedia to know that did not happen. If the story were told correctly, it would not be necessary to enliven it with trumped up bullshit.

I make a big deal out of this because no doubt much of the thrill of watching a "True Story" is in knowing you are watching something that is actually “True.” Well, if it isn't, and I assert that some really important parts aren't, then what? Let's pretend for a moment that we are not watching a "true story" and simply judge this movie on the merits as if it were any other movie. If it we’re fictional, would this be a superior movie? The answer must be no. It is repetitive, misplaces its suspense, does not use its characters wisely, and offers plenty of red herrings where a superior movie would contain actual twists and turns in the plot. Bad events always seem about to happen in “Argo” but never actually come to fruition in any sort of way that would cast doubt on the most predictable of outcomes.

I’m hearing Oscar buzz for this movie. I don’t need to see any more movies this year to be able to say I’ve already seen at least five better ones in every category. “Argo” should not be nominated for anything. If it does get nominated and especially if it wins anything I will take that simply as more proof that Hollywood likes kissing its own ass. Sure they would nominate the movie about how Hollywood saved six Americans in Iran through the Power Of Movies! Just take a look at last year’s best picture, “The Artist,” if you haven’t already forgotten it. To the Academy there are movies about them and there are movies about us. All movies are treated equally I’m sure, but some movies are more equal than others. 

Little Miss Sunshine 11/17/06

This is the sweetest fucking movie I have seen this year. It might be the sweetest fucking movie I will see in my entire life. It is just so fucking sweet. and I don't say 'sweet' with any slang connotation. This is truly sweet. It is cheerful, it is cute, it captures all the joy and laughter that somehow peeks through the dreariness of mediocre lives. When one day you wake up and you feel like complete crap and you don't want to get out of bed and go to work but you do because you hate yourself and your so miserable but then you spot a child or just someone you know who is exceedingly cheerful because that's who they are and although you've been trying so hard to have the worst fucking day in your life this little ray of sunshine pierces your heart and melts all the fucking indifference in your system. All your problems turn into solutions and everything that looked so ugly suddenly looks beautiful and you want to stand up and clap and sing and dance and hug oh-so-tightly those you love. That's what this movie feels like. It's the fucking sweetest fucking movie I have ever seen in my entire life. God I love that kid. Everyone else in this movie, although they may be the most depressed people in the world, do too. She's beautiful and I'm not just saying that because of her brains and personality.

I'm not a fortune teller, but if I know anything, it's that the Academy loves giving out the Best Original Screenplay Oscar to this type of movie. Its the director's, Jonathon Dayton and Valerie Faris, and screenwriter's, Michael Arndt, first movie. It's very low budget and it's skillfully made although not expertly made. It's got the amateurish feel to it in that certain scenes may have been staged better or edited differently. It doesn't feel like an art house movie. It's a tiny independent movie, one of those you're glad to have seen because it feels like it could have easily been overlooked. There's a hell of a lot of potential here that makes me eagerly await their next film. One that will hopefully have as much heart, but also the little details that can only come from a good amount of helpful experience. Like I said, this movie isn't technically good enough to get huge awards attention only because so many other films look and feel superior. But it definitely will get a Original Screenplay nomination, and I wouldn't be surprised if it won.