Water for Elephants

Moment of truth here Robert Pattison, can you act or not? Obviously the Twilight star must have some ability because he’s been able to land such massive roles. But after a pretty decent performance in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, he seems to have deteriorated. Now he stars in the adaption of the best-selling book Water for Elephants. Pattinson plays a young veterinary school student who runs away after the death of his parents. He then comes across a travelling circus while attempting to stow away on a passing train. He ends up joining them and working with the animals. But the movie is less about the circus and more about the character’s compassion towards all living things, even undesirable humans.

Christoph Waltz’s performance as August, the circus owner, is reminiscent of his Oscar winning turn in Inglourious Basterds. However, this time the character is less black and white, as he does have remorse and isn’t necessarily an evil person. The Austrian steals the show from Pattinson and Resse Witherspoon, who plays his wife. That isn’t to say those two don’t hold their own. There isn’t much asked for from Witherspoon, whose character becomes a static damsel in distress. But she does do well in making something out of nothing. And (drum roll please) Pattinson is able to carry the film in the lead role. He isn’t the best actor, but he layers the performance better than he has ever done in the past.

Water for Elephants is a very attractive film, and I mean more so than the actors. The period dress and set decoration, as well as intriguing lighting makes the scenes stand out compared to other emotional dramas. Taking place half on a freight train and half in circus tents, not many other movies look like this. And you can’t help but be interested in old-time circuses after watching. But what could I do if I joined the circus? I could be the world’s hottest man and walk around flexing all day. Yeah, that fits. (8.6 out of 10)

Rio

An animated feature based around two parrots; Rio begins the way many children’s cartoons do these days, with depressing situations. But after Blu, voiced by Jesse Eisenberg, is captured and sent to Minnesota to be sold as a pet, he does find happiness living with the all-around average Linda (Leslie Mann). Years later the pair must go to Brazil in an attempt to save Blu’s species, since only one other blue macaw exists. But it wouldn’t be much of a movie if things went according to plan. The two get kidnapped (again) and must find a way to free themselves from a chain tying them together and return to the lives they had before this whole ordeal began.

The voice talents of Jesse Eisenberg and Anne Hathaway don’t sound like your typical animated characters. Eisenberg uses his usual awkward stuttering to bring Blu to life. Then there’s Hathaway who has the ability to break into song at any turn. The duo really helps Rio stand apart from the average Disney movie and Disney rip-off. With that being said, everything in the film isn’t completely fresh. The wild monkeys come across as the slow cousins of the Madagascar lemurs. And the Timon and Pumba-esque Nico and Pedro (Jamie Foxx and Will-I-Am) struggle to find a purpose beyond comic relief. They are funny though, which helps a bit.

Rio does well balancing multiple storylines and as a result, it moves right along. The occasional use of songs makes for an interesting alternative to a full-fledged musical. Most of the songs are comical in nature and used to reveal aspects of a character’s persona. So, all-in-all Rio is a successful effort that children will most definitely swoon over. But like always, I think animation needs to move away from the depressing backgrounds born out of the classic Disney era. Some people have an enjoyable childhood, so wouldn’t it be likely that some movie characters do too? (8.3 out of 10)

Hanna

Saoirse Ronan plays the title character in Hanna, a contemporary European thriller about a young girl seeking revenge implanted in her by her father (Eric Bana). Her target is a federal agent played by Cate Blanchett. She obviously has some kind of tie to Hanna’s past and without any spoilers; it isn’t the connection that is immediately thought of. The film is very episodic in nature. There’s the snow episode, prison, road trip, and creepy theme park. Each part is unique but fits into the overall scheme flawlessly. The film locales prove as intriguing and layered as any character. The trip to the abandoned amusement park, which is themed around the Grimm Brothers fairy tales, is completely chilling. I really can’t think of a creepier setting in any other movie.

The fairy tale symbolism doesn’t end there however. In fact, I would say the set was used to bring more attention to the underlying theme in the film. Hanna is essentially a tragic fairytale character and Ronan does well to remain likeable without letting her character go soft. After all, Hanna is supposed to be a bad ass. There are a number of scenes that feel as if they could have ended up on the editing room floor. During the road trip episode the pace slows almost to a standstill as the audience learns of the protagonist’s sheltered life. This is obviously a big moment for character development, but the lull isn’t needed.

As the credits role, the biggest winners in Hanna are the Chemical Brothers. Their original score is aware of the scope of the film, balancing subtle themes with a more commercial electronic sound. It’s just like the movie itself, which is learned in the art of good film making, but not too proud to throw in some crowd pleasers. When I say crowd pleasers, I mean mindless violence and gruesome death. A video tour of that Grimm Brothers theme park set would have been scarier. (8.0 out of 10)

Arthur

I used to despise Russell Brand in every movie he was in, but he’s grown on me a bit. Arthur is a remake of the 1981 film about a spoiled adult millionaire who does whatever he wants and has never-ending moolah. Movies with rich idiots always have potential because of the ridiculous things they buy. Brand’s character has movie replica cars (Batmobile, Delorean), a magnetic bed, move theater, etc. Even if the jokes aren’t funny that stuff provides laughs of their own. The jokes do prove to be funny though.

Beyond the general concept, Arthur is told to marry a promising young socialite (Jennifer Garner) for the future stability of his mother’s company. If he doesn’t marry her then he loses access to the family’s money. Soon after this news he falls for a simple city girl who has no money and is still happy. This is not a very original storyline. Arthur’s struggles with alcoholism however, are portrayed with more realism than one would expect from such a comedy. Then again, Helen Mirren signed on to the film so it obviously has some substance, pun intended.

Mirren’s performance as Hobson is witty and genuine. Her ability to contradict Brand while still having chemistry with him is a testament to her ability to layer a performance. Brand is not at that level, but not many actors are. His dynamic performance is one of his best, coming across as an actual person, even if the situation isn’t plausible. Speaking of implausible, Greta Gerwig is never able to portray the likeability that is supposed to accompany her character. Instead she just seems like a bimbo who falls for Arthur for no apparent reason. And the love-hate relationship between the two becomes repetitive after awhile. Luckily she has no presence in the film’s first act and Brand has become a more than adequate lead actor. Now, Luis Guzman portrays a bimbo too, but that’s just funny. (8.1 out of 10)

Hop

James Marsden established just how funny he could be in the 2010 remake of Death at a Funeral. So, even though hybrid films (live action featuring animated elements) are often questionable, it seemed like he had the ability to pull it off. Let’s see if he does. Hop stars Marsden as an unemployed “loser” trying to find his niche while putting up with pressure from his family. He then has a chance encounter with EB, a talking, plaid wearing bunny, who is the heir apparent to the position of Easter Bunny. But he doesn’t want the job. He wants to be a drummer. After awhile, it turns out that they may not be so different after all.

First problem, Marsden’s family are jerks because the guy is not an actual loser. He lost his job during tough economic times and is nervous about getting rejected again. Now if he never had a job that’s a different story. So, that major plot point is ill developed. Next, EB has the unrealistic aspirations of being a drummer, except there’s the unimportant fact that he is actually a musical virtuoso, which makes this dream pretty realistic, even though he’s a rabbit. These dumb parents, don’t they know anything? The strange chemistry between Marsden and the voice of Russell Brand is the most important and successful aspect of the film. There isn’t that Death at a Funeral wit to his performance, but I assume kids like the mild humor.

You have to admire that Hop isn’t overly concerned with appealing to every age group. This is for children and everyone else has to understand that. But before I give too much praise, there is absolutely no reason for David Hasslehoff to be in this movie. It’s a ridiculous cameo that makes the actor look like a pretentious boob. Plus what child knows who “the Hoff” is? Only a sad, unfortunate child. (7.3 out of 10)

Source Code

I know that Jake Gyllenhaal is a big movie star, but I always seem to have a hard time remembering more than a couple of films he’s starred in. His latest film, Source Code provides a fresh attempt at being memorable. He plays a soldier who finds himself planted in another man’s body. Then when the train explodes and he doesn’t die, he discovers he is part of a military mission to find the bomber and prevent an even grander disaster from occurring. The movie predictably starts in the middle of things to build tension before the audience gets any answers. But unlike other films of this nature, those answers do come. I almost expected to have to guess at what’s going on because that happens so frequently with movies like Cloverfield.

The majority of the film takes place in two settings. But every return trip to the train and the mission room brings different perspective and a fresh approach, so scenes are rarely repetitive. Writer Ben Ripley is able to effectively predict the mood of the audience with Gyllenhaal’s character. There’s confusion, understanding, frustration and realization all in just over 90 minutes. I can’t help but compare the film to an episode of The Twilight Zone. But Source Code is more complex than that.

While Gyllenhaal plays his part well and is a good choice for the role, I don’t think this will be the one people remember him for down the road. The same goes for Michelle Monaghan and Vera Farmiga who co-star. That’s just a stipulation of stand alone sci-fi thrillers like Source Code. Their shelf life is relatively short. But with this film, that may not be fair. It’s not every week a well written, well acted thriller is released. I can’t say it’s flawless though. What is with Jeffrey Wright’s accent? It sounds like a bad attempt at a JFK impression. But he’s in the James Bond movies so he gets some leeway. (8.5 out of 10)