The Odd Life of Timothy Green Movie Review

While checking for showtimes of The Amazing Spider-Man I noticed another movie was in theaters that I hadn’t heard of before, The Odd Life of Timothy Green (2012). I’m not sure how I missed hearing about it; Disney generally spares no expense on letting their products be shouted from the rooftops. The trailer seemed interesting, so I went to see it. It’s exactly what the trailer said it was, and I have to say I liked it.

A childless couple, Cindy (Jennifer Garner) and Jim Green (Joel Edgerton) are told that every medical option has been explored and that they cannot have children of their own. Grief stricken, they go home and spend one last night with their dreams and wishes of having a child. They write down qualities they would like their ideal child to have, place the notes in a box, and bury it in their garden to put an end to their hopes. After a thunderstorm a ten year-old boy named Timothy (CJ Adams) arrives at their home, claiming the Greens as his parents. Strangest of all is the boy has leaves growing out of his legs around his ankles. Cindy and Jim take in Timothy for the time being and strive very hard to be the best possible parents to this odd, but good boy. They quickly find parenting to be a much more complicated and bigger challenge than they expected.

This is kind of a strange movie. It seems to be targeted towards kids, but there are a lot of themes in it that I really don’t think kids could grasp. You can’t really express to small kids the confusion a parent has when they don’t know whether to help their child or let them make their own mistakes. The story is driven by how people react to Timothy, but he’s not really the main character, Cindy and Jim are. Nevertheless, the story is simple and amusing enough that both parents and their children will enjoy the movie.

The Odd Life of Timothy Green is kind of a modern fairy tale for grownups in the sense of wish fulfillment, a journey of discovery, and a touch of magical influence. I couldn’t help but think of classic fairy tales that feature a childless couple who daily yearn for a child and then by some miraculous means, have a child. Jim and Cindy learn what being a parent is really like and that there is a lot more to it than simply providing basic necessities and love. While the story has some fantasy qualities to it, hardly anything magical occurs after Timothy shows up.

Good child actors are hard to come by. They are usually pretty unexpressive actors (like Quvenzhané Wallis in Beasts of theSouthern Wild) because they just aren’t old enough to know how to act, or they are so cute that no one cares that they don’t know how to act (like Shirley Temple). CJ Adams actually did a remarkable job in his delivery as Timothy Green. He was expressive without being melodramatic and lacked self awareness that most child actors have which weakens their performance. CJ’s performance felt very natural. He’s a pretty cute kid, too.

The Odd Life of Timothy Green really captivates old-time values. Although the movie has a present setting, it’s still about kids going outdoors to play, having community sporting events, autumnal colors, farm houses out in the rolling hills, khakis and polo shirts, birthday parties and swimming with friends. The only modern technology visible is in one scene where Cindy is trying to talk about being a parent to someone absorbed by their cell phone. The cell phone isn’t at fault; it’s just used as a means of illustrating how detached and busy the woman is from  taking care of her kids that she doesn’t really get to even know her kids. At any rate, it’s got a timeless, homey vibe that would make people of any age feel nostalgic for their childhood.

Like many Disney movies, The Odd Life of Timothy Green is very sweet. I didn’t think it was so sweet and sappy that it would dissuade me from enjoying it, but I could see some viewers feeling exasperated by the Normal Rockwell-style sentiment and sugary happiness. The movie has some truly lovely moments and, to be fair, a few that are a bit too saccharine to take very seriously.

Overall, I’d say The Odd Life of Timothy Green is an average movie. But being average is what gives the movie its charm. If you see it and think it’s too sappy and sweet, I could certainly see where you’re coming from. If you enjoy it as a cute movie about new a family awkwardly trying to fit into their new roles, I could sympathize most earnestly. I don’t think this is so much a kid’s movie; I do think kids would enjoy it, but not as much as their parents would. If you are a parent who genuinely loves your children, are hoping to be a parent soon, or even thinking of adopting, you will love this movie. If not, it’s still a cute film that is worth seeing someday. It wouldn’t be bad to see in theaters, but you’d be fine with renting it on DVD when it’s available. I wouldn’t mind owning my own copy on Blu-Ray, though it’s not a top priority.

Can you think of another movie that was targeted for kids, but where the main story would go right over their heads? Comment below and tell me about it!

Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance Movie Review

Back in 2007 Marvel Studios released a movie called Ghost Rider. It was pretty dumb, but didn’t take itself so seriously that it couldn’t be enjoyed. It was corny with a silly setting, but Nicolas Cage helped make it kind of fun. I even bought a super cheap used copy because it was just a silly and fun superhero romp that no one in their right mind could take seriously. Nicolas Cage must have been put on a contract for a sequel or something. I can’t imagine why anyone, let alone a big Hollywood name, would want to be associated with Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance (2012).

Years ago stunt motorcyclist Johnny Blaze (Nicolas Cage) sold his soul to the devil to save his dying father’s life. In exchange he became a hell blazing vigilante to help fight the devil’s battles. Having finished the errand given him by the devil, who goes by Roarke (Ciarán Hinds) when in human form, Johnny is on the run to make sure no one is harmed by his alter ego, The Ghost Rider. He is approached by a monk named Moreau (Idris Elba) who tells Johnny that he can help free him from The Rider. But first he needs Johnny’s help to protect a boy named Danny (Fergus Riordan) whom Roarke plans to use to give himself a more powerful body.

If you saw and remember anything about the first Ghost Rider movie, you’ll probably see some discrepancies between it and this plot summary. The back story was different from what we saw in Ghost Rider. Johnny Blaze wasn’t trying to rid himself of The Ghost Rider, he was going to keep it and use it against the devil. The devil doesn’t have a weak body that becomes weaker when he uses his powers. The Ghost Rider doesn’t feed on the evil of his victims no matter how small the infraction, from genocide to a white lie. This movie took place in Eastern Europe. Ghost Rider’s thing was to be a supernatural western of sorts, set in the US Midwest. Why set it in Europe?

The screenplay was written by David S. Goyer, Scott Gimple and Seth Hoffman, who are all probably 10 years old and have never seen the first Ghost Rider movie. I could just see them saying to each other “Dude, wouldn’t it be cool if we got Ghost Rider to ride a big wrecking machine? We should write a movie about that!” The dialogue was just terrible, the characters were stupid, and it follows none of the previously established rules and setting. Much like the demonic characters in this movie, I’m pretty sure this script came from hell.

If that wasn’t bad enough, the movie was directed by Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor, who I assume are film school drop outs. The editing was ridiculously dreadful. It made Ghost Rider seem to be spastically teleporting all over the set, and twitching constantly when he wasn’t teleporting. This makes Ghost Rider seem a lot more like a crazy convulsing skeleton man rather than a dark, powerful being from hell. Even his costume was remarkably bland and ordinary.

To make things worse, they did cut-away gags, like you would see on Family Guy. For example, Moreau solemnly tells Johnny that his brothers are all dead, and that would be too if not for the grace of God. Then it cuts away to a green, leafy tree in broad daylight with Moreau sticking his head out of the leaves and giggling to himself. Then it cuts back again to Johnny and Moreau. There are several gags like this and it contrasts with the tone of the movie so much that I rolled my eyes every time it happened. If I wanted Seth MacFarlane style humor, I would have gone to Hulu.com.

Nicolas Cage is reprising a previous role, but he still acts very differently than he did in the previous movie. In the first movie he was calm, collected, sarcastic, and arrogant. In this one he seemed to be combating schizophrenia and nervous tics. I blame the writers for screwing up the character; I hope Nicolas Cage was simply doing what the directors were instructing him to do. And what they were telling him to do was terrible! I suppose he did a good job of acting insane, he just had horrible material to work with.

One of the thing that ruffled my feathers was when they were attempting to remove The Ghost Rider from Johnny. I appreciate the fictional angels and demons sort of mythology, but there’s only so far you can go with it before it begins to becomes religiously offensive. To initiate removing The Rider from Johnny, Moreau prepares a sacrament for Johnny. This is taken so lightly and even comically that I began feeling slighted by it. Viewers who take religion even more seriously than I do would probably get very bent out of shape by it.

With a horrendous script, sloppy directing, disregard of movie it claims to be a sequel of, uneven CGI work, and Nicolas Cage acting insane, Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance was total crap. I’ve seen B-horror flicks that were better than this! I think it was trying to be trashy fun, but ended up just being trash. I would call this the worst movie of the year if I didn’t know there was another Twilight movie coming out. DO NOT SEE THIS MOVIE! It’s a waste of time, and insulting to watch. Even if you’re a fan of Marvel Comics and their movies, you will be sorely disappointed by this one. Even though I’ve never read a Ghost Rider comic, I’m pretty sure this movie violates cannon in almost every regard. If you’re not a Marvel comics fan, I doubt you’ll even make it half way through the movie before shutting it off and using the disc as a $20 cup coaster.

Sequels are rarely as good as their predecessors. What’s the worst movie sequel you’ve ever seen? Comment below and tell me why!

Color Me Kubrick Movie Review

Foreign films rarely seem to get a lot of publicity in the US. It’s a shame, really. The US hardly has a monopoly on movies. True, not all foreign films are all that great, but then not all American films are good either. I discovered Color Me Kubrick (2006) while rummaging around in a used DVD bin at my local Blockbuster. What drew me to it was the fact that John Malkovich looks nothing like Stanley Kubrick. I figured this was a sure indicator of a lousy film, or at best lousy casting. But I watched it anyway and I was pleasantly surprised.

Set in London in 1990’s, a balding alcoholic with an unsteady American accent introduces himself in pubs and other social setting as Stanley Kubrick. Drinks and meals are suddenly on the house or paid for by an admiring person who finds Stanley fascinating. But this man is not Stanley Kubrick. He’s an Englishman by the name of Alan Conway (John Malkovich). He has conned many people into believing that he is the reclusive American director, despite the fact that Conway is openly gay, bares no physical resemblance to Kubrick, and knows little about the director’s work. The clever conman scrounges drinks, cash, and sexual favors from an array of unsuspecting victims ranging from heavy metal bands to wine bar owner (Richard E. Grant) to a British lounge singer (Jim Davidson). All are awestruck by his alleged fame and fortune, and overlook Conway’s genuinely bizarre behavior in hopes of impressing the great director. But when he tries to fool New York Times theater critic Frank Rich (William Hootkins), Conway’s act begins to unravel.

You could call Color Me Kubrick a kind of satire of celebrity worship. The people Conway interacts with are instantly star struck and are willing to bend over backwards to impress this person who claims to be a famous movie director. Few people even bother to think that in no way does Conway resemble Kubrick. Sure, his ruse is caught by a few people, but most of the characters simply worship Conway for no reason other than he says he’s famous. We really do often give unmerited glory and honor to people of a celebrity status simply because they are famous. Color Me Kubrick kind of shows us how we get so caught up in that fanaticism that we could easily be taken advantage of. What’s scary is this movie is based on true events.

Conway’s character was brilliantly acted. Conway doesn’t seem to have any idea who Stanley Kubrick is and puts on different personas with each con job. Sometimes acting like an English gentleman, other times acting like a flamboyant Jewish stereotype. We don’t seem to see enough of Conway’s real self, which makes the character a bit difficult to relate to, but that fits into the story. No one seems to know who this man really is, and neither do we. Malkovich did a great job with all the “Kubrick” masks he wears.

One of the really neat parts of Color Me Kubrick was periodic homage to Kubrick’s films. In fact, the opening scene is a direct homage to A Clockwork Orange, in which we see the after-effects of Conway’s minor cons. Two thugs are sent to collect a bar bill that Conway has generated by impersonating Kubrick. Conway had provided the address of an elderly couple as Kubrick’s home address. Of course the elderly couple has no idea who Conway is nor do they know Stanley Kubrick. The two thugs (one wearing a bowler hat) try to force their way into the couple’s home and get arrested for causing a ruckus. This wasn’t part of Conway’s design, just a very clever artistic license taken by the director.

The movie also uses classical music pieces that were famously used in Kubrick films. Some of the songs include The Blue Danube Waltz by Johann Strauss, as used in the docking scene in 2001: A Space Odyssey. It also used Henry Purcell’s Funeral of Queen Mary and Gioachino Rossini’s William Tell Overture as they each appear in A Clockwork Orange. The film isn’t trying to imitate Kubrick’s directing style, and the Kubrick homage isn’t terribly overt. You probably wouldn’t even recognize them if you hadn’t seen some of Kubrick’s well known films.

The movie does become repetitive since it is mostly a series of anecdotes about Conway swindling people. It still remains amusing to watch nonetheless. The film is not rated, and even though sexual themes are alluded to, there’s nothing I could see offending anyone. It does use some language, though; F-bombs are frequently used by some of the Heavy Metal band characters and a few others. I thought it was an okay movie. I’m glad I saw it. I recommend seeing it if you have seen several Kubrick films, otherwise you probably won’t appreciate it that much.

What is your favorite Stanly Kubrick film? Comment below and tell me why!

John Carter Movie Review

Way back in the early 1900’s an author by the name of Edgar Rice Burroughs wrote a series of pulp fiction stories. It was originally serialized as Under the Moons of Mars and was later published as a novel called A Princess of Mars. Ten sequels followed over the next three decades. Disney had bought the rights to make a film version of this book series back in the 1980’s. After being abandoned many times, Andrew Stanton (director of Pixar’s Finding Nemo and WALL-E) stepped up to the plate. Finally we received the John Carter movie in 2012, on the centennial anniversary of the first publication.

John Carter (Taylor Kitsch) is a world weary Civil War veteran who is tired of fighting other people’s wars and for their “noble” causes. While escaping being drafted into another battle for the military, he seeks refuge in a cave where he finds someone holding a strange medallion. When Carter touches it, he finds himself transported to a strange place where he can leap incredible heights and distances, as well as possessing amazing strength. Carter becomes reluctantly embroiled in a conflict among the inhabitants which include an alien leader Tars Tarkas (Willem Dafoe) and a human-like Princess Dejah Thoris (Lynn Collins). Carter learns from Dejah that he is on the planet earthlings call Mars and that his superhuman strength is caused by the lower gravity on Mars. Their world is on the brink of collapse and only John Carter has the power to end the conflict.

Something to take into consideration is that the setting in John Carter is based on now-obsolete ideas that were popularized by astronomer Percival Lowell in the early 20^th Century. This is why there is life on Mars and a breathable atmosphere in this sci-fi/fantasy story. It’s also based on pulp fiction, which is known for its over-the-top ridiculous action sequences and unrealistic settings. If you take all of that into consideration, John Carter is a more enjoyable movie.

Even when taking that kind of source material into consideration, the physics were a bit silly. Carter leaps 20 stories into the air because of the low gravity on Mars, but he still falls at the same speed he would on Earth. You’d expect his legs to break once he hits the ground falling that fast, but of course that doesn’t happen. Furthermore, Carter and the tribal aliens he teams up with bring swords and spears to go into battle against flying ships with laser cannons, and they still somehow manage to put up a decent fight. I’m going to use the “pulp fiction source material” excuse for that, too. It’s just visually a bit hard to swallow.

I’ve now seen Taylor Kitsch take on three different characters; Gambit in X-MenOrigins: Wolverine, Lieutenant Alex Hopper in Battleship, and John Carter. Yes, they are all action movies, but he really does an impressive job portraying different personalities. He’s far from a favorite of mine; I haven’t always liked the roles he’s played (such as Gambit), but he is a pretty good actor and did a fine job as John Carter.

John Carter didn’t seem to know if it was for kids or adults. On the one hand it has plenty of humorous scenes. I liked the part where he’s trying to adjust to Mars’ gravity. But on the other hand, it’s also kind of violent; decapitation and heavy-duty sword play aren’t uncommon here. I suppose that since the alien’s blood is blue, Disney assumed it wouldn’t be off-putting for younger viewers. Really, it’s not too bad, but I don’t think I’d want anyone under the age of 8 to watch it.

John Carter is a fun movie. The editing is a bit choppy and the pacing is kind of slow. It’s exciting, funny, and its visual effects are not bad. It is pure, joyous, escapist adventure cinema. You really have to take it for what it is; a fun action movie that requires very little thought. Edgar Rice Burroughs is best known for writing the Tarzan stories, but you can see how this sort of material (circa 1912’s) influenced a lot of science fiction, fantasy, and superhero adventures. If you like those kinds of stories, you’ll probably enjoy John Carter on at least some level. You just have to take some of it with a grain of salt. I enjoyed it, but not enough to want my own copy to watch over and over again. I recommend seeing it, even if it is another attempt for Disney to strike gold like they did with Pirates of the Caribbean. It’s worth the cost of a RedBox rental, but not the cost of the Blu-Ray.

Do you have a favorite Sci-Fi/Fantasy movie? Like, where you're not sure if it's one or the other? What is it? Comment below and let me know!

John Tucker Must Die Movie Review

Even as a teenager, I don’t remember enjoying teen movies all that much. They tend to be very formulaic, have the same cast of characters, and more or less similar stories. I don’t even remember what made me think John Tucker Must Die (2006) would be different, or even good. The only off the wall thing they did was have the happy fat friend and the token black guy end up being the same character. Genius!

Kate (Brittany Snow) is the new girl in school yet again. She quickly learns about John Tucker (Jesse Metcalfe), the insanely attractive, highly popular captain of the basketball team. Kate catches John Tucker dating three different girls at once: Carrie (Arielle Kebbel), the smart girl; Heather (Ashanti), the head cheerleader; and Beth (Sophia Bush), the vegan activist. None of them are aware that they are not the only girl in John’s heart. Kate was raised by a single mother and has never seen a functional relationship. She has seen the pain caused by playboys like John Tucker, and she won’t stand idly by. Together with the three girlfriends, they hatch a plan to teach John a lesson. Of course, things rarely go as planned, especially when Kate starts to think she might be falling for John herself.

Just based on the description there, you can probably figure out the entire story this movie has to offer. It wasn’t all that innovative a movie. It didn’t even present the same old thing in a new or interesting way. There are still social cliques and cheerleaders, there are still horny teenage boys bent on losing their virginity, social outcasts who fall in love with the jock, and the token black guy who stays out of every conversation, smiles, and interjects with colloquialisms that perpetuate racial stereotypes.

I have to admit, I did find a few parts of the movie funny. It is intended to be a comedy, after all. One of the funnier scenes early on is when the girls switch out John Tucker’s muscle building supplements with estrogen supplements. This causes the manly basketball team captain to have an emotional breakdown and start crying when the coach is barking orders during a big game. This was funny in spite of perpetuating gender roles and stereotyping. And just like all the other stunts the girls try to pull off, it backfires by having girls flocking to John Tucker because he’s a man that can show his sensitive side. Most of the humor is like this; pretty shallow, unbelievable, and gives an unrealistic view of human behavior. I can forgive it because it’s supposed to be a comedy, but it is still hard to accept scenarios like these. You might chuckle a few times if at all.

Lame as the story and script is, I have to give respect to the actors. Their performance seemed loose and relaxed. When they are trying to act casual, they actually appear to act casual. They don’t have a forced presentation, nor were they yelling their lines into the camera so they can be heard over all the chatter and texting the teenage audience will inevitably be participating in during the movie.

Brittany Snow also played Amber Von Tussle in the 2007 Hairspray movie. She looks really pretty in both Hairspray and John Tucker Must Die. I don’t understand why pretty and attractive people are frequently cast as the socially awkward and outcast roles. Inevitably they will have this profound moment of awakening and transform themselves from being nerdy and un-cool to being confident, attractive, and on top of the social scene. Newsflash to any high-school-aged readers; THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN IN REAL LIFE! Sorry you had to learn that this way, but these stupid teen movies really give us an unrealistic view of high school and of life. At any rate, pretty and attractive as Brittany Snow is as Kate, I have a hard time imagining her ever being unaccepted or being in need of a date.

John Tucker Must Die is a classic example of a light-hearted teen movie, but it wasn’t really a terrible teen movie. It’s not as mean as Mean Girls, not as crude or raunchy as American Pie, and not as cheesy as something like A Walk to Remember. I had a few chuckles and the acting was a bit better than most teen movies. I suppose it’s a subpar movie, but an above average teen movie. If you have graduated from high school long enough to have experience in the real world, you’ll find the unrealistic depiction of high school to be quaint and silly. You might find something to laugh at if you’ve ever had a two-timing relationship partner. I wouldn’t recommend going out of your way to see this unless you really like silly teen movies.

What’s your favorite teen/high school movie? Am I missing out on any good ones? Comment below and tell me all about it!

Beasts of the Southern Wild Movie Review

An item on my bucket list is to attend a film festival sometime. I’d get to see up and coming film artists showcase their work for the first time in a public domain. I imagine film festivals are really exciting. When a movie is a huge success at a film festival, movie critics will rant and rave about it. Such ranting and raving is how I heard about Beasts of the Southern Wild (2012). After seeing it, I have to wonder if these critics saw the same movie I did.

The Bathtub is a small, defiant, bayou island community off the coast of New Orleans, cut off from the rest of the world by a sprawling levee. In The Bathtub is a brave six-year-old girl named Hushpuppy (Quvenzhané Wallis) who is on the brink of becoming an orphan.  Hushpuppy makes it through the day with her child-like optimism and imagination. She believes that the world is in balance with the universe. Then a fierce storm changes the way she views things. The tough love exhibited by Hushpuppy’s father, Wink (Dwight Henry), prepares her for a time when he’s no longer able to protect her. When Wink contracts a mysterious illness, nature, as Hushpuppy sees it, flies out of whack; temperatures rise, and the ice caps melt releasing an army of prehistoric creatures called aurochs. With the waters rising, the aurochs coming, and Wink’s health fading, Hushpuppy sets out find her mother and repair the universe.

The best thing about Beasts of the Southern Wild is the art direction. There are lots of really neat shots that really are pretty to see. One of my favorites is captured on the movie poster where the residents of The Bathtub are shooting off fireworks and Hushpuppy is running around free spirited, waving sparklers in each hand. That was just gorgeous.  We primarily see life on the little island which the community lives and once in a while we see drilling rigs and oil refiners on the other side of the levees. They seem so alien and distant from the main setting that they may as well be mysterious ancient ruins. The visual contrast between the oil rigs and the green bayou is really interesting to see.

Cute as Hushpuppy was, I didn’t find her very believable. She’s six years old and has an uncharacteristically expansive comprehension of the universe and her own theory of how it all works. Most six year olds are just beginning to understanding that a world exists beyond their own needs let alone a whole universe. The accomplishments of a six year old involve something like tying their shoe on their own, not repairing the balance of the universe. Sure, there’s nothing wrong with having a childlike paradigm of the world and how it works when you’re a kid. But an understanding of the universe, simplistic and inaccurate as Hushpuppy’s is, suggests a much larger perception of the world than a six-year-old can comprehend. It just didn’t feel very believable to me.

Critics are almost unanimously impressed with the performance of Quvenzhané Wallis. She was five years old when the movie began production, and seven by the time filming was complete. She’s cute, but I didn’t really think she was all that impressive as an actress. Most of her lines are voice over narrations about ecumenical concepts. Other times she simply sits around while adults do the acting. Once in a while she actually does something and gives an acceptable performance, but overall she’s about as expressive as Kristen Stewart until she has to yell or scream at something.

Beasts of the Southern Wild has a lot of interesting ideas that were thematically tossed around, but never seemed to be pulled together into a solid, cohesive whole. I kept wondering what direction the movie would take with the new, interesting concepts. But nothing really came of it. It was rather disappointing.

Beasts of the Southern Wild wasn’t really awful, but it has a lot of amateur independent film clichés. There was lots of shaky camera work; I had to go sit in the back of the theater to avoid motion sickness. Actors stand very still, talking very deliberately, in nicely framed shots; almost like the director is trying to use visual style to cover up the fact that the actors aren’t all that good. Shots of puddles that are held for too long are used as segue between scenes. The drawn-out theme makes me feel like it should be profound, but very clearly is not. For an independent film, this isn’t really an awful movie; I’m just saying it’s not as good as a lot of critics are saying.

With lots of neat visuals and a creative narration from a six-year-old girl’s perspective, Beasts of the Southern Wild is still a rather convoluted independent film with a sub-par child actor. I imagine most hoity-toity movie critics will call it a “tour de force,” which in layman’s terms means it’s too artsy-fartsy for the average movie viewer to enjoy. If you get a chance to see Beasts of the Southern Wild I’d recommend seeing it if you really do not have anything better to do with your time; like I’ve said, it’s not awful. But if you never do get around to seeing it, you won’t be missing out on a significant piece of cinema art.

What’s one of the worst “tour de force” independent films you’ve ever seen? Comment below and tell me why.