The Grouchy Editor

My One and Only is one of those small movies that flies under the radar for a number of reasons.  It has an unfortunate title (too generic), no car chases, and no special effects.  There are no vampires.   But it has two things that 95 percent of modern movies lack:  a script brimming with humanity and wit, and a cast of actors obviously in love with the film.  Reportedly, My One and Only is loosely based on the early life of actor George Hamilton.  If Hamilton’s teen years were anything like events in this film, they must have been colorful, indeed.  

As the movie opens, young George’s mother, Ann (Renee Zellweger), finally has enough of her philandering, bandleader husband (Kevin Bacon), and so packs up George and his half-brother Robbie (Mark Rendall), assuring them that their new life on the road will be “an adventure.”  Ann rashly purchases an expensive, 1953 Cadillac Eldorado.  This acquisition is just the first of many unwise decisions Ann will make as she dallies, disastrously, with a series of potential new husbands.

Ann might be delusional, but she is also tenacious.  Just as Blanche DuBois “always depended on the kindness of strangers,” kindred spirit Ann has her own aphorism:  “Everything works out for the best.”   Well, maybe not always.  I have never been a big fan of Zellweger’s acting.  I did like her in Jerry Maguire, but that was a long time ago.  But Zellweger doesn’t simply carry My One and Only, she turns in an unforgettable performance.  I am now an unapologetic fan.

My One and Only is a road-trip movie that shines because there are so many genuine, small moments that aren’t essential to the plot,  but that nonetheless stand out.  Every character this gypsy-like family encounters on the road is flawed, but also likable.  When Ann, George and Robbie depart Pittsburgh to continue their journey, thereby cutting short a tenuous romance between George and a freckle-faced sweetheart named Paula, the camera lingers on the girl, who is sad to see them go. So was I.                  Grade:  B+

Director:  Richard Loncraine  Cast:  Renee Zellweger, Logan Lerman, Mark Rendall, Kevin Bacon, Troy Garity, David Koechner, J.C. MacKenzie, Eric McCormack, Chris Noth, Molly C. Quinn  Release:  2009

                                              Watch Trailers  (click here)

© 2010-2026 grouchyeditor.com (text only)

I’m going to penetrate deep into your subconscious – not on just one level, but on three.  On the first level, I will appeal to your hunger for spiritual nourishment.  On level two, I will attempt to feed your intellect.  And on the third level … ah, who the hell am I trying to kid?  I am Hollywood, and I just want your hard-earned leisure-time money, so fork it over.

Inception is a total mess of a movie.  It will make a load of money at the box office, because Hollywood knows how hungry audiences are for something that is – at least on the surface – intellectually a notch above junk like, say, Kick-Ass, or Avatar.  And in their promotional pieces, filmmakers can deceive Joe and Mary Filmgoer into the false belief that Inception has a heart.  It doesn’t.

Director Christopher Nolan is known for filmic puzzles (Memento), and in this regard Inception does not disappoint.  But what Nolan fails to understand, or doesn’t care enough about, is that in order to devote two and a half hours attempting to decipher an intricate puzzle, it helps if the audience can identify with the movie’s protagonists.  Leonardo DiCaprio is an appealing actor, but even he can’t rescue a script that devotes oodles of brainpower to the mysteries of the human mind but not one scrap of concern for the emotional end of things – despite a half-hearted attempt at “family values” involving Leo’s dead wife and their young children.

Inception is so, well, unimaginative that two-thirds into the thing, Nolan resorts to endlessly dull, mind-numbing car chases and shoot ‘em ups – the same routines we’ve seen a thousand times before.  The special effects are kind of fun but, well … yawn.

As this pretentious hokum dragged on and on and on, I kept glancing at my neighbor in the movie theater, hoping he would lean over and whisper in my ear:  “Don’t worry; it’s just a bad dream.  It will all be over soon.”              Grade:  C-

Director:  Christopher Nolan  Cast:  Leonardo DiCaprio, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ellen Page, Tom Hardy, Ken Watanabe, Dileep Rao, Cillian Murphy, Tom Berenger, Marion Cotillard, Michael Caine  Release:  2010

                                            Watch Trailers and Clips  (click here)

© 2010-2026 grouchyeditor.com (text only)

There isn’t much worse than a Hollywood movie that feels compelled to spell out every plot point.  “You are 12 years old,” these films seem to say to us, “and so this is why Bobby loves Susie, and this is why Susie was in that car chase, and this is why Bobby shot the bad man in the head.”

On the other end of the spectrum, however, is the “enigmatic” drama – films in which too little is explained.  Tom Ford’s A Single Man falls into this category, with its chronicle of the last day in the life of a despondent, homosexual English professor who has recently lost his longtime partner.  I haven’t read the Christopher Isherwood novel upon which Man is based, but I imagine the book relies heavily on the inner-voice technique – narration or exposition that is commonplace in print but which can handicap a film version of the story.

Much has been made of Colin Firth’s portrayal of George, the lonely professor who spends one last day putting his affairs, literal and figurative, in order while preparing for suicide.  Firth’s expressive face conveys intelligence, no question, but it also conveys little else.  George is maddeningly detached from everyone around him, from neighborhood families to casual acquaintances.  He can cut loose only with best pal Charley (Julianne Moore) – but even then only with much coaxing on her part.  Right up until the end, George remains at arm’s length from other people, including the audience.

George seems to be watching himself in his own movie.  When he learns from a child that his neighbor would like to toss him to the lions – just deserts for being “light in the loafers” – his reaction seems to be mild disappointment.  When he aims a pistol into his own mouth, he seems to be wrestling with the proper way to blow-dry his hair.  The end, when it finally comes, is not poignant but almost unintentionally funny – all that preparation, and look what happens.   As the cliché goes, life is what happens when you’re busy making other plans.       Grade:  B-

Director:  Tom Ford  Cast:  Colin Firth, Julianne Moore, Nicholas Hoult, Matthew Goode, Jon Kortajarena, Paulette Lamori  Release:  2009

                                   Watch Trailers and Clips  (click here)

© 2010-2026 grouchyeditor.com (text only)

Chloe is elevated a notch above the type of late-night erotic mysteries found on Cinemax by the strength of one neat plot twist and some top-tier actors.  Those actors would be old pros Julianne Moore and Liam Neeson, who garner sympathy for two largely unsympathetic characters.  Moore and Neeson play an upper-crust Toronto couple – he’s a charismatic college professor; she’s his smart-but-insecure gynecologist wife – living in the lap of luxury but succumbing to an oh-so-typical midlife crisis.

Enter Chloe (Amanda Seyfried), a glamorous young prostitute whom Catherine (Moore) spots from her office window and then decides to include in a fateful decision.  Catherine hires the girl to use as bait in a test of her husband’s fidelity, or lack thereof.  This decision – certainly atypical of most women, but handled deftly by screenwriter Erin Cressida Wilson (Secretary) – sends the story in unexpected directions.

Chloe’s problem is Seyfried.  The actress certainly looks the part, but she lacks the acting chops of, say, Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction, or Anne Baxter in All About Eve.  Unfortunately, Seyfried proves that less is more:  The less she wears, the more watchable the movie; the less she speaks, the more believable the story.  She lacks the gravitas needed for the titular role – although her titular rolls certainly defy gravity.  Sorry.

Chloe has its attractions.  The twist, as I’ve said, is a neat one.  Moore turns in yet another intriguing performance.  And the ballyhooed sex scene between Moore and Seyfried is suitably steamy – if you like that kind of thing on Cinemax.      Grade:  B

Director:  Atom Egoyan  Cast:  Julianne Moore, Liam Neeson, Amanda Seyfried, Max Thieriot, R.H. Thomson, Nina Dobrev  Release:  2010

      Watch Trailers & Clips (click here)

© 2010-2026 grouchyeditor.com (text only)

Mathematics is at the heart of the mystery in The Oxford Murders — but don’t let that scare you away from the film.  There is something much more chilling than the Pythagorean theorem in this movie:  Elijah Wood.  Someone made the ill-fated decision to cast Wood as a student mathematician and (gulp!) romantic hero in this whodunit, and that miscalculation might be the film’s greatest mystery.

We are asked to believe that Wood’s animal magnetism (iguanas have mates, correct?) is so irresistible that not one, but two fetching young women fall into his arms within minutes of meeting his character, Martin the math major.  Director Alex de la Iglesia tried spinning the casting of his leading man this way:  “I’m delighted to work with Elijah, who undoubtedly has the most powerful eyes in the industry and who is perfect for the part.”  Well.  The young actor’s eyes certainly are powerful, in a deathray sort of way.  In Oxford, Wood is also asked to remove his shirt for a sex scene with Spanish beauty Leonor Watling.  The scene depicts a bug-eyed Wood slurping spaghetti off Ms. Watling’s chest.  It also exposes audiences to Wood’s scrawny, pale torso.  The kid is in obvious need of the spaghetti. 

To be fair, the horribly miscast lead actor is not the film’s only flaw.  I haven’t read the novel upon which the movie is based, but I’m guessing that plot developments that seem sketchy, implausible, and rushed on screen might be thoughtful and well-developed on the printed page.  The movie races through key plot points when it really should pause for all of us slow students in class.

John Hurt is excellent as famed mathematician-philosopher Arthur Seldom.  It’s the overmatched Wood’s misfortune to be paired with a consummate professional like Hurt in scene after scene – as if the romantic bits with Watling weren’t humiliation enough for one actor.

The movie did leave me with greater appreciation for people who are gifted with numbers.  Unfortunately, it also left me with a newly acquired aversion to spaghetti.       Grade:  C

Director:  Alex de la Iglesia  Cast:  Elijah Wood, John Hurt, Leonor Watling, Julie Cox, Jim Carter, Alex Cox, Burn Gorman, Anna Massey  Release:  2008

     Watch Trailers & Clips (click here)

© 2010-2026 grouchyeditor.com (text only)

[Rec] 2 is one of the dumbest horror movies I’ve seen in quite some time.  If you’re looking for a few good scares, I highly recommend it.

I suppose that sounds contradictory.  All I can say is, when you go to a fright flick, what exactly are you looking for – intellectual stimulation, or something that makes you jump out of your seat?  In a perfect world, an audience gets both, a la The Exorcist or Rosemary’s Baby.  [Rec] 2 is no art-house classic, but it does its main job and delivers some genuine jolts.

Let me describe the plot.  On second thought, I can’t do that.  The plot is ridiculous, but it’s also beside the point.  Suffice to say there is a creepy old apartment complex in Barcelona, Spain.  Some kind of virus (or demonic possession, or both) has infected the people inside, turning them into bloodthirsty savages (or zombies, or demons, or both).  Humanity’s only hope is to secure a blood sample from a young girl who was the first infectee (or Satan’s spawn, or something like that).  A Spanish SWAT team (or something like that) is dispatched to the building to save the day.  Virus, possession, demons, zombies … whatever.  The only thing that matters is that we now have potential victims in the building.

This is the kind of script in which police use a bullhorn to warn everyone away from the windows – and within seconds one of the protagonists stands in front of a window.  This is the sort of movie where our heroes are inundated with gore, carnage, and psychological horror – but their overriding priority is to make sure the video camera is still recording.

It’s a stupid plot and a stupid movie.  But if you are willing to turn your brain off for 85 minutes, it’s a lot of fun.  Directors Juame Balaguero and Paco Plaza know that handheld photography can be effective on a purely visceral level.  Combined with ominously claustrophobic apartment hallways, the jerky visuals enhance each attack.  By showing some, but not quite all, of the demonic assaults, the effect is often chilling.

The best way to enjoy [Rec] 2 is by turning your own brain into a handheld camera. Watch and record everything, but try not to think about it.        Grade:  B-

Directors:  Juame Balaguero, Paco Plaza  Cast:  Jonathan Mellor, Manuela Velasco, Oscar Zafra, Ariel Casas, Leticia Dolera, Alejandro Casaseca, Pablo Rosso, Pep Molina, Andrea Ros  Release:  2010

     Watch Trailers & Clips  (click here)

© 2010-2026 grouchyeditor.com (text only)