Visioneers (2007)

Level 3 Visioneer George Washington Winsterhammerman (Zach Galifianakis) is disillusioned with the good life. Employed by the Jeffers Corporation, the largest and friendliest and most profitable corporation in the history of mankind, George has it all in a world where the threat of spontaneous combustion looms. That right, people explode from stress and George is showing early symptoms. Desperate not to explode, George is forced to examine his life. A stable job and comfortable marriage with Michelle (Judy Greer) doesn't make him happy. Even his life coach can't seem to turn George off of auto-pilot. Then his pole-vaulting brother comes town.

Visioneers is a satiric, slightly futuristic black comedy that tries to be the next Office Space. It's not, but it's fun all the same. Thoroughly quirky and oddly random, Visioneers isn't cohesive--sadly, the wheels fall off during the last half of the film.

Zach Galifianakis carries the film with the weight of every corporate drone. The Jeffers morning greeting is something we've all dreamed about. As a descendant of THE George Washington, this George is sad man, bored with routine, but unsure of how to break out of it. Haven't we all felt that way?!

Visioneers doesn't depend on much. Set in a modern, dystopian society, the production is bare bones. It's the cast that imbues the film with life. Judy Greer is top-notch as Michelle. She, too, is looking for happiness and looks to TV personality Sahra (Missi Pyle) and her latest book recommendation '1001 ways to be happy'. Checking them off like clock-work, Michelle is too preoccupied with her own happiness to bother with George or their never-seen-onscreen son, Howard.

As I see it, Visioneers examines the grim reality of life. The duality of the dialogue here is thought-provoking and ultimately the sole reason for viewing. Sadly, the film won't leave a mark on pop-culture thanks to some glaring missteps {and poor marketing}, but overall, Visioneers is a nice compliment to Office Space. If you're a fan of that, you'll want to see this.

J4T: 3 stars

L'Avocat de la terreur (2007)

Wes Anderson's recom was the catalyst for this choice. This documentary from Barbet Schroeder examines the man known as Terror's Advocate, Frenchman and defense attorney Jacques Verges. Verges is perhaps best known for defending war criminal like Slovadon Milosovich and Klaus Barbie, but he can also be found defending those engaging in the most heinous acts of terror {and typically supporting the Palestinian cause}.

For what it is, Terror's Advocate, is a provocative documentary of a cocky, arrogant, slick cosmopolitan who has made it his profession to humanize those who have murdered, assassinated, and maimed people who have stood against them. Terror's Advocate is a fascinating and angering look as Verges, but the film really stands as a history lesson on the rise of terrorism--ultimately examining the founding fathers of car/cafe bombings. Verges' relationships with them become merely a footnote.

Here's the thing. Raised as seeing right and wrong as different as black and white, I take offense at this man's profession. Wrong is wrong. It doesn't matter that you did it for the 'right' reasons. Murder and maiming accomplish nothing other than to establish you, the killer, as inhumane. Watching this man, decriminalize obvious genocidal maniacs is an assault on my intelligence. This doc made me angry.

As I see it, kept in context, Terror's Advocate is an eye-opening, polarizing documentary that successfully examines the 'other side'. Still, the human in me sees this man {and all that he stands for} as wrong.

Coraline (2009)

Young Coraline (Dakota Fanning) is enchanted by the Other World found on the other side of a small door in her family's new apartment. In the Other World, the Other Mother (Teri Hatcher) dotes on young Coraline. Finding a strangely improved world of her own, Coraline considers staying forever until the ugly truth is exposed. When Coraline wants to leave her other world and Other Mother say no, Coraline must unravel the sinister fantasy.

Coraline, a stop-motion creation from director Henry Selick, is creepily captivating. Dark, bleak, and macabre, this is hardly fare for the Disney set. Juxtaposed against vivid animation and equally daunting score, is an eerie atmosphere that's riveting.

The central theme of the story is an oft-used catalyst. Its only the medium used here that makes this animated piece worth watching. Coraline's reality and fantasy stand in grave contrast. While I don't think Selick successfully executes thematically, he certainly gives us lots to look at. The aesthetic is stunning; odd neighbors, a creaky old house, a bedraggled black cat--it all becomes magical at the hand of Selick.

Despite it's beautiful nature, Coraline contains a frightful element that won't endear the film to anyone but disaffected youth. It's too scary for children; not intelligent enough for adults. As I see it, Coraline is creepy and destined to become the hottest line at Hot Topic. While the film may be a must-see for fans of stop-mo or Selick, I, will not be visiting Coraline again any time soon.

J4T: 2½ stars

Stripes (1981)

The viewing of this movie began as a homework assignment. My task: view and reimagine a key scene for a Firm skit in the fourth quarter. After sitting through this nonsense, all I could think was 'this isn't funny.'

Stripes is a Bill Murray vehicle of the early 80s. *yawn* It's an excuse for him to act half-heartedly as a loser. As John Winger, Murray plays a man who joins the Army as a last ditch attempt to validate his existence after losing his job, girlfriend, houseplants, etc. Winger, along with best friend Russell Zitsky (Harold Ramis) and an assortment of other losers (John Candy, Conrad Dunn, Judge Reinhold, among others) whose spirits are willing, but bodies are not, wreak havoc during basic training. Much to the chargrin of Sgt. Hulka (Warren Oates) and Capt. Stillman (John Laroquette), the regiment of misfits actually get it together.

Directed by Ivan Reitman (my first clue), Stripes is obviously dated. The film has moments of comedic zingers, but overall the film itself is undisciplined. I cannot attest to the film's 'classic' status as Stripes' charms fall flat.

As I see it, I prefer my Bill Murray matured and dramatic {see Broken Flowers or Wes Anderson films}. It's the slovenly nature and ridiculousness that ultimately irritates me. Call me a snob, but this film lacks any true value. Alas, I am not rid of this film as I must concern myself with one key scene: the ceremony parade.

Postscript 07.29.09 ~ Found the value... my age works against me here. But apparently Stripes tapped into pop culture at one time. As anyone of middle age about Stripes and the reactions are classic. Guess you just had to be there.

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)

As this film is no ordinary film, this is no ordinary review. If you've read the book, you can guess how Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince goes. What you can't guess is how brilliantly writer Steven Kloves and director David Yates focuses the main storyline from the book, executes the key points and subtly layers the development of supporting characters--often times without saying a word.

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is a fine adaptation of the book thanks to each element being on par with the next. Let's break it down:

• Casting ~ Obviously phenomenal, I think in part to the trio of friends aging before our eyes. Harry, Ron, and Hermione (Radcliffe, Grint, Watson) share such affection with one another. It's authentic. Progressing into the gangly teen years, the trio discovers these odd feeling of attraction that threatens to complicate matters. Director Yates handles it perfectly with the right touch of humor.
• Screenplay ~ Kloves has a phenomenal book to draw from. In a perfect world, we'd see, feel, and hear it all. Alas, that's what the book if for. Kloves exercises tough love by developing essential moments, but underscores what we, the viewer really needs.
• Direction ~ David Yates delivers. Kloves gave him the tool to execute; Yates murdered it. What's perhaps most fascinating is while he maintains focus on Harry and Tom Riddle, he doesn't neglect the supporting cast. Rather he counts on the viewer's memories to develop the subtle hints surrounding Harry.
• Atmosphere/Design ~ The film is eerie and foreboding. Much like Harry, we know what's coming and Yates plays to that. Without the small moments of humor or Slughorn's perplexed facial expressions, there would be no release for anyone. Equally dark, the production is cast in tones of grey. All the joy at Hogwarts is tempered by the knowledge of the Death Eaters ever-increasing presence. Even Quidditch can provide a small level of comfort. The cinematography is perfectly executed providing an air of underlying suspicion and danger.
• Score ~ It is unassuming, but a beautiful compliment.

With that out of the way, allow me to disclose my personal high {and low} points. The greatest delight for me was the execution of characters. Jim Broadbent as Prof. Horace Slughorn is brilliant. Equal parts oddball and haunted, Slughorn is top-notch. Rupert Grint continues to flaunt impeccable comedic timing. Albus Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) has never been more relevant. Serverus Snape. Perfectly. Succinct. Luna! Also of note: the pensieve/memory sequences were perfect. The CGI and direction through each sequence was riveting. Kudos to Yates for picking the story up precisely. It was nice to see Neville, Hagrid, Seamus and the like hanging around.

My disappointments lie mainly with events that I deem crucial being footnotes or left out. What of Bill Weasley? Fleur? Tonks? Draco Malfoy was sorely lacking. His lurking about Hogwarts is an insult to the character. I really needed/wanted the conversation between Snape and Harry to take place. Though it was more of a visual, I needed that conversation. There is more to Tom Riddle to have been explored. The Slug Club?! C'mon!!

As I see it, only purists will take issue with Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. To fully enjoy the film, it is essential to view all the movies as an entity separate from the books. Do that and I guarantee a good time.