World's Greatest Dad

First Hit: A poorly constructed story with very little character building and ultimately unsatisfying.

There are brief moments in this film that are funny. There are a couple dramatic moments that are captivating. But when filled with all the other scenes and edited together, it was a terrible 99 minutes.

This film barely holds itself together; actually maybe it didn’t. Robin Williams plays Lance Clayton a high school teacher who is a single father raising a high school son named Kyle Clayton (played by Daryl Sabara). Kyle goes to his father’s school, and says he hates everything. I mean everything except porno. Kyle loves internet porno and the film gives the impression she spends all his spare time masturbating, obsessing about sex or occasionally playing a video game with his quiet and thoughtful friend Andrew (played by Evan Martin).

Early on one gets a sense of where this film might, but doesn’t, go. It is the beginning scene when Lance goes to wake up his son for school and walks in on him masturbating while choking himself with a strap to enhance his orgasm.

It is an interesting way to begin a film, but the interaction and dialog fall flat and the film runs a mediocre course until Kyle dies by performing this same act. This unknown and hated kid all of a sudden becomes a beacon of light for all the other kids in school because of a counterfeit suicide note written by his father to hide how the boy really died.

There are other characters in the film, like Lance’s girlfriend coworker Claire (played by Alexie Gilmore) and coworker Jason (played by Jermaine Williams); however they add little to the story. The longer Lance continues to drive the fantasy about his son Kyle, the more his conscious gets the better of him and, in the end, he tells the truth. Didn't we all see this coming?

Bobcat Goldthwait wrote and directed this and I’ve got to say it probably sounded better on paper than the resulting film. I could almost see Williams try to embolden his role to have some meaning, but the script and direction didn’t allow for it. There is no character building therefore we have no idea why or how Sabara’s character developed into this sex obsessed hateful boy. We’re just dropped into this story and expected to believe him with no historical perspective or developmental storyline. It just didn’t work. Jermaine William’s character was only there to make Williams character jealous and it was either bad acting or scripting, but it didn’t work and he wasn’t believable. Gilmore was amusing to watch but seemed more like putting oil and vinegar salad dressing on a Jello mold salad – it didn’t work.

Overall: There were hints of a good and interesting idea for a film, but the execution sinks it after the first 15 minutes.

The Time Traveler's Wife

First Hit: This was an OK film with some touching moments but it also consisted of inadequate directing and poor makeup choices for the main character when he was to represent different ages.

The immediate attraction to this film is two beautiful characters being in love.

The chemistry between Eric Bana as Henry DeTamble and Rachel McAdams as Clare Abshire is obvious and made me a believer that they could carry the love between them through time.

The stuff that didn’t make this film work was mostly around the representation of Bana’s age sequencing. It was done sloppily. The oldest Henry, with the most gray hair, was at his wedding although we actually move to scenes years later where he looks younger than he did the moment he got married (not the moment of the first dance because he was age correct in that scene).

Films which have a lot of age dependent scenes as part of the plot (“The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” for one) require lots of makeup, extraordinary acting and thoughtful / mindful direction to make them believable.

This film lacked all three. I loved the scenes of Henry when he would see his mother (played by Michelle Nolden) and I enjoyed watching his father (played by Arliss Howard) teaching his granddaughter the violin. These were very touching and heartfelt.

The film doesn’t try to make perfect sense as to why Henry can travel time or how this gene suddenly becomes active at the moment of an accident, but I really didn’t expect it to do so.

Bana was good as Henry as both the guy who is a loving husband and the guy who is lost and doesn't have an ordered and sequenced life. McAdams is solid and holds the character true to her feelings and actions. I especially loved her having an affair with her husband in a different time period, I thought that well played out and her sharing this to the current Henry was well played and expressed. I was very impressed with both Tatum McCann and Hailey McCann who played Albam, Clare and Henry's daughter, at ages 4 and 9 respectively.

Overall: A predictable love story which was adequately acted and directed while acknowledging it is a complicated story to tell.

Julie & Julia

First Hit: Downright enjoyable to watch, especially if you recall Julia Child’s television programs because Streep brings her back to life.

If you ever had the opportunity to watch Julia Child’s cooking program, then you “get” Meryl Streep’s performance as Julia. She brings Julia back to life although some of the mannerisms might be a little over emphasized; they are never in poor taste or out of character.

The film is a story about Julia’s life from when she landed in France with her husband Paul (played by Stanley Tucci) and lasts through the moment her book is published.

The film is also about Julie Powell who is lost in her life, feeling unaccomplished, and is having to live over a pizza parlor because it is near her husband's work.

Her husband Eric (played by Chris Messina) supports Julie as she decides to create a blog and cook all of Julia’s recipes in one year. She's wanted to be a writer and she loves to cook. We watch these two stories in sections and the only real direct connection is when Julie and Eric watch the old Julia Child television programs.

It is wonderful to watch the different generations deal with their life issues in their generational ways and how love is shown through support of the partner. Julie and Julia are deeply linked through the peace and joy they each receive while cooking. This passion came to each of them while they struggled to find something meaningful in their life.

Cooking was their path to bring out another talent, writing. Although Julia lived an upper middle class existence and her husband’s position kept them out of financial difficulty, Julie’s life is different. She and Eric are living on a lot less which was a way to give this story a wider breath and, in a sense, give the audience two very different stories.

Yet these diverse stories were brought together by one book; Mastering the Art of French Cooking.

Nora Ephron did an excellent job of directing the script written by her which was taken from Julie Powell’s book about her experience of cooking and blogging Julia Child’s recipes. I thought Tucci was excellent and beautifully supported Streep’s character. I thought Streep was excellent and really brought forth Julia Child and made me want to watch those old cooking shows again. Adams had just the right amount of drive with a slight bit of defeatist attitude to make the journey of the cooking and blog believable. Lastly I thought Messina was effective at being both a tolerant and supportive guy that really loved his wife.

Overall: This film was a joy to watch and in the end left a wonderful taste in my mouth.

Funny People

First Hit: At times interesting and funny but there were long wasted scenes that didn’t drive a cohesive story so the film felt longer than its very long running time.

There are Adam Sandler films that are funny, introspective and interesting as well as some that were less than good.

This film will fall in the latter bucket and I don’t think it is because of his acting as much as the script and direction he received. The story follows the life of George Simmons who (a lot like Sandler’s own life) went from stand-up comedy to making funny films.

Simmons makes more than enough money, has no real friends, does what he wants, is arrogant and lacks humility. Then a dose of reality hits as he discovers he has a rare disease and will probably die because only 8% of the people treated recover.

Simmons, takes some stock in his life and does some stand-up but it is laced with gallows type humor. He longs to connect with people in a more meaningful way but his entrenched behavior holds him back. This becomes obvious when he attempts to meet up and reconcile with is former girlfriend. He also hires a struggling comic named Ira Wright (played by Seth Rogen) to write him jokes.

Ira lives with two roommates who are comics and actors as well and this side story, which we keep going back to, takes away from what could be a good film. It was almost like the Director Judd Apatow created these characters to get some friends employed.

The film spent too much time trying to get us to care about his roommates when the real story is about Simmons and what will he do to get his life in order.

The film makes Ira an integral part of the story and it would have worked except that Ira is hard to understand. There isn’t enough character building to create an honest background as to why he makes certain moral judgments or makes some stupid decisions; we’re supposed to take it all at face value.

Judd Apatow, the writer and director of this film has made his mark in the land of mediocre with his past films. This one doesn’t move him from this place. He makes obvious blatant attempts at driving towards moral points by creating scenes he thinks are funny yet supportive of his view. Seth Rogen is well intentioned but really lacks the chops to be a good actor at this point in his career. He always is the same person; Seth Rogen. Sandler shows moments of brilliance in this film, like much of his effort in Punch Drunk Love, however, the script and direction left him in a lifeboat without a paddle and his arms got weary of rowing this boat ashore.

Overall: This is a long film and I felt it all the way to the end. There are moments of brilliance, but as a cohesive interesting story it lacks a something to care about.

The Answer Man

First Hit: As the credits rolled at the end of the film, I realized I had really enjoyed it despite its obvious flaws.

Jeff Daniels plays Arlen Faber a lonely critical curmudgeon who, twenty years earlier, wrote a spiritual self-help bestseller called “God and Me”.

In his current situation he refuses to respond to letters, denies he’s Arlen Faber, and holes up in his house for days on end because of his own difficulty to be happy and seamlessly interface with life and the fame the book brought. In the book he wrote; Arlen posed questions to God and then provided answers which were purportedly received from God.

Arlen became known as the “The Answer Man” because the answers to the questions were so profound to the average person which is what caused his book to become a best seller. 

The film doesn't go into how he got to the state of needing to write the questions, let alone how he came to the answers. What we do know is that his father died 5 years before the film begins and he was very close to him, and he doesn’t have a connection with God. We know the latter because he’s shown going to churches asking for guidance by speaking and looking into the empty halls and ceilings, he shown reading spiritual books which are piled up everywhere in his house, we see him listening different spiritual CDs, and is shown doing different meditations and yoga poses.

Arlen also has a bad back and because of this, he seeks help from Elizabeth (played by Heather Graham) a healer and Doctor of Chiropractic. Her son, Alex (played by Max Antisell), is being overly protected by Elizabeth because of her own fearful reasons. When these two meet, a shift happens for them and others who are connected to each of them.

John Hindman wrote and directed this screenplay. Although the concept is good, I think more could have been done to create deeper and more interesting characters. Because of this, the film jumps from section to section with both extraneous scenes (If you see the film think of the mailman and his family and multiple shots of him lying on the floor with bad back) and scenes not developed enough (More about his relationship with his father and more about why he wrote the book - what drove him). Daniels, to his credit, was good and at times did more with the character than what was probably in the script. Graham was good and very engaging as was Antisell as her son and Olivia Thirlby as Graham’s receptionist Anne.

Overall: I liked the concept and most of the acting and was drawn to the subject matter. However, the screenplay needed to be rethought and enhanced along with stronger direction to make this a more powerful film.