Review: Baby Mama (2008)

* * 1/2
Director: Michael McCullers
Starring: Tina Fey, Amy Poehler

Baby Mama is a funny, if soft, film about one woman’s quest to have a baby. It’s not entirely successful as a film – its flaws are many and in some cases glaring – but it has its heart in the right place and provides a nice showcase for two female performers who know what most modern comedies seem to have forgotten – that when it comes to women “funny” and “clumsy” aren’t the same thing.

The story begins with Kate (Tina Fey), the 37-year-old V.P. of an organic food company who, after several unsuccessful attempts to conceive, decides to have a baby using a surrogate mother. She goes to Chaffee Bicknell, a company named after its eternally fertile head, played by Sigourney Weaver. Through the agency, Kate is paired with Angie (Amy Poehler), whose breakup with her ne’er do well boyfriend (Dax Sheppard) will result in her moving in with Kate. Kate and Angie have an Odd Couple-like (Odd Couple-lite?) relationship where Kate’s Type A tendencies come into conflict with Angie’s slovenly ways.

One of the disappointing things about this movie is that it consistently hints at how sharp it might have been. The scenes between Kate and Chaffee, especially, comment on the phenomenon of babies as business, two things which were once seen as diametrically and intrinsically opposed to each other. Chaffee refers to surrogacy as “outsourcing,” explaining that it’s essentially no different than hiring a nanny once the baby is born. This first scene between the two not only highlights the way that babies have become an industry, but also touches on the real life moral/ethical conundrum of women from prosperous nations using surrogates from developing nations because it’s cheaper. But the film only touches on these elements briefly, and then moves on to other things and becomes softer and fluffier and move Lifetimey with every twist of the plot.

Part of the problem with Baby Mama is that it’s a lot heavier on plot than it has to be. A large section of the story is concerned with the question of whether or not Angie actually is pregnant, and this part of the plot combined with Kate’s budding relationship with Rob (Greg Kinnear) leads to an ending that is absolutely predictable and a little unsatisfying. That the film doesn’t really need these elements is demonstrated by how well it works when it focuses on the relationship between the two women as they negotiate their differences and their situation. In their prenatal class they’re mistaken for “wesbian wovers” by the lisping instructor, whose suggestion that Kate help Angie prepare for giving birth by massaging her with olive oil is met with Angie’s idea to just “spray some Pam” on herself before the baby comes out.

Performance-wise, the actors in this film are all likeable enough that it makes you wish they were in a better movie. Poehler is appropriately wacky as Angie while also providing her with some much needed humanity so that she’s more than just a sketch character, although it must be admitted that she’s a little too old for this particular role. Steve Martin, in a small role as Kate’s boss, is wonderfully deadpan and Sheppard matches Poehler wacky for wacky as her dimwitted ex. But, ultimately, this is Fey’s movie and as a performer she really delivers. There aren’t a lot of women playing leading roles in movies who are as relatable as Fey, and that’s what really holds this particular film together.

There are a lot of laughs in this movie, but not enough that they distract you from the inherent problems with the way that the story is put together. Fey and Poehler are enjoyable as the two leads and it’s too bad they didn’t save themselves for a film more worthy of the effort.

LAMB Movie of the Month: The Big Lebowski (1998)

* * *
Director: Joel & Ethan Coen
Starring: Jeff Bridges, John Goodman, Julianne Moore

A kidnapping gone awry, a bungled ransom drop, a cast of peculiar characters, and appearances by Peter Stormare and Steve Buscemi – sound familiar? Not quite. The Big Lebowski is the polar opposite of Fargo, as light as the other is dark, as funny as the other is tragic. With a keen eye for absurdity, writers/directors Joel and Ethan Coen deliver a film that is truly one of a kind.

The Big Lebowski begins with Jeff Lebowski, known to all as The Dude (Jeff Bridges) being mistaken for a millionaire also named Lebowski, whose wife is in debt to a pornographer. Two guys show up at Lebowski’s abode, rough him up, and ruin a rug before realizing that they’ve got the wrong guy. After relating his tale to his friend, Walt (John Goodman), The Dude is convinced to go to the Big Lebowski and ask for compensation for the rug, which he receives by simply taking one of the rugs in Lebowski’s mansion. Shortly after their meeting, Mrs. Lebowski (Tara Reid) is kidnapped (or perhaps not) and The Dude is recruited to act as a courier to deliver the ransom. The money is lost when The Dude’s car is stolen, a toe is sent to Lebowski as a means of encouraging him to deliver the money, and people keep showing up at The Dude’s demanding answers. The plot of the film is kind of nonsensical and a little meandering, which would bother me were it not for the fact that I think the story is being told this way intentionally. I mean, if a stoner was trying to relate this story to you, including the subplots involving him getting Lebowski’s daughter, Maude (Julianne Moore) pregnant, and his bowling team’s quest to win the championship, you wouldn’t expect it to be entirely cohesive nor would you expect all the threads to tie up nicely.

There are a lot of quirky characters in the film – as there tend to be in all the Coens’ comedies – and a lot of truly bizarre moments (and I mean that in the best possible way). Walt is a Vietnam vet with anger issues who constantly steps in to help The Dude, but only manages to make things much, much worse each and every time; Maude is an artist with a penchant for flying over her canvas, flicking her brushes Jackson Pollack-style; the alleged kidnappers are a trio of German nihilists who don’t quite seem to understand why they shouldn’t get the ransom even if they don’t have Mrs. Lebowski – The Dude, himself, is actually the most normal of the bunch.

As The Dude, Bridges delivers a really well-realized characterization of a guy who always seems like he’s this close to expressing some great thought, but fails because his brain and his mouth are out of step with each other and because his ideas, once thought, drift away and can never again be recovered. Bridges isn’t an actor I’ve ever gone out of my way to see, but I’ve always found that movies he’s in are better for the fact that he’s in them. He’s a very naturalistic actor and slips so completely and easily into his roles, which is maybe why he’s never really been given as much credit as he deserves. The presence of Bridges, more than anything else, really grounds the film and keeps it from going too far over the top.

Canadian Film Review: Fugitive Pieces (2008)

* * * *
Director: Jeremy Podeswa
Starring: Stephen Dillane, Rade Serbedzija, Robbie Kay

Jeremy Podeswa’s Fugitive Pieces is a lyrical and moving treasure of a film. Narratively elusive, it examines both the power and the fragility of memory, its characters haunted by what they remember – and what they’ve forgotten – as they attempt to reconcile the past to the present. Wonderfully crafted and beautifully brought to life both in front of and behind the camera, this is an absolute must-see of a movie.

The story centers on Jakob, played as a boy by Robbie Kay and as a man by Stephen Dillane. As a boy in Poland, Jakob is the only member of his family to escape the Nazis, watching from his hiding place as his older sister, Bella, is dragged away by soldiers. He’s eventually found by Athos (Rade Serbedzija), a Greek geologist who takes him to the island of Kefallonia and keeps him safe for the duration of the war. Athos becomes an anchor in Jakob’s chaotic life, a man who is gentle and protective, extraordinary for the way that he unflinchingly performs tasks which, in different circumstances, would be ordinary but during the Nazi occupation put him directly in danger. At war’s end, the two emigrate to Canada, where Athos has been offered a teaching position.

Jakob grows up, becomes a writer, marries and divorces then marries again, all while attempting to reconcile his first life to his second. Every new experience and each new language he learns (first Greek then English), seems to erase part of his past and drives him to record his memories before they can be lost. Over time he begins to realize that he can’t fixate on his past and that he must begin to let go. The catalyst for this realization is the relationship of his neighbour, Jozef (Diego Matamoros) to his son, Ben (Ed Stoppard). Jozef and his wife are concentration camp survivors whom Jakob will know for most of his life, becoming in a way a member of their family. Throughout his childhood, Ben seeks refuge in the apartment of Jakob and Athos, clinging to Jakob when it’s time to go home. Jakob sees how hard Jozef is on his son, berating him for throwing away a half-eaten apple (“Our son doesn’t know the value of things,” he laments to his wife, then questions why they lived if their son can’t understand how precious half an apple would have once been to them). The past has taken its toll on Jozef and Jakob, but they aren’t the only ones who suffer. Those who love them often bear the brunt of their memories.

The story unfolds in a non-linear, fragmented way, with past and present weaving in and out of each other across the delicate links of memory. Some of the most moving sequences of the film are simply images unfolding as Jakob’s voice-over reveals the contents of his writing. Generally speaking, adaptations that rely on voice-over narration come across as somewhat weak to me, denoting a filmmaker too in love with the novelist to make the work their own. However, in this particular case, I wasn’t bothered by it at all, partly because the story is told in such an intensely personal way that it seems wholly appropriate, and partly because the prose itself is simply so beautiful.

This is a really wonderful movie, a haunting meditation on how our past shapes our present even as our memories begin to elude us. This is the first masterpiece of 2008.

Review: Harold and Kumar Escape From Guantanamo Bay (2008)

* * *
Director: John Hurwitz, Hayden Schlossberg
Starring: John Cho, Kal Penn

It probably says a lot about the surreal nature of the times in which we live that the film which engages most effectively with the war on terror is a stoner comedy. In certain respects, this makes absolute sense because this is the only mainstream film dealing with these issues which unfolds from the perspective of people of color who are, by and large, more intensely affected by the policies enacted to combat terrorism than the white protagonists who litter the film landscape. But, on the other hand, it remains a sad state of affairs when one of the more successful post-9/11 films mixes politics in equal measure with bodily functions.

Here’s the thing. There are few things I like more than a smart movie. But, that doesn’t mean I’m not capable of enjoying a dumb movie so long as it knows it’s dumb. There’s not much to say about the plot of Harold and Kumar because, like the first film, its story is structured in the manner of “This happened and then this happened and then this happened.” Both films are picaresque in nature, a series of skits unfolding one after the other. The fun of both is watching Harold and Kumar as they escape from a bad situation only to find themselves in one worse, only to escape again and find themselves in another bad situation. In this film, the two will be taken into custody during a flight to Amsterdam after a misunderstanding involving the word “bong,” be sent to Guantanamo Bay, escape and return to the U.S. via a Cuban raft, end up in Birmingham where they encounter an inbred Cyclops and a Ku Klux Klan meeting, reunite with Neil Patrick Harris, be shot at by angry hookers, be detained again and parachute into President Bush’s ranch. In revealing this, I’m not really giving anything away because this is a film that’s less about what happens, then the jokes that can be made from what happens.

As the two leads, John Cho and Kal Pen play off of each other very well and both are very likeable, which definitely helps in terms of keeping the film afloat, as does the pacing. The various episodes of the film are all well-timed, with none going on so long that all the humour is drained out of any given situation. How much you enjoy this movie will depend a fair deal on whether you’ve seen the original, as many elements refer back to the first film, but by and large the gags are funny enough that they work even without having seen the original.

To return to the political aspect of the film – and I’m surprised to find myself writing this about a movie where the primary goal of the protagonists is to get to Amsterdam and smoke legal weed – the reason this film works so effectively is that it’s balanced. Harold and Kumar are falsely sent to Guantanamo through a combination of racial profiling, misunderstanding, overzealousness, and a heightened sensitivity to anything or anyone who might be suspicious; but, while imprisoned they meet admitted terrorists. Rob Corddry appears as a government official who is enthusiastic about punishing people he sees as threatening to America’s freedoms, but who also won’t think twice about using the Bill of Rights for something unmentionable; but Roger Bart is also present as another government official who is along to point out all the ways Corddry goes wrong and lament the way that people like him have hijacked national discourse through knee-jerk us-or-them attitudes. It’s a dumb movie to be sure, but in its political components it presents more shades of grey than most films that aspire to be smart.

All in all, this is a funny movie. You’re life won’t be changed by having seen it, but it’s effective insofar as it achieves exactly what it sets out to, which is to entertain you without straining you intellectually.

Review: The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian (2008)

* * *
Director: Andrew Adamson
Starring: William Moseley, Anna Popplewell, Ben Barnes, Skandar Keynes, Georgie Henley

I find myself in a difficult position as I try to sum up my feelings about Prince Caspian, the second chapter of The Chronicles of Narnia series. From an entirely objective standpoint, I can see that it’s a perfectly fine movie, one that’s well put together both in terms of story and production; but I found myself disengaged from it, its charms for the most part lost on me. As a child, I loved the books by C.S. Lewis. As an adult, I never quite got around to seeing the first film of the series, The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe and have, perhaps, been spoiled by the recent onslaught of films which take place in magical realms. Watching this film, it was sort of like “Been there, done that.”

The film begins with the attempted assassination of Prince Caspian (Ben Barnes) by his uncle, Miraz (Sergio Castellitto). He flees into the woods where he is rescued by what remains of the supposedly extinct Narnians, whom he will convince to join with him to take back his kingdom and finally bring peace to the realm. Meanwhile, the Pevensie children – Peter (William Moseley), Susan (Anna Popplewell), Edmund (Skandar Keynes), and Lucy (Georgie Henley) – have been summoned back to Narnia and will eventually unite with the rag-tag Narnian guerrilla army.

The drama in the film plays out on both an epic level and on a smaller, more personal level. Peter, especially, has a well constructed arc as he learns that, despite being High King, he isn’t perfect and occasionally needs the help and advice of others. There’s a poignant moment in the film when he witnesses the slaughter of some of the Narnians following a failed attempt to take Miraz’s castle – a plan he insisted on carrying out despite Caspian’s reservations. He learns the hard way that his actions can have harsh consequences not only for himself, but for others as well.

My problem with the film basically comes down to two things. First, I found the character of Caspian to be less than inspiring and lacking in the necessary charisma, especially when directly compared to Peter, who is a much more fleshed out and fully-realized character. From the outset Peter and Caspian are set up as rivals and their attempts to out-macho each other drives a lot of the inter-personal drama. Next to Peter, Caspian seems a little two-dimensional, a little lacking. The other thing is the ratio of talk/exposition to action. The action in the film is very well crafted, top-notch in every respect, but there’s so little of it and this is supposed to be an epic adventure film. I found myself growing impatient waiting for the plot to move forward as the characters waded through dialogue that largely harkens back to the events of The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe or fills in the blanks between the two films, which take place 1,300 years apart Narnian time.

So, while I recognize that Prince Caspian isn’t a bad film, I have to admit that it just wasn’t for me.