Reviews Round Up Part 3: Little Fockers, Burlesque, Love and Other Drugs

Little Fockers

Back in the day, putting such Hollywood heavyweights as Robert De Niro, Dustin Hoffman, Harvey Keitel and Barbara Streisand in one movie would have equalled brilliance on so many levels. But no, these days it's just a way of name dropping in the hope you might get a few bucks to spend on a new SUV for yourself. You can even add Ben Stiller, Owen Wilson, Laura Dern and, ah, Jessica Alba, and it still doesn't get any better as a movie, but people will still see it. I swear that people are only possibly excited for this movie because the name sounds like a derogatory term. And let me tell you: if you were expecting a movie focusing on the 'little' Fockers, then you'll be severely disappointed. Those kids are barely even in it. All I got out of the film was Robert De Niro was trying to make Ben Stiller a 'GodFocker', something which I wasn't aware existed, Owen Wilson was in love with Teri Polo and possibly stoned for the whole movie, Jessica Alba was a creepy stalker with the name 'Andi Garcia' (oh hahahahahahaha I get it.), there was some plot line about a sex drug, Dustin Hoffman liked to Spanish dance, and...yeah. It wasn't even funny. If the kids were a large factor of the movie, then it may have been funny. But instead we had to deal with half of Hollywood's problems.

What I hoped for:

What I got:

Burlesque

I admit, I do love musicals. But I don't like either Cher or Christina Aguilera. I'm sorry, but Cher's voice really scares me and Christina really likes screaming. So, I had rather low expectations for this movie, especially as the story has been done so many times it's not funny. You can't tell me that in real life a 'small-town' girl has a voice as large as that without any specific training, and can suddenly make it big in a burlesque club which is running into the ground anyway. But it seems to happen all of the time in the movies, and this may be the worst offender. Everything is so camp, but it seems to work that to it's advantage. I actually had a good time watching this movie. The dance scenes were absolutely spectacular...no wonder why the club was running out of funds. There was actually a nice balance of dancing and normal dramatic scenes, so it was a pretty easy movie to watch, as opposed to many unbalanced musicals. While the drama certainly wasn't as brilliant as the musical moments, it was bearable, to a point. Christina took such a long time to warm up, as at the start she was too busy walking around like a stuck up actress, but she finally let herself go and stopped trying so hard, and she was actually far better than most musicians-turned-actors. Cher was Cher. Stanley Tucci was nothing short of brilliant as Cher's gay counterpart. Kristen Bell was a stand-out though, bringing out a brunette wig and being a super-bitch. She's so talented, she just needs better roles. Sure, this movie had way too many characters, and it was so predictable I nearly died, but I had a really good time watching it.

What I hoped for:

What I got:

Love and Other Drugs

Okay, okay. I have a list of possible things Love and Other Drugs was trying to be:
-A movie about the early days of Viagra.
-A tragic love story about a normal man and a sick girl with Parkinson's.
-A movie about fuck buddies.
-A love story of sorts.
-A movie about a guy who gradually gets successful leaving his lady friend behind.
-A movie about two people who aren't looking for anything serious but end up getting serious.
-A movie about a man-whore who finds love and everything changes.
-A movie about people who really like their bed.
-Porn.
When a movie tries to be so many different things and fails at everything but the last one, you know you have problems. Besides Jake Gyllenhaal and Anne Hathaway's brilliant chemistry, it was hard to know what is really going on. One minute, it will try and be something, and the next minute, it will be on a completely different path. As a consequence, it drags on way longer than it needs to, and it basically just keeps changing the characters decisions so it gets really hard to watch. I don't get how Jake and Anne came to be together and how they would be totally in love with each other and be breaking up a few seconds after. It just got really messy. There was so much unnecessary sex in this movie it was actually really hard to picture them having a real relationship. I thought the Parkinson's storyline was great, though, because it was really tastefully done. I actually thought Anne's performance was Oscar-worthy, she depicted the illness really well. The underlying story about Viagra was pretty non-existent, so if you were looking for a movie about that, then this isn't it. What a disappointment.

What I hoped for:

What I got:

DVD--Greenberg

or: The unlikable lead.

One word to sum it up: Indie.

Ben Stiller. How do you explain Ben Stiller? He’s like every other 'funny guy' out there...he's funny once, but fails to strike gold again. However, when people came out with their reviews for Greenberg, they kept saying over and over that this was the best work he had done 'in an age'. That may be true, if we were speaking in acting terms, but people keep forgetting the remarkable work he did in Tropic Thunder. Which just shows that the critics will go for indie more than mainstream blockbuster, even if the latter was a bit better.

We like Florence (Greta Gerwig): she's considerate, sweet, pretty, and terrific with kids and dogs. She's 26, personal assistant to an L.A. family who's off on vacation. Her boss's brother (Ben Stiller) comes in from New York City, fresh out of an asylum, to stay at the house. He's Roger, a carpenter, 40, gone from L.A. for 15 years. He arrives, doesn't drive, and needs Florence's help, especially with the family dog. He's also connecting with ex-mates--two men and one woman with whom he has a history. He over-analyzes, has a short fuse, and doesn't laugh at himself easily. As he navigates past and present, he's his own saboteur. And what of Florence, is Roger one more responsibility for her or something else?

One of the worst things about Greenberg is the titular character himself. One of the best things about Greenberg is the titular character himself. So what happened when I had to come to the decision of whether I liked the movie or not? Well, let's just say, it certainly wasn't as great as the critics made it out to be, but it's a typical lowkey effort from Noah Baumbach which deserves some recognition. After all, he made a largely character based movie with no plot kinda work. Yeah, it gets a little tedious sometimes, and most of the time we just want to shoot Greenberg, but if you give it a little thought, Baumbach has a clear dedication to his characters and they really are quite clever.

Ben Stiller does do his best acting work in a while, looking quite tired and weathered, making Greenberg a more believable slacker. However--and this isn't the first time you have probably heard this--it is Greta Gerwig who steals the show. We've seen plenty of actresses play the nice girl who is successful and loved, but Gerwig's take on the character makes it seem like a completely original idea. Part of that comes from Baumbach's accurate depiction of the nice successful girl who isn't perfect. Then Gerwig takes the reins and ensures that this character comes to life in the sweetest way possible, and is so down to earth and charasmatic that she's impossible not to like. If only other actresses could take a leaf out of Gerwig's book, as she is the actress of the future. Greenberg's lead characters shine, and they aren't without their backup from Rhys Ifans and Jennifer Jason Leigh (who also wrote the story). However, the material is a little awkward (especially the sexual encounters between Greenberg and Florence) and a little boring, and doesn't manage to stick in your mind long after you watch it.

THE VERDICT: Ben Stiller gives a great performance, and Greta Gerwig steals the show, but Noah Baumbach's film is a bit slow, due to the fact that it is largely character based and has no real plot to speak of.

6/10