Hannah Montana: The Movie

Miley Cyrus dances on stage like she tends to do in Hannah Montana: The Movie.

As Printed in The Lumberjack on April 16, 2009

by Gary Sundt

When my superiors at The Lumberjack asked what I would be reviewing for this issue, they were outraged when I told them it would be Hannah Montana: The Movie. The reasons for this decision are many, ranging from my now-confirmed prediction that the film would be No. 1 in the box office, to the film’s star Miley Cyrus being worth an estimated $1 billion within the next year, to an attractive lady-friend’s desire to see the movie. But the bottom line is Disney’s latest cultural phenomenon is something a lot of people care about, and that warrants a review.

The movie continues the saga of Miley Stewart (Cyrus), who lives a dual life as both herself and Hannah to ensure she can still be a teenage girl despite her fame. But the balancing act is getting difficult to maintain, and her loving father Robby Ray (Miley’s real-life father Billy Ray Cyrus) can tell. But it isn’t until Hannah’s latest antics, which include a shoe-store cat fight with Tyra Banks and crashing the sweet 16 of her best pal Lilly (Emily Osment), that Dad puts his foot down. Miley has to leave Hannah behind as she travels with the family back to her hometown of Crowley Corners, Tenn., so she can discover what really matters in life.

Now, I may be asking for too much from my TV-to-the-big-screen Disney cinema, but it seems to me a celebrity living a double-life as complicated as Hannah/Miley’s would have a lot of real-world concerns to reconcile. Where does Hannah end and Miley begin? Do her close friends love Miley for her, or do they really love Hannah? What are the financial and emotional ramifications of choosing between her real identity and her pop alter ego?

Hannah Montana: The Movie doesn’t go there. In fact, within minutes of coming home, Miley finds herself a cute cowboy to flirt with and base her life decisions on. There are multiple plot strings going throughout the flick, and every one is as surface as the next. Perhaps the fans will be satisfied. However, there are simple ways to tell stories, and then there is belittling your audience, and Hannah Montana unfortunately, if not unintentionally, opts to insult.

That said, Hannah Montana: The Movie is sugar-coated sweetness wrapped in a country-western/pop bow, and that’s exactly what the film’s intended audience is clamoring for. And despite the blatant banality of the storytelling, there manages to be some rather touching moments, particularly between Miley and her dad. This doesn’t mean the movie is good, per se, but it does manage some Disney-brand charm, even if that charm would’ve been better suited for a made-for-TV movie.

I mentioned at the start a lot of people love Hannah Montana and Miley Cyrus. I am not one of those people. Disney’s hit show capitalizes on young females and tweens, and I obviously do not fit this demographic. Accordingly, I will admit I am not the intended audience for Hannah Montana: The Movie. However, I have a job to do. Despite the ranting and jeers of my superiors and peers, I sat through the film. I gave it a fair shot. And I suppose it was okay for what it was.

Adventureland

Jesse Eisenberg and Kristen Stewart eat cookies in Adventureland.

As Printed in The Lumberjack on April 9, 2009

by Gary Sundt

Adventureland is a film I enjoyed far more than I anticipated. To clarify, I didn’t walk in with low expectations, but I thought I was going to see a different movie. Writer/director Greg Mottola hit the comedy scene big with Superbad two years ago, and I expected similarly foul-mouthed and over-the-top antics in his latest film. But Adventureland has a different agenda, and it’s made up of college-age crisis, early-20s malaise and a whole lot of heart.

The movie stars Jesse Eisenberg as James, a recent college graduate who is ready to go on his European vacation when his parents inform him that due to a recent salary cut at work, the family budget has tightened. This means that a) they won’t be able to pay for the trip, and b) they won’t be able to pay for graduate school, meaning he should probably seek summer employment. After a lengthy search, the most James and his degree in Renaissance Studies can get him is a job at Adventureland, the lame local amusement park where the games are rigged and corndogs are not to be trusted. The clientele are mostly dumber than the employees, who ease the pain by drinking, smoking pot and having sex with one another.

Of course, James has to be a virgin, because what greater conflict is there than aging with one’s virginity still intact? As such, he is always on the prowl for the opposite sex, and finds a particularly intriguing love interest in Em (Kristen Stewart), who is also stuck for the summer while she waits desperately for school to get back in session. James and Em, along with their stoner/genius coworker Joel (Martin Starr), take solace in one another while dealing with the colorful array of colleagues, including James’ best friend, Frigo (Matt Bush), who has a penchant for hitting him in the groin; the park’s managers, Bobby (Bill Hader) and Paulette (Kristen Wiig); the park tramp, Lisa P. (Margarita Levieva); and the maintenance man, Connell (Ryan Reynolds), who may be married but maintains a penchant for the lady employees of Adventureland.

The romance between James and Em speaks to the complicated nature of college-age relationships. People tend to be a little broken at this point in life, and are trying to find romance in the midst of putting themselves back together. Adventureland doesn’t pull any punches when it comes to the troublesome details that make us who we are, and Mottola has written characters that are well-rounded and flawed, and have a full and realistic spectrum of complicated emotions. Every actor in the cast does especially fine work with the material, and manifest real people rather than exploiting easy archetypes.

My only gripe with Superbad, as is my trouble with most high school movies, was that it muddled up a realistic portrayal of a time in life that everyone experiences with blatant unrealism. This isn’t to say I don’t laugh, but this sort of storytelling always disconnects me in some way. The genius behind Adventureland, then, is that there aren’t a million jokes a minute, making room for real characters to develop. Mottola has a sweeter and more personal story to tell this time around, and I think it’s a better movie.

Monsters vs. Aliens

Reese Witherspoon’s computer-generated equivalent runs from an alien robot in Monsters vs Aliens.

As Printed in The Lumberjack on April 2, 2009

by Gary Sundt

I had appendicitis in the sixth grade. After the surgery, I was bed-ridden for two weeks (we didn’t have today’s fancy outpatient procedure back then). It was late October, and I reveled in the sheer number of horror films at my disposal, courtesy of my cable television.

One night while I was unable to sleep, I stumbled upon a marathon of movies: Attack of the 50 Foot Woman, The Blob (1958), Them! and a slew of others. This random late-night marathon of cheesy ‘50s horror is where I can ascribe the joy I felt while watching Monsters vs. Aliens.

This new film (offered in 3-D in cities more technologically advanced than Flagstaff) features a regular cast of rogues from that movie marathon all those years ago: a 50-foot woman, a blob, a human-insect hybrid, a creature from the (insert color here) lagoon, a giant radioactive grub and aliens. They have all been given a kid-friendly makeover and wacky archetypal personalities to ensure the flick will turn a profit. Monsters vs. Aliens is the sort of high-concept Hollywood release tailor-made to make money, and the overall simplicity of the storytelling reflects that. However, I don’t think that prevents the movie from being solid popcorn fun.

The film begins with Susan (Reese Witherspoon) about to marry her beloved weatherman fiancé. Suddenly, a giant asteroid lands on her, filling her with an alien substance that causes her to grow to approximately 50 feet tall (the film never specifies, but I think it’s safe to assume here). The government is quick to capture the giant woman, hiding her with the aforementioned crop of monsters in a secret government facility to keep society from flipping their proverbial lids. Locked away from the rest of humanity is B.O.B. the blob (Seth Rogen), Dr. Cockroach Ph. D. (Hugh Laurie), The Missing Link (Will Arnet), and Insectosaurus, a giant grub that dwarfs Susan by comparison. The head of the facility, General W.R. Monger (Kiefer Sutherland), provides Susan with her monster-themed moniker, Ginormica, and informs her she will be imprisoned with these other freaks of nature for the rest of her life.

Meanwhile, a mysterious alien craft has come to Earth and is wreaking havoc throughout San Francisco. The President of the United States (Stephen Colbert) is in a pickle as to how to stop this alien menace when General Monger arrives to suggest an epic battle of monsters vs. aliens. And from that point on, monsters fighting aliens ensues.

Monsters vs. Aliens has no less than five credited screenwriters. The usual result of this many hands in the pot is a generic Hollywood escapade, which is what Monsters vs. Aliens decidedly becomes after the premise is set up. However, the gags can be quite good, and the voice actors do a fine job of making their individual characters work for them, even if they are extensions of their live-action onscreen personas.

Technically speaking, Monsters vs. Aliens is pretty outstanding. There are a number of action sequences that are especially interesting, in particular the destruction of San Francisco and the giant Susan using cars as roller skates down the Golden Gate Bridge. I think the excellence of the computer-generated images may be the highest quality that can be achieved without entering the pseudo-realism of WALL-E or the motion capture-territory of films like Beowulf and the upcoming A Christmas Carol.

Solid visuals, easy laughs and simple storytelling are what make movies like this enjoyable, and I imagine that many people will have a lot of fun with the film. Monsters vs. Aliens isn’t the pinnacle of animated cinema, but it’s good enough for a Saturday afternoon at the movies.

Note: I have complained about the local theater’s sound before, and I will do so again. Movies are drastically affected when the sound of a film doesn’t pop the way it should. Monsters vs. Aliens cost an estimated $165 million to produce, and so I find it highly unlikely that the problem is with the film print. It’s the theater. If somebody at Harkins Flagstaff 11 could fix this recurring disaster, it would be greatly appreciated.

State of Play

Russell Crowe looks intense while Ben Affleck looks slightly confused in State of Play.

As Printed in The Lumberjack on April 23, 2009

by Gary Sundt

I like Ben Affleck. Yeah, I said it. I don’t care if he is sort of doofy or cries in every single movie he’s in or just looks like the definition of chiseled Hollywood A-list idiot. So what if he was in Pearl Harbor? We all make mistakes. Affleck is a solid performer, and when placed in the right roles, he has the potential to do great things as not only an actor,but a writer and director as well.

But I digress. This is not an ode to Ben Affleck. This is a review for State of Play, the new film starring Affleck and the much more respected Russell Crowe. The film is an intelligent and calculating thriller that finds adventure in the trashed offices of a busy newspaper office and mystery and intrigue in the halls of Congress. Crowe is Cal McAffery, a slobby yet slick-talking journalist assigned to investigate the torrid love affair between his old college buddy, U.S. Representative Stephen Collins (Affleck), and the congressman’s aide (Maria Thayer), who were in the middle of an investigation into a company named PointCorp before the aide met the unfortunate end of a subway train, seemingly by accident or suicide.

PointCorp is a rather cloak-and-dagger organization, what with being in the business of government contracting for mercenaries in Iraq, so Cal doesn’t buy this so-called “accident.” Neither does Stephen, and together they start to think a conspiracy is afoot. Cal’s editor (Helen Mirren), who is interested in selling newspapers, allows him to follow his nose, and she sticks rookie reporter Della Frye (Rachel McAdams) at his side to find the truth. Also in the mix is Anne (Robin Wright Penn), the congressman’s wife, who has been friends with Cal since college, and possibly something more.

A government conspiracy seems pretty much guaranteed, with potential witnesses and insiders being snuffed out left and right, but only the key players believe it to be possible. There are perhaps one too many sequences of loud yelling, where everyone tells Cal how wrong he is. This has a lot to do with the rules of the journalistic thriller genre, because only the hard-nosed journalist with a good heart can see the truth, and everyone else is a doubter.

State of Play manages to follow every step in the conspiracy playbook as it hurdles toward its conclusions, but it throws in an effective amount of twists to make the film riveting almost from start to finish. The script by Tony Gilroy, Michael Matthew Carnahan and Billy Ray is both familiar and original, even while some of the dialogue is too overwrought for even the top-notch actors to properly handle. For the most part, however, the performances are solid, and cinematographer Rodrigo Prieto adapts effectively to the shaky cam style of director Kevin Macdonald, adding to State of Play’s undeniable atmosphere.

Without specifically spoiling anything, I feel the film’s weakness is in its ending, which might seem shocking and complicated to the untrained eye, but to me comes off as too clean and pretty. The resulting feeling is a movie on autopilot. State of Play is a well-made motion picture, and everyone involved does a fine job, but all the yelling and atmosphere in the world can’t replace that spark Macdonald, Crowe, Mirren, Gilroy, McAdams and even Affleck have experienced with equally great concepts that were made into even better films.

How to be a Film Critic

As Printed in The Lumberjack on April 30, 2009

by Gary Sundt

I started writing for The Lumberjack in January 2007. Back when my word count was small and my aspirations were large, my first assignment was to review Primeval (a rather forgettable film about a killer crocodile). I remember finishing that review, in which I called an actor an idiot and confessed my love for crap like Deep Blue Sea and Orca, and feeling very confident that I had written a masterpiece.

Nearly two-and-a-half years have passed since that review, and I am still analyzing films. I have been open to other writers filling the position on the grounds that they will take movie reviewing seriously. But a review is an educated opinion, and most people aren’t as educated as they think they are.

Now the reader says, “Turn that pompous and icy sword back at yourself, buddy man.” And I do. People may not believe it, but I often ask myself why my opinion should matter. At the end of the day, I have determined my opinion is valuable because a) I have studied the art of filmmaking, by not only analyzing the craft of moviemaking itself, but also in producing and directing my own feature film projects, and b) I hold myself to a small set of rules that I believe makes my critiques at the very least reliable, even if you might not agree with them.

Watch the movie: This doesn’t mean going to the theater and playing with your cell phone. I mean really watch a movie. Consider nothing you are looking at is natural or “real-life.” The sights, sounds and language that make up every movie you’ve ever seen were manufactured to instill a specific series of emotions. That chill that runs down your spine when Kevin Spacey lectures Brad Pitt and Morgan Freeman during the car ride near the end of Se7en is not just you. It’s designed. People made you do that. There is music in that scene. Did you notice? You should have.

Teach people something: Being a movie critic means you have seen more movies than most people and have taken time to learn things about them. Is what you are watching a remake? You should probably see the original, or at the very least admit when you haven’t. Is the sound or the picture in the movie theater not properly calibrated? I saw The Dark Knight four times in four separate theaters, and the weakest experience was the first because of how improperly the sound was set up in the Harkins Flagstaff 11. When you teach people something, they walk away from the movie review with a higher respect for your credentials, which are eternally in question.

Don’t back down: When you’re a movie critic, people have a tendency to disagree with you. Friends, family and coworkers will rip into your oh-so-special opinion. Whether they know it or not, they love to do this, mostly because you get paid for your opinion.

But I say don’t let them break you. Everybody has an opinion, but yours needs to be founded in logic. I have experienced this time and again with Twilight devotees, and I have never argued with any fangirl or boy who didn’t walk away defeated. Granted, that’s just easy, because even those who adore the cheesy-vamp-lovefest know it’s trash, but I think the point is clear.

Sometimes it feels good to be bad: I believe it is very important to recognize when you’ve had a good time at a bad movie. This was a lesson I learned after rereading my review for Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film for Theaters. I maintain that it was a bad movie, but I had a great time because of just how silly it was. My review did not reflect that, and it’s a point that I believe was unfair of me to leave out.

I learned my lesson, and have since been very open about when I have enjoyed films that are almost certainly garbage. Rambo is a terrible movie, but my critique was honest when I said my manliness ensured I would have a good time. This allows you a certain level of rapport, because admitting your own biases allows the reader to form a more well-rounded opinion of what a movie has to offer.

As I’ve been writing this, I have kept my first review open on the desktop, looking back when I need a moment to reflect. It has been a long time since I wrote that piece, and to be honest, it isn’t a masterpiece, but it’s a solid review.

I take a lot of comfort in knowing my first review wasn’t totally off base. Albert Einstein wrote, “The individual must not merely wait and criticize, he must defend the cause the best he can. The fate of the world will be such as the world deserves.” The same can be said for movies, and I have never felt as though I didn’t give a critique that wasn’t founded. It says a lot to me about what it takes to review films, and more than two years later, I still believe I have those qualifications.