‘Coraline’ realistic in more ways than one (4/5)

Coraline

Starring: Dakota Fanning, Teri Hatcher, Keith David.
Directed by: Henry Selick.
Rating: PG for thematic elements, scary images, some language and suggestive humor.
Running time: 1 hours, 40 minutes.


Coraline Jones is a typical “my way or the highway” 11-year-old girl — she whines, she complains, she’s too curious for her own good, she’s quick to make judgments and, frankly, she’s just a little brat.

But it’s refreshing to have a little girl actually behave like a little girl — not like the Pevensie kids from “Chronicles of Narnia,” who were obnoxious, too, but more in the “I’m so wholesome” kind of way.

And maybe her gumption is also why I like her. I was a little girl not too long ago (and, though I just turned 23 on Monday, many would still like to label me as such).

And not that her cheeky nature is all her fault. After all, much of Coraline’s poor attitude stems from her parents’ seeming indifference to her existence.

Coraline (voiced by the talented Dakota Fanning) and her parents moved from Michigan to an old, large, insect-ridden home in Oregon. Here her preoccupied mom and dad (Teri Hatcher and John Hodgman) immediately begin work on their gardening magazine — without ever setting foot outside. Instead, they remain intently glued to their computer screens, barely acknowledging Coraline when she tries her best to disrupt them.

While boredly examining the house, Coraline comes upon a half-sized door in the living room concealed by wallpaper. After much harassment, her mother relents in return for quiet, breaks herself away from her work, and opens the door for Coraline — who only discovers a bricked-up hole.

That night, Coraline is wakened by a mouse in her room. She chases it downstairs and sees it dash into the half-sized door. Expecting to trap the mouse, Coraline pries open the door and finds a long tunnel.

With fear obviously not being one of Coraline’s strong points, she immediately crawls through the tunnel only to end up — back at her house.

But instead of finding her tired, workaholic parents, Coraline discovers her “Other” parents — attentive, loving, button-eyed reflections of her real mom and dad.

Here’s where things really start to get weird. While Coraline’s “new” family, home and neighbors seems like everything she could want, things quickly take a dark turn when her “Other” mother insists on exchanging Coraline’s real eyes for buttons similar to everyone else’s in the “Other” world, and keeping Coraline in the “Other” world forever.

Though technically an “animated” film, “Coraline” plays out as a fairy tale nightmare sending unexpecting adults spiraling back into the bad dreams of childhood.

But, of course, as is the sad tale of many blockbuster hits these days, “Coraline” is not an original concept. In fact, it is a relatively short book written by Neil Gaiman, the oft-fantasy, oft-horroresque author of “Stardust” and “Neverwhere” fame.

It’s no surprise, really, that the unconventional Tim Burton would pick up “Coraline” and find it a good match. He even caught back up with director Henry Selick, whom he had worked with on “The Nightmare Before Christmas.” In fact, the introduction to “Coraline” may remind some of Jack Skeleton’s bony fingers. Tim Burton’s style is difficult to miss, but always a joy to see.

The amazing stop-motion in Coraline and the optional 3-D viewing show that animation has come a long way since Disney’s 1950 “Cinderella” and may be steps away from breaking into the realm of “serious” movies for real.

A note of caution for parents of young children: This is not a Disney movie. The aesthetic and imaginative story line could easily lend themselves to a kid-friendly movie; however, with Selick’s dark undertone and the generally nightmarish storyline, this is a film that could haunt kids long after bedtime. Heck, it even unnerved me a little, but, maybe I’m still just an 11-year-old girl at heart.

4 of 5 stars

‘D9’ fresh, innovative (4.5/5)

District 9

Starring: Sharlto Copley, William Allen Young, Robert Hobbs.
Directed by: Neill Blomkamp.
Rating: R for bloody violence and pervasive language.
Running time: 1 hours, 52 minutes.

Whatever you think “District 9” is — it’s not.

In an industry consumed by sequels, book adaptations and rehashed plotlines, director Neill  Blomkamp blows away the Hollywood norm in an explosion of innovation, blood and CGI splendor.

“District 9” is considered a remake of  Blomkamp’s 2005 six-minute effort “Alive in Joburg” (which you can find in its entirety on YouTube). But, having seen both, I’d rather classify “District 9” as an extension of the shorter movie. If you haven’t seen “District 9” yet, watching “Alive in Joburg” shouldn’t ruin any of the main feature; however, I would recommend watching “Joburg” after “District 9,” if only to have a completely fresh experience.

One of the coolest things about this movie is that it was never supposed to be made. Peter Jackson (esteemed director of “Lord of the Rings” and the “King Kong” remake) was set to produce a movie with Blomkamp at the helm based on the popular video game franchise “Halo.” When that project fell through, Jackson is rumored to have offered  Blomkamp $30 million to make whatever he wanted (a sum the movie made back in just its first weekend).

With “District 9,” Blomkamp proved that a movie doesn’t  need an excessive budget to be a good film. Take “Spiderman 3” for example — even a $258 million budget couldn’t save that poor excuse for a superhero movie — which is saying a lot because I really hate the “Fantastic 4” series (Jessica Alba can not act, I don’t care how pretty she is).

Too, I may have seen only two or three previews for this movie before I saw it (as opposed to other films where you see a preview a day for six months), but the oft-forgotten power of word-of-mouth really gave me high hopes for “District 9” — which  Blomkamp exceeded in every way possible.

The basic premise of the movie is that a group of aliens somehow became stranded in Johannesburg, South Africa, in 1980. The majority of the movie takes place in 2010, with the aliens segregated into the Johannesburg slum known as “District 9.” The South Africans are not happy with the aliens living in such close proximity — and so MNU (Multi-National United — a fictional technology innovation organization) charges field operative Wikus van der Merwe (Sharlto Copley) with the task of evicting and moving all of the aliens to a remote location.

And that’s as much as I’m going to tell you. A big contributing factor to making this movie extraordinary was not having a clue as to how it would unfold.

Copley, who never intended on becoming an actor, truly inhabits the character of Wikus. His performance is so convincing that the fact that he’s playing counter CGI aliens seems perfectly normal. Too, it’s refreshing to see new actors take on large roles (something Peter Jackson himself insisted on with “The Lord of the Rings”). Copley is able to draw an audience into the plot without being distracted by a celebrity status in a way that Brad Pitt or Tom Hanks wouldn’t, or couldn’t.

“District 9” is an amazing ride, from the mockumentary style to the mind-blowing (pun assuredly intended) alien weaponry. My boyfriend maintains that I hate action movies simply because I think that Bruce Willis acts exactly the same in every one, but let me assure you that I can appreciate well-crafted gore as much as the next person — something that “District 9” definitely cashed in on.


Blomkamp does not skimp on the blood, at times making you cringe away in horror while at other times leaving you slack jawed in amazement. My sole request with this movie is that they don’t ruin it with a sequel.

I greatly look forward to  Blomkamp’s next effort, and whether it be “Halo” or “The Wiggles,” “District 9” has unleashed a fresh, powerful directorial force.

4.5 of 5

‘Dan’ comfortably realistic (3.5/5)

Dan In Real Life

Starring: Steve Carell, Juliette Binoche, Dane Cook
Directed By: Peter Hedges
Rating: PG-13 for some innuendo
Running time: 1 hour, 38 minutes

What happens when everyone loves your girlfriend — including your brother?

“Dan in Real Life” is a welcome blend of laughter and familial warmth, directed and written by Peter Hedges (“What’s Eating Gilbert Grape,” “Pieces of April”).

Although the plot is nothing extraordinarily fresh or new, the cast plays it out so organically that it seems downright believable. This while having the notorious grandstander Dane Cook in one of the lead roles.

The story follows a family weekend at the parents’ cabin in Rhode Island through the perspective of New Jersey newspaper advice columnist Dan Burns (Steve Carell). After losing his wife four years prior, Dan’s life has become a shallow reflection of his family-focused column. Since his wife’s death, he has found himself alone and not knowing how to raise his three daughters, each of whom is at a pivotal stage in their life: Jane, eager to begin driving and exercise her newfound independence; Cara, a typical teenage angster who is positive she is madly “in love” with a boy after three days; and Lilly, who is just passing through the final stages of childhood.

Dan’s relationships with his daughters are very realistic, being a single dad with no clue as to the inner workings of a teenage girl’s mind. As Lilly, tells him: “You’re a great dad, but sometimes you’re a bad father.” Despite his career success, Dan finds himself lacking when it comes to being in charge of an actual family.

When he arrives at the cabin, Dan’s parents (wonderfully played by Dianne Wiest and John Mahoney) encourage him to go to the town by himself and allow his daughters to be without him for a time.

While at a local bookstore, Dan runs into the smart, charming Marie (Juliette Binoche). For the first time, Dan seems truly comfortable and finds himself telling Marie everything about his past, including his late wife. The conversation is cut short when Marie gets a phone call and tells him that she has to go. Dan realizes that he doesn’t know a thing about her but that he already feels a connection. When she tells him that she has a boyfriend, they agree to meet to finish their talk one day, something they both tell each other (and themselves) would simply be between friends.

When he returns to the cabin, he tells his brothers, including Mitch (Dane Cook), that he met a woman at the bookstore. Being family, Dan is quickly grilled about her, an event that ultimately involves the entire family and their relieved happiness for him until Mitch’s girlfriend arrives:

Marie.

What follows is a hilariously awkward weekend as Dan fights with his obvious attraction to Marie and his brotherly obligations toward Mitch. Too, Marie finds herself growing closer and closer to Dan while weighing her feelings toward Mitch, who is falling head over heels for Marie.

Dan is everything an uncomfortable person in love should be. He’s awkward, fidgety, irrationally angry and absolutely relatable. Dane Cook is amazingly reserved in his role as Mitch — something both welcome and unexpected. Also, while many may consider the role of middle-child Cara to be overplayed (screaming at her father that he is a “murderer of love,” for instance), she is in fact painfully reminiscent of high school melodrama.

Also, while the movie can at points be considered predictable, it actually unfolds in a realistic way that makes it believable rather than a pure work of entertaining fiction.

Dan in real life? Dan IS real life.

3 1/2 of 5 stars

‘War’ food for thought (3.5/5)

Charlie Wilson's War

Starring: Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts, Philip Seymour Hoffman.
Directed By: Mike Nichols.
Rating: R for strong language, nudity/sexual content and some drug use.
Running time: 1 hours, 42 minutes.

“Charlie Wilson’s War” (2007) tells the remarkably true story of Texas Congressman Charlie Wilson who, with the aid of rich Texas socialite Joanne Herring and CIA case officer Gust Avrakotos, managed to seemingly undermine the entire Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the early 1980s.

The film itself, directed by Mike Nichols (“Closer”), is engaging and witty, full of political insights and sarcasm. Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts and Philip Seymour Hoffman fill their roles immaculately. The moderately short running time also keeps things crisp and at a nice pace, but may lose someone not fully paying attention.

While a blind eye is turned to the tribulations facing Afghanistan by the United States government, Herring (Roberts) refuses to sit idly by. Instead, she throws fundraiser after fundraiser in order to “educate” the people and inform them as to the true events, especially those that occur in the refugee camps.

Herring invites the womanizing, party-loving member of the House Appropriations Committee Congressman Wilson (Hanks) to a fundraiser, and through her womanly charms convinces him to visit the Afghan camps themselves. Faced with the horrors of senseless death and mutilated children, Wilson returns with a new desire to aid in any way possible.

Avrakotos (Hoffman), tired of the government’s indifferent attitude and eager to prevent a potential catastrophic situation in Afghanistan, also turns to Wilson in the hopes of raising more appropriated funds for the torn area.

In the midst of this, Wilson is also put under investigation for recreational drug use by none other than Rudy Giuliani. While to many congressmen this would be a devastating political career blow, as Avrakotos tells Wilson: “As long as the press sees sex and drugs behind the left hand, you can park a battle carrier behind the right hand and no one’s gonna ... notice.”

The pair continue to secretly rally a host of Middle Eastern countries while buddying up to American congressmen in order to raise more and more money, eventually supplying the Afghans with enough weaponry to defend their border.

Hoffman’s portrayal of Gust absolutely makes this movie. His brilliant comedic timing coupled with his ability to make you believe that he truly cares about each turn of events makes him the character to watch. Too, Hanks succeeds as the unlikely hero Charlie Wilson.

The film drives home many thought-provoking points:

• Politics as usual — Would Wilson have been able to accomplish what he did if he were from another district, and therefore unsure about re-election? Elected officials face a difficult choice: Toeing the line in an effort to keep as many constituents pleased as possible, or completely crossing the line in an effort to do what may be best but what may also ultimately cost them their career.

• The ethics code — Was this underhanded, covert operation ethical? Should we have given these arms to the Afghans, knowing that if the Soviets found out it could have sparked an immense war? Could these billions of dollars have been better spent elsewhere?

• The role of the press — Is the media truly more concerned about juicy gossip than what’s actually going on in the world? And if so, how do we change this?

“Charlie Wilson’s War” is not only a film to entertain and illuminate one man’s unique life’s path, but is also one that resonates with current events. Watch it, enjoy it and think about it.

3.5 of 5 stars