"Hot Tub Time Machine" is probably the most aptly-named movie since "Snakes on a Plane." You know immediately exactly what you're going to get: a hot tub that's a time machine.
You know it's going to be ridiculous. You know it's not going to be "Citizen Kane." But you know it's probably going to make you laugh. It puts a likable cast (John Cusack, Craig Robinson, Rob Corddry and Clark Duke) in absurd situations as they travel back to the 1980s, cause mayhem and use an overabundance of gross-out humor.
There are certain movies like "Hot Tub Time Machine" that you know objectively you can't argue are good movies, but they're wildly entertaining nonetheless. They're guilty pleasures, a classification some movies just wouldn't exist without. Would the likes of "Eurotrip" and "Beerfest" ever see the light of day if producers didn't count on them being someone's guilty pleasure flick?
As a critic, I can look objectively at the "Twilight" films and say they're overly melodramatic, feature beyond unrealistic portrayals of teenage love, have shoddy screenwriting, semi-descent acting and mediocre directing at best. But I've been in the crowd at both midnight showings.
Sometimes I need to step away from all the "Hurt Lockers," "Preciouses" and "Up in the Airs," and just watch some absurdly angsty vampire romance. Everyone needs that movie they pop in their DVD player when they want a little pick-me-up. Mine is a vampire boy and a human girl staring longingly at each other in a meadow. I can't totally explain why I love it. I just do.
It's the same with the "American Pie" movies (the original three, not the lame direct-to-DVD sequels that have sprouted up in recent years). Excellent filmmaking? Not so much. But a fun, raunchy ride with Jim, Stifler and the gang is enough to completely cheer me up when I'm stressed or feeling down.
So what are your guilty pleasures, those movies you know aren't great movies but you can't live without? Sound off in the comments section.
As "The Lovely Bones" went wide last weekend, most critics and audiences seemed to agree that something is missing in this adaptation of Alice Sebold's bestselling novel. With each page-to-screen adaptation that has populated theaters in recent years, it feels like fans of the source material always find something to criticize. So what exactly makes a good big screen adaptation of a beloved book?
To me, the best adaptations are the ones that are faithful enough to the original that the essence of the book is still intact, but the directors aren't afraid to interweave their own artistic vision. The "Harry Potter" movies, at least "Prisoner of Azkaban" through "Half-Blood Prince" immediately spring to mind.
Once Alfonso Cuaron took the reigns from Chris Columbus, the "Potter" films have maintained the books' magical spirit and increasingly darker tone, but the directors haven't produced verbatim reproductions of the books. They don't sacrifice their own creative vision but stay faithful to the spirit of the source material.
The same can be said of "Up in the Air." I haven't read the book upon which the George Clooney-starring film is based, but supposedly the film is vastly different, changing events and adding characters. But despite the differences, the book's author, Walter Kirn, has said he approves of the movie because it still feels like his story and his characters. Director Jason Reitman creates a happy medium between his own vision for the story and Kirn's vision when translating "Up in the Air" from page to screen.
But while these films are more successful adaptations in my book, others fall under two extremes: too faithful to the story or not faithful enough. The "Twilight" films, entertaining as they might be, come to mind as adaptations that suffer from being too faithful to the source material.
The team behind the films seems to think the fans would be up in arms if the movies strayed even in the slightest from the books, but what results is dialogue that comes across as forced and stale. What reads well on the page doesn't always sound right on camera. If the writer and directors exercised more creative freedom, the story would likely flow better onscreen.
Unfortunately, "The Lovely Bones," which I had high hopes for, falls under the second extreme and differs from the book too much. "The Lovely Bones" has in its favor an incredibly talented cast and an Oscar-winning director. But Peter Jackson spends too much time on visual effects and too little time on how the protagonist's death affects the people she left behind. The book has so many rich supporting characters, and most of their storylines were cut so severely that the movie, while still a decent film, did not feel like the book.
At times Jackson delved into the book's raw emotion, then jumped right back to his effects, then tried to lighten the mood with some comedic moments. As a result the film felt disjointed, like it couldn't decide what it wanted to be. It contained glimpses of Sebold's rich novel, but ultimately strayed too far and fell flat.
What do you think? What makes a good big-screen adaptation? What are some of your favorites? Sound off in the comments section.
I have never seen a pop culture phenomenon as polarizing as "Twilight," and based on the reviews for the second installment in the series, "New Moon" is no exception. Personally, I enjoy the "Twilight" books. Yes, they're poorly written. Yes, they're extremely cheesy. But to me they are fun, escapist entertainment. That's what "New Moon" sets out to be, and director Chris Weitz's adaptation actually succeeds more than the book.
In "New Moon," human high school student Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart) and vampire Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson) are just as in love as in the first installment. But when Edward's brother Jasper (Jackson Rathbone) almost attacks Bella, a guilt-ridden Edward fears being with him is too dangerous for Bella. Determined to keep her safe, Edward leaves town, where a broken-hearted Bella feels the sting of losing her first love.
Completely numb for months, Bella finally starts to heal when she grows closer to her friend Jacob (Taylor Lautner), who quickly makes it clear he's interested in more than just friendship with her. But just when Bella is getting used to supernatural beings not being in her life, Jacob discovers the legends that his Quileute tribe is descended from wolves are actually true (spoiler alert unless you've been living under a rock for the past few months) - Jacob is a werewolf, sworn to protect the tribe's land from vampires.
The change in Jacob sets in when Victoria (Rachelle Lefevre), one of the nomadic vampires from the first film, returns to Forks, Wash., in search of Bella, who she's determined to kill. Bella has to adjust to her friend's new-found identity, avoid crossing paths with Victoria and try to forget the Cullens, who re-enter her life in a dramatic way.
From a filmmaking standpoint, "New Moon" improves on "Twilight" in every way, largely thanks to Weitz's direction. Catherine Hardwicke's directing in the first film was uneven and the story very disjointed. The script borderlined on over-the-top cheesy even for "Twilight" fans, and the acting was wooden for the most part.
But with Weitz in the director's chair, the story is much more cohesive and the directing is solid. Gone are Hardwicke's unnecessary extra shots and the first film's odd blue tint. The book's trademark teen angst is still present, but screenwriter Melissa Rosenberg inserts enough extra humor to counterbalance it. The story moves at a slow and steady pace, but that's the way the books are set up.
Though the dialogue is still a bit cheesy, the actors seem much more comfortable in their roles this time around. The two standouts in the film are the hilarious Billy Burke, who plays Bella's dad Charlie and also stole the show in the first film, and the always wonderful Michael Sheen, who plays the creepy leader who enforces the vampire laws.
The special effects are also a huge step above those of the first film. While they're nowhere close to the quality of the effects of "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince," for example, they suit the film's needs. I was satisfied with the werewolf transformations, and the other effects look much less fake than in the first film.
Alexandre Desplat's score is a little odd at times but is solid overall, and the rest of the film's soundtrack is strong, featuring bands like Death Cab for Cutie, The Killers, OK Go and Muse.
In a nutshell, "Twilight" fans should find "New Moon" to be a huge improvement from the first film, while people who hate "Twilight" will probably hate this movie too. If you're one of the few people not on either extreme who was indifferent to the first film, I'd suggest giving "New Moon" a shot. Fans will be satisfied while the haters will continue to hate. B
I'm a reporter with The Sanford Herald and huge film junkie. This blog serves as a means for me to combine my two primary interests: writing and arts and entertainment.
