Identity Thief

The concept of this film holds some promise. After having his identity stolen, Sandy Patterson's (Jason Bateman) life is falling apart as he is being held responsible for the crimes committed and debts inured by a career criminal that specializes in credit card fraud. The traditional methods of fixing his credit after ID theft takes years and the authorities won't do anything to help him unless the perp is caught red handed, so Sandy takes a cross country trip on his own to apprehend the fake Sandy. Because Sandy is a unisex name, the thief that stole his identity is a woman (Melissa McCarthy). When they're forced to drive from Florida back to the real Sandy's home in Denver, hilarity supposedly ensues. Unfortunately, the great potential of this film is never realized. Identity Thief is a flawed movie from opening to closing credits. The story itself is straight forward: good guy hunts down bad guy, good guy captures bad guy, good guy drags bad guy back for justice, and in the process bad guy makes many attempts to escape. The screenwriters must have assumed that this story line was too simple so they introduced multiple subplots. These minor plots distracted from the over all story - especially Sandy's desire to enact revenge on his sleazy boss (Jon Favreau) - a concept that worked much better in 1997's Nothing to Lose. Since the victim taking a road trip with the perpetrator concept was too ordinary, their trip is complicated by not just one, but three additional characters hunting down the criminal Sandy, and a police force that interrupts the revenge plan sub-plot. First is a pair of gang hitmen (Genesis Rodriguez & T.I.) sent to kill Sandy for selling bad credit cards to their boss. The other is a bounty hunter known only as Skiptracer (Robert Patrick). These pursuits result in gun play, several punches to the throat, multiple car crashes, and a snakebite. And that punch to the throat is overplayed. First time it was funny, the second time not so much, and every punch after that was just annoying. The biggest error in this movie is the complete unlikability of either of the main characters. Bateman as Sandy is pathetic. He is a pushover who inspires zero empathy. At the beginning of movie, he willingly hands over his social security number, birth date, and enough other pieces of information that even the least ham-fisted criminal could steal his identity. Throughout most of the movie I couldn't help but think, 'he deserves this.' McCarthy as Sandy is a vile and repulsive character. She's an obnoxious and vulgar alcoholic who seems to be doing everything in her power to make people despise her. Like her male counterpart, with people chasing her down to either kill her or throw her in jail, I kept thinking, 'she deserves this.' By the time either character shows any redeemable qualities, it's all ready too late - I can't stand either of them. The only reason I want the real Sandy to succeed is for the sake of his wife (Peet) and friend (Cho). As much as the hitmen/bounty hunter threads distract from the main story, I actually enjoyed the scenes with them more than the ones without them. Even as side characters, they were more compelling than Bateman or McCarthy. Their interactions were funnier than most of the rest of the film - especially the scene where Patrick shoves T.I. into a car trunk and when that trunk is later opened by police. I find it sad that these small roles were more convincing and enjoyable than the movie's protagonists. I wouldn't say Identity Thief is a horrible movie, but in no way is it a good movie either. This is one that is best to wait until it is available on Redbox or wait until it's broadcast on a premium cable channel.

Zombieland

In the realm of monster/horror movies, the zombie sub-genre is an easy favorite of mine. There's a primal terror in the walking dead - whether as a result of viral infection or Cajun mysticism. We fear the loss of autonomy, we fear being hunted, we fear the unknown lurking around every corner, we fear the unrealistic possibility that a zombie apocalypse might happen in real life.

I love when movies instill that sense of dread. I'm amazed when the same movie that terrifies me also makes me laugh like a ticklish clown that's high on nitrous oxide.

Enter Zombieland.

Zombieland is not the fist movie to combine horror and comedy. It's not even the first to pair slapstick with the undead. Yet it does it so well. It deviates from the pure absurdity of 2004's Shaun of the Dead without devaluing it's predecessor. Zombieland is to Shaun of the Dead what National Lampoon is to Monty Python. Both films are excellent in their common purpose via differing brands of twisted comedic styles. As closing credits began to roll over Zombieland's amusement park, my father-in-law chuckled "that's the funniest zombie movie I've ever seen."

He's correct.

But it's not just a movie about Zombies. And it is more than a funny movie about zombies. It's also a movie about rules. Thanks to my over-developed sense of justice, this is where I think the movie succeeds.

Told from the point of view of a hapless loser/video game geek (Jesse Eisenberg), the nerd survives by compiling an ever-growing list of rules. Simple rules: cardio, wear seatbelts, and beware of bathrooms. These rules are not just demonstrated, but repeated and highlighted through on-screen lettering that is as much scenery as they are props.

Beyond that, Woody Harrelson plays his maniacal self and shows us why his best perfomances happen when his character is slightly unhinged. The movie pulls some hefty punches. From the the opening sequence with a soon-to-be Kibbles & Bits fat kid running accross a football field to the prankings of the con-artist sisters (Abigail Breslin and Emma Stone). From the Dualing Banjo bait/takedown to the quest for a Twinkie. From Bill Murray's genius (albiet predictable) cameo to the climatic roller coaster ride and zombie-clown. Zombieliand is a movie that knows it's identity and flaunts it with admirable bravado.

Granted it comes with the price of prerequsit zombie gore, 30 some odd f-bombs, and the coarse teasing of modern comedy. It's a laugh 'til your bowels hurt kind of movie, a must for fans horror but not recomended for the squeamish.

Breakfast at Tiffany's

My wife knows that I have a general distaste for movies that are older than me. There are exceptions to that rule, but if the movie was made prior to the late seventies it is a safe bet that I do not have a high opinion of the film. So imagine my wife’s surprise when she found me kicked backed and relaxed watching Breakfast at Tiffany’s.

“Since when did you watch these kinds of movies?” She asked.

“I love this movie!” Like I said, there are exceptions to the rule.

Breakfast at Tiffany’s is one of those movies that breaks my rules. And it’s not much different than most romantic comedies. It follows the formula: 1. Boy meets girl 2. They develop feelings for each other 3. One of them screws it up 4. They fix it and kiss at the end. So what sets Breakfast at Tiffany’s stand apart from other romantic comedies?

It’s the characters. I have a hard time relating to the characters in typical romantic comedies. The male lead is usually the ideal image of every girl’s dream boy. The romantically involved couple lead idyllic lives that can only be made more perfect by being together. Blech.

But I can relate to the characters in Breakfast at Tiffany’s. Paul Varjak is a struggling writer who has lost his inspiration. Holly Golightly is a girl who doesn’t know who she is - yet desperately wants to be someone other than herself. I get that. As a writer I understand the difficulties in finding motivation to write. I’ve been in seasons where I didn’t want to be me.

From that perspective you could assume that this is a sad movie. That’s my mother-in-law’s take; she thinks Breakfast at Tiffany’s is a depressing movie.

Yet it is punctuated by absurdity. Hepburn’s character is as neurotic as she is beautiful. She surrounds herself with friends that are too pompous to be true friends. The foreign neighbor is hilarious and unapologetic in its non-politically correct stereotype. And there’s a cat with no name. (It’s not that the cat’s name is never spoken – but the characters insist it’s a no-name cat.)

And spread thorough out, there are parts that make you burst in laughter. Holly crawling through Varjak’s window while he’s sleeping, re-introducing herself, and helping herself to a glass of wine (subsequently pouring that wine into Varjak’s houseplants). Holly yelling “TIMBER” at the party. And my favorite – when Varjak tells Holly "You know what's wrong with you?" I have always wanted to say that to a girl and get away with it.

But the film succeeds. It accomplishes a feeling that modern romantic comedies try to capture. It tells the story of two imperfect people finding a perfect match. We need stories like that.