Review: Beautiful Creatures (2013) is *almost* fantastic.

Beautiful Creatures

2013
129 minutes
rated PG-13

by Scott Mendelson

So much of Beautiful Creatures (trailer/banner) is so unexpectedly terrific that it's almost a tragedy when the picture eventually falls victim to its own plot.  For the 80-minutes or so, the film is warmly engaging, alternating between scenery-chewing camp from the adults and genuinely emotional pathos from the kids, anchored by fine acting and surprisingly clever and authentic dialogue throughout.  The romantic leads (Alice Englert and Alden Ehrenreich) have undeniable charm and chemistry while the likes of Jeremy Irons and Emma Thompson relish the inherently goofy nature of this material while still pulling back when required.  The film paints an evocative picture of life in a dead-end fundamentalist American small town and is unapologetic about depicting some unpleasant sides of religious fundamentalism.  But while the film outright soars when  it focuses on character and human interaction, it cannot withstand the weight of its own overly contrived mythology.  The deeper the film gets into its central conflict the more of a mechanical plot exercise it becomes.  So superb is the first 2/3 of Beautiful Creatures that I felt genuine disappointment when the film flubbed the landing, ending itself in the territory of merely 'very good'.

When the words don't match the face: Beautiful Creatures banner poster brings to light a poster art pet peeve.

This is a perfectly satisfactory billboard poster for the upcoming Beautiful Creatures.  It has its title, its release date, a tagline, and a roll-call of the elder vets and younger newbies (plus young vet Emmy Rossum) that will play in the southern gothic supernatural sandbox.  Everybody looks snazzy and it's a solid sell.  There's just one annoying problem.  They are exactly 1 for 7 when it comes for accuracy of labeling.  I've known Jeremy Irons as an actor for thirty years and I know he doesn't look like some kid aiming to be the next Robert Pattinson.  And I've had a thing for Emmy Rossum since her Mystic River/Day After Tomorrow/Phantom of the Opera break-out led to a near-decade of relative obscurity before bouncing back on Showtime's Shameless.  She does not look like a younger variation on Michael Angarano.  And while I don't know offhand who Thomas Mann is, I know he probably doesn't look like a dead-ringer for Viola Davis, who in turn is not the young Caucasian girl at the center of the poster.  By random chance, Emma Thompson is actually correctly labeled.  But the rest are all very wrong.  Yes I get the poster design, which puts the young girl at the center and then slowly branches out with the various forces of good or evil that will try to influence her destiny (IE - evil Emmy Rossum versus good Emma Thompson or something like that).  But any number of posters that screw this up in any given year don't even have that excuse.

Beautiful Creatures gets a new poster, a new release date, and a new plot-heavy second trailer.

What's interesting about this second look at what is arguably the first of the new wave of 'next Twilight/Hunger Games' franchise-starters is that it sells itself as a story specifically centered on a young girl in the South who is fought over as a result of her supernatural powers and her would-be destiny.  When I wrote about the wave of female-centric young-lit adaptations a couple months ago, I was informed that this movie, or at least the book that it's based on, is actually told from the boy's point-of-view.  You wouldn't know it from this trailer.  And I would argue that it is almost noteworthy that Warner Bros. is trying to trick audiences into thinking that it's a female-pov story.  Anyway, marketing gimmicks aside, this still looks like a solid piece of supernatural hokum.  Come what may, the cast (Jeremy Irons, Emma Thompson, Viola Davis, Emmy Rossum) should be more than enough to do the heavy lifting if the young kids (Alden Ehrenreich and Alice Englert) can't pick up the slack (not presuming they can't of course, Ehrenreich was fine in Francis Ford Coppola's Tetro).  The "big" news is that it's been moved one day up to February 14th, and it's clear that Warner Bros. wants this to be the date-movie of choice for those otherwise uninterested in yet-another Die Hard film.  Will it work?  Depending on how cheap this one was, it may not matter.  Valentine's Day/President's Day weekend is a holiday weekend where a number of big films can flourish alongside each other (witness 2010, where Valentine's Day, Percy Jackson and the Olympians, and The Wolfman all opened to over $30 million).  Anyway, Beautiful Creatures opens on February 14, 2013.  As always, we'll see. If you have any thoughts on the matter, do share them below...

Scott Mendelson 

Review: Men In Black 3 (2012) is the best film in the series.

Men In Black 3 (2D)

2012
103 minutes
rated PG-13

by Scott Mendelson

I don't know how much Men In Black 3 actually cost.  I don't know the details of the behind-the-scenes turmoil that shut the film down for a period so the filmmakers could frantically rewrite the screenplay.  I don't know what got removed and what got added or changed along the way.  But the highest compliment that I can pay this third installment in the series is that none of the backstage drama shows.  The story makes sense, there are few real plot holes, and the actors exude confidence and charm in a screenplay that balances trailer-friendly set pieces and gags with genuine storytelling and character growth.  The world may not have needed another Men In Black picture, but director Barry Sonnenfeld and writers Etan Cohen, David Koepp, Jeff Nathanson, and Michael Soccio have crafted a shockingly good one, arguably the best in the series.  This is accomplished and polished popcorn entertainment that is refreshingly light on its feet.  For what it's worth, I thought the first Men In Black was somewhat overrated while Men In Black 2 was *slightly* underrated.  Men In Black 3 is the first in the series that I would call almost-great.

Men In Black 3 gets an oddly confusing teaser.

Yes, we've heard about the problematic shooting for this third entry, how the film took a giant recess in order to basically rewrite the script, how the costs are now so high that it will be almost impossible to make any money back for Sony even if the film is a monster hit.  But what strikes me about the trailer are two things - A) Will Smith is well-past this kind of material, even if he doesn't seem to have aged much since 1997.  It's no secret that I think he signed on to this project in a panic after Seven Pounds was wrongly perceived as a flop (if you've seen Seven Pounds, you'd be impressed with its $168 million worldwide total).  To be honest, had Smith not felt that he needed some kind of 'box office comeback', I'm sure he would have tried to get his kids to take over.    B) This trailer is actually quite confusing.  We spend the first half with business as usual, and then after a poorly constructed 'time warp' moment, 'J' arbitrarily can't find 'K' (Tommy Lee Jones) only to be informed that he died in 1969.  I certainly have no objections with teasers that only give away the barest hints of story.  In fact if this were a better constructed trailer I'd tell Sony to stop with this one.  But the teaser is actually somewhat confusing in its narrative, especially to those who don't already know the plot synopsis.  Still, Josh Brolin looks and sounds like a perfect 'young Tommy Lee Jones' and Emma Thompson does shine on the rare occasions she gets to play in the broad comedy sandbox (come what may, Junior was quite good).  Anyway, Sony drops this one on May 25th, 2012.  As always, we'll see.

Scott Mendelson