Archive: "The Number 23" (2007)

Poor everybody who unfortunately had to be involved in this wreck of a movie. "The Number 23" looked fascinating, dark, disturbing, and intriguing. So, you must be wondering by now, what went wrong? Well, a number of things, actually (if it's 23 of them, I wouldn't really know). The problem is that the movie collectively tries really, really hard to be all of the things I mentioned above but miserably fails to achieve any of those descriptors.

Walter Sparrow (Jim Carrey) is an animal control specialist, and the movie opens on a most unfortunate day for him; this day is his birthday, February 3rd (watch out), and he is late to pick up his wife, Agatha (Virginia Madsen). While waiting for her husband, Agatha stops in at a used bookstore and picks up a red-covered book titled "The Number 23," a story of obsession. If it weren't for Walter being late to get his wife, she never would have picked up the book, and none of the proceeding events would ever have happened. Agatha reads this book and becomes fascinated by it and then tosses it to Walter to read for himself. He dives in and slowly discovers that he has strangely a lot in common with the author.

Soon enough, the most disturbing thing he finds in common with this mysterious author named Topsy Kretts, or Fingerling, is his obsession with the number 23. In reading deeper, Walter begins finding bizarre connections to this seemingly random number within his own life. Walter's obsession grows to the point that he fears he will fall to the same fate of the author who went insane and even killed because of the number. This story Walter is reading is shown in a blurry noir fashion that becomes downright laughable. Jim Carrey plays Fingerling, the character inside the story, and Virginia Madsen plays Fingerling's lover, Fabrizia. So with these blatant parallels, too much is already given away and these ridiculously stupid flashbacks become devoid of anything at all useful.

The worst part is that these insights into the novel take up a good majority of the movie, and they really are awful. The noir style is meant to be gritty and disturbing but it turns to bizarre stupidity and melodramatic sludge. Luckily though, Walter finally comes to what appears to be the end of the novel, which means the end of bad flashbacks, as well. It's only at this point that the movie musters up any intrigue in real life things that start happening with Walter trying to save himself and his family from this deranged new obsession. Even his son, Robin (Logan Lerman), finds a fascination in the number and all the connections Walter is finding. Soon enough, Agatha even helps, if only to make the whole thing end.

That all really does not even matter because none of it adds up anyway, contrary to what the movie is persuading us to believe. Nothing is carried out with excitement as it would be in a quality thriller. The problem here is that it's not at all thrilling; the only mildly enticing aspect here is how many connections Walter can actually make to that damned number, and even that gets tiring. One of the most blatantly disturbing allusions to the real world and this number is when there is a shot of "9 11 2001" scrawled on Walter's wrist. Thanks, but no thanks on that one.

The one thing that actually isn't wrong with this movie is the acting because two very fine actors have been collected for the parts; what's wrong is everything that these fine actors are partaking in. A slew of dull twists within the convoluted and uninteresting story lead up to an anticlimactic bad ending that the audience already sees coming. I mean, c'mon, those infinite amount of flashbacks gave enough away already. And so, what's meant to be shocking and revolutionary becomes mundane and repetitive; worse yet, once the bad ending is revealed, we spend another good while getting a long-winded explanation of this bad ending. This does not clarify the ending, but rather assures us that, yep, this ending sucks. A lot.

To go along with this, we're given a message on life as if we're supposed to get something useful out of seeing this badly executed thriller. I'm sorry, but no amount of pot or other hallucinogenic drug is going to make these messages have any emotional resonance or even relevance. Unless you're completely out of it 99% of the time, I think everybody pretty much already knows that you're in control of what happens in your life and that no little number can take over. Anyway, if you're still itching to see this movie, instead of trying to watch it, you might have a more enjoyable time trying to catch all of the 23s within each scene. I know I did.

Archive: 'Horton Hears A Who!'

Movie Review
Horton Hears a Who! (2008)


Hollywood has done its fair share of botching certain Dr. Seuss classics. With 2000's "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" and 2003's "The Cat in the Hat," a lot was done wrong. Thankfully, though, there's a sense of renewed hope for the revival of Dr. Seuss's magic with "Horton Hears a Who!," a rich and lively adaptation that puts the other two to shame. Maybe the trick was going the animation route, but whatever it is, something has clicked. The makers of "Ice Age" and "Robots" have kept true to the Seuss vision; they are loving and attentive while adding their own contemporary flourishes without ever being too over-the-top. Like the original 1954 children's book and all of Dr. Seuss' work, this big screen translation provides that signature combination of the eccentric and the ethical without sacrificing anything along the way.

One day in the Jungle of Nool, Horton the elephant (Jim Carrey) hears the tiniest noise come from a speck that just happens to be floating along. It just so happens to be the voices of the residents of Whoville, which is an entire universe that exists in that minuscule speck. Horton miraculously gathers the attention of the Mayor of Whoville (Steve Carell) and soon realizes that the entire fate of the Whos is in his hands. And so, running around with a clover flower upon which the speck is perched, Horton becomes determined to find a safe place for all of the inhabitants of Whoville to reside within their world of a speck. Along the way, though, Horton encounters some resistance including the vile Kangaroo (Carol Burnett) who rules the jungle and holds strong to her belief that "if you can't see or hear it, it's not there."

The Mayor of Whoville has a tough time convincing people that there's a huge elephant in the sky talking to him. Even his wife (Amy Poehler) is skeptical, and he also has 96 daughters to worry about and his one son JoJo (Jesse McCartney) who doesn't talk until a surprisingly crucial point. But the Mayor has no reason to worry as Horton is as determined as can be, claiming that "a person's a person, no matter how small." Even when the snooty Kangaro sends an evil vulture named Vlad (Will Arnett) after Horton, he refuses to give up sticking to his motto that "an elephant is faithful 100 percent!" Horton is accompanied by a hyper-active little rodent named Morton (Seth Rogen), along with a whole flock of bouncy, stretchy, and colorful characters that could only be so brightly conveyed through animation. Along with the animals, an entirely vibrant environment is created with a gorgeous and fittingly goofy visual style that comes from veteran Pixar animator Jimmy Hayward.

"Horton Hears a Who!" is absolute frivalous fun that children will love for its cute characters, and even adults won't be checking the time. The entire experience is exuberantly wacky and pure enjoyment that's erratic and charismatic. There are certainly some random lines and scenes that will catch you off guard, including two bizarre homages to 2-D animation including one that looks exactly like Dr. Seuss' illustrations and another that pokes fun at Japanese animation. There are only seldom pop culture references, and they are tastefully placed, especially a bash on Myspace (cleverly renamed "Whospace"). It's during the end scene, though, where all of Whoville makes a whole ton of noise to announce "We are here!" loud enough to escape their city limits, that the movie truly hits a high note.

The voice acting consists of A-list comedians Jim Carrey, Steve Carell, Carol Burnett, and Seth Rogen, and they all carry a ball of energy with their performances. You wouldn't place Jim Carrey as a bumbling and imaginative elephant, but he fits the part wondrously. Steve Carell is also fittingly frantic and frazzled as the Mayor, and both he and Carrey bring their own comic flair to their characters while holding endearingly true and faithful to the good doctor's original intent. And then the whole adventure ends with a jubilant musical number rightfully between Carrey's Horton and Carell's Mayor singing proudly of triumph and friendship. It's fantastic.

Flat Rendition Of A Christmas Classic

Disney's A Christmas Carol


Robert Zemeckis has done this once before. As he did with "The Polar Express," using his photo-realistic, motion-capture animation technique, he has adapted a holiday story for not just the big screen, but the really big screen: IMAX. And this time, 3-D. Much like he proved with the surprisingly adept "Beowulf," Zemeckis certainly knows how to put 3-D to good use. The thing with his "A Christmas Carol," corporately labeled as a Disney production, is that the animation is better, and yes, the 3-D is wondrous. The look of real actors being animated comes off much less creepy here than it did in "The Polar Express," but even so, that was a better film. The issue is that this time Zemeckis is adapting the timeless 1838 story by Charles Dickens. All the trimmings of Victorian yuletide cheer are there, but the emotional feeling of being a classic just isn't.

This is a premise we all know, so it's not worth repeating, but here's a basic outline: Ebenezer Scrooge (Jim Carrey) is a bitter old man whose business partner, Jacob Marley (Gary Oldman), died on Christmas Eve. He therefore hates Christmas, and with his stooped back, drooping skin, and pale eyes, he loathes everything about the holiday. He is visited by the Ghosts of Christmas Past, Present, and Future, all distinct and all teaching Scrooge things about himself he may have never even realized before. Majority of the dialogue throughout the film is directly lifted from the original story, and to that extent this adaptation pays rightful tribute to Dickens. Zemeckis stays true to Dickens' most potent and finest themes, and with such comes a rather dark tone, one that focuses on moral disparity and even death. In this instance the movie can be eerie and even downright scary, which means that this is one definitely not for the youngest kids.

There's no denying that Zemeckis' "A Christmas Carol" is visually splendid with sequences swirling with magic and a rendering of 19th century London that is seamless and gorgeous. And yet it feels like Zemeckis gets a little carried away. This isn't meant to be the Christmas Carol roller coaster ride, and perhaps there simply wasn't enough material to work with. Between all of the exuberantly-designed chase and action sequences, the real narrative, the appearance of each ghost, almost become the backdrop to the thrill-ride. It gets tiring after a while, especially when there is so much to offer with Zemeckis' vision of these ghosts. The Ghost of Christmas Past is exceptional with just a face in a lit candle, whispering and flickering.

Jim Carrey pulls his weight, voicing not only Scrooge but also the three ghosts. Gary Oldman does the voices of Bob Cratchit, Tiny Tim, and Marley. Deep beneath the layers of animation is Carrey playing Scrooge quite well as he does a good job of playing it straight without any flairs or goofiness. The expressions of the CGI characters are now more fully-realized with thanks to technological advancements. Scrooge is no caricature with Carrey giving him the perfect dose of remorse and melancholy.

While Zemeckis works hard to stick with Dickens' sentiments, one must really wonder at the end of viewing "A Christmas Carol" if another adaptation was really necessary. It's a sight to behold and certainly will get viewers promptly in the mood for the holiday season (which perhaps is the primary goal), but the desired emotional level of connection is never reached. The plight of Tiny Tim is there in all of its sadness, but I just didn't find myself in sympathy as much as I felt I should've. Observing Scrooge's personal transformation becomes like viewing it from afar, and the endeavor feels ultimately removed and sadly soulless.