Evan All-terrible

By Aaron 7/2/2007

I’ve been able to put off my review of this movie for so long because no one else that writes for us has been stupid enough to see this movie. I can confidently say Evan Almighty was one of, if not THE, worst movie I have ever seen. As a “comedy” it takes the cake for THE worst. I think I laughed once, maybe twice. The only mildly funny thing was the credits, and that was too little too late.

 
The movie follows Evan (Steve Carell), the semi-“villain” from Bruce Almighty, who has somehow become nicer and kinder, and managed to win election to the House of Representatives. Once there he immediately gets an offer from a powerful mover and shaker (an “okay” performance by John Goodman). I’ll skip over the cliché complaints about how it makes no sense for an established congressman to offer an amateur, green congressman co-authorship of his favorite project. With a revolutionary campaign slogan of “make a difference” or something equally lame (I can’t remember, I was struggling to stay awake at this point), Evan decides making a difference in people’s lives means plowing under the national forests. He’s not really even tricked into this, it’s pretty clear all the way through that the bill’s purpose is to cut down trees. Clearly, this is the difference Evan was elected to herald. That’s as much summary as I can stomach, so I’ll go back to savagely beating down on the movie.

 
The whole movie was such a disappointment. Steve Carell was funnier in the first movie, when he had about seven minutes of screen time than now when he NEVER leaves the screen. In fact, Carell was downright ANNOYING in this movie. What made Bruce Almighty work was that it was a perfect role for Carrey – he tries to play G-d in ALL his movies. This movie fails because Noah is just not as funny as having G-dlike abilities. So you need to build an ark, big deal.

 
That leads me to why the movie itself sucked (as opposed to just Steve Carrell sucking). The movie replaces the witty, sharp, smart-ass comedy of Bruce Almighty with family friendly, sub-Dr. Dolittle humor. Let me be crystal clear – we’re not even talking the “ha ha ha” Dr. Dolittle comedy, we’re talking the absolute, dead silence, Dr. Dolittle 3 comedy. Basically, lots of unrealistic animals converging on our protagonist while he tries to conceal his affinity for animals from his family who will surely be put off by his new “skills”.  What makes it worse is the comedy’s over reliance on weak physical humor, most of which you see in the preview that is just NOT funny. I already wrote an article about how the preview for this movie ruined it (in case you haven’t noticed, I’m still really bitter I got dragged to see this movie), but the movie doesn’t really do much beyond what you see in the preview.

 
What also annoyed me about this movie was its identity crisis. The movie couldn’t quite decide to try to capture it’s predecessor’s teenage (now young adult) audience or the cash cow of Dr. Doolittle’s kiddie audience. The result is a movie that doesn’t capture either audience. This movie, rated PG, seemed like a rushed attempt, with scenes that didn’t quite make the PG13 Bruce Almighty. We’re constantly force fed the same routine animal scenes and the “feel good” family scenes. Hell, the movie couldn’t even choose which theme it wanted to focus on, the protection of nature, or the nurturing of love – two powerful themes wasted in a crappy movie that I won’t even acknowledge as coming close executing those themes.

 
Also, there’s way too much Deus ex machina. YES, I know Morgan Freeman is literally G-d, but the movie doesn’t even try to do things on its own. In Bruce Almighty, Carrey had to learn that it wasn’t easy being G-d, and that you can’t just take what you want, that you should always be yourself. Here, Steve Carell is saved from making any serious decisions because Morgan Freeman makes him turn into a carbon copy of Noah. Instead of discovering Goodman’s evil plot, Freeman just shows it to Carell. Instead of winning back the woman he loves, Freeman does it for him. I would apologize for just “ruining” those two plotlines, but really, there is zero tension, and you know how these problems will resolve themselves almost before they are even presented.

I want to conclude with a few last thoughts; although I’ve probably left out several reasons I hated this movie. My question is, why was this movie even made? What was Morgan Freeman thinking? Why was Steve Carell sleepwalking through this thing? All questions I don’t have an answer for. So please, please, please, do NOT see this movie. Do not try to rent this movie, do not watch it when it is on TV, just avoid this movie that I award zero salty stix (if I could give negative salty stix, I would totally do that here).

Could “Avatar” Win Best Picture?

By Brett Hogan

 

Last week, the trailer for James Cameron’s sci-fi experiment “Avatar” debuted. While initially unimpressed with the teaser, I began to wonder: Could this film win best picture? 

 

Buzz has been generating for this movie for years. Years. The technology to make this movie didn’t exist when Cameron conceived it, so he invented it. When is the last time you heard of a director spearheading the invention of anything? The casting started in 2005. Most movies these days, even epics, are done in half that time. I could go on. 

 

The most important thing to take away from all of this is that people are saying this will be the future of movies. Now, I don’t agree with the idea that CGI will become more prevalent than it already is. But I do believe that this will set the bar miles higher for sci-fi. I mean, that is what Titanic did. And that won some awards if memory serves.

 

I’ll bet you’re asking yourself, how can you even suggest that a film like this will win Best Picture when the initial trailer was nothing better than visual stimulation? Well, there are a couple of reasons. First, the Academy has expanded Best Picture to ten films. This doesn’t guarantee anything other than improved chances for most films on the cusp.

 

Second, after last year’s Oscars debacle, which saw the best film of the year, “The Dark Knight,” not only get shafted in awards but nominations as well, the Academy is pulling out all the stops to appease those with the loudest voices in the film industry, the fanboys. Now, the Academy probably didn’t lose anything because of that other than some viewers of the award show. Perhaps if people are again outraged with the winners or nominees, the heads of the Academy would lose their jobs. So this is all about the Academy protecting itself, which is not so outrageous.  

 

 

Third, there is an economic motive here. I’ve heard this film will cost $190 million, not counting the R&D costs associated with Cameron’s inventions or the cost of getting 3-D cameras into every theater in the country. The Academy will do everything in its power to get people into the seats and make this the next “Titanic” or “The Dark Knight.” But the Academy doesn’t have much power, besides nominating and awarding, so they will slap the “Nominated for Best Picture” moniker onto every commercial and print ad to get the people who didn’t believe the critics to relent and see this movie.

 

Of course, all of this is pure conjecture, and no revolutionary film (Terminator 2, Jurassic Park, etc.) has ever won the Best Picture category because it changed the game. Except maybe Titanic. But still, could this movie actually win? My answer is no but a nomination is certain and who knows what could happen from there. We’ll know more come February 2010.