"Water for Elephants" Review

 

My review for the film "Water for Elephants" has been posted on The Oakland Press' website:

http://www.theoaklandpress.com/articles/2011/04/22/entertainment/doc4db18b07c5514726020961.txt

 

"Rio" Review

 My review of "Rio" has been posted on The Oakland Press' website.

http://www.theoaklandpress.com/articles/2011/04/15/entertainment/doc4da85f99b1775157356420.txt?viewmode=fullstory

 

"Scream 4" Review

My review of "Scream 4" has been posted on The Oakland Press' website.

http://www.theoaklandpress.com/articles/2011/04/15/entertainment/doc4da5c980c36ce503673201.txt?viewmode=fullstory
 

Upcoming Movies: My Take.

April 15

Scream 4: 

In 1997, Wes Craven simultaneously parodied and rebuilt the slasher genre that he helped create twenty years earlier. Now fourteen years after the first “Scream” film, he returns with a new sequel; one that is rumored to be the beginning of a new trilogy playing with the possibilities and confines of horror films. What I wonder is how the last fourteen years will affect the franchise. Not only because “Scream” sported two sequels (the first of which held up, the second one: not so much), but because the nature of the horror genre has changed so much during that time. Since “Scream,” audiences have seen “The Blair Witch Project” and its spiritual successor “Paranormal Activity,” films which went the opposite direction from slashers and went for subtlety and mood over gore and violence. Of course the last decade also brought forth the horror sub-genre not-so-lovingly dubbed “torture porn,” films like the “Saw” Franchise and “Hostel,” where violence and gore takes such prevalence, it borders (or crosses into) the realm of perverse pleasure. How will a decade of changes to the genre affect a series that comments on the genre? 

I am dived; on one side I fear that Wes Craven is just trying to lure in audiences by making yet another by-the-numbers sequel in a well-established franchise in order to cash in. The optimist in me hopes that he is returning because he feels as though there is still fun to be had with the “Scream” team. Given that he has been able to cast such up and comers like Emma Roberts and Alison Brie along with the original cast of Neve Campbell, Courtney Cox, and David Arquette, it sounds promising. We will see when it comes out this Friday.

Rio: 

Gone are the times when studios can just put a few talking animals on screen and expect a hit. So the new computer-generated animated feature “Rio” has an uphill battle to win over critics. The G-Rated comedy stars Jesse Eisenberg as a Blu, a Macaw taken to South America to be reunited with the last female of his species Jewell, voiced by Anne Hathaway. There’s been a surprising lack of advertising on this film, a badsign for this kind of kid-flick, but advance critics have given it positive notice. I walk into this film cautiously optimistic. With its colorful pallet and a wide-ranging A-list cast, this animated feature might be able to go the distance… but I’ve been burned before. 

On a personal note, we don’t often see many kids films set in locations known for their rampant poverty. If they’re starting a trend, I would kill to see a Pixar film set in Detroit’s west side. It would certainly be different anyway.

The Conspirator:

Robert Redford directs this real-life drama about Mary Surratt, the lone woman charged as a co-conspirator in the Lincoln assassination following the Civil War. As a history buff, I’m sold on almost any film with a good cast, a good director, a decent script, and a respect for the actual events. This film certainly has a good cast being lead by actors like Robin Wright Penn, James McAvoy, and Tom Wilkinson. The story of Mary Surratt is rife with drama and intrigue. The remaining factors that could make or break the film are the execution of the story and, surprisingly, Redford. While his acting ability is nigh incontrovertible, his history behind the camera is less-so, having directed duds like “The Legend of Bagger Vance” and “Lions for Lambs.” A historical legal drama sounds more like it could fall into his wheel house.

April 22

Water for Elephants:

The highly anticipated adaptation of the Sara Gruen novel, it tells the story of veterinary student Jacob (Robert Pattinson) who falls in love under the big top with a circus’ star performer Marlena (Reese Witherspoon) during The Great Depression. Having never read the book, I’m walking into this film cold, but I have heard nothing but good things. It’s being helmed by Francis Lawrence, who has thus far directed music videos and action films like “Constantine” and “I am Legend.” He sounds like an odd resume for a romance, but this could just be his big break. 

“Water for Elephants” is a film that has the opportunity to be full of emotion, feeling, and hope. It also could be a cheesy, unbelievable melodrama. Still, heading into the summer block-buster season this could be a refreshing blast of cool (non-exploding, super-powered, or transforming) air.

Apollo 18:

The latest in the “previously unreleased footage” sub-genre of horror and suspense along the lines of “Paranormal Activity,” “Apollo 18” is the story of the secret final manned mission to the moon. While we traditionally thought that missions to the moon were no longer funded due to things like high cost, and extreme impracticality, the actual answer, as it turns out, is monsters.

More or less, this is most likely going to be “Paranormal Activity” in space. I’m curious how they plan to have a full film full of surprises and shocks on the moon because it’s, you know, pretty empty. I’m guessing it will probably be good for a few good jumps for horror fans, with some creepy claustrophobic scenes between the film’s two stars, but I doubt scientific accuracy or logic is going to be high on the list of priorities, so you can leave the astronomy book at home.

April 29

Fast Five:

It’s that time of year again. Time for another “The Fast and the Furious” sequel. Watching the trailer, I half expected Vin Diesel to break character and moan that this is the only job he can get now. Fast Five is sure to have at least one or two decent action sequences squeezed between horrible dialogue, sexy chicks in bikinis, and car porn. That and Vin Diesel, Paul Walker, and Dwayne Johnson standing around looking tough.

I don’t expect this movie to try to be anything it’s not; but this is a franchise that used up its reserve of cool about two films ago. Could it surprise us with a fun two hours of action and adventure? Sure, but I’m not expecting much.

Hoodwinked Too! Hood vs. Evil:

Having barely been able to sit through the original “Hoodwinked,” an updated and hipper version of the red-riding hood tale, I don’t look forward to this particular sequel. Anne Hathaway seems to agree, having ditched her role as Red and joined the much better looking “Rio.” How they plan to continue the adventures of Red (now voiced by Hayden Panettiere) and her skydiving granny (voiced by Glenn Close), I don’t know. Since the original was filled with tired jokes and gimmicks used in a plethora of other animated features, I don’t really have any desire to find out.

What are the Michigan Tax Incentives?

While politicians from around Michigan are deciding how to handle the state’s growing budget crisis, one issue has gotten more press than perhaps any other. With the amount of money that could be gained or lost, there is ample reason for this. That issue is the Michigan film incentive program that has been attracting film projects to the state since they were enacted in 2008. Now, with a new governor and an ever-deepening financial crisis, politicians, filmmakers, and economists alike are asking how well these tax credits have worked, and how- or if- they should continue.

At the heart of the matter is Governor Snyder’s proposed cuts and caps to the incentives he presented last month. Snyder says Michigan no longer can afford the incentives, noting that the state faces a 1.4 billion dollar deficit in the upcoming budget year and he has proposed that the program be given a yearly cap of 25 million dollars.

Opponents to the incentives say that these caps and cuts need to be enacted as the credits are costing the state money that it doesn’t have. Indeed, when looking at the figures from a simply tax-in, tax-out basis- measuring how much money the state is collecting in taxes from these new businesses versus how much money is being paid out to those same businesses via the incentives- the state is losing money.

However, those who support the incentives say that this perspective is too narrow and fails to take other factors into account. Namely, the peripheral growth generated by these film projects and film-based companies moving into Michigan. This includes added money to the economy through more people and companies, be they permanent or temporary, spending money within Michigan, new businesses connected to the industry such as film studios or editing companies, getting permanent facilities here, and the creation of additional jobs by these new businesses.

They also cite that there is more peripheral economic growth that has resulted from these incentives. These are the economic boosts that businesses ranging from hotels to grocery stores receive as a result of new high profile ventures, like big-budget films, now taking place in the state.

To be fair, these positive factors can be notoriously difficult to predict and track; and therein lies the conflict at the center of the issue: how much faith are Michigan residents willing to put in this new industry? As those who oppose the incentives will be fast to declare, there are certainly risks in sinking such a large amount of tax-payer money in this new industry; but those who support the film incentives say that the rewards to the economy, the state, and Michigan citizens are more than worth that gamble.

The film incentives work using a different model than most tax incentives for business. Normally these measures refund a set amount of the business taxes paid by a business to the state, for example: the state may refund 25% of the taxes owed to the government. This is obviously done to draw these new industries to the state in the first place by offering a more attractive financial environment than where they currently are. The state, however still generates income from this because it is still collecting new taxes from this new business. Continuing the example, the state would still collect 75% of the taxes owed to them from the company, as opposed to the 0% it would have collected had the business never moved to their state at all.

The film incentives function differently. While most new companies are a set amount of their business tax refunded, film projects that operate in Michigan are given tax cuts up to 42% of their total expenditures within the state. This includes money spent on things ranging from money paid to Michigan workers and businesses to catering costs. This means that the amount refunded by the state can be greater than the tax paid by these film companies.

“That 30%-42% break will be bigger than any tax liabilities that they owe the state,” says Michael Shore, Director of Corporate Communications for the Michigan Economic Development Corporation, a body that provides information such as business tax data and workforce development statistics to the state government. “Far more tax dollars are going to support these film jobs for a real net loss to the state.”

Tom McMillin, State Representative of District 45, agrees with Shore’s arguments, and is fighting to get rid of the incentives completely. “It’s a money loser,” says McMillin. “It’s a job killer in Michigan.” McMillin claims that there are jobs being lost due to tax money being diverted to these incentives from other government projects. He also says that most of the money is not even going into the state economy. “Every time a movie comes here and we have to subsidize 42% of it, it comes out of our pockets and goes out of state.”

Steve Lemberg, CFO of Reliegh Studios in Pontiac, a business that was made possible and helped by the incentives, says that this is patently untrue. “It creates all sorts of jobs for all sorts of different kinds of skills; people who are camera operators, electricians, people who are building sets. It creates a lot of jobs… the incentives were designed to help people in Michigan.”

A major point of contention between the two sides is a study on the film incentives performed by accounting and economics firm Ernst &Young. The study shows that for every dollar spent by the state on the incentives, six dollars of economic activity are generated. Proponents of the incentives have pointed to this study as proof that the incentives are working. Opponents like McMillin say that the study’s methodology is flawed. On a purely tax-in, tax-out basis the state is only generating 28 cents for every dollar spent resulting in a loss, according to Shore.

Jeffrey Spilman, who is Managing Partner of The S3 Entertainment Group, a production company and liaison for Michigan film projects, says that this reasoning is ridiculous. Economic activity that is made possible by the incentives, such as generated jobs and additional money being circulated through the Michigan economy, must also be taken into account. “No incentive of any kind is judged on a tax-in, tax-out basis. We measure incentives on job creation and economic development. You have to look at the whole picture.”

“As more businesses benefit from business incentives,” says Lemberg, “the more economic development is generated, and as more is generated there is more and more tax revenue- income tax, sales tax, business tax- is created.”

Film incentives like Michigan’s have been studied all over the country because more than forty other states have similar programs. Spilman says that these studies all back up those done by Ernst and Young so their methodology that they used has been proven as accurate. “The fact of the matter is that Ernst and Young is one of the most well respected accounting firms in the country. Many government bodies throughout the country hire them to do their audits. That’s why they were chosen to do this study.”

Shore thinks that the incentives plan makes sense if industries grow over time and the subsidies are gradually reduced. Spilman agrees, but while Shore says that the governor’s plan will still allow for growth to continue, Spilman believes these cuts and caps will kill the emerging industry. “The plan was always to build infrastructure here, to create jobs to grow the economy and then slowly bring the incentives down to a level that was more competitive with other states… [The Governor’s plan] isn’t a scale-back at all; it’s eliminating the industry for all intensive purposes.”

Lemberg basked up this assessment: “This was not designed to happen overnight, this was designed to happen over a period of time. It was signed into law by former Governor Granholm and it’s taking time to evolve.”

Spilman says that the plan for the incentives has always been to reduce the incentives slowly over time. “If we were to scale back a few percentage points at this point, that would probably be appropriate because we’ve developed an industry base in the last three years… but you don’t just pull the rug out from under an industry. That will just put more people out of a job.”

Rick Hert is the head of The West Michigan Film Office and has been an economic developer for the last thirty years. He understands that there is trepidation on the subject and says that there should be; but he maintains that the incentives have ultimately put Michigan on the path to economic recovery. “[The cuts and caps are] a bad idea in that it’s a burgeoning industry that we’ve got going in Michigan and it’s an opportunity to grow more jobs. My problem with [these cutbacks] is that we’ve never given it a chance to get off the ground… The whole idea was ‘let’s pass film incentives, let’s build a film industry’ which we’ve done. The next phase is to have the infrastructure to support that. We’re on the precipice of that next phase but we need these film incentives to continue. Capping it doesn’t give us that opportunity.”

According to Spilman, when you run out of workers, outside businesses stop coming, thus preventing the incentives from paying out what he sees as too much spending. “There has always been a sort of natural cap to the incentives by way of the application process and the crew base here in Michigan. As we run out of Michigan crew, additional films wouldn’t locate here because they would have to pay to bring in additional crew members… and the tax incentives only cover hiring Michigan people anyway.”

Spilman fears that the proposals to cut and cap the incentives are already scaring away films and preventing further growth of jobs and infrastructure. He essentially sees that those who are saying that the incentives are not working are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. Their claims that the incentives are ineffective are, in his opinion, making the incentives less effective. In the weeks since Governor Snyder proposed the cuts and caps several films have already decided to film elsewhere including the big-budget blockbuster “The Avengers.”

Supporters of the incentives have generally categorized the credits as a spend-money-to-make-money venture. Looking at the issue from that perspective, and taking into account what is at stake, it is easy to see why there are doubts; but supporters like Lemberg say that the best evidence for the success of the incentives is right in plain sight: “I’d like to invite [doubters]to Reliegh-Michigan Studios. I want them to see what we have done here and talk to some of the people who have been working to build this facility, and talk to the people working here on the projects that are going on and know what it really means to them and see the jobs that have been created.”

"Your Highness" Review

My review of the film "Your Highness" (opening this weekend) can be found on the web site of The Oakland Press.

http://theoaklandpress.com/articles/2011/04/08/entertainment/doc4d9f1625324e1602978035.txt?viewmode=fullstory

"Hop" Review

2.1/5.0 Stars

While watching the new film “Hop” I could practically hear a studio executive saying that they wanted a movie to get some families into the theaters during the Easter season. What is the result? About what you would expect: a less than terrible, but overall forgettable two hours. It tells the story of E.B., the new Easter Bunny (voiced by Russell Brand). E.B. is destined to take over the family businesses from his father, but all he wants to do is drum.  It is then that he runs off and befriends a struggling slacker (James Marsden) from Hollywood and the comedic hijinks ensue.

At least that’s what’s supposed to happen.

The problems with “Hop” are pretty evident right off the bat. It’s a familiar story that audiences have heard many times before, usually in the form of a Christmas holiday movie. At times the movie even feels like it was rewritten from a script meant for a Christmas film. In this world the Easter Bunny lives on Easter Island instead of the North Pole, drives a sleigh pulled by chicks instead of reindeer, and works year round in a candy factory instead of a toy shop. 

“Hop” is a paint-by-numbers movie with enough gags to entertain young children, but with nothing really new to say. For those in the proper age group, “Hop” will probably work. The movie is rife with jokes about animals defecating jellybeans, men being attacked by dogs, and unbearably cute rabbits. 

If “Hop” had been kept as a kids-only spectacle, its flaws like unbearable simplicity, familiarity, and a lack of logic and focus, could be forgiven. Yet the film tries desperately to be hip, and inserts jokes intended for older audiences that ultimately fall flat. When David Hasselhoff appears in an extended cameo, how many five-year-olds will know who he is, much-less understand a Knightrider reference?

Not that there is anything wrong with a kids movie with some jokes added for adults. Films aimed at kids have been doing that with regularity since the first “Shrek” film. Last year Illumination Entertainment, who made “Hop,” had their own success using that formula with the well-rounded “Despicable Me.” But what made “Despicable Me” work was a strong sense of originality and fun where everything about “Hop” seems manufactured and contrived.

There could have been more to “Hop;” the animation is well done and the voice actors bring some life to their roles, but the live action portions coupled with a chronic lack of creativity and a poorly constructed script keep the movie mired, meandering, and staggeringly predictable.