Franz Patrick’s Film Archive

Step Brothers
[ 2 stars out of 4 ]

There were some funny parts in this movie, but there were also parts that dragged on and weren’t as funny as it could have been. The backstory is interesting enough: two guys in their forties acting like a duo of eight-year-olds as they drive their newlywed parents crazy. Even though it’s a bit creepy at times because of their actions that should make one question their psychology, there’s some solid material that pops up once in a while that are laugh-out-loud funny. But more than half of the time, instead of showing us an organic comedy, it all feels too forced. Therefore, it made me wonder if the filmmakers had enough confidence with the material. If they doubt, I don’t buy; and if I don’t buy, why should I be invested in these characters? I like Will Ferrell and John C. Reilly but this film didn’t do them justice. I want to see them in another comedy that’s edgy, one of which the story doesn’t feel forced, but with enough sentimentality that would make me want to care. This one isn’t it. Unfortunately, I have to say skip this one unless one is a die-hard fan of the two lead actors.

Going to Pieces: The Rise and Fall of the Slasher Film
[ 3 stars out of 4 ]

This is a really good documentary about the history of slasher films because it was able to cover so much territory in a span of about ninety-minutes. That said, it failed to reach its full potential for several reasons. First of all, it focused too much on movies from the 1980’s, only quickly glossed over the 1990’s, and barely mentioned the 2000’s. Since this was released in 2006, I expected it to spend equal time discussing each decade because each one is as important as the other. Instead of talking about the special effects of smaller slasher films from the 1980’s, it could’ve analyzed the best slasher pictures such as “Halloween,” “A Nightmare on Elm Street,” and “Scream.” For instance, putting the violence and sexual connotations aside (because it’s been talked about a million times before), they could’ve analyzed about how “Halloween” is more artistic than most horror pictures back then and even today, not just image-wise but also the use of music and suspense, especially with an extremely low budget. They could’ve delved into how “A Nightmare on Elm Street” is very different from typical slasher flicks because it’s able to relate to psychology and Eastern cultures–the role of dreams and internalized emotions in all kinds of society–and how it was able to make the violence aspect secondary. They also could’ve picked apart “Scream”–its post-modern attitude, how it juggled comedy and horror so well, and why it is one of the best horror movies ever made. I was also looking forward to the interviewees talking about the infamous “Hostel” and “Saw” pictures, but they rushed through them in under ten seconds. The movie became so alive when they showed newspaper articles and film critics, such as Siskel and Ebert, disapprove of slasher movies because they often show women being tortured to the point where it’s almost pornographic. In opposition, the documentary showed why the interviewees supported slasher pictures and their claims of such movies serving to empower women. I have my own opinions but it’s nice to see opinions clash because both sides bring up very interesting points–that there’s is no one “correct” side. This could’ve been a two and a half hour documentary and it could have been excellent. Instead, what I saw was a Slasher Movie 101 discussion so, unfortunately, I barely learned anything new.

Leatherheads
[ 3 stars out of 4 ]

I expected to like this movie and I wasn’t disappointed. George Clooney, Renée Zellweger and John Krasinski are all likeable and brought something special to the picture. I don’t know much about football or its history but I was entertained by this picture because it didn’t take itself too seriously. In fact, the sport and its setting are always the background and the characters are always the focus. Although the three leads may not like each other all the time, there’s no definite good or bad guy. Each of them are flawed but we learn to like them because of their quirkiness. I love the scenes between Clooney and Zellweger because they can talk each other off. Both of them exercise their subtle acting which reminds the audience why the two of them are considered great actors. Although Krasinski still reminds me of his role in “The Office,” he more than carried his own here, especially the dramatic scenes which most often involves his character. I think with a bit more experience in other films, he can be an actor that can deliver the charm but still be engulfed in his character. I’m surprised with the number of negative (and lukewarm) reviews of this movie because I found it consistent and funny more than half of the time. Maybe their expectations were too high because of Clooney and Zellweger. I say this film isn’t too shabby at all, but it could’ve been on another level if it had been a little more edgy when it comes to its undertones.