The parody film is rarely necessary and the results almost never approach biting or witty satire. But there is obviously an audience for it somewhere. There must be. Otherwise they wouldn’t keep making those genre spoof films and Carmen Electra and all those celebrity impressionists would be out of work. In that way, the Schuermanns were ahead of their time. Their “double feature” DVD release actually contains four films, each with mercifully shorter running times.

2009
Rated G
92 minutes
ATOZ Films

*

Hick Trek: The Moovie (1999)

One year before the first “Scary Movie” was released, “Hick Trek” found its way onto tape. This slapdash mess of a Sci-Fi send-up utilizes cowboy pun naming conventions and redneck jokes in a completely ludicrous plot involving cats that want to destroy the universe. Captain Slim T. Jerk must battle the threat alongside Mr. Schlock, Horns McBoy and Sueyou. It’s as if Mad Magazine penned an extra long episode of “Hee-Haw.” Granted, the hick theme does lend itself to the low-budget props and shoddy effects. It would almost be cute if they were teenagers making a movie in their garage. But adults should know better. Still, I have to give them credit for one thing: The Trekkie references are slightly less on-the-nose than those in the J.J. Abrahms version.

Star Warp’d (2002)

After learning After Effects and stop motion animation, the Schuermanns returned with an ever-so-slightly less painful Sci-Fi spoof based in the Star Wars universe. They sling three painful episodes at us in rapid succession and then dangle the threat of a fourth over us so that we will never feel completely safe again. In Episode I, “The Fandom Menace,” the conceit is that a tear in the universe allows a mashup of iconic Sci-Fi characters to battle over something-or-other. The two main opposing forces are, of course, punny versions of Star Trek and Star Wars characters. Specifically, Dark Vapor (yeah, it’s a fart joke) vs. Captain Kwirk and Mr. Spuck. They do a good job with the near-score (making a copyright-free ripoff of John Williams’ classic strains) and the animation is decent for the caliber of filmmaking. But beyond that, it’s just as painful as their inaugural outing. 2001, X-files. E.T., Terminator, Predator and Robocop are all name-checked for no real reason other than they could be made out of clay. The result feels like a much less sophisticated precursor to Robot Chicken.

In Episode II: The Good, the Bad and the Ewoquies, the madness continues as Kwirk and Spuck must save the titular furballs from genocide. Episode III: Veni, Vidi, Vapor (I Came, I Saw, I Farted…Yes, the translation is part of the title…SIGH.) brings in a superfluous “Matrix” parody.

What really blows my mind here is that stop motion animation is not exactly easy to crank out. It’s a painstaking and lengthy process. That means the filmmakers had plenty of time to mull over each of their inane gags and they still decided to go with through with it. Fans of Mel Brooks’ more juvenile jokes and people with a lifetime subscription to “Cracked” may find something to love here. The rest of you should watch Robot Chicken’s Star Wars specials and continue to live in blissful ignorance of “Star Warp’d.”

Originally posted on FilmThreat.com (now defunct).

August 17, 2009
Categories: Filmpinions . Tags: filmthreat . Author: Baxter . Comments: Leave a comment

2008
Un-rated
58 minutes
Dime Western Productions

***

Catalina High School in Tuscon, Arizona wasn’t that much different than any other American high school in the 90’s. That’s what makes the true story of the Lady Trojans so universal. Anna Hesik was one of several lesbians on her basketball team who became involved in a complex web of love, sex, backstabbing, and rejection. This sort of drama is pretty typical of any group of teenagers. And “Lady Trojans,” which screened at this year’s QFest in Philadelphia, does a terrific job of showing how growing up gay isn’t much different from just plain growing up.

The story follows director Elizabeth Hesik’s sister, Anna, as she joins the basketball team, discovers her sexuality, and falls in love with a bit of a lothario named Quinn. However, “Lady Trojans” is not about basketball. The sport takes a backseat to relationships and sex both in the film and in the lives of the girls it portrays. Hesik uses home movies, interviews, and re-enactments to place the viewer right into the heart of the drama. At times it feels almost uncomfortably voyeuristic, as the girls apparently lived in front of their camcorder shooting slumber parties and choreographed dance routines. Regardless of your sexual orientation, it’s impossible not to recall your own mortifying memories while watching Anna reading some of the love poetry she wrote to exorcise her romantic demons.

The outfits, hair, and music exacerbate the cringe-worthiness, and serve to Delorean us straight back to the 90’s. Big shorts, big hair, and sports bras are the dominant garb of choice. Quinn dons a particularly impressive hi-top hairdo that would give Kid a run for his money. Anna’s Belinda-Carlisle-looking former best friend (who is not a lesbian) has the most embarrassing hair of all, which she admits was inspired by TV heartthrob Kirk Cameron.

The only real problem with the film is the re-enactments, which are based on Anna’s fictionalized account of events (the film is based on her short story). Shot in a blown-out, “Unsolved Mysteries” style, they play out like a bad episode of “Degrassi,” and that means bad. While they do help to change up the storytelling and fill in narrative blanks, the stiffness of the acting and over-expository dialog detracts from an otherwise raw and candid film.

By and large, however, “Lady Trojans” is a realistic and empathetic portrayal of teenagers attempting to figure out who they are. It’s also really refreshing to see a coming-of-gay tale that doesn’t result in violence and death.

Originally posted on FilmThreat.com (now defunct).

August 5, 2009
Categories: Filmpinions . Tags: filmthreat . Author: Baxter . Comments: Leave a comment

Most times, when an entertainer announces their retirement, they really mean, “Press please. PS: I am already planning my comeback.” But Dave Chappelle was never anything but sincere. So, unfortunately, after he revealed that he wouldn’t be returning to “Chappelle’s Show” and needed a break from the business of show, he all but disappeared.

Sure, he’s since popped up in a few places, namely “Inside the Actor’s Studio”. Unlike many guests who speak pretentiously of “the craft” and bask in James Lipton’s sycophantic line of questioning, Chappelle was completely himself. That is to say he was honest, open, humble and naturally hilarious. He spoke candidly about why he bailed. He was not made for corporate whoredom. He feared he was losing touch with the original intentions of the show. “The hardest thing to do is to be true to yourself,” he lamented. “Especially when everybody is watching.”

About why he bailed to Africa, he explained, “Coming here I don’t have the distractions of fame. It quiets the ego down. I’m interested in the kind of person I’ve got to become. I want to be well rounded and the industry is a place of extremes. I want to be well balanced. I’ve got to check my intentions, man.”

How many famous entertainers are that introspective? Not fucking many.

On “Actor’s Studio”, he also talks about the money. He’d already made buckets of dough for “Chappelle’s Show” when the studio offered him a $55 million contract to continue cranking out the hits. That’s a lot of money. It may not sound like it in the context of television and film because we’re so used to enormous budgets and ridiculous salary wars. The rich and famous convince themselves they deserve it. But what the hell would the average, one-car, one-mortgage American do with that kind of cheddar? You could buy fancy toys, expensive dinners and completely lose touch with reality. Or you could cut out and recognize that you have an opportunity to do something that will help others and make them feel good. And that’s what Dave Chappelle did.

He’s not the first guy to use his money to help people. But he’s certainly one of the only famous people to do so without all the self-congratulatory smugness of, say, Bono.

I was really depressed the day I saw “Dave Chappelle’s Block Party”. I’d just been through a breakup and a career setback and was feeling pretty lost myself. But I cried tears of joy whilst watching that film. I left that theater completely uplifted. The premise is simple: Chappelle uses his own money and connections to throw the block party of a lifetime in a small Brooklyn neighborhood. He pads the bill with Kanye West, Mos Def, Erykah Badu, the Roots, and even manages to reunite the Fugees. Many of these acts are known for their egos. You could easily pay $100 to see any of them individually, but somehow, through his charisma and general goodness, Chappelle convinces them to perform for free.

Whilst preparing for the block party, Chappelle wanders around the small Ohio town where he lives, talking to the locals and inviting them to the show. He invites folks from all walks of life, from the old man who runs the menswear shop to the Ohio State University marching band. He also offers to pay for their transportation to the show. The result is an incredible melting pot of people celebrating life and music together. It’s not about money and it’s certainly not about fame and status. It’s just a big-assed party. It’s the closest anyone has ever come to recreating Woodstock (and not that corporate-branded bullshit from 1994, either). One day of peace and music.

This is why we need Dave Chappelle. There are those that don’t fully comprehend his significance. His recurring characters became clichés. The frat boys shouting, “I’m Rick James, bitch,” certainly contributed to his brief meltdown. But his comedy turned the mirror on American culture in a very accessible way. He poured a little sugar on those moral Cheerios. He was making Hollywood a better place. And then he left us.

I understand that he needed to get back in touch with himself. I’m glad he got out before he went crazy or lost sight of his goals. But I really hope he doesn’t stay away long.

Maybe if we all clap our hands and believe, we can bring Dave Chappelle back.

August 4, 2009
Categories: Filmpinions . Tags: filmthreat . Author: Baxter . Comments: 2 Comments

2000
Un-rated
83 minutes
Criterion Collection

***

Near the end of his life, the legendary Ingmar Bergman granted documentarian Marie Nyreröd several interviews from his home on Faro Island. He lived there in a sort of self-imposed exile. Indeed, there was much in his life that he needed to do penance for. He abandoned one of his wives (he had five total) and children and was arrested for tax evasion in 1976, which caused him to leave Sweden and live in Germany for a time. But it’s not so much his guilt that returned him to isolation on Faro Island, as it was the fact that he had nowhere else to go. He stuck to a ridged, almost prison-like schedule and seemed to be merely passing the time.

“Bergman Island,” completed in 2006 and now available from the Criterion Collection, is a wonderful treat for the Bergman super fan. Bergman reveals much about his inspiration. He speaks in-depth of his personal life, citing specific moments in his films as being completely autobiographical. For the uninitiated, it may be less compelling. It’s not very well organized, and occasionally recalls Grandpa’s rambling stories at Christmas. You know there are important bits in there, but it’s hard not to get impatient waiting for him to get to the point. These moments are especially potent during scenes in which he is wandering around his house, showing Nyreröd his belongings.

Additionally, for a man with so much drama in his life, the documentary itself isn’t very dramatic. This is due, in part, to the uninspired editing, likely resulting from the fact that the documentary was condensed from three hour-long television episodes. But Nyreröd’s passiveness throughout the interviews is also to blame. She occasionally asks follow-up questions, but only to keep him talking. She spends a good deal of time giggling. It’s clear she’s a fan and is unwilling to ask anything difficult, for fear of seeming disrespectful. It feels like there is a missed opportunity in her reverence.

Regardless of its flaws, a cineaste will certainly be pleased with “Bergman Island” Despite what it could have been, it is still a comprehensive look into one of the most revered filmmakers of all time.

Originally posted on FilmThreat.com (now defunct).

August 4, 2009
Categories: Filmpinions . Tags: filmthreat . Author: Baxter . Comments: Leave a comment

2009
Rated R
123 minutes
Dark Castle Entertainment

***

From Rhoda in “The Bad Seed” to Damien in the “Omen,” children have been some of the best villains. It’s partly due to the collective anxiety about parenting, but mostly it’s the idea that something so seemingly innocent and untainted as a child can hide evil intentions. We know adults tend to have agendas. But we have to take children at face value because if we don’t, it makes us assholes.

Kate (Vera Farmiga, in her second Evil Child film) and John Coleman (the rather terrific Peter Sarsgaard) already have two kids, but they still feel an ocean of emptiness after their third spawning attempt is stillborn. Their issues are exacerbated by affairs and Kate’s history of alcohol abuse, which led to their daughter’s deafness. Kate and John decide that the only way to repair this rift is to adopt and transfer the love they felt for their dead child to a live one. This is a poor reason for adoption, but it certainly doesn’t help when the one you pick turns out to be hella evil.

Esther (Isabelle Fuhrman, the goth Dakota Fanning) is a precocious orphan with a sinister Russian accent and a penchant for vintage dresses. The Colemans ignore all the warning signs, like knowing glances from nuns and the mysterious death of Esther’s former adopted parents, and decide that this little loner is the perfect Band-Aid for their family.

Though Esther always seems to be present when tragedy strikes, she is also a master manipulator. So when Kate begins to suspect their new prodigy of nefarious deeds, no one, least of all her husband, believes her. This all plays very well into Esther’s clandestine plan. And watching it unravel is great fun.

Kate is on her own to find out the truth about Esther’s origins before it’s too late. Meanwhile, Esther wreaks all kinds of awesome havoc whilst delivering badass one-liners with cold Russian inflection. The Coleman’s youngest, their deaf daughter Maxine (Aryana Engineer), also pulls off a marvelous, entirely wordless performance with wide, expressive eyes.

“Orphan” does employ a few horror clichés such as therapy exposition, cheap scares, and a hilarious Google search montage. And once the twist is revealed, the ending does drag on a bit. But, for the most part, Esther is an entertaining and solid addition to the Evil Child canon. There may be something wrong with Esther, but there’s nothing terribly wrong with “Orphan.”

Originally posted on FilmThreat.com.

July 24, 2009
Categories: Filmpinions . Tags: filmthreat . Author: Baxter . Comments: Leave a comment

2009
Un-rated
83 minutes
Loisiada Productions

***

“My Normal” is the story of an NYC dominatrix named Natalie who enjoys her saucy day job, but is looking for a little more out of life. Namely: a girlfriend and a film career. When she seemingly gets everything she wants, she similtaneously experiences the pain of the old adage, “Be careful what you wish for.”

The film starts out like a porno, with Natalie and her colleagues engaged in a high-school disciplinarian role-play with one of their clients. And it’s not just the premise that’s blue. It’s the acting. Lead actress Nicole LaLiberte proves her versatility once her character is no longer in an adult setting. Her co-stars, on the other hand, never stop acting vaguely porny, even when their scene has nothing to do with sex. Luckily, they’re not around much. Once it’s apparent that they are merely supporting characters, the viewer can stop being distracted by inappropriately sexy line readings and start focusing on the plot at hand.

And the plot is fairly entertaining. Natalie is optimistic after scoring a new, sexy girlfriend named Jazz (who, much to my amusement, lives up to her name by dressing like an extra from “The Fresh Prince of Bell Air”). Unfortunately, Jazz can’t handle Natalie’s job spanking blue-collar men and pressures her to find a new career path ASAP. It just so happens that Natalie’s pot dealer, with whom she has also been working on an autobiographical film script, knows a guy in “the industry.” So Nat agrees to take a job as a P.A. in an attempt to make her girl happy. Can Natalie really change or will her need for control sabotage her new job and her relationship?

The film does have some funny moments, and I’m always endeared to films in which the characters lead perfectly productive lives whilst smoking fat blunts. The dialogue isn’t particularly inspired, but it steers clear of annoying clichés for the most part (not including a tired conspiracy theory monologue by the pot dealer). Also, Natalie’s P.A. montage is a little silly…Human Craft Services Table is not a real job. But apart from that, the acting is (mostly) decent, the story engaging, the cinematography interesting and there’s a sexy girl-on-girl scene to boot. It certainly doesn’t hurt that all of the lesbians are of the lipstick variety.

Originally posted on FilmThreat.com (now defunct).

July 20, 2009
Categories: Filmpinions . Tags: filmthreat . Author: Baxter . Comments: Leave a comment

2009
Un-rated
66 minutes
Creek Park Pictures

**

Time was the American Dream meant simply holding down a steady job that put food on the table. Today, that’s just not enough for people. No one wants to put in 40 years working for the Man. We just want to get rich quick, buy the yacht and golf club membership, and retire early. That’s why we live in the era of the scam. It’s not just the ones shaped like a pyramid either. We also have Nigerian email scams, stolen identities, and Ponzi Schemes. Basically, if it’s too good to be true, it probably is. And that is the premise of “Change Your Life.”

Shot in the popular mockumentary style, “Change Your Life” documents several gullible Americans who become apostles of a self-help guru named Simon Martinez. He wears gold chains, speaks in rhyming clichés, and tells his disciples that they can earn $3000 more per month if only they follow his simple, 35-step program. Of course, it’s all a grift, designed so that the only person who can actually make money is Martinez himself.

The film makes no secret of the fact that everyone is being taken for a ride. It constantly makes fun of the cult of self-help culture and the very American desire to make as much money as possible by working as little as possible. These are certainly very compelling and significant themes. But there’s one problem. “Change Your Life” isn’t very funny. The jokes are incredibly PG and on-the-nose. Furthermore, the Christopher Guest style is tired and outdated, especially from people who aren’t Christopher Guest.

OK, so there are several problems. Besides that of Martinez, the characters are terrible. I get that they’re attempting to portray average Americans with no-self confidence and soft morals. But having them be so unlikable makes it seem like the victims of these scams deserve what they get. Sure, at this point, we should all be aware of the tried-and-true methods of parting people from their money. But the real villains are creating new spins on the old tricks all the time. Thanks to Amway, most of us know how to identify a Pyramid Scheme, but a Ponzi Scheme wasn’t in the common lexicon until Bernie Madoff. They made an example of him, but that isn’t going to stop people like him from adapting their methods and trying again.

The film’s saving grace (no pun intended) comes from a very astute parallel between self-help culture and organized religion. At one point, there occurs a standoff between our scheming protagonists, a pair of Mormons, and an Evangelical couple who are all trying to be the first ones to ring a doorbell. These parallels arise again when Martinez mentions that Jesus was the first self-made man, going from a poor carpenter to a man with billions of followers.

With better character development and a less hackneyed narrative structure, “Change Your Life” could have been a poignant criticism of the modern American Dream. Instead, much like the characters who fall for Martinez’s lip service, it’s kind of a pathetic loser.

Originally posted on FilmThreat.com (now defunct).

July 11, 2009
Categories: Filmpinions . Tags: filmthreat . Author: Baxter . Comments: Leave a comment

2009
Rated R
130 minutes
Summit Entertainment

***

I was really excited for “The Hurt Locker” because I’m a huge fan of one of director Kathryn Bigelow’s early films. Maybe you’ve heard of it. It’s about an FBI agent who learns to surf so that he can infiltrate a gang of moondoggies who also happen to be bank robbers. Do you know the film I mean? It stars the guy from “The Matrix” and the guy from “Dirty Dancing” and it’s amazingly awesome.

I wanted so badly for “The Hurt Locker” to have the same energy as “Point Break.” But it just…didn’t have it. Well, it was on a certain level. Like “Point Break,” it’s about an out-of-control adrenaline junkie and features some pretty outlandish dialog. Yet the script just isn’t as serious as the subject matter. Plus, it’s about a war that is still going on, which is kind of a sore subject.

“War is a drug,” so says the opening statement. What follows is a film about a bomb squad in Baghdad called Bravo Company who only has 38 days left in its yearlong tour. Consequently, they aren’t pleased when their leader (Guy Pierce) dies during a routine mission and is replaced by a loose cannon named William James (Jeremy Renner). The dude has two first names so he’s obviously not into “rules.”

On his first day, he marches headlong into a bomb-ridden area without using the scout robot first. It ends with him in a standoff with a shady cab driver. “He’s reckless,” observes his astute colleague. On his second day, he takes off his protective gear because he’s hot, declaring “If I’m gonna die, I might as well be comfortable.” “He’s a wild man,” observes his colleague astutely. Are you beginning to get the impression that Sgt. Bill Jim is a bit on the rash side? You would be correct. At some point someone actually states, “I’m too old for this shit.” Needless to say, it’s a little on-the-nose.

Granted, absurd dialog can be pretty entertaining. But here’s the trouble with “The Hurt Locker”: the violence doesn’t match the lines. Horrible things happen to old men and kids. Because the movie takes place in present-day Iraq, you can’t help but think about the reality of the violence. Again, a realistic war story can also be great cinema. But the language doesn’t marry well with the violence. It makes for a pretty schizophrenic film-going experience.

I don’t know if we’re supposed to like Sgt. Jim, but he’s certainly no everyman. He keeps mementos from each of the bombs he’s dismantled in a box full of “things that almost killed [him].” It also contains his wedding ring. He has a son at home, but he doesn’t seem to care too much about the boy growing up without a father. For fun, he gets drunk and punches people. He does show some affection for a local boy who calls himself Beckham. But it’s not enough to endear him to me or to help make sense of why the hell we are over there in the first place. Sgt. Jim thinks that war is easy and that real life is the hard part. That is pretty fucked up.

In short, “The Hurt Locker” is a modern war movie that doesn’t exactly glorify war, but doesn’t vilify it either. The film’s thesis is that some people are meant for war. I find that notion unsettling. What can I say? I like my war movies strictly anti. I also really like the musical “Hair!”

Originally posted on FilmThreat.com (now defunct).

June 30, 2009
Categories: Filmpinions . Tags: filmthreat . Author: Baxter . Comments: Leave a comment

2009 SEATTLE INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL FEATURE!
Rated PG-13
95 minutes
Olympus Pictures

**

I first became aware of Aspergers, a high functioning form of autism, when a contestant on America’s Next Top Model announced she was suffering from it. It was pretty fascinating watching a lanky, pale, and extremely awkward girl attempt to navigate the ridiculous “challenges” that Tyra threw at her and to try and fit in with the other girls. She blamed her Aspergers for nearly every failure, explaining that it hindered her from understanding normal social interaction. Of course, the conditions of ANTM are hardly “normal.”

I longed to see what it was like for an Aspergers sufferer in a more realistic setting. That why I was really excited to see “Adam,” a film about a young man with Aspergers who falls in love with his neighbor. I don’t know what I was thinking.

I find nearly every film about mentally challenged characters excruciating to watch. I’m embarrassed for the actors in their Oscar Bait roles. I’m embarrassed for everyone in the theatre laughing and awing at the “retards say the darndest things” moments. And I’m embarrassed for myself for choosing to spend 90 or so minutes with these people. None of these movies ever come close to accurately depicting what it’s like to live with mental challenges.

While it’s not quite “The Other Sister,” “Adam” is no exception. People with Aspergers can’t comprehend sarcasm, jokes, or behavioral nuances. Adam takes everything literally, which of course results in numerous instances of wacky misunderstanding, dramatic outbursts, and people learning shit about each other and themselves.

When Beth moves into Adam’s New York apartment building, she is immediately drawn to him because he’s cute, like an Aspercrombie and Fitch model. Having just been dumped, Beth is vulnerable and desperate and, mistaking his condition for eccentricity, makes her interest known. He is likewise quite lonely, having just lost his father. They embark on an unlikely courtship involving makeshift planetariums and midnight raccoon watching in Central Park.

Challenges arise when Adam loses his job as an Electronics Engineer and Beth’s father (Peter Gallagher and his delightful eyebrows) is criminally charged with corporate nepotism. Beth must teach Adam how to interview for a new job and come to terms with her father’s potential guilt. She must also deal with her father’s (perfectly natural) disapproval of her relationship with Adam.

The drama is balanced with comic relief from the aforementioned misunderstandings, as well as Adam’s interaction with his obligatory friend of normal intelligence, a sassy construction worker. The parallels were already quite apparent, but I knew I completely hated this movie when writer/director Max Mayer directly references the most insulting of the half-retard movies. Beth offers Adam some chocolate and he refuses, saying, “I’m not Forrest Gump.” This groaner is delivered in such a smug manner that I wouldn’t be surprised if they had based the entire script around that line. If you trade stars for shrimp, “Adam” is actually pretty close to Gump. And that’s why the Hallmark crowd will eat it up. But as for me, I’m not buying it.

Originally posted on FilmThreat.com (now defunct).

June 23, 2009
Categories: Filmpinions . Tags: filmthreat . Author: Baxter . Comments: Leave a comment

2009 SEATTLE INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL FEATURE!
Rated R
95 minutes
Soudaine Compagnie

**

“The Girl From Monaco” is party buddy-comedy, part romantic tragedy. If it had been more of the former than the latter, perhaps I would have liked it. But I am so tired or stories about men who are powerless against the wiles of a Succubus.

What’s a succubus, you might ask? Well, it’s somewhat synonymous with a Femme Fatale – a woman who uses her sexuality to manipulate men into doing whatever she wants, usually to their detriment. However, a Succubus is different because she doesn’t seem dangerous at first. She’s usually fun and flirty and might even seem a little simple. But she knows what she’s doing. She finds a target and puts her claws into them, not letting go until they’ve convinced themselves they’re in love with her. Audrey (Louise Bourgoin), the titular girl, is one of those ladies. A townie from Monaco, she meets a Parisian lawyer named Bertrand (Fabrice Luchini) who is there working on a case. Inevitably, he allows her to worm her way into his life and wreak havoc.

Audrey is a local weather girl who got her start, naturally, on a reality TV show. In addition to musical weather reporting (it’s true, Succubi love to sing), she also reports short human-interest stories. She decides to do one on Bertrand so that she can get closer to him. It’s clear from the start that Audrey has sugar-baby ambitions. She’s not very smart but she knows how to make a man do what she wants. In Bertrand, she sees the opportunity to have a life of leisure in Paris.

Since Bertrand is working on a high-profile case, he is assigned a bodyguard named Cristophe (Roschdy Zem). Christophe is a serious and straight-laced guy with a direct manner of speaking. Physically, he’s a cross between Lou Ferrigno and President Obama. He also happens to be Audrey’s ex. (Not that it’s a coincidence. Apparently, she’s slept with everyone on the island. Like, literally.) Contrasted with the irrational, shortsighted Bertram, Christophe’s way of handing things is pretty amusing. That’s the buddy-comedy aspect that could have worked. But this movie isn’t called “The Lawyer and the Bodyguard.” It’s the fucking “Girl From Monaco.” So instead of hilarious differences of opinion and high-speed chases, it’s scene after scene of Bertram being suckered by a Succubus.

Bertrand is supposed to be an awesome lawyer – a miracle worker. But he’s bumbling and a terrible judge of character. He has issues with two other women before encountering Audrey, both of them failures in some capacity or another. Clearly Audrey isn’t an exception to his normally discerning love life. He’s actually kind of a schmuck too. It makes it hard to feel sorry for him.

For a while, it makes things a little more fun to imagine Christophe as Barack Obama, securing perimeters and dispensing advice. But mostly, it’s annoying watching Bertrand fall for Audrey’s shit over and over again. And then Christophe proves that he’s learned nothing from his own past with Audrey. Oh, Mr. President! How could you?! If some men are really like this, I don’t want to know about it.

Originally posted on FilmThreat.com (now defunct).

June 22, 2009
Categories: Filmpinions . Tags: filmthreat . Author: Baxter . Comments: Leave a comment