When a Stranger Calls

Posted on February 6, 2006 at 3:53 pm

C
Lowest Recommended Age: High School
MPAA Rating: Rated PG-13 for intense terror, violence and some language.
Profanity: Breif strong language
Alcohol/ Drugs: Underage teens refer to drinking; character boasts about a “tequila problem”
Violence/ Scariness: Constant peril, children threatened, characters killed, references to bloody off-screen deaths and to murder of children
Diversity Issues: Minority characters in supporting roles, brave girl
Date Released to Theaters: 2006
Date Released to DVD: 2006
Amazon.com ASIN: B000F6IOAM

“He is calling from within the house.” What a line! Since the original version of When a Stranger Calls came out in 1979, that sentence — packed with impending terror –has resonated with babysitters and played on their fears as they sit isolated in unfamiliar houses, responsible for their sleeping charges.

The original never lived up to the line but this new version does a fairly decent job of stretching the suspense through 83 minutes of near-constant peril. Why bother to introduce any original twists when you can make a solid, if predictable, junior grade thriller with the simple notion that you are not alone in a dark maze of a house?


The scene opens with a montage of kids playing at a carnival alongside a suburban house where a ghastly murder takes place in shadow play in the upper window. It is no surprise then that we are introduced to young Jill Johnson (Camilla Belle) running sprints in her school gym. Clearly, she will need her speed again before the movie ends. The plot moves along well and in mere minutes we learn why she is heading out on a babysitting gig instead of joining her friends at the lakeside bonfire that night.

She has gone over her cell phone minutes by nearly 14 hours, talking to her ex-boyfriend, and has racked up enough debt to make her parents take away her phone and car privileges. Also, she has to pay off the phone bill, hence the babysitting stint at the “Architecture Digest”-worthy modern manse of the Mandrakis family. The thrills start when the stranger calls, asking his troubling “Have you checked the children?” mantra and causing Jill to start jumping at shadows for the long night that follows.


Needless to say the rest of the movie plays with the dark corridors (the lights all work by motion detectors), that distracting cat, the wind in the trees outside, and of course with our fear of the dark. Do people do stupid things in this movie? Absolutely, but the movie rests on Jill’s shoulders quite comfortably, never seeming to ask too much of her fine if not outstanding acting performance. While this movie is far from a “stranger”, for some it will be a predictable and welcome call worth a few shivers but ultimately forgettable as soon as you get off the line.


Parents should know that there is near-constant peril and the movie will give bad dreams to even the bravest of babysitters. There are references to horrific murder and you see a man threatening the lives of children. Two characters die and a character is stalked in a dark house. One character refers to her “tequila problem” as the reason she kissed another girl’s boyfriend and teens kiss and drink by a bonfire with little apparent oversight. There is strong language to describe a character’s actions.

<P?
Families that see this movie might want to talk about the advice Jill’s father gives her about how acting responsibly is most important when it hurts or costs something. What does he mean in reference to the reason that Jill is being punished? What does it mean in the context of her decisions in the house? What does Jill do wisely and what would you do differently?


Families that enjoy this movie might want to watch the original with Carol Kane or get their shivers in more memorable spooky movies such as Gaslight or the original 13 Ghosts.

Thanks to guest critic AME.

Related Tags:

 

Horror Movies -- format Remake Thriller

Annapolis

Posted on January 25, 2006 at 4:16 pm

C+
Lowest Recommended Age: Middle School
MPAA Rating: Rated PG-13 for some violence, sexual content and language.
Profanity: Brief strong language, some crude words
Alcohol/ Drugs: Drinking, scenes in bar
Violence/ Scariness: Fighting, boxing, attempted suicide
Diversity Issues: Diverse characters
Date Released to Theaters: 2006
Date Released to DVD: 2006
Amazon.com ASIN: B000F6IOD4

Sincere performances and some star charisma can’t save this movie from its derivative screenplay, a retread of every “callow youth learns what it means to be a man” service drama. This movie samples An Officer and a Gentleman and Top Gun the way Vanilla Ice sampled Bowie.


James Franco plays Jake Huard, a kid who has been putting rivets in battleships as he gazed across the water at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis. His friends and his father think that places like the Naval Academy are not for the likes of them. But at the last minute, despite grades and scores below the Academy’s standards, Jake is accepted. That night, his friends give him a big send off, and tell him the elegant-looking lady at the bar is a paid escort they have reserved for him. He politely tells her he is not interested but offers her a tour of the Academy. If you don’t think she’s going to show up the next day as someone who outranks him, you haven’t seen many movies.


And if you’re surprised that Jake’s future also includes a Benneton-ad range of racially diverse roommates, who also have a neatly assorted range of issues, one of which includes not being able to get over the climb-y thing on the obstacle course, and a tough superior officer who thinks Jakes doesn’t have what it takes, then you probably have never seen a movie of any kind.


But as long as you’re not looking for originality, this film is modestly enjoyable. Franco is nicely broodish, and Tyrese Gibson shows some star power as the superior officer who knows what it takes to be a successful leader. Chi McBride (Roll Bounce, The Terminal), Donnie Wahlberg (The Sixth Sense) and Vicellous Reon Shannon (The Hurricane) provide able support, and the movie’s predicability is offset by boxing scenes that are excitingly staged, with a sense of immediacy, and a slightly old-fashioned feeling — this is a film that takes kissing seriously.

Parents should know that the boxing and other fight scenes are intense and there are some scenes of peril and a suicide attempt. There are some sexual references, including a prank allegation that a woman is a paid escort, and characters use some strong and crude language.


Families who see this movie should talk about why Jake’s father had a hard time believing he could succeed at Annapolis. What made going to Annapolis so important to Jake? Why did he say that seeing where he came from made it possible for him to be there? They might want to find out about the real-life U.S. Naval Academy, as academically rigorous as it is physically demanding.


Families who enjoy this movie will also enjoy An Officer and a Gentleman (for mature audiences).

Related Tags:

 

Drama Movies -- format Remake Sports

Fun With Dick and Jane

Posted on December 20, 2005 at 2:59 pm

B-
Lowest Recommended Age: Middle School
MPAA Rating: Rated PG-13 for brief language, some sexual humor and occasional humorous drug references.
Profanity: Brief strong language
Alcohol/ Drugs: Drinking, character abuses alcohol, drug reference
Violence/ Scariness: Comic peril and violence, no one hurt
Diversity Issues: None
Date Released to Theaters: 2005
Date Released to DVD: 2006
Amazon.com ASIN: B000E8N8H0

The first “Fun with Dick and Jane” was the popular reader that millions of first graders used to sound out words like “Oh” and “Run!” Dick and Jane were perfect suburban children in an idealized world of smiling parents, sunny lawns, and purring kittens.


The second Fun with Dick and Jane was a satire that introduced us to a married couple who were victims of the economic recession so decided to turn to a life of crime. Its most memorable scene had the couple’s lawn being repossessed — it was rolled up and carted away.


And now we have the third version, updated for the post-dot.com bubble, post-Enron era. This time, Dick (Jim Carrey) works for a huge conglomerate that “consolidates media properties.” Jane (Tea Leoni) is a travel agent. Dick is overjoyed to receive a sudden promotion to Vice President for Communcations until, in his first day on the job, he is appears on a television program to announce the company’s projected earnings, only to be attacked by Ralph Nadar because the CEO (Alec Baldwin) has been secretly selling his stock and the company is under investigation for financial shenanigans. The company tanks. Soon, Dick and Jane are failing at various efforts to earn money, and finally — the lawn repossessed and living off of all-you-can-eat buffets and visits to the soup kitchen, they take up a life of crime. See Dick steal. See Jane drive the getaway car.


In corporate terms, here is the movie’s balance sheet: On the asset side we have two exceptionally talented and attractive performers in Carrey and Leoni. His loopy physical humor in the rendition of “I Believe I Can Fly” in an elevator and the portrayal of a marionette are perfectly matched by her more understated but equally precise comic timing. Further assets are some sly pokes at contemporary life — Dick and Jane have a son who speaks with a Spanish accent (like the nanny) — and some surreal detours (as when Jane signs up as a guinea pig for a new beauty treatment that goes very wrong and when Dick tries to get work as an illegal immigrant and is deported).

On the liability side is a script that relies too much on easy jokes like silly costumes and expects us not to notice that, for example, Dick and Jane are completely incompetent as crooks (hello, fingerprints?). If they had just had to rely in some way on the skills they had learned on the job — if they had just been clever instead of lucky, this would have been a better, funnier movie.


But if it isn’t an Enron-style spectacular failure of a 2005 holiday comedy (that would be Rumor Has It…) it has enough smiles in it to keep the family feeling cheerful. Dick and Jane are still fun to be around.

Parents should know that this is a movie in which some characters feel a sense of entitlement, in part because they feel cheated and stolen from, that they believe justifies stealing from others. There is brief strong language, and the movie includes sexual references and non-explicit sexual references. Characters drink and one abuses alcohol to help numb his feelings.


Families who see this movie should talk about the corporate scandals listed at the end, including WorldCom, Enron, Adelphia, HealthSouth, Global Crossing, and Tyco. What is the difference between a corporate crook and a bank robber? What will Dick and Jane do next?


Families who enjoy this movie will also enjoy the original, starring Jane Fonda and George Segal and Woody Allen’s Take the Money and Run.

Related Tags:

 

Comedy Crime Movies -- format Remake

The Producers

Posted on December 15, 2005 at 4:05 pm

B-
Lowest Recommended Age: High School
MPAA Rating: Rated PG-13 for sexual humor and references.
Profanity: Crude language for a PG-13
Alcohol/ Drugs: Drinking
Violence/ Scariness: Comic violence and peril
Diversity Issues: A theme of the movie but sexist and homophobic humor
Date Released to Theaters: 2005
Date Released to DVD: 2006
Amazon.com ASIN: B000BMY2LU

The 1968 version of The Producers was a brilliantly funny commercial flop about an outrageously offensive and atrociously appealing play that became a hit. The screenplay won an Oscar for director/writer Mel Brooks. It was fall-out-of-your-chair-gasping hilarious and a cherished cult classic.


Then, in 2001, the little, low-budget film about crooked producers who think a sure-flop will make them rich became a Broadway musical that did make its producers rich. Very, very rich. The Broadway show became one of the most successful in history, with a record-breaking twelve Tony awards and a scheduled run that seems to extend into 22nd century.


So, of course they made it into a movie with the stars of the Broadway cast and a couple of movie stars added in for marquee value. From the Broadway show, we have Nathan Lane as king-of-the-flops producer Max Bialystock, who raises the money for his shows by wooing lonely widows, Matthew Broderick as timid accountant Leo Bloom, Gary Beach as wildly flamboyant director Roger De Bris, and Roger Bart as his sidekick/significant other Carmen Ghia. From television and movies, Will Ferrell as Franz Liebkind, the playwright of “Springtime for Hitler,” a merry musical romp that Max and Leo think is the answer to their prayers.


Leo tells Max that no one checks the books of a flop too carefully. So if they raise too much money for a play, selling more than 100 percent of the profits, they can keep all of the money — as long as they have a surefire flop. And what is a better recipe for theatrical disaster than a musical about the 20th century’s worst villain? Just to make sure, they bring on the worst director they can find and cast playwright Liebkind himself in the title role.


It’s all pleasantly flashy and fun, but it does not come close to the original. In the first place, the original movie didn’t know how funny it was, which is part of what made it funny. It was brash and audacious and irreverent. The new musical is none of those things. In making a movie of a success, it is too careful. It hits every joke square on the beat instead of striking a contrapuntal sidelong whack.

In the second place, the actors don’t have the same crazy genius. Nathan Lane’s performance is shtick-y. He doesn’t have Zero Mostel’s fearlessness. Matthew Broderick looks puffy and uncomfortable. He doesn’t do shlub very well and he doesn’t have Gene Wilder’s manic little trill. Thurman and Ferrell try hard but don’t add much.


In the third place, having the director of the Broadway show as director of the movie means that the movie is essentially a filmed version of the Broadway show with some scenes shot outdoors.

Most important, partly because of the cult status of the original and partly because of a general coarsening of society, it just isn’t that shocking any more. The flouncy, over the top gay characters aren’t very outrageous in a world where you can turn on the television and watch “Will and Grace” or “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.” The original came out less than twenty-five years after World War II. Partly because of the success of that movie and partly because we’ve had a lot of other murderous tyrants, making fun of Hitler seems almost conventional. There was an episode of “Curb Your Enthusiasm” featuring Mel Brooks and his late wife, Anne Bancroft that included a twist on “The Producers” that was truly twisted and demented and shriekingly hilarious.


But this movie is not directed at the audience that wants something truly twisted and demented or shocking and outrageous. This is directed at people who are looking for something safe that makes them feel a little bit twisted and outrageous — sort of like the little old ladies who want to play “hold me, touch me” with Max. More like “Springtime for the Redhead on Desperate Housewives.”


Parents should know that this movie has some very crude humor and that it both makes fun of and revels in outrageous bad taste. There are sexual references and some stereotyping of gay characters that some people might consider homophobic. In the context of this intentionally offensive comedy, however, it is not intended to reflect bias. There are some strong (and vivid) sexual references for a PG-13, characters drink alcohol, and there is some comic violence. Oh, and the main characters are crooks who are stealing money from (wealthy) old ladies.


Families who see this movie should talk about why the original was not successful at the box office while the musical play is one of Broadway’s all-time champs. Is it because times have changed? If you were going to put on a sure-fire flop, what would it be? What were Max’s motives for doing the show? What were Leo’s? What will happen to them next?

Families who enjoy this movie will also enjoy the original version as well as other Brooks movies like Young Frankenstein (co-written by Gene Wilder) and Blazing Saddles (all co-starring Wilder).

Related Tags:

 

Comedy Movies -- format Musical Remake

Alfie

Posted on October 19, 2004 at 2:57 pm

What’s it all about, Charlie?

Charles Shyer and Nancy Meyers used to be married and they used to make movies together (Baby Boom, the remakes of Father of the Bride and The Parent Trap). Now they are divorced, and they make movies separately. Hers: the very successful What Women Want and Something’s Gotta Give; his: the less successful The Affair of the Necklace and now this remake of the 1966 Michael Caine film. The two of them seem to be working through something as both of their recent films were about the exact same thing — the comeuppance of what we used to call a cad.

This film may have had some theraputic value for its director. Its value as entertainment and illumination is uneven at best.

The performances are all top-notch. Each of the women creates a full and complex character, especially Nia Long as the woman Alfie’s best friend loves, Susan Sarandon as an older woman as predatory as he is, Marisa Tomei as a single mom, and Sienna Miller as a beauty whose instability is at first a turn-on and then a turn-off.

The film’s primary and very significant asset is Jude Law, who is brilliant in the title role. He has to make us almost as charmed by Alfie as the women he goes after, even while he is confiding in us what he is really thinking. Very few actors can make an unsympathetic character so appealing or pull off a role that involves speaking directly to the audience, and Law is constantly ingratiating, fascinating, and even touching.

That is less true, however, of the rest of the film. The movie feels as empty as Alfie’s heart.

Parents should know that the movie has very explicit sexual references and situations. Characters use very strong language, drink, smoke, take drugs, and have unprotected sex. There are tense situations and references to abortion. A strength of the movie is its positive portrayal of inter-racial relationships, though a theme of the movie is the way Alfie betrays just about everyone with whom he comes in contact.

Families who see this movie should talk about what Alfie (and the audience) learns from each of his encounters, including the old man in the bolo tie. Which one is the most meaningful to him? Why? What is Alfie looking for? How will that change?

Families who enjoy this movie will also enjoy the original Alfie with a star-making performance by Michael Caine. They will also enjoy About a Boy and The Tao of Steve.

Related Tags:

 

Comedy Remake
THE MOVIE MOM® is a registered trademark of Nell Minow. Use of the mark without express consent from Nell Minow constitutes trademark infringement and unfair competition in violation of federal and state laws. All material © Nell Minow 1995-2026, all rights reserved, and no use or republication is permitted without explicit permission. This site hosts Nell Minow’s Movie Mom® archive, with material that originally appeared on Yahoo! Movies, Beliefnet, and other sources. Much of her new material can be found at Rogerebert.com, Huffington Post, and WheretoWatch. Her books include The Movie Mom’s Guide to Family Movies and 101 Must-See Movie Moments, and she can be heard each week on radio stations across the country.

Website Designed by Max LaZebnik