Rio (2011): Grade: C-: starring Jesse Eisenberg, Anne Hathaway, will.i.am, Jamie Foxx, George Lopez, Tracy Morgan, Jemaine Clement, Leslie Mann, Rodrigo Santoro, & Jake T. Austin: Directed by Carlos Saldanha

Blue Sky Studio’s RIO immediately reminded me of Disney’s SALUDOS AMIGOS and THE THREE CABALLEROS for no reason other than the facts that all three films are animated, set in Latin America countries, and all feature birds. Blue Sky Studios continues to be the little animation studio that could (not so little really, considering it has a nice distribution deal with 20^th Century Fox), having put out commercial successes such as the ICE AGE series, HORTON HEARS A WHO!, and now RIO. Lacking the name brand recognition of DreamWorks Animation or Pixar/Disney, Blue Sky nevertheless has managed to compete with the more popular studios and its done it entirely outside of California (in New York and, after its more recent move, in Connecticut). Like DreamWorks Animation, the studio’s output tends to run along the safe and well-traveled path, producing movies that are safe box office bets rather than more unconventional stories that Pixar is more apt to do.

RIO is about a bird, specifically a blue macaw named Blu (Jesse Eisenberg) who is abducted by poachers when he’s a baby. Blu ends up in Minnesota after falling out of a truck that is presumably transporting him to a pet store. He’s found by a lady bookshop owner (Leslie Mann), who adopts and takes care of him. Years go by and one day a ornithologist (Rodrigo Santoro) from Brazil visits the bookshop, looking for Blu. He explains to the owner that Blu is a rare species of bird and that he would like to return him to Brazil so that he can mate with a female macaw and increase the macaw population. Blu and his owner reluctantly go to Brazil where Blu meets his female counterpart, Jewel (Anne Hathaway). However, before they know it, the two birds are kidnapped by some poachers. The film mainly centers around the birds escaping the poachers and Blu attempting to find his owner. Along the way, he and Jewel meet up with other species of exotic birds, who help them battle the poachers.

First and foremost, RIO serves as a gorgeous travelogue for Rio de Janeiro. Director Carlos Saldanha (who is Brazilian) set out to lovingly portray his hometown in the most beautiful light possible. This means you see the beaches, the lush green mountains, and the festive Brazilian culture that culminates in the city’s annual Carnival festival. What we don’t really see (or we do in a very Disneyfied manner) are the slums, the crime, and the homeless youth that plagues the city and has given Rio de Janeiro a reputation for being a dangerous city. Obviously, I wasn’t expecting a realistic portrayal of Rio, especially in a children’s movie. However, being aware of the city is really like, you can’t help but think in watching the movie that we’re being a little manipulated by seeing a whitewashed version of the city.

RIO’s plot lacks any originality, which was to be expected. Where the film succeeds is more in the plot’s execution and in its visual eye candy. As soon as the ornithologist shows up in Minnesota and presents his dilemma, the remainder of the plot becomes painfully predictable. You know the bird is going to learn to fly, win the girl, his owner will win the guy, and the poachers will be defeated. The plot’s setup feels like its taken out of an animation story manual. It would have been so refreshing to, for once, not see a romantic subplot. Especially in a kid flick. Unless the romance is meant to keep the parents interested, I don’t remember every caring when I was a kid about whether the boy and the girl would fall in love in an animated film. Worse, RIO contains two romantic subplots. A stronger focus on the homeless boy and a development of a more extensive subplot around him would have made for a far more interesting film (not to mention that it would have given the film more emotional weight and kids could better connect with a boy without a home or parents than with a pair of love stories).

RIO is further hindered by poor character development that, with the exception of Blu and Nigel, lacks dimensionality, originality, or humor. For one, it doesn’t take long for Jesse Eisenberg’s whiny voice to grate on your nerves. The young Woody Allen schtick only goes so far before you begin rooting for the poachers to accomplish their goal. At the same time, the character’s struggles with learning to fly and to gain confidence in himself make for a well-rounded character that create somewhat humorous situations. As is true with many films, the most interesting character in the film is Nigel (Jemaine Clement), the evil cockatoo who, along with the poachers, pursues Blu and Jewel. Clement deliciously embraces the aristocratic, selfish, and wholly evil qualities of the once-famous television star that the bird used to be. There is a musical number in the film performed by Nigel that was wonderful and it reminded me of the number in THE LION KING where we’re introduced to Scar.

The rest of the cast is comprised of one-dimensional characters that are caricatures we’ve seen many times in other animated films. The filmmakers cast many comedians to give the film its humor. Comedians such as George Lopez, Jamie Foxx, Tracy Morgan, and Wanda Sykes also lend their voices to the characters. They provide a few laughs, but their potential to make us laugh is clearly hindered by the film’s rating and, as a result, I found most of the film’s humor as not very humorous.

Finally, it is worth mentioning the musical numbers contained in RIO. Over the past decade, we have seen far fewer musical numbers in animated films, which is a real shame. I miss those days in the late 80s and early 90s when the famous team of Alan Menken and Howard Ashman created memorable musical numbers for Disney. RIO has one particular number called “Real in Rio” that opens and ends the film. It doesn’t quite reach the quality of Menken/Ashman’s works, but it’s a beautiful song that sets the tropical tempo of the movie (it was also nominated for an Academy Award for Best Song, losing out to THE MUPPETS’ “Man or Muppet”).

RIO is largely an unforgettable film that, given its locale, had huge potential to be more than it ended up being. I feel that the filmmakers initially came up with the idea of setting a movie in Rio de Janeiro and were unable to create a high concept idea befitting the film’s locale. What we end up with is a luscious looking film lacking any heart and excitement. The frenetic pace of the movie only serves to hide the mediocre story underneath it and we are ultimately served with a film that reeks of Saturday morning cartoon mindlessness. Better luck next time, Blue Sky.

30 Minutes or Less (2011): Grade: D: starring Jesse Eisenberg, Danny McBride, Aziz Ansari, & Nick Swardson: directed by Ruben Fleischer

Reviewing director Ruben Fleischer’s 30 MINUTES OR LESS holds special significance for me because my very first review was ZOMBIELAND, which also happened to be Fleischer’s first film. ZOMBIELAND wasn’t amazing, but it sure as hell was entertaining and it had great fun dealing with the conventions of the by now overplayed zombie genre. That first film made me anticipate Fleischer’s follow up film and now its finally come…and gone. I don’t know if studio meddling was involved in the making of this picture, but its difficult to fathom the idea that 30 MINUTES OR LESS is the product of the guy who made ZOMBIELAND. Sure, the style of humor has remained the same and, in fact, 30 MINUTES OR LESS has even upped the vulgarity a notch, but other than that, this is one of the sloppiest movies I have seen this year.

The filmmakers claim that its not, but 30 MINUTES OR LESS is loosely based, or at least very, very similar to, a true account. Jesse Eisenberg plays a slacker pizza delivery boy who is never able to meet the “30 minutes or less” delivery guarantee of his asshole boss’ pizza shop. He’s roommates with his best friend, Aziz Ansari, but the two have just had an argument and now their friendship is over. In the meantime, we get introduced to Danny McBride and his delinquent friend, Nick Swardson. McBride still lives at home under the domineering shadow of his military dad, who is played by Fred Ward. McBride cannot wait to live on his own and have his own life. One day he confides in a stripper that he plans on killing his father so that he can get all his millions and open up a tanning salon that will really be a front for a prostitution ring. The stripper tells him she knows just the right person to help McBride kill his dad. However, after meeting the stripper, McBride and his buddy decide that a better idea will be to kidnap some unlucky soul, strap a real bomb on their chest, and make that person go and rob a bank in order to get the money that McBride needs for his business venture. That unlucky soul turns out to be Jesse Eisenberg. Eisenberg is given 10 hours to pull off a bank heist, which he does with the help of Aziz Ansari (after they patch things up). Of course, nothing is that simple, and what was a seemingly easy bank job turns out to be a complicated mess all wrapped into an action-comedy story that I think was intended to be an homage to the buddy action movies of the 80s.

First, I just want to thank Columbia Pictures with the bottom of my heart for making sure the film’s running time is only 1 hour and 23 minutes. Even that length proved to be too much for this film. In watching 30 MINUTES OR LESS, I got the feeling that Ruben Fleischer wasn’t sure of the direction he wanted his movie to take. I’ve read in various online reports that the director intended this film to be a buddy action-comedy that would be reminiscent of 1980’s buddy action comedies like LETHAL WEAPON and DIE HARD (both of these films are mentioned by Jesse Eisenberg and Aziz Ansari during the movie). Some parts of the film, such as the bank heist and subsequent car chase sequences, do remind you of those earlier films, but all in all, 30 MINUTES OR LESS doesn’t contain enough references in the narrative or even its concept to pay tribute to 80s buddy action comedies. If you want to truly see an homage to a genre done right, check out Quentin Tarantino’s KILL BILL movies. Tarantino takes the defining elements of kung fu and samurai movies and crafts an original film that serves as both an homage and a film that stands among those older movies. 30 MINUTES OR LESS is an utter failure in that regard and simply having a few action scenes populated by actor-comedians whose lines mention LETHAL WEAPON and DIE HARD is not enough.

However, most people who saw the trailer and went out and paid to see 30 MINUTES OR LESS were probably unaware of Ruben Fleischer’s reasons for making this film and they probably could care less anyway. If nothing else, this movie’s appeal stems from its interesting concept and its cast. Jesse Eisenberg’s cachet has certainly increased since he starred in ZOMBIELAND as he’s gained worldwide fame for playing Mark Zuckerberg in last year’s THE SOCIAL NETWORK. Although he doesn’t quite deliver the same performance from film to film like Michael Cera does in his movies, there’s not a whole lot of variety in Eisenberg’s performances either. Here, he pretty much does what he’s done in most of his films. 30 MINUTES OR LESS also has the always hilarious (in small doses) Danny McBride and the (sometimes) funny Aziz Ansari.

Over the past year, McBride has been skating near the edge of becoming overplayed in the same way that Jack Black and Zach Galifianakis have already become. The issue I have always had with McBride is that beyond the short 30 minutes episodes he stars in on EASTBOUND & DOWN, McBride’s brand of comedy gets old very quickly. This problem was apparent in this year’s YOUR HIGHNESS, which he also starred in. There is only so long that you can sit and watch McBride act like an asshole before you get sick of him. The same is true in 30 MINUTES OR LESS. McBride’s character is essentially the same one he plays in EASTBOUND & DOWN and because I like that show, I was able to digest his schtick for a little while longer than I otherwise would. McBride has some great lines and put-downs in the film, but again, its not something that I haven’t already heard in EASTBOUND & DOWN.

As for Aziz Ansari, I’m one of the few out there who doesn’t find Ansari to be the comedic genius that everyone else seems to think he is. He’s funny. There is no doubting that, but he isn’t consistent and I always come away only remembering that he yells all the time. This film doesn’t change my mind about Ansari’s comedic skills and, in fact, lessens my regard of him. I’ve said this before in past reviews, but I never know why anyone would cast a comedian in a movie only to have him or her be the straight (not in a gay way) person. Why not just simply cast a serious actor instead? In 30 MINUTES OR LESS, Ansari’s character isn’t completely serious, but he’s woefully underutilized. Much of his scenes are not funny and are not played to be funny.

My overall feelings about the comedy in 30 MINUTES OR LESS is that there wasn’t a single scene in the film that made me laugh out loud. That is a problem given the premise of the film, the film’s cast, and the fact that the movie is intended to be funny. With a film that’s already crippled by the fact that its not very funny, this leaves us with the narrative. As I said before, one of the movie’s strengths lies in its interesting concept. Kidnapping a pizza guy and strapping a real bomb on him to do your dirty work in 10 hours presents a treasure load of ideas that could have turned this film into a classic. Instead, 30 MINUTES OR LESS is chock full of implausible, head-scratcher situations. For instance, right after Eisenberg and Ansari step outside the bank they just robbed, they remove their ski masks. Why? For no logical reason. With their faces exposed, they’re immediately confronted by a cop. Despite the fact that he’s pointing a gun at them, he ends up running away when they show him the bomb strapped to Eisenberg’s chest. Now you would think he would run off and get back-up right? Wrong. Even more confounding is why Ansari, who DOESN’T have a bomb attached to his chest and he has a job that pays the bills and he’s no longer friends with Eisenberg’s character, would simply leave his job and decide nilly-willy to help Eisenberg rob a bank like its no big deal. What’s even more confounding than this is why Eisenberg or Ansari simply call the cops to tell them some dudes just attached a ticking time bomb and are forcing them to rob a bank. Sure, the bad guys are shown tracking their moves in a minivan, but are you telling me that neither of our intrepid characters can find a way to get law enforcement to handle this situation? Its not like McBride has some tracing device on Eisenberg that will signal McBride the second Eisenberg calls the cops. Anyway, you get the point. 30 MINUTES OR LESS doesn’t seem to bother itself with resolving these essential plot holes and it instead concerns itself with setting up funny situations that are not very funny.

The one bright spot in 30 MINUTES OR LESS is the absolutely hilarious role played by Michael Pena. I first saw Pena in the underrated OBSERVE AND REPORT and he stole the spotlight in that film too. Here he plays a gangster pimp and I would have paid serious money just to see a movie about him. It was also nice to see the film was shot in Michigan and it sort of evokes a romanticism of shitty American cars through Eisenberg’s love of his old, janky car. Other than that, 30 MINUTES OR LESS is a unsteady comedy that falls more into simple nastiness than actually being funny.

The Social Network (2010): 5 out of 5 stars; starring Jesse Eisenberg, Andrew Garfield, Justin Timberlake, Brenda Song, Rooney Mara, Armie Hammer, & Max Minghella; written by Aaron Sorkin; directed by David Fincher

The story of Facebook isn’t remarkable in any way. The origin of the company and the background of its founder, Mark Zuckerberg, isn’t unlike countless other internet start-up companies that have sprung all over the Valley (Silicon Valley for the uninitiated). For those of you who have worked for or formed an internet start-up company, the Facebook story is probably an all-too familiar tale that’s probably not unlike your own experience. Because of this, THE SOCIAL NETWORK is Silicon Valley’s WALL STREET. Its a compelling and often funny account of how the world’s most popular website (and the voicebox of my daily un-PC sarcasm) came to take over the world. Love it or hate it, Facebook has permeated more facets of our lives than we care to admit and it has changed how people define their relations with one another. In the middle of it all is Mark Zuckerberg, who is the subject of David Fincher’s outstanding film.

I don’t think I need to give an extensive synopsis of what THE SOCIAL NETWORK is about. Simply put, it’s a biopic about Mark Zuckerberg, a nerdy, socially retarded, Harvard undergrad who came up with (or stole, depending on whose version of the story you believe) an idea for a social networking website that became Facebook. Along the way, Zuckerberg stepped on a few toes and made some enemies in the process.

I have an immense amount of respect for David Fincher, the director of THE SOCIAL NETWORK. After stumbling horribly with his debut feature film (1992’s ALIEN 3), Fincher has been a reliable source of finely crafted and highly entertaining cinematic works that have continually excelled on both a storytelling and technical level. Fincher is no lazy filmmaker. He doesn’t sit around making countless sequels to his hit films, cute romantic comedies, or brain dead bullshit that’s designed to market some toy. In the past decade and a half, Fincher has given us SEVEN, THE GAME, PANIC ROOM, FIGHT CLUB, ZODIAC, and THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON. Even with those films that didn’t impress on a story level, Fincher has earned my admiration with his technical filmmaking skills. THE SOCIAL NETWORK elevates Fincher’s game to a whole new level by showing that the filmmaker can tell a compelling story without the use of thriller elements or elaborate visual effects.

Even I had my doubts as to whether Fincher could pull off a movie about Facebook. For one, I thought it a strange choice for a follow-up to THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON. I never read Ben Mezrich’s The Accidental Billionaires or David Kirkpatrick’s The Facebook Effect so I didn’t really see how the story about a website could possibly offer anything remotely interesting, especially to someone like Fincher. A company like Apple or Microsoft surely provided a far more interesting Silicon Valley success story (yes, I know, Microsoft is based in Redmond, but considering how many Silicon Valley companies it has destroyed in its path, it has pretty much become an honorary Valley resident). As I said before, Facebook’s story is not remarkable or unique compared to other Valley start-ups, but what makes THE SOCIAL NETWORK stand out as a movie is how well it encapsulates the history of Silicon Valley as a whole, its almost Shakespearean drama, and how wonderfully Fincher presents it all through his playful and imaginative directing. His movie is an involving drama and never once does it feel confusing or dull.

So I guess the question is does THE SOCIAL NETWORK present Mark Zuckerberg in a negative light? It does in the sense that, as he is portrayed in the movie, he did steal the idea for Facebook from a couple of Harvard students who presented their idea to him so that he could help them develop it. He is jealous of those who are more popular than he is, especially when it comes to getting into exclusive Harvard clubs. Finally, he did royally fuck over his “best friend” in the end by essentially giving him a smaller share of the company and removing his credit for co-finding Facebook. If I were Zuckerberg, I would probably not be very flattered by how Fincher portrayed me in his movie. However, karma is a bitch and, assuming the movie’s account is accurate, being an asshole to others does eventually come around and bite you in the ass (even though you still end up being valued at over $1 billion before you hit 30). The film also makes you realize that people like Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos (the founder of Amazon), and Pierre Omidyar (the founder of eBay and no, it wasn’t Meg Whitman) are not enlightened geniuses who sit around in dark rooms hatching one-of-a-kind ideas that have never been contemplated by other people. These individuals just happened to be at the right place and at the right time with their ideas and they simply got lucky. As you see in THE SOCIAL NETWORK, Zuckerberg was certainly not the first person to come up with the idea for Facebook. Someone else had that idea first and he simply took off with it and made it his own.

Every once in awhile a movie comes along that contains an ensemble cast that shines through and becomes a career launching point for its actors. Films like DAZED AND CONFUSED (Matthew McConaughey, Jason London, Ben Affleck, Milla Jovovich, Cole Hauser, Parker Posey, Adam Goldberg, Joey Lauren Adams, Nicky Katt), SCHOOL TIES (Brendan Fraser, Matt Damon, Chris O’Donnell), THE BREAKFAST CLUB (Emilio Estevez, Molly Ringwald, Judd Nelson, Anthony Michael Hall, Ally Sheedy), and THE BIG CHILL (Tom Berenger, Glenn Close, Jeff Goldblum, William Hurt, Kevin Kline) come to mind. THE SOCIAL NETWORK is certainly another one and even if we never again see anything from these actors, they will be remembered for a long time to come for the astonishing feat they pull off. I first really noticed Jesse Eisenberg in last year’s very entertaining ZOMBIELAND (FYI, my first CineWhore review EVER!) and although I enjoyed the film and I found him to be pretty funny, he came off as a total knockoff of Michael Cera and I sort of dismissed him for that. Shame on me I guess because Eisenberg throws down the fucking thespian gauntlet and completely owns this movie. Eisenberg could have easily parodied the computer nerd stereotype and in the hands of a less capable actor, that’s what we probably would have gotten. Instead, Eisenberg gives a more nuanced and layered performance that presents a complex nerdy asshole who, amazingly enough, gets the audience to root for him and see his point of view. If Eisenberg’s portrayal of Zuckerberg is accurate, then I’m convinced Zuckerberg has some sort of mental disorder.

I was never, ever expecting that one day I would say that I am a Justin Timberlake fan. After his grab-you-by-the-balls display of awesomeness as Sean Parker (the founder of Napster), there is no doubt Timberlake has a lot of talent. His role is showy so it offers him plenty of opportunity to shine, which is pretty fitting given Timberlake’s larger than life image. There are two particularly memorable moments that define Parker’s character. The first is when he first meets Zuckerberg and impresses him with his cool, popular, and outwardly impressive persona. Parker offers Zuckerberg access to a world of sex and drugs and although Zuckerberg doesn’t involve himself in those things, he wants to be around it in some way. The second moment is at the very end when Parker cruelly gives Eduardo Saverin, one of Facebook’s founders and its original CFO, his walking papers. It’s a classic dog-eat-dog display of competition and cruelty and Parker has become the biggest dog on the playground.

Speaking of Eduardo Saverin, he is played wonderfully by the soon-to-be-very-famous Andrew Garfield (he is going to be the new Spider-Man). Garfield was already receiving great buzz based off of this movie and NEVER LET ME GO and he is indeed very good here. Saverin seems to be the only character in this movie who doesn’t have unsavory qualities. He’s not the one who stole the idea for Facebook and when he finds out, he seems genuinely displeased with Zuckerberg for screwing over the Winklevoss Twins (FYI, Armie Hammer plays both twins so there is some visual effects I guess). He remains true to his word when he commits to making Facebook a success and, most importantly, he supplies the initial capital for the venture. So it’s the most unfortunate to see that of all the people in this story, he’s the one who gets the biggest shaft in the end. Garfield’s best moment is at the very end of the movie when, furious for getting screwed by Zuckerberg and Parker, he threatens Zuckerberg with a lawsuit and storms out of the Facebook offices.

THE SOCIAL NETWORK is an ambitious movie that contains great performances, stunning camera work, fantastic dialogue, and a great atmospheric film score by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross. You don’t need a Facebook account to enjoy this movie nor do you even need to have ever used the website although it does help if you have some working knowledge of what it basically is. There has been a lot of anticipation for this movie, especially with the dual-talented combo of David Fincher and Aaron Sorkin (screenwriter) and the subject matter of the film. The end result is astonishing and THE SOCIAL NETWORK easily ranks as one of this year’s best films.

P.S. I purposely refrained from commenting about the poor portrayal of Stanford University in this movie. Suffice it to say that, like the main character in this movie, the school isn’t cast in a very positive light and for that I thank you David Fincher and Aaron Sorkin!