Vice (2015)

Summary
Julian Michaels has designed the ultimate resort: VICE, where anything goes and the customers can play out their wildest fantasies with artificial inhabitants who look, think and feel like humans. When an artificial becomes self-aware and escapes, she finds herself caught in the crossfire between Julian's mercenaries and a cop who is hell-bent on shutting down Vice, and stopping the violence once and for all.

Genre : Action/SF
Country : USA

Cast :
Thomas Jane : Roy
Bruce Willis : Julian
Ambyr Childers : Kelly

Director : Brian A Miller


My opinion

I'm afraid that no film can push this abominable bad created movie of the first place in my "Best to avoid this film in 2015"-list. After watching appalling movies such as "The Cold Light of Day", "Fire with Fire", "Red 2", "The Prince" and "A Good Day To Die Hard", I was hoping to see the old Bruce Willis back again once more. However, what a disappointment. I'm convinced that senile senior citizens are showing more enthusiasm than Willis here. He is known by his nonchalant attitude and coolness in previous films, but the lack of interest that he's showing here and the total lack of facial expressions throughout the film (even up to the last fragment) defies all imagination.

This uninspired story is a mix of "Westworld", "Blade Runner" and "Groundhog Day". The only difference is that each of these three top films are a joy to watch and are based on an enjoyable and original idea. "Vice" is a sort of theme park for adults, populated by artificially intelligent robots that are indistinguishable from human beings. They can be in pain, have feelings and have a human body with high-tech features (not that you get to see it explicitly throughout the film). The format of the park is that visitors have total freedom and can do as they please. Do you want to murder a prostitute, cut a barmaid's throat or organize a gang rape of an innocent visitor at the local nightclub, you can go ahead safely with no adverse consequences. My first thoughts were : what kind of sick people visit this park and wouldn't it be better that such potential criminals are shipped immediately to some state prison. Anyway, it's all about entertainment for the crowd, I guess. 

 

Everything goes smoothly and without any problems until Kelly (Ambyr Childers) starts getting flashbacks and relives crimes she was the victim of. Of course a reboot won't help and she's brought back to the workshop for maintenance. Now isn't that a surprise ? She gets the opportunity to escape (No way !) and with the help of Evan (Bryan Greenberg), the designer of all these artificial beings, she tries to escape to the real world. Furthermore, there's also the rebellious police officer Roy (Thomas Jane), whose biggest wish is to close down "Vice".

The concept offers opportunities but is certainly not very original. As Roy stipulates a few times : there's a possibility that visitors get to familiar with deeds they can do in the park and that they can't see the difference between the fictional world and reality. It could be that when they return to society, they start committing the same crimes over again. Besides naming this problem, there's nothing they do with this assumption. The self-awareness that arises in Kelly, isn't elaborated further. Ultimately, she's an ordinary blonde without external technical faults who tries to flee. Before you know it an hour has passed without any significant actions. It's all rather boring and tedious. To be honest I was struggling to keep my eyes open and it didn't matter to me anymore how it would end.

This is again a creation that can be added to Willis's palmares under the title "Complete nonsense" and you surely shouldn't waste any valuable time on it. The only positive point was those gorgeous ladies parading around. As an ultimate tribute here are some points that irritated me. For the umpteenth time a heroine manages to escape while being shot at by a small army of security agents. Even a bazooka couldn't prevent that. They'd better replaced these officers with artificial intelligent personnel. Look at those "Chappie"-robots. They never miss. Kelly had the opportunity to get an update at a given moment so she could acquire certain talents. The moment she decided to update herself, so she could join the others for some action, I was wondering what this upgrade was about anyway. Besides throwing some clumsy punches there wasn't much special to admire. But above all it's the demise of one of the action icons from the past, who plays one paltry role after the other. The only thing he shows in these roles are comatose glances and some mumbled dialogues. You want to see this charismatic and extremely cool action figure in action again, then I suggest you start up "Die Hard", "The Last Boy Scout" or "Twelve Monkeys" once again. Yippee ki yay ... uh .... whatever!

My rating 1/10 
Links : IMDB
 

Last Knights (2015)

Summary
A fallen warrior rises against a corrupt and sadistic ruler to avenge his dishonored master in a sword-clashing adventure of loyalty, honor, and vengeance.

Genre : Action/Adventure
Country : Czech Republic/South Korea

Cast :
Clive Owen : Raiden
Morgan Freeman : Bartok
Aksel Hennie : Gezza Mott

Director : Kazuaki Kiriya

My opinion 

"This man, Gezza Mott, is a cancer, growing.
And the only proper thing to do is to cut it out.
You all know what I speak of."

It's been a while since I've seen this medieval epic action/drama. All I can remember is that the topic resembled that of "47 Ronin", except that it didn't concern samurais. I'm just wondering where this story really happened, because it seemed like it was situated in an oriental country (Something to do with the director perhaps ?). Everything revolves around loyalty, allegiance and revenge. Despite good leads, the end result is a weak film with an extremely slow pace. At the time the action was initiated and the apotheosis announced itself, I was already mentally in a coma. Although I'm a huge fantasy fan (sure, there were a lot of elements missing to make this a real fantasy-movie), I still felt it was just an ordinary and boring medieval knight story with a denouement that you could see way in advance. And that's the thing you're just waiting for. 

The whole story focuses on Raiden (Clive Owen) who was taken care of at a young age by Bartok (Morgan Freeman) and promoted to "Commander of the Seventh Rank". An adjacent kingdom is ruled by Gezza Mott (Aksel Hennie) who seeks to expand his power by intimidation . Bartok refuses to bow to this corrupt ruler, who has the confidence of the ubiquitous Emperor (Peyman Moaadi), and after a skirmish he must appear in court because he threatened an imperial minister. After using seditious and rebellious words, he's sentenced to death. The subsequent consequences are disastrous. His kingdom is annexed, goods seized, his fortifications razed to the ground and the inhabitants are banished out of his kingdom including Raiden and the members of the "Seventh Rank".The loyal members of Bartok start an ordinary life as innkeeper or as longshoremen, while Raiden goes back to his bad habit of drinking. Or is this a clever distraction maneuver that serves as a smoke screen for the ultimate revenge plan?

Gosh, I won't elaborate any further about this flick so it still will be exciting for some and the surprising twist won't be spoiled. "Last Knights" is nothing more than a typical sandals film with much clatter of weapons, tough talking and rolling muscles. A medieval spectacle full of faith, an ancient code of honor and betrayal. To be honest, I prefer "First Knight" with Richard Gere. When I think of this movie, I see before my eyes that scene with Gere navigating through the obstacle course. When I think of "Last Knights", I just want to close my eyes. No memorable or impressive scene is to admire throughout this film. There are only some superb performances. But in the end, that won't save the movie.

Freeman shows what you expect from him. Despite his early disappearance, he succeeds again in leaving a lasting impression as the just and principled Bartok. The speech at the trial was impressive and perfectly matches his personality. Owen (who in retrospect looks a lot like Dominic Purcell) is such a colorless actor who you'll see performing in some movies but whose name you can't really remember afterwards. He has that rough appearance that suits a knight (that's why he appears also in "King Arthur") but his part here isn't that impressive as in "Blood Ties". Although his relapse back to his alcohol addiction was convincing and realistic. Aksel Hennie was brilliant as the devious and dangerous Gezza Mott. He reminded me several times of Wormtongue, played by Brad Dourif in "The Lord of the Rings". The only other familiar face to me was that of Cliff Curtis. A well-known actor who appears in multiple movies (Virus, The Insider, Collateral Damage, Training Day, A thousand words ...).

Take any fantasy movie and remove all the pleasant and entertaining elements such as wizards, dragons, orcs, elves, other mythological creatures and mystical circumstances, and as a result you get a dull movie like "Last Knights". It feels like an age-old story that takes ages to read before it's finished. Owen wasn't disappointing, but he can't prevent this mediocre film to be part of a "rent-two-get-one-for-free" promotion (with "Last Knights" as the free part of course).

 

My rating 3/10 
Links : IMDB

Big Eyes (2014)

Summary
In San Francisco in the 1950s, Margaret was a woman trying to make it on her own after leaving her husband with only her daughter and her paintings. She meets gregarious ladies' man and fellow painter Walter Keane in a park while she was struggling to make an impact with her drawings of children with big eyes. The two quickly become a pair with outgoing Walter selling their paintings and quiet Margaret holed up at home painting even more children with big eyes. But Walter's actually selling her paintings as his own. A clash of financial success and critical failure soon sends Margaret reeling in her life of lies. With Walter still living the high life, Margaret's going to have to try making it on her own again and re-claiming her name and her paintings.

Genre : Drama/Biography
Country : USA

Cast :
Amy Adams : Margaret Keane
Christoph Waltz : Walter Keane
Krysten Ritter : DeeAnn

Director : Tim Burton

My opinion 

“All these copies... you're like Warhol!

Nah, Warhol’s like me. That fruitfly stole my act! “

Tim Burton is known for the surreal-like film "Edward Scissorhands" and other strange curiosities such as "Beetlejuice" and "Mars Attack!". This time he follows a more realistic path with this biographical film "Big Eyes" about the sad life of Margaret Keane. This artist from the early 60s is responsible for countless families to have several paintings (or copies) hanging in their house, with on it a sad child with a pair of unreal looking big eyes (usually with a tear). At first glance, this was just tacky "Holly Hobbie" -like teen art. But the truth is astonishing and brilliant at the same time. All the paintings of Margaret Keane were allegedly created by her husband Walter, who's a smooth talker but wasn't as smooth with a brush. That's the baffling part of the whole story. The brilliant part is how this show-off managed to set up the merchandising and turned this "teen room portraits" into a commercial success. In terms of marketing, he was a forerunner. But at the same time he turned his wife into a individual without any identity or personality. A housewife trapped in a dusty attic where she produces paintings like a conveyer belt and signed them with the surname of her husband. Eventually, you may consider this as the most subtle art theft of all time.

The participation of Amy "American Hustle" Adams as the shy, introverted and somewhat naive Margaret and Christoph "Django Unchained" Waltz as the cunning charmer Walter Keane, is a successful combination. Both the spirit of the 50s and 60s as the scenery is conveyed brilliantly :the typical neighborhoods with their close-cropped lawns, the beautiful vintage cars, the fashion of those days and also the naivety in a sterile and perfect looking family-society. Fortunately for Walter the word "emancipation" hadn't been invented yet and women at the time were neatly classified in the "home-garden-kitchen tool" section. Would he perform this stunt in modern times, he probably would be the one walking around with unreal big eyes (blue that is). Amy Adams is perfect for this role as the fragile and submissive wife (who radiates an "Marilyn Monroe" aura at times) but is also more emancipated than one would think. At that time it wasn't so obvious for a woman to leave her husband. Schultz waltzed through the film like a big smiling Dick Van Dyke. Being a shrewd businessman he builds an empire by abusing his wife's talent.

It's the performances that make it still a pleasure to watch this film. For the rest is this story about deception and (essentially) abuse, rather unimpressive. I have no doubt that Burton securely respected the biographical accuracy. In itself nothing's wrong with that, but the end result is just a leisurely and quiet rippling story. Nothing that will immediately blow you away, except the trial in the end. Although I briefly felt like watching an old-fashioned episode of "I Love Lucy" and had my doubts whether this part of the movie really reflected the true story. This entertaining spectacle, with Walter trying to defend himself, is a comic and theatrical one-man show. A demonstration of the narcissism and the invulnerable attitude that featured Walter Keane.

However, I didn't receive an answer on one key question after watching this film. Indeed it's obvious how Margaret was manipulated and deceived in her life, not to say oppressed and effaced in a psychological way. But in the end I still didn't know why she painted those ridiculously large and sad,eerie eyes. Besides quotes like "Things can be seen in eyes", "They're the windows of the soul" and the fictional story of children suffering during the war by Walter, there's no really satisfactory answer. Was it a childhood trauma or was it because of the eyes of her daughter (Delaney Raye / Madeleine Arthur) that made her think of this gimmick? But despite this lack of explanation, it's still a fascinating film.

 

My rating 6/10 
Links : IMDB

Uwantme2killhim? (2013)

Summary
A teenage boy's descent into the dangerous world of the Internet and the harrowing consequences of his actions. A true story.

Genre : Drama/Thriller
Country : UK

Cast :
Jamie Blackley : Mark
Toby Regbo : John
Joanne Froggatt : Inspector Sarah Clayton

Director : Andrew Douglas


My opinion 

“Why did you stab your friend?
For the greater good.
I'm a hero.”

"Uwantme2killhim?" is based once again on true events. And yet afterwards I doubted whether this was indeed a true story, because this mysterious and quite ingeniously put together story seemed unlikely. In retrospect this ought to be a film adaptation of a real life situation in 2003 in Manchester. In fact, I just can't tell anything about this film because it would reveal too much. It's a clever devised scheme and again it shows the dangers and the dark side of the internet. The world wide web (and the used applications in those days) was still in its infancy. It looked a bit primitive and nobody really worried about security. Neither did Mark (Jamie Blackley) who used an MSN-stylish chat program on a daily base where he had a sort of cyber-relationship with Rachel (Jamie Winstone). The judge in this case expressed it as follows : "Skilled writers of fiction would struggle to conjure up a plot such as that which arises here". And this statement is really not exaggerated. You can safely describe it as the most perfect staged suicide. 

Mark virtually lost his heart to Rachel, someone he has never met before and whose home situation isn't too rosy. Mark however is Mr. Popular at school: charming, smooth, handsome and intelligent. He's such a teenager with whom everyone wants to be friends and all girls fall in love with. This in contrast to John (Toby Regbo), Rachel's brother, who's constantly bullied and also looks like a meager, pathetic and timid boy. At the insistence of Rachel, Mark extends his umbrella over John and gradually a strange relationship grows between the two teenagers. The moment Rachel disappears and John comes around with the statement that she was killed by her boyfriend Kevin (Mingus Johnston), Mark is determined to take revenge. And then MI5 appears on the scene in the person of Janet (Liz White) who asks Mark to stay away from Kevin and also claims that Mark is suited to be a secret agent.

The two protagonists left an undeniable, impressive impression. Blackley and Regbo fit perfectly in their roles. Blackley as the ever popular and determined teenager who's out for revenge. And Regbo as the pathetic outcast who's unable to maintain social contacts (except probably anonymous on the internet). He reminded me of Toby from Harry Potter. That same sad look. Two opposites that fit perfectly together: the tough one opposite the weakling who needs to be protected for others and especially himself. Although the story seems impossible, Douglas manages to make a fascinating film. This thanks to the pursued pace and the use of flashbacks.

"Uwantme2killhim?" is, despite its being set in the corny era in the history of the internet, still relevant and shows the consequences of using internet without parental supervision (now I sound old-fashioned) and how an individual can be moved to commit ill deeds in a shrewd and manipulative way. It's not quality cinema, but intriguing enough with a surprising denouement. In conclusion you can say it's something frightening and worrying that can happen in the glory days of todays social networking.

My rating 6/10 
Links : IMDB

Ex Machina (2015)

Summary
Caleb, a 26 year old coder at the world's largest internet company, wins a competition to spend a week at a private mountain retreat belonging to Nathan, the reclusive CEO of the company. But when Caleb arrives at the remote location he finds that he will have to participate in a strange and fascinating experiment in which he must interact with the world's first true artificial intelligence, housed in the body of a beautiful robot girl.

Genre : SF/Thriller
Country : UK

Cast :
Oscar Isaac : Nathan
Domhnall Gleeson : Caleb
Alicia Vikander : Ava

Director : Alex Garland

My opinion  

"The challenge is not to act automatically. It's to find an action that is not automatic. From painting, to breathing, to talking, to fucking. To falling in love...  " 

Something that really fascinates me, is whether we'll ever be able to develop artificial intelligence. Each film about this subject gets my complete attention anyway and can count on my unconditional enthusiasm. I don't know why and what attracts me the most in those movies. Is it just curiosity about the question if someone will ever succeed in developing such a machine? Will artificial intelligence cause the downfall of humanity as some prominent scientists profess (Hawking for instance claims this) ? Is such a self-discursive machine capable of showing real feelings and respond in a human way? And after seeing the packaging of this artificially intelligent creature, which looked enormously appetizing to me, the whole spectacle couldn't go wrong anyway.

The list of movies with this topic is fairly extensive: from "Blade Runner" to "AI", "I Robot" and "Short Circuit", "Robocop" and recently "Chappie". Even Pixar's "Wall-E" fits in this list. Recent movies I liked the most were "The Machine" and of course "Her". In this last movie it's a sultry, seductive voice that represents the philosophy of AI. Unfortunately, most films contain excellent material for the prophets of doom in this world to say that AI isn't exactly something we're waiting for. Usually it goes horribly wrong and the creation turns against its human designer in order to get the balance of power tilted into its direction. I think this is the ultimate proof of AI but at the same time I don't think it's supposed to end that way. "Ex Machina" is no exception to this rule.

It all starts when Caleb (Domhnall Gleeson) receives an e-mail at the end of the week saying that he has won a sleepover at his boss's residence. The moment he arrives on the immense estate and enters the modern underground house of Nathan (Oscar Isaac), he doesn't know that he has been selected to submit the latest creation from Nathan to extensive testing. He's introduced to Ava (Alicia Vikander), designed by the eccentric billionaire, and he must investigate during 5 days, using a Turing test, if Ava actually expresses and uses human feelings. But nothing is what is seems and at some point you're really wondering who's on the test bench!

Looking at this movie in its entirety, you won't easily conclude that this is a low budget film and that they succeeded, despite the low budget, in creating an impressive environment and atmosphere. The ultra-modern property of Nathan comes with high-tech gadgets and looks tight , sober, cold and sterile with an ingenious verification system, design furniture scattered around and ambient lighting which is activated automatically or via voice control. There's an internal video monitoring system and apparently a fortune was spent on the power supply, although occasionally the system is failing. And then there is the phenomenon Ava who eerily resembles a wandering robot, even though you realize it's played by an actress, complete with arms with sophisticated wiring and a skull with partly a humanly face and a kind of electronic system. The way the brain looks like and works is something I've never seen so far in SF. It demonstrates an original approach to the effective development of AI.

The next issue are the performances. This is naturally limited to the three main characters: Nathan, Caleb and Ava. Oscar Isaac manages to portray Nathan in a very convincing way. A phenomenal intellectual character who has separated itself from civilization. This complete isolation has caused quite some bizarre features. From the outset, you have the feeling there's something wrong and Nathan takes a menacing pose. His unpredictable moods, the alcohol consumption and the rather perverse sexual fantasies transform this genius into an unstable-looking person. The alleged prizewinner Caleb, played by Domhnall Gleeson who previously starred in "About time", seems to have a rational mind, but eventually appears to be rather naive. The dialogues between him and Nathan are on a high philosophical level and include mostly the resulting gaps after creating artificial life. Caleb also has highly interesting conversations with Ava. And Ava impressed me the most. Alicia Vikander, a professional ballet dancer, succeeds in (with the use of CGI) looking like a real human-like cyborg. The astonished facial expression and prudent movements are some of the most sublime performances that makes her believable as Ava.

What remains is the storyline and plot used in this SF. Undeniably, it's a psychological thriller in which everyone apparently has a hidden secret agenda, full of secrets and manipulative motives. And to be honest, the ending was a bit of a disappointment. However, the run up is magnificent, despite some considerations. At first it seems implausible to me that Nathan, despite his intellectual level, could develop something like Ava completely on his own. That means he's also a master in other branches of natural science (chemistry, mechanics, electronics, biochemistry ...). And I suppose he knows the laws of Isaac Asimov. Shouldn't he consider these and take his precautions ? As in "Her" we witness a relationship between a human and a semi-human, except that Ava uses the highlighting of her female forms in her favor. And Ava uses these qualities just like women all over the world do to achieve their goal. I'm sure that's true AI ! 

My rating 7/10
Links : IMDB

Project Almanac (2014)

Summary
As a group of friends discover plans for a time machine, they build it and use it to fix their problems and for personal gain. But as the future falls apart with disasters, and each of them disappear little by little, they must travel back to the past to make sure they never invent the machine or face the destruction of humanity.

Genre : SF
Country : USA
 
Cast :
Jonny Weston : David Raskin
Amy Landecker : Kathy Raskin
Sofia Black-D'Elia : Jessie Pierce

Director : Dean Israelite

My opinion 

“There's a slight chance that oxygen and nitrogen naturally found in the air could catalyze.
What does that mean?
We could explode.”

Take "Back to the Future", mix it with "Weird Science" and add the MTV mentality to it and you end up with a pale project as "Project Almanac". A group of nerds who are too stupid to pass a chemistry test, but do have enough brain cells to build a time machine. I've seen a lot of nonsense in my life, but this beats everything. At first sight it was a nice concept, but after watching it you realize you have looked at a Teletubbies version of "Back to the Future". I asked myself which audience they were aiming for. Of course that would be a teen audience, because there is no trace of difficult theories such as the paradoxes of time travel (way better elaborated in "Predestination" and "About time"). The complete film is no more than a list of ridiculous time jumps into the past to solve trivialities that turn the personal lives of these wizkids into a hell, I guess. If I had this time machine, I would have made a time jump to the moment when I was starting this movie. And then I would change my mind quickly.

 

What would you do if you could use a time machine and go back in time ? Would you try to change world history ( Murder Hitler ? No, that's only on the 101st place on the "bucket list" of time travelling)? Would you try to meet legendary figures? Would you at least try to save a human life? I would go back to prevent Kurt Cobain from committing suicide, damn it ! Well, these brats have higher priorities. Nothing important for any ordinary earthling, but for these young people who live in their self-centered world where everything revolves around self-interest, the desire for adoration and complacency, these are extremely important items. They could get filthy rich by means of foreknowledge, solving all those other teen facts in a blink and making them irrelevant. But then there wouldn't be the fun of flying to the past anymore.

It all starts when David (Jonny Weston) fails an MIT test and starts searching in the attic for a forgotten project of his father. Instead he finds an old camera with footage of his 7th birthday. However, he discovers on that footage him appearing in a mirror as a 17 year old boy. Eventually he finds in his father's basement plans to create a time machine. Them using a disassembled X-box and the battery of a hybrid parked out front, was surely a firm warning for all the other ridiculous things that were to come.

There are really a lot of awful stupidities in this movie which leaves you with a "How is it possible" gaze. I really would like to know what brand of camera that was because the battery should be of exceptional quality since it's still working after being on that attic for 10 years. I own a not so cheap camera myself and now I really think this is a piece of junk since these batteries only last for about a month. Furthermore, isn't it logic that after realizing that you picked a wrong number and you didn't win the lottery, that you go back in time and repeat the procedure (with the correct number of course) so you can continue your life as a multimillionaire ? Well I would do that but apparently this wasn't really necessary for these wiseacres. Also I was stunned about the fact that a highschool student immediately notices, after a glance at highly sophisticated military plans, equations that can be compared to the theory of relativity. But then again, moments later when David makes a logical remark, no one understands. And before the first time jump David notices calmly that there is a possibility that they could explode because of some physical epiphenomenon. But those youngsters are daredevils because they simply disregard this. 

Comparing this with "Back to the Future" is an insult to this successful teen film about time travelling. The latter was an original, entertaining, ingenious and creative film which I've watched with pleasure. "Project Almanac" is boring, childish and unoriginal. I even expected that they would seek for a "flux capacitor" in the DIY store. This is simply a fusion of two endlessly copied hypes : time travelling and found footage.

And that's the next weak point of this film. I recommend not to watch this flick with a full stomach, because it's completely filmed with a handheld camera. David's younger sister was instructed to record everything (and that means really everything). And that's what you get dished up,in full. So you can expect a camera constantly being waved around with blurry images as a result. Sit close to the screen and you'll be as sick as an amateur fisherman who's sitting on a fishing boat for the first time in a heavy storm. You might even wish you had that time machine to prevent "The Blair Witch Project" of being made, so that we were spared of more found footage nonsense like this. Some films succeed in getting the imprint of being "timeless," but this film will, in spite of the applicable topic, never achieve this. Best you avoid this movie because it'll only cost you valuable time you'll never be able to recover again.

 

My rating 1/10 
Links : IMDB

The Cobbler (2014)

Summary
Max Simkin repairs shoes in the same New York shop that has been in his family for generations. Disenchanted with the grind of daily life, Max stumbles upon a magical heirloom that allows him to step into the lives of his customers and see the world in a new way. Sometimes walking in another man's shoes is the only way one can discover who they really are.

Genre : Comedy/Drama/Fantasy
Country : USA
 
Cast :
Adam Sandler : Max Simkin
Steve Buscemi : Jimmy
Dustin Hoffman : Abraham Simkin

Director : Thomas McCarthy


My opinion

"He had no idea who I was.

I could be anybody I want.
This is great.”

Frankly, I'm not such a big Adam Sandler fan. I think he isn't that funny. I can't really pinpoint what bothers me, but his nonchalance and apathy starts to get on my nerves after a while. I can't remember me smiling even once while watching "Blended" or "Click". It always seems like he's shaking funny dialogues out of his sleeves and occasionally swings a joke in between with such an air and expression on his face as if he suddenly comes to the realization that it's time to say something funny (even though his humor is mostly limited to farting). His films always have a final conclusion including a valuable life lesson. No, Sandler is not my favorite comedian. But here in "The Cobbler" he wasn't that bad. I even caught me smiling now and then. However, the end result is pretty weak and chaotic. But since Sandler tries a more serious part this time and I'm spared from "silly Sandler-humor", plus it all felt like a fairy-tale, it was better as expected.

The beginning of the film was, in my opinion, the most successful of the entire film. The run-up to the ultimate story. It had something of an old Hans Christian Andersen fairy tale with an old bum knocking at the door of the great-great grandfather of Max Simkin (Adam Sandler) and asking for shelter. Nobody wanted to take him inside and in gratitude the unknown left behind an antique sewing machine for repairing shoes. We are witnessing a sort of Jewish family conference discussing an important matter in old Yiddish and you'll see someone working with the old sewing machine while telling his son the whole story. Now Max owns the shoe shop which is run by the family Simkin for years now. It's located in a neighborhood that is doomed to disappear. However, it's obvious that Max isn't really happy with his boring life and he realises that he'll lead this hopeless life until his retirement. Until a difficult client insists on repairing his shoes and Max is forced to use the old sewing machine (because his broke down). After repairing them he puts them on out of curiosity. To his surprise he takes the form of the owner of that pair of shoes, what gives rise to all sorts of chaotic situations.

It looks a bit like "Tuxedo" with Jackie Chan, except that now the shoes take care of the complete transformation. This fairy tale had so much potential and yet it became an ordinary "metamorphosis farce" which reminded me of some old theater play. Such a play with several doors where people appear and disappear at the right time. This mixed with the clumsy and chaotic way of acting as the late Jerry Lewis did and you have a good idea of what "The Cobbler" looks like. A well-known story in which various metamorphoses provide the final solution. Sometimes touching and funny, but mostly it's just a sad affair. And for once it isn't Sandler's fault.

It's not that Sandler tries to bring banal humor or that it occurs to be forced, but the whole story is confusing and misses its target completely. The fact that you're in someone else's shoes and you can take over a different personality, offers perspectives. But ultimately it's only used to pull some infantile and predictable pranks and subsequently dismantle an unscrupulous real estate plot. The only admirable thing Max did with his new powers, was taking over his father's personality (Abraham Simkin played by Dustin Hoffman) ,who disappeared years ago out of his life, to surprise his mother. Fortunately this demented woman is already of respectable age and probably doesn't have a lot of troublesome hormones anymore. Otherwise a Freudian complex situation could arise. And the denouement is too bizarre for words. What finally brings us to the next sore point. The creator of this story didn't know which way he wanted to go. Is it a comedy? A fairy tale? A sort of parody about superheroes? Or is it a story with a profound moral? The author was apparently disorientated. And so was I obviously.

As I said before, Sandler isn't the one to blame. For once I found him bearable and perfect for this role as the sad and washed out cobbler who, thanks to a magical machine, enjoys life again. The supporting cast Dustin Hoffman (a kind of Mr. Magorium), Steve Buscemi (always a pleasure to watch him play), Lynn Cohen and Method Man, weren't groundbreaking but gave it a professional touch. The renditions aren't the problem (or better "where the shoe pinches") but I'm sure that a marriage between comedy and drama will always be doomed to fail. As the proverb says : Let the cobbler stick to his last. (Keep that in mind Sandler !)   

My rating 4/10 
Links : IMDB