Head Over To My New Site!

Hi Everyone,

I decided to create my own official website, which will include my interviews, reviews, and other entertainment news! I was getting a little frustrated with the look/formatting on this one. Check it out at www.fangirlfreakout.com!

See you there:-),

-Lauren

After Earth- The Next Battlefield Earth?

After writer/director M. Night Shymalan’s incredible success with the supernatural thriller The Sixth Sense, he could seemingly do no wrong. His popularity continued to skyrocket after he followed The Sixth Sense with such great films as Unbreakable and Signs. Like Alfred Hitchcock, Shymalan drew crowds to the movies based on his name alone. He could easily cast unknown actors in his films and audiences would still flock to theaters to see what thrills and twists Shymalan had concocted this time. Unfortunately, after Signs, Shymalan’s promising track record began to waiver with Lady in the Water*, The Happening, and the final nail in his coffin, The Last Airbender. It’s disappointing that a writer/director with such creativity lost his credibility for producing quality films.

It’s no surprise, then, that in the marketing for Shymalan’s latest film, After Earth, his name is barely mentioned. So much so that I had to keep reminding myself that this is a Shymalan movie, so I should expect a fantastic twist and interesting storyline, right?  Wrong. There is no glimmer of Shymalan in this film, no twist, no originality, nothing. This clearly was not a passion project of his and that disinterest shows in the final product; it seems he was just a director/writer-for-hire (Will Smith created the story and Shymalan directed the film and wrote the screenplay).

As a fan of Shymalan’s earlier work (I even liked The Village!), I convinced myself that The Happening and The Last Airbender were flukes, part of his sophomore slump. After Earth would be a platform to begin his magnificent comeback. After all, with all of the sequels and remakes rampant in Hollywood, I was excited that Shymalan was back to give audiences original material. Unfortunately, my hopes vanished after seeing After Earth, which (besides The Last Airbender, whose existence I refuse to acknowledge) may be his worst film yet.

After Earth is the latest movie starring father/son duo Will and Jaden Smith; the pair also starred together in The Pursuit of Happyness. The film begins with a voiceover by Kitai (Jaden Smith), who is in training to be a soldier like his father. Kitai explains why humans had to be evacuated from Earth and moved to a new planet called Nova Prime. Unfortunately, the accents of the characters, which sound like a strange mixture of Southern (think Savannah, Georgia) and Jamaican, make this exposition difficult to understand. At different times in the movie, I was confused because I missed a lot of the information in that opening sequence. What I gathered, however, is that humans polluted Earth so badly, the planet became uninhabitable. Luckily, they found Nova Prime just in time to save humanity and develop a new civilization on this alien planet. 

Speaking of aliens, the humans are (of course) not alone on Nova Prime; they find themselves hunted by an alien race known as the Ursas. Like sharks to blood, Ursas track humans through the pheromones released when the body feels afraid. It is up to the rangers, an elite fighting force, led by Kitai’s father General Cypher Raige (Will Smith) to protect civilization from this dangerous threat. As we quickly find out, Cypher is a living legend in Nova Prime. He was made commander of the ranger force after being the first human to successfully “ghost”, when a person can stop their fear response, thus making them invisible to the Ursas. Because of his talent, Cypher is constantly away from home, leading the rangers in battle against the Ursas. This absence creates a strained relationship between father and son.

When Kitai becomes upset after learning he may not be cut out to be a ranger like his father, Cypher decides to bond with his son and bring him on his last mission before retirement. The mission involves taking a captured Ursa to another planet to help rangers practice ghosting. As the mission gets underway, however, the ship hits an asteroid storm and must make a crash landing on the closest planet, Earth. The ship breaks apart in Earth’s atmosphere, leaving Kitai and Cypher as the only survivors; though, Cypher is severely injured. In order to save his dad and get them off of Earth, Kitai must single-handedly maneuver through Earth’s jungle-like environment to find a signaling device located in another part of the wreckage, while also avoiding the freed Ursa.

If you are looking for a fantastic science-fiction movie, showing what Earth will be like after humanity leaves, this is not the movie for you. In fact, the movie’s action could have taken place on any habitable planet. There are no visual references to recognizable places on Earth and besides baboons, even the animals are different (I don’t believe there are currently 30 ft. eagles on our planet). I kept waiting for a shot of an overgrown New York City, or something that would give me the realization that this is Earth, but unfortunately that never happened. Shymalan neglects the interesting idea of an overgrown Earth, which could provide stunning (even chilling) visuals, and instead focuses on a random jungle and active volcano.

I was also extremely disappointed by the visual effects. For such a high-budget film, the scenery looked more like an episode of the recently canceled TV show Terra Nova than a summer blockbuster. The colors of the jungle didn’t pop and instead faded into the background along with everything else. Bad visual effects are a death sentence for any science-fiction film, especially one that called for so much of it.  The scenes inside the “high-tech” ship were so bad, they made me cringe. Even the animals were second-rate. I’ve seen Life of Pi, Hollywood, I know you can do better.  

Not only were the visuals poor, but the storyline was boring, anti-climactic, and full of plot holes. For example, Cypher tells Kitai that everything on Earth has evolved to kill humans so he needs to be extra careful. Once Kitai starts off on his mission, however, nothing really tries to kill him except a leech. In fact, the huge eagle I mentioned earlier saves him. I also couldn’t figure out why the rangers were using swords to kill giant aliens in hand-to-hand combat. What happened to guns and missiles that could attack from further distances? Apparently Earth has evolved to kill humans, but humanity has devolved to using swords (or maybe I missed the explanation for this in Jaden’s opening monologue).

The only, and I repeat only, glimmer of hope in this terrible film is Jaden Smith. He has the potential to be a talented actor and really seemed to give his heart to the role. The emotional scenes with his father were powerful and I was able to take a break from hating the movie to focus on a decent performance. Will Smith, however, had the most listless performance of his entire career. It almost seemed he was tanking his role in the film to make Jaden look better (at least that’s what I’m telling myself). I realize Cypher is supposed to lack emotions and be a tough guy, but the Will Smith I know could make even that look good. After Earth also loses significant points for relegating Sophie Okonedo (Hotel Rwanda) to about five minutes of screen time. Her talent is completely wasted on this role. 

If you couldn’t already tell, I do NOT suggest you rush out to theaters to see After Earth, or even rush to Redbox when it comes out on DVD. Apparently Smith wants to turn this idea into a franchise, complete with sequels, videogames, and a TV show. However, I know I won’t be lining up to see any of it. On the bright side, congratulations John Travolta. It looks like Battlefield Earth has competition for the worst movie with “Earth” in its title. 

My Review: D-/F 

Note: For a GOOD movie with “Earth” in its title, check out the indie sci-fi hit, Another Earth, starring Brit Marling. It’s a great film. 

*I actually enjoyed The Village AND Lady In The Water.

After Earth Trailer

The Hangover Part III

 

I wish Hollywood would learn to leave well-enough alone, especially in the case of great movies like The Hangover (2009). The Hangover is easily one of the most hysterical and original comedies of the past decade. Director Todd Phillips expertly crafted a non-linear storyline, full of hilarious characters and debaucherous situations. With the great box office and critical success of this “one-off” film, the studio (of course) decided to expand the concept into a trilogy. Unfortunately, like many other sequels, parts II and III of The Hangover series are so bad that they almost make me forget the brilliance of the first film. Not to mention, it’s pretty disappointing when the funniest part of a comedy is its poster (I think the reference to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 is hilarious).

I went into The Hangover Part III with the hope that it would at least be better than The Hangover Part II. After all, it wouldn’t take much. Sadly, Part III is just as unoriginal as its predecessor. While it doesn’t follow the same flashback-esque storyline as the first two films, I don’t think there is a more formulaic plot than: someone takes money from drug kingpin, kingpin wants money back so he takes a loved one for collateral until his money is returned  (Yawn). Part III is also the darkest movie in the franchise. As an animal lover, I don’t find many key “comedic” scenes funny, such as the decapitation of a giraffe by a highway overpass (as seen in the trailer) and the suffocation of a rooster that Mr. Chow uses in cockfights. It is bizarre that a movie franchise, which made its millions on light, crude humor, would end as a dark “comedy”.

Unlike the other two films, The Hangover Part III focuses mostly on Mr. Chow and Alan. In the wake of his father’s sudden death, Alan (Zach Galifianakis) has gone off of his medication and is spiraling out of control. Phil (Bradley Cooper), Stu (Ed Helms), and Doug (Justin Bartha) decide to stage an intervention and drive Alan to a treatment facility in order for him to get the help he needs. Meanwhile, Mr. Chow (Ken Jeong) breaks out of a Thai prison and escapes back to North America to retrieve the gold he stole from drug kingpin Marshall (John Goodman).

Before the Wolfpack reaches Alan’s treatment facility, they are captured by Marshall’s goon squad and interrogated about their “friend” Mr. Chow. However, Marshall quickly realizes the fastest way to Chow is through the Wolfpack, so he keeps Doug as collateral and sets Phil, Stu, and Alan on a mission to track down his gold and, of course, bring him Leslie Chow.

I don’t enjoy giving any film starring the extremely talented Zach Galifianakis, Ed Helms, and Bradley Cooper a bad review. They are three of my favorite actors and I hate that their comedic talents are so underutilized in this film. On a positive note, they squeezed as much humor as they possibly could out of a dark script and, like in the other two movies, the three actors’ fraternal chemistry is the best part of the film; it wouldn’t surprise me if they were all best friends in real life. Unfortunately, this camaraderie will only get you so far.

While I normally enjoy watching Ken Jeong onscreen, many of his scenes in this film are so over-the-top, they aren’t funny, which is more a criticism of Phillip’s poor script than Jeong’s performance. These scenes perfectly illustrate the way in which The Hangover Part III tries to be hilarious, but instead falls flat. For example, towards the end of the film, Mr. Chow parachutes out of Caesar’s Palace screaming about his love of cocaine; hint: this is supposed to be funny. I was surprised Phillips didn’t have him crash into Vegas’ Eifel Tower, as another attempt at cheap laughs.

As always, John Goodman and Melissa McCarthy were great in their supporting roles. McCarthy stole the scenes she was in, and played a quirky love interest for Galifianakis’ Alan. Although Goodman was also good in the role of a vengeful drug lord, any actor could have played this role. One exciting guest appearance, and an interesting trivia fact, is the reappearance of Carlos (the baby from the first film), who Jade (Heather Graham) has renamed Tyler. “Tyler” is played by the same child actor (Grant Holmquist) from the first film, though he is now about four years old. How cute is that?

If the filmmakers behind The Hangover Part III were trying to make the film’s content so disappointing that audiences wouldn’t want a Part IV, they succeeded. While I’m sure it will have a successful opening weekend, don’t let box office numbers fool you. Part III is by no means comparable to the original film, and will actually leave you with a bad taste in your mouth in regards to The Hangover franchise. Unlike Hollywood, leave well-enough alone and go see something else this Memorial Day weekend. 

**If you DO decide to see the film, make sure you stay a bit through the credits in order to see a scene that will certainly make you nostalgic for the first film.**

My Review: D+

The Hangover Part III

Star Trek Into Darkness Review

There are some films that are worth the price of admission; J.J. Abrams’ Star Trek Into Darkness is certainly one of them. The long-awaited sequel to the brilliant Star Trek (2009) is just as good as you hoped, maybe even better. It is far more cheeky, energetic and action-packed than the first film, and the villain is one of the best I have seen on film in a long time. Although I am not a diehard Trekkie, I actually started to feel like I was after I left the theater! I loved the humorous references to the earlier series/films (at least the references I understood/were explained by the man beside me) and appreciated Abrams’ efforts to make Star Trek fans cheer from the audience. After all, it’s always a fun movie experience when you see a film with enthusiastic viewers. Bottom line: you don’t need to be a Trekkie (or Trekker) to enjoy this film. The brilliance of Abrams’ Star Trek reboot is that it appeals to everyone. 

While you CAN forego the 3D aspect of the Star Trek experience, be sure NOT to miss it in IMAX. It is certainly worth the surcharge since J.J. Abrams shot over 30 minutes of footage using 65 mm film. It wasn’t converted in post-production and you WILL get the bang for your buck. When you’re already super excited for a movie, there’s no better sight for a movie nerd than when a movie opens up to showcase its extra IMAX space. Not to mention the sound is incredible as well.

Out of respect for J.J. Abrams’ veil of secrecy over his projects, and the fact I don’t want to ruin the film’s many surprises, my summary of Star Trek Into Darkness will be short. That being said, please don’t read spoilers about the film before you go! Believe me, you will want to be surprised and the film will play much better if you are.  

The cold open of the film begins with James Kirk (Chris Pine) and Leonard “Bones” McCoy (Karl Urban) running from an indigenous tribe on a volcanic (not Vulcanic) planet.  The USS Enterprise has been sent to save the inhabitants from an apocalyptic volcanic eruption; however, the crew is commanded not to let the people see them interfering. After all, the civilization has yet to invent the wheel. What will they think when they see a giant spaceship?

Meanwhile, Spock’s (Zachary Quinto) mission to cool down the volcano goes awry and he is stuck in the eruption zone. Although Spock is prepared to give his life to save the planet, Kirk breaks protocol and saves him, while also revealing the Enterprise to the indigenous people. After a completely logical mission report from Spock reveals Kirk broke the Federation’s Prime Directive, the Enterprise is removed from Kirk’s command and Kirk is demoted (putting a huge damper on the Spock/Kirk bromance). That is, until the villainous John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch) wreaks havoc on a Federation facility in London. Due to spoilerish circumstances, Kirk must rally the Enterprise crew to find Harrison and bring him to justice.

Like in the first film, the acting in Star Trek Into Darkness is top-notch. Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto are perfectly cast as Kirk and Spock. They play their roles with incredible humor and sincerity, which makes for an entertaining movie experience. Abrams also makes sure to use the supporting cast for levity when the action starts to get dark. These actors, especially Zoe Saldana (Uhura), Simon Pegg (Scotty), John Cho (Sulu), and Karl Urban (Bones) provide some of the funniest moments in the film and make many awesome references back to the original Star Trek series.

Last but certainly not least is Benedict Cumberbatch’s performance as John Harrison. As I said before, John Harrison is the best villain to hit theaters in a long time. Cumberbatch’s booming voice and mysterious demeanor make his character as interesting as he is scary. At many points in the movie, I even found myself rooting for him instead of the Enterprise crew! Blasphemy, I know.

Despite the budding romance between Spock and Uhura, the real emotion in this movie is centered around Spock and Kirk’s “bromance”. From the very beginning of the film, the audience is shown how much each character values their relationship. This theme of friendship is weaved through each scene, finally culminating in a historic moment in the third act. Believe me, it is the most memorable scene of the film and one you will talk about immediately after you leave the theater. 

The ONLY complaint I have with Star Trek Into Darkness is that it ends a little too abruptly. Having such a fantastic villain, it would have been nice to see an even bigger fight scene than what is shown. It almost felt that Abrams realized his movie was running too long, and decided the climax was where he should make edits. Though I enjoyed the level of jealousy she incited in Spock, Abrams could have easily cut Carol Marcus (Alice Eve) in order to add more time for the “showdown scene”.

Regardless of whether or not you are a Trekkie, Star Trek Into Darkness is certainly a movie you need to see opening weekend. The film’s visuals are amazing, especially in IMAX, and Michael Giacchino’s score gives me goosebumps every time I hear it. Not to mention, the longer you go without seeing the movie, the more prone you are to hearing spoilers! Although it will probably be awhile before the next Star Trek movie begins filming, I will sleep peacefully tonight knowing Abrams’ next project, Star Wars, is in brilliant hands. 

My Review: A

The Great Gatsby: Just As Good As I Hoped!

Ever since I saw the trailer for Baz Luhrmann’s (Moulin Rouge) new film The Great Gatsby, I have been anxiously awaiting its May 10, 2013 release. Being that May 10 is also my birthday, is it bad that I was more excited to see the film than to celebrate my birthday?  After all, not only is F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby an American classic, but star Leonardo DiCaprio (Titanic) is one of the best actors working today, and Luhrmann, with his whimsical, over-the-top style is one of my favorite directors. Thankfully I was NOT disappointed. The Great Gatsby, so far, has been my favorite film of the year (though I am a sucker for exaggerated Baz Luhrmann productions… and Leo). Not to mention, this is certainly the best Gatsby film to date.

While the film sticks very closely to many scenes in the book, die-hard Gatsby fans (and movie critics) may be a little turned-off by the 3D effects, “chaotic” camera movement, and modern music. However, these are some of the elements that I enjoyed the most and what helps define it as a Baz Luhrmann film. I really appreciate directors who bring their own style to a production, and like Tim Burton, Luhrmann certainly has his own identifiable style. As shown through his previous movies, like Moulin Rouge and Romeo + Juliet, Luhrmann excels at bringing older stories into the modern day. Sweeping camera movements give his films the epic quality they deserve while also helping the audience feel they have been transported back in time. It’s interesting that most of his films center around tragic love stories.

For all of you who were not forced to read The Great Gatsby in English class, here is a quick synopsis of the plot. The story begins in 1922 with our narrator, Nick Carraway (Tobey Maguire). He is a bond salesman, who recently moved to a small cottage in West Egg (Long Island), a fictional neighborhood of the nouveau riche. Carraway knows no one in the area, except for his cousin Daisy (Carey Mulligan), who lives across the water in the uppity, rich East Egg community with her philandering husband Tom (Joel Edgerton).

Carraway’s loneliness is only compounded when he sees the extravagant parties thrown by his rich, yet mysterious neighbor, Jay Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio), in his Xanadu-esque mansion; anyone who is anyone drives out to West Egg each weekend for these parties. Finally, one morning Carraway is delighted to find a man at his door holding a personal invitation to one of Gatsby’s parties. As he comes to find out, however, no one ever receives an invitation Gatsby’s parties, they just show up. Why would Gatsby take the time to personally invite him? Was this a nice, neighborly gesture or does Gatsby have ulterior motives? Although the book has been out for almost a century, and you may already know the answers to these questions, I will keep the spoilers in this review to a minimum. However, I will suggest that you not only see this film opening weekend, but also read the novel. I remember enjoying The Great Gatsby when I read it in high school, but this time when I read it, I LOVED it.

Perhaps the most entertaining aspects of the film were its mind-blowing scenery, set design, and costumes (designed by Luhrmann’s wife Catherine Martin). These elements make you feel as though you are living in the roaring ‘20s along with the characters. It’s amazing that the movie was filmed in Sydney, Australia and not New York City. As opposed to many other “3D” films that are converted to 3D in post-production, Luhrmann shot The Great Gatsby with actual 3D camera lenses. This adds incredible life and depth to the film. Though cheesy, I even enjoyed the way Luhrmann projected written representations of Fitzgerald’s words onto the screen, giving the book’s written words the nod they deserve.

Not only is the production of the film fantastic, but the acting is extraordinary as well. Each role was expertly cast from an all-star roster of actors. Unfortunately, some of the actors, mainly Isla Fischer (Confessions of a Shopaholic) and Jason Clarke (Zero Dark Thirty), who play Myrtle and George Wilson, are only used in a few scenes, though their roles are pivotal to the storyline. Hopefully we will see more of them in the DVD’s deleted scenes.

While Tobey Maguire was the person I was least excited about in the film, his portrayal of Nick Carraway was spot on. Maguire excels at providing the film with Carraway’s sarcastic narration, while also knowing when to fade into the background of the scene and just react. Additionally, Carey Mulligan was the perfect Daisy to DiCaprio’s Gatsby. I really enjoyed her alluring depiction of Daisy, full of dramatic glances and gesticulations. Also, don’t miss Joel Edgerton as Tom (Daisy’s husband). Though the movie doesn’t give Tom as much “screen time” as the book, Edgerton ensures the character and his motivations fit in perfectly with the abridged storyline; it didn’t feel as though we were missing critical pieces of his story.

Probably the most surprising and brilliant casting, however, was the role of Jordan (Elizabeth Debicki), who was even better on screen than in the book. Debicki encompassed the roaring ‘20s through her mannerism and overall look. Every time she entered a scene, she commanded my attention. Last (but not least), is Leonardo DiCaprio, who is easily the best Gatsby we have seen on-screen (sorry, Robert Redford). He was the heart of the movie with his emotional portrayal of Jay Gatsby. The way DiCaprio expertly shows his emotional range, from anxious to sad to enraged will be a real treat for audiences. Not to mention, Luhrmann even uses a hilarious firework explosion to finally reveal DiCaprio to the audience; he knows who people are there to see.

Another feature of the movie that deserves its own article, much less paragraph in my review, is the film’s fantastic music. Much like Moulin Rouge, The Great Gatsby soundtrack features songs from modern artists, such as Jay-Z (who also produced the soundtrack), Beyoncé, Florence and the Machine, and Jack White (to name a few). The most haunting song on the soundtrack, however, is Lana Del Rey’s “Young and Beautiful”. This is the “love song” of the film that filters through many of the scenes involving Daisy and Gatsby. If you can’t tell already, the Gatsby soundtrack (especially “Young and Beautiful”) is in heavy rotation on my iPod.

Bottom line: seeing Baz Luhrmann’s, The Great Gatsby, in theaters is an event in itself; almost like a stage performance. If you’re a fan of Moulin Rouge and The Great Gatsby, I think you will be thoroughly entertained. Not to mention, the film is a great way to start off Hollywood’s blockbuster summer. Let me know what you thought of the film in the comments below. Did it live up to its hype?

My Grade: A+
 

The Great Gatsby Trailer

Arthur Newman Review

Arthur Newman, written by Becky Johnston (Seven Years in Tibet), is one of those independent films that you will moderately enjoy, but ultimately forget about in a few weeks. Not because the film is fundamentally bad, but because it loses steam (as well as its charm) in the third act. The film’s interesting spin on an overdone concept – middle-aged protagonist with a lackluster life decides to change things up and start anew – is left in the dust and the plot unfortunately reverts back to type. Thankfully, the extremely talented Emily Blunt (The Devil Wears Prada) and Colin Firth (The King’s Speech) are there to make the disappointing ending a little easier to handle.

Colin Firth plays Wallace Avery, a straight-laced Fed-Ex floor manager who is depressed about his boring, unfulfilled life. He has a bland relationship with his girlfriend (Anne Heche) and is estranged from his adolescent son. Desperate for change, Avery decides to do what any normal person would do, fake his own death and buy a new identity, Arthur J. Newman.

“Arthur Newman” is not as boring as Wallace Avery; in fact, Arthur is a waspy golf pro who is on his way to a golf course in Terre Haute, Indiana for a new job. Before Arthur/Wallace gets to his destination, however, he meets a free-spirited woman named Mike (Emily Blunt), who has significant baggage of her own. In fact, Mike is also living under an assumed name and running from her dark past. What are the odds?

After Wallace saves Mike’s life from an apparent drug overdose, the two lost souls set out on a road trip to Indiana and along the way develop an intriguing relationship. Things only get weirder (and more interesting) when the couple decides to take identity thievery to a new level. They break into people’s homes when they are gone, dress in their clothes, and assume their imagined personas. Only through these “characters” can Mike and Wallace connect both emotionally and physically.

 


What develops is a quirky love story that is unfortunately derailed by the writer’s change in tone. Johnston abandons much of the interesting identity theft story, and starts to equally focus on Wallace’s abandoned girlfriend and son. I would have appreciated that whole subplot cut, to make room for more character development between Wallace and Mike; by the end of the film, it is hard to discern the characters’ final motivations.  Nevertheless, I could watch Emily Blunt and Colin Firth in a movie together any day. This is certainly a film that requires likeable actors to engage the audience in a weird adventure. If not for their fantastic acting skills, and surprisingly great chemistry, I certainly wouldn’t have enjoyed Arthur Newman as much as I did.

Though I wish Arthur Newman had stayed its quirky course, I did enjoy many aspects of the film. After all, who doesn’t enjoy seeing Queen Victoria and King George VI as co-romantic leads. However, due to the disappointing third act, I certainly wouldn’t suggest you rush out to theaters to see the film. This is definitely a rainy-day rental.

My Grade: B-/C+

Arthur Newman Trailer

The Reluctant Fundamentalist Review

The Reluctant Fundamentalist, a film that is seemingly about the radicalization of a “westernized” Muslim against his adopted country, is certainly timely. After all, following the Boston Marathon bombing, many Americans asked, “How could “Americanized” citizens commit such a horrific crime?” However, due to the scattered plot and the inability to connect with the main character, I left the theater feeling more disappointed than enlightened. In all honesty, I’m still confused about what happened in the third act. Either that, or I was too bored to care.

The “reluctant fundamentalist” in this film is Changez Khan (Riz Ahmed), a Pakistani man who moves to the United States in the late 1990s to attend college. In the film’s present day, however, he is back in Lahore, Pakistan, teaching controversial, bordering on inciting, issues in a University. When an American professor is kidnapped, suspicious eyes fall on Changez and his students. In an effort to mitigate the situation, Changez decides to meet with American reporter Bobby Lincoln (Liev Schreiber). Using an annoyingly clichéd plot device, Changez tells the story of his adult life to Lincoln in flashbacks, asking him to hold his judgment until the end of the story.

Through these flashbacks, we learn that after college, Changez took a job on Wall Street at a top financial firm, Underwood-Sampson. His cunning, at times ruthless, business skills quickly catch the eye of his boss (Kiefer Sutherland), which helps Changez rise through the ranks and become an associate at the firm. When Changez meets and falls in love with Erica (Kate Hudson), everything in his life appears to be going right. That is, until the events of 9/11 change everything.

This is where the movie loses me. Throughout the film I didn’t find Changez to be a particularly likeable character. He comes off as self-absorbed and shallow, taking a job that requires him to fire people from companies to increase profit (think George Clooney in Up In The Air). After 9/11, however, the film wants you to feel sorry for Changez by showing a divergence from his American identity. The problem, however, is that the filmmaker never makes it completely obvious what caused this fundamental change. Was it the few instances we see of racial discrimination? A film about racial discrimination following 9/11 would make for an interesting movie, however, in The Reluctant Fundamentalist, it just didn’t work. Mostly because the discrimination, at times, didn’t seem to be discrimination at all and was merely payback for the outcome of an insensitive job. For example, when Changez is called “Osama” by a man in Georgia, it seemed to be less about his ethnicity and more about the fact he just fired so many people.

Even though I disliked the storyline, I did enjoy Ahmed’s performance in the film. He is a great actor and did the best he could to make his character interesting. I only wish we could have seen more of his relatable side. The other standout in the film was the perfectly cast Kiefer Sutherland. He brings his Jack Bower furrowed brow to many scenes and was completely believable in the role. Warning, if you’re a Kate Hudson fan, I wouldn’t see this movie just because she’s in it. Unfortunately, her role is poorly written, one-dimensional and at times annoying. Her role could have easily been cut to make the film a little shorter.

Although The Reluctant Fundamentalist had the potential to be great, it flounders pretty quickly, and ultimately crashes and burns in the third act. It’s never a good thing when you come out of a movie and can’t quite grasp what you just watched, nor do you care to try to analyze it with friends. If you’re looking for a drama to see this weekend, check out The Impossible (available on Netflix, RedBox, and On Demand) instead.

My Review: D+

The Reluctant Fundamentalist Trailer