DVD: Gnomeo & Juliet

Photo: Amazon.ca

Starring James McAvoy, Emily Blunt, Michael Caine and Ozzy Osbourne. Directed by Kelly Asbury. 84 minutes. G

Why garden gnomes? Seriously. Why? Do children have affections for them like they do cuddly bunnies and silly monkeys? Do they even know what they are? Maybe it's just an attempt at dual address, using "quirky" gnomes to pull in parents. But even then, fondness for gnomes is kind of overrated, if you ask me. They're just ugly and dirty and creepy.

But I guess some people out there think the little guys are cute, because they're the stars of this Romeo and Juliet adaptation for children. The story is basically the same, except that the rival yard-dwellers are colour-coded: red vs. blue (no, not that red vs. blue, Halo fans). And everything is translated into lawn language, ie. vehicles are lawn mowers. There's also the element of Toy Story-esque magic: inanimate garden gnomes come to life and lead dramatic lives when people aren't around.

What persuaded me that this film might be alright was the Elton John soundtrack. But after seeing the film, I just feel scammed by advertising. I love Elton John's music and I expected a couple original songs, not his hits recycled and re-purposed, and barely even that. Honestly, if this is the only compelling aspect you see in this film (and it was for me), just re-listen to his greatest hits CDs.

As far as the plot is concerned, we all know how it goes, and this film throws no twists toward the older viewers. Furthermore, there's a complete lack of passion in the titular duo's romance. Yes, it's family film, but like I said, it's clearly an attempt at dual address, and there's just not enough in it for the parents.

Laughs are also scarce. I enjoy jokes aimed at kids. I like silly and predictable children's humour. And with the grown-up gags falling flat, you'd think at least the kiddie fun would hold up. But you'd be wrong. C-

EXTRAS: Deleted scenes, alternate opening and endings.

Little Fockers

Photo: allmoviephoto.com

(Oh, fock off.)

Starring Robert DeNiro, Ben Stiller, Owen Wilson, Teri Polo, Blythe Danner, Barbra Streisand, Dustin Hoffman, Harvey Keitel, Laura Dern and Jessica Alba. Directed by Paul Weitz. 98 minutes. PG

It's been years since the last (and probably the best) round of Gaylord, er, Greg Focker and Jack 's Byrnes semi-funny feud attempted to hammer away at our funny bone with their son-in-law-meets-overprotective-former-FBI-agent-dad hijinks. But apparently some us are still gasping for more PG guffaws. I mean, what other reason would there be to reunite their repeat portrayers - Ben Stiller and Robert DeNiro - for another sequel?

It's clear to see Little Fockers is nothing more than a holiday movie season money grab. The completely useless sequel isn't particularly funny and lacks a real focus, unless you count the numerous shots of Jessica Alba's butt-hugging shifts.

The title and millions of previews that invaded cineplexes over the past year suggested that it we would get to see the newest members of the Focker-Byrnes brood embark on their own slapstick nonsense. And while that's definitely here - there's a whole plot about trying to get them into The Human School, a pretentious teaching establishment that favors limited rules and individual learning - it really just reworks the same scenarios we've seen twice over. Just in a new household.

Director Paul Weitz (About a Boy, American Pie) tries to trick us into thinking Greg and Jack have gotten over their issues with each other by kicking of the comedy with a somewhat sentimental side story. After Jack has a secret heart attack (he revives himself with the help of the wires in his lie detector), he has a heart-to-heart with Greg, asking him to prepare to take his place as the head of the family. Or as he so awkwardly puts it, become "The Godfocker." But of course this partnership doesn't last for long as Jack begins to suspect that Greg is cheating on his daughter (Teri Polo) with his new business partner, Andi (Alba). It doesn't help that Andi's business is erectile dysfunction drugs.

Ben Stiller and Robert DeNiro clearly have a blast working together again, hamming it up with their over-the-top verbal and verbal bashing. But there's little chance you'll feel the same. The real laughs are few and far between. Either you've heard them before - either in the previous films, the relentless trailers or even, other comedies - or they're just predictable. Like when the director of the school (Laura Dern) assumes Greg and Jack aren't son and father-in-law, but rather, May-December gay dads. Yeah, it's as lame and sitcom-y as it sounds.

Even lamer is the fact that the funniest part of this not-so-funny flick is the scene that rolls over the credits, which has Stiller retelling the events of the previous movies, with a YouTube generation twist. But to be honest, the real fock up in Little Fockers is the fact that there's not nearly enough Barbra Streisand or Dustin Hoffman for anyone's liking.

The duo, who play Greg's overtly free-spirited parents and made Meet the Fockers a well-deserved, legitimately slaphappy hit, have minimal screen time. Apparently, Hoffman didn't even want to be in the flick, citing the poor script and change of directors (the first two were directed by Jay Roach of Austin Powers fame, who was too busy working on Dinner for Schmucks to do anything other than produce this time around) And really, after watching him squirm through another awkward Latin dance routine, who can blame him? C-

DVD: Letters to Juliet

Photo: amazon.com

Starring Amanda Seyfried, Christopher Egan, Vanessa Redgrave and Gael Garcia Bernal. Directed by Gary Winick. 105 Minutes. PG.

If Letters to Juliet were a colour is would be pink. The pale, yet warm girly pink that lines little girls' bedrooms and makes you think of strawberry ice cream, lip gloss and carnations.

Letters to Juliet begins as the romantic comedy that isn't yet aware that it's a romantic comedy. Sophie Hall (Amanda Seyfried) is a fact-checker with The New Yorker who dreams of being a writer. She's engaged to a soon-to-be restaurateur (Gael Garcia Bernal) and we're supposed to believe that they're in love, although he neglects her. When the two go on a trip to Verona, Italy for their "pre-honeymoon," the distance between them swells even more. Aside from the fact that he's too busy doing prep for his restaurant, he doesn't even let her finish her sentences.

This is the biggest problem with the film. In order to believe that a relationship is falling apart, we need to first believe that a relationship was there, and the film doesn't convince us of this. It's hard to imagine that the two were even ever remotely attracted to each other. He ignores her and doesn't care about her life and it's impossible to believe that he ever did.

One day during her Verona trip, Sophie is spending the afternoon on her own when she comes across Juliet's wall. It's supposedly the wall near Juliet Capulet's home where women write teary love-sore letters and pin them to the wall for Juliet to read and reply. At the end of a day, a woman collects them all in a basket. Sophie sees this and follows the woman through town to find that a handful of women writing replies to the letters. They ask Sophie to join them and, with nothing else to do on her pointless pre-honeymoon, she does. While collecting letters, she finds one hidden behind a brick from 50 years past. It's about a woman (Vanessa Redgrave) who has run away from her true love and Sophie undertakes it as her duty to reply. The next day, the woman returns to Verona and Sophie joins her on a mad chase throughout the region to find the long-lost Romeo.

It's difficult to say how well roles were played because with such a corny script, it's impossible to avoid corny acting. It's a bit disappointing to see Seyfried in this film after having seen her performance in Chloe, but it's the script that brings her down. Nothing in this film seems genuine, especially when after 50 years apart, true love reunites a couple and they're both so unattached to their lives that they completely throw themselves at each other and ignore anything else that ever was.

What's also cliché is the soundtrack, far too Disney. You're almost waiting for her to spin through a pink, sparkly haze and come out a princess. It's hard to recognize Taylor Swift's "Love Story" when it plays because it's just such an obvious song choice that you'd think it would never be chosen.

But what was most ridiculous about the film was Sophie being a fact-checker. At least it only lasts for about five minutes. Unfortunately, the DVD last for 105 minutes, extended an entire 10 painful more minutes than the theatrical version. C-

EXTRAS: Commentary with cast and director, deleted and (dreadfully) extended scenes, featurettes

DVD: Invictus

Photo: AllMoviePhotos.com

(All eyes on Damon)

Starring Morgan Freeman and Matt Damon. Directed by Clint Eastwood. 113 minutes. PG

Forget counting sheep at night, just watch Invictus. While it's an important and rare story to tell and the actors and director are reputable, the film is simply boring.

The film is set in the early 90s when Nelson Mandela (Morgan Freeman) is released from prison and takes his first term as President of South Africa. Invictus focuses on Mandela's goal to unite blacks and whites through rugby and how Springboks captain François Pienaar (Matt Damon) helped transform his team into one worth cheering for.

While the film is backed by big names, both in the film world and real, what's missing is drama. It's seems like a logical formula: major historical movement + Clint Eastwood + Freeman and Damon = amazing film. But the story is not told compellingly. While certain scenes aim to illustrate a very important point, they drone too long and excessively reiterate the same thing, without passion. In the scene where Mandela brings in the former president's security guards to work with his own, there is very little conflict. One of Mandela's security guards is angry so he walks out, speaks with Mandela who tells him that they need to work together, then he returns and they work together.

However, there are a few scenes that stand out, thanks to Matt Damon. He brings deep conviction and feeling to his role, speaking from a fire within. Even the scenes he says nothing are moving. Like when he visits the Robben Island prison and visit's Mandela's former cell. Where most of his scenes focus on the power behind his words, this scene showcases Damon's ability to guide us through a critical scene with just his silent actions.

This is not to say that Freeman doesn't deliver, but Mandela, although was very influential and powerful, does speak softly and calmly. It is not Freeman's fault that his scenes drag on. In fact, Freeman is nearly flawless in his role. It's how the scene progresses around him that falls short. The dialogue is slow and other characters are not memorable.

The rugby scenes are also unengaging. Perhaps it's because it isn't as recognized a sport as football or baseball. Eastwood does not pay enough attention the actual games to bring us into them. Rather than avoid the sport because the audience isn't as familiar with it, it would have been better drop hints about it throughout and work on drawing the audience in.

This film can at least be praised for its honesty. It doesn't seek to overdramatize scenes where maybe there was no drama. It also doesn't seek to dramatize scenes where there likely was drama. It's clear that Eastwood wanted to create a film that stir emotions, as he has done in the past. However, he fails to make a connection that would keep us invested throughout. C-