Joe and Chris O's Movie Reviews

2013-07-22T21:30:00.000-04:00

By all rights, World War Z should have been dead on arrival.

Based on the Max Brooks' novel of the same name, World War Z is a globe spanning, Hollywood big budget summer blockbuster. The kind of film that comes out every year. The movie had two things going for it, one was lead actor Brad Pitt attached to the project and two was the strength of the book itself, also a globe spanning affair detailing the rise of the zombie apocalypse from a U.N. inspector's after action reports.

Brad Pitt plays the aforementioned U.N. inspector. But in the movie, his goal is to find a cure. The movie begins in Philadelphia, putting Pitt's family smack dab in the center of the American outbreak of very fast zombies (unlike the novel's slow zombies). Like its terrific predecessors in seriously good zombie flicks 28 Days Later and 28 Weeks Later, World War Z's zombies are fast and their bite turns victims into mindless machines in 12 seconds. It's big budget Hollywood summer action. And all signs pointed to it being awful. Rewrites, delays, and a severe side track from the book's scenes all suggested a bust. But the movie's success shows some positive trends in Hollywood that haven't always been successful.

It was a pet project.

Actors and actresses get paid ludicrous amounts of money to do what they do. And many movies get greenlit just because a famous name has attached themselves to the project. At the same time, many Hollywood A-listers start their own production companies to make movies starring, guess who? Them. The most famous probably being Tom Cruise's production company keeping Mission: Impossible going (and making it better). Brad Pitt was the one who attached himself to World War Z. Is anyone else surprised by that? A multiple academy award nominee (and multiple academy award snub-ee), and one of the greatest actors of his generation, wanted to star in a zombie movie. He used his money to buy the rights, and his fame to get people to go out to see it.

It had to be rewritten.

Putting aside the movie's complete disregard for almost anything in the book, World War Z started out with a pretty cool trailer. Again, Brad Pitt starring in a big budget zombie film that wasn't a comedy. But then rumors started to swirl. Production was halted, the ending was so poor they brought in extra screenwriters to rework the last third of the film. Reshoots had to be done. It was sounding like a train wreck. Fans of the book were even more distraught. And even though the final trailer was fairly epic in scale, it looked so poorly CGI'ed that I wondered what in the world they had spent almost $200 million on. It was a disaster waiting to happen. A giant money pit that only Brad Pitt could potentially rise out of. But then the movie released to both critical and commercial success. After all that had happened, people actually went out to see the movie, and they liked it!

It's still a pretty good movie.

Not just fans, but critics too generally approved of World War Z. Besides almost pointless association with the book because they have nothing in common and some light clichés and dialogue choices, World War Zwas a pretty fun movie. It takes about 10 minutes before the first zombies show up. And they are almost nonstop from there. From thrilling escapes through Philadelphia and Jerusalem, to quite encounters in South Korea and Wales, to the incredibly tense zombie breakout in an airplane midflight, World War Z isn't short on thrills. Nor is it short on scares. Despite being PG-13, and blocking out a whole lot of zombie headshots I'm sure everyone wanted to see in full glory, the movie is as tense and action packed as it should be. And if you look up how the movie was supposed to originally end, I think we can all agree that what was put to theaters is a lot better than what could've been.

Now we know that instead of pushing a product out that isn't ready, movie producers are looking at what they have, deciding it's not good enough and going back to the drawing board. Of course, they are probably in it for the money, but if that means a better movie come opening day, I'm all for it.

85th Academy Awards: Predictions

2013-02-24T18:23:00.004-05:00

Best Picture:

Amour

Argo

Beasts of the Southern Wild

Django Unchained

Les Misérables

Life of Pi

Lincoln

Silver Linings Playbook

Zero Dark Thirty

Chris:

Who will win: This category, seemingly a snap for the past two years, is entirely up in the air. Different films keep getting bumps or nods and Argo seems to be taking the lead at this point. Great movie but I don’t think it’s going to make it without a best director nod. So my pick for will win is Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln.

Who should win: My absolute favorite film of last year (admittedly I haven’t seen them all) was Silver Linings Playbook. I thought it was wonderful and I would be very happy if it took home the gold. The depth of emotion and acting ability is above and beyond past Oscar winners

Joe:

Who will win: I think Argo will be winning Best Picture, although there appears to be more competition for this category than in past years. I have read that this has gotten the top prize at a few other awards shows this season and it could be one of the rare occasions where the Best Picture winner did not have the director nominated. One film that could pose competition includes Lincoln, since most people love a good historical drama and a Steven Spielberg movie.

Who should win: I also have not see all nine nominees, but Django Unchained was my personal favorite. It was absolutely amazing, held my attention the entire time, and the directing casting all came together to form a great revenge drama, with plenty of darkly funny parts. Basically, what you expect from Quentin Tarantino.

Best Actor in a Leading Role:

Bradley Cooper (Silver Linings Playbook)

Daniel Day-Lewis (Lincoln)

Hugh Jackman (Les Miserables)

Joaquin Phoenix (The Master)

Denzel Washington (Flight)

Chris:

Who will win: Daniel Day-Lewis. The man played Lincoln. For over two hours. Everyone knows about his crazy ways to get into character. It will be hard to beat him.

Who should win: Bradley Cooper. Silver Linings Playbook is the first intense showing of Cooper’s acting chops. It was by far my favorite performance of the year. He is up against some tough competition with Joaquin Phoenix and Day-Lewis, but I think he deserves it the most. Especially since Day-Lewis already has an Oscar win.

Joe:

Daniel Day-Lewis for both. He is a brilliant actor and I kept forgetting that he was playing Lincoln. The costume, voice, mannerisms, and everything else were incredible. Day-Lewis knows how to disappear in a role and I think he deserves a third Oscar win.

Best Actress in a Leading Role:

Jessica Chastain (Zero Dark Thirty)

Jennifer Lawrence (Silver Linings Playbook)

Emmanuelle Riva (Amour)

Quvenzhané Wallis (Beasts of the Southern Wild)

Naomi Watts (The Impossible)

Chris:

Who will win: Jennifer Lawrence. Again, Silver Linings Playbook was fantastic. And Lawrence was a big reason for that. The depth you wanted in The Hunger Games is here. I can’t get it out of my head.

Who should win: Jennifer Lawrence. Completely deserved. Chastain is entirely overrated in this category. The only one I see making a J-Law upset is Emmanuelle Riva for her role in Amour.

Joe: I am severely embarrassed, but I have not seen any of the films that these actresses have been nominated for. However, I have read that the only real competition is between Jessica Chastain for Zero Dark Thirty and Jennifer Lawrence for Silver Linings Playbook. Although, Emmanuelle Riva is the oldest actress nominated in the history of the award and today is her 86th birthday, so who knows?

Best Director:

Amour (Michael Haneke)

Beasts of the Southern Wild (Benh Zeitlin)

Life of Pi (Ang Lee)

Silver Linings Playbook (David O. Russell)

Lincoln (Steven Spielberg)

Chris:

Who will win: Steven Spielberg. Best picture almost always goes with best director. It’s the safe bet and to say its undeserved is selling him short.

Who should win: This one is almost too contentious for me. I love David O. Russell (The Fighter is one of my favorite movies) but I think Silver Linings Playbook could have been slightly better. Up in the air for me.

Joe:

Who will win: I think and hope that Steven Spielberg wins the award for Lincoln. If this happens it will be his third Oscar win after Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan. He is a brilliant director, who has made some of the most well-regarded films in the history of the medium. Plus, he spent over a decade trying to get this film made, and the end result was well acted, visually appealing, and surprisingly engaging, since everyone who has read a history book (or lives in this country) knows how it will end.

Supporting actor:

Christoph Waltz (Django Unchained)

Robert De Niro (Silver Linings Playbook)

Alan Arkin (Argo)

Philip Seymour Hoffman (The Master)

Tommy Lee Jones (Lincoln)

Chris:

Who will win: Tommy Lee Jones. All the buzz is for him at the moment and no one else really shines beyond anyone else.

Who should win: Quite probably Jones.

Joe:

Who will win: I will agree with Chris on this. And Tommy Lee Jones is an extraordinary actor and just of the talented people involved in Lincoln.

Who should win: I got to admit that Christoph Waltz was great in Django Unchained and Tarantino knows how to bring out the best in him, apparently. This is just my personal preference, however, and everyone in this category are incredible actors.

Supporting actress:

Anne Hathaway (Les Miserables)

Amy Adams (The Master)

Sally Field (Lincoln)

Helen Hunt (The Sessions)

Jackie Weaver (Silver Linings Playbook)

Chris

Who will win: Anne Hathaway. Duh. Who are these other actresses? No one has even mentioned them. This is Hathaway’s to lose.

Who should win: Hathaway.

Joe:

It seems like Anne Hathwaway is going to win an Oscar this year. I am assuming most people were completely sold on her when she sang I Dreamed a Dream, live, and in a lovely close-up, in Les Miserable.

Who should win: I do love Sally Field, but she has already won two Oscars and there is a lot of talent in this category. Also, I have not seen The Sessions, but I really hope Helen Hunt got nominated for her talent and not for the fact that she was naked for the majority of the movie. She is a great actress, but also has already won.

Adapted Screenplay:

Argo

Beasts of the southern wild

Life of Pi

Lincoln

Silver Linings Playbook

Chris:

Who will win: Argo. Argo's got to win something, because in all honesty it was pretty damn good.

Who should win: Silver Linings Playbook is still my favorite for every category its nominated in.

Joe:

Who will win: I am also going to say Argo for this. I saw it a while ago, but remembering it being extremely entertaining and well made.

Who should win: Lincoln? I just love everyone that Steven Spielberg survives himself with. He can spot talent like a bloodhound.

Original Screenplay:

Amour

Django Unchained

Flight

Moonrise Kingdom

Zero Dark Thirty

Chris:

Who will win: Django Unchained. Not that I want it to win. I just have a feeling that Django will take him this award at the very least.

Who should win: Moonrise Kingdom. Also debatable but I still hate Zero Dark Thirty and hope it doesn’t win anything this year. Also Moonrise was written very well. Don’t try to deny it.

Joe:

I will say Django Unchained for both. Quentin Tarantino knows how to write darn good movie. He creates interesting characters and I could not look away. Also, great ending to the film. Had he wrecked that, then the entire movie would have been a waste of my time.

-Chris O'Connell and Joseph Sbrilli

Dredd: A Quick Review

2013-02-02T17:52:00.005-05:00

Dredd has a longer history than people might think. Many won't even remember the poorly made Judge Dredd with Sylvester Stallone back in the 90s. Even less probably remember the comic book that dealt as much with social commentary as it did with killing people.

Well Dredd is back and it's gone a direction that I highly approve. Skipping almost completely over the social commentary, Dredd has been remade into a good old fashioned violent shoot em up.

For those who don't know the deal, Dredd lives in the ruin of the old world where Judges are given on the spot judicial power. That means if they see you kill someone, they can kill you right then and there with the pretty awesome line "Judgement is final, the sentence is death." When investigating a triple homicide in a 200 story building, Dredd and his partner are locked inside with a homicidal drug kingpin known as mama (Lena Headey). So now they must fight their way to the top if they want to get out alive.

Karl Urban stars as the titular Judge Dredd. And he is badass. Never once taking off his mask, Urban puts on his best scowl for the audience and avoids any sort of inflection except anger in his voice. He grunts, he says one liners and more importantly he kills people with slow motion violence. I loved it.

At the same time, all though this was a stand alone story there were many hints about developing a larger back story and universe to play in. Judging by box office receipts that looks woeful but I for one would enjoy a little more Dredd.

3 out of 4 stars.

-Christopher O'Connell

Silver Linings Playbook

2013-01-24T14:40:00.002-05:00

It's not that often that a film so highly touted as a romantic comedy graces the Oscars with its presence. Why? Because no one can take them seriously. Comedy has no place with the best of the best. However strong this feeling in the academy is, it didn't stop them from nominating Silver Linings Playbook, which is more of a drama than a comedy. And thank God because it is far and away my favorite movie of 2012.

Pat (Bradley Cooper) has just been released after spending eight months in a mental hospital for almost beating to death his wife's lover. The incident triggered a largely dormant bi-polar tendency inside of him. While his father (Robert DeNiro) thinks that Pat could have spent a little more time in the hospital his mother (Jacki Weaver) thought it was time for him to re assimilate into society. Forced to go to therapy, Pat remains under the impression that his wife still loves him and that he must find the silver lining in life and get her back, despite a strong restraining order. But a friend introduces him to his wife's sister Tiffany (Jennifer Lawrence) who, despite not going to a mental hospital) has some serious issues ever since her husband died. They bond over their respective problems and then enter a dance competition.

Wait, what? Yeah, it sounds like screenwriting 101 where the teacher tells you there needs to be a climax where the characters work towards something and can change their lives around through the moment. Is it predictable? Yes, but it is still amazing and it is because of a clever script and an excellent cast.

Who would've guessed Bradley Cooper was so good? I remember him as the bad guy from Wedding Crashers and then the goodlooking one on The Hangover. But here we have a powerful, powerful performance that is certainly worthy of an Oscar. At the same time Jennifer Lawrence is way better than I have ever given her credit for. I know she was decent and that she has a wonderful personality (seriously watch any of her interviews) but I never knew that she could act. Well she can. She can do it very well and she can hold her own against Cooper and DeNiro who is playing one of the best characters he has in a long time. Throw in a mentally unstable Chris Tucker and you have a fantasmic cast that just gets better as the film progresses.

There are some parts of the film that kind of detract from it. There's a whole betting/Philadelphia Eagles subplot that seems important at sometimes and at others feels shoehorned in. The whole situation that leads to the end, while supposedly being the inciting incident, just feels random. They needed the story to progress so they kind of just put it in. It isn't bad, it just feels out of place.

But all is forgiven. I laughed and I very nearly cried as well. My Oscar for basically all the categories it has been nominated in. Their respectful yet revealing treatment of mental disease and finding unexpected love is a moving tale and shouldn't be classified as just a rom-com.

This is grade-A drama and you should go see it.

3 1/2 out of 4 stars

-Christopher O'Connell

Zero Dark Thirty

2013-01-20T14:13:00.000-05:00

Ask if I liked The Hurt Locker. Go on, do it. I dare you.

I didn't like it. Boom. Come at me bro.

And now we have Zero Dark Thirty which is essentially being touted as The Hurt Locker with Bin Laden. I would agree. And for me that is a bad thing. Because I think Kathryn Bigelow is a very overrated director and her win for The Hurt Locker blew me away. Zero Dark Thirty has the same kind of buzz, rightfully so detailing one of the most intense manhunts in the history of everything, and is looked to as one of the Oscar frontrunners.

The story of Osama Bin Laden is one that can be traced back to the early 90's at least. Perhaps even farther. But this isn't the story about him. It's not even entirely about the manhunt to find him. It's about the CIA operative who spent the majority of her life hunting him down. Maya (Jessica Chastain) starts out in the American embassy in Pakistan and quickly shows that she can handle torture and is very motivated to find Bin Laden. Over the course of ten years she watches multiple leads slip through her fingers, watches friends die in the hunt, and has to sit by while the government doesn't act on what she believes is rock solid information. I wonder how much of it is true and it certainly is a debate everyone will be having. Of course we all know how it ends. The good guys win and Osama takes a one way trip to the ocean floor.

It's going to be hard to review this movie because there was many parts I didn't like. And just because I don't like Bigelow doesn't mean she doesn't know how to make a film. The first 5 minutes of the film is a black screen with the sounds of 9/11 phone calls through the speakers. It was tense, heartbreaking, and set up the entire reason why everyone is so motivated to find this man and kill him. And at the very end of the film, when the helicopters take off to insert Seal Team 7 is a mastery example of visual effects, pacing and tense drama.

But the middle is a muddled experience. There is a lot of torture. And I was never sure of the film was supporting it or saying something against it. In all reality it probably wasn't saying anything at all, just that it was the necessary evil they took to find those responsible for the hijackings. But if this is how we treat prisoners of war, it's not surprising the U.S. isn't exactly revered in the Middle East.

Characters are come and go. The only constant is Maya. And the only reason I knew her name was that her AIM screenname was Maya147 or something like that. I never learned anyone else's name. Characters who seemed important would disappear and then show up years later with important stuff and never be shown again. Even Maya's character isn't developed that well. Sometimes she's really serious and intensely analyzes information and then she says "Shutup!" like a mean girl when a colleague finds a new lead. What the hell? Is the CIA high school?

Honestly, it just felt sloppy. There was a loose conglomeration of scenes that seemed only slightly related. I'd much rather watch the documentary about the whole thing coming out this year. The beginning and ending scenes were great but this film doesn't do nearly as much as it should and all of its praise is highly overrated. I will certainly be rooting against it this Oscar season.

2 1/2 out of 4 stars.

-Christopher O'Connell

P.S. Chris Pratt? As a Navy Seal? As Maya would say on instant messenger "LOL".

Django Unchained

2013-01-19T10:07:00.001-05:00

Now it's no secret that Quentin Tarantino is one of my most despised directors. Not because he is a bad director (case in point: Reservoir Dogs) but because he considers himself God's gift to directing. Meaning he can do whatever he wants because Tarantino does what he wants. And then critics shower him with praise for being adjectives like bold and daring.

With that said, Django Unchained is very unlike other Tarantino films, but very similar to one in particular: Inglourious Basterds. And I want to say I like it, but at the same time I don't and both options make me feel a teensy bit racist.

But let's sum up the plot. Right before the Civil War, former German dentist turned bounty hunter Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz) buys former slave Django (Jamie Foxx) to help him find three criminals who only Django knows look like. Upon killing them, Schultz takes it upon himself to train Django in the ways of bounty hunting. But Django's wife has been sold into slavery to a known horrible plantation owner Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio). Django and Schultz hatch a quite complicated scheme to buy her back from Candie.

Complicated? Yea for sure. Long? Getting there. Bloody? Holy hell. This film is tinted in red. The action buff in me was kind of pumped. The excess blood is almost too much at times but boy is it satisfying to see a bad guys stomach shoot out a stream of blood all over the room. The blood budget must have been more than what they paid the actors.

Of course I'm joking. Tarantino decided to do a little homage to the spaghetti western of old. And the first half of the movie accomplishes that. We have a terrific black superhero here, delivering hot lead justice to an oppressed south. And this would have been a fine movie if Django Unchained didn't take some different paths with its storytelling.

Django doesn't seem to know what to do with itself. We have this uber violent revenge/rescue story that uses a slavery ridden south as a clever backdrop to motivate both the audience and the characters. But then the movie seems like it's trying to say something. And no one can figure out what the hell it's trying to say. Very violent scenes like a mandingo fight to the death and dogs ripping a runaway slave apart seem to be just violence for violence's sake and it is quite uncomfortable, and not in the good, makes you think about oscars sort of way.

On the one hand, this is the sort of movie everyone wants to see. African-Americans, at least if I was one, would want to see a strong black hero rising up against the, quite-literally, most violent slavers in existence. Whites want to see the same thing because they want to symbolically see that part of their past wiped out in gruesome fashion.

But where Inglourious Basterds succeeds in that fashion, Django fails. And I honest to God wish I could explain why. Tarantino just seems to glorify violence for violence's sake without sparking the necessary discussion or dealing with the seriousness of what he is doing.

Django is still quite entertaining full of good performances and ironically, the least like any Tarantino film I've seen. Don't expect any oscars though.

3 out of 4 stars

-Christopher O'Connell

P.S. I looked it up. Leo actually cut his hand when he slammed his fist on the table. All that blood all over his hand? Actual blood. Now there's an actor.

The Guilt Trip

2013-01-16T20:03:00.004-05:00

Barbra Streisand may be 70, but she is showing no signs of retiring anytime soon. Which is great news for people like me who love her music and like the random movies that I have seen her in.

Anne Fletcher, who directed the poorly reviewed, but well-cast and quite funny box-office hit The Proposal, is the nice lady in charge of directing Streisand in her first starring role in 16 years. Seth Rogen stars as her son...at first they seem like a weird combination...who knows?...maybe they still are a weird combination, but as I watched the movie I got used to it. Eventually I was willing to accept that Barbra may have given birth to Seth Rogen.

The premise is pretty simple. Rogen plays Andy Brewster, an inventor who is traveling across the country to show off his fancy, scientific, and non-toxic cleaning spray. Yep, that is a major plot point...something else that I had to accept. Andy asks his widowed mother Joyce to come along for the ride, because it is pretty obvious that everything in life is more enjoyable if you do it with Barbra Streisand. The truth is that Andy wants his mother to see the man whom she fell in love with before marrying Andy's father and whom she has not seen in decades. Throughout the film all sorts of crazy and random things happen, including seeing the Grand Canyon, Barbra eating a gigantic piece of steak, and stumbling upon an exotic dancer who happens to be a car expert.

To be completely honest the two leads have very little to work with. Naturally, the plot is pretty thin, but with a better script, it could have been much more entertaining. The movie was severely lacking jokes. When someone does decide to crack a joke it is often amusing, but was probably already used in the trailer. Also, I am pretty indifferent to Seth Rogen, but he was not obnoxious or gross in this, so he did not bother me. As far as Barbra Streisand goes, I wish she had channeled a little bit of "Roz Focker," from Meet the Fockers and Little Fockers. By the way she is the only part of the last one that is not horrifying crappy and awful. That character was just crazy and hilarious to me and I loved her with Dustin Hoffman. Lastly, I felt that her previous two starring roles, both from the 1990s (Prince of Tides and The Mirror Has Two Faces) displayed her acting abilities more. However, my favorite scenes with her in The Guilt Trip involved her crying and dropping the token f-word in this PG-13 movie.

The film also needed a better supporting cast...or a supporting cast at all. Rogen and Streisand are to my knowledge in every single scene of this movie and they can only do so much with the lines they are given. The Proposal benefitted from a great supporting cast, especially the scene stealing Betty White. The Guilt Trip on the other hand has other actors who serve no purpose in the whole of the film, but merely fill a couple minutes of screen time and are never heard from again.

I do love Barbra Streisand...but I'm going to give this 1 1/2 out 4 stars. It is infinitely better than Little Fockers, like most things in life are. It is not a terrible movie, mainly because I did not leave the theater infuriated and I did get to see Barbra Streisand on the big screen. However, it is not as funny as it should have and could have been and the plot was not the strongest. Most people who read this blog probably won't even watch this...since this is definitely geared toward older people or perhaps parents. But if you like either or both of the leads...then obviously you should Redbox it for a dollar or so.

-Joseph Sbrilli

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

2013-01-05T16:50:00.000-05:00

“Well, I’m back,” I said, plopping into my cushioned movie theater seat. Back again for another journey into Middle Earth.

To say that The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is a buzzy film would be like trying to admit that it didn’t have a ridiculous name. It was the event of the holiday movie season. Especially after the news that Peter Jackson would split the film into three parts AND had filmed the movie in 48 Frames Per Second versus the usual 24 fps. I was mostly excited to see Martin Freeman of Sherlock fame get introduced to American audiences.

But unfortunately, due to the 2D showing being sold out (BECAUSE EVERYONE KNOWS 2D IS WAY BETTER HOLLYWOOD) I had to see it in 3D. UGH. In line with that, all 3D showings are shown in 48 FPS which I had heard makes scenes look really fake, like a soap opera. Double whammy right?

Sort of. In many ways it was as awful and horrible as I had imagined it to be, but in others I was slack jawed, drooling over the cinematic effects exploding in front of my undeserving pupils.

Let’s recap the story for all you nerds who didn’t read The Hobbit or just haven’t seen it. About 60 years before the events of The Lord of the Rings, the dawrven realm under Mt. Erebor (The richest in all the land) was utterly decimated by the dragon Smaug (Benedict Cumberbatch) who envied the Dwarve’s gold for himself. Smaug took the mountain as his own and the remnants of the Dwarf people wandered Middle Earth looking for a new home. By a chance meeting, Gandalf the Grey (Ian Mckellen) and the remaining Dwarf royalty Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage), grandson of the king that lost Erebor hatched a plan to take back the mountain. Along with the 13 dwarves, Gandalf picked Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) an unassuming, proper Hobbit from of the Shire that never went on adventures, to join them.

For those that read the book, this particular film ends right after the group escapes from the mountains and is attacked by wolves. They look forward to Mirkwood (also known as the Greenwood) in the next film and a conversation between Bilbo and Smaug (MEANING WE GET A SUPER AWESOME SHERLOCK REUNION).

After The Lord of the Rings was met with much success, it wasn’t a question of when The Hobbit would be made, but a question of when. It took a while but I am glad that Peter Jackson eventually took the helm again with all major characters that could return, joining the cast. But then the dreaded news, PETER JACKSON SPLITS THE HOBBIT INTO 3 PARTS! This was preceded by the news that Jackson was going to split it into TWO parts. Gasp! Traitor. He is obviously just giving in to those wallet molesting baddies in Hollywood. For shame! I yelled, the loudest of detractors. Until I read an interview with Ian Mckellen who basically said that if anyone thought Peter Jackson did this because of Hollywood then they are sorely mistaken. The film split into 3 parts because Jackson decided to incorporate an incredible amount of detail that was included in Tolkien’s appendices to The Lord of the Rings but not in the original books.

All right Jackson, I’ll put up with it. But it better be good!

Guess what? It was. The Hobbit was originally intended as the children’s book it has turned out to be. But the events that occur within shaped everything that occurred in The Lord of the Rings, and not just the discovery of the ring. There’s so much more happening in the background, the Necromancer in the ruined castle of Dol Guldur, the Dawrven assault on Moria and Gandalf’s efforts to strengthen the Northern kingdoms in time for Sauron’s assault (Which didn’t just occur on Gondor, he attacked Erebor and the free city of Dale at the same time). It really adds a wonderful amount to the story and makes me want Jackson to do The Lord of the Rings again and make that EVEN LONGER! Yes, I am a Tolkien nerd. Don’t hate. So for now I am entirely pleased with the decision to break these films into three parts.

But now let’s get back to those visual hangups. The very first scene in the movie (between an old Bilbo and Frodo) looked awful. I regretted it entirely. Everything looked fake. You can tell they are acting. And this happened throughout the movie, you gradually get more used to it. But with very personal scenes the effect is very offputting. Backing up though, the effect is marvelous. Combined with 3D the scenery effects were mindblowing. I couldn’t get enough of them. I wish there was an option to switch back and forth. I honestly can’t decide if I would do it again. I’m going to go with no, but don’t let that drag you out of doing it. As an aside, I had a humongous headache afterwards from the 3D.

At the end of the movie I needed more. I craved more. Even though I knew it was almost 3 hours long, I wanted it to keep going. And that’s the problem, it doesn’t feel like a complete story because they never reach their destination. I would much rather watch all three at the same time then sit through one and not continue. I doubt I will watch it again without the other ones in hand.

It’s hard to return to a world that you loved so much the first time. But Jackson has definitely done the best he possibly could. Ian Mckellen and Martin Freemen were powerhouses, dragging me into the film. While there are some characters that weren’t in the original book (Rattagast the Brown, Azog, Saruman, Galadriel) their additions have added so much more to an incredibly complicated story.

Lord of the Rings fans should see this movie at once and recognize its brilliance within the overall story. They should forgive the childish tone, especially since it is still quite violent, and enjoy the incredible scenery. But wait for the next two before you buy it.

3 out of 4 stars

-Christopher O’Connell

P.S. The rock people were not in the book and totally weirded me out. Also, sorry for this length.

Lockout: A Quick Review

2013-01-03T17:23:00.002-05:00

This is a terrible movie too. Actually when I searched for the Act of Valor poster, a poster for Lockout popped up.

Who greenlit this? There is quite literally the worst CGI sequence I have ever seen in a movie. It completely sets the tone for the eyeballmicrowaving awfulness that follows. Are all badguys in the future Irish terrorists?

On the plus side, Guy Pearce is super cool and should definitely become an action hero. And Maggie Grace is pretty attractive.

1/2 a star out of 4

-Christopher O'Connell

Act of Valor: A Quick Review

2013-01-03T17:20:00.000-05:00

God, what a shitty movie. And a terrible way to celebrate veterans. Don't see it, go see Zero Dark Thirty or something. I've seen youtube videos with better quality that don't waste an hour of my time. Seriously, search Freddiew and thank me later.

On the plus side, at least they weren't afraid of killing off characters, props to that.

0 out of 4 stars

-Christopher O'Connell

Flight

2012-12-02T22:48:00.000-05:00

It has been 12 years, but Robert Zemeckis is briefly back to making live-action movies (Remember Back to the Future, Forrest Gump, Castaway, etc?). Flight stars the always wonderful Denzel Washington, Don Cheadle, and one of the best supporting actors, John Goodman.

Whip Whitaker (Washington) is a extraordinarily talented pilot, which comes in handy when the plane hits turbulence or possibly has a equipment malfunction and he has to make a crash landing. Luckily, he is able to save the lives of just about everybody on the plane. Unluckily for him, he is addicted to drugs and alcohol and people begin to start investigating the possible causes of the crash. Whip must deal with his own addictions, while trying to relieve himself of possible blame for the ordeal. Goodman plays Whip's best friend and the source of much of his cocaine and other drugs.

Like with such actors/actresses as Tom Hanks, Meryl Streep, Morgan Freeman, and Sally Field, I would pretty much watch Denzel Washington in anything. He is an incredibly talented lead actor and was able to portray someone who is completely controlled by their addictions and dealing with his ex-wife and poor relationship with his son. He makes it all seem pretty effortless...which I suppose is what is entailed in being a great actor. Also, John Goodman is awesome in anything he does. I have loved seeing him in small roles in several movies this year. He does not disappoint in his couple scenes in Flight. He is absolutely hilarious in his couple scenes, including visiting Whip in the hospital, complete with cigarettes and dirty magazines.

Just a heads up, the beginning of the film is a little scandalous. If you wish to watch the movie without all of the skin, then simply skip the first five minutes. I promise you will not miss any key plot points and you may feel better about yourselves for making that judgement call.

I enjoyed this movie. It has great actors, an exciting plane crash scene, gave some nice information about addictions, and hopefully was such an enjoyable experience for Robert Zemeckis, that he will want to make many more live action movies.

3 out of 4 stars...Denzel Washington and John Goodman...if you don't like them, then stay home and don't go to the Redbox when it comes to DVD

-Joseph Sbrilli

Skyfall

2012-11-14T14:56:00.001-05:00

It isn’t often we are treated to a Bond film. Oh wait, yes it is. It happens all the time. With stunning regularity. Probably the longest running movie series (Anyone know what number Land Before Time is at?) Bond is a movie staple that refuses to die. The only character who is okay to replace actors with; Giving filmmakers the chance to revive a character that should have gone stale long ago. Director Sam Mendes has taken the old martini Bond formula and given it a good shaking, resulting in the best Bond in years.

A little caveat for this entire review: I HATED both Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace. Oh look, Bond is playing cards. He’s still playing cards. He just had a heart attack! Good thing the only gadget they gave him besides a smartphone was a defibrillator in his car. More cards. Testicle rope smacking. The end. That’s my synopsis of Casino Royale. I don’t even remember Quantum of Solace because I’m pretty sure I fell asleep. The bad guy was a wuss and the editing was a stunning homage to Transporter 3.

So I was a little wary heading into Skyfall. Even after seeing all the rave reviews. But it was all for naught because it’s a great film. It starts with a thrilling chase through Istanbul and a classic train fight. Unfortunately Bond gets shot by another agent and falls off the train seemingly to his death. But of course not. He kind of just ditches the whole spy thing and lives on a tropical island doing his thing. He comes back when an unknown terrorist blows up MI6 headquarters in order to stick it to M (Judi Dench).

Despite being an obviously broken man who isn’t as quick as he used to be, M sends out Bond to find out who blew up her office and who stole a data file containing all British secret agents embedded in terrorist organizations around the globe. The terrorist in question is former MI6 operative with questionable sexual tendencies and a bone to pick with M named Silva, played absolutely wonderfully by Javier Bardem.

In general this film feels more like a Bond film than the other two films helmed by Craig. We finally have a Q, all though his gadgetry is lacking. The Aston Martin makes an appearance, there’s thrilling set pieces, Moneypenny is finally brought in and finally we have a bad guy who can put up a fight.

But what sets Skyfall apart is the deeper themes running through it. We have Bond, reeling from a gunshot wound and semi-betrayal trying to perform at his peak. We have the constant tension of two agents (Bond and Silva) bound by their inability to ever give up, constantly trying to put the other off their guards. And finally we have a deep Oedipus Rex theme running through both Bond and Silvia’s relationship to M. Silva, being left for dead and disfigured because of M’s choices and Bond because, well, essentially the same thing. Just not as horrifying. Considering they both call her mom, this one could be explored pretty deeply. “Mommy’s been very bad.”

It’s also incredibly artistic, which I entirely credit to Sam Mendes. One of the most beautiful fight scenes is set in almost pitch black darkness with occasional gun fires. The whole time the audience is wondering which is Bond and which is his enemy. It was beautiful and done in one incredibly choreographed shot.

There are some things I take some issue with. Bond was clearly, and I mean CLEARLY, shot twice in the intro. But they only mention or show the one hole in his body. And he cuts out the bullet, weeks or even months later, BY HIMSELF with a combat knife. But realism isn’t really Bond’s thing. Q gives him two gadgets (if they can be called that) a gun that only shoots when Bond’s holding it, and a radio transmitter. Wow Q, going over the top. Bond lets that one girl die pretty easily, and the whole third act, while being a well shot awesome scene, is basically just Home Alone 4. Didn’t anyone think to call for backup at any time? No? All right, this just became Rambo.

The film rises above all that though. It is most certainly a ‘Bond’ film, with deeper plots and one of the greatest Bond villains of all time. The addition of Ralph Fiennes is also a wonderful change and I am hopeful for the next two in the series that Craig has signed on for, before he gets way too old and they need to find a new actor. I hope they change things up and give us a black Bond next time.

3 out of 4 stars

-Christopher O’Connell

Argo

2012-11-07T15:44:00.000-05:00

I have long said that the only time I can stand Ben Affleck in a film is when he personally directs it. Or he has a very large hand in the films creation. Or if he dies within the first twenty minutes (Thank you Smokin’ Aces). Because Ben Affleck, is a great director. Not just good, not just talented, but great. Gone Baby Gone could have been a fluke. The Town meant that there had to be another reason besides a fluke. And now Argo confirms it, Affleck knows what he is doing.

Set amidst the political turmoil of late 70s and early 80s Iran, Argo is the story of six American embassy employees who were rescued through a hilariously sitcom like plan and international cooperation. If you remember your history correctly, you will remember that under the Carter administration the U.S. Embassy in Iran was taken over by a very anti-U.S. Iranians. About 40 or so Americans were held captive for over a year in Iran. What most people don’t know is that six of them escaped before the place was overrun and took shelter at the Canadian Ambassador’s home.

Enter CIA agent Tony Mendez (Ben Affleck). A specialist in exfiltration, Mendez was assigned the responsibility of getting them out. After running through plan after plan that just didn’t seem to work Mendez got a crazy idea: pretend the Americans were a Canadian film crew working on a sci-fi film that they wanted to film a part of in Tehran. Mendez flies into Iran pretending to be Canadian, and gets the Americans to do the same so that they can all fly out together.

And it’s all a true story! Mostly. But the story that we have, however Hollywoodized is wonderful. The opening scenes of the movie, the gathering crowd outside the embassy, the horrified employees inside quipping, “it looks bigger today,” are so tense, everyone is waiting for the pin drop. And drop it does when the protesters finally decide to climb the wall.

Tense is the name of the game. The opening scenes, the walk and drive through crowded squares of angry Iranians and the final harrowing airport scene where one slipup of identity results in probable death for all involved.

The superb acting by all involved, especially Bryan Cranston, Ben Affleck, John Goodman, and Alan Arkin, coupled with both fantastic writing and pacing provides for a very entertaining film that does almost nothing wrong.

There are a couple of things I noticed. One, is the Iranian girl who looks like she might betray the Americans but instead risks her life for them. When she crosses the border to Iraq, we see nothing more of her. She isn’t explained in the credits which leads me to believe she was an entirely fabricated character for an interesting plot point.

And that is a real detriment throughout. There’s a nagging thought that reappears, “how much of this is real?” And for me, after doing some quick wikipediaing, enough of it is to disappoint me.

But the spirit of the film is still all there. The tension is through the roof and the sharp writing is both entertaining and dramatic. I’m sad I didn’t see it sooner.

4 out of 4 stars

-Christopher O'Connell

Trouble with the Curve

2012-11-03T22:00:00.001-04:00

Clint Eastwood has lied to us again. In 2004 he claimed he would retire from acting after Million Dollar Baby, four years later he made the same claim with Gran Torino. Now he's back to fake retire from acting in Trouble with the Curve. It was directed by Robert Lorenz and co-stars such talented people as Amy Adams, John Goodman, and Justin Timberlake.

Eastwood plays Gus Lobel a baseball scout. He has eye problems though, so people want to force him to retire so that computers and young people can decide if a kid has talent or not. Being the grumpy old man that he is, Gus will have none of that. Luckily Pete Klein (Goodman), who is Gus' boss-friend combination asks his daughter, Mickey (Adams) to go along with him. Not only is she a sassy lawyer with issues with her father who abandoned her as a child, but she also has talent for recognizing talent. Somewhere along the way Johnny Flanagan (Timberlake), a young baseball scout joins in the fun and tries to woo Mickey.

This film has gotten mixed reviews, I must admit. I got over it pretty easily, so hopefully other fans of the cast members can as well. Is it cheesy? Yes, a little bit, but not Full House cheesy, so I thought it was fine. Do we know what's going to happen between Gus and Mickey and Mickey and Johnny? Oh for sure. Clint Eastwood is a softy at heart and Justin Timberlake is very good looking.

The acting and casting was great in this movie. Eastwood and Adams have extremely natural chemistry with each other. After The Fighter, and every movie that is not The Fighter, I have to learn to completely trust Adams' acting instincts. If needed she can be just as tough as Eastwood, while still being beautiful and charming enough to entice that guy who sang that Madonna song. I found out that Justin Timberlake is hilarious, so now it is a pleasure for me to watch him in movies. Also, I love John Goodman, so very much...so if he gets a couple scenes in a movie than I'm completely in. Comedy, drama, voice acting...does it all flawlessly.

It was kind of long ago since I saw this, but I think I teared up at one point, so people have that scene to look forward though. Sometimes you just need a movie to manipulate your emotions.

Also, Clint Eastwood is an American legend and a tremendous talent, in front of and behind the camera. It does not matter that he plays some variation of the same character. It works for him.

To this day I still smile and/or laugh when I hear Clint Eastwood say, "What are you fellas starin' at? I'm not a pole dancer." If that's not hilarious coming from him, then I just don't know what is.

That's about it. I loved the cast and found it to be an enjoyable couple hours. Sure, Eastwood and the rest of the cast have done more memorable work, but I'm completely okay with supporting the careers of these lovely people.

2 1/2 stars out of 4.

-Joseph Sbrilli

Seven Psychopaths

2012-10-26T17:50:00.003-04:00

The play writing world wasn't enough for Martin McDonagh. The brilliant award winning playwrite broke into the movie world with his oscar winning short film 6-shooter starring Brendan Gleeson. Then in 2008, McDonagh released the critically praised In Bruges featuring Brendan Gleeson, Colin Farrell and Ralph Fiennes. It is quite literally one of the best movies of all time. And if you don't think so, shame on you. Four long years we had to wait for the next McDonagh film. In many ways it was worth the wait, but it many others the sophomore effort just can't quite reach the level of the first.

The story of Seven Psychopaths, like all of McDonagh's work, is always hard to pin down. You can guess where it's going but it was a total fluke if you actually predicted it correctly. It revolves around Marty (Colin Farrell), an alcoholic Irish screenwriter (Get it?) who is trying to come up with seven psychopathic characters for his new film entitled Seven Psychopaths (Seriously, do you get it? Because if you don't you shouldn't watch movies).

His best friend Billy (Sam Rockwell) is a struggling actor who wants nothing more than to help write Marty's screenplay and potentially star in it. But he's not very good at it. So in his spare time he and Hans (Christopher Walken) steal dogs from the park and then bring them back to their owners to collect the reward money. Only one day, they steal Charlie's (Woody Harrlson) adorable Shih Tzu. Charlie is a ruthless mob boss who loves his dog way more than his girlfriend or anything else in life.

And that's about as much as I can summarize without ruining some really fun and creative parts of the film. There's a whole lot more going on and I don't want to spoil anything.

So let's talk about the film's strengths. You don't see writing and dialogue like this outside of a Tarantino movie. Except I think it is even better. It's quick, it's funny and if you look away for a second you might miss the brilliance of it. Of course thankfully this time there is only one Irish accent. (I am notoriously bad at understanding other accents) The actors themselves are top notch. Sam Rockwell is in peak form as he always is, Colin Farrell is always better when he plays an alcoholic Irishman, Tom Waits is gleefully delightful as a psychopath and Woody Harrelson is forever awesome when holding a gun.

But the shining star (if there is allowed to be one) is Christopher Walken. Every line out of his mouth was either hilarious, poignant, thought-provoking or so tear jerking you want to hug him. This is his Supporting Actor Oscar nomination to lose.

And the gore! Oh god it is wonderful. McDonagh has a little love affair with gratuitous, but at the same time, hilarious amounts of gore. Headshots, throat slittings, blood shooting everywhere. It gets graphic. Thankfully, while gross, it doesn't stray too far into the too much area but it might be a little shocking to many viewers.

But Seven Psychopaths fails on a couple of levels. There's a little bit of "Hollywood" as my friends called it, pushed into the film. It's not bad, but it is noticeable. There's also several storylines happening at any one time. And both the trailer and the poster are an extreme lie. The trailer doesn't even mention the screenwriting plot and the poster lists two women as some of the psychopaths. Combined, those actresses have about 5 lines of dialogue before disappearing forever. Which results in a hilarious scene in which Hans reads Marty's script.

"Do you know women who can string coherent sentences together?"
"Yes."
"Then where are they in this screenplay?"

The film also does a poor job of connecting the scenes. Halfway through the movie they end up in the desert. With tents. With no real explanation as to how, or why they drove from L.A. to the desert.

Seven Psychopaths delivers a unique twist on the old person in a movie trying to write a screenplay gag. And it has some of the best actors in the biz going at it with some fantastic lines of dialogue. People who aren't familiar with In Bruges probably won't enjoy it. The scenes tend to have a disconnect and it just wasn't organized well. A little too many good ideas forcefully shoved into one movie.

2 1/2 stars out of 4

-Christopher O'Connell

P.S. No one can deny the brilliance and sheer creativity shown in Christopher Walken's final monologue. I wish I could come up with ideas like that.

Looper

2012-10-17T15:31:00.000-04:00

Time travel, a frightening child actor and Bruce Willis? It's like director Rian Johnson wrote down the requirements for a science fiction film and then said "Yeah, that's what I want in my new movie." Fortunately for him, and for us, he did it in a creative way that rises above tired sci-fi tropes and delivers a genuinely entertaining, if confusing, action film.

In the future, time travel has been discovered. And outlawed. Instead of using it exclusively to go back in time and draw inappropriate pictures on Hitler's face while he's sleeping, the world's future criminal organizations use time travel as a way to kill people. Because it's super hard to hide a body in the future or something. So they send people they want dead back to about 50 years from our present to be killed.

The guys who do the killing are called loopers. They wait at a predetermined position, use a shotgun like gun called a blunderbuss to blow away a recently time traveled hooded target, and collect their payment in the form of silver sent back with the target. Then they dispose of the body, usually with fire. But there's a catch that comes in the form of the phrase "closing the loop." To erase all knowledge of this operation loopers have thirty years of life given to them, at the end of thirty years they are sent back in time to be killed by themselves. For an extra reward the young self is given a large amount of gold to compensate for killing himself. The only rule is never let your target go free.

Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt, see what they did there?) is a looper. He waits in a cornfield, checks his pocket watch and carefully aims his blunderbuss. A white sheet is spread out in front of him. A man appears. Boom. In an instant he is blown away. There is no thinking, just acting. But one day after watching multiple loopers close their own loops, a man appears on his sheet but this time he isn't wearing a hood. The split second that Joe hesitates allows Old Joe (Bruce Willis) to escape, the one thing you're not allowed to let happen. Now Joe has to hunt himself down.

Sounds like a sci-fi chase action film right? Wrong. What the trailer doesn't reveal is about half of the story line. And I was very pleased with that. There is nothing quite like assuming you know what a movie will be about and then watching it take a complete right turn. Rian Johnson has thrown together, at minimum, at least 2 separate movies. Normally this would be a confusing experience, and at some points it is, but he keeps it all together for a satisfying sci-fi flick.

I had a real debate with a friend about the merits of this film. He thought some of the emotional moments were cheapened by the fact that they were forced to happen. I would half agree, but it doesn't make them less emotional for me and for most audience members. There are hard choices here. Some of them gory. There were many times where I stared at the screen slack jawed or quietly whispering to the man next to me "oh no."

Because for sheer entertainment value, "Looper" is hard to beat. Close range shotgun blasts are brutal, Levitt and Willis are fantastic at acting, and Johnson has created a believable world very much informed by past sci fi movies but unique in itself.

Sure there are some poor cheesy choices. And if anyone takes the time to actually think about the time travel stuff it would all fall apart, kind of like how "Inception" loses itself after multiple viewings. The final scene with Levitt is a mishmash of ridiculousness. This is his actual line, "And I saw it, a boy and a man, trapped forever making the same choices, stuck in a circle." LIKE A LOOP JOSEPH GORDON-LEVITT? LIKE A GIANT LOOP? JUST SAY IT, IF YOU'RE GOING TO DESCRIBE THE TITLE JUST SAY IT. Also, for anyone who saw the movie, Joe had about 20 different options to pick before choosing what he did. But instead he was like eh, all or nothing right?

But is "Looper" good? I honestly have no idea. And I saw it 3 weeks ago. But I loved watching it and I would certainly watch it again. If just to see Bruce Willis dual wield machine guns.

3 out of 4 stars

-Christopher O'Connell

P.S. Did anyone else get a Walking Dead vibe as soon as Joe got to the farm? Thankfully it wasn't nearly as long or as boring.

The Expendables 2: A Quick Review

2012-10-10T15:48:00.000-04:00

Is there any reason for this movie? No. There is not. But it has the most hilarious subtitle ever in the history of ever. Not many posters feature it because it is so mind boggingly stupid. Is Expendables 2 a good movie? Not by a long shot. Did I have fun watching it? You bet I did.

The crew is back, completely forgiving Dolph Lundgren for being a total bush in the first movie and they finally added a character that's actually under the age of 35. Hello Liam Hemsworth. The badass army war sniper who is the only title character to die. Wait WHAT?! Yup, spoiler alert. Liam dies. I guess he made everyone else look bad, or old.

But who cares? These films are so stupid that it really doesn't matter who lives or dies. Jet Li quite literally jumps out of a plane so he can stop being in these movies. But don't worry they bring out Chuck Norris, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Bruce Willis to shoot endless waves of bad guys.

There's no real plot. Jean-Claude Van Damme is just a civilian killing dick looking to sell old Russian nuclear warheads to terrorists (Seriously Russia, hide your old nukes.) And the Expendables are there to kill him and all his henchmen.

If you don't like stupid action films, don't bother. This won't change your mind. If, like me, you laughed endlessly at the first one's stupidity, gives Expendables 2 a try. Only this time around, Stallone and crew are finally in on the joke instead of pretending they're trying to make a decent movie.

0 out of 4 stars in actual movie world.

3 out of 4 stars in action/hilarious movie world.

-Christopher O'Connell

Hope Springs

2012-08-26T21:16:00.001-04:00

Hope Springs was directed by David Frankel and stars Meryl Streep, Tommy Lee Jones, and Steve Carrell.

Kay and Arnold Soames (Streep and Jones) have been married for thirty-one years. They no longer sleep in the same room, haven't had sex in close to five years, barely talk, and are not emotionally available to one another. Apparently this means that the marriage is in need of dire help. Kay takes the initiative to sign her and her hubby up for a marriage counseling trip to Maine to see Dr. Bernie Feld (Carrell), since he wrote a book on marriage and must be an expert. Arnold is against the counseling from the start, however he goes anyways, but is pretty cranky the entire time. Dr. Feld seeks to delve into these two characters' relationship and try and restore intimacy to a marriage that has become dormant over the years.

This goes without saying, but I love Meryl Streep. I have mentioned this multiple times on this blog and if you know me personally, chances are that I have told you this to your face. She is incredibly talented and can literally play any role. She looks different in every film and sometimes even gets fancy and dons an authentic foreign accent, all while transforming herself into another character. I feel like she is at her best playing real people, such as Julia Child in Julie & Julia and Margaret Thatcher in The Iron Lady. However, she is good in Hope Springs, as well. So what if it's not a role worthy of Oscar recognition. Also, she has good chemistry with Tommy Lee Jones and it is evident that she loves this man, even after years of becoming emotionally distant and lacking intimacy. I got to admit I was disappointed when Jeff Bridges decided not to play the male lead. He and Streep would have been an awesome combination. However, Jones took over the role perfectly fine, and has some of the funniest lines in the film. Mostly mined from the character's cynical personality.

The film also is further proof that Steve Carrell is a talented actor. If you are expecting Steve Carrell to be hilariously funny like he was on The Office or in several of his films, then go watch one of those. In Hope Springs all of his dialogue is spoken from the same chair in the therapist's office and hardly any of it is meant to be funny. He had a simple role, consisting of forcing Streep and Jones' characters to open up to him and each other about the state of their marriage. Carrell may be done with television for a while, but he has a quite a career in movies, and I don't see him getting typecast like Will Ferrell or Adam Sandler in the same dumb comedies.

Also, the whole tone of the film was successfully executed and dealt with important topics. The movie is primarily a drama, with some funny lines and scenes (especially during the credits...so stay and watch them...all of them). It shows the importance of intimacy in marriage and being open to one another and telling your husband/wife your feelings. The film showed some of the setbacks that the couple faced as they were trying to do the exercises that Dr. Feld suggested they do to get physically closer to one another. This adds to the realism in the film, since no marriage is fixed instantly. Had there been no setbacks, the film would have gotten cheesy and stupid and I would not have been amused by the price of the ticket I bought.

Just so no one is surprised their is talk about sexuality in this film. But the characters are married...and having problems in that department, so stop being so sensitive. And some of it is actually quite funny.

Finally, this movie is way better than Marley & Me. David Frankel also directed that, and I was absolutely not a fan of it. He also directed The Devil Wears Prada, which I don't really remember, but apparently Meryl Streep was wonderful in it.

3 stars out 4. If you like the cast or films about restoring marriages, or just want to see Steve Carell sit in a chair, then by all means see it in theaters, or rent it. I understand movies are quite expensive.

-Joseph Sbrilli

The Campaign

2012-08-15T16:02:00.002-04:00

It's good to see Will Ferrell back in a solid comedy. Discounting last years disappointing "Casa De Mi Padre" Ferrell hasn't been in a solid comedy film since "The Other Guys." But while "The Campaign" isn't his best work, it is a solid film with entertaining leads and constant laughs.

Democratic incumbent Cam Brady (Will Ferrell) has run unopposed in the 14th district of North Carolina four times. He loves America, he loves freedom, and he loves Jesus, but he isn't sure why. He just knows the people love it when he says that. But when he is caught leaving a dirty phone message for his mistress on a constituents answering machine, the higher ups decide to do something about it. The higher ups are the Motch brothers (Dan Ackroyd, John Lithgow), loosely based on the Koch brothers, who need a senator who will vote to allow Chinese factories on U.S. soil. They try to find someone less reckless then Brady. They settle on republican Marty Huggins (Zach Galifianakis) a small town business owner and son to the Huggins estate. A family that goes so far back they pay their Asian maid to talk like a black woman because it reminds them of the "good old days." Marty at first looks like he has no chance of winning, but with a ruthless Motch funded campaign manager (Dylan McDermott) both Brady and Huggins resort to dirty tricks to undermine one another in the race to get elected.

It is hard to review comedies because no one likes to read the jokes poorly remembered by me, so I am sorry if this one is a little bit short. Ferrell is hilarious. He is back into a character that immediately is reminiscent of Anchorman and should prepare him for that role again. He has beautiful hair, and acts very much like a douchey democratic politician should (looking at you former senator Edwards). He will do anything, up to and including sleeping with his opponents wife and running an ad of their sex tape.

Marty Huggins is the exact opposite. He's short and adorable. He owns two pugs and is very effeminate and very Christian at the same time. His campaign manager spends most of his time making Marty tougher. Replacing his house items with lots of carved wood, stuffed dead animals, and replacing his pugs with a lab and a retriever, the two most American dogs out there.

As I said, the movie is hilarious, with almost constant laughs, mostly coming from our two very capable leads. I wouldn't say there's very many quotable parts, just that every line of dialogue can be made good by a great actor. What detracts from the film, or holds it back is the lack of substance. This film is more parody than satire. The candidates use buzzwords to charge their audience like calling the other one a communist or invoking Jesus. Deeper issues are rarely discussed. There are some subtle jabs, like when Brady hands Huggins some Chick-Fil-A coupons, but on the whole it doesn't get very deep.

Does it matter? No, because it is still funny. Even if they both act like Republican candidates. I also died when Ferrell punches both a baby and the dog from "The Artist". Good, solid R-rated fun, that is funny for all ages in an audience.

3 out of 4 stars

-Christopher O'Connell

Bourne Legacy

2012-08-15T11:31:00.000-04:00

The original Bourne trilogy is, far and away, the best spy movies I have ever seen. Even if he's really only spying for himself. Matt Damon threw himself into the role as Jason Bourne. And moviegoers were treated to some fantastic directing by Paul Greengrass. But we all know Hollywood loves to make money, so they decided to continue the Bourne series even though both Greengrass and Damon decided to opt out. It was a bad move.

Like the poster says, there never was just one. Which we knew from the first movies because Jason Bourne was set upon by multiple highly trained assassin bad guys. If you remember correctly, Bourne was part of a secret government program called Treadstone, or Blackbriar. I forget which because they throw around these names like a great white shark throws around a seal (Shark Week baby). Well, Aaron Cross (Jeremy Renner) is part of another program whose name I didn't catch. Except in his program, each operative is given pills that boost their strength and mental capacity. Trying to engineer Captain America. But in the last film, that Pamela Landsbury woman decided to blow the lid on the whole program because she felt bad for Bourne or something. I should really rewatch those.

Well she blew the lid on Jeremy Renner's program somehow, and the government obviously only knows one way to cover it up so nobody talks about it: by killing everyone. Even civilians. Which is ridiculous. They went after Bourne because they thought he was going rogue. They go after Aaron Cross because they'd rather kill a multi-million dollar super soldier then let CBS News know he exists. Obviously, because he is the main character, Aaron is the only one in his program who escapes certain death.

So he's going to find and kill the people responsible for trying to find and kill him right? WRONG. In the weirdest plot line ever, Aaron rescues a scientist woman, whom he shares no intimacy with even though THERE'S SO MUCH SEXUAL TENSION, in order to find a way to get his superhero pills back. BUT WAIT, he only needs one pill because they injected him with a virus that made the physical pill obsolete. This is literally the plot line right here: Aaron needs the virus form of the new pill because without it, he is literally mentally challenged. They need to get to the Philippines before Aaron gets too stupid to function anymore. A very odd way to run a supersoldier program.

And that's basically the movie. Which is just one big setup for the next Bourne film. Oh and the trailer lied, remember that part that says, "It's Treadstone without the inconsistencies."? That's not referencing Aaron Cross. It's referencing a different program called Larx-3 where they bred the empathy out of their super soldiers. Apparently the government has like 20 of these programs. Aaron isn't that special. Bourne was special, Aaron just has superhuman pills.

So we have a very confusing plot, a pretty bad lead female, a end bad guy fight which is entirely underwhelming and the movie ends with no closure whatsoever. When compared to the original films, it doesn't stack up at all. There is no fair comparison. Jeremy Renner is a great lead, and I hope to god he gets to team up with Matt Damon in the next film, but if they stay the course on this one, Bourne's legacy will be a pile of crap.

1.5 out of 4 stars

-Christopher O'Connell

Total Recall

2012-08-14T13:52:00.001-04:00

I always get pumped for science fiction movies. Why? Who knows. Most of them are pretty bad. There's something about the future that will always fascinate us. How will we live? How will we interact? What new, exciting ways can we come up with to kill someone? Can we remake a movie from the 90's that was widely considered pretty great and hope that it stands on par? Not in this case, but that doesn't mean that Total Recall didn't do some things right.

Douglas Quaid (Colin Farrell) is an average, if distinctly better looking, regular dude. He lives in Australia, also known as the colony. After some crazy war, the only two places on Earth that are inhabitable are the United Kingdom, known as the United British Federation, and Australia, the colony. Everyone who lives in the colony is your working class blue collar poor people that has surprisingly Asian tastes. They all basically work for the UBF. The only means of transport between the two places is a giant train that goes through the center of the Earth between the two every day, which you have to admit is pretty dang cool.

Well, Quaid is pretty unsatisfied with life, even though his wife is a super hot Kate Beckinsale. He decides to go to Rekall, a place that can put imaginary memories inside of your head so it feels like you lived as a spy or a supermodel or something else cool. Quaid goes and right as he's being plugged in, the machine freaks out and cops break in and kill everyone. And then Quaid kills all of the cops. Now he's running around the colony and UBF trying to figure out if what he is experiencing is real or fake while at the same time uncovering a conspiracy and stopping the war.

I don't want to ruin too much more but its pretty obvious from the get-go that he is not suffering from recall memories at all. Sorry to burst that bubble but the movie doesn't really care about that. It cares about action sequences.

And boy, does it have action sequences. Car chases, lots and lots of bullets, elevator chases, and a final badguy vs. hero showdown. It's all pretty fun.

Oh and BRYAN CRANSTON IS THE BAD GUY. And it's amazing. Non Breaking Bad fans are really missing out on this man right now. But seeing him on the big screen growling and kicking ass just makes me want more of him all the time.

The problem with Total Recall is its predecessor. It just doesn't compare. It's not groundbreaking, it has a few cool ideas, but at its core it is just a slightly above average sci-fi big budget action flick. And that is fine, everyone should stop complaining about it because it is way better than the Bourne movie.

2.5 out of 4 stars

P.S. Where's the accents? Only Kate Beckinsale really uses hers and it's based in Britain. Colin Farrell is literally Irish. Use the accents, would have been way cooler.

Moonrise Kingdom

2012-08-08T15:01:00.000-04:00

How do you review a movie created by Wes Anderson? I ran into this problem a couple years back after seeing The Fantastic Mr. Fox. How can I talk about a film that reaches astounding levels of emotional depth and directorial mastery while at the same time employing quirks and strange oddities that have no place in a sane movie? It is films like this that let me know I will never be a true "critic", because there is just a point in these sorts of movies that I reach where my mind screams out, "I just don't get it. And I probably never will."

Moonrise Kingdom is a love story. It's a coming of an age story. It's a story of reconciliation. Of marraige. Of suicide. Of becoming a man. With so many characters, it can't just be one tale of one or two people. Famous actors and actresses like Bill Murray, Tilda Swinton, Edward Norton, Bruce Willis, Jason Schwartzman, and Frances McDormand sit above a bevy of budding child actors and act as backdrops for the love story between young Sam Shakusky (Jared Gilman) and Suzy Bishop (Kara Hayward). Sam is a lonely orphan, disliked by literally everyone, especially his foster home parents and his khaki scout co-troopers whom he is stuck with on the small New England island of New Penzance. But despite being ridiculed by everyone, he is surprisingly smart, confident, and survival savvy. Suzy lives on New Penzance with her parents and three brothers. She is also lonely and very perturbed when she discovers her adulterous mom has a book entitled "Coping with a Troubled Child." She and Sam started as pen pals after meeting at a church play. They decide to run away together and live by themselves forever on the island. This of course leads to various adults of the island, the sheriff (Willis), Suzy's parents (Murray and McDormand), and the khaki scout leader and his troops (Norton) going on an island wide manhunt to find them.

That is the ultimate story, Suzy and Sam finding solace in each other while the world spins around them. Seeking to get away from their broken relationships to build a new one. Honest to God, it's pretty cute. Sam's self assuredness with the things he knows and the things he doesn't is the perfect foil to Suzy's tag along but strong willed character. And the fact that Sam smokes a pipe while Suzy reads to him is fantastic.

But like any Wes Anderson film, Moonrise Kingdom is weird. All of his movies are weird. They're very quirky in ways that would put a contemporary audience in an off mood. And that is why I say that I will never get it. Because don't get me wrong, Moonrise Kingdom is a film school nerd's wet dream. It's a critics wet dream, and I guarantee one or two oscar nominations for writing and cinematography at the very least. But it's just a little too indie.

The film is wonderfully shot and the dialogue is mmm mmm delicious. I have two favorite parts, one when Sam tells Suzy, "I love you, but you have no idea what you are talking about." And when McDormand tells Murray that they have to stay together because they are all their kids have. Murray replies, "That's not enough." I gasped. It was so good. You have to see it to feel the power in such subtle scenes.

And Wes Anderson is the king of subtle performances. And I believe he draws out the best of them in here. So, Moonrise Kingdom is beautiful, full of wonderful writing and has terrific actors who never steal the show from one another. Except maybe Bill Murray because he is always hilarious. But the film is just a little weird for a guy like me. It's hard to chew on. And I believe it is about a half hour too long, dragging on with the introduction of even more characters. But it is by and far my favorite Wes Anderson movie (I've only seen a few though.) Any student of film will adore this movie but non fans of the indie circuit might not be able to access it very easily.

3 out of 4 stars

-Christopher O'Connell

The Dark Knight Rises

2012-07-20T14:21:00.001-04:00

"What does it mean?" "Rise." Prisoners chant in an old language, encouraging, or taunting, the ones who risk everything for freedom. To an untrained ear, it sounds like they are chanting for the broken city, This is Gotham. No, this is Nolan. Rounding out the epic trilogy of Bruce Wayne in glorious fashion. It's the rare second sequel, the coups de grâce of filmmaking. This is Batman.

Set eight years after the events of the second film, Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) has become an eccentric recluse. He has given up the cape so the world can believe that Batman was the one that murdered Harvey Dent. Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) has to live in the public eye, lying to the people about Harvey's death so that the city can be tough on crime. The organised crime syndicates are dead and the lowlifes and criminals that aren't in jail have moved into Gotham's massive underground tunnels.

And who is there organizing them? The partially masked villain Bane (Tom Hardy). Famous for being the comic book villain that broke Batman's back, Bane was reduced to henchman status in Joel Schumacher's Batman Forever. Now, thankfully, Nolan has returned Bane to one of Batman's most feared enemies. His plan is to cutoff Gotham from the rest of the world and hold them hostage just to eventually finish them off like Ra's al Ghul wanted in the first film.

Oh yes, The Dark Knight Rises connects very deeply to the first film in the franchise. There is little to no reference to the second film beyond Harvey Dent's death. This is out of respect for Heath Ledger's passing. In some ways it is a bad choice, Heath Ledger was such a pivotal part of the second film, but in others it is a great choice because we have returned to Batman's roots. What makes him tick and if his unwillingness to die shows him to be the craziest of all.

Fans of Nolan's visual style will be pleased. Explosions and grand set pieces abound. Most with the backdrop of the great city of New York. It really is hard to differentiate Gotham and the NYC. The massive fight outside of city hall between the police and Bane's thugs is an epic background to one of the best superhero/supervillian throwdowns of all time. If you are like me, the appearance of the batwing in the trailer was the greatest thing to happen in a movie trailer. Nolan uses the batwing (called just The Bat) gratuitously. Any chance that Batman has to climb into it, he will.

The worst part about The Avengers was the villain. Loki was a very intimidating bad guy. There is no such problem with Bane. Tom Hardy really worked out for the part. The man is massive. And the facemask choice is top notch. Much better than the comic book's Luchador mask. Bane's dialogue is always in short bursts, but what he leaves unsaid is much more powerful than what he says. He boils down the essentials to their ugliest, barest form. Bane is the only bad guy that really makes me fear for Batman's safety. Not only is he smart and calculating, he is Batman's physical match, and in many ways, his superior. He is evil personified. Not just chaos, not just lunacy like the Joker. But the embodiment of the wrong in the world.

Anne Hathaway, surprisingly, plays a top notch catwoman. She was the part I feared for the most in this film. But she really nailed it, playing the sometimes good sometimes bad heroine.

The problem with a film like this, and any film that takes place years later, is the exposition needed. Clocking in at around 2 hours and 45 minutes, Batman is a hefty view. But even so, I felt it was too short. This feels like the fourth film in the franchise. Like we are missing the third one somewhere along the way. Characters blatantly state morals or reference donning masks like its a common expression. With so many characters running around, like Joseph Gordon Levitt's Officer Blake, many of them don't have time for character development and need to explain their entire motivation in one scene.

But all is forgiven. The gripes I have are overshadowed by the scale of it. The Dark Knight Rises is a great film. This trilogy has raised the bar for superhero movies and the genre in general. It is deep, it is thoughtful and it is one of the most entertaining films of the year. It can get cheesy and there were times when Bale's deep Batman voice made me laugh, but you won't find a film that will cause more discussion about the coolness of the batwing and the degradation of society at the same time. If you haven't already seen it, get to a theater and enjoy one of the best examples of modern filmmaking out there.

He is risen indeed.

3.5 out of 4 stars

-Christopher O'Connell

The Amazing Spiderman

2012-07-16T13:22:00.003-04:00

If there is anything I hate in the movie world more than 3-D, it is reboots that happen so quickly that it still feels like they're continuing the original trilogy. I was horrified that they already set out to reboot the Sam Raimi Spider-Man series. And it's probably because Spider-man 3 is one of the, if not THE, worst superhero movies ever. (At least Batman and Robin can be considered campy.) So here we are again, a brand new Spider-man film that makes some very good choices, but also some very mediocre ones at the same time.

Andrew Garfield of "The Social Network" fame has donned the spandex for this film. He definitely looks better for the part considering Tobey Maguire already looked thirty years old when he was Spider-Man. Anyways, the film follows the plot of the first one fairly similarly. Peter Parker is raised by his aunt and uncle. He is in love with a girl, (Gwen Stacy, Emma Stone, the original comic book love interest and way better choice than Kirsten Dunst), who actually gives him the time of day BEFORE he gets superpowers. He gets his powers after being bitten by a spider, that is never explained to be anything that special, on a trip to Oscorp. Which if you remember from the first film is owned by Norman Osbourne, the eventual Green Goblin. Well, he gets his powers, uses them as a metaphor for puberty, his uncle is killed by a gunman, he decides to become a vigilante and then a big green villain threatens the city and Spider-Man has to save the day.

I'm going to talk up the movie's praises right now. The film is very well shot and the CGI doesn't look like a bunch of power rangers flying around the city. But the film's strength lies in the acting and Marc Webb's dance of relationships. Everyone is perfectly cast. Rhys Ifans is pretty creepy as Dr. Connors/Lizard. I especially loved Sally Fields and Martin Sheen as Aunt May and Uncle Ben. They were just wonderful. And Emma Stone is always a darling. The budding relationship between her and Garfield was both believable and fun to watch. Which is the main reason Hollywood got Marc Webb to direct because of his film "500 Days of Summer." When Uncle Ben died, I was heart broken. It was so sad.

Now let's discuss things that I didn't like. WARNING SPOILERS AHEAD.

The movie was touted as more faithful to the comic books and that's why it needed to be redone or whatever. But they really only changed two things, the love interest, and the web shooters. In the comic book, Peter Parker invents his own web shooters after discovering his powers. His first love interest is Gwen Stacy, not Mary Jane.

They stuck close to Gwen Stacy, that was accurate. But the web shooters? No. Peter Parker's "normal" power is that he is basically a science genius. In the comics he invents the web shooters. In the movie he just borrows them from Oscorp. As in he literally orders the web material from Oscorp and builds a device to shoot them. In like 5 minutes. You'd think someone from Oscorp would notice a guy shooting their super strong web material all over town that they freely advertise. When Green Goblin shows up he could just shut down production, whoops no more Spider-man, that was easy.

This isn't from the comics but it made me laugh. Dr. Connors needs like one formula to perfect his antidote for losing limbs or something. Peter just copies a formula from his dead dad's notebook and says it's his. For real? Not only is he not a genius, he's a plagiarizer.

There also is no wrestling scene. They replaced it with a convenience store scene where Peter refuses to stop a convenience store thief. Who kills Uncle Ben. Again, very unlike the comics. He also never catches the convenience store thief, which makes me think they might bring him back as a villain like they did in "Spider-Man 3" God forbid.

And my last irk in this otherwise fine summer entertainmentblockbuster is one that might be solved in the second film. Which could potentially be a genius character arc. In the end, the Lizard kills Gwen Stacy's dad, New York's police chief, who operated without backup like an idiot. But in his dying words he tells Peter to stay away from his daughter so she doesn't get hurt. Peter says yes, because hey, the man is dying, you can't say no to a dying man. He ignores Gwen, doesn't go to the funeral and acts all emo about it. She confronts him and asks him if "He made you promise, didn't he?" Somehow she figured it out. But then in English class, a teacher talks about broken promises, and Peter whispers to Gwen, "Those are the best kind." And she smiles.

Whoa, douchebag alert. But potential genius alert. And here is why. It's douchey if nothing comes of it. They fall in love and that is that. He broke the promise but it was fine. It is absolute GENIUS when the next film comes out if Gwen dies. In the comics, Spider-Man accidentally kills Gwen when he stops her fall too suddenly, snapping her neck. If this happens, it means that because Peter broke Mr. Stacy's promise, directly leading to the death of Gwen at his hands. I'm all giddy thinking about how potentially good the next film could be.

On the other hand it could be the same thing with more cheese.

So to recap, the new Spidey-boot is fun, well acted and serves its role as the summer movie tent pole. It's pretty cheesy at times but it's worth a view. But it's genius will have to be seen in subsequent sequels.

2 and a half out of 4 stars.

-Christopher O'Connell

P.S. Spider-Man tells so many people that he's actually Peter Parker. Except Aunt May who can't seem to figure it out despite her nephew coming home every day covered in bruises.

Brave

2012-07-09T14:55:00.001-04:00

Seventeen years ago a little film studio called Pixar created a little film called Toy Story. It proved wildly popular with both critics and normal people and led to 12 more films from the studio, the latest being Brave, co-directed by Brenda Chapman and Mark Andrews. It stars the vocal talents of Kelly Macdonald, Emma Thompson, Billy Connelly, and Pixar's "good luck charm," John Ratzenberger.

The story is definitely not as original as most of the previous Pixar films, such as Wall-E or Up. Obvious connections can be drawn from classic fairytale Disney films, such as Snow White and the Seven Dwarves and more recent films, such as Tangled. Brave takes place in Scotland. Merida (Macdonald) is a tough redheaded princess who plays by her own rules and shoots arrows. She is convinced that her mother Queen Elinor (Thompson) does not understand her...another extremely popular plot point in the over century long history of Hollywood. Merida's parents (Connelly voices King Fergus) want her to marry one of the sons from the neighboring clans. However, it is pretty slim picking and she wants to be able to choose who to marry. Oh yeah, and Merida makes a deal with a witch (don't ever do that!) which results in her mother turning into a bear (another previous Disney movie reference!) Apparently if someone whom you have differences with turns into a bear, then it is easier to relate to and understand one another.

This is Pixar so obviously the animation is absolutely brilliant and beautiful. Even by today's standards the original Toy Story still looks pretty darn good, but things have only gotten better with each passing Pixar film. Just about everyone who watches or reviews Brave mentions the main characters flowing red locks of hair. Yes, it is incredible, every single individual strand is essentially flawless. Also, all other shots of the film look beautiful, as if Scotland was actually filmed. Pixar has a way of animating insanely realistic outdoor shots...mountains, trees, water, etc...you'll probably be impressed. Lastly, I think animated people will still never look normal, but that's fine, I've come to understand how friggin hard it must be to animate humans.

In case you forget that this film takes place in Scotland, there is an endless supply of Celtic style music. It was all quite lovely and really sucks you into the time period, setting, and culture of these characters.

Also, I feel that this film and last years Cars 2 veered slightly toward too immature humor. This includes cleavage and bare butt jokes. I know it's not a big deal, but I always thought Pixar was better than that and it sort of caught be off guard.

Finally, Pixar unfortunately no larger has a spotless track record, which is fine. Perhaps I just have unrealistic expectations for them and being perfect all the time must have been getting stressful.

Cars 2 ruined that record. It wasn't even that bad of a movie and the animation and Michael Caine's voice were wonderful. However, it was completely unnecessary and I feel like it was made mainly to sell more toys for Disney/Pixar. Brave was definitely better (at least it didn't get an awful rating on rottentomatoes.com!), but still not up to par with Toy Story 3 and all the films before.

I just hope that Pixar can get completely back to it roots and return to making original stories that are the perfect blend of humor and emotion, perfect for every member of the human race...Now we have the Monster's Inc. prequel (Monster's University) to look forward to!

2 and a half stars out of 4...and I still will watch every single Pixar movie...the company just evokes trust.

-Joseph Sbrilli