Will's Movie Archive

Abduction Review

2011-10-16T20:40:00.000-07:00

Abduction Review

Nathan is your average teenage boy, he parties, he drinks, he rides a motorcycle, and...oh wait no average teenage boy does these things. From the beginning you have to put aside logic and reason if you want to enjoy Abduction. If you are capable of this then you will likely enjoy your time, if you can't then you won't be pleased in the least.

At first glance at the promotion for this film you see nothing but Taylor Lautner, but look closer and you find all kinds of wasted talent. Director John Singleton does a great job of putting his star into the best possible company. Great actors like Alfred Molina and Sigourney Weaver, and up and coming talents like Jason Issacs, Michael Nyqvist, and Maria Bello all try to make the best of what they are given. If you haven't heard of these people I am not surprised; but if you have, you understand why I said that Abduction is a waste of talent.

The real problem with the movie is the story and the script. Besides lacking in believability the script has more loose ends than a frayed knot. Every single character has a subplot designed for them that goes absolutely nowhere, slowly. The subplots slow down the movie and force the audience to listen to protracted dialog about character motives. The writer of this movie needs a lesson in "Show me-don't tell me" cinema. And while It's clever for a movie to have paranoia be a driving plot factor, and it is also great to have several suspects, you can't tell the audience to trust someone, then not trust them, only to trust them again all within the same five minute chase scene. It's frustrating, and eventually the audience stops caring.

I don't think Abduction is a terrible movie, I enjoyed a great deal of it because I could shut off my brain, and just go with it. I suppose the best way to describe Abduction is that it's a candy bar. It tastes good, but has no nutritional value. It is just a simple action film designed in an attempt to cash in on Lautner's Twilight Saga popularity. And while financially it really is a no brainer, if Lautner really desires to continue his acting career, he better not alienate "Team Jacob" with mediocre cash grabs like this.

Moneyball Review

2011-10-06T21:58:00.000-07:00

Moneyball Review

I am a huge fan of the Oakland A's. I am also a huge fan of Aaron Sorkin. So it would reason that, like peanut butter and chocolate (two great tastes, that taste great together) a movie about my favorite team coupled with a writer that I am also fond of would be nothing short of brilliant. Unfortunately, Moneyball falls short of brilliance and while it is a good movie it is not as entertaining or as factual as I would have liked.

In plain and simple terms, the success of last year's The Social Network

allowed this movie to be made. For those of you who are unfamiliar The Social Network was the "Facebook" movie. While partially about the creation of Facebook, the movie is really about one man's ego and search for power and the people he hurts along the way.

Moneyball is essentially the same film but replaces Facebook with baseball. Specifically it deals with behind the scenes baseball politics. It is a movie less about baseball and more about how owners put together a product. Some baseball teams are wealthy and put together fantastic teams with all star players. Some baseball teams put together modest clubs for modest funds. And then there is everyone else who put together teams with the leftovers. Moneyball is the system Beane created to get the most bang for his buck.

Whether you believe in the system or not doesn't matter to the movie, all you need to know is that he did it and this movie is about his struggles to get it accepted by those who refused to let go of the old ways. Personally I feel like Moneyball was a fabrication of the "steroid era." That most of his successful teams were juiced beyond compare, and that Beane was a "genius" at finding players who were desperate enough to cheat. But you don't read my blog to read about sports, so let's discuss the movie.

The movie is in a word uneven. It is smart, well written and clever. It is also dull and lifeless. The performances are really the only reason to see the movie. Every actor in their role is brilliant, each member of the cast does really become that character. Director Bennet Miller gets one of Brad Pitts most mature and interesting performances as Beane. He also does a brilliant job of coaxing a unique performance out of Jonah Hill. Hill was in danger of being typecast as the slacker character, and hopefully this opens new doors to him.

Basically, Moneyball is a movie about baseball that has absolutely nothing to do with baseball. What the movie really is about is the ego and "genius" of Billy Beane, the man who claims to have changed baseball. The movie is a good drama, with lots of brilliant performances by top notch actors like Brad Pitt and Philip Seymour Hoffman. However, just like the Social Network these performances lift an otherwise lifeless story with not much happening.

Drive Review

2011-09-17T18:52:00.000-07:00

This review marks the 40th film this year that I have reviewed. I find it fitting that it is also one of the most unique movie going experiences I have had in a long time, and that is saying something. I say unique because it is hard to pin down exactly what kind of movie Drive is. It isn't exactly exploitative action, nor is it your standard drama and while I did laugh a few times I certainly would't classify it as a comedy. The best way, and the only way I can think of to describe Drive is to say that it is a throwback to late 70s and early 80s anti-hero films. Not only does it thematically fit those films but director Nicolas Winding Refn has made deliberate stylistic choices that echo that cinematic time period as well. From the neon titles, to the music, to even the shot selection, everything about this film oozes the slime and dirt of the 1980s.

I have always thought of Ryan Gosling as a bit of a pansy. That's not to say that I don't think of him as a great actor, I do, but I have never considered any of his performances to be particularly tough. There was of course his breakout role in "The Believer" but since then most of his roles have been of the soft variety. This film certainly changed my mind. Ryan Gosling is silent, violent and brooding in this film. He has very few lines and yet he has the ability to say more with a stare and a gesture than most actors do with Shakespeare.

Gosling's character spends his days as a stunt car driver for the movies, and his nights as a wheelman for various hold ups and robberies. He avoids personal entanglements and has contact with only one man, a broken old mechanic named Shannon (played with just the right amount of desperation by Bryan Cranston). When he meets his neighbor Irene (played by Carey Mulligan) and her son he becomes changed, as if they bring out the best in him. He appreciates the relationship they have and develops a bond with the two that allows him to act normal.

Just as their relationship is developing, Irene's husband, Standard, is released from prison. Despite being an ex con Standard isn't a bad guy, he just made bad choices. Now that he is out he is determined to keep his nose clean and get his act together. That would have been easy except he accepted protection from a group expecting payment upon his release. They want too much, so he offers his services in a robbery.

It is during the robbery that the tone of the film changes. It literally turns up the intensity to eleven. The tension and the suspense are heightened. It is also during the robbery gone wrong that the brutality starts to take center stage. The movie is very violent, not graphically so, although there is plenty of blood spilled, much of it on Gosling's scorpion jacket. The best way to describe the violence in the movie is visceral. The movie makes you feel the violence rather than showing it to you, and as a result you are more affected by it.

All of the acting in the film is superb, each actor becoming lost in their perspective roles almost completely. Gosling is amazing in his role displaying an intensity that has rarely been seen on film. But the real surprise is Albert Brooks. His performance completely blew my mind. I have seen a good chunk of his work, and while everything I have seen suggests his talent, none of it suggests his ability to display this kind of menace in a role. His character is just as brutal as Goslings, but with far more to say. I would be surprised to not see him on the ballot come Oscar time.

Nicolas Winding Refn has directed only a handful of films and is most recently known for directing the equally as brutal film "Bronson." Quick history lesson: "Bronson"is the film that most American directors discovered Tom Hardy in. His performance led to being cast in many of the films you are seeing him in now including "Inception," "Warrior," and "The Dark Knight Rises." Like "Bronson." "Drive" is an intense, brutal and beautiful film.

Overall the film is a well crafted, a well acted and a superbly paced action film that because of it's violence may not appeal to everyone. Despite its violence it is a film that should not be missed or dismissed. It is truly a masterwork of filmmaking.

Contagion Review

2011-09-15T21:55:00.000-07:00

It truly is refreshing when a film not only expects it's audience to be smart, it requires it. It would be nice however if the movie was as entertaining as it is informative. Contagion, the new film about the rise and fall of a global pandemic, does an expert job of informing us about the true natural horrors of disease in the modern world. Not only does it do a good job of informing us about the disease, it does so without talking down to the audience. While it doesn't expect you to be an expert epidemiologist, if you pay attention you will likely learn many common CDC phrases like R0 (pronounced R-naught), Index Patient, not to mention finding out what an MRE really is.

Contagion is a rare movie in that it decidedly revels in its own realism. It encourages us to fear what exists. Germs surround us. They co-exist peacefully, and invisibly around us. If you didn't already know how germs and viruses are spread this movie will definitely inform you, and you will undoubtedly be vigilant in your avoidance of door knobs, handrails and of course touching your face for a few days post viewing. It wants to instill a panic in people so that if this incident ever actually occurred, or rather actually occurred again, we will be prepared for it. The best way to think of this movie is to think of it as a PSA headlined by A-list actors that wants to give you nothing other than its message to deliver. Sure there are entertaining moments, moments that give you a laugh or disturb you, but all these moments are in service to the message.

Similar to Soderbergh's much better message film Traffic, Contagion follows a group of individuals affected personally, professionally and emotionally by a pandemic of unknown type and origin. Each character is well acted, well written and for the most part fully formed. Despite most of these characters being very interesting, once these characters serve the realistic purpose for which they are intended they literally disappear from the film never to be heard or seen from again. That is frustrating because so many of these people would make a fine film in their own right, but because they are a part of the larger scale picture they get lost in the shuffle.

The movie had significant issues most of which I felt were due to over editing. Something tells me there is a four hour film that was forcibly chopped to just a bit over two. While I could be wrong, expect a longer directors cut to appear at some point in the near future. I do encourage you to see the movie, I think we should all see most movies, but I know time is valuable and so is your hard earned money. Because of that I have included the video below. This short film will allow you to have the same experience in less than five minutes, and is just as informative and enjoyable as the full film.

Contagion Viral Video : How A Virus Changes The World - Watch the best video clips here

Warrior Review

2011-09-08T21:44:00.000-07:00

Warrior Review

Sports movies are by far the most generic cliche genre of film because no matter what you know that the underdog is going to come out a winner, and that he or she will face an unbeatable opponent and/or insurmountable odds. Bad sports movies remind us constantly that this inevitability is going to happen. Bad sports films don't leave us on the edge of our seat wondering if our protagonist will win or not. On the other hand, great sports movies transcend these cliches, they ignore or rise above them. They make the movie about something else, and then, even though we know the hero is going to win, we still sit on the edge of our seat, and we still cheer for them in the end. Warrior is one of the great ones.

One of the strengths of the movie is that it has a two pronged approach. Warrior is a unique movie going experience because we have two heroes, two underdog characters who must overcome adversity to achieve success. Tommy (played with burning ferocity by Tom Hardy) is a war hero, he served in Iraq where he saw heavy combat. He has returned home and is beginning to put his life back in order. Brendan (played by Joel Edgerton) is a teacher and family man. His day to day struggles are how to put food on the table, and keep the foreclosure notice off his door. Tommy and Brendan are also brothers, estranged and separated by their choices. Both men are fighting for different reasons, both men have nothing to loose, and both men are fighting the demons of their past.

The demon of their past is of course their father Paddy (played but Nick Nolte). Paddy was a violent and vicious alcoholic who now in recovery is trying desperately to rebuild the broken relationships with his sons. Nolte is spectacular as the somewhat pathetic Paddy. His performance is deep and nuanced, and while we never feel he deserves to be forgiven, you do hope that he and his sons reconnect in some way. I would not be surprised if Nolte isn't recognized this awards season for his portrait of a broken man struggling to put right the sins of his past.

Also of note is the performance of Tom Hardy. Hardy is quickly becoming known for his physique as much as his talent, and here he shows off both. Hardy plays Tommy as a man burning on the inside, full of rage and hate. Outside of the arena Tommy struggles with his relationships, not knowing who to trust. Inside the arena Tommy instantly overwhelms his opponents with unbelievable power. Hardy spends much of the movie looking like an angry bulldog, ready to brutalize anyone or anything that comes near him.

Through varying twists of fate both men find themselves in SPARTA, a Mixed Martial Arts competition that is much hyped because of its five million dollar payout. I don't know much about MMA, but the film does a great job of teaching us about it. You certainly don't need to be experts or super fans to appreciate or understand the film. Each fight that occurs on their journey is suspenseful and exciting despite the fact that we know the two brothers eventually make the finals (if you think that is a spoiler don't watch the trailer). The two brothers with their contentious past must face off in the most brutal and violent sport that has ever been. Despite being built up It is here, where the two must face off that the movie lost me. It didn't lose me completely, but the last twenty or so minutes seem incredibly anti climactic. We as an audience are asked to root for both characters for so long through out the movie, that when we have to pick a side it is nearly impossible. Who do you root for, the man who fights to regain his honor, or the man who fights to support his family. Compound that with the fact that both men are brothers and personally I would have rather seen them hug it out rather than slug it out.

Overall the movie is a real and honest look at the relationships between brothers of blood, brothers of fraternity, fathers and sons, and of course combatants. The movie takes a brutal and violent sport and humanizes it, making us see the warriors in the ring as men instead of just gladiators.

The Debt Review

2011-09-04T18:02:00.000-07:00

Movies have become dumber. Do not try and deny it they have. No matter how much we want to say we are more sophisticated as an audience we are still slaves to big explosions, dumb dialog, and special effects. As a consequence we have killed the political thriller genre. Despite its faults, I give The Debt a massive pat on the back for even being made. Think back to the great political thrillers of the past and ask yourself if they would be made today. Movies like 3 Days of the Condor, All The President's Men, or the Manchurian Candidate (1966) are perfect examples of political films that made statements, and made us think while simultaneously keeping us on the edge of our seat. I don't think that The Debt is quite on par with those classic films, but I do think that it is a noble effort to bring back a dying genre to american audiences.

The story revolves around three former Mossad agents who are now entering their golden years. The three agents (Helen Mirren, Tom Wilkinson, and Cirian Hinds) have gained notoriety for their part in a 1966 mission in which the three tracked down and eventually killed the "Surgeon of Birkenau." Their story has since become legend and as a great man once said: "...when the legend becomes fact, print the legend." The movie then immediately flashes back to the events of the mission. The three agents (now played by Jessica Chastain, Martin Csokas, and Sam Worthington) have discovered the "Surgeon of Birkenau" working as a gynecologist in East Berlin. They work up a plan to extract him from East Berlin and deliver him up to a war crimes tribunal in Israel. Things go wrong, mistakes are made, and sacrifices are inevitable.

The Debt is essentially two movies placed into one story. The initial and closing segments could have easily been expanded to work on an independent level, but are over condensed to bookend the flashback. While the flashback is the focus of the movie I still would have liked to have seen these bookend sections given a bit more time to create a better story for the great older actors that inhabit these portions.

The flashback section is a remarkably well made kidnapping thriller. Jessica Chastain is really having one heck of a summer. Between The Tree of Life, The Help and now the Debt, she has really established herself as a quality actress. Her scenes in the gynecologist office are really tense and uncomfortable and they are because she makes you feel her discomfort. Also of note is the amazingly despicable performance by Jesper Christensen. Christensen portrayal as the "Surgeon of Birkenau" is nothing short of exceptional, and you can see he delights in his manipulation of his captors.

It's nice to know that despite the continuing trend of loud and stupid filmmaking, that there is a segment of people dedicated to creating intelligent and thoughtful dramas. Even if they are imperfect.

Our Idiot Brother Review

2011-08-27T01:19:00.000-07:00

Our Idiot Brother Review

There are two ways to look at the world around you. You can accept the notion that people are inherently evil and as a result untrustworthy. If you believe in this notion then you likely distrust people, and when they are evil you are prepared for it, unsurprised, and not disappointed. This may sound like a jaded, and skeptical philosophy, but it is a safe philosophy that will likely leave you undamaged. Then there is the opposite notion, the concept that people are inherently good inside. Those who subscribe to this philosophy believe that if you give people the benefit of the doubt, and trust that they will live up to it and try to be the best that they can be. Ned, played by Paul Rudd, believes in the latter.

His belief in the goodness in people is labeled as idiocy by those around him, and while I do believe that Ned lacking in common sense (his actions throughout the movie show this), his good nature and innocence are hardly idiotic. Ned simply believes the best in people, even when they are not. Ned is perceived by those around him as a slacker. Recently been paroled from prison for selling marajuana to a uniformed officer, Ned is struggling to get back on his feet. His girlfriend has replaced him, forced him off her farm, and even taken sole custody of his dog, Willie Nelson. Despite all these set backs Ned is upbeat and positive. He relies on the kindness of his three sisters (Emily Mortimer, Elizabeth Banks, and Zooey Deschanel) to help him with a place to live and the occasional odd job.

In his various encounters living with his sisters he begins to foul up their lives. He doesn't intentionally interfere, nor does he want to cause them harm, he is simply just honest. Whether is is to his benefit or not his one moral code is to be pure and honest with everyone. His belief may cause problematic relationships with those around him who do not also believe this, but to be nothing but open and honest with people is noble, and Ned is certainly a character of great moral nobility.

The movie is charming and witty and may be so because it was blessed with acting far superior than it's writing deserved. All of the supporting players do an excellent job and play their characters wonderfully. The real stand out actor of the film however is Paul Rudd. He treads a fine line between innocent and idiot constantly. He must be naive enough to believe that naked interviews in documentaries about ballerinas is commonplace, but astute enough to know when he is being manipulated. In several instances he has to play the part as childlike and mature simultaneously.

Christ figures are common if not over used in film. Ned, while not a Christ figure could easily be described as a Buddha figure. Buddha saw that each human being had the capacity to purify the mind, develop infinite love and compassion and perfect understanding. He shifted attention from the heavens to the heart and encouraged us to find solutions to our problems through self-understanding. The truth is Ned is far from an idiot, he is not a buffoon, or a dummy; he is in fact wise beyond his knowledge.

Don't Be Afraid of the Dark Review

2011-08-26T03:23:00.000-07:00

Don't Be Afraid of the Dark Review

Nyctophobia, or the fear of the dark is something hardwired into human beings. Nyctophobia is a phobia generally related to children. Children fear the dark because We have been conditioned, to have a mild to moderate trepidation of the dark. As many predators hunt at night, this fear may have developed as a byproduct of evolution. Rational fear of the dark is good for us, producing caution and alertness for the natural dangers of darkness. Those with acute cases are likely to be nervous in any dark place, experience elevated heart rates, breathlessness, and anxiousness. Most of us learn to cope with the fear but for whatever the reason, most people also retain a bit of a fear of the dark. As a result, darkness is a frequently used element in horror movies and Halloween events.

Don't Be Afraid of the Dark makes excellent use of our instinctual fear of dark places but is less of a horror movie, and more of a Grimm's style fairy tale. As most of us know much of the work of the Brother's Grimm was dark, violent, and in many cases frightening. They are also typically cautionary in nature, meant to instill a fear of something dangerous so that children would avoid them.

The story revolves around Sally (Bailee Madison), a young girl who is sent to live with her father (Guy Pearce) and his girlfriend (Katie Holmes). The couple is in the restoration business, and as a result have taken residence in a creaky and creepy old east coast mansion. Sally's curiosity, leads to the discovery of a hidden basement, which holds the whispering secrets of the previous homeowner, and much more. After her discovery, Sally is haunted by whispering voices with unknown origins. The voices befriend her, comforting her, drawing her in. By the time Sally realizes the voices are more menacing than she once believed, it is too late, and the damage has been done.

Guillermo del Toro crafted this story based on a 1973 television movie, and gave director Troy Nixey a fantastic foundation in which to visually tell his tale. His film feels very similar to Amenabar's The Others, or even Bayona's The Orphanage. These types of films push the viewer into heightened states of primal fear, where we become more alert and anxious. This edgy feeling gives the director a power over us, that can easily manipulate us. In this film we are given creatures based loosely on the tooth fairy myth. These monsters scurry about in disturbing and unsettling ways. They taunt the viewers as much as they taunt their victims, and just when we think we have escaped, they pounce.

Don't Be Afraid of the Dark plays on our fear, but doesn't attempt to get cheap thrills, or shocks. This isn't the kind of movie that makes you jump, but it is still full of frightening moments. It is meant to disturb us, to make us uncomfortable and edgy by playing upon our very real, very natural fear. I stated above that the movie is less horror, and more cautionary fairy tale. As a result I think many people will be disappointed. But if you are open to the idea that the film exists not to scare or frighten us but to warn us, it makes the movie that much better. I encourage you to go in to this film without the expectations of modern horror films (no gore, no violence, and no jump out of your seat moments.) If you do, you will be treated to a very good film.

Conan The Barbarian Review

2011-08-20T21:55:00.000-07:00

Conan The Barbarian Review

Some movies don't age well. They are just not built to stand the test of time. The original Conan the Barbarian is not one of these films. The Arnold Schwarzenegger version of the Robert E. Howard comic book hero is truly a classic. From the action, to the story written by Oliver Stone, everything was perfect for a Conan movie. Despite being great it is now nearly 20 years old and I don't think an Arnold helmed Conan movie works anymore. So in order to bring it back they had to re-boot.

So we are treated to a new take on the origin story. The movie begins with Conan's birth on the battlefield, cut from his mother as she lay dying. The movie then shifts to Conan as a young boy. It is here we are given our first, and really best, action sequence of the movie. Conan even as a young boy shows vicious and dangerous skill as a killer. He not only kills 3 rival tribesmen he single handedly destroys and decapitates them. He has proven his manhood and begins his training at his father's side. Not long after this Conan's village is attacked by Khalar Zym, a ruthless barbarian on a quest for power. Khalar burns the village kills Conan's Father and leaves Conan for dead. Conan, of course, survives and swears to avenge his father's death by hunting and killing Khalar Zym. The remainder of the movie is just that, Conan hunting and killing those involved in the murder of his father.

My biggest problem with a re-boot of any movie, especially origin stories, is that they typically rehash and repeat so many of the same story elements that the story is not new or fresh, and thus are boring. Unfortunately for us the 2011 version of Conan the Barbarian is just that, a boring and repetitive rehash.

Jason Momoa takes the title role, and looks appropriate in the part. He is big, muscular and wields a sword quite well. His acting isn't good, but it doesn't have to be, he is asked to be a perfect warrior and he does. The real acting in the movie should have come from the villains played by Stephen Lange and Rose Mcgowan. Alas, these two play nothing more than wooden characters with little or no gravity. Also painful to watch is Rachel Nichols. Nichols play a priestess who is being hunted by Khalar in order to complete a blood ritual that will complete his quest for ultimate power. I wasn't expecting high quality acting but I wasn't expecting below B level acting.

My biggest issues with the film are not with the acting, but with its plot, or lack there of. The movie is nothing more than a string of battle sequences, each more dull than the prior. From start to finish the movie is driven not by a story, or even a plot, but by any excuse to crash through walls and clash swords. The whole movie is just nonsense and I tired of it very quickly.

The worst of it is that it looks good. Marcus Nispel does a very good job of bringing the world of Conan to life. If he had spent as much time directing the action sequences, and bringing something new to them, then the movie might have been much much more exciting.

One Day Review

2011-08-19T04:35:00.000-07:00

One Day Review

There is nothing wrong with an emotional movie. I love when a movie can make me cry, or make me laugh, or make me think, or make me anything. I appreciate being drawn into a movie so much that I care what happens to the characters. What I hate however is when a movie intentionally manipulates the audience into feeling these things. When a movie is overtly emotionally manipulative it irritates me to no end. One Day is an example of a story that really and truly deserved a better movie. I am sure that fans of the book will be angrily disappointed. The story is beautiful, the movie is not.

The movie begins and takes place on the 15th of July every year. Every year on the 15th we are given a glimpse into the current status of the relationship from its inception. Our characters grow and experience life and we are given the 15th to make sense of what has happened as if we were catching up with an old friend we hadn't seen in a long time. That's part of the problem with the movie, we spend so much time catching up, and figuring out where our couple has been that we never really connect with where they are in the moment.

The idea of watching a relationship over long spans of time is not new in movies, When Harry Met Sally did the same thing, jumping about in time to relevant moments, but with When Harry Met Sally we are given a more fleshed out scenario before the jumps. In One day we jump so quickly and so often, there were times when I thought to myself "wow I guess nothing happened in 1993."

Despite a muddled accent, Anne Hathaway does a good job playing Emma, the hard working yet pessimistic young woman who wants to be a great writer, but doesn't have the confidence or courage to do so. Jim Sturgess also does nicely as Dexter, the arrogant television host who becomes his careers own worst enemy. The moments when he is in real pain are well acted even if they stink of directorial manipulation.

Most love stories have that one moment of clarity when our two characters realize that they are meant to be together. In One Day these moments happen in almost every year we glimpse the two together. We are constantly shown that these characters want nothing more than to be together but keep getting in their own way. Be it circumstances or timing, Emma and Dexter can never seem to get together. Somehow even when they finally do get together we are unimpressed because we knew it was an inevitability. The entire story comes across as very anticlimactic because there is such an emotional disconnect from the characters it makes it hard for us to care when we are supposed to.

One Day was directed by Lone Scherfig whose critically over praised, An Education, was one of my least favorite Oscar films of 2009. An Education was a well made period piece that I found tedious and dull. So it is not surprising that I found much of One Day to be equally well made but just as equally tedious.

Overall I was disappointed by the movie. I wanted a sweeping love story that spanned decades, and took my breath away. What I got was a passionless, and monotonous tale of two co-dependent people who couldn't be honest with each other or themselves. The real tragedy of the story isn't the love story, but the fact that nobody cares.

Fright Night Review

2011-08-19T03:46:00.000-07:00

Fright Night Review

Remakes of classic films are seemingly everywhere. Hollywood has essentially become obsessed with the idea that what was once out dated can once again be classic if dusted off, cleaned up and of course updated for the youth market. There is no doubt in my mind that this version of Fright Night is very much aimed at teens and young adults who without question wouldn't have known this was a remake unless people like me told them. There is nothing sacred about the original Fright Night from 1987. It is and was just your standard vampire next door movie. So when it comes to remakes I don't mind them digging up lumps of coal and turning them into...well, shiny polished lumps of coal.

The Fright Night of 2011 is something that in 23 years will be looked upon in a similar fashion to the Fright Night of 1987. The story is not spectacular, and neither are the effects. Don't get me wrong they are both perfectly adequate and are neither distracting or awe inspiring. They are in a word acceptable. Acceptable for a movie of this caliber. However, where this version of Fright Night excels is in the performances.

Colin Farrell shines as the wicked vampire "Jerry." He absolutely relishes in the role and as he preys upon and stalks his unwitting victims you can tell he was born for this kind of charming monster. Also exceptional is Anton Yelchin as the teenager who discovers that his charming neighbor is a creature of the night. Yelchin brings a quiet intensity to the part that allows you to believe he is just another naive kid but also take him seriously when he decides to take control and go on the offensive. The final performance of note is also quite possibly my favorite of the film. Peter Vincent, played by David Tennant is an example of a brilliantly written character played perfectly. Vincent is your typical Vegas Magician. He is full of flash and theatricality, a shining example of gothic indulgence and mystery, but all of that is smoke and mirrors. Behind closed doors his true nature is revealed, and that is just a cowardly english slob, who drinks as heavily as he curses. His true nature of course is a result of his tortured past, which led him to the occult and why our hero seeks his advice. Tennant plays the multi leveled character so well he steals every scene he is in and, were it not for his ferocity and delight, would have stolen the movie away from Colin Farrell.

Jerry is quite a pleasant and charming fellow, all the better to suck you in before he sucks you dry. But Jerry is nothing more than a serial killer or a sociopath, putting you at ease with his charisma just long enough to gain the element of surprise when he attacks his victims. Vampires have always been romanticized by Hollywood. It is easy to make these beastly characters sympathetic immortals who are tortured by their curse. Fright Night is not your brooding, moody, romantic vampire story. No, it is a brutal, violent and vicious vampire film. Vampires are monsters, they are predatory creatures, preying on humans like lions prey upon gazelle. The bloodsuckers in this movie are less Soap Opera more Shark Week and it is refreshing to see monsters on film actually be monsters again. While the violence in the film is never gratuitous or overly gory, much blood (most of it CGI) is spilled, splattered and spewed.

The movie is full of dark humor, traditional vampire eroticism, jumps, scares, and of course action. While Fright Night may not be a perfect film; it fits nicely into the end of the summer when audiences are ready for something other than mindless action, but not quite ready to think heavy yet.

Final Destination 5 Review

2011-08-12T23:25:00.000-07:00

Final Destination 5 Review

Like many things in this world the Final Destination franchise has evolved over the past ten years. The initial film in the series was incredibly mild in comparison to the gore-fests we have been treated to in the last few outings. Of course the first Final Destination had nothing to live up to, and while not without its moments of graphic and vicious violence, the shock of the idea of someone getting hit by a bus was enough in that film, they didn't feel the need to show the aftermath.

Next came Final Destination 2, which upped the death toll, as well as increased the gore by a factor of 10. It is with this film that the series took a turn and became something more graphic. It held on the the same concepts as the original but laid the groundwork for what the series was to become in the future.

The next two entries are more famous for having some of the most memorable and gruesome death scenes ever put on film. These entries were a test of wills. I honestly think that the creators simply wanted to test our limits. How many vile and horrific deaths are we as an audience willing to take before we walked away from the series. These entries are void of story, plot, and character. Depending on how you look at things the fact that we didn't walk away is either a good thing or a bad thing.

This brings us to the newest entry to the series Final Destination 5. My personal opinion of this movie probably will have no bearing on whether or not you will see the film, these movies have a polarizing effect on people, but I actually thought that this entry in the series was much more in line with the first film, albeit just as gory as we have become accustomed to in the latter entries.

I won't go into plot details, essentially it has the same plot as the other films. A group of people survive a horribly tragic accident after one of them has a vision. These people were not meant to survive the accident and are now being picked off one by one by Death. In Final Destination 5 our group of survivors witness a bridge collapse. Just like the other films the initial disaster is massive in scale with an even more massive body count. Our survivors this time are told that if they kill another person to take their place then Death will essentially balance the books.

If you pay carful attention to the background images, background characters and background scenery, if you do you will catch enough clues to the fantastic twist at the end. You may think that spoils the surprise but it is actually a twist that is more satisfying if you know that its coming.

As I said before this film does a much better job of balancing the gore and horrifying deaths with a quality story. While you know who and when the characters are going to die, the deaths in this movie are not what you expect. Every time I thought I knew how the victim was going to die, I was happily surprised by the different yet equally brutal outcome. Yes I am not ashamed to admit that I chuckled and enjoyed the brutal ways that these characters were ended. Perhaps that makes me a sadist, or a sick and twisted individual, but from the sounds around me in the theater I was not the only one. Enjoy!

30 Minutes or Less Review

2011-08-12T03:07:00.000-07:00

30 Minutes or Less Review

30 Minutes or Less is the follow up to director Ruben Fleischer's underground hit Zombieland. For those of you who are unfamiliar, Zombieland is essentially Shaun of the Dead: American Style. Traditionally follow up films are missing something, they lack the originality, the passion, or the spark that made the first film stand out. 30 Minutes or Less is an example of that slight yet noticeable drop off between film 1 and film 2.

The best way to describe the film is uneven. The intention was to make an action comedy, the result however, is an unbalanced film that really has difficulty blending the two elements. Sometimes the comedy is inspired other times it is insipid; sometimes the action has you on the edge of your seat and sometimes you are yawning.

Jessie Eisenberg plays his usual stammering character, in this case he is the stammering slacker, Nick, who gets high and delivers pizza for a living. His best buddy, Chet, is played by Aziz Ansari, who is best known from his role in the NBC sitcom Parks and Recreation. The two banter over beer, and bicker over past indiscretions. In general they are the best of friends who genuinely care about each other, but don't want the other dating their loved ones.

The flip side of this duo is Dwayne and Travis, played by Danny McBride, and Nick Swardson. These guys are not lovable losers, they are just losers, plain and simple. These two nuckle-heads decide, with some coaxing from their local neighborhood stripper, to hire a "trained assassin" to eliminate Dwayne's father in order to collect his inheritance. The only problem is how to pay the assassin. After much deliberation, Dwayne and Travis decide to strap a bomb to a pizza delivery boy and instruct him to rob a bank. Enter Nick, who just so happens to be said delivery boy. From here the movie cranks things up to 11 and were along for the ride.

Aziz Ansari is really the high point of the movie. He has great comic timing, and delivers many of the films most memorable lines. Jessie Eisenberg seems to play the same character in every movie, and while I think he may have been miscast this time, he still does his thing. Danny McBride needs to find a new schtick. Every movie I see him in is just another variation of his character from Eastbound and Down. Maybe thats all typecasting, but I would hope that his talent is more than pompous jackasses who like to curse and make veiled, or not so veiled, references to his genitalia.

The movie literally shakes a 2 liter bottle of chaos and sprays you in the face with it. It is fast paced and wastes no time delivering the plot in less than 90 minutes. While it tells a straight forward story, and goes from point A to point B in as direct a route as possible, there isn't much breathing room for the characters to develop.

The first victim of this is the Major, played by Fred Ward. He is the ex-marine father that Danny McBride's character wants dead. I couldn't help but feel that his character got the short end of the stick in the editing room. Also lacking any kind of development was Nick's love interest, and Chet's twin sister Kate. There obviously was a plan for a romantic subplot that simply went away when it either slowed the movie down or perhaps just didn't work. The last character that really should have gotten more was the "trained assassin" played by Michael Pena. Essentially just a thug for hire, his character had so many quirks, and great moments that I almost wish there had been more of him in the movie and less of Dwayne.

I liked the movie, but I felt like it could have been much better all around. The comedy could have been better, the action could have been more exciting, and the characters could have been more fleshed out. While 30 Minutes or Less is the kind of short sweet and to the point kind of movie that doesn't need a lot of plot twists or gimmicks to work, it could have used a bit more baking before leaving the oven.

The Help Review

2011-08-10T13:48:00.000-07:00

The Help Review

I am going to preface this review with a couple of disclaimers. First, I have not read the book by Kathryn Stockett in which this film is based. I am sure the book is fabulously well written and full of great depth. I am equally as sure that fans of the book, as always, are sure to have problems with the cinematic adaptation. Second, as a white male in my early 30s I doubt that I am the target audience for this movie. This movie is textbook chick flick, and while my money is as good as anyones, the movie was not made with my demographic in mind. Having said that, I can now tell you my honest opinion of this wonderfully charming yet somewhat flawed film.

The title The Help refers to a number of things in the film. First and foremost it refers to the black women who took low paying, laborious jobs as nannies and housekeepers in affluent white homes in the 1960s. Aibileen (Viola Davis), and Minny (Octavia Spencer) are two such women, when they are noticed, which isn't often, they are abused and denigrated by their employers. Despite their mistreatment they raise the children of their employers to be "kind, smart, and important." Then there is Eugenia "Skeeter" Phelan (Emma Stone) Eugenia is one of those children who was raised by the help, she has just returned from college, and is kind, smart, and who wants to become important as a writer. Skeeter sees the wrongs being done and is trying the help simply by documenting it and by doing so hopefully change things.

The story is simple yet powerful. All three women have important stories to tell, and all three stories seem to have the same vicious nemesis, Hilly Holbrook (Bryce Dallas Howard). Hilly is a mean, spiteful, bully. She is also the worst kind of racist, the kind that does so with a smile, and teacher her children that hate and ignorance are proper thinking. Hilly's crusade is to create legislation that requires the "colored help to have separate facilities in private homes." She is meant to emulate the separate but equal mentality that dominated the south during the pre civil rights era. Skeeter's forward thinking immediately clashes with Hilly's.

Another important side story is that of the ostracized Celia Foote (Jessica Chastain). Celia and her husband live on a plantation on the outskirts of town. Celia's only crime is being naive to the social structure, and being married to Hilly's high school boyfriend. Celia is the only person who would hire Minny after Hilly fires her for using the indoor toilet. Celia and Minny develop and odd relationship that gives both women new strength and courage.

The movie will likely be compared to The Color Purple. Despite the obvious comparisons, these films have little or nothing to do with one another. Yes both films are about black women gaining strength and courage while also finding their voice, but The Help is not nearly as heavy, as violent or as dark as the Color Purple. In fact that is probably the movies biggest flaw. These were very dangerous times to be black in the south. and while the women are fearful and worried that their actions may have repercussions, we never are exposed to them in the film. Aside from knowing the history of the times there is nothing in the movie that gravely threatens our characters. Hilly is their biggest threat and she is nothing more than a cartoon character and beyond what she represents not really scary at all.

As much as I wanted the movie to be darker, and heavier, I appreciated its lighter side. Similar at times in tone to Fried Green Tomatoes, the movie just enjoys telling the story of these women. It has many laughs mostly at the expense of Hilly, and then there is the chocolate pie, that is "so delicious!"

The movie is incredibly enjoyable and while I dislike the term "chick flick," The Help certainly qualifies as one. There is only a few male characters they are relegated mostly to the background. When we do get a real male character he is not given much to do and just when we think we can get behind him, his true nature is shown to us we are left disappointed.

The real bright spots in the movie are the performances of Viola Davis, Octavia Spencer and Jessica Chastain. Their roles are meaty, but without the talents of these actresses, their characters would not have come to life, no matter how well written. I would not be surprised if one, two, or all three were nominated this year as supporting actress.

I may not have been the target audience, and I have not read the source material, but I liked the movie all the same.

Another Earth Review

2011-08-09T00:28:00.000-07:00

Another Earth Review

The concept of alternate realities is always an interesting and insightful one. The movie Another Earth examines the idea of who would you be if you made different choices, had taken the other path, what would you be if you were another you.

Another Earth falls into the ever growing genre of reality based science fiction. These films are not special effects driven science fiction. They take place in a relatable time or in a relatable place. They very easily could happen tomorrow, and because of that I feel that they shouldn't be classified as science fiction. Another example of this type of movie is Gareth Edwards fantastic film Monsters.

Another Earth is a small independent film that takes place four years from now. The world has become absorbed with the discovery of a planet visible on our horizon. The planet is eerily similar looking to our planet and has earned the moniker of "Earth 2." Scientists theorize that Earth 2 is a mirror planet, and that it is identical to our planet. They also theorize that the population of Earth 2 is likely also identical to the population of our Earth. While the movie's science fiction revolves around the theories and philosophies of Earth 2, the real plot of the film is about a young woman named Rhoda.

At the beginning of the film Rhoda makes a horrible and costly mistake. Recently released from prison Rhoda attempts to re-assimilate to a society now changed by the discovery of Earth 2. She wanders lost and confused, not knowing her exact place in the world. She decides to investigate John Burroghs, the victim of her mistake. She wants to approach him, to apologize, and take responsibility for her mistake. She knocks on his door, and when he answers, she freezes. Unable to make amends she devises a cover as a cleaning woman and offers her services to him. He agrees and the two develop a relationship that eases his pain, and gives her purpose, but is entirely fraudulent.

The films strengths lie in its characters. Both Rhoda and John are played realistically and honestly by Brit Marling, and William Mapother. The two bring amazing depth to the story. Rhoda and John are both so well developed and so well portrayed, that it makes the movie that much better. Their story is simultaneously painful, romantic, and tragic.

While the story and the characters are strong, I was really impressed with the philosophical undertones that popped up throughout the movie. The movie constantly poses hypothetical questions throughout the film that not only keep you connected to the characters but also keep you thinking about your life, and your choices and what you would do if you were presented with the same situations. Those philosophical hypotheticals along with the eerie visual of the horizon overwhelmed by the presence of Earth 2, won't easily be forgotten.

Overall the film is a brilliant character study set within the structure of a science fiction. Hopefully the big budget Hollywood films take a cue from these smaller films and populate their big budget spectacular films with quality characters with real depth.

Friends With Benefits Review

2011-08-07T00:56:00.000-07:00

Friends With Benefits Review

Admittedly when I first saw that this movie was being released I thought "didn't I already see this movie?" Well if you saw No Strings Attached earlier this year you would be right. Yet despite being very right you would also be very wrong to dismiss it.

Hollywood has a horrific tendency to either A) Copy cat themselves to the point that even the most original story becomes cliche; or B) Double book two identical movies to be released in the same year, for example Armageddon, and Deep Impact, or The Illusionist and the Prestige, or Dante's Peak and Volcano. I could go on but I won't. No Stings Attached and Friends with benefits would fall into the latter category. Despite being almost identical as far as plot goes Friends With Benefits should not be dismissed, and could very well end up being better remembered than No Strings Attached.

Friends With Benefits pokes fun at the romantic comedy genre, yet despite being a deft satire of romantic comedies, it still satisfies as one. The best cinematic analogy I can think of for this phenomenon is the first Scream film. Scream is brutally satirical about the horror genre, and yet is just as frightening, and full of scares as a traditional horror film. There are moments in Friends With Benefits that absolutely skewer the perception of romance in cinema. The main characters love to talk about all the cliches, standard devices, and plot points that 99 percent of all romantic comedies utilize to tell their story. And almost immediately after they are done pointing out those ridiculous cliches, devices, and plot points, our characters actually do those things. It adds another incredibly deep layer to the satire and I found that almost as amusing as the quick wit, and clever dialogue.

Surprisingly, Friends With Benefits is director Will Gluck's follow up to the impressively clever Easy A. After seeing this movie I can safely and confidently say that Easy A was not a fluke. This movie is just as clever, just as witty, and just as funny. Justin Timberlake isn't the best actor but you can see here that he is improving. Mila Kunis gives a level and likable performance; something that I have always found difficult with her (something about her I love to hate). However, the real stars of the movie are the supporting players. Gluck has wisely surrounded his main characters with quality character actors who steal nearly every scene they are in. No matter how big their part, these supporting players are three dimensional, fully formed, and more importantly serve a purpose beyond comedy. Richard Jenkins, Woody Harrelson and Patricia Clarkson are pitch perfect, and hilarious in their respective roles.

As I said earlier this movie is incredibly well written. It is sharp, it is witty and it is completely self aware. Yes the characters constantly fall into cliche moments, and in a normal movie that becomes frustrating. But when it happens in Friends With Benefits, it happens with a wink and a nod, as if to say we know we are being unoriginal and we know you are in on the joke. This isn't a romantic comedy, so much as it is a comedy about Hollywood's depiction of romance and how skews our perception of what is romantic.

I won't bore you with plot details because, if you have seen any romantic comedy, you know exactly what is going to happen. Just remember that boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl back, cue credits and happy pop song that has nothing to do with the movie but lets you know that you had a good time.

The Change-Up Review

2011-08-05T21:43:00.000-07:00

The Change-Up Review

There are moments in The Change-Up that are very clever and funny, and then there is the moments when you have to wonder if they were just seeing what they could get away with and still get an R rating. Imagine for a moment that you are at a party and someone is telling you a joke, and then some buffoon jumps in and tells the punchline in the most vulgar way possible, ruining both the joke and your appetite for the evening. If you can imagine that scenario then you can imagine just how this movie makes you feel.

The plot of The Change-Up is a simple retread of the Freaky Friday story. In it two characters, who usually don't understand one another, flip flop bodies through some unknown magic and have to live trapped in the body of the other. Usually in these movies the trick is to learn about the other person, to gain an understanding of what it is like to literally walk a mile in their shoes, before you are allowed to return to your own body. The thing that separates The Change-Up from other movies of its kind is that in this movie, both characters know exactly what kind of guy the other is.

It is not often that you see protagonists in a comedy act like such stereotypical douche bags, that it makes you dislike the entire movie. Jason Bateman plays Dave, a family man with a wife and three kids. Dave is mostly an absentee father however because he is also a workaholic lawyer. Dave has a big merger coming up and the switch couldn't have come at a worse time. Ryan Reynolds plays Mitch, a semi employed, actor/stoner who only works at scoring chicks, and who's taste in women is questionable to say the least. Mitch has just scored a major role in a new movie and the switch could not have come at a worse time for him as well.

When the two switch bodies there is the traditional hijinks that accompany movies like this. Mitch impersonating Dave at a business meeting, Dave impersonating Mitch on the movie set. There are also scenes where the philandering Mitch attempts to sleep with Dave's wife, while across town Dave struggles with the morality of cheating on his wife while inside Mitch's body. Like all traditional body swapping comedies, there is the moment of clarity when the other character realizes that everyone's got problems and yours are probably just as bad as mine. The Change-Up however decided to go a more selfish route, Mitch and Dave discover that other people don't like them very much, and who could blame them. Both guys are really miserable characters, albeit for different reasons. In the end it is up to them to stop being jerks and start being better people.

As I stated before this movie is beyond vulgar. I appreciate vulgarity, I even find it amusing often. Ever since the Hangover, people in hollywood are constantly trying to one up the raunch quota. They should instead focus on making a funny movie first. The Change-Up is another example of taking vulgarity too far. It often goes well past the point of being humorous, and while it doesn't ever cross the line of offensive it sometimes cuts it close. Whether it is projectile fecal matter, very public urination, or even three guys staring into a woman's crotch, the movie takes things just a bit too far. You start to laugh but then are immediately taken out of the mood because it becomes repellent.

Overall the movie is regrettably just another rehash of a well worn subject. Yes it takes it to a more adult level, but much if not all of the crude humor could have been replaced and been just as good, if not funnier. Part of me feels like the creators of the movie had a great outline for a script and just got lazy with the writing and figured that they could fill the remaining holes in the movie with really dirty jokes.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes Review

2011-08-05T03:51:00.000-07:00

Rise of the Planet of the Apes Review

When a movie is 42 years old, is the twist ending worth preserving? Probably not, but if you are unfamiliar with the saga that is The Planet of the Apes I am apologize in advance for spoiling the fact that It was Earth all along. The Rise of the Planet of the Apes brilliantly shows us the origins of just how the earth was over run, or rather taken over by the apes.

Will Rodman, played by James Franco, is researching a cure for Alzheimer's. It is a personal crusade for him because his father is suffering from it. During his clinical trials on chimpanzees, Will discovers that one of the primates has shown great progress. When the ape gets aggressive and attacks, it is summarily put down. When the dust settles it is revealed that the true reason for the aggressive behavior was not the "cure" but rather a baby chimpanzee, Caesar. Will takes the chimp home and soon becomes attached to Caesar's personality, and impressed by his staggering intelect. Will Rodman many be the main human character in the film but the story is centered purely on Caesar.

The early parts of the movie focuses on Caesar and Will, their developing relationship, and Caesars desire to be recognized as something more than a wild animal. When things go sour, Will is forced to place Caesar in a primate sanctuary run by Brian Cox. Superficially it appears to be a primate's paradise, but beneath the surface lies what is essentially Alcatraz for apes. It is here that the movie shifts gears and becomes very much a prison movie. Caesar, is caged and despite his staggering intellect he is initially not respected. There are moments in this section of the film when I flashed to old episodes of OZ, the only thing missing was gang rape in the shower. Caesar uses his intellect to eventually and cleverly gain alpha male status, and leadership of the imprisoned apes.

The third act of the movie becomes a disaster film. The Apes, after receiving an intelligence boost courtesy of Will's Alzheimer's treatment, descend upon downtown San Francisco wreaking havoc and mayhem as you would expect. This leads to panicked human characters trying to exterminate the apes out of fear, and perhaps guilt. But despite the mayhem, the ultimate goal of the apes is just to reach the redwood forests of Marin where they can safely and peacefully live.

Andy Serkis, who gained notoriety playing Gollum in the Lord of the Rings trilogy, puts in another stellar motion capture performance as Caesar. Serkis' motion capture roles are going to become legend. He gives better performances using only his eyes and gestures than some actors give using all of their faculties. I would not be surprised if someday in the future he is not bestowed an honorary Oscar for his pioneering of this type of performance.

Of course as much as Andy Serkis brings to the role, none of it would matter without the digital wizards at the Weta Workshop. This New Zealand based special effects house has really outdone themselves with their work here. The apes in this film are so much more than actors in prosthetics, but by the end of the movie you can still see a blend that would allow continuity between the films with low tech effects.

The movie is very well done. Thematically the film jumps back an fourth between the dangers of human scientific exploration, and a morality play on the cruelty of animal testing. There is nothing surprising in the plot, you know where its headed, and yet you are still kept on the edge of your seat wondering just how it's going to get you there. The only surprising thing is that perhaps for the first time in the Planet of the Apes sage, you actually root for the Apes to win. You want Caesar to succeed, you cheer when an ape defeats a human, and you are sad when an ape is defeated.

You don't need to have seen any of the prior films in the series to appreciate this story, but if you have there are some very subtle and clever nods that you will appreciate, including the space shuttle Icarus. Be sure to stay through the first 10 minutes for credits to get the full effect of the morality play.

Cowboys & Aliens Review

2011-08-02T16:14:00.000-07:00

Cowboys & Aliens Review

I liked the idea of a sci-fi western. Like peanut butter and chocolate they are two types of movies that are good alone, and could be great together. When a movie promises spectacular action, and clever humor you hope that it delivers. The trailer for Cowboys & Aliens very much promised us this. Unfortunately it didn't deliver.

The reason that the movie doesn't work can be chalked up to one blaring and glaring reason. It was just dull. Between the action sequences, which were not very earth shattering, I would have hopped there would be some humor, or clever dialog, or even some lead up events, or exposition. Unfortunately there is literally nothing between the action sequences in this movie. The dialogue is wooden, the acting is mediocre, and the characters are flat and one dimensional.

What is even more disappointing were the action sequences. The trailer was definitely awesome, especially the action sequences, they seemed to promise something groundbreaking, at the very least it looked like a very solid base in which to build upon. This would have been true if 100% of the action scenes weren't displayed in the trailer itself. For a movie like this, a summer blockbuster to give away all the best scenes in the trailer is unforgivable. Why pay money to see a movie like this if we already saw the best parts 10 times before in the trailer. The alien spaceships were nothing remarkable, and to be honest even the aliens themselves were bland. Jon Faverau has been very successful at blending practical and computer effects, he did a beautiful job of it in Zathura, and it was virtually undetectable in the first Iron Man, but this time he failed miserably. You can definitely see the seems in his creature effects this time

Now on to Daniel Craig and Harrison Ford. Daniel Craig did a great job, of course he didn't have to do much other than pose, look tough and perform a few stunts to look like a bad ass in this movie. Harrison Ford on the other hand once again showed that it's time for him to retire the action hero, and shift to different roles. In Cowboys & Aliens I think Harrison Ford was trying to do what Sean Connery did 20 years ago with the Untouchables. What Connery did in that movie was to step back as the hero character, and become more of a mentor. Of course this character is nothing close to the character Connery had in The Untouchables. Also noticeably absent was any chemistry between the two. You would think two stars of this caliber would have had the ability to work off one another. Perhaps it is the fault of the script, but these two characters should have had more to do together. I know they were adversaries forced to work together, but even that wasn't clear in their performances.

For those who are looking for a better sci-fi film that mixes in another genre you might be better off trying to find Super 8 in your area. Super 8, which came out less than two months ago, is a far superior movie and also delivers a far scarier, and believable alien.

Summer Movie Preview Part 4 August 2011

2011-08-01T14:49:00.000-07:00

August is typically a dumping ground for movies that are too expensive to release in September, but not quite good enough to release in the early part of the summer. Sometimes you can be pleasantly surprised with a quality movie, like Scott Pilgrim, or Takers, and sometimes you get what you expect, like the Expendables, or Eat Pray Love, and then there are the bad movies like Piranha 3D, or Vampires Suck. So here are the releases for August 2011.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes

This version of the Planet of the Apes seems to takes place after Charlton Heston's team leaves for space, but before his return. The concept is very interesting, the idea of how the apes took power, and how our scientific reach is outpacing our moral grasp. The Apes in this movie were motion captured and digitally created by the Weta Workshop, so I know they will be the most realistic apes to date. What I am really curious to see is if the story is as good as the effects.

The Change Up

The Change Up is essentially a guy's version of the Freaky Friday concept. Weather or not it is going to be good or not really depends on if we can buy into the concept yet again. Remember in the 80's when we got a flood of these films. Vice Versa, 18 again, Switch, Like Father Like Son, I could go on. most of these were bad movies, hopefully Hollywood has learned from it's mistakes, or we may be in for a long couple of years.

The Help

This movie is based on a 2009 novel byKathryn Stockett. It is about African American maids working in white households in Jackson, Mississippi during the early 1960s. Typically movies based on these types of books do not translate will, The Secret Life of Bees comes to mind. However if the adaptation is done right and done well you can get a true classic. We will have to wait until it comes out to see.

30 Minutes or Less

I loved Zombieland, it was hysterically funny, and twisted. It was also original. 30 minutes or less is the follow up from the creators of Zombieland. It has the same manic qualities, and much of the same type of humor. Instead of twisting the horror genre, they have decided to add their twist to the action film. I am excited for this movie, but also weary that with a bigger budget, and less independence we may not get the same magic.

Final Destination 5

As much as I wish this series would go away and die already, I have to admit I am always morbidly sucked in by these trailers. I mean look at that still. The crazy Clockwork Orange eye clamp, that right there has me sold. I know after I see the movie I will instantly regret it, like eating a pound and a half of hamburger, but you gotta admit, watching people die in crazy and outrageous ways is fun, albeit twisted.

Fright Night

This is a remake, and yes remakes are hit and miss, but this one looks like all kinds of hit. As I said before we are seeing the resurgence of Colin Farrell. He is popping up in all kinds of places, and ever since In Bruges, we have gotten A+ material from him. Toss in the up and coming Anton Yelchin who was spectacular in The Beaver, and the best part of Terminator Salvation, and you have quite an interesting pair. Did I mention David Tennant, and Toni Collette?

One Day

One Day is When Harry Met Sally but with, you know, tears. It looks at a couple on the same day every year for 20 years. We get to see their ups and downs, and you know that eventually even though they are trying not to fall in love, they will. My only concern is that will we care. I appreciate a good love story, but when you only get one day a year, will we be constantly playing catch up? Will it take us out of the movie? Also can we really care about the characters?

Conan 3D

I hear a lot of people saying "No Arnold, No me." I'm sorry but do we really want to see a pudgy old Conan the Barbarian? Not me. Of course I could also do without this movie too. Yes it looks like a big action movie, but who cares really. Tack on migraine inducing 3D and you can count me out. I could be wrong, and it could be better than the original, but not likely.

Don't Be Afraid of the Dark

Haunted house movies are not original, what makes haunted house movies original is their ability to surprise you with something new. Hopefully Don't be Afraid of the Dark can bring something new to the genre. Guillermo Del Torro is not a bad person to be producing your film. His horror films tend to be more psychological and blended with true human stories. I am excited to see this film, but don't be surprised if the trailer is scarier than the actual movie.

Our Idiot Brother

This movie seems very familiar. Oh yes its Captain Ron, or What About Bob, or any other strange dude movie. Yes this one revolves around a family who is tormented by their idiotic slacker brother, but you know that by the end they will all love him and appreciate him for all his tremendous stupidity. I hope it is funny but it seems to me like it will be more cliche than anything.

The Debt

I first saw the trailer for this movie back in December. This is usually a big red flag on the quality of the movie. When you see a trailer for a small film with out any special effects, and it takes more than 8 months for it to come out then usually it is bad. But the trailer makes the movie look very good, and Helen Mirren is always a quality actress. Hopefully this film is more of a difficult movie to place because of its content and topic rather than its quality.

Crazy, Stupid, Love Review

2011-07-22T01:08:00.000-07:00

Crazy, Stupid, Love Review

Crazy, Stupid, Love. The title says it all. Human beings do crazy things, human beings make stupid choices, but mostly human beings do crazy and stupid things for love. The movie is briliantly clever, and shrewd in its conception. If you can forgive the implausible coincidences that pop up in the movie you will have one heck of an enjoyable experience.

The movie centers around Cal, played by Steve Carell. Cal has just been told by his wife that she wants a divorce, and that she has been cheating on him. Cal is in shock. He literally cannot comprehend that the woman he loves, the only woman he has ever loved, not only cheated on him, but wants him gone. Carell does a magnificent job of portraying Cal, especially in the early moments when he is paralyzed by shock.

His shock takes him to a bar, the kind of bar that only exists in never never land. Over flowing with beautiful women who are just dying to go home with a stranger. Of course Cal doesn't pay these women any attention, except to feebly try and vent, to desperately confide in anyone who will listen. It is here that he meets Jacob, a slick, yet successful, womanizer who takes a different woman home every night, because he can. Jacob pities Cal, and decides to give him an Oprah style makeover. This makeover leads to increased confidence, and much more meaningless sex for Cal. The meaningless sex is Cal's coping mechanism, if he can't love the one he wants, he must love the one he is with.

In addition to balancing the Cal/Jacob storyline, the movie also juggles a story involving Cal's 13 year old son, and the object of his attention, their babysitter. Did I mention that the babysitter has a dangerous crush on Cal? Cal's son is a true romantic who throws words like "soul-mate" and "true love" not knowing that these words are dangerous, even more dangerous when they are real.

The third ball in this juggling act is the story of Hannah, played by Emma Stone. Hanna is a young law student who believes her boyfriend will propose any day, and who is devastated when he pump fakes her. Of course Hannah, walks into the bar where Cal and Jacob now cruise. Jacob takes her home, and because the movie is PG-13 no sex is had. There is however a deep connection made that alters Jacobs preconceptions about the meaning of love, and for him is a "game changer."

The movie juggernauts its way towards a climax that can only be described as predictably unpredictable. In other words you unexpectedly get what you expect. Yes the chaos that erupts in this moment is a bit like watching an episode of Jerry Springer, but it is still hilarious, and will leave you laughing at the thought of it well after the credits roll.

In 1998 I praised a movie called Playing By Heart, a lovely if not contrived movie about love in its many forms, and phases. Like Playing By Heart, Crazy Stupid Love, is a lovely, if not contrived story about love in its many forms. Many of the same elements are at play here in Crazy, Stupid, Love. And while both films are very different, both films try to shed light on the subject of just why love makes us crazy and stupid. Of course this is an unsolvable riddle with no answer. Anyone who says otherwise is just fooling themselves. All you can do is accept that life is unpredictable, so just enjoy the ride. Be crazy, be stupid, and above all things love.

Captain America Review

2011-07-21T10:00:00.000-07:00

Captain America Review
Surprise, Captain America was actually not as bad as I had predicted. Those of you who read my July Movie Preview know my initial thoughts on this film, and after walking out of the movie I was pleasantly surprised. That's not to say that Captain America is a great movie, or any where near the top for the genre. My true feeling is that those involved didn't hit one out of the park, but certainly hit a stand up double, with a bit of polishing and perhaps some changes could have easily been a triple.

First I enjoyed the casting. Each member of this ensemble does a picture perfect job of playing their role. The most enjoyable of these actors was Tommy Lee Jones perfectly cast as Colonel Phillips, he is gruff, he is tough, all the things Tommy Lee Jones is typecast for. But what you might not know, and what might surprise you is that he is quite possibly the funniest person in the movie, and without question gets the biggest laugh of the movie. Also well cast was Chris Evans. I know that a lot of people, myself included, were disappointed by this casting. After all he was already engrained in my mind as the Human Torch. As good as Evans was as Johnny Storm, Evans does an equally fantastic job of owning this role, and becoming Captain America.

Also very well done was the romantic elements. The chemistry between Chris Evans' Steve Rogers, and Haley Atwell's Peggy Carter never once felt forced or even awkward like the other super hero films this year. Their relationship felt genuine, honest, and plausible. Before Steve Rogers becomes Captain America, he's just wimp, but despite being scrawny he is heroic, he falls on grenades, and doesn't shy away from a challenge. The reason their relationship doesn't feel like your typical forced hero relationship is that you can tell that she likes him, and his spirit, long before he becomes Captain America. While his physical transformation may allow him to be a soldier, and amplify his abilities, it is his heroism, and his spirit that connects them. When the film ends you really want more of this relationship, but unfortunately I don't think we will see any more of it.

I also enjoyed the tone, and spirit of the film. As confusing and oxymoronic as it may sound Captain America is a light hearted and fluffy war movie. Let's face it Captain America as a character is not much more than American War Propaganda. The movie accepts that and even has a bit of fun with that concept. The USO show segment may be long winded and take away from the action but it is true to the nature of the character, so I didn't mind it.

The movie is set in the 1940's and making it a period piece actually works to the film's advantage. I know so many Superhero movies want to update their characters to make them modern, and that's understandable. But given the current, and recent political climate having this film take place in the 1940's was the only setting they could make this film work. Everyone hates Nazis, and you can easily shout "USA! USA! USA!" guilt free when the bad guys are hailing Hitler. Although I did have to chuckle a bit when the villain says "I see a future without any borders, and with no flags." In 1940's America, this was unfathomable, but in today's world of globalization, free trade, and immigration, we are pretty close to that, albeit without the red faced global dictator.

Now for the things that I didn't like. These are the things that bothered me, and frustrated me. These below things don't make me dislike the film, but they take the movie from being great to being just good. if these things had been changed, or even altered, then this film could easily become brilliant.

First the loose ends. They leave so many millions of unanswered questions about what happens next. The creators were shoehorned into this Avengers movie, that they force Captain America into the future without tying up all the strings. I don't think it spoils anything to let you know that Captain America ends the film in the present, he is out of the 1940's with no discussion of what happened to the other people in the film. What happens to Bucky, to the Colonel, and to Peggy? Of course we have all been given a history lesson on what happens to Mr. Howard Stark. I am aware that in this universe of super heroes, and science fiction, they can always send him back, but time travel is always the quickest way to poke big holes in your plot lines and universal continuity. Plus, if I send Captain America back in time, I think I would have him stop some of the terrible things that happened between 1940 and today, wouldn't you?

I also felt that his best friend James "Bucky" Barnes is under used. He is given a few moments at the beginning of the movie and then disappears for much of the second act. When he does return we are supposed to care about him, but because we don't get much of a connection with him, we don't which makes the third act fall a bit flat.

I know that it would have been tiresome to see war scene after war scene, but it also bothered me that most of the action in the movie is all montage. They made a couple of really great music videos, and in a clever way it made a great match to the USO scenes. But those action scenes really don't serve the story. I would much rather have seen one all out attack on a base, and have it filled with these moments instead.

Hugo Weaving, is a great actor who unfortunately keeps getting stuck playing the same flaccid villain he played in the Matrix. Given a little work Red Skull could have been more than we got. Quite frankly his Red Skull is my biggest complaint of the movie. He isn't menacing, frightening, or even all that productive as a villain. It was sad to see such a great talent wasted behind lousy makeup, and poor writing.

Overall Captain America hits all the right buttons, and plays all the right notes, and as great a job as it does, it still doesn't quite work. When all is said and done, there is something shallow and superficial about the experience. Of course sometimes its nice to just go to a movie and eat popcorn.

DVD Releases for Tuesday July 19, 2011

2011-07-18T23:01:00.000-07:00

This is the part of the blog where I tell you what I am buying for the week on DVD. Most of you who know me also know that I like to collect and watch movies at home. Most weeks I buy 1-4 releases. This week I will be buying:

Limitless
This movie surprised me at how good it was. Full of surprises and tension it does what ever good thriller does and thats keep you on your toes. Directed by Neil Berger, who brought us the under appreciated "The Illusionist" a few years ago, The movie is equal parts frantic, fast paced, slick and stylish.

Take Me Home Tonight
Critically dumped on, part of me wonders how bad this movie is. I can't imagine that it is as bad as they say. Yes it is essentially ripping off the concept of 80's nostalgia that Hot Tub Time Machine played upon, and Yes it probably is purely cliche, but honestly who doesn't love the idea of making fun of the decade of excess?

Short week this week. Not a whole lot to get but we have some big weeks ahead of us so maybe they are just letting us save up a bit.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part 2 Review

2011-07-15T04:01:00.000-07:00

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part 2 Review
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part 2 is a concluding chapter in a massive story. It is not, I repeat, not a stand alone story. This is a film that is not easily explainable without previous details from earlier films, while I will sincerely try to avoid spoilers for this movie, it is impossible not to for the other films. So here is your official warning: if you have never read the books or seen any of the movies I recommend you stop reading now unless you are unafraid of spoilers.

Its a bit odd thinking that there will never be another Harry Potter film. For the last ten years the adventures of Harry Potter, and his fellow students have fascinated millions myself included. Lets just contemplate that massive amount of time for a moment. For anyone my age, this series has lasted for nearly one third of our lives. For those in their early 20's they spend their youth growing up with Harry and his friends. Then there are some who don't remember a time before, or have never known a world without Harry Potter.

I have always thought that the movies and the books were un-comparable. The books are fantastic, and tell a brilliant story flush with well developed characters, and beautiful details. The movies tell their own story. They are superficial synopses at best, but they do a good job of translating J.K Rowling's vision, and in many cases by streamline her tale improving parts.

The final entry into the saga spectacularly delivers a pure action film. David Yates has done a great job of concluding a series that began with a boy and ends with a man. This film is vastly different than the first Harry Potter film, and without question this series has become more and more adult with each passing entry.

The movie begins where we left off in part 1. Voldemort has obtained the elder wand from the crypt of Dumbledore, and intends to rule the world as a master of death. Severus Snape has now become the headmaster of Hogwarts, which appears much more like a military school than a wizarding school. There is an ominous nature to the opening moment, not because of their malevolence, but because of their fear. They know a battle is imminent, and you can sense that they are as on edge about it as our heroes are. Speaking of our heroic trio, Harry, Hermoine, and Ron, have taken refuge at the beach house. They have buried their savior from the last film, and are now preparing their first real offensive attack. Disguised as Bellatrix Lestrange, they plan to infiltrate Gringott's Bank in order to obtain one of the horcruxes. Horcruxes are magical objects that contain portions of the Dark Lord's soul. Their search leads our heroes back to Hogwarts where an epic battle is waged to determine the fate of the magical world.

There is true spectacle and scale to the Battle of Hogwarts. They desired to go out with a bang and not a wimper. Much of the movie is reminiscent of the massive battle scenes from Lord of the Rings. There is much damage, destruction, and yes many fallen heroes. The Lord of the Rings strength was it's ability to follow several story lines, and multiple characters. Deathly Hallows doesn't even try, instead the movie focuses on Harry and his hunt for the remaining horcruxes. If you haven't read the books you will not be missing anything but for fans of the book you will be left perplexed as to why they gloss over so many vital and soulful aspects of the story. By all accounts this complaint is a nit pick, but in my opinion, by rushing through or just mentioning these aspects in passing, we are robbed of so many wonderful aspects of the story. We have spent so many years, and so much time learning and connecting with all the characters, that because the movie rushes to tell Harry's story we are cheated out of some very powerful tear jerking moments that could have been.

I cannot say enough about Alan Rickman. Already a brilliant actor before this role his career will be defined by this role (ok and maybe Hans Gruber). Throughout this series he has played a character that was seemingly so one dimensional, and yet as we find out in this movie was actually deeper with more layers than possibly any other character. I for one will be going back through the other films just to watch his performance and pick up on all the subtle details, to see if there are any telling moments, if there were any clues to see if he knew all along what his character's fate was.

On the whole the movie is a brilliant end to a saga. There is much to love about the movie, and it brings the entire story full circle in a beautiful and powerful way. You will leave the theater genuinely happy, with a true sense of closure. While we will all miss the anticipation of waiting for the next Harry Potter, we can all be happy knowing that the films tell the story from once upon a time, to the end.

DVD Releases for Tuesday July 12, 2011, and Friday July 15, 2011

2011-07-10T17:47:00.000-07:00

This is the part of the blog where I tell you what I am buying for the week on DVD. Most of you who know me also know that I like to collect and watch movies at home. Most weeks I buy 1-4 releases. This week I will be buying:

July 12, 2011

Lincoln Lawyer
While on the surface it looks like a by the numbers legal thriller. While there are parts of this movie that are very typical of the genre, there is quite a lot that is unexpected. The cast is excellent, and even the smallest characters have great depth to them.

Insidious
One of the most uncomfortable movie experiences I have ever had in the theater. The movie keeps you on the edge of your seat and is not shy about making you jump out of it at every opportunity. I just hope that the experience is just as scary and uncomfortable at home as it was in the theater.

July 15, 2011

Rango

Possibly Johnny Depp's best performance ever despite being only his voice. This movie could easily be one of the best movies of the year, animated or otherwise. It is smart, clever, and beautiful. It works on every level, action, comedy, and good old fashioned classic western.

Arthur 2011

Not the best remake ever, but not the worst either. All this version does is simply update the classic Dudley Moore film, it doesn't take chances, it doesn't take risks. It was content just painting by the numbers over the original template. Brand again plays himself, and Helen Mirren slums it quite well, as always.