First a recap of some I didn't write full reviews of...
Fast & Furious- 2.5 stars - Not terrible... but really... what's the point?
Monsters vs. Aliens - 3.5 stars - Entertaining little film, definitely worth a look see in 3D
I Love You Man - 4 stars - Not as fall down hilarious as similar flicks, but has a million miles of heart
Adventureland- 3 stars- Didn't know what genre it wanted to be... coming of age teen drama, or goofy comedy
Duplicity- 3.5 stars- Good old fashioned romp, but ultimately got too smart for its own good.
Race To Witch Mountain - 3 stars - Enjoyable family flick that gets by on the natural charisma of Dwayne Johnson
12 Rounds - 1 star - As Joel put it, Die Hard: With a Vengeance, without the witty banter.
Last House on the Left - 3.5 stars - Brutally intense, keeps the spirit of the original.
AND Now... the meat of it...
Hannah Montana: The Movie
3 Stars
Some of you may be saying "You're a hard drinkin, hard fightin', smokin', drinkin', tattooed son of a bitch. 3 Stars? Have you gone soft?" I went in expecting the worst. I even took my friend's fiancee along, so I wouldn't seem like "Creepy old guy at the Hannah Montana." But you know what? I wound up enjoying myself with this cute little kids flick, as generally mindless as it maybe.
Miley Cyrus plays Miley Stewart, who leads a double life as pop sensation Hannah Montana. Only a close knit crew of people know of the double life, and Miley must make the difficult choice of keeping Hannah in her life, or reserving herself to a normal life as Miley. Her father/manager Robbie Ray (Billy Ray Cyrus) ships her off to her hometown in Tennessee following celebrity shoe battle with Tyra Banks to get a dose of the real world, and there she learns to love life as not Hannah. Even finds time for a love life as Miley with farm hand Travis. After it comes out that Miley is "good friends" with Hannah, she's forced into the awkward situation of being with friends and family at the Hannah Montana benefit concert, put on to save her hometown from being bought up by greedy land developers.
This movie combines all the best elements of an 80's sitcom, throws in the "Superman Complex", and rounds it all out with, good, wholesome family fun, that last part I can't, in good conscience, fully decry.
Remember in "Family Ties" when Alex would get a date with one girl for 7pm, and another for 9pm, and then the girl at 9 had to reschedule for 7, so rather than call one off, he tries to manage both dates at the same time? Oh, and at the same restaurant? He'd have to pretend to smoke for one of them, so he could get 9 to sit in the smoking section. Yeah... it was marginally funny then. And got decreasingly funny when Kirk Cameron did it on "Growing Pains," then Joey Lawrence on "Blossom," then it got passed around "Family Matters," "Step by Step," "Boy Meets World," and countless other 80's and 90's sitcoms. Yeah, that's pretty much Hannah Montana. And the "Superman Complex?" - No one seems to realize that Superman looks exactly like Clark Kent without glasses. Likewise... no one seems to realize that Hannah Montana is a blonde Miley Stewart.
The thing about Miley Cyrus, is that I'm rooting for her... she's got some great potential that has yet to be fully realized. I don't think she's a brightly burning star that will fizzle in a year when the Hannah Montana black hole collapses. That's not a slam against Hannah Montana, I just felt like running with the astronomy reference. And she does show a phenomenal screen presence that I would like to see continue on throughout for career. I hope she isn't hampered by the long arm of the Disney Channel. Think a female Shia Lebouf. Let's just hope she doesn't go on to ruin the 80's.
The thing of it is... It's not made for people like me. You know, the over 14 crowd. And it's not made for critics. It's made for kids. We all had movies that we loved as kids, and looking back, we wonder why? Mighty Ducks? Anyone? That was our kids movie, and sticks with us to this day. I now realize it as a mediocre at best flick, but it holds a special place in my heart. And it will for kids these days (that makes me sound like a fogey). I can't fault these kids for that. I'm gonna let them have their movie.
Look for fun cameos from Rascal Flatts and the very lovely and talented Taylor Swift. Barry Bostwick pops up in a funny little role. But in all seriousness... what would have made this film... is Billy Ray Cyrus singing his signature song, "Achy Breaky Heart." You picked up a guitar. You were in front of a mic. You couldn't do the "Achy Breaky?" Throw us older folks a little something.
P.S. For those of you who don't know, I'm not as old as I make myself sound. I'm 23. But I am older than the target audience for this flick.
Observe and Report
2 stars
Alright this is more like it. Seth Rogan in a dark action comedy? I should be all about this. Oh wait... IT SUCKED! This was an exercise in defining WTF?!?! that was all over the place, and too scattered for it's own good.
Ronnie (Rogan) is a bi-polar mall security guard with dillusions of grandeur. He takes himself way too serious, and that is his own downfall. He's on the hunt for a serial flasher terrorizing his mall parking lot, and targeting the pretty make-up counter girl Brandi (Anna Faris). He feels some competition from the actual police, especially Det. Harrison (Ray Liotta), so he steps up his game to bring the pervert to justice. Oh, and there's a rash of robberies at the mall. Oh, and he's trying to be a real cop. Oh, and there's an underdeveloped possible love story between Ronnie and Brandi.
It's significantly darker in tone than the other Mall cop flick to come out this year, Paul Blart. But that doesn't change the fact that it's the second mall cop flick to come out this year (within 2 months of each other). Really Hollywood? Two? Are you coming out with a Go-Bots flick this year, too?
Hollywood's desperation for original storylines aside, like I said, it's a scatter shot flick that never even tries to find it's proper footing. One minute we're on the pervert. The next minute we're on Ronnie's badge and gun ambitions. The third we're on the mall store robberies. What is the movie about? Everything, which ultimately leads to nothing. And not in the cool nihilistic way. But in the "What the hell did I just watch?" kinda way.
There was a minor controversy surrounding the implicit date rape scene in the film. I don't exactly see how it could be strictly considered date rape. Sure Brandi is drunk. But we go from him sneaking a kiss on the front walk, to them doin' the horizontal tango. We miss the in between. We don't know went on between the two... And when he does stop to consider that she has fallen asleep, she replies "Why'd you stop, mother******?" So.... we don't really know what went down. But it is an offputting scene in general.
Rogan (Pineapple Express, Knocked Up) is a tremendous comedic talent and I dig what he does. And I give him props for extending his comedic range into darker territories. But this film was just wrong on so many levels, that I ask the question I do so rarely actually ask... Why the hell was this film even made? But he at least gets props for trying.
Luckily you can never count out the comedic talents of the beautiful Anna Faris (House Bunny, Waiting...). Usually despite how I feel about the film, I'll almost always enjoy her performance.
Despite a strong performance from Faris, and the interesting turn from Rogan, I can't recommend this film. Not even to rent. Skip it. You're not missing a damn thing.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Watchmen
This one is coming in a little later than usual. I knew that out of any movie I had ever reviewed, I would probably have to do the most explaining myself on this one, due to the fan base. I wanted to take my time with it... Reviewing this film, I run into very similar obstacles I did when reviewing Sex and the City last year. No really... I did... With Sex and the City, I had to separate my male brain from my film critic brain. With Watchmen, I have to separate my fanboy brain from my film critic brain. So, with that said, here goes nothing...
OH Before I get to it...
Fired Up! - 2.5 stars - not as bad as I expected, but still not that good.
Revolutionary Road - 3.5 stars - Great performances, but otherwise quite drab.
The Wrestler - 4.5 stars - A great bio-flick, even if it's fake.
Watchmen
5 Stars
What do you do when charged with the task of filming what is considered not only the greatest graphic novel of all time, but one of the greatest novels of the 20th century? What has been dubbed the unfilmable? Where your every cinematic and artistic choice will be scrutinized by fanboys and critics alike? If you're Zak Snyder, you make the best damn movie you can, and hope for the best.
Set in an alternate 1985, where Nixon is still president, American/Russian tensions are at an all time high, and costumed vigilantes are the norm, Watchmen is an epic morality tale. After the Watchmen, the second generation of costumed vigilantes are declared illegal by a government ban, few refuse to give up the good fight. When someone kills one of their own, the remaining few must figure out if it was random, or part of a deeper conspiracy to wipe out ex-heroes.
Since I would be spending a significant amount of time delving into the film, I decided to keep the summary brief and concise. The story is much bigger, and better than that summery leads you to believe, but all I can say is, read the book.
The performances matched the scope of the film. In that they were epic. Any lack of character development that exists, the blame falls on the editor. To fans they were beloved. But to the un-initiated, they were problematic. No matter who the usual comic hero is, Spider-Man, Superman, Batman, there's an expectation of perfection as the hero. The alter-ego may be full of character flaws. But the hero is perfect. Again, to the fans, we know the Watchmen. We know their flaws. We know their moral ambiguity. For Jackie Earle Haley to create both the unlikable Walter Kovacs and questionable Rorschach to both satisfy the fans in their expectations and appeal to the un-initiated, despite him being a dislikable character. It's not just true for Haley's Rorschach. It's true for Patrick Wilson's nebbish Dan Dreiberg/dauntless Nite Owl II. Malin Ackermin's Laurie Jupiter tends to over-anylize things, but her Silk Spectre II is fearless. All of the actors involved made the characters relatable, likeable and personable, but never let you forget that there were lines that were going to be crossed.
Aside from Haley (Little Children, Bad News Bears), the stand-out performances belong to both Jeffrey Dean Morgan ("Grey's Anatomy") and Billy Crudup (Almost Famous) playing Edward Blake/The Comedian and Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan, respectfully. Going scene to scene for Morgan, you'd get Blake's twisted, depraved side, and then in the next you'd get his vulnerability. In one scene, you got both. At the same time. As for Crudup's Manhattan, he was a man so detached from our world, he eventually just leaves, only to later realize the value in humanity.
This film never could have lived up to any fan's expectations, unless that fan's expectations were low. While that statement may inherently contradict the 5 star rating I gave it, it's exactly why I took so long to write this review. With any film based on something with a huge cult fanbase, and such a prestigous pedigree that Watchmen has, fan's (aka "fanboys") expectations are going to be extremely high, and extremely strict. We (I say we, as a fan of the novel) look at it through the prism of the source material. It's true for X-Men. It's true for Star Trek. It's true for Watchmen. We hold the cinematic adaptation to a higher standard than other films. An impossibly high standard.
The first thing I learned in film class (even though it is, technically, blatently obvious) is that books and films are two vastly different mediums. Things can be done in books that can never be done on film. Each individual reader has their own interpretation of the written word and the artistically rendered panel. It's true for "Frankenstein." It's true for "Grapes of Wrath." It's true for "Watchmen." The cinematic version is one man's interpretation... the director's, in this case, Zack Snyder. And when it comes to properties that have such a rabid following, he not only has to please the fanboys, but also appeal to a general movie going audience. He also had to make changes, because somethings in the book either a) won't translate to film or b) would make the film 4 hours long.
Snyder (Dawn of the Dead, 300) made the film as he saw it, to the best of his ability. But he knew full well going in that people weren't going to like it. That was the chance he took. I admire him a great deal for taking that risk. He had the balls to step up to the plate. He had the balls to make the best film he could.
The film never suffers from pacing problems. It appears to be a scatter shot focus, but there's so much story to tell, and so little time to tell it, even if it does run almost 3 hours long. He effectively uses the opening title sequence as exposition, setting up the back story of masked vigilantes, and how we got to where we are now, in terms of the actual film. Specific back stories are explored more indepth throughout the film, but the credit sequence is where we are brought up to speed.
There were a few faults I did end up seeing, but this could cycle back to the "fanboy's personal interpretation." I felt the focus was on the wrong two characters. Too much Silk/Owl, not enough Rorschach. I still feel that, since the thrust of the story is Rorschach investigating Comedian's murder. But the Silk/Owl segments are integral, too. I initially had reservations about the changing of Rorschach's back story, as pertaining to what finally pushed him over the edge. The book's explanation was pitch perfect, and gave a moral ambiguity to the character. The film removed that. As was pointed out by friend/co-worker Jeff, had they gone with the book's version, people would have easily drawn a connection to Saw, and that would have left a bad taste in many viewers' mouths.
The major fault with the film, is also a fault of this review so far. Little was actually done with Adrien Veidt/Ozymandias, played by Matthew Goode (Match Point). It's important to the story. Both book and film version. But little is done with him. For a layperson, that would be quite frustrating and confusing. For a fanboy, it's just frustrating.
When reviewing a film, you have to place it both in context of it's time, and in context of the history of film. This film is visually stunning, well put together, a faithful adaptation and wonderfully acted. In the history of film, does that not earn it recognition amongst the finest? It does. In context, when judged against it's contemporaries, is it a step above? Does it raise the bar? Does it change the game? Yes.
I give it 5 stars because Zack Snyder and crew set out to make the best movie they could given the odds they were up against. And they overcame those odds. Any nit-picking aimed at the film is just that... nit-picking by a fan is angry that the tiniest detail that THEY wanted wasn't in the film. Nit-picking by a fanboy who expected 1 Million%, not fully understanding that percents only go up to 100.
Also, make all the jokes you want, but the glowing blue Dr. Manhattan nudity... I didn't have a problem with it. I didn't notice after awhile.
The end.
OH Before I get to it...
Fired Up! - 2.5 stars - not as bad as I expected, but still not that good.
Revolutionary Road - 3.5 stars - Great performances, but otherwise quite drab.
The Wrestler - 4.5 stars - A great bio-flick, even if it's fake.
Watchmen
5 Stars
What do you do when charged with the task of filming what is considered not only the greatest graphic novel of all time, but one of the greatest novels of the 20th century? What has been dubbed the unfilmable? Where your every cinematic and artistic choice will be scrutinized by fanboys and critics alike? If you're Zak Snyder, you make the best damn movie you can, and hope for the best.
Set in an alternate 1985, where Nixon is still president, American/Russian tensions are at an all time high, and costumed vigilantes are the norm, Watchmen is an epic morality tale. After the Watchmen, the second generation of costumed vigilantes are declared illegal by a government ban, few refuse to give up the good fight. When someone kills one of their own, the remaining few must figure out if it was random, or part of a deeper conspiracy to wipe out ex-heroes.
Since I would be spending a significant amount of time delving into the film, I decided to keep the summary brief and concise. The story is much bigger, and better than that summery leads you to believe, but all I can say is, read the book.
The performances matched the scope of the film. In that they were epic. Any lack of character development that exists, the blame falls on the editor. To fans they were beloved. But to the un-initiated, they were problematic. No matter who the usual comic hero is, Spider-Man, Superman, Batman, there's an expectation of perfection as the hero. The alter-ego may be full of character flaws. But the hero is perfect. Again, to the fans, we know the Watchmen. We know their flaws. We know their moral ambiguity. For Jackie Earle Haley to create both the unlikable Walter Kovacs and questionable Rorschach to both satisfy the fans in their expectations and appeal to the un-initiated, despite him being a dislikable character. It's not just true for Haley's Rorschach. It's true for Patrick Wilson's nebbish Dan Dreiberg/dauntless Nite Owl II. Malin Ackermin's Laurie Jupiter tends to over-anylize things, but her Silk Spectre II is fearless. All of the actors involved made the characters relatable, likeable and personable, but never let you forget that there were lines that were going to be crossed.
Aside from Haley (Little Children, Bad News Bears), the stand-out performances belong to both Jeffrey Dean Morgan ("Grey's Anatomy") and Billy Crudup (Almost Famous) playing Edward Blake/The Comedian and Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan, respectfully. Going scene to scene for Morgan, you'd get Blake's twisted, depraved side, and then in the next you'd get his vulnerability. In one scene, you got both. At the same time. As for Crudup's Manhattan, he was a man so detached from our world, he eventually just leaves, only to later realize the value in humanity.
This film never could have lived up to any fan's expectations, unless that fan's expectations were low. While that statement may inherently contradict the 5 star rating I gave it, it's exactly why I took so long to write this review. With any film based on something with a huge cult fanbase, and such a prestigous pedigree that Watchmen has, fan's (aka "fanboys") expectations are going to be extremely high, and extremely strict. We (I say we, as a fan of the novel) look at it through the prism of the source material. It's true for X-Men. It's true for Star Trek. It's true for Watchmen. We hold the cinematic adaptation to a higher standard than other films. An impossibly high standard.
The first thing I learned in film class (even though it is, technically, blatently obvious) is that books and films are two vastly different mediums. Things can be done in books that can never be done on film. Each individual reader has their own interpretation of the written word and the artistically rendered panel. It's true for "Frankenstein." It's true for "Grapes of Wrath." It's true for "Watchmen." The cinematic version is one man's interpretation... the director's, in this case, Zack Snyder. And when it comes to properties that have such a rabid following, he not only has to please the fanboys, but also appeal to a general movie going audience. He also had to make changes, because somethings in the book either a) won't translate to film or b) would make the film 4 hours long.
Snyder (Dawn of the Dead, 300) made the film as he saw it, to the best of his ability. But he knew full well going in that people weren't going to like it. That was the chance he took. I admire him a great deal for taking that risk. He had the balls to step up to the plate. He had the balls to make the best film he could.
The film never suffers from pacing problems. It appears to be a scatter shot focus, but there's so much story to tell, and so little time to tell it, even if it does run almost 3 hours long. He effectively uses the opening title sequence as exposition, setting up the back story of masked vigilantes, and how we got to where we are now, in terms of the actual film. Specific back stories are explored more indepth throughout the film, but the credit sequence is where we are brought up to speed.
There were a few faults I did end up seeing, but this could cycle back to the "fanboy's personal interpretation." I felt the focus was on the wrong two characters. Too much Silk/Owl, not enough Rorschach. I still feel that, since the thrust of the story is Rorschach investigating Comedian's murder. But the Silk/Owl segments are integral, too. I initially had reservations about the changing of Rorschach's back story, as pertaining to what finally pushed him over the edge. The book's explanation was pitch perfect, and gave a moral ambiguity to the character. The film removed that. As was pointed out by friend/co-worker Jeff, had they gone with the book's version, people would have easily drawn a connection to Saw, and that would have left a bad taste in many viewers' mouths.
The major fault with the film, is also a fault of this review so far. Little was actually done with Adrien Veidt/Ozymandias, played by Matthew Goode (Match Point). It's important to the story. Both book and film version. But little is done with him. For a layperson, that would be quite frustrating and confusing. For a fanboy, it's just frustrating.
When reviewing a film, you have to place it both in context of it's time, and in context of the history of film. This film is visually stunning, well put together, a faithful adaptation and wonderfully acted. In the history of film, does that not earn it recognition amongst the finest? It does. In context, when judged against it's contemporaries, is it a step above? Does it raise the bar? Does it change the game? Yes.
I give it 5 stars because Zack Snyder and crew set out to make the best movie they could given the odds they were up against. And they overcame those odds. Any nit-picking aimed at the film is just that... nit-picking by a fan is angry that the tiniest detail that THEY wanted wasn't in the film. Nit-picking by a fanboy who expected 1 Million%, not fully understanding that percents only go up to 100.
Also, make all the jokes you want, but the glowing blue Dr. Manhattan nudity... I didn't have a problem with it. I didn't notice after awhile.
The end.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Live Oscar Blog-o-Thon!
Throughout the night.... I'll be updating the winners as they are announced. The winners will be in green. If my prediction is wrong, then my pick will be in red, and the actual winner in green.
Best Picture
- Slumdog Millionaire
Best Director
- Danny Boyle for Slumdog Millionaire
Best Lead Actor
- Sean Penn for Milk
-Mickey Rourke for The Wrestler
Best Lead Actress
- Kate Winslet for The Reader
Best Supporting Actor
- Heath Ledger for The Dark Knight
Best Supporting Actress
- Penelope Cruz for Vicky Christina Barcelona
Best Adapted Screenplay
- Simon Beaufoy for Slumdog Millionaire
Best Original Screenplay
- Dustin Lance Black for Milk
- Andrew Stanton, Jim Reardon and Pete Doctor for WALL-E
Best Foreign Film
- Okuribito - Japan
- The Class - France
Best Animated Feature
- WALL-E
Best Art Direction
- The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
- The Dark Knight
Best Cinematography
- Slumdog Millionaire
- The Dark Knight
Best Sound Mixing
- Slumdog Millionaire
- WALL-E
Best Sound Editing
- The Dark Knight
- WALL-E
Best Original Score
- A.R. Rahman for Slumdog Millionaire
Best Original Song
- "Jai Ho"- A.R. Rahman and Sampooran Singh Gulzar for Slumdog Millionaire
- "O Saya" - A.R. Rahman and Maya Arulpragasam (M.I.A.) for Slumdog Millionaire
Best Costume Design
- The Duchess
- The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Best Documentary Feature
- Man on Wire
Best Documentary Short Subject
- Smile Pinki
- The Witness - From the Balcony of Room 306
Best Film Editing
- Slumdog Millionaire
- The Dark Knight
Best Make Up
- The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Best Animated Short
- La maison en petits cubes
- Presto
Best Live Action Short
- Toyland (Spielzeugland)
Best Visual Effects
- The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Best Picture
- Slumdog Millionaire
Best Director
- Danny Boyle for Slumdog Millionaire
Best Lead Actor
- Sean Penn for Milk
-Mickey Rourke for The Wrestler
Best Lead Actress
- Kate Winslet for The Reader
Best Supporting Actor
- Heath Ledger for The Dark Knight
Best Supporting Actress
- Penelope Cruz for Vicky Christina Barcelona
Best Adapted Screenplay
- Simon Beaufoy for Slumdog Millionaire
Best Original Screenplay
- Dustin Lance Black for Milk
- Andrew Stanton, Jim Reardon and Pete Doctor for WALL-E
Best Foreign Film
- Okuribito - Japan
- The Class - France
Best Animated Feature
- WALL-E
Best Art Direction
- The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
- The Dark Knight
Best Cinematography
- Slumdog Millionaire
- The Dark Knight
Best Sound Mixing
- Slumdog Millionaire
- WALL-E
Best Sound Editing
- The Dark Knight
- WALL-E
Best Original Score
- A.R. Rahman for Slumdog Millionaire
Best Original Song
- "Jai Ho"- A.R. Rahman and Sampooran Singh Gulzar for Slumdog Millionaire
- "O Saya" - A.R. Rahman and Maya Arulpragasam (M.I.A.) for Slumdog Millionaire
Best Costume Design
- The Duchess
- The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Best Documentary Feature
- Man on Wire
Best Documentary Short Subject
- Smile Pinki
- The Witness - From the Balcony of Room 306
Best Film Editing
- Slumdog Millionaire
- The Dark Knight
Best Make Up
- The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Best Animated Short
- La maison en petits cubes
- Presto
Best Live Action Short
- Toyland (Spielzeugland)
Best Visual Effects
- The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Friday, February 20, 2009
Oscar Predictions
With the Oscars fast approaching, I'm going to take this time to lock in my predictions.
Last year I was 50% (it was my best score in 5 years). These are nothing more than educated guesses. Also, for what it's worth, I went only 25% with last year's sports championships (my only correct pre-playoff pick was NBA, and I went all the way with Celtics taking the Lakers).
I listed out the nominees for the major categories, my pick in green.
Best Picture
- The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
- Frost/Nixon
- Milk
- The Reader
- Slumdog Millionaire
Best Director
- David Fincher for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
- Ron Howard for Frost/Nixon
- Gus Van Sant for Milk
- Stephen Daldry for The Reader
- Danny Boyle for Slumdog Millionaire.
Best Lead Actor
- Richard Jenkins for The Visitor
- Frank Langella for Frost/Nixon
- Sean Penn for Milk
- Brad Pitt for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
- Mickey Rourke for The Wrestler
Best Lead Actress
- Anne Hathaway for Rachel Getting Married
- Angelina Jolie for Changeling
- Melissa Leo for Frozen River
- Meryl Streep for Doubt
- Kate Winslet for The Reader
Best Supporting Actor
- Josh Brolin for Milk
- Robert Downey Jr. for Tropic Thunder
- Phillip Seymour Hoffman for Doubt
- Heath Ledger for The Dark Knight
- Michael Shannon for Revolutionary Road
Best Supporting Actress
- Amy Adams for Doubt
- Penelope Cruz for Vicky Christina Barcelona
- Viola Davis for Doubt
- Taraji P. Henson for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
- Marisa Tomei for The Wrestler
Best Adapted Screenplay
- Eric Roth and Robin Swicord for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
- John Patrick Shanley for Doubt
- Peter Morgan for Frost/Nixon
- David Hare for The Reader
- Simon Beaufoy for Slumdog Millionaire
Best Original Screenplay
- Courtney Hunt for Frozen River
- Mike Leigh for Happy-Go-Lucky
- Martin McDonagh for In Bruges
- Dustin Lance Black for Milk
- Andrew Stanton, Jim Reardon and Pete Doctor for WALL-E
Best Foreign Film
- The Baader Meinhoff Complex - Germany
- The Class - France
- Departures - Japan
- Revanche - Austria
- Waltz With Bashir - Israel
Best Animated Feature
- Bolt
- Kung Fu Panda
- WALL-E
Best Art Direction
- The Dark Knight
Best Cinematography
- The Dark Knight
Best Sound Mixing
- WALL-E
Best Sound Editing
- WALL-E
Best Original Score
- A.R. Rahman for Slumdog Millionaire
Best Original Song
- "O Saya" - A.R. Rahman and Maya Arulpragasam (M.I.A.) for Slumdog Millionaire
Best Costume Design
- The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Best Documentary Feature
- Man on Wire
Best Documentary Short Subject
- The Witness - From the Balcony of Room 306
Best Film Editing
- The Dark Knight
Best Make Up
- The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Best Animated Short
- Presto
Best Live Action Short
- Toyland (Spielzeugland)
Best Visual Effects
- The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Tune in on Sunday for a Live Blog-o-thon as I update you with the winners as they are announced! Fun for all.
Last year I was 50% (it was my best score in 5 years). These are nothing more than educated guesses. Also, for what it's worth, I went only 25% with last year's sports championships (my only correct pre-playoff pick was NBA, and I went all the way with Celtics taking the Lakers).
I listed out the nominees for the major categories, my pick in green.
Best Picture
- The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
- Frost/Nixon
- Milk
- The Reader
- Slumdog Millionaire
Best Director
- David Fincher for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
- Ron Howard for Frost/Nixon
- Gus Van Sant for Milk
- Stephen Daldry for The Reader
- Danny Boyle for Slumdog Millionaire.
Best Lead Actor
- Richard Jenkins for The Visitor
- Frank Langella for Frost/Nixon
- Sean Penn for Milk
- Brad Pitt for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
- Mickey Rourke for The Wrestler
Best Lead Actress
- Anne Hathaway for Rachel Getting Married
- Angelina Jolie for Changeling
- Melissa Leo for Frozen River
- Meryl Streep for Doubt
- Kate Winslet for The Reader
Best Supporting Actor
- Josh Brolin for Milk
- Robert Downey Jr. for Tropic Thunder
- Phillip Seymour Hoffman for Doubt
- Heath Ledger for The Dark Knight
- Michael Shannon for Revolutionary Road
Best Supporting Actress
- Amy Adams for Doubt
- Penelope Cruz for Vicky Christina Barcelona
- Viola Davis for Doubt
- Taraji P. Henson for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
- Marisa Tomei for The Wrestler
Best Adapted Screenplay
- Eric Roth and Robin Swicord for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
- John Patrick Shanley for Doubt
- Peter Morgan for Frost/Nixon
- David Hare for The Reader
- Simon Beaufoy for Slumdog Millionaire
Best Original Screenplay
- Courtney Hunt for Frozen River
- Mike Leigh for Happy-Go-Lucky
- Martin McDonagh for In Bruges
- Dustin Lance Black for Milk
- Andrew Stanton, Jim Reardon and Pete Doctor for WALL-E
Best Foreign Film
- The Baader Meinhoff Complex - Germany
- The Class - France
- Departures - Japan
- Revanche - Austria
- Waltz With Bashir - Israel
Best Animated Feature
- Bolt
- Kung Fu Panda
- WALL-E
Best Art Direction
- The Dark Knight
Best Cinematography
- The Dark Knight
Best Sound Mixing
- WALL-E
Best Sound Editing
- WALL-E
Best Original Score
- A.R. Rahman for Slumdog Millionaire
Best Original Song
- "O Saya" - A.R. Rahman and Maya Arulpragasam (M.I.A.) for Slumdog Millionaire
Best Costume Design
- The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Best Documentary Feature
- Man on Wire
Best Documentary Short Subject
- The Witness - From the Balcony of Room 306
Best Film Editing
- The Dark Knight
Best Make Up
- The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Best Animated Short
- Presto
Best Live Action Short
- Toyland (Spielzeugland)
Best Visual Effects
- The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Tune in on Sunday for a Live Blog-o-thon as I update you with the winners as they are announced! Fun for all.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Friday The 13th/The International
Friday The 13th
2.5 Stars
I don't think you can call Friday The 13th a "remake" considering a) it cribs more from the original part II than it does the original part I; and b) the franchise has been going pretty consistently for 30 years, it's more of a retelling.
Luckily the song remains the same for Jason and crew in Friday The 13th, which will make the synopsis easy. Group of naive, yet good looking kids stumble upon the remains of Camp Crystal Lake, closed down since Mrs. Voorhees went on a bloody rampage, killing the counselours she felt were responsible for her son's drowning. Only he didn't die, and he's now a grown, very deranged man. Hilarity ensues. And by hilarity, I mean an insane amount of brutal slayings.
I usually take the third paragraph to delve into the acting of the various leads, point out a delightful supporting role. But really, what the hell do you expect from a mediocre remake of a late 70's slasher flick? The chicks were naked, the dudes were douchebags, and massive amounts of alcohol and pot were consumed. I could give you a cast list, but good luck recognizing any of them, unless you're familiar with the WB/CW crowd.
This film was not made, nor should anyone carry the notion that it was, for great performances. When the original came out, it was a 2 hour PSA on the dangers of drug use, drinking and pre-marital sex. Smoke pot? That's a slaying by a crazy guy in a hockey mask. Drink? Disfigured pedophile will invade your dreams and kill you. Pre-marital sex? Escaped mental patient in Shatner mask will stalk and kill you. It had a social commentary that our out of control, hedonistic life styles would eventually, and quite literally, kill us.
This film... leaves that all out. In this new age of horror, where the bloodier, more gruesome, more realistic the killings the better (I believe the term is "torture-porn"), and it went for the proverbial jugular. And while delivering the thrills and bloodlust, it's an empty, shell of a movie. It's sole purpose is to be an exhibition for murder. I'm not here to pontificate on the rightness or wrongness of such existence. But leaving out a message in this kind of movie leaves the viewer with a weird feeling. At least in the Saw franchise there's a message (value your life), however twisted they go about it.
But like I said, one can't deny that it at least delivers on the thrills. If you're going to waste time and money, there's no real better way than Friday the 13th.
The International
3 stars
Clive Owen and Naomi Watts highlight this international political thriller about the global banking system and world arms trade. And how they alledgedly go hand in hand. It's an entertaining little movie, not meant to break new ground, but to explore what's there.
The International spins the tale of Interpol Agent Louis Salinger (Owen) as he works with New York ADA Eleanor Whitman to expose the criminal dealings of International Bank, who alledgedly supplies weapons to third world countries.
This movie reminds me why I initially supported Owen to be the new James Bond a few years back, and makes me glad he isn't. Owen is too rugged for Bond. Too rough around the edges, to blue collar. He almost always looks like he woke up from a night of drinking, which, in my best estimation, is his charm. He brings sort of an everyman quality to his roles. There's rarely a hint of grandeur to his performances (even when playing King Arthur, which wasn't ALL bad).
Director Tom Tykwer finally makes his big American debut, and as expected, it doesn't live up to Lola rennt (Run, Lola Run), but it's a different film geared to a different audience, so I can't be too hard on him for that. But to his credit, it is beautifully shot, with nary a wasted scene.
The unfortunate thing about most movies released January-February is that they will in no way make huge waves in movie making (notable exceptions include The Silence of the Lambs and last year's Cloverfield). They tend to just exist, and the companies behind them have very little faith in their audience draw or general quality. This film doesn't change that. It just kind of is. But what is, is a cut above the general dreg out there.
2.5 Stars
I don't think you can call Friday The 13th a "remake" considering a) it cribs more from the original part II than it does the original part I; and b) the franchise has been going pretty consistently for 30 years, it's more of a retelling.
Luckily the song remains the same for Jason and crew in Friday The 13th, which will make the synopsis easy. Group of naive, yet good looking kids stumble upon the remains of Camp Crystal Lake, closed down since Mrs. Voorhees went on a bloody rampage, killing the counselours she felt were responsible for her son's drowning. Only he didn't die, and he's now a grown, very deranged man. Hilarity ensues. And by hilarity, I mean an insane amount of brutal slayings.
I usually take the third paragraph to delve into the acting of the various leads, point out a delightful supporting role. But really, what the hell do you expect from a mediocre remake of a late 70's slasher flick? The chicks were naked, the dudes were douchebags, and massive amounts of alcohol and pot were consumed. I could give you a cast list, but good luck recognizing any of them, unless you're familiar with the WB/CW crowd.
This film was not made, nor should anyone carry the notion that it was, for great performances. When the original came out, it was a 2 hour PSA on the dangers of drug use, drinking and pre-marital sex. Smoke pot? That's a slaying by a crazy guy in a hockey mask. Drink? Disfigured pedophile will invade your dreams and kill you. Pre-marital sex? Escaped mental patient in Shatner mask will stalk and kill you. It had a social commentary that our out of control, hedonistic life styles would eventually, and quite literally, kill us.
This film... leaves that all out. In this new age of horror, where the bloodier, more gruesome, more realistic the killings the better (I believe the term is "torture-porn"), and it went for the proverbial jugular. And while delivering the thrills and bloodlust, it's an empty, shell of a movie. It's sole purpose is to be an exhibition for murder. I'm not here to pontificate on the rightness or wrongness of such existence. But leaving out a message in this kind of movie leaves the viewer with a weird feeling. At least in the Saw franchise there's a message (value your life), however twisted they go about it.
But like I said, one can't deny that it at least delivers on the thrills. If you're going to waste time and money, there's no real better way than Friday the 13th.
The International
3 stars
Clive Owen and Naomi Watts highlight this international political thriller about the global banking system and world arms trade. And how they alledgedly go hand in hand. It's an entertaining little movie, not meant to break new ground, but to explore what's there.
The International spins the tale of Interpol Agent Louis Salinger (Owen) as he works with New York ADA Eleanor Whitman to expose the criminal dealings of International Bank, who alledgedly supplies weapons to third world countries.
This movie reminds me why I initially supported Owen to be the new James Bond a few years back, and makes me glad he isn't. Owen is too rugged for Bond. Too rough around the edges, to blue collar. He almost always looks like he woke up from a night of drinking, which, in my best estimation, is his charm. He brings sort of an everyman quality to his roles. There's rarely a hint of grandeur to his performances (even when playing King Arthur, which wasn't ALL bad).
Director Tom Tykwer finally makes his big American debut, and as expected, it doesn't live up to Lola rennt (Run, Lola Run), but it's a different film geared to a different audience, so I can't be too hard on him for that. But to his credit, it is beautifully shot, with nary a wasted scene.
The unfortunate thing about most movies released January-February is that they will in no way make huge waves in movie making (notable exceptions include The Silence of the Lambs and last year's Cloverfield). They tend to just exist, and the companies behind them have very little faith in their audience draw or general quality. This film doesn't change that. It just kind of is. But what is, is a cut above the general dreg out there.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Push/He's Just Not That Into You
He's Just Not That Into You
2.5 Stars
I did have high hopes for this going in. Greg Behrendt was a stand up I enjoyed (he wrote the source book). It has an impressive cast. But it came across as Love Actually: American Style. Sadly, I was just not into He's Just Not That Into.
Interconnecting stories of love and human behaviour comprise the film based on a bestselling self-help book. Gigi (Ginnifer Goodwin) has trouble reading the dating rituals of men after a mediocre date with Conner (Kevin Connolly) who is also dating Anna (Scarlett Johansson), but she just met and fell for Ben (Bradley Cooper) whose marriage is kinda on the rocks because of his smoking, which his wife Janine (Jennifer Connelly) has made it clear she doesn't like. She works with both Gigi and Beth (Jennifer Aniston), who's longterm boyfriend Neil (Ben Affleck) won't marry her because he doesn't believe in marriage. Oh... and Mary (Drew Barrymore) has relationship issues as far as status unknown. Oh... and Conner's best friend Alex (Justin Long) starts dispensing relationship advice to Gigi.
I felt to best exemplify exactly how I felt about this movie... by providing the synopsis in the most annoying way possible. Which is what this movie amounts to... whiney young rich people annoyingly discussing their love lives. There was no relatability to any of the characters. Sure there were certain aspects that I could relate to. And certainly the situations they were put in are relatable. But the characters, and unfortunately the actors playing them, were just a means to an end. They were incidental. You could play musical chairs with the actor/role and it would have no bearing on the movie. Also... if Jennifer Aniston's biggest problem is Ben Affleck not marrying her... she's on frickin' easy street.
I do not find it hard to believe that people like this exist. What I find it hard to believe that they expect us, the viewing public, to sit in a theatre and say "I totally get Neil," or "I sympathize with Gigi." Like I said, on a basic level, the situations themselves, are relatable, but the essential plot devices are not what you base the movie around. You build from them.
Perhaps had they handed the reins to someone other than the guy who offered us Dunston Checks In. Though to Ken Kwapis' credit, he did a few episodes of "Freaks and Geeks", which is an undeniably great show, which had 18 great episodes, and a grand total of zero bad ones.
I give it kudos for situational relatability, but which is unfortunately hindered by the complete lack of compassion or empathy for the characters. This is one movie that if it wanted to, and even tried, it could have been a great, and a good American Love Actually, which had one thing going for it... characters you actually liked.
Push
3 Stars
Do you remember back a few years ago, there was a great show that was on television... about people with special powers, coming to terms with it. There was a shady organization hunting them down. Normal people paired up with people with powers... "Heroes" it was called. That was a great show. The show that's on now called "Heroes" is a shell of its former self, that is rapidly circling the drain. I bring this up because I want to dispell the comparisons of Push to current "Heroes." Push is what "Heroes" used to be, and should still be. And with that... "Heroes" references end........................NOW
After witnessing the death of his father at the hands of the ruthless Division, Nick Grant (Chris Evans), a mover (telekinetic) has exiled himself to Hong Kong in an effort stay off the radar. Yeah, about that, a super watcher (psychic) predicted he would do this, and that a pusher(force thoughts into one's head), Kira (Camilla Belle), would escape division and seek his help. The daughter of this watcher, another watcher named Cassie (Dakota Fanning) comes to Nick's aid to protect themselves and the pusher from a more powerful pusher/Division agent (Djimon Hounsou), who, incidentally, killed Nick's father.
It clocks in under 2 hours, but it's stilla bout 20 minutes too long. I've never had a problem with long movies. But it had a pacing problem. They could have cut some of the fatty meat from the film and it still would have been good, and most likely would have been better. Director Paul McGuigan has a recurring problem with flow. Lucky Number Slevin had the same problem. Too long due to extraneous scenes. Trim the fat, and it's better.
Sometimes I think I'm the only one who enjoys the work of Chris Evans (Cellular). Sure he's not the next Sean Penn or George Clooney (though considering Penn and Clooney's early filmographies, it's not entirely out of the question), but he's no Keanu. He's a decent actor and at times downright good (see Sunshine). And he proves himself to be a thoroughly comptent and entertaining leading man.
Fanning (Man On Fire) is easing her transition from precocious (and eerily too smart) child star to more mature material. I have a feeling, and am truly hoping she follows the path of Jodie Foster and Ron Howard on transition from child star to A-Lister. We're rooting for you Dakota.
It truly is "Heroes" when it was good, but unfortunately it ends up being a movie that just is. It offers up nothing great. It comes and goes, and won't leave a mark. It just exists for the purpose of existing. It is a feather in no one's cap.
2.5 Stars
I did have high hopes for this going in. Greg Behrendt was a stand up I enjoyed (he wrote the source book). It has an impressive cast. But it came across as Love Actually: American Style. Sadly, I was just not into He's Just Not That Into.
Interconnecting stories of love and human behaviour comprise the film based on a bestselling self-help book. Gigi (Ginnifer Goodwin) has trouble reading the dating rituals of men after a mediocre date with Conner (Kevin Connolly) who is also dating Anna (Scarlett Johansson), but she just met and fell for Ben (Bradley Cooper) whose marriage is kinda on the rocks because of his smoking, which his wife Janine (Jennifer Connelly) has made it clear she doesn't like. She works with both Gigi and Beth (Jennifer Aniston), who's longterm boyfriend Neil (Ben Affleck) won't marry her because he doesn't believe in marriage. Oh... and Mary (Drew Barrymore) has relationship issues as far as status unknown. Oh... and Conner's best friend Alex (Justin Long) starts dispensing relationship advice to Gigi.
I felt to best exemplify exactly how I felt about this movie... by providing the synopsis in the most annoying way possible. Which is what this movie amounts to... whiney young rich people annoyingly discussing their love lives. There was no relatability to any of the characters. Sure there were certain aspects that I could relate to. And certainly the situations they were put in are relatable. But the characters, and unfortunately the actors playing them, were just a means to an end. They were incidental. You could play musical chairs with the actor/role and it would have no bearing on the movie. Also... if Jennifer Aniston's biggest problem is Ben Affleck not marrying her... she's on frickin' easy street.
I do not find it hard to believe that people like this exist. What I find it hard to believe that they expect us, the viewing public, to sit in a theatre and say "I totally get Neil," or "I sympathize with Gigi." Like I said, on a basic level, the situations themselves, are relatable, but the essential plot devices are not what you base the movie around. You build from them.
Perhaps had they handed the reins to someone other than the guy who offered us Dunston Checks In. Though to Ken Kwapis' credit, he did a few episodes of "Freaks and Geeks", which is an undeniably great show, which had 18 great episodes, and a grand total of zero bad ones.
I give it kudos for situational relatability, but which is unfortunately hindered by the complete lack of compassion or empathy for the characters. This is one movie that if it wanted to, and even tried, it could have been a great, and a good American Love Actually, which had one thing going for it... characters you actually liked.
Push
3 Stars
Do you remember back a few years ago, there was a great show that was on television... about people with special powers, coming to terms with it. There was a shady organization hunting them down. Normal people paired up with people with powers... "Heroes" it was called. That was a great show. The show that's on now called "Heroes" is a shell of its former self, that is rapidly circling the drain. I bring this up because I want to dispell the comparisons of Push to current "Heroes." Push is what "Heroes" used to be, and should still be. And with that... "Heroes" references end........................NOW
After witnessing the death of his father at the hands of the ruthless Division, Nick Grant (Chris Evans), a mover (telekinetic) has exiled himself to Hong Kong in an effort stay off the radar. Yeah, about that, a super watcher (psychic) predicted he would do this, and that a pusher(force thoughts into one's head), Kira (Camilla Belle), would escape division and seek his help. The daughter of this watcher, another watcher named Cassie (Dakota Fanning) comes to Nick's aid to protect themselves and the pusher from a more powerful pusher/Division agent (Djimon Hounsou), who, incidentally, killed Nick's father.
It clocks in under 2 hours, but it's stilla bout 20 minutes too long. I've never had a problem with long movies. But it had a pacing problem. They could have cut some of the fatty meat from the film and it still would have been good, and most likely would have been better. Director Paul McGuigan has a recurring problem with flow. Lucky Number Slevin had the same problem. Too long due to extraneous scenes. Trim the fat, and it's better.
Sometimes I think I'm the only one who enjoys the work of Chris Evans (Cellular). Sure he's not the next Sean Penn or George Clooney (though considering Penn and Clooney's early filmographies, it's not entirely out of the question), but he's no Keanu. He's a decent actor and at times downright good (see Sunshine). And he proves himself to be a thoroughly comptent and entertaining leading man.
Fanning (Man On Fire) is easing her transition from precocious (and eerily too smart) child star to more mature material. I have a feeling, and am truly hoping she follows the path of Jodie Foster and Ron Howard on transition from child star to A-Lister. We're rooting for you Dakota.
It truly is "Heroes" when it was good, but unfortunately it ends up being a movie that just is. It offers up nothing great. It comes and goes, and won't leave a mark. It just exists for the purpose of existing. It is a feather in no one's cap.
Thursday, February 05, 2009
Taken-Frost/Nixon
Taken
3.5 Stars
One man against the criminal (or not strictly criminal) underworld movies are a dime a dozen. Jason Statham tends to star in most of them (though I have this theory that he's really a superhero who refuses to wear a cape). But there's something about Liam Neeson hunting down sex slave traders who have kidnapped his daughter in Paris. It doesn't re-invent the genre, but it certainly upgrades it.
Former spy Bryan Mills (Neeson) relunctantly allows his daughter Kim (Maggie Grace) tour Europe with her friend, Amanda, on the condition she safe. Unfortunately sex slave traders have other ideas, and promptly kidnap the two girls upon their arrival in the city of lights. What's worse is Bryan was on the phone with Kim when it happened. Utilizing his old skills and old contacts, Bryan begins the race against the clock to find his daughter before she is literally lost forever, and takes him on a violent, rage and vengeance fueled romp through Paris.
Neeson is the true highlight of the film. He shows that these solo action ventures aren't just for the young guys like Matt Damon and the aforementioned Statham. And, given his pedigree, he brings a gravitas to a role that could have otherwise been very bland. He doesn't exactly breathe new life into the role that has been routinely played by Harrison Ford (family man trying to get back his family, tell me I'm wrong) for the past ten years, but he does bring a different perspective.
It's hard to believe that it took almost a year to get this in the States (released in France almost a year ago), but Pierre Morel's directorial follow up to 2004's District 13 seems tailor made for the American action film climate. By that I mean the aging hero back in the game, and with Statham and Damon movies doing well, it's a perfect fit. I found the most intriguing aspect of his cinematic eye (on this film, anyway) is his removal of the rose tinted glasses we've been looking through when thinking of Paris. He finds the underbelly, and enhances it in a completly un romantic way.
I felt like I got my money's worth with this film. I was entertained, and glued to my seat the entire time, and really... entertainment goes a long way with me. It's not a game changer, but it is a performance enhancer.
Frost/Nixon
3.5 stars
I had the misfortune of seeing this after the Oscar nominations were announced, after much had been written on it, after much negative had been written on it. One piece by me. I had said "Instead the Academy opted for the generally safe historical dramas. "Nothing against Frost/Nixon, as I have yet to see it, but what could it possibly bring to the filmmaking table that The Dark Knight did not? It's a dramatization of TV interviews. You could pretty much Youtube about half the movie." And in some aspects... I was right. But in some... I was completely not.
As stated, Frost/Nixon is a dramatization of the 1977 David Frost (Michael Sheen)/Richard Nixon (Frank Lagella) interviews, where he, as the film so delicately puts it, gives him the trial he never got. But it is more than a regurgitation of what we could buy in a TimeLife set for the low low price of $19.99 plus S&H. It highlights Frost's personal and professional struggle to get the interviews, and, much in the same way W. did with George W. Bush, humanizes Nixon.
Langella has been heaped with his praise for his portrayal of the fallen President, a role he originated in the stage show. And Langella (Superman Returns) does in fact bring a vulnerability to the character. But overlooked has been his adversary. Sheen (The Queen) brings an intensity and conflict to a character who is a celebrity of his time. And, as per usual, the dynamite performance of Sam Rockwell (Confessions of a Dangerous Mind) has gone criminally overlooked.
The main problem with this film is that while the performances are engaging, as a whole, the film is standard at best. In pure filmmaking terms, Ron Howard (The Da Vinci Code) shows no signs of growth concerning historical drama from his 1995 epic Apollo 13. It doesn't change the game for filmmaking, and isn't a landmark in any respect. It was as I expected. And that was it's detriment. The film didn't wow me.
Go and stay for the performances, but you won't get much else out of this film than what you can catch on YouTube, or PBS if they're feeling frisky.
3.5 Stars
One man against the criminal (or not strictly criminal) underworld movies are a dime a dozen. Jason Statham tends to star in most of them (though I have this theory that he's really a superhero who refuses to wear a cape). But there's something about Liam Neeson hunting down sex slave traders who have kidnapped his daughter in Paris. It doesn't re-invent the genre, but it certainly upgrades it.
Former spy Bryan Mills (Neeson) relunctantly allows his daughter Kim (Maggie Grace) tour Europe with her friend, Amanda, on the condition she safe. Unfortunately sex slave traders have other ideas, and promptly kidnap the two girls upon their arrival in the city of lights. What's worse is Bryan was on the phone with Kim when it happened. Utilizing his old skills and old contacts, Bryan begins the race against the clock to find his daughter before she is literally lost forever, and takes him on a violent, rage and vengeance fueled romp through Paris.
Neeson is the true highlight of the film. He shows that these solo action ventures aren't just for the young guys like Matt Damon and the aforementioned Statham. And, given his pedigree, he brings a gravitas to a role that could have otherwise been very bland. He doesn't exactly breathe new life into the role that has been routinely played by Harrison Ford (family man trying to get back his family, tell me I'm wrong) for the past ten years, but he does bring a different perspective.
It's hard to believe that it took almost a year to get this in the States (released in France almost a year ago), but Pierre Morel's directorial follow up to 2004's District 13 seems tailor made for the American action film climate. By that I mean the aging hero back in the game, and with Statham and Damon movies doing well, it's a perfect fit. I found the most intriguing aspect of his cinematic eye (on this film, anyway) is his removal of the rose tinted glasses we've been looking through when thinking of Paris. He finds the underbelly, and enhances it in a completly un romantic way.
I felt like I got my money's worth with this film. I was entertained, and glued to my seat the entire time, and really... entertainment goes a long way with me. It's not a game changer, but it is a performance enhancer.
Frost/Nixon
3.5 stars
I had the misfortune of seeing this after the Oscar nominations were announced, after much had been written on it, after much negative had been written on it. One piece by me. I had said "Instead the Academy opted for the generally safe historical dramas. "Nothing against Frost/Nixon, as I have yet to see it, but what could it possibly bring to the filmmaking table that The Dark Knight did not? It's a dramatization of TV interviews. You could pretty much Youtube about half the movie." And in some aspects... I was right. But in some... I was completely not.
As stated, Frost/Nixon is a dramatization of the 1977 David Frost (Michael Sheen)/Richard Nixon (Frank Lagella) interviews, where he, as the film so delicately puts it, gives him the trial he never got. But it is more than a regurgitation of what we could buy in a TimeLife set for the low low price of $19.99 plus S&H. It highlights Frost's personal and professional struggle to get the interviews, and, much in the same way W. did with George W. Bush, humanizes Nixon.
Langella has been heaped with his praise for his portrayal of the fallen President, a role he originated in the stage show. And Langella (Superman Returns) does in fact bring a vulnerability to the character. But overlooked has been his adversary. Sheen (The Queen) brings an intensity and conflict to a character who is a celebrity of his time. And, as per usual, the dynamite performance of Sam Rockwell (Confessions of a Dangerous Mind) has gone criminally overlooked.
The main problem with this film is that while the performances are engaging, as a whole, the film is standard at best. In pure filmmaking terms, Ron Howard (The Da Vinci Code) shows no signs of growth concerning historical drama from his 1995 epic Apollo 13. It doesn't change the game for filmmaking, and isn't a landmark in any respect. It was as I expected. And that was it's detriment. The film didn't wow me.
Go and stay for the performances, but you won't get much else out of this film than what you can catch on YouTube, or PBS if they're feeling frisky.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Rachel Getting Married/Slumdog Millionaire
Rachel Getting Married
2 stars
There's a reason Anne Hathaway's street cred boosting film Rachel Getting Married is only getting award notices for Hathaway's acting. Because quite frankly, that's all this film has going for it.
After being in and out of various prisons and rehab facilities for 10 years, Kym (Hatheway) is released into her families custody just days before her older sister Rachel's (Rosmarie DeWitt) wedding. This leads to explosive confrontations between Kym, Rachel and their parents.
Certain aspects of this film is more than a passing resemblence to Sherry Baby, Maggie Gyllenhaal's much better film of a rehabed druggie returning to the outside world. Nothing against Hathaway, but Gyllenhaal was better. The primary source of notice for Hathaway is that it was a left field performance for her, and did prove herself as more than a Disney alum trying to make it in the world.
2 stars
There's a reason Anne Hathaway's street cred boosting film Rachel Getting Married is only getting award notices for Hathaway's acting. Because quite frankly, that's all this film has going for it.
After being in and out of various prisons and rehab facilities for 10 years, Kym (Hatheway) is released into her families custody just days before her older sister Rachel's (Rosmarie DeWitt) wedding. This leads to explosive confrontations between Kym, Rachel and their parents.
Certain aspects of this film is more than a passing resemblence to Sherry Baby, Maggie Gyllenhaal's much better film of a rehabed druggie returning to the outside world. Nothing against Hathaway, but Gyllenhaal was better. The primary source of notice for Hathaway is that it was a left field performance for her, and did prove herself as more than a Disney alum trying to make it in the world.
Hathaway's main source of acting support comes from Rosmarie DeWitt. As Rachel, she offers a great foil for Hathaway's Kym. She exudes the exaspiration of a bride to be faced with daunting and unresolved family issues. Hathaway's performance, and likewise the film as a whole, wouldn't be nearly as good as it is without DeWitt.
But stellar performances from the two leads isn't enough to launch this past a 2 star rating. The rest of the characters and actors are treated as incidental, with no real major impact on the overall final story.
And while throughout most of the film, the Kym/Rachel dynamic is engaging, it occasionally slips into a "Whose issues are bigger?" pissing contest. And the remaining characters don't help take it out of annoying status.
Then there's the wedding. A first generation Jamaican-American marrying a WASP, and they have a Hindi/African/American influenced wedding. The rehearsal was an open-mic night? Were they trying to be hipsters? Too much just didn't work, and ended up being annoying.
So in addition to annoying, whiney characters, you had an annoying plot point. And you walk away just embarassed for all involved.
Luckily DeWitt and Hathaway were able to come away unscathed. But I doubt I'll ever look at Jonathan Demme the same way again.
Slumdog Millionaire
5 Stars
In a year filled with Oscar bait movies, leave it to Danny Boyle to throw a wrench into the works with the crime/romance/bio/drama Slumdog Millionaire. It's a fascinating film that keeps you on your toes and never asks more of you as an audience than is absolutely necessary.
By sheer luck, Jamal Malik (Dev Patel), a young man who grew up in the slums of Bombay and now works as an go-fer in a tech support call center, has made it onto India's "Who Wants to be a Millionaire." By even more luck, or possibly eerie coincidence, he's got a shot at the 20 Million Rupee question. Jamal can't believe it. Indian Regis (Anil Kapoor) can't believe it. The Indian authorities can't believe. Jamal is promptly arrested on suspicion of cheating. As he and the police cheif watch the tape of his performance, Jamal reveals the story of his life, with each chapter informing his correct answers to the questions presented to him.
I commend Boyle for meshing the styles of Western filmmaking (he's British) with Bollywood. Including the random, yet not out of place dance sequence during the end credits.
The performances from the actors are powerful, engaging and truthful. You aren't hit over the head with the weight of what they're doing. There's a bizarre subtlty to it. Which is only bizarre when you realize that the 9 actors who play the leads (3 characters at different ages) have very little experience amongst the lot of them. It's films like this that make me wish they had a best ensemble performance or best Casting Oscar. While an actor can have a great single performance in a great movie (or terrible movie, as is the case with the previous movie reviewed), sometimes the whole cast together elevates a movie, as is the case with this one.
What makes this film perform well is a great match of strong script and director. Boyle understood the story that needed to be told, and told it very well.
And I've got writers block.
So... in summation... Slumdog Millionaire= One of the best of the year.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Concerning the Oscars
So the Oscar Nominees were announced, and as someone who is, as some would say, "a fan of movies" (which if you do actually know me, that's putting as lightly as one could possibly put it), and as someone who has been to and experienced the Oscar blitz (not as a nominee, as a fan) I should weigh in.
Not speaking as a fanboy... not speaking as someone who doesn't really know how the Oscars operate (and there are several on the message boards I regularly visit)... I say this with as much authority as a 23 year old film critic can... WHAT THE FUCK!?!?!
The Dark Knight was more or less shut out. That movie more than deserved the 8 nominations it got (7 in technical categories, more on the eight later). But it deserved Picture, Director, Writing and Supporting Actor, as well.
I'm not going to claim that I've seen all the nominees, or even all of the eligible films. But for The Dark Knight to go relatively unnoticed in the artistic categories, it's an insult. And it really shows how out of touch the Academy is with mainstream audiences.
Now, mainstream films often are out of tune with what is generally considered "Award Worthy". And I in no way consider, Paul Blart, last week's box office champ, Oscar Worthy, in any category. So it's not a "mainstream vs. indie" argument on my part. It's on their part. The Academy's near reluctance to recognize mainstream films for major awards is a history that is long and storied.
Think about it, remove the fact that it's Batman, look at The Dark Knight as a straight crime saga. It's up there. The performances and the execution were great.
Unfortunately when they do go for a mainstream film, it turns out that film is Rocky, winning best picture over Network, Taxi Driver and All The President's Men. Really? WTF? Don't get me wrong... Rocky is a great film. Better than those other three? Certainly not.
Same with Wall-E. Point of fact, the only animated film ever to be nominated for Best Picture was Beauty and the Beast (and deservedly so). But with the recent addition of the "Best Animated Film" category, the liklihood of that ever happening again significantly dropped. With Wall-E not making the cut, I doubt it will ever happen again.
Those two films were widely considered the very best of the year. From highly respected critics to bloggers like me. And the box office receipts proved it. Instead the Academy opted for the generally safe historical dramas. Nothing against Frost/Nixon, as I have yet to see it, but what could it possibly bring to the filmmaking table that The Dark Knight did not? It's a dramatization of TV interviews. You could pretty much Youtube about half the movie.
I guess Ron Howard is a good standby, as opposed to going for directors who experiment and explore the boundaries of filmmaking. No nods for Darren Aaronofsky or Christopher Nolan for The Wrestler and The Dark Knight, respectively.
There is no greater proof of that than Howard over Peter Jackson in 2001 for A Beautiful Mind over The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. Or in 2004, Clint Eastwood over Martin Scorsese for Million Dollar Baby over The Aviator.
I'm not going to say that they're political, though they have made "I'm sorry" choices in the past, like Scorsese finally getting that ever ellusive (unless you're name is Clint Eastwood) Best Director Oscar for The Departed. Sure it was well deserved, but Scorsese's Best Director Oscar has been well deserved for over 30 years.
And while it may be Robert Downey, Jr., I'm glad to see them finally recognize mainstream comedic work for acting (Best Supporting Actor for Tropic Thunder). When it comes to recognizing comedies, the Academy will slide more in the line of "dark comedy," "black comedy," or "dram-edy." It's a trend the've missed going on many years. Perhaps the first major missed opportunity is Sean Penn in Fast Times at Ridgemont High. And now they've nominated Downey for Tropic Thunder. They've certainly come a long way, but I agree with most critics and bloggers... James Franco in Pineapple Express, anyone?
I of course will still watch. I of course will still enjoy and severely geek out. But... they really need to look beyond the usual Oscar fair. Recognize the great films. Not just what is deemed Oscar worthy.
Because quite frankly, "Oscar worthy" is quickly becoming a sub-genre, rather than an honour.
On the flip side... major kudos for Slumdog Millionaire. Totally deserves it.
Not speaking as a fanboy... not speaking as someone who doesn't really know how the Oscars operate (and there are several on the message boards I regularly visit)... I say this with as much authority as a 23 year old film critic can... WHAT THE FUCK!?!?!
The Dark Knight was more or less shut out. That movie more than deserved the 8 nominations it got (7 in technical categories, more on the eight later). But it deserved Picture, Director, Writing and Supporting Actor, as well.
I'm not going to claim that I've seen all the nominees, or even all of the eligible films. But for The Dark Knight to go relatively unnoticed in the artistic categories, it's an insult. And it really shows how out of touch the Academy is with mainstream audiences.
Now, mainstream films often are out of tune with what is generally considered "Award Worthy". And I in no way consider, Paul Blart, last week's box office champ, Oscar Worthy, in any category. So it's not a "mainstream vs. indie" argument on my part. It's on their part. The Academy's near reluctance to recognize mainstream films for major awards is a history that is long and storied.
Think about it, remove the fact that it's Batman, look at The Dark Knight as a straight crime saga. It's up there. The performances and the execution were great.
Unfortunately when they do go for a mainstream film, it turns out that film is Rocky, winning best picture over Network, Taxi Driver and All The President's Men. Really? WTF? Don't get me wrong... Rocky is a great film. Better than those other three? Certainly not.
Same with Wall-E. Point of fact, the only animated film ever to be nominated for Best Picture was Beauty and the Beast (and deservedly so). But with the recent addition of the "Best Animated Film" category, the liklihood of that ever happening again significantly dropped. With Wall-E not making the cut, I doubt it will ever happen again.
Those two films were widely considered the very best of the year. From highly respected critics to bloggers like me. And the box office receipts proved it. Instead the Academy opted for the generally safe historical dramas. Nothing against Frost/Nixon, as I have yet to see it, but what could it possibly bring to the filmmaking table that The Dark Knight did not? It's a dramatization of TV interviews. You could pretty much Youtube about half the movie.
I guess Ron Howard is a good standby, as opposed to going for directors who experiment and explore the boundaries of filmmaking. No nods for Darren Aaronofsky or Christopher Nolan for The Wrestler and The Dark Knight, respectively.
There is no greater proof of that than Howard over Peter Jackson in 2001 for A Beautiful Mind over The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. Or in 2004, Clint Eastwood over Martin Scorsese for Million Dollar Baby over The Aviator.
I'm not going to say that they're political, though they have made "I'm sorry" choices in the past, like Scorsese finally getting that ever ellusive (unless you're name is Clint Eastwood) Best Director Oscar for The Departed. Sure it was well deserved, but Scorsese's Best Director Oscar has been well deserved for over 30 years.
And while it may be Robert Downey, Jr., I'm glad to see them finally recognize mainstream comedic work for acting (Best Supporting Actor for Tropic Thunder). When it comes to recognizing comedies, the Academy will slide more in the line of "dark comedy," "black comedy," or "dram-edy." It's a trend the've missed going on many years. Perhaps the first major missed opportunity is Sean Penn in Fast Times at Ridgemont High. And now they've nominated Downey for Tropic Thunder. They've certainly come a long way, but I agree with most critics and bloggers... James Franco in Pineapple Express, anyone?
I of course will still watch. I of course will still enjoy and severely geek out. But... they really need to look beyond the usual Oscar fair. Recognize the great films. Not just what is deemed Oscar worthy.
Because quite frankly, "Oscar worthy" is quickly becoming a sub-genre, rather than an honour.
On the flip side... major kudos for Slumdog Millionaire. Totally deserves it.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
More Reviews Than You Can Shake a Stick At
I've got 5 films to review, so it'll be 5 mini-reviews. Kinda like when "Rescue Me" did those "mini-sodes" after the 5th season got postponed due to the damn writer's strike. Only there was no strike. I just fell behind.
It's interesting... I knew at somepoint I would have to accept that I would eventually be reviewing Clint Eastwood's last film as an actor. I just figured he'd be dead. But no, he's retired. And his swan song, Gran Torino is caps off an overall wonderful, if at times curious and disappointing, career.
Eastwood is pitch perfect as an aging Korean War vet with an archaic (re: racist) view of the world. He's stuck in his ways, but is forced to confront his evolving neighbourhood after he helps the kid next door out of a scuffle with a street gang. He even grows to respect and even grows fond of the next door neighbours, treating them as family. Actually, better than he treats his own family.
As director, Eastwood utilizes a great cast of Korean non-actors to further separate his character from theirs. And for never having done any professional screen work, the performances turned in by young actors Bee Vang as the wayward youth Thao, and Ahney Her as his older sister are remarkably impressive, and do well in holding their own against 50+ year veteran Eastwood.
I'd say this is one to watch come Awards season, but since I'm writing this on Oscar Nomination Day (it's a Holiday for me), that's a little anachronistic (it wasn't nominated for anything). But this is definitely one worth viewing. It has the added bonus of Eastwood holding a shotgun and delivering the greatest version of every crazy old coot's favourite phrase: "Get off my lawn!"
Oh, Anne Hathaway... I expect more out of you. Not so much out of Kate Hudson, this film is about on par with what I expect from her. But Anne, Anne, Anne.... You're more talented than this. So is Kate, now that I think of it, but she hasn't made a good career choice since Almost Famous, and that was 10 years ago.
A scheduling mix-up forces two best friends to duke it out over who gets to keep their dream wedding. With alledgedly hilarious results.
But the actual results are predictable, unfunny, forgetable and ultimately insulting.
I've seen some unfunny comedies in my day, but this one has to take the cake (no pun intended). Sure, maybe I cracked a smile every now and then, but was I laughing at the content, or the fact that the content exists? 99.9% of the time, the latter.
Every character except the two leads was expendable, and the writers seemed to make it that way. The only way I was able to tell which fiancee was which, was by which female lead happened to be on screen, and unfortunately that didn't help in several scenes.
But it truley dives into the insulting pool by it's portrayal of women. They're sycophantic, shallow, and I wonder if they're actually functionally retarded. There are no socially redeeming, or remotely admirable qualities in these two women. It pains me to say that Sex and the City was a more accurate representation of women, and they're materialistic, sex crazed bimbos. If those two were really friends, and I've seen this in real life, one would have made a sacrifice. These are who little girls are looking up to. Seriously, Judd Apatow, Kevin Smith, Joss Wedon and Quentin Tarantino need to write more scripts, they're the only ones writing great roles for females, it seems like. I'm saying that and Apatow's been accused of sexism. So.... eat it Hudson.
Hudson says she wants jucier roles, so lets hope she makes better choices. Because she can be a great actress, she just needs to pick better roles. And Hathaway.... stay far away from material like this. If you hadn't long ago proved yourself as a competant actress, I'd say this role is enough to get your recent Oscar Nomination revoked (she got it for Rachel Getting Married, a thankfully unrelated movie, review coming next week).
Paul Blart: Mall Cop
2.5 stars
Safe? Yes. Original? No. Enjoyable? Yes
Paul Blart (Kevin James) is a mall security guard. Paul Blart is a mall security guard because he can't seem to pass the New Jersey State Troopers exam. His heroics are put to a Die Hard-ian test when his mall is overrun with criminals out for credit card info on Black Friday.
James treads the safe waters of goof-ball, broad-comedy, quasi-parody with Paul Blart. It's clearly a poor man's Die Hard, but Airheads did it better 15 years ago when the reference was relevent.
But it gets in some good jokes, and the some of the best parts may be in the trailer, but there's some good filler. Wait for the DVD on this one, though.
It's safe, it's harmless, good for the whole family. But seriously, what's the deal with Jayma Mays' eyes, they take up like half her face?
Last Chance Harvey
3.5 Stars
You know... Joel put it best: "Romantic comedies tend to never really be romantic. Or comedic." I agree with that sentiment (that and they aren't geared towards the demographic I am a part of), so I stay away from the usual effor that is put forth in the genre. But this one piqued my interest, due to the leads. Dustin Hoffman and Emma Thompson. Both of whom I am a fan. And both are interesting choices as romantic leads. In 2009. Hoffman, yeah, sure, about 40 years ago. Thompson, about 25 ago.
And it works. I count the two amongst my favourites in their respective genders, and they are on top of their game. The film isn't nearly their best work, but it's good. It doesn't have to break the wall down to be good.
Hoffman's titular Harvey, a New York jingle composer, travels to London for his daughter's wedding, only to find out his daughter wants her step father (James Brolin) to walk her down the aisle. Hoffman makes a hasty departure for the airport to get back for a big meeting with a client, only to be informed en route that he's been fired. He connects with Thompson's Kate in an airport bar, and the two commiserate over drinks, and they begin an unorthodox romance.
And with his spirits renewed, Harvey returns to his daughter's reception with Kate. And with nothing to go home to, decides to stay in London for a while.
It speaks to the dis-heartened souls, who are frustrated with life. That something will come along to bring them out of a rut. It's not holding a rosey coloured lens to the world, and giving the Disney ending of a story, but it is providing a good, happy ending, with out the overly sweet sentimentality.
Think of it as Diet Disney.
My Bloody Valentine 3D
3 Stars
I entered this movie the same way I entered watching Zombie Strippers- very low expectations. It's a cheesy slasher flick, a modern one at that. Think of the last time a really good horror movie was released. Saw. The first one. After that... I got nothing. And slasher flicks? That sub-genre hasn't been good since Scream effectively satirized it to death 13 years ago (I'll do a post soon about my feelings on Scream soon, but I do love it).
But you know what? If you enter it with your expectations set at "Good way to kill an hour and a half" and nothing more, then you will have an enjoyable time.
One year after a crazed miner went on a killing spree following the collapse of the mine, he awakens from his coma to go on another killing spree, and is killed in another mine collapse, in the same mine. Then 10 years later, when the son of the mine owner (and cause of the original collapse) returns to town, the killings by a masked miner start again. Suspicians abound as to who could be causing it. But think about it, the ending isn't as shocking as perhaps they want it to be.
It's a good slasher flick. A nice throw back to the slasher hey day of the of 1980's. Unfortunately is missing the thinly veiled social commentary that Elm Street, Halloween and Friday The 13th had. Lots of gratuitous violence, gore and nudity, all in one neatly wrapped 3D package. You don't get that much these days.
The performances... well they sucked. Little to no actual character there. Just brooding angst, nuttiness, faux heroics and the obligatory stupid whore. I went with Joel and his fiancee Fawn (who watched the film through her fingers), but Joel commented about halfway through that WB/CW mainstay Jensen Ackles clearly graduated from the Keanu Reeves School of Acting.
What made this movie was the kitschy nostalgia of 3D horror. And that's really all the film has going for it. I give it higher marks for not having too many scenes that are obviously only in existence to flex the 3D muscle.
So if you like horror movies... go for the 3D, stay for the... 3D. I can't wait for the sequel that they will most likely make.
Gran Torino
4.5 stars
Eastwood is pitch perfect as an aging Korean War vet with an archaic (re: racist) view of the world. He's stuck in his ways, but is forced to confront his evolving neighbourhood after he helps the kid next door out of a scuffle with a street gang. He even grows to respect and even grows fond of the next door neighbours, treating them as family. Actually, better than he treats his own family.
As director, Eastwood utilizes a great cast of Korean non-actors to further separate his character from theirs. And for never having done any professional screen work, the performances turned in by young actors Bee Vang as the wayward youth Thao, and Ahney Her as his older sister are remarkably impressive, and do well in holding their own against 50+ year veteran Eastwood.
I'd say this is one to watch come Awards season, but since I'm writing this on Oscar Nomination Day (it's a Holiday for me), that's a little anachronistic (it wasn't nominated for anything). But this is definitely one worth viewing. It has the added bonus of Eastwood holding a shotgun and delivering the greatest version of every crazy old coot's favourite phrase: "Get off my lawn!"
Bride Wars
.5 Stars
.5 Stars
Oh, Anne Hathaway... I expect more out of you. Not so much out of Kate Hudson, this film is about on par with what I expect from her. But Anne, Anne, Anne.... You're more talented than this. So is Kate, now that I think of it, but she hasn't made a good career choice since Almost Famous, and that was 10 years ago.
A scheduling mix-up forces two best friends to duke it out over who gets to keep their dream wedding. With alledgedly hilarious results.
But the actual results are predictable, unfunny, forgetable and ultimately insulting.
I've seen some unfunny comedies in my day, but this one has to take the cake (no pun intended). Sure, maybe I cracked a smile every now and then, but was I laughing at the content, or the fact that the content exists? 99.9% of the time, the latter.
Every character except the two leads was expendable, and the writers seemed to make it that way. The only way I was able to tell which fiancee was which, was by which female lead happened to be on screen, and unfortunately that didn't help in several scenes.
But it truley dives into the insulting pool by it's portrayal of women. They're sycophantic, shallow, and I wonder if they're actually functionally retarded. There are no socially redeeming, or remotely admirable qualities in these two women. It pains me to say that Sex and the City was a more accurate representation of women, and they're materialistic, sex crazed bimbos. If those two were really friends, and I've seen this in real life, one would have made a sacrifice. These are who little girls are looking up to. Seriously, Judd Apatow, Kevin Smith, Joss Wedon and Quentin Tarantino need to write more scripts, they're the only ones writing great roles for females, it seems like. I'm saying that and Apatow's been accused of sexism. So.... eat it Hudson.
Hudson says she wants jucier roles, so lets hope she makes better choices. Because she can be a great actress, she just needs to pick better roles. And Hathaway.... stay far away from material like this. If you hadn't long ago proved yourself as a competant actress, I'd say this role is enough to get your recent Oscar Nomination revoked (she got it for Rachel Getting Married, a thankfully unrelated movie, review coming next week).
Paul Blart: Mall Cop
2.5 stars
Safe? Yes. Original? No. Enjoyable? Yes
Paul Blart (Kevin James) is a mall security guard. Paul Blart is a mall security guard because he can't seem to pass the New Jersey State Troopers exam. His heroics are put to a Die Hard-ian test when his mall is overrun with criminals out for credit card info on Black Friday.
James treads the safe waters of goof-ball, broad-comedy, quasi-parody with Paul Blart. It's clearly a poor man's Die Hard, but Airheads did it better 15 years ago when the reference was relevent.
But it gets in some good jokes, and the some of the best parts may be in the trailer, but there's some good filler. Wait for the DVD on this one, though.
It's safe, it's harmless, good for the whole family. But seriously, what's the deal with Jayma Mays' eyes, they take up like half her face?
Last Chance Harvey
3.5 Stars
You know... Joel put it best: "Romantic comedies tend to never really be romantic. Or comedic." I agree with that sentiment (that and they aren't geared towards the demographic I am a part of), so I stay away from the usual effor that is put forth in the genre. But this one piqued my interest, due to the leads. Dustin Hoffman and Emma Thompson. Both of whom I am a fan. And both are interesting choices as romantic leads. In 2009. Hoffman, yeah, sure, about 40 years ago. Thompson, about 25 ago.
And it works. I count the two amongst my favourites in their respective genders, and they are on top of their game. The film isn't nearly their best work, but it's good. It doesn't have to break the wall down to be good.
Hoffman's titular Harvey, a New York jingle composer, travels to London for his daughter's wedding, only to find out his daughter wants her step father (James Brolin) to walk her down the aisle. Hoffman makes a hasty departure for the airport to get back for a big meeting with a client, only to be informed en route that he's been fired. He connects with Thompson's Kate in an airport bar, and the two commiserate over drinks, and they begin an unorthodox romance.
And with his spirits renewed, Harvey returns to his daughter's reception with Kate. And with nothing to go home to, decides to stay in London for a while.
It speaks to the dis-heartened souls, who are frustrated with life. That something will come along to bring them out of a rut. It's not holding a rosey coloured lens to the world, and giving the Disney ending of a story, but it is providing a good, happy ending, with out the overly sweet sentimentality.
Think of it as Diet Disney.
My Bloody Valentine 3D
3 Stars
I entered this movie the same way I entered watching Zombie Strippers- very low expectations. It's a cheesy slasher flick, a modern one at that. Think of the last time a really good horror movie was released. Saw. The first one. After that... I got nothing. And slasher flicks? That sub-genre hasn't been good since Scream effectively satirized it to death 13 years ago (I'll do a post soon about my feelings on Scream soon, but I do love it).
But you know what? If you enter it with your expectations set at "Good way to kill an hour and a half" and nothing more, then you will have an enjoyable time.
One year after a crazed miner went on a killing spree following the collapse of the mine, he awakens from his coma to go on another killing spree, and is killed in another mine collapse, in the same mine. Then 10 years later, when the son of the mine owner (and cause of the original collapse) returns to town, the killings by a masked miner start again. Suspicians abound as to who could be causing it. But think about it, the ending isn't as shocking as perhaps they want it to be.
It's a good slasher flick. A nice throw back to the slasher hey day of the of 1980's. Unfortunately is missing the thinly veiled social commentary that Elm Street, Halloween and Friday The 13th had. Lots of gratuitous violence, gore and nudity, all in one neatly wrapped 3D package. You don't get that much these days.
The performances... well they sucked. Little to no actual character there. Just brooding angst, nuttiness, faux heroics and the obligatory stupid whore. I went with Joel and his fiancee Fawn (who watched the film through her fingers), but Joel commented about halfway through that WB/CW mainstay Jensen Ackles clearly graduated from the Keanu Reeves School of Acting.
What made this movie was the kitschy nostalgia of 3D horror. And that's really all the film has going for it. I give it higher marks for not having too many scenes that are obviously only in existence to flex the 3D muscle.
So if you like horror movies... go for the 3D, stay for the... 3D. I can't wait for the sequel that they will most likely make.
Thursday, January 08, 2009
Valkyrie/The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Valkyrie
3.5 stars
Valkyrie is the tale of how Tom Cruise and Eddie Izzard traveled through time to kill Hitler. Ok... it's not, but that would have been a way funnier movie. But Valkyrie is the story of the final of 15 separate plots to assassinate Das Fuhrer. And while I'm glad they didn't make it funny (good luck making Hitler funny, it's not easy, just check this very short lived British sitcom). But Cruise and company made a damn compelling film.
Cruise (War of the Worlds, Scientology) portrays German Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg, mastermind of the Valkyrie plan. The original Valkyrie plan was a government restructuring plan to be implemented in the event of Hitler's death. After climbing the ranks of Germany's military, Stauffenberg is able to redraft it so he and his cohorts would be in charge, effectively putting an end to Hitler's Germany. The film follows the path from development to failed execution, and the risks each men take to see it through to the finish.
The first thing that piqued my interest in this project was the amazing cast assembeled. In addition to Cruise's strong performance, we also get magnificent work from Kenneth Branagh (Hamlet), Bill Nighy (Shaun of the Dead), Tom Wilkinson (RocknRolla), Terrence Stamp (Get Smart) and Izzard (Ocean's 13). While Cruise puts forth a great performance, the movie would be nothing without the supporting cast.
I kind of want to ask director Bryan Singer what his fascination with Nazi Germany is. First he did Apt Pupil, about an ex-Nazi. Then X-Men, with Magneto being a holocaust survivor. Now Valkyrie. Not that it's led him astray. He's just like.... the poor man's Spielberg (and to further that connection, Spielberg was listed as a producer on NBC's ER a full 10 years prior to Singer being listed as a producer on FOX's House, MD).
But all that aside... he does a great job with the material. My main worry about this film going in was the direction. Singer could have dragged it out, run all sorts of circles around himself before he got to the point. But no. He kept the movie tight, and pace on a nice easy flow. It kicks right off with Stauffenberg being unhappy with Hitler's vision for Germany, jumps to the plot to kill him, and doesn't stop till the conspirators are rounded up and executed. It's a very well paced thriller.
As far as historical political thrillers go, I would count this one on par with All The Presidents Men and JFK. Only... with Hitler.
Hey you know who else was in this movie.... nevermind.
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
4 stars
Sometimes a 3 hour movie is overly long on time and overly short on actual reason for being 3 damn hours long. Benjamin Button is not like that. It's a thoroughly engrossing story that keeps you in the moment and in the story for the entire run time. Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett have never been better.
Benjamin Button is a man born old. I don't mean he's mature for his age. He was literally born an 80 year old man, and is aging backwards. After his parents abandon him at a New Orleans retirement home, Benjamin (Pitt) quickly bonds with the home's residents and the caretakers (Taraji P. Henson and Mahershalalhashbaz Ali) become his adopted parents. We get to watch him live his life... backwards. From a young-old man to an old-young man, and how his reverse aging affects his personal and professional life. He has affairs with much older women, he travels the world. But he always comes back to his one true love, Daisy (Blanchett), who has grown up (normally) alongside Benjamin.
In my opinion, Pitt (Snatch) is one of the most under-estimated actors of this generation. When looking not just at his body of work, but his performances in those films, you really can't deny that he really is a damn fine actor, if not one of the best working right now. And this role as Button is another highlight in his career. He brings a subtlety, and a warmth to the character that I think we may have lost with some other actors.
And Blanchett (Babel) continues her reign as one of the best actresses in Hollywood. There's a charm, and grace she brings to the film.
Director David Fincher (Se7en, Fight Club) continues to bend your mind with his bold look at interesting stories. What I like about Fincher's take on the story, is that he forces the audience to accept that Button ages backwards without explanation, by himself accepting it without explanation. A lesser director would have attempted a half assed explanation, or try to give some big grand explanation that ends up seeming ludicrous and taking you completely out of the story. But by diving into the story, we're pulled along with him into it, and I ultimately didn't care that I didn't know why he aged backwards.
For an engaging life story, that's light fun, but great story, definitly check out this flick.
3.5 stars
Valkyrie is the tale of how Tom Cruise and Eddie Izzard traveled through time to kill Hitler. Ok... it's not, but that would have been a way funnier movie. But Valkyrie is the story of the final of 15 separate plots to assassinate Das Fuhrer. And while I'm glad they didn't make it funny (good luck making Hitler funny, it's not easy, just check this very short lived British sitcom). But Cruise and company made a damn compelling film.
Cruise (War of the Worlds, Scientology) portrays German Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg, mastermind of the Valkyrie plan. The original Valkyrie plan was a government restructuring plan to be implemented in the event of Hitler's death. After climbing the ranks of Germany's military, Stauffenberg is able to redraft it so he and his cohorts would be in charge, effectively putting an end to Hitler's Germany. The film follows the path from development to failed execution, and the risks each men take to see it through to the finish.
The first thing that piqued my interest in this project was the amazing cast assembeled. In addition to Cruise's strong performance, we also get magnificent work from Kenneth Branagh (Hamlet), Bill Nighy (Shaun of the Dead), Tom Wilkinson (RocknRolla), Terrence Stamp (Get Smart) and Izzard (Ocean's 13). While Cruise puts forth a great performance, the movie would be nothing without the supporting cast.
I kind of want to ask director Bryan Singer what his fascination with Nazi Germany is. First he did Apt Pupil, about an ex-Nazi. Then X-Men, with Magneto being a holocaust survivor. Now Valkyrie. Not that it's led him astray. He's just like.... the poor man's Spielberg (and to further that connection, Spielberg was listed as a producer on NBC's ER a full 10 years prior to Singer being listed as a producer on FOX's House, MD).
But all that aside... he does a great job with the material. My main worry about this film going in was the direction. Singer could have dragged it out, run all sorts of circles around himself before he got to the point. But no. He kept the movie tight, and pace on a nice easy flow. It kicks right off with Stauffenberg being unhappy with Hitler's vision for Germany, jumps to the plot to kill him, and doesn't stop till the conspirators are rounded up and executed. It's a very well paced thriller.
As far as historical political thrillers go, I would count this one on par with All The Presidents Men and JFK. Only... with Hitler.
Hey you know who else was in this movie.... nevermind.
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
4 stars
Sometimes a 3 hour movie is overly long on time and overly short on actual reason for being 3 damn hours long. Benjamin Button is not like that. It's a thoroughly engrossing story that keeps you in the moment and in the story for the entire run time. Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett have never been better.
Benjamin Button is a man born old. I don't mean he's mature for his age. He was literally born an 80 year old man, and is aging backwards. After his parents abandon him at a New Orleans retirement home, Benjamin (Pitt) quickly bonds with the home's residents and the caretakers (Taraji P. Henson and Mahershalalhashbaz Ali) become his adopted parents. We get to watch him live his life... backwards. From a young-old man to an old-young man, and how his reverse aging affects his personal and professional life. He has affairs with much older women, he travels the world. But he always comes back to his one true love, Daisy (Blanchett), who has grown up (normally) alongside Benjamin.
In my opinion, Pitt (Snatch) is one of the most under-estimated actors of this generation. When looking not just at his body of work, but his performances in those films, you really can't deny that he really is a damn fine actor, if not one of the best working right now. And this role as Button is another highlight in his career. He brings a subtlety, and a warmth to the character that I think we may have lost with some other actors.
And Blanchett (Babel) continues her reign as one of the best actresses in Hollywood. There's a charm, and grace she brings to the film.
Director David Fincher (Se7en, Fight Club) continues to bend your mind with his bold look at interesting stories. What I like about Fincher's take on the story, is that he forces the audience to accept that Button ages backwards without explanation, by himself accepting it without explanation. A lesser director would have attempted a half assed explanation, or try to give some big grand explanation that ends up seeming ludicrous and taking you completely out of the story. But by diving into the story, we're pulled along with him into it, and I ultimately didn't care that I didn't know why he aged backwards.
For an engaging life story, that's light fun, but great story, definitly check out this flick.
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
Marley & Me/The Spirit, plus a rundown
Brodie Fanns!
I've been away, here's a rundown of the movies I've seen recently and not given full reviews.
Yes Man- 3.5 stars
Seven Pounds - 2.5 stars
The Day The Earth Stood Still - 2 stars
Zack and Miri Make a Porno - 4.5 stars
Saw V - 2.5 Stars
RocknRolla- 3.5 stars
Twilight - 3 stars
Four Christmases - 2.5 stars
Australia - 3.5 stars
Transporter 3 - 3 stars
Punisher: War Zone - 3 stars
Nothing Like The Holidays - 4 stars
And now onto the reviews:
The Spirit
2 Stars
Comic book movies really came into their own as a legitimate genre this year with impressive critical and box office results from both Iron Man and The Dark Knight. But if there was one movie that could undo all the positive press those two did over the summer, it would have to be this years last entry of the genre, Frank Miller's adaptation of Will Eisner's The Spirit.
The Spirit is the tale of rookie cop Denny Colt (Gabriel Macht) who is gunned down in the line of duty, only to rise from the grave (due to a medical experiment), only now he's invincible. In order to truely rid Central City of the despicable criminal element, primarily from The Octopus (Samuel L. Jackson), he dons a mask, coat and hat to become The Spirit, with only Police Commissioner Dolan (Dan Lauria) knowing his true identity. As the Spirit works to clean up Central City's streets, he has passionate love affairs with nearly every woman he meets, including his childhood sweetheart Sand Saref (Eva Mendes), his ex-fiancee Ellen (Sarah Paulson) and even having a grand old time with Octopus croonie Plaster of Paris (Paz Vega). Even the angel of death (Jamie King) seems to have a thing for the Spirit.
It's a hype-noirish tale in the fashion of Miller's own Sin City, but more like a watered down, store brand version of Sin City. The comparisons are unfortunately inescapable. Eisner and Miller were contemporaries and friends (Eisner passed away 4 years ago). Miller created Sin City, Eisner, The Spirit (not at the same time, just giving you some background on the two). Here's where I must call on the comparison of the two cinematic treatments. Miller was credited as a co-director on Sin City, but after watching this, it's clear he took on a more advisory role, as Robert Rodriguez handled the actual execution of the craft. Rodriguez has had 10 years to work on his craft and warrented the visual experimentation he utilized on Sin City. And he created a beautiful piece of work.
For Miller, it seemed like he may have picked up a few things from Rodriguez, and when he got to helm his own film, at every turn he must have been thinking, "Well, that's what Robert did..." But he never took the time to figure out why Rodriguez did what he did in his film. There was a reason for everything. Miller was just looking to follow suit. I hate to say this, because Miller is a legend in his field and I truely admire him as a graphic novelist, but it was reminiscent of late 90's punk bands, the bands that sprung up from the ashes of the true 80's punk bands. They were copying the sound, but not the emotion.
And the script he wrote wasn't much better. The dialog, while with full intention of calling back to the days when the comic was written and set, seemed cheesy and full of camp. The actors struggled with it, though oddly, the only one who seemed at home was Lauria (The Wonder Years).
And that does bring us to the performances. They weren't on a whole terrible. Just... not very good. Almost indifferent I suppose. I think Macht (Because I Said So) was looking to challenge himself with a different sort of role, but it fell flat. As did Mendes (We Own the Night) and Scarlett Johansson (Lost In Translation). Though Samuel L. Jackson, who is such a character in his own right, was able to rise above the material. Barely, as by my count he was only able to track a 20% success rate with his lines and actions in this film, but that's still better than anyone else.
Sin City, this is not. Hell, it's not even Spider-man 3. But fanboys may find it enjoyable. I like graphic novels, including the source book, but still found it hard to get into the movie. If you are looking for quality comic to film adaptations, re-watch The Dark Knight on DVD, or till April for Watchmen to come out.
Marley & Me
4 stars
I've been away, here's a rundown of the movies I've seen recently and not given full reviews.
Yes Man- 3.5 stars
Seven Pounds - 2.5 stars
The Day The Earth Stood Still - 2 stars
Zack and Miri Make a Porno - 4.5 stars
Saw V - 2.5 Stars
RocknRolla- 3.5 stars
Twilight - 3 stars
Four Christmases - 2.5 stars
Australia - 3.5 stars
Transporter 3 - 3 stars
Punisher: War Zone - 3 stars
Nothing Like The Holidays - 4 stars
And now onto the reviews:
The Spirit
2 Stars
Comic book movies really came into their own as a legitimate genre this year with impressive critical and box office results from both Iron Man and The Dark Knight. But if there was one movie that could undo all the positive press those two did over the summer, it would have to be this years last entry of the genre, Frank Miller's adaptation of Will Eisner's The Spirit.
The Spirit is the tale of rookie cop Denny Colt (Gabriel Macht) who is gunned down in the line of duty, only to rise from the grave (due to a medical experiment), only now he's invincible. In order to truely rid Central City of the despicable criminal element, primarily from The Octopus (Samuel L. Jackson), he dons a mask, coat and hat to become The Spirit, with only Police Commissioner Dolan (Dan Lauria) knowing his true identity. As the Spirit works to clean up Central City's streets, he has passionate love affairs with nearly every woman he meets, including his childhood sweetheart Sand Saref (Eva Mendes), his ex-fiancee Ellen (Sarah Paulson) and even having a grand old time with Octopus croonie Plaster of Paris (Paz Vega). Even the angel of death (Jamie King) seems to have a thing for the Spirit.
It's a hype-noirish tale in the fashion of Miller's own Sin City, but more like a watered down, store brand version of Sin City. The comparisons are unfortunately inescapable. Eisner and Miller were contemporaries and friends (Eisner passed away 4 years ago). Miller created Sin City, Eisner, The Spirit (not at the same time, just giving you some background on the two). Here's where I must call on the comparison of the two cinematic treatments. Miller was credited as a co-director on Sin City, but after watching this, it's clear he took on a more advisory role, as Robert Rodriguez handled the actual execution of the craft. Rodriguez has had 10 years to work on his craft and warrented the visual experimentation he utilized on Sin City. And he created a beautiful piece of work.
For Miller, it seemed like he may have picked up a few things from Rodriguez, and when he got to helm his own film, at every turn he must have been thinking, "Well, that's what Robert did..." But he never took the time to figure out why Rodriguez did what he did in his film. There was a reason for everything. Miller was just looking to follow suit. I hate to say this, because Miller is a legend in his field and I truely admire him as a graphic novelist, but it was reminiscent of late 90's punk bands, the bands that sprung up from the ashes of the true 80's punk bands. They were copying the sound, but not the emotion.
And the script he wrote wasn't much better. The dialog, while with full intention of calling back to the days when the comic was written and set, seemed cheesy and full of camp. The actors struggled with it, though oddly, the only one who seemed at home was Lauria (The Wonder Years).
And that does bring us to the performances. They weren't on a whole terrible. Just... not very good. Almost indifferent I suppose. I think Macht (Because I Said So) was looking to challenge himself with a different sort of role, but it fell flat. As did Mendes (We Own the Night) and Scarlett Johansson (Lost In Translation). Though Samuel L. Jackson, who is such a character in his own right, was able to rise above the material. Barely, as by my count he was only able to track a 20% success rate with his lines and actions in this film, but that's still better than anyone else.
Sin City, this is not. Hell, it's not even Spider-man 3. But fanboys may find it enjoyable. I like graphic novels, including the source book, but still found it hard to get into the movie. If you are looking for quality comic to film adaptations, re-watch The Dark Knight on DVD, or till April for Watchmen to come out.
Marley & Me
4 stars
When I originally presented this review on-air, I used three words I never thought I'd ever use for a film starring Jennifer Aniston AND Owen Wilson: emotional, evocative, effective. Ok, maybe Wilson, because he's at least got some indie cred... but not Aniston. But they all work for Marley & Me.
Marley & Me is based on the bestselling memoir by John Grogan about his rascal of a dog, named Marley. Wilson plays Grogan, Aniston his wife, Jennifer. It follows their marriage, with the life of the dog as a plot template. As the dog grows up with the Grogan's, their marriage grows. Grogan turns his life experiences as a young husband, dog owner, his subsequent fatherhood into fuel for his journalism career. It all culminates in an ending you know is coming, but is none the less effective, which is about all I can say without completely giving away the ending.
What makes this movie work, is the typecasting the two leads have built for themselves over the years, and the chemistry they create together. Wilson (Wedding Crashers) tends to come across as a directionless slacker, with Aniston (The Break-Up) as the neurotic love interest. But on this, the character types clash, and it works. I wouldn't call the Grogan character a directionless slacker, but Wilson still brings a hint of that attitude to the character. The characters are almost written to their respective strengths and weaknesses. While they won't win any major awards for their work, the two are certainly better than we've seen them in a while (if at all).
But the real accolade goes to Eric Dane (Grey's Anatomy, I believe they call him McSteamy, not that I watch the show or anything), who was Grogan's friend Sebastian. The character, and Dane's portrayal of him, is a not to subtle, but not to obvious counter to Grogan. While Grogan's dealing with married life, and the drudgery of his starter articles at the newspaper they work at, Sebastian is dating woman after woman, and jetting to Colombia to write articles on drug kingpins. And that foil continues through the entire film. Dane perfectly plays the guy Grogan wishes he could be, but also is glad he isn't.
And that brings us to what I have yet to talk about. Marley. The dog. This isn't a typical family film about a dog. I view it as a love story. Between a family and their dog. And that's what it is. The dog loves the family. The family loves the dog. And it's about the life they share together. And it's beautiful.
I'm not ashamed one bit to admit this movie made me cry. It has joined the ranks of Field of Dreams and The Green Mile as one of the few movies to make me cry. But it's that good, and that effective.
Coming soon... Valkyrie and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
WALL-E: A DVD Review
WALL-E
DVD- 4 Stars
I already posted a review for WALL-E. You can read that here. This review is about the DVD itself.
First off, the standard bonus feature for DVD's... Deleted scenes. For me, when it comes to deleted scenes, I like ones that may have been cut for time, or were interesting, but didn't make sense, something that makes them worth watching. And while the two provided are in fact alternate takes on existing scenes, and Andrew Stanton's director's commentary on the scenes themselves explains why they were taken out (story changes), they don't really provide enough entertainment to keep one interested.
Speaking of Andrew Stanton's commentary, his running commentary throughout the entire film is worth listening to. He provides some valuable production insights into the developement of not only the character of Wall-E, but how the film and it's story came to be. This was a passion project for Stanton, and by all accounts, it shouldn't have worked. Basically a silent animated film about a robot who falls in love. That's the driving force behind the movie. But he talks about all the planning that went into it to make it work. And he does make it work.
As with all Pixar films, the short film that accompanied the theatrical release is included on the DVD, as well as an additional short exploring a minor character named BURN-E, that plotwise, takes place at the same time as the main feature. Just as good as the film.
The real gem of the DVD is the "Building Worlds with Sound" feature, because not only does it do an intensive study on how they did the sound effects for WALL-E, which is an SFX heavy film, but also the history of SFX at Disney, exploring the career of legendary sound man Ben Burtt, who also supplied the voice of WALL-E.
For the movie alone this one is worth the rent, but the SFX documentary, animated shorts and director's commentary make it one to own.
DVD- 4 Stars
I already posted a review for WALL-E. You can read that here. This review is about the DVD itself.
First off, the standard bonus feature for DVD's... Deleted scenes. For me, when it comes to deleted scenes, I like ones that may have been cut for time, or were interesting, but didn't make sense, something that makes them worth watching. And while the two provided are in fact alternate takes on existing scenes, and Andrew Stanton's director's commentary on the scenes themselves explains why they were taken out (story changes), they don't really provide enough entertainment to keep one interested.
Speaking of Andrew Stanton's commentary, his running commentary throughout the entire film is worth listening to. He provides some valuable production insights into the developement of not only the character of Wall-E, but how the film and it's story came to be. This was a passion project for Stanton, and by all accounts, it shouldn't have worked. Basically a silent animated film about a robot who falls in love. That's the driving force behind the movie. But he talks about all the planning that went into it to make it work. And he does make it work.
As with all Pixar films, the short film that accompanied the theatrical release is included on the DVD, as well as an additional short exploring a minor character named BURN-E, that plotwise, takes place at the same time as the main feature. Just as good as the film.
The real gem of the DVD is the "Building Worlds with Sound" feature, because not only does it do an intensive study on how they did the sound effects for WALL-E, which is an SFX heavy film, but also the history of SFX at Disney, exploring the career of legendary sound man Ben Burtt, who also supplied the voice of WALL-E.
For the movie alone this one is worth the rent, but the SFX documentary, animated shorts and director's commentary make it one to own.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Quantam of Solace
Quantum of Solace
4 Stars
When one walks into a Bond film, one expects an air of class, suaveness and a certain something that elevates it above your average spy/action flick. That's not entirely so with Quantum of Solace. But with the new direction the Bond films seem to be taking, is that a bad thing. Yes. And no.
Quantum of Solace picks up immediately where 2006's Casino Royale leaves off, with Bond taking Mr. White captive in an effort to figure out what led Vesper Lynd to double cross MI6. This leads to a mysterious collective of business men, including Dominic Greene, a wealthy environmentalist with eyes on controlling Bolivia's water supply. Beautiful location shooting, the always lovely Bond girls, and intense action sequences highlight this recent entry into the Bond cannon.
While there is still a distinction between the two super cinema spies, Jason Bourne and James Bond, with each new Bond film, the line continues to blur. Untill 06's Casino Royale, Bond was suave, charming, gadget intensive, over-the top action, and humourous. Bourne was stripped down, gritty, brains, brawn and not much else, over the top, but more direct action sequences. There were clear stylistic differences between the two, and no one would dare confuse them. But following the success of the Bourne saga, and the diminishing critical acclaim for the Brosnan Bond flicks, producers and filmmakers decided to follow a similar Bournian path with the new films.
The performance of Daniel Craig (Layer Cake, Munich) ranks as not only one of the finest in the Bond catalogue, but in the genre, and of the year. He brings an emotional depth to a character traditionally played as emotionally detached. That's not to say the character was flat, just... in control. Craig not only launches himself to another tier of acting, but the character to a whole new level.
But this brings up the aforementioned conflict. This new Bond shows off not only the evolution of the character, but the evolution of the spy genre and the evolution of cinema in general. From Sean Connery in Bond's debut in Dr. No, to Pierce Brosnan's Bond swan song Die Another Day, there was always a knowing wink that the action was fictionally over the top, as were the gadgets and what not. That's what made Bond such an admirable hero. He was played as a larger than life character who couldn't possibly be real.
The conflict is, do we want the old Bond? Or is this new Bond where it's at? There's part of me that wish it was the way it was, the old Bond. But as I mentioned, the character, the genre and movies in general have all evolved since 1962, hell since 2002 (Die Another Day). So Bond is just adjusting to the times.
I think director Marc Foster (Finding Neverland, Stranger Than Fiction) knew exactly where to put the character. In not just a personal moral dilema to explore his raw emotions, but in a professional dilema, and have the two decidedly cross.
And that brings him to Dominic Greene, one of the more fascinating villains in Bond history. He was brought to life by French actor Mathieu Amalric (Munich, Marie Antoinette). Amalric plays Greene with restrained bombacity. Yeah... I know, an oxymoron if there ever was one. He's everything you ever liked about the villains, but reigns in the performance to bring a sense of reality to the character. Sure guys like Dr. Julius No, Auric Goldfinger, Max Zorin and even Le Chiffre couldn't possibly exist, but Greene, there's a very real chance of it. And that's pretty scary.
And dear lord are the Bond girls ever beautiful. Ukrainian actress Olga Kurylenko (Max Payne, Paris, je t'aime) as the deeply troubled and vengeful Camile gives great life to the Bond girl, the character type which has gotten completely ridiculous in the more recent entries. Sure Eva Green's Vesper Lynd in Casino Royale was great. But did anyone really buy Denise Richards as a nuclear physicist? Especially one named Dr. Christmas Jones? Though conflict continues when a low level agent babysits and subsequently sleeps with Bond. She is just as absurdly named, with the moniker Strawberry Fields, though the relatively unknown Gemma Arternon brings beauty, grace and depth to her character's brief stint on camera.
As it's own movie, leaving the Bond legacy behind, it's a damn fine movie. But you can't rate it without looking into the legacy. It suffers from the same thing that makes it great. Progress. Though I'm glad it's progressing. It makes for much more interesting films.
4 Stars
When one walks into a Bond film, one expects an air of class, suaveness and a certain something that elevates it above your average spy/action flick. That's not entirely so with Quantum of Solace. But with the new direction the Bond films seem to be taking, is that a bad thing. Yes. And no.
Quantum of Solace picks up immediately where 2006's Casino Royale leaves off, with Bond taking Mr. White captive in an effort to figure out what led Vesper Lynd to double cross MI6. This leads to a mysterious collective of business men, including Dominic Greene, a wealthy environmentalist with eyes on controlling Bolivia's water supply. Beautiful location shooting, the always lovely Bond girls, and intense action sequences highlight this recent entry into the Bond cannon.
While there is still a distinction between the two super cinema spies, Jason Bourne and James Bond, with each new Bond film, the line continues to blur. Untill 06's Casino Royale, Bond was suave, charming, gadget intensive, over-the top action, and humourous. Bourne was stripped down, gritty, brains, brawn and not much else, over the top, but more direct action sequences. There were clear stylistic differences between the two, and no one would dare confuse them. But following the success of the Bourne saga, and the diminishing critical acclaim for the Brosnan Bond flicks, producers and filmmakers decided to follow a similar Bournian path with the new films.
The performance of Daniel Craig (Layer Cake, Munich) ranks as not only one of the finest in the Bond catalogue, but in the genre, and of the year. He brings an emotional depth to a character traditionally played as emotionally detached. That's not to say the character was flat, just... in control. Craig not only launches himself to another tier of acting, but the character to a whole new level.
But this brings up the aforementioned conflict. This new Bond shows off not only the evolution of the character, but the evolution of the spy genre and the evolution of cinema in general. From Sean Connery in Bond's debut in Dr. No, to Pierce Brosnan's Bond swan song Die Another Day, there was always a knowing wink that the action was fictionally over the top, as were the gadgets and what not. That's what made Bond such an admirable hero. He was played as a larger than life character who couldn't possibly be real.
The conflict is, do we want the old Bond? Or is this new Bond where it's at? There's part of me that wish it was the way it was, the old Bond. But as I mentioned, the character, the genre and movies in general have all evolved since 1962, hell since 2002 (Die Another Day). So Bond is just adjusting to the times.
I think director Marc Foster (Finding Neverland, Stranger Than Fiction) knew exactly where to put the character. In not just a personal moral dilema to explore his raw emotions, but in a professional dilema, and have the two decidedly cross.
And that brings him to Dominic Greene, one of the more fascinating villains in Bond history. He was brought to life by French actor Mathieu Amalric (Munich, Marie Antoinette). Amalric plays Greene with restrained bombacity. Yeah... I know, an oxymoron if there ever was one. He's everything you ever liked about the villains, but reigns in the performance to bring a sense of reality to the character. Sure guys like Dr. Julius No, Auric Goldfinger, Max Zorin and even Le Chiffre couldn't possibly exist, but Greene, there's a very real chance of it. And that's pretty scary.
And dear lord are the Bond girls ever beautiful. Ukrainian actress Olga Kurylenko (Max Payne, Paris, je t'aime) as the deeply troubled and vengeful Camile gives great life to the Bond girl, the character type which has gotten completely ridiculous in the more recent entries. Sure Eva Green's Vesper Lynd in Casino Royale was great. But did anyone really buy Denise Richards as a nuclear physicist? Especially one named Dr. Christmas Jones? Though conflict continues when a low level agent babysits and subsequently sleeps with Bond. She is just as absurdly named, with the moniker Strawberry Fields, though the relatively unknown Gemma Arternon brings beauty, grace and depth to her character's brief stint on camera.
As it's own movie, leaving the Bond legacy behind, it's a damn fine movie. But you can't rate it without looking into the legacy. It suffers from the same thing that makes it great. Progress. Though I'm glad it's progressing. It makes for much more interesting films.
Saturday, November 08, 2008
W.
W.
4.5 Stars
No one knows controversial films about Presidents better than Oliver Stone. See JFK and Nixon for proof. But he made those with a nice 20 - 30 year cushion between film and subject. How does one tactfully take on the life of not only the sitting president... but a now unpopular one? With a life and presidency fill with controversy, the story of George W. Bush would not be an easy one to bring to film, especially with a few months still left in his term in office. But the decidedly left Oliver Stone did a phenomenal job.
W. is not so much an indictment of Bush as president or as a person, but an exploration of both. Josh Brolin (No Country For Old Men, Goonies) stars as the titular president, and brings a humanity to the character that through the past 8 years, a humanity that we as the American people hadn't been privy too. He plays the character with respect, careful to stay far away from charicature.
There were certain members of the supporting cast who did unfortunately walk, and subsequently cross, the line of character and charicature. I couldn't get past the noticably awkward gruff voice Jeffery Wright (Casino Royale) uses for Colin Powell. Or the bizzare make-up on Thandie Newton (Crash) to make her look like Condoleeza Rice.
4.5 Stars
No one knows controversial films about Presidents better than Oliver Stone. See JFK and Nixon for proof. But he made those with a nice 20 - 30 year cushion between film and subject. How does one tactfully take on the life of not only the sitting president... but a now unpopular one? With a life and presidency fill with controversy, the story of George W. Bush would not be an easy one to bring to film, especially with a few months still left in his term in office. But the decidedly left Oliver Stone did a phenomenal job.
W. is not so much an indictment of Bush as president or as a person, but an exploration of both. Josh Brolin (No Country For Old Men, Goonies) stars as the titular president, and brings a humanity to the character that through the past 8 years, a humanity that we as the American people hadn't been privy too. He plays the character with respect, careful to stay far away from charicature.
There were certain members of the supporting cast who did unfortunately walk, and subsequently cross, the line of character and charicature. I couldn't get past the noticably awkward gruff voice Jeffery Wright (Casino Royale) uses for Colin Powell. Or the bizzare make-up on Thandie Newton (Crash) to make her look like Condoleeza Rice.
There were, however, outstanding performances given by the supporting cast. James Cromwell (L.A. Confidential) and Elizabeth Banks (Zack and Miri Make A Porno) as Bush Sr. and Laura Bush, respectively, were the shining stars of the non Brolin variety. With Richard Dreyfus (Jaws) and Scott Glen (Backdraft) as Cheney and Rumsfeld also clocking in outstanding performances. If Brolin doesn't garner a nomination come award season (and he damn well should), on of these four definitely will.
I think Stone's own reputation is what did him in with this film. He's known for being a leftist conspiracy nut, with a flare for style and audacity. But while W. was a genuinely good film. It was mostly a bland entry into the Stone canon.
As I said, it was a damn fine film, but safe and tame. You will walk away from this film respecting Bush as a man, as a person, if not as a politician.
I think Stone's own reputation is what did him in with this film. He's known for being a leftist conspiracy nut, with a flare for style and audacity. But while W. was a genuinely good film. It was mostly a bland entry into the Stone canon.
As I said, it was a damn fine film, but safe and tame. You will walk away from this film respecting Bush as a man, as a person, if not as a politician.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
How To Lose Friends and Alienate People
How To Lose Friends and Alienate People
3 Stars
Simon Pegg has had tremendous success in his native UK, and his projects have done well state-side as well. But can he carry a U.S. film? Short answer: Yes, but not yet. In my opinion anyway.
How To Lose Friends and Alienate People is based on the book of the same name by Toby Young, a British Journalist who traveled to the states to pursue a job at Vanity Fair. Sidney Young (Simon Pegg) is the ficitional representation of Toby, and his small time UK magazine caught the attention of Sharpe's editor Clayton Harding (Jeff Bridges) who asks Young to come write for their entertainment and lifestyles section. Young's borish, obnoxious and cavalier behaviour, however, clashes with the upscale temperments of the magazine's writers, editors and clientele. He soon learns, with the help of fellow writer Alison (Kirsten Dunst) and uber-publicist to the stars, Elanor Johnson (Gillian Anderson) that if you want to go anywhere, you have to play the game.
Rarely do I complain that a movie is too long. I have absolutely no problem sitting down and watching a 3.5 hour movie. But the problem with this movie is that it's overly long. At nearly 2 hours, a good 25 minutes longer than it needed to be. It could be argued that some of the awkward scenes were put in to heighten the awkwardness of the character. But most of the time it comes off as just... awkward. A good portion of the time I was squirming in my seat out of discomfort.
But to the credit of the actors, they did a pretty good job with what they were given. They weren't given much. Pegg (Shaun of the Dead, Hott Fuzz) proved he can move comfortably outside of the Edgar Wright collaboration that has treated him so well in years past. But his effectiveness in carrying a movie has yet to be proven. Luckily his next major American release is an ensemble (Star Trek, he plays Scotty).
I still have yet to see anything of value (outside her stunning looks) in Megan Fox (Transformers, that's about it). She just so happens to be the IT girl of the moment, which gives dubious credence to her casting in just about anything. Kirstin Dunst is still somewhat of an oddity. Her script choices never seem to make use of her talent. Start picking edgier fair, Ms. Dunst. Stay away from the romantic comedies. You're treading the waters Meg Ryan drowned in.
The film wasn't completely dreadful, it did find the humour from a cliche fish out of water story. Something tells me the real life stories were much more interesting than the film has you believe, but the film was restricted by it's attempts to appeal to a broader audience (and be a cliche rom-com). Had a different director (Robert B. Weide's directorial filmography includes just a handful of biographical documentaries and few episodes of "Curb Your Enthusiasm") taken on the subject matter, say Alexander Payne, it probably would have been a better film. Edgier, tighter, funnier, better.
At best, it's an enthusiastic "meh." I don't completely endorse nor completely condemn this film. It had it's moments, but not enough to warrant anything more than 3 stars. It gets to three on Pegg alone. Wait for it to show up on HBO, bypass the theatrical and DVD releases.
Rarely do I complain that a movie is too long. I have absolutely no problem sitting down and watching a 3.5 hour movie. But the problem with this movie is that it's overly long. At nearly 2 hours, a good 25 minutes longer than it needed to be. It could be argued that some of the awkward scenes were put in to heighten the awkwardness of the character. But most of the time it comes off as just... awkward. A good portion of the time I was squirming in my seat out of discomfort.
But to the credit of the actors, they did a pretty good job with what they were given. They weren't given much. Pegg (Shaun of the Dead, Hott Fuzz) proved he can move comfortably outside of the Edgar Wright collaboration that has treated him so well in years past. But his effectiveness in carrying a movie has yet to be proven. Luckily his next major American release is an ensemble (Star Trek, he plays Scotty).
I still have yet to see anything of value (outside her stunning looks) in Megan Fox (Transformers, that's about it). She just so happens to be the IT girl of the moment, which gives dubious credence to her casting in just about anything. Kirstin Dunst is still somewhat of an oddity. Her script choices never seem to make use of her talent. Start picking edgier fair, Ms. Dunst. Stay away from the romantic comedies. You're treading the waters Meg Ryan drowned in.
The film wasn't completely dreadful, it did find the humour from a cliche fish out of water story. Something tells me the real life stories were much more interesting than the film has you believe, but the film was restricted by it's attempts to appeal to a broader audience (and be a cliche rom-com). Had a different director (Robert B. Weide's directorial filmography includes just a handful of biographical documentaries and few episodes of "Curb Your Enthusiasm") taken on the subject matter, say Alexander Payne, it probably would have been a better film. Edgier, tighter, funnier, better.
At best, it's an enthusiastic "meh." I don't completely endorse nor completely condemn this film. It had it's moments, but not enough to warrant anything more than 3 stars. It gets to three on Pegg alone. Wait for it to show up on HBO, bypass the theatrical and DVD releases.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Burn After Reading
Burn After Reading
4 stars
How dark and violent was last year's Coen Bros. offering No Country for Old Men? Now... imagine that... only funny. And without Tommy Lee Jones. Such is the case of Burn After Reading. It's dark. It's violent. It's hilarious. Really it is. In a year filled with several funny movies, this is another interesting entry into that cannon.
After finding what they believe to be top secret government documents, personal trainers Linda and Chad (Frances McDormand and Brad Pitt) engage CIA analyst Osborne Cox (John Malkovich) in a blackmailing scheme for the return of said documents. Unbeknownst to Linda, Chad and Osborne, the documents are actualy Osborne's personal finance records, which his wife, Katie (Tilda Swinton), had prepared in advance of the divorce papers she is filing. The divorce papers are because she is leaving Osborne for U.S. Marshall Harry Pfarrer (George Clooney).
Sound complicated? It's not, really. The comedy doesn't draw from how they're connected, but from that they're even connected in the first place. Rarely does Brad Pitt take on roles that challenge his comedic prowess, but he was really able to sink his teeth into a role that let him shine. He showed glimpses of timing in the Ocean's saga and Mr. and Mrs. Smith, but this was his moment to prove himself, and prove himself he did. With a cast of great actors playing great characters (including Clooney, Swinton, McDormand and the always fantastic Malkovich), Pitt was truly the one to watch.
The thing about the Coen brothers, and I have yet to decide if this is a good thing or not, is that even when it seems like they're phoning it in, they're still a cut above the rest. They've been funnier (The Big Lebowski, O Brother Where Art Thou?) and they've been darker (Fargo, No Country For Old Men), but even when they're just so-so (Intolerable Cruelty, The Ladykillers), they're still watchable, if for nothing more than the quirkiness of their scripts. They were quirky and bizarre before it was trendy, and continue to transcend the palate of "quirky indie" to always remain a level above everyone else. With stories about wholly unlikeable characters, you find yourself siding with them for some reason or another.
Such is the case with Burn After Reading. It's a story populated with cheaters, vain people, and all around total assholes. The few "good people" are disregarded by the rest, and Pitt, while generally good, is still an annoying D-bag. But you end up liking them for some reason. Can't put my finger on it.
When compared to their previous effort, No Country For Old Men, this comes off as an easy follow-up, meant to rest their creative processes, and hopefully prepping for something bigger and better. But I would never decry someone to take an alternate route with a new film. And while we've seen similar efforts from the Coens, I don't feel they've ever quite so successfully fused the comedy and the dark. They are filmmakers for which the term "black comedy" was practically invented.
4 stars
How dark and violent was last year's Coen Bros. offering No Country for Old Men? Now... imagine that... only funny. And without Tommy Lee Jones. Such is the case of Burn After Reading. It's dark. It's violent. It's hilarious. Really it is. In a year filled with several funny movies, this is another interesting entry into that cannon.
After finding what they believe to be top secret government documents, personal trainers Linda and Chad (Frances McDormand and Brad Pitt) engage CIA analyst Osborne Cox (John Malkovich) in a blackmailing scheme for the return of said documents. Unbeknownst to Linda, Chad and Osborne, the documents are actualy Osborne's personal finance records, which his wife, Katie (Tilda Swinton), had prepared in advance of the divorce papers she is filing. The divorce papers are because she is leaving Osborne for U.S. Marshall Harry Pfarrer (George Clooney).
Sound complicated? It's not, really. The comedy doesn't draw from how they're connected, but from that they're even connected in the first place. Rarely does Brad Pitt take on roles that challenge his comedic prowess, but he was really able to sink his teeth into a role that let him shine. He showed glimpses of timing in the Ocean's saga and Mr. and Mrs. Smith, but this was his moment to prove himself, and prove himself he did. With a cast of great actors playing great characters (including Clooney, Swinton, McDormand and the always fantastic Malkovich), Pitt was truly the one to watch.
The thing about the Coen brothers, and I have yet to decide if this is a good thing or not, is that even when it seems like they're phoning it in, they're still a cut above the rest. They've been funnier (The Big Lebowski, O Brother Where Art Thou?) and they've been darker (Fargo, No Country For Old Men), but even when they're just so-so (Intolerable Cruelty, The Ladykillers), they're still watchable, if for nothing more than the quirkiness of their scripts. They were quirky and bizarre before it was trendy, and continue to transcend the palate of "quirky indie" to always remain a level above everyone else. With stories about wholly unlikeable characters, you find yourself siding with them for some reason or another.
Such is the case with Burn After Reading. It's a story populated with cheaters, vain people, and all around total assholes. The few "good people" are disregarded by the rest, and Pitt, while generally good, is still an annoying D-bag. But you end up liking them for some reason. Can't put my finger on it.
When compared to their previous effort, No Country For Old Men, this comes off as an easy follow-up, meant to rest their creative processes, and hopefully prepping for something bigger and better. But I would never decry someone to take an alternate route with a new film. And while we've seen similar efforts from the Coens, I don't feel they've ever quite so successfully fused the comedy and the dark. They are filmmakers for which the term "black comedy" was practically invented.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Paul Newman RIP 1925-2008
Legendary actor, race car driver, philanthropist, sauce maker, gentleman and all around cool guy Paul Newman passed away Friday after a long battle with cancer. He was 83.
As per usual, videos below:
From Cool Hand Luke:
From Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
From The Hustler:
From Slap Shot:
As per usual, videos below:
From Cool Hand Luke:
From Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
From The Hustler:
From Slap Shot:
Monday, August 18, 2008
Pineapple Express AND Tropic Thunder
I've been away for awhile, I know. Demands of the new job. But I'm returning with a double dose of reviews. Both comedies... both good.
Pineapple Express
4.5 Stars
There's something to be said for stoner comedies. Some people will get them. Some people won't. But they are generally funny if they aren't too reliant on cliched jokes. Judd Apatow is proving himself to be the Pixar of R-Rated comedies: he just can't seem to miss.
Dale (Seth Rogan) witnesses a dirty cop (Rosie Perez) and the city's most ruthless drug-lord (Gary Cole) murder a member of a rival drug cartel, and subsequently drops a joint in his panic. But this isn't any joint. This joint is some of the rarest weed on earth, the titular Pineapple Express. Since Ted Jones (Cole) is the primary supplier of it, he can easily track it to Dale and the dealer he bought it from, Saul (James Franco). Thus Dale and Saul embark in a game of cat and mouse, trying to stay one step ahead of their pursuers, all while trying to keep the groovy buzz going.
Apatow and Rogan have been ever pushing the boundries of the R-Rated comedy, ever since their break out success with The 40 Year Old Virgin. And this goes balls to the wall with action. The action comedy ground work laid down by Eddie Murphey in the 80's, coupled with the stoner-buddy comedies of Cheech and Chong makes for a potent combination, one that I was initially wary of. But I shouldn't have been. I should know that if it's done by Apatow and crew, I need not worry.
It could have been a dumb little flick about weed. It could have been a mediocre entry into the Apatow cannon. But the bar keeps getting pushed higher (no pun intended) and the boundries expand further and further.
I wouldn't say it's completely brilliant, but it is a mostly original entry into the stoner comedy sub-genre. It's one of the finer comedies to be released in recent years, especially amid all those *Insert random genre* Movie pieces of shit flicks that have been churned out with disturbing frequency.
The real hub of the film, the glue that kept it together, was James Franco. He takes a break from his more serious roles and takes on a role that he seems almost born to play. It's good to see an actor play a character that's out of his usual range and stock. It's like when you go back and watch Sean Penn as Jeff Spicolli.
I laughed the whole way through, and it probably hasn't been since Seth Rogan's previous flick, Superbad, that I laughed so hard and so consistently at a flick. Highly recommended.
Tropic Thunder
4 Stars
Perhaps my expectations on this one were too high. But I couldn't get into this one as much as I wanted to. It was good. I enjoyed it. I laughed a lot. It certainly wasn't a bad movie, far from it. But I kinda wanted more. But Tom Cruise was the bomb.
Ben Stiller, Jack Black and Robert Downey, JR. play prima-donna stars in a new Vietnam War epic, who are dropped into an actual South-East Asian war zone when their on and off screen antics get to be too much for rookie director Damien Cockburn (Steve Coogan). Stiller's action star Tugg Speedman, Black's comic actor Jeff Portney and Downey, Jr.'s method actor Kirk Lazarus unfortunately don't know they're in a real warzone and continue "acting" through real raids, real kiddnappings and real deaths. Hilarity ensues.
It does. It really does. There are times when there are several in-jokes, where if you're an astute observer, as well as being well-versed in war flicks, you'll get the jokes. I got them, but I'm a film nerd like that. Everybody did a damn fine job playing off each other, and no one stole the show (except Tom Cruise).
But... I don't know. I can't put my finger on it. I was just expecting more, I guess.
As for the controversy... To me, the retard thing wasn't that big of a deal. They weren't making fun of the mentally handicapped. They were making fun of actors who feel like they have to play a mentally handicapped people in order prove their worth as an actor, and the sometimes ignorance of the actual affliction. Same thing with Downey, Jr. in black face. He was making fun of "method acting." They're highlighting the extremes of each, blowing it out of proportion to comedic effect. And it worked.
I felt everyone did a good job. And especially Cruise's over-the-top cameo as bad ass movie producer. It almost seemed as if he was making fun of both his real life role as head of United Artists, and his role in Jerry Maguire. I dug it.
It was funny, I liked it, go see it in theatres... but to me, it was missing something that I just can't put my finger on.
Pineapple Express
4.5 Stars
There's something to be said for stoner comedies. Some people will get them. Some people won't. But they are generally funny if they aren't too reliant on cliched jokes. Judd Apatow is proving himself to be the Pixar of R-Rated comedies: he just can't seem to miss.
Dale (Seth Rogan) witnesses a dirty cop (Rosie Perez) and the city's most ruthless drug-lord (Gary Cole) murder a member of a rival drug cartel, and subsequently drops a joint in his panic. But this isn't any joint. This joint is some of the rarest weed on earth, the titular Pineapple Express. Since Ted Jones (Cole) is the primary supplier of it, he can easily track it to Dale and the dealer he bought it from, Saul (James Franco). Thus Dale and Saul embark in a game of cat and mouse, trying to stay one step ahead of their pursuers, all while trying to keep the groovy buzz going.
Apatow and Rogan have been ever pushing the boundries of the R-Rated comedy, ever since their break out success with The 40 Year Old Virgin. And this goes balls to the wall with action. The action comedy ground work laid down by Eddie Murphey in the 80's, coupled with the stoner-buddy comedies of Cheech and Chong makes for a potent combination, one that I was initially wary of. But I shouldn't have been. I should know that if it's done by Apatow and crew, I need not worry.
It could have been a dumb little flick about weed. It could have been a mediocre entry into the Apatow cannon. But the bar keeps getting pushed higher (no pun intended) and the boundries expand further and further.
I wouldn't say it's completely brilliant, but it is a mostly original entry into the stoner comedy sub-genre. It's one of the finer comedies to be released in recent years, especially amid all those *Insert random genre* Movie pieces of shit flicks that have been churned out with disturbing frequency.
The real hub of the film, the glue that kept it together, was James Franco. He takes a break from his more serious roles and takes on a role that he seems almost born to play. It's good to see an actor play a character that's out of his usual range and stock. It's like when you go back and watch Sean Penn as Jeff Spicolli.
I laughed the whole way through, and it probably hasn't been since Seth Rogan's previous flick, Superbad, that I laughed so hard and so consistently at a flick. Highly recommended.
Tropic Thunder
4 Stars
Perhaps my expectations on this one were too high. But I couldn't get into this one as much as I wanted to. It was good. I enjoyed it. I laughed a lot. It certainly wasn't a bad movie, far from it. But I kinda wanted more. But Tom Cruise was the bomb.
Ben Stiller, Jack Black and Robert Downey, JR. play prima-donna stars in a new Vietnam War epic, who are dropped into an actual South-East Asian war zone when their on and off screen antics get to be too much for rookie director Damien Cockburn (Steve Coogan). Stiller's action star Tugg Speedman, Black's comic actor Jeff Portney and Downey, Jr.'s method actor Kirk Lazarus unfortunately don't know they're in a real warzone and continue "acting" through real raids, real kiddnappings and real deaths. Hilarity ensues.
It does. It really does. There are times when there are several in-jokes, where if you're an astute observer, as well as being well-versed in war flicks, you'll get the jokes. I got them, but I'm a film nerd like that. Everybody did a damn fine job playing off each other, and no one stole the show (except Tom Cruise).
But... I don't know. I can't put my finger on it. I was just expecting more, I guess.
As for the controversy... To me, the retard thing wasn't that big of a deal. They weren't making fun of the mentally handicapped. They were making fun of actors who feel like they have to play a mentally handicapped people in order prove their worth as an actor, and the sometimes ignorance of the actual affliction. Same thing with Downey, Jr. in black face. He was making fun of "method acting." They're highlighting the extremes of each, blowing it out of proportion to comedic effect. And it worked.
I felt everyone did a good job. And especially Cruise's over-the-top cameo as bad ass movie producer. It almost seemed as if he was making fun of both his real life role as head of United Artists, and his role in Jerry Maguire. I dug it.
It was funny, I liked it, go see it in theatres... but to me, it was missing something that I just can't put my finger on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
