BRODIE FANNS!
Big news from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences: Starting next year at the 82nd Academy Awards Ceremony, they will now have 10 nominees for Best Picture, instead of five. Click the link for the full press release.
This means that while they'll still nominate films that really have no reason being on the list (*ahem* The Reader), films that should be there (The Dark Knight, WALL-E) also now have a shot.
- Brodie Mann
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Top 100 Revisited
Brodie Fanns!
It's been about a year and a half since I did my top 100 of all time list. And I felt it time to revisit it for a few additions and revisions.
Now... in the midst of compiling the list, I neglected Closer, and slipped it into the 30's, pushing everything back one spot, bumping The Longest Day out of the top 100 (much to the chagrin of my dear old dad).
Since then, I've felt compelled to move a film up (it was criminally low, despite it's strong showing in the Top 20), and make three additions.
So... the first addition was Zodiac to #79, between North by Northwest now at #80, and Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, at #77, and bumping Kill Bill: The Whole Bloody Affair out of the top 100.
Since the remaining changes affect only the top 20, I'll post that list. Changes in red
1 - The Godfather
2 - Pulp Fiction
3 - It's A Wonderful Life
4 - Sin City
5 - Donnie Darko
6 - Dazed and Confused
7 - The Godfather II
8 - Nosferatu
9 - Rear Window
10- Jaws
11- Shawshank Redemption
12- Beauty and the Beast
13- The Dark Knight
14- Casablanca
15- Clerks
16- Requiem for a Dream
17- American History X
18- WALL-E
19- Citizen Kane
20- Ocean's 11 (2001)
Now, the first change is I moved Dazed and Confused to #6, bumping The Shawshank Redemption out of the top 10. I did some reflection, and considering all that the film really does mean to me, I had to bump it up.
The second changes came with the addition of last year's The Dark Knight and WALL-E. The Dark Knight, no matter how you look at it, is one of the most finely crafted films of all time. With some of the finest performances put to film. But since this is a list of my FAVOURITE films, it didn't pull higher rank, because I also added personal connection to films. And WALL-E, just a beautiful film. I stare in awe at what they can do.
They bumped Die Hard and Fight Club out of the Top 20, Young Frankenstein and The Big Lebowski out of the Top 50, and Chinatown and Halloween out of the top 100, placing The Dirty Dozen at #100.
I would like you to keep in mind, that while this has altered, these are all 5 star films in my book. Hell, you'd probably have to go all the way to the bottom 100's (nearing 200) before we hit 4.5 star films. Based on the sheer amount of films I have seen in my life. So far I have seen 42 different films in theatres this year alone (actually it's closer to 50, when I add the award season '08 releases I had to wait till Jan/Feb to see). So yeah... there's that.
You can flip to my archives in Dec. 07/Jan. 08 to see the full list as originally posted. For those reading this on FaceBook, go to www.brodiemanfilm.blogpsot.com.
Peace out, honkies!
It's been about a year and a half since I did my top 100 of all time list. And I felt it time to revisit it for a few additions and revisions.
Now... in the midst of compiling the list, I neglected Closer, and slipped it into the 30's, pushing everything back one spot, bumping The Longest Day out of the top 100 (much to the chagrin of my dear old dad).
Since then, I've felt compelled to move a film up (it was criminally low, despite it's strong showing in the Top 20), and make three additions.
So... the first addition was Zodiac to #79, between North by Northwest now at #80, and Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, at #77, and bumping Kill Bill: The Whole Bloody Affair out of the top 100.
Since the remaining changes affect only the top 20, I'll post that list. Changes in red
1 - The Godfather
2 - Pulp Fiction
3 - It's A Wonderful Life
4 - Sin City
5 - Donnie Darko
6 - Dazed and Confused
7 - The Godfather II
8 - Nosferatu
9 - Rear Window
10- Jaws
11- Shawshank Redemption
12- Beauty and the Beast
13- The Dark Knight
14- Casablanca
15- Clerks
16- Requiem for a Dream
17- American History X
18- WALL-E
19- Citizen Kane
20- Ocean's 11 (2001)
Now, the first change is I moved Dazed and Confused to #6, bumping The Shawshank Redemption out of the top 10. I did some reflection, and considering all that the film really does mean to me, I had to bump it up.
The second changes came with the addition of last year's The Dark Knight and WALL-E. The Dark Knight, no matter how you look at it, is one of the most finely crafted films of all time. With some of the finest performances put to film. But since this is a list of my FAVOURITE films, it didn't pull higher rank, because I also added personal connection to films. And WALL-E, just a beautiful film. I stare in awe at what they can do.
They bumped Die Hard and Fight Club out of the Top 20, Young Frankenstein and The Big Lebowski out of the Top 50, and Chinatown and Halloween out of the top 100, placing The Dirty Dozen at #100.
I would like you to keep in mind, that while this has altered, these are all 5 star films in my book. Hell, you'd probably have to go all the way to the bottom 100's (nearing 200) before we hit 4.5 star films. Based on the sheer amount of films I have seen in my life. So far I have seen 42 different films in theatres this year alone (actually it's closer to 50, when I add the award season '08 releases I had to wait till Jan/Feb to see). So yeah... there's that.
You can flip to my archives in Dec. 07/Jan. 08 to see the full list as originally posted. For those reading this on FaceBook, go to www.brodiemanfilm.blogpsot.com.
Peace out, honkies!
Monday, June 22, 2009
Top Films of 2009
So I figure that now that we're at the half-way point of the year, I'd do a catch up, the Top 20 films of 2009 so far. In doing so, I came to a realization. 2009 has been a down year for movies. Maybe we're finally dealing with the ramifications of the 2007/08 WGA Strike. Or maybe it's just taking a while to get going. The second half of the year looks good though, with (all links go to trailers) Zombieland, Public Enemies, Inglorious Basterds, Funny People, District 9, Where The Wild Things Are, Avatar (no trailer available) and Sherlock Holmes.
All titles are links to clips/trailers
1)Star Trek
2)Watchmen
3)Up
4)Taken
5)The Hangover
6)Drag Me To Hell
7)Terminator Salvation
8)I Love You Man
9)State of Play
10)Night At The Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian
11)X-Men Origins: Wolverine
12)The Last House on the Left
13)Duplicity
14)Monsters vs. Aliens
15)Sunshine Cleaning
16)Push
17)The International
18)Race To Witch Mountain
19)The Proposal
20)He's Just Not That Into You
All titles are links to clips/trailers
1)Star Trek
2)Watchmen
3)Up
4)Taken
5)The Hangover
6)Drag Me To Hell
7)Terminator Salvation
8)I Love You Man
9)State of Play
10)Night At The Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian
11)X-Men Origins: Wolverine
12)The Last House on the Left
13)Duplicity
14)Monsters vs. Aliens
15)Sunshine Cleaning
16)Push
17)The International
18)Race To Witch Mountain
19)The Proposal
20)He's Just Not That Into You
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Imagine That/The Taking of Pelham 123
Imagine That
.5 Star
What happened to you Eddie? You used to be hilarious. There's proof all over the internet of this. But even Beverly Hills Cop III was better than this. I'd like to call it a family friendly comedy, but I wouldn't subject my family to this. I just wouldn't. There's not even a fun message in the film. It's just bad.
Eddie Murphy stars as Evan Danielson, a high powered stock broker in Denver, who is constantly butting heads with his equally high powered colleague, Whitefeather (Thomas Haden Church). In fact he's so focused on his job, that he's neglecting his daughter, Olivia (Yara Shahidi). But once her imaginary friends start predicting booms and falls in the stock market, he learns to connect with his daughter, and let his inner child out.
Yes, that is the plot synopsis I am going with. Eddie Murphy needs to step away from movies for a bit. Stick with Shrek, you're doing good with the voice over work. But go the Bill Murray route, take a few years off, return with some edgy, indie comedies. Or do what Chevy Chase and Dan Aykroyd are doing, stepping out of the starring roles, and showing up in delightful cameos. But stop with the family friendly crap. It's not working.
Murphy aside... the film was still pretty terrible. We're never really keyed into why the imaginary princesses in Olivia's fantasy world know so much about the NYSE. And how they're able to predict mergers, acquisitions and what not. Maybe we're not supposed to know, but if we're not, that's a really terrible plot device. The message they're trying to convey is to spend time with your kids. That much is clear. You could gather that from the trailer. But they waste and hour and a half trying spell it out for you in the must ridiculous and not-hilarious way possible.
This film does however get a point for the antics of Thomas Haden Church (Sideways, "Wings"). He steals every scene he's in, and actually makes something comical out of the drivel he's been given.
But I leave you with this, a reminder of when Eddie Murphy was funny:
The Taking of Pelham 123
2.5 stars
While there's nothing particularly terrible about this new action/thriller from Tony Scott, Denzel Washington and John Travolta, there really isn't anything particularly great about it either. It just kind of coasts by on the charisma of the two leads, and let's them have an interesting conversation for a little over an hour.
New York City Transit dispatcher Walter Garber (Denzel Washington) is settling in for a normal day. Until the Pelham 123 line is stopped and seperated, followed by an announcement from the hijacker known only as Ryder (John Travolta) that NYC has just one hour to get him $10 million or he starts killing hostages. It's a race against the clock for Garber to save the lives of everyone on that train.
John Travolta has done some of his best work as a villain (Broken Arrow, Face/Off, Pulp Fiction). And this is no different. There's something about seeing this usual nice guy be bad. And he notches up a great performance opposite the always likeable Washington (Man on Fire, Inside Man).
Unfortunately, that's when this movie actually gets good, when these two are talking over the radio communications. It starts off kind of slow and disjointed, but once we get into the rythym of the Travolta/Washington conversations is where the movie starts to heat up. You get this wonderful exchange that pulls you in. They start exposing each others weaknesses, playing on certain personal faults. It culminates in a thrilling showdown in the third act.
But, the movie can't coast on their charm alone, and no matter how good their exchange is, the mediocrity of the rest of the movie does not go unnoticed.
Go see it for Washington/Travolta, but if that doesn't motivate you to get to the theatre, then definitely check it out in a few months on the rental shelves.
.5 Star
What happened to you Eddie? You used to be hilarious. There's proof all over the internet of this. But even Beverly Hills Cop III was better than this. I'd like to call it a family friendly comedy, but I wouldn't subject my family to this. I just wouldn't. There's not even a fun message in the film. It's just bad.
Eddie Murphy stars as Evan Danielson, a high powered stock broker in Denver, who is constantly butting heads with his equally high powered colleague, Whitefeather (Thomas Haden Church). In fact he's so focused on his job, that he's neglecting his daughter, Olivia (Yara Shahidi). But once her imaginary friends start predicting booms and falls in the stock market, he learns to connect with his daughter, and let his inner child out.
Yes, that is the plot synopsis I am going with. Eddie Murphy needs to step away from movies for a bit. Stick with Shrek, you're doing good with the voice over work. But go the Bill Murray route, take a few years off, return with some edgy, indie comedies. Or do what Chevy Chase and Dan Aykroyd are doing, stepping out of the starring roles, and showing up in delightful cameos. But stop with the family friendly crap. It's not working.
Murphy aside... the film was still pretty terrible. We're never really keyed into why the imaginary princesses in Olivia's fantasy world know so much about the NYSE. And how they're able to predict mergers, acquisitions and what not. Maybe we're not supposed to know, but if we're not, that's a really terrible plot device. The message they're trying to convey is to spend time with your kids. That much is clear. You could gather that from the trailer. But they waste and hour and a half trying spell it out for you in the must ridiculous and not-hilarious way possible.
This film does however get a point for the antics of Thomas Haden Church (Sideways, "Wings"). He steals every scene he's in, and actually makes something comical out of the drivel he's been given.
But I leave you with this, a reminder of when Eddie Murphy was funny:
The Taking of Pelham 123
2.5 stars
While there's nothing particularly terrible about this new action/thriller from Tony Scott, Denzel Washington and John Travolta, there really isn't anything particularly great about it either. It just kind of coasts by on the charisma of the two leads, and let's them have an interesting conversation for a little over an hour.
New York City Transit dispatcher Walter Garber (Denzel Washington) is settling in for a normal day. Until the Pelham 123 line is stopped and seperated, followed by an announcement from the hijacker known only as Ryder (John Travolta) that NYC has just one hour to get him $10 million or he starts killing hostages. It's a race against the clock for Garber to save the lives of everyone on that train.
John Travolta has done some of his best work as a villain (Broken Arrow, Face/Off, Pulp Fiction). And this is no different. There's something about seeing this usual nice guy be bad. And he notches up a great performance opposite the always likeable Washington (Man on Fire, Inside Man).
Unfortunately, that's when this movie actually gets good, when these two are talking over the radio communications. It starts off kind of slow and disjointed, but once we get into the rythym of the Travolta/Washington conversations is where the movie starts to heat up. You get this wonderful exchange that pulls you in. They start exposing each others weaknesses, playing on certain personal faults. It culminates in a thrilling showdown in the third act.
But, the movie can't coast on their charm alone, and no matter how good their exchange is, the mediocrity of the rest of the movie does not go unnoticed.
Go see it for Washington/Travolta, but if that doesn't motivate you to get to the theatre, then definitely check it out in a few months on the rental shelves.
Sunday, June 07, 2009
Six Reviews in Twelve-ish Paragraphs
I've got mini reviews for Terminator: Salvation, Night At The Museum II: Battle of the Smithsonian, Up, Drag Me to Hell, Land of the Lost, and The Hangover. So let's jump right in, shall we?
Terminator: Salvation
3.5 Stars
It's a franchise that has a longstanding place in the cannon of sci-fi/action. And McG decides to explore the future-history of Judgement day, focusing more on the action, less on the sci-fi. What made the first two so groundbreaking is that they dealt heavily with the consequences of technological evolutions, as well as the intricacies of time travel. Here we get a war movie, only instead of Allied troops vs. Nazis, it's the Resistance vs. Robots. But I will give them this, the action was top notch and pulse pounding. And there is a great visual referance to The Great Escape, to more or less drive home the "war-action" point.
Christian Bale turns in a great performance, which are starting to become the standard for him. You also get interesting turns from Bryce Dallas Howard (Spider-Man 3, The Village) and Anton Yelchin (Alpha Dog, Star Trek). I would have actually liked to see more of Anton as Kyle Reese in the movie. But the true powerhouse of the film was Sam Worthington (finally beign introduced to American audiences) as unaware Terminator Marcus Wright. Arguably the best scene in the film goes to him, when he finds out he's not human. See the film for the action, and Worthington's performance, but Terminator purists will be disappointed.
Night at the Museum II: Battle of the Smithsonian
3.5 Stars
If you enjoyed the first one, you'll definitely enjoy the second one. A bunch of very funny actors collaborate (and that's the key word, they all collaborate) to bring historic characters to life in a very hilarious manner. Amy Adams shines by holding her own in a verible boys club of comedic actors, that includes Ben Stiller, Owen Wilson, Steve Coogan, Robin Williams, Christopher Guest, Ricky Gervais, Bill Hader and Hank Azaria.
Unfortunately with all that does go on in the film, it is a bit scattered, and there's a chaotic element to it that drags it down. But the film pulls out of the muddled mess to bring it home with a great third act. Definitely one to check out.
Up
5 stars
Pixar continues their hot streak. They're now 10 for 10 (gonna go 11 for 11 next year with Toy Story 3). Where other animation houses (Dreamworks, Sony, even Pixar's parent Disney) are more interested in being goofy, and making sure they can do product tie-ins, Pixar is ambitious. They want to tell a wonderful, emotional story, and present some of the most beautiful pieces of animation out there. And they do it. I will admit to getting a little misty eyed during Up. And no, not at the end. Within the first 10 minutes.
Ed Asner is pitch perfect as the curmodgeony Carl Frederickson. He's lived in the same house for fifty years, and wants to honour his recently deceased wife by going on an adventure to South America, and takes the house along with him. It's my second favourite Pixar film (behind Wall-E) and third favourite animated film (behind Beauty and the Beast and Wall-E).
Drag Me To Hell
4 stars
One thing director Sam Raimi knows is horror. He can scare the crap out of you, and make you laugh in the same scene. And with Drag Me To Hell, he returns to his Evil Dead/Army of Darkness roots. Not a scare is wasted in this tale of revenge and gypsy curses. It's helped by the great performance of Alison Lohman in the principle role.
It does get admittedly cheesey at parts, but it's hard to really call that a fault, since that's Raimi's style. And luckily for the audience, we're given a completely satisfying ending. This is light-years beyond the normal drivel that passes for horror these days.
Land of the Lost
2.5 stars
It's hard to figure out what they wanted to do with this film. Keep true to the spirit of the original show, or make a Will Ferrell movie (that also features the hilarious Danny McBride, currently batting a thousand). Unfortunately, they said 'Screw it!' and did both. And it just doesn't work. It's much more risque than I had expected. Not that I'm a prude or anything, far from it, I just expected a nice family film.
But, in taking it as what it is, it still offers up some good laughs, and keeps in the cheesey spirit of the show. Danny McBride is, as stated earlier, hilarious. His interactions with Cha-Ka provide for some of the best scenes. And Anna Friel provides a good balance to the macho humour of the two leads.
The Hangover
4 stars
In the grand tradition of Bachelor Party and Very Bad Things, we get a guys night out that goes horribly hay-wire, with hilarious consequences. What's great is that we never see the night of debauchery. We're left to piece together the night along with groomsmen, who are trying to locate the now missing groom. It's full of raunch and ridiculous shenanigans, but anybody who's taken part in a bachelor party (be it in Vegas or not) can relate to something these four do.
Bradley Cooper is funny, and, with his performance, reminds us to ask the question, "Why isn't he a bigger star?" Comedian Zach Galafianakis finally gets the credit he is due with a starring role in this dark comedy. Definitley the comedy of the year, and for the first time in four years, it doesn't feature Seth Rogan.
Terminator: Salvation
3.5 Stars
It's a franchise that has a longstanding place in the cannon of sci-fi/action. And McG decides to explore the future-history of Judgement day, focusing more on the action, less on the sci-fi. What made the first two so groundbreaking is that they dealt heavily with the consequences of technological evolutions, as well as the intricacies of time travel. Here we get a war movie, only instead of Allied troops vs. Nazis, it's the Resistance vs. Robots. But I will give them this, the action was top notch and pulse pounding. And there is a great visual referance to The Great Escape, to more or less drive home the "war-action" point.
Christian Bale turns in a great performance, which are starting to become the standard for him. You also get interesting turns from Bryce Dallas Howard (Spider-Man 3, The Village) and Anton Yelchin (Alpha Dog, Star Trek). I would have actually liked to see more of Anton as Kyle Reese in the movie. But the true powerhouse of the film was Sam Worthington (finally beign introduced to American audiences) as unaware Terminator Marcus Wright. Arguably the best scene in the film goes to him, when he finds out he's not human. See the film for the action, and Worthington's performance, but Terminator purists will be disappointed.
Night at the Museum II: Battle of the Smithsonian
3.5 Stars
If you enjoyed the first one, you'll definitely enjoy the second one. A bunch of very funny actors collaborate (and that's the key word, they all collaborate) to bring historic characters to life in a very hilarious manner. Amy Adams shines by holding her own in a verible boys club of comedic actors, that includes Ben Stiller, Owen Wilson, Steve Coogan, Robin Williams, Christopher Guest, Ricky Gervais, Bill Hader and Hank Azaria.
Unfortunately with all that does go on in the film, it is a bit scattered, and there's a chaotic element to it that drags it down. But the film pulls out of the muddled mess to bring it home with a great third act. Definitely one to check out.
Up
5 stars
Pixar continues their hot streak. They're now 10 for 10 (gonna go 11 for 11 next year with Toy Story 3). Where other animation houses (Dreamworks, Sony, even Pixar's parent Disney) are more interested in being goofy, and making sure they can do product tie-ins, Pixar is ambitious. They want to tell a wonderful, emotional story, and present some of the most beautiful pieces of animation out there. And they do it. I will admit to getting a little misty eyed during Up. And no, not at the end. Within the first 10 minutes.
Ed Asner is pitch perfect as the curmodgeony Carl Frederickson. He's lived in the same house for fifty years, and wants to honour his recently deceased wife by going on an adventure to South America, and takes the house along with him. It's my second favourite Pixar film (behind Wall-E) and third favourite animated film (behind Beauty and the Beast and Wall-E).
Drag Me To Hell
4 stars
One thing director Sam Raimi knows is horror. He can scare the crap out of you, and make you laugh in the same scene. And with Drag Me To Hell, he returns to his Evil Dead/Army of Darkness roots. Not a scare is wasted in this tale of revenge and gypsy curses. It's helped by the great performance of Alison Lohman in the principle role.
It does get admittedly cheesey at parts, but it's hard to really call that a fault, since that's Raimi's style. And luckily for the audience, we're given a completely satisfying ending. This is light-years beyond the normal drivel that passes for horror these days.
Land of the Lost
2.5 stars
It's hard to figure out what they wanted to do with this film. Keep true to the spirit of the original show, or make a Will Ferrell movie (that also features the hilarious Danny McBride, currently batting a thousand). Unfortunately, they said 'Screw it!' and did both. And it just doesn't work. It's much more risque than I had expected. Not that I'm a prude or anything, far from it, I just expected a nice family film.
But, in taking it as what it is, it still offers up some good laughs, and keeps in the cheesey spirit of the show. Danny McBride is, as stated earlier, hilarious. His interactions with Cha-Ka provide for some of the best scenes. And Anna Friel provides a good balance to the macho humour of the two leads.
The Hangover
4 stars
In the grand tradition of Bachelor Party and Very Bad Things, we get a guys night out that goes horribly hay-wire, with hilarious consequences. What's great is that we never see the night of debauchery. We're left to piece together the night along with groomsmen, who are trying to locate the now missing groom. It's full of raunch and ridiculous shenanigans, but anybody who's taken part in a bachelor party (be it in Vegas or not) can relate to something these four do.
Bradley Cooper is funny, and, with his performance, reminds us to ask the question, "Why isn't he a bigger star?" Comedian Zach Galafianakis finally gets the credit he is due with a starring role in this dark comedy. Definitley the comedy of the year, and for the first time in four years, it doesn't feature Seth Rogan.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
The Hannah Montana/Fight Club Theory
This post includes in depth discussions of the plots for both Fight Club and Hannah Montana. Spoiler Alert would be an understatement. If you haven't seen them yet, and subsequently don't want them ruined for you, I recommend you don't read this. Otherwise... enjoy.
Now, Fight Club is one of my all time, top 20 favourite movies. It was #20. It's a film about a great many things, tackling a great many topics. White rage. Male aggression. Yuppie backlash. But ultimately, it's about Multiple Personality Disorder. At least, for the purpose of this post, that's what it's about.
Edward Norton's character, which had no name, but we'll refer to as Jack from here on out, was an unhappy, bored, single, young urban professional. He wasn't all that impressive. Jack suffered from insomnia, which led him to seek comfort in the misfortune of others by attending support groups for various diseases.
In his mind, he creates the perfect vision of the man he wishes he could be, in Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt). Tyler even goes so far as to say to Jack - "All the ways you wish you could be, that's me. I look like you wanna look, I f**k like you wanna f**k, I am smart, capable, and most importantly, I am free in all the ways that you are not."
Jack didn't like his life, so he created another one.
Hannah Montana does not exist. She is not a real person. She is a fabrication of Miley Stewart's (Miley Cyrus) mind so she can effectively have a career as a pop star (Hannah) and have a normal life as a normal teenage girl (Miley).
Miley is a normal, teenage girl from small town Tennessee. She's nervous about the normal teenage girl things. Going to the dance. Learning to drive. Puberty. Being popular. The new Justin Timberlake album. Her friends. Does the cute football player like her? Normal teenage girl stuff.
Hannah is one of the biggest popstars in the world. Thousands upon thousands of people adore her. Stores and boutiques are falling over themselves to have her shop at their store. Celebrities want to hang out with her. She's confident.
All the ways Miley wishes she could be, that's Hannah. She looks like she wants to look, she acts like she wants to act. She is smart, capable, and most importantly, Hanna is free in all the ways that Miley is not.
When Tyler and Jack are together, only one is addressed by a third party. Only one interacts with said third party.
When Miley is Hannah, she is addressed as Hannah. When she is Miley, she is addressed as Miley.
The primary difference is that the people in Miley's life are enablers. For Jack, no one knew about his delusions. They figured there was something going on, but they didn't know. For Miley, they not only know, but they play along.
Miley is a lonely little girl with delusions of grandeur. Jack was a lonely man with delusions of grandeur.
Now, Fight Club is one of my all time, top 20 favourite movies. It was #20. It's a film about a great many things, tackling a great many topics. White rage. Male aggression. Yuppie backlash. But ultimately, it's about Multiple Personality Disorder. At least, for the purpose of this post, that's what it's about.
Edward Norton's character, which had no name, but we'll refer to as Jack from here on out, was an unhappy, bored, single, young urban professional. He wasn't all that impressive. Jack suffered from insomnia, which led him to seek comfort in the misfortune of others by attending support groups for various diseases.
In his mind, he creates the perfect vision of the man he wishes he could be, in Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt). Tyler even goes so far as to say to Jack - "All the ways you wish you could be, that's me. I look like you wanna look, I f**k like you wanna f**k, I am smart, capable, and most importantly, I am free in all the ways that you are not."
Jack didn't like his life, so he created another one.
Hannah Montana does not exist. She is not a real person. She is a fabrication of Miley Stewart's (Miley Cyrus) mind so she can effectively have a career as a pop star (Hannah) and have a normal life as a normal teenage girl (Miley).
Miley is a normal, teenage girl from small town Tennessee. She's nervous about the normal teenage girl things. Going to the dance. Learning to drive. Puberty. Being popular. The new Justin Timberlake album. Her friends. Does the cute football player like her? Normal teenage girl stuff.
Hannah is one of the biggest popstars in the world. Thousands upon thousands of people adore her. Stores and boutiques are falling over themselves to have her shop at their store. Celebrities want to hang out with her. She's confident.
All the ways Miley wishes she could be, that's Hannah. She looks like she wants to look, she acts like she wants to act. She is smart, capable, and most importantly, Hanna is free in all the ways that Miley is not.
When Tyler and Jack are together, only one is addressed by a third party. Only one interacts with said third party.
When Miley is Hannah, she is addressed as Hannah. When she is Miley, she is addressed as Miley.
The primary difference is that the people in Miley's life are enablers. For Jack, no one knew about his delusions. They figured there was something going on, but they didn't know. For Miley, they not only know, but they play along.
Miley is a lonely little girl with delusions of grandeur. Jack was a lonely man with delusions of grandeur.
Hannah is Tyler. Miley is Jack.
X-Men Origins: Wolverine/Star Trek/Angels & Demons
So about 3 weeks ago, my computer decided to take a crap and stop working. I had to completely reformat to get it up and running again. So here are 3 full reviews, plus a few mini-reviews.
Sunshine Cleaning - 3 stars - A solid dark comedy, but doesn't live up to it's stylistic predecessor, Little Miss Sunshine.
Obsessed - 0 Stars - There is nothing to like about this film... not even Idris Elba.
17 Again- 2.5 Stars - It was fun to watch Zac Efron be Matthew Perry for an hour and a half.
Ghosts of Girlfriends Past - 1.5 Stars - It's the same as every other Matthew McConaughey movie, only this time it's Dickens-ian. So it still sucks.
X-Men Origins: Wolverine
3 Stars
He's a comic book character who is third only to Batman and Superman in popularity, yet has one of the most storied and intriguing backgrounds. Yet the film falls into the same traps that the source comics fell, too... good story, but poor storytelling. To fully and properly tell his story, you'd have to do at least two films, with this one being the second.
James Howlett/Logan/Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) is a child of privilege in the early 19th century Canada. After witnessing the murder of the man he believed to be his father, and subsequently revenge killing his real father, he and his now half brother Victor Creed/Sabertooth (Liev Schrieber) embark on a Gump-ian journey through time. Participating in every major war through Vietnam, before being executed and then brought into the Weapon X program. Wolverine then turns on his superiors, going rogue to regain and hold onto his humanity.
Jackman (X-Men, The Prestige) returns to the role that made him famous. But it's also a role that he made. The issue with many comic book characters is that they work entirely outside of the real world. Jackman brought that character into the real world for us in the previous X-Men films. This film would not have worked without Jackman. It is his character, and he of course does a fantastic job.
Schrieber (The Manchurian Candidate, Scream 2) is, in turn, a perfect foil in Victor to Jackman's Logan. The humanity in Logan doesn't exist in Victor. Victor is pure animal instinct, and Schrieber encapsulates that perfectly.
It all falls apart with the decent, yet ultimately forgettable turns from the supporting cast. Don't get me wrong, they were good. And did add to the story. But the story was all Logan/Victor/Stryker (Danny Houston). You could have swapped out Bolt, The Blob, Deadpool and Gambit for just about anyone else in the Marvel cannon, and no one would have noticed. The movie would have been very similar. But they had to set up Deadpool for Ryan Reynolds ( Waiting..., Blade: Trinity) who did a good job. And they did have to include Gambit, finally. But really, it was all incidental.
Gavin Hood, you're a competent enough director. I liked Tsotsi. But you either didn't understand the material... Or you just didn't care enough. This seemed like a throw away project for you. The fight scenes and special effects were cool, but that was how it was with Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace. And we all know how that turned out.
All I'm saying is that this movie was good, and it should have been better. After Iron Man, The Dark Knight and Watchmen, you really have to step up your game when handling comic book franchises.
Star Trek
5 Stars
J.J. Abrams made it very clear that this was "not your father's Star Trek," and it isn't. While maintaining the spirit of one of the longest running franchises in Sci-Fi fantasy, it gives it a face-lift, and brings it into the modern era.
We follow Kirk (Chris Pine), Spock (Zachary Quinto), McCoy (Karl Urban) and Uhura (Zoe Saldana) in their early days at Starfleet Academy, and their early clashes. But when Romulan Commander Nero (Eric Bana) threatens planet Vulcan, Starfleet snaps into action to ward off this enemy that haunts Kirk's past and, through time warps, Spock's future. This young, unruly band must come together when Cpt. Pike (Bruce Greenwood) of the U.S.S. Enterprise is taken captive by Nero. Not only are we treated to some first class action, but also to the great political subtext we've come to know and love in the Star Trek franchise.
The Star Trek brand, and indeed the original cast of characters, are such cultural icons that it at first seems sacreligious to even attempt a recreation. But where several flim makers have ultimately failed, J.J. Abrams in recognizing the origins of the franchise, taking things in his own direction, but all the while never insulting the original, has succeeded. You sometimes get adaptations of beloved TV shows, and they clearly had no idea what the original was about, and it comes off as insulting to the spirit of the original. But Abrams knows his roots. He himself is a geek, and stepped carefully to create a great film that fit into the original story, but was clearly it's own entity.
Try and follow this if you will, and you'll see what Abrams was up against- To stay true the original blueprint of the series, Abrams had to refer to the 1966 version of the future, even though 2009 version of the future is now vastly different (especially considering all the technological advancements made since, you know, like man on the moon), than the 1966 version. So in order to present the current future, he had to use the past future, and update it to the present. All the while creating his own versions of classic characters.
Much could be said about the interaction of the two Spocks (Quinto/Leonard Nimoy), and don't worry, I'll get to that. But first, I want to talk Chris Pine (Bottle Shock, Smokin' Aces), the relative unknown who had to step into William Shatner's shoes. Say what you will about Shatner, Kirk wouldn't have been nearly as great without Shatner back in the 60's. So Pine had the daunting task of playing this icon, without reducing it to a charicature. Pine did the best thing he could do: forget the original. He created a whole new Kirk. And his Kirk is the cocky, reckless, rebelious, reluctant hero he should be. And he beds the green chick. Hat's off to you, Pine. Admirably performed.
Quinto ("Heroes'" Sylar) makes his feature film debut, also tackling an iconic character. But Pine had it easy compared to Quinto. Quinto has to be in the movie with the original Spock, Leonard Nimoy. Quinto had to follow the rigidity of the character, but was able to take a few more liberties with the character, given the Vulcan's relatively young age. And you'll geek out when young and old Spocks share a scene.
Everybody else in the cast was perfect as the young counterparts to the originals. And the only one who I really had any reservations about, John Cho (Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle) as Sulu, far surpassed what I could have hoped for the character.
I like the new direction Abrams is taking the franchise. He's mixing bombastic action and special effects with the global policitically aware writing of the franchise. If this is just the start of it, I can't wait to see where they take it. Count me in.
Angels & Demons
2.5 Stars
Well... it's better than The Da Vinci Code, but Angels & Demons suffers from a lot of the same pitfalls its predecessor did. Too much story trying to fit into too little time. An over the top religious conspiracy. A theme loftier than the movie generally warrants. Having been written by Dan Brown.
Harvard Symbologist (if that were a real thing, I'd care if it was spelled right) Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) is called to the Vatican after the death of the Pope and the kidnapping of the four primary Cardinal nominees to become the new Pope. One of CERN's top scientists, Vittoria Vetra, is also called in on the case as the group behind the kidnappings, claiming to be the long secret society "Iluminati," had stolen a canister of anti-matter to use to blow up the Vatican if their demands are not met. It's a race against the clock to save the Cardinals, stop the bomb and solve the mystery before midnight.
Unfortunately it's not as pulse pounding as it wants to be. The end result is as human and fallible as anything, without the mythos and mystery that accompanied The Da Vinci Code. On the flipside, director Ron Howard created a tighter film, less convoluted film than the first. I've viewed the Langdon character as somewhat of a descendent of Indiana Jones (the similarities are there), and I'm more than happy to let him live in the realm where these conspiracies are true. They should have kept some of that in, instead of building it up, then tossing it aside with a "the bad guy lied" explanation. As long as the Vatican doesn't turn into a UFO at the end, I'm happy.
The presentation of science vs. religion is a) handled poorly and b) a little too big for the film. This is a popcorn flick. Don't go existential on me if you're not going to follow through with it. They kind of half assed their way through it.
Hanks abely plays Langdon, but honestly, and this goes back to the first film, too, I don't think he's really right for the role. I'm thinking more Jeff Goldblum or David Duchovney. My friend Jenny even mentioned Bill Pullman. But Hanks just doesn't click right with me on this role. He's not bad. It's just a bit off.
If you really must go see it, and really want to, then yeah, I guess I can recommend it. But this one is worth a rent. Maybe a viewing on ON-Demand.
Oh and one more thing... They say that if you lock up 500 monkeys in a room for 500 years with typewriters, they'll eventually write Shakespeare. If you lock up about four, over a weekend, with grocery bag apiece full of cheesy bean and rice burritos from the Taco Bell value menu... they'll crap out Dan Brown's next book. I just wanted to point out that Dan Brown is a terrible writer.
Sunshine Cleaning - 3 stars - A solid dark comedy, but doesn't live up to it's stylistic predecessor, Little Miss Sunshine.
Obsessed - 0 Stars - There is nothing to like about this film... not even Idris Elba.
17 Again- 2.5 Stars - It was fun to watch Zac Efron be Matthew Perry for an hour and a half.
Ghosts of Girlfriends Past - 1.5 Stars - It's the same as every other Matthew McConaughey movie, only this time it's Dickens-ian. So it still sucks.
X-Men Origins: Wolverine
3 Stars
He's a comic book character who is third only to Batman and Superman in popularity, yet has one of the most storied and intriguing backgrounds. Yet the film falls into the same traps that the source comics fell, too... good story, but poor storytelling. To fully and properly tell his story, you'd have to do at least two films, with this one being the second.
James Howlett/Logan/Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) is a child of privilege in the early 19th century Canada. After witnessing the murder of the man he believed to be his father, and subsequently revenge killing his real father, he and his now half brother Victor Creed/Sabertooth (Liev Schrieber) embark on a Gump-ian journey through time. Participating in every major war through Vietnam, before being executed and then brought into the Weapon X program. Wolverine then turns on his superiors, going rogue to regain and hold onto his humanity.
Jackman (X-Men, The Prestige) returns to the role that made him famous. But it's also a role that he made. The issue with many comic book characters is that they work entirely outside of the real world. Jackman brought that character into the real world for us in the previous X-Men films. This film would not have worked without Jackman. It is his character, and he of course does a fantastic job.
Schrieber (The Manchurian Candidate, Scream 2) is, in turn, a perfect foil in Victor to Jackman's Logan. The humanity in Logan doesn't exist in Victor. Victor is pure animal instinct, and Schrieber encapsulates that perfectly.
It all falls apart with the decent, yet ultimately forgettable turns from the supporting cast. Don't get me wrong, they were good. And did add to the story. But the story was all Logan/Victor/Stryker (Danny Houston). You could have swapped out Bolt, The Blob, Deadpool and Gambit for just about anyone else in the Marvel cannon, and no one would have noticed. The movie would have been very similar. But they had to set up Deadpool for Ryan Reynolds ( Waiting..., Blade: Trinity) who did a good job. And they did have to include Gambit, finally. But really, it was all incidental.
Gavin Hood, you're a competent enough director. I liked Tsotsi. But you either didn't understand the material... Or you just didn't care enough. This seemed like a throw away project for you. The fight scenes and special effects were cool, but that was how it was with Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace. And we all know how that turned out.
All I'm saying is that this movie was good, and it should have been better. After Iron Man, The Dark Knight and Watchmen, you really have to step up your game when handling comic book franchises.
Star Trek
5 Stars
J.J. Abrams made it very clear that this was "not your father's Star Trek," and it isn't. While maintaining the spirit of one of the longest running franchises in Sci-Fi fantasy, it gives it a face-lift, and brings it into the modern era.
We follow Kirk (Chris Pine), Spock (Zachary Quinto), McCoy (Karl Urban) and Uhura (Zoe Saldana) in their early days at Starfleet Academy, and their early clashes. But when Romulan Commander Nero (Eric Bana) threatens planet Vulcan, Starfleet snaps into action to ward off this enemy that haunts Kirk's past and, through time warps, Spock's future. This young, unruly band must come together when Cpt. Pike (Bruce Greenwood) of the U.S.S. Enterprise is taken captive by Nero. Not only are we treated to some first class action, but also to the great political subtext we've come to know and love in the Star Trek franchise.
The Star Trek brand, and indeed the original cast of characters, are such cultural icons that it at first seems sacreligious to even attempt a recreation. But where several flim makers have ultimately failed, J.J. Abrams in recognizing the origins of the franchise, taking things in his own direction, but all the while never insulting the original, has succeeded. You sometimes get adaptations of beloved TV shows, and they clearly had no idea what the original was about, and it comes off as insulting to the spirit of the original. But Abrams knows his roots. He himself is a geek, and stepped carefully to create a great film that fit into the original story, but was clearly it's own entity.
Try and follow this if you will, and you'll see what Abrams was up against- To stay true the original blueprint of the series, Abrams had to refer to the 1966 version of the future, even though 2009 version of the future is now vastly different (especially considering all the technological advancements made since, you know, like man on the moon), than the 1966 version. So in order to present the current future, he had to use the past future, and update it to the present. All the while creating his own versions of classic characters.
Much could be said about the interaction of the two Spocks (Quinto/Leonard Nimoy), and don't worry, I'll get to that. But first, I want to talk Chris Pine (Bottle Shock, Smokin' Aces), the relative unknown who had to step into William Shatner's shoes. Say what you will about Shatner, Kirk wouldn't have been nearly as great without Shatner back in the 60's. So Pine had the daunting task of playing this icon, without reducing it to a charicature. Pine did the best thing he could do: forget the original. He created a whole new Kirk. And his Kirk is the cocky, reckless, rebelious, reluctant hero he should be. And he beds the green chick. Hat's off to you, Pine. Admirably performed.
Quinto ("Heroes'" Sylar) makes his feature film debut, also tackling an iconic character. But Pine had it easy compared to Quinto. Quinto has to be in the movie with the original Spock, Leonard Nimoy. Quinto had to follow the rigidity of the character, but was able to take a few more liberties with the character, given the Vulcan's relatively young age. And you'll geek out when young and old Spocks share a scene.
Everybody else in the cast was perfect as the young counterparts to the originals. And the only one who I really had any reservations about, John Cho (Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle) as Sulu, far surpassed what I could have hoped for the character.
I like the new direction Abrams is taking the franchise. He's mixing bombastic action and special effects with the global policitically aware writing of the franchise. If this is just the start of it, I can't wait to see where they take it. Count me in.
Angels & Demons
2.5 Stars
Well... it's better than The Da Vinci Code, but Angels & Demons suffers from a lot of the same pitfalls its predecessor did. Too much story trying to fit into too little time. An over the top religious conspiracy. A theme loftier than the movie generally warrants. Having been written by Dan Brown.
Harvard Symbologist (if that were a real thing, I'd care if it was spelled right) Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) is called to the Vatican after the death of the Pope and the kidnapping of the four primary Cardinal nominees to become the new Pope. One of CERN's top scientists, Vittoria Vetra, is also called in on the case as the group behind the kidnappings, claiming to be the long secret society "Iluminati," had stolen a canister of anti-matter to use to blow up the Vatican if their demands are not met. It's a race against the clock to save the Cardinals, stop the bomb and solve the mystery before midnight.
Unfortunately it's not as pulse pounding as it wants to be. The end result is as human and fallible as anything, without the mythos and mystery that accompanied The Da Vinci Code. On the flipside, director Ron Howard created a tighter film, less convoluted film than the first. I've viewed the Langdon character as somewhat of a descendent of Indiana Jones (the similarities are there), and I'm more than happy to let him live in the realm where these conspiracies are true. They should have kept some of that in, instead of building it up, then tossing it aside with a "the bad guy lied" explanation. As long as the Vatican doesn't turn into a UFO at the end, I'm happy.
The presentation of science vs. religion is a) handled poorly and b) a little too big for the film. This is a popcorn flick. Don't go existential on me if you're not going to follow through with it. They kind of half assed their way through it.
Hanks abely plays Langdon, but honestly, and this goes back to the first film, too, I don't think he's really right for the role. I'm thinking more Jeff Goldblum or David Duchovney. My friend Jenny even mentioned Bill Pullman. But Hanks just doesn't click right with me on this role. He's not bad. It's just a bit off.
If you really must go see it, and really want to, then yeah, I guess I can recommend it. But this one is worth a rent. Maybe a viewing on ON-Demand.
Oh and one more thing... They say that if you lock up 500 monkeys in a room for 500 years with typewriters, they'll eventually write Shakespeare. If you lock up about four, over a weekend, with grocery bag apiece full of cheesy bean and rice burritos from the Taco Bell value menu... they'll crap out Dan Brown's next book. I just wanted to point out that Dan Brown is a terrible writer.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Hannah Montana/Observe and Report plus others
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
