| |  | If you were alive and news-conscious during 2003, you know the story of Aron Ralston, a young mountaineer and adventure-seeker who fell through a crevasse while hiking Utah's Blue John Canyon and wound up stuck with a boulder crushing his right arm. You also know how he got out. Ralston wrote a book about his experience "Between a Rock and a Hard Place", and that book is now a film, its darkly ironic title replaced with a factual one, 127 Hours, the length of time Ralston was trapped. Directed by Danny Boyle with the same trademark visual flair that ignited Slumdog Millionaire to worldwide box office and Oscar acclaim, 127 Hours is likely to garner similar accolades for its visual wizardry and breathless interpretation of Ralston's stunning true story.
For those familiar with the story beats-man climbs mountain, man becomes trapped, man saws own arm off to escape-the first third of Boyle's film grips the viewer with a built-in sense of nervous anxiety and anticipation of what lies ahead. Shot on the location at the same canyons the real Ralston climbed, the majesty of Aron's beautiful surroundings is twinged with a dark and ironic dread. Part of this dread is alleviated when Aron (James Franco) meets up with two attractive hikers, Megan and Kristi (played by Amber Tamblyn and Kate Mara) and together the trio explodes the landscape's natural wonders and natural highs. These young people are clearly thrill-seekers. Boyle conveys their reckless abandon with a blaring rock soundtrack, zooming camera movements and vivid color palette. These tricks are recycled with a generous helping of dramatic irony when Aron is alone, having neglected to tell the girls where he'd be. Two sequences stand out-when "Lovely Day" by Bill Withers blares over a montage of Ralston trying to lift the chalkstone boulder off his arm and when Aron's extreme thirst triggers hallucinations of a rapid-fire rush of beverage commercials, a cheeky literalization of the Coca-Cola catchphrase "The pause that refreshes"-both recalling the time Aron spent swimming in an underground pool with the two women.
Boyle's camera reaches everywhere, mapping out the specific geography of Ralston's predicament. Although most of the film takes place in the tightest of confined spaces, Boyle and cinematographers Enrique Chediak and Anthony Dod Mantle eek out every angle and vantage point with a series of shifting camera lenses. Assessing his situation, Aron lays out his supplies: a water bottle, half full; ropes and carabineers; a backpack with a built-in pouch for water and straw; a cheap stocking-stuffer pocket knife; an MP3 player, out of batteries; and a camcorder, with which he'll document his final will and testament. Ralston's claustrophobic situation simultaneously draws the viewer in and repels, exacerbating all physical discomforts: that slight itch on your thigh, the hint of a sneeze, the tensing of an arm from the seat next to you. Have to use the restroom? Make sure you go before the movie starts.
Aron slips, falls, down, down down, the small boulder following. It lands on his arm. He's trapped. His first words are defiant: "This isn't fate." And yet the film treats Ralston's story as one with a delineated and admirable moral. Ralston must learn something from his 127 hours and the moral is the one of the oldest cliches: carpe diem. Give thanks for your family. Don't take life for granted. A.R. Rahman's score, punctuated by the angelic strains of Dido, practically lifts Ralston to Heaven on a cloud. If it isn't fate, Boyle certainly doesn't shy away from Christian, "born again" metaphors.
But Ralston is saving the inevitable until it becomes an absolute necessity. Not until he runs out of water does he finally stab himself in the arm, a gesture born out of frustrated exhaustion more than careful pre-planning. Boyle clearly delights in shocking his audience--even one that's been waiting for the moment the entire movie--giving us a shot from inside Ralston's arm of the blade touching up against bone. That may be the defining image of the film: one that speaks to Boyle's no-holds barred intimacy and intensity but doesn't actually give us anything we weren't expecting--a clever angle on a predetermined outcome.
Because 127 Hours provokes a deeply personal reaction in viewers (look no further than the spat of faintings that have occurred during screenings), I feel I must address the film from a personal standpoint. When we finally get to the scene, it is both what you would expect and something for which I could not have possibly prepared. Boyle and editor Jon Harris construct a dizzying montage of the present and the past (Aron conjures happier memories of time spent with his girlfriend to prepare him) that is at once shocking, terrifying, gruesome and, as embodied by James Franco's performance, triumphant. The filmmakers bend over backwards to elicit emotional reactions during the sequence, although Ralston's recollections of a failed relationship with a heretofore-unseen girlfriend never gripped me. Instead, it is the physically visceral power I found most convincing. This scene--and indeed, the final twenty minutes of the movie--is so emotionally overwhelming, my palms are sweating just recalling it.
But herein lies my primary problem with 127 Hours: it's an experience, not a movie. The final sequence of Ralston rejoining the world, we're meant to believe after coming to a realization of the goodness of humanity, is totally overshadowed by the lingering effects of shock and still-pumping adrenaline in the viewer. Danny Boyle tried to convey Ralston overcoming a lifelong loneliness and aversion to people (again, the girlfriend flashback is our primary indicator, and very nearly our only avert reference to Ralston's anti-social tendencies), but this never really comes across in the film. Franco-as-Ralston is too hip, too charming and entirely too self-aware to ever take seriously as a person who'd retreat from mankind, let alone come to a last minute Paul on the road to Damascus-type conversion.
Aron Ralston's story is singularly unique but Boyle's approach never seems to convey its sincerity. All the flash, which in and of itself is spectacular, yields an emptiness at the end of the film. What is the use of the split screen shots of multitude of people--marathoners, soccer crowds, the great throngs of faceless humanity Ralston is rejoining--if I don't buy his epiphany and contrition? The net result of Boyle's kitchen sink approach to visual style is a nervy, exhausted filmgoer hopped up on ocular adrenaline. When I got home from the screening, I immediately hugged every member of my family, more out of shock than anything. The feeling after leaving 127 Hours is comparable to that after a car crash: happy you survived but punch-drunk from the ride. With a few days' distance, I've chilled towards it. The film stakes too much of its power on a faux-redemptive moral and with retrospect, isn't nearly as engaging as it is when you're pinned by its emotional throes.
This review was originally posted in our in our Frame of Mind section: Film Rant: 127 Hours, a second opinion by Kristen Sales. | | | | When Aron Ralston (James Franco) left his home on a Friday evening he planned on a weekend of carefree mountain climbing. What he got was the most horrifying, soul searching, and eye-opening experience of his young life over the next 127 hours. Based on the novel "Between A Rock and a Hard Place" by Aron Ralston, 127 Hours is the true story of how Aron struggled against all odds when trapped by a boulder during a hiking trip in the Utah mountains. All alone in a desolate landscape he overcame every element imaginable, of body, mind, and nature, to choose life and survive the harrowing ordeal. This is Aron's story, as envisioned by Director Danny Boyle, and it is an absolute showcase as to the power of the cinematic language.
The opening titles are an array of split screen scenarios of life. The frenetic pace of people going about their daily activities, the rat race personified on film. The music matches the almost wild animal-like images as everything passes quickly before our eyes leaving little room for thought or contemplation. Within these split screens we meet Aron for the first time in his apartment as he is preparing for his hike. The camera focusing on the individual items he is packing, and the one item he forgets that would have changed everything had his hand found it in the back of the cupboard. We do not need to be told anymore about his character, there is no need for dialogue, or a voiceover introduction. Aron is a climber, he is prepared for a couple days of camping, and his adrenaline junkie self is more than ready to escape the rat race and venture into the quiet and beautiful Utah mountains. Even as Aron is heading into the desolate wilderness when he arrives he brings with him the fast pace of city life. Using his video camera he is more than happy to share his adventure, and how his pace will be faster than the map assumes it to be, or how even a nasty fall from his bike is simply a token moment for a picture. Aron is fearless, and when he meets a couple fellow female hikers along the way, his craziness is catching. Before long he goes off on his own, oblivious to the flirtations of the girls; he is in his own world, and nothing appears to be able to break him out of his solo existence. The need for another person is unbeknownst to Aron, he has his video camera to capture the memories and has told no one of where exactly he is going.
As the camera swoops along with Aron climbing up and over mountains, in small gorges and caverns, it is a fluid molding of man and lens. The camera's eye is one with his movements, it sees what he sees, and gives the viewer a clear view of what he is encountering or about to. The pivotal scene, when everything changes for Aron and his life-changing journey begins, is caught from below. His legs are rooted in a small crevice between two mountains, he is preparing to climb down into the crevice, mere feet away from the side of the mountain he wishes to propel down. His entire trip has been leading up to this climactic moment and his anticipation and excitement is at the highest peek. Then, in a haunting twist of fate, a loose boulder changes everything, and his body is sent sliding down into the cavern. His arm is wedged between the boulder and the mountain side and he cannot free himself. The camera zooms out from Aron's dark claustrophobic cavern to the wide, lonely, and uninhabited expanse of desert/mountains. Aron is completely alone. The clock now begins to tick.
It does not ruin the story to say that Aron lives through this ordeal as it is based on a true story. Nor is it wrong to reveal how he frees himself: by cutting off his own arm. None of this matters in Danny Boyle's 127 Hours. What does matter is the journey Aron takes to get to the point where he is able to cut off his arm with a dull knife. The trials he goes through trying to free himself. The physical and emotional pain he endures as the time ticks by and his mortality is questioned. This is where James Franco's performance makes all the difference and Boyle's perfect imagining of this type of situation through the camera lens.
Combining avante-garde techniques with the standard continuity style of filmmaking Boyle is able to capture both the physical challenges Aron faces as well as the changing mind state of the character as the hours pass. As his food and water supply run out, his body weakens, and his mind hallucinates we, as viewers, are given a more introspective look into the ways such a situation can affect a person. As well as no matter how difficult the situation appears Aron never gives up. In front of our eyes, thanks to the perfect performance by Franco, we see Aron change. The selfish, loner part of his life is shown through memories of his past relationships with his family and ex-girlfriend. As Aron's life becomes more and more threatened he comes to realize the mistakes he has made, and the possibilities the future holds. When he makes a video for his parent's it is a gut wrenching and emotional tirade against himself and his own actions, yet done with such composure a mere seconds before an anxiety fueled rant occurs.
The film progresses further into the hallucinatory as Aron's mind and body weakens. He has premonitions of his future. Sees his family and speaks to them, only to hear nothing in response. Aron faces the decision to choose life, at any cost, or to die alone on the mountain; with the hope that someone will find his body. His decision is not easy, nor is it unchallenging to watch as he breaks the bone of his arm and cuts the cartilage. Boyle does not hide this from you, it is in full view as the final, most important cut is made. It may be difficult to watch but the flood of empathy you feel as he performs this act of self mutilation for self preservation is an unbelievable level. Making matters deeper, and far more exploitative, is the sound during the scene. The foley artists of this film deserve an award themselves.
As Aron's personal and traumatic journey ends it is a triumphant moment. He not only finds his freedom from the grip of nature but also from his own solitary existence. The most emotional, and freeing moment, being when he proclaims to those who inevitably help him, "I need help". Hearing those words from Aron Ralston is the greatest transformative phrase for a character possible. It is also the moment that will more than likely bring tears to your eyes. Tragedy befalls happiness and self discovery in Aron's 127 hours, and for the viewer the film is an incredible journey with a man with such a great force of will it will have you believing in the unstoppable capabilities of the human mind and body.
I still get goosebumps, and a slight case of the shivers, when I recall the final minutes of this film. The visuals have engraved themselves in my brain for eternity, and the performance by James Franco as Aron will forever be one of the most challenging and unforgettable I have ever seen on screen. 127 hours is not for the faint of heart. It is a film that will undoubtedly beseech you with emotions far beyond the normal grasp of the filmgoing experience. Aron's story is more than just one of choosing life or death, it delves far deeper into the human subconscious, the id and the ego, and the impossibility of surrender. 127 hours is an example of the immense power of filmmaking. It is absolutely astounding in it's creativity while being that rare film that further defines the craft as an art form.
This review was originally posted in our in our Frame of Mind section: Film Rave: 127 Hours...as unforgettable as the true story it is based upon, by Kathryn Schroeder. | | | | | With an exceptionally heavy back story and to large of an attempt at psychological games that do not succeed the film is a lackluster action movie. The '12 Rounds' are far from original but do manage to pass the time easily. As a viewer you may not be bored but being overly engaged is highly unlikely also as the surprises and twists you so desire are never realized. | | | | | This is a great movie that will have you laughing and possibly even weeping as the story unfolds. It is more than just a teen comedy as it deals mostly with family and the relationships formed between parents and children; and the difficult nature of those relationships. The film essentially mixes comedy and drama together to give a rewarding movie going experience for teens and adults alike. The basis for the storyline may have been done before but this time the repetitiveness is a welcome treat as it has enough of the 'new' to make you forget you've seen something like this before. | | | | | Why waste time, lets destroy everything from the start. That could be the mantra for this film. After a brief introduction to some characters, and a small dose of backstory on how the government saw the end coming years before d-day, it jumps right into absolute destruction. From the sunny southern California coastline to Washington D.C. the United States of America takes the brunt of the destruction. So much for Viva Las Vegas or the tropical oasis that is (was) Hawaii. As for the rest of the world, the outcome is no better. Even if most of there annihilation is caught on television from the United States. The actual personal stories of people are generic. Some will meet their maker, others prove their selflessness, and some will find greed has consequences. A great portion of the movie is dedicated to one family, as is typical of this type of film. You also have many goodbyes and tears to loved ones left behind. Regardless, it is one hell of a ride watching the World as we know it disappear before our very own eyes. | | | | | "This is not a love story." From that opening line you realize this film is going to be something different, and it fulfills its promise. With a refreshing take on the romantic comedy genre, being that the film is told from the male point of view, it is more an introspective piece about relationships. The ones we treasure and the ones we may never understand, but how each individually exists for a reason in our life. This is not a story about finding love, it is about realizing that love may come and go, but take comfort in what you have been given and in the excitement of what may come. For any individual who has ever questioned what went wrong, had their heart stomped upon, felt there was no escape from the pain, this is the movie you need to watch. It has a magical way of delivering hope, and healing past trauma, that is so rarely seen in cinema. The film offers a wonderful break from the cliche of romance on screen and the expectations set up for relationships. It strips away the rose-colored glasses often worn in matters of the heart, leaving the main character (Tom) and the viewer bare and open to receive the truth. | | | | Review Coming Soon. | | | | | The world of 9 is a blissful nightmare full of fantasy, adventure, and animation nirvana. Beholding the artistic craft and creativity of this original piece of filmmaking is the blissful part, the nightmare however, is never being allowed the full experience due to the lack of compelling narrative. It is true that the movie's apocalyptic landscapes, empty with fire, metal, and remnants of a perished society are horrifying, but what's really scary is how the filmmakers chose to forfeit any trace of dramatics. As the viewer follows the film's tribe of survivors in their quest, one feels as if he/she is simply watching someone play a video game: going from one level to the next, fighting stage bosses in order of increasing difficulty. There is nothing wrong with video games, there worlds have proven to be just as immersive and inventive as anything out there, but conflict occurs when trying to play a single-player game in a multi-player environment. The audience wants to play too, but that becomes an impossible wish when a movie has no real question of why, no emotional exposition, no motivation but to beat the game. 9 succeeds in welcoming dark maturity to audiences craving anti-Disney animation; it's a shame that this visual splendor doesn't have the sophisticated storyline to match. | | | | | We all know this story, and very well. This new addition to the seemingly endless adaptations of Dickens' novel gives the viewer a visually stunning experience tied to an old and tired story. It is with the help of the effects and Jim Carrey's performance as Scrooge that some new life is breathed into it but in the end you still have the same things all over again. | | | | | There is no need to be afraid to go to sleep for this version of "A Nightmare On Elm Street" may get your heart racing but it just as quickly stops it from beating. The film in itself is actually mildly entertaining. It has a solid back story and it keeps the mystery of why Freddy Krueger is killing the teenagers at bay just long enough while not overdoing the explanation. It is simple and to the point which makes it easy to watch for seemingly mindless entertainment. Where the film falters lies in its most important element, the character of Freddy Krueger (Jackie Earl Haley). He is not a character to be feared but one that slowly becomes the subject of laughter and amusement towards the end of the film. Buried beneath a face of charred flesh his eyes emotions are practically nonexistent and so an essential element is lost. You want to see the evil pouring out of them as they bore down onto his victim. Feel the anger and hatred he exudes towards the teens. Alas, it does not exist. Haley's Krueger does not fulfill his obligation to the viewer to be frightful, menacing, and atrocious. It may be a shock to hear but it is the actual story that keeps you amused for the duration, it has nothing to do directly with Freddy Krueger. | | | | | The film throws together a bunch of typical characters with the normal stereotypes in order to try and keep you guessing as to who the killers may be. The problem is that it is overly obvious who they want you to believe are the killers that the suspense is all but lost on the viewer. The final "twist" is nothing short of lame, and just plain ridiculous, as it makes no sense given the material prior in the plot. All you really get is a whole lot of talking, and more talking, and then a climax that falls short of anything spectacular or remotely thrilling. | | | | | There are movies aimed at a specific audience. This is definitely one of those movies. Unless you have a very large background in the Jewish faith prepare to get lost, very lost. This entire movie is embedded with inside jokes that someone from the outside, of the faith that is, is more than likely not going to get. This does not make it a bad film but it limits it dramatically for the casual viewer. It does hold promise with the family dynamics and can be entertaining at times, but these times do not come often enough. As it follows the main character, Larry Gopnik, while his life unfolds you are amazed at how many bad things can happen to one man in a short amount of time. Everything falls apart, and then falls apart again. There is a small piece of humor in that, even if you are laughing at him and not with him. | | | | | The film takes you on a journey through a day in the life of a broken-hearted man. It is a somber piece of filmmaking with moments, shown through flashbacks or in present time, of great despair or incredible happiness. Lead by an incredibly moving performance by Colin Firth as George we are taken through the mundane, like getting dressed in the morning, to the more eccentric parts of his lifestyle when dining and dancing with his closest friend, Charlotte; the incredibly funny and damaged character played by Julianne Moore. At times the film feels overtly slowly paced. Almost painfully so; but it all makes sense as it reflects the way George feels in his life. The days drag along as his loneliness is personified. A life without the one you love moves slowly. Every minute an aching reminder of what you have lost and may never have again. With the passage of time and the people George encounters along the way he awakens from his daze of misery. It is a journey worth experiencing and feeling for any filmgoer who is willing to accept that not all movies must be overtly joyful to be excellent pieces of filmmaking. | | | | | Go ahead, have some fun. The four main characters in this movie surely are and joining in only seems like the rational thing to do. Foregoing any real backstory to any of the characters, and therefore never being concerned with character development, "A-Team" just delivers action, comedy, and a band of four men who ooze chemistry and clearly enjoy being around each other. As Army Rangers they love their job and their country. When they are set up and convicted for a crime they did not commit, involving some stolen property from the United States government, they are called into action to clear their names. Each portion of their mission it is treated like a sport. Part brains and part brawn, they assemble the parts, strategize, and play the game like adrenaline junkies. This in turn radiates back to the viewer making you excited for what will come next and what trick they have planned. "A-Team" is a simple film with a simple mission: to entertain. The mission has been completed successfully and without casualties. | | | | Review Coming Soon. | | | | | This is an excellent coming of age film that bridges the seriousness of life with comedic undertones. It is not only nostalgic for the 1980s but reminiscent of how films of that era dealt with young adulthood and finding oneself. The movie is a delight as it has the quirky, the outrageous, the disillusioned and the painfully geeky characters all together for an experience one will not soon forget. Plus, it features the resurgence of the "mix tape" - how can you resist? | | | | | Everyone in the film keeps referring to a place called Underland, not Wonderland. I could not agree more that this world Alice has once again fallen into is NO Wonderland for the wonder, adventure and magical spirit one might expect is non-existent. Even Alice (Mia Wasikowska) herself lacks any sort of enchanting sparkle. She is not cold but she is not engaging. Alice is merely a teenage girl, wandering around a world full of unique and unlikely characters who are memorable for only a fleeting second; while teetering character-wise between a forgetful child and grown woman rightfully taking her place as such. As much as we want to love Alice, fear the Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter), and delight in the fancy of the Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp) there is never enough substance to the story to allow such to happen. The stakes are never raised on Alice's journey to be a champion and save Underland from the Red Queen's reign so we sit idly by while lots happens on screen but at the same time nothing substantial happens at all. The Red Queen is more comic relief than someone to be feared. Her "Off With Your Head" does not have enough bite to send shivers up your spine; although the comedy Bonham Carter provides the character is substantial and highly enjoyable. The Mad Hatter is low on the charisma but heavy on the mindless ramblings of just that, a mad hatter. He may be amazing to look at, as his entire look is remarkably twisted and fascinating in its eclectic nature, but that is about as far as it goes for his character. Taking a trip to this Underland, um Wonderland, is one to be enjoyed for a fleeting second, and then forgotten for an eternity. | | | | Tim Burton's "Alice in Wonderland" is the most anticipated movie thus far in 2010, does it live up to the hype?
Speaking purely visually, this film is a triumph. It is incredibly beautiful: every candy-colored corner of Wonderland is richly re-imagined with great textures, levels and creepy undertones. Many of Lewis Carroll's beloved characters are revamped to reveal their darker connotations; the Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp) is perfectly insane and schizophrenic, the blue caterpillar (Alan Rickman) is amazingly literal, the Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter) is outrageous while offering a kind of subdued horror and the cheshire cat (Stephen Fry) is haunting, amusing and oddly sympathetic. The 3-D effects worked seamlessly to bring Wonderland to life inside the theater, however it did at times cheapen the cinematography. Suffice it to say that Burton's Alice, though marketed as a film for a wide range of audiences, is a visually appealing but simplistic children's film. | | | | | This is purely a fun and entertaining movie, for kids and adults alike. It does not have an overabundance of violence and it never attempts to be overly serious - they are battling miniature aliens after all. It is for the most part lighthearted while showing the strength and perseverance children and teens may possess when needed. | | | | | Every other year or so a perplexing piece of trash comes along that forces the viewer to ask, "Why did I just do that to myself?". Ladies and Gentleman, Fox Studios presents 2009's piece of trash winner! All About Steve is so unbearably bad that anyone who sits through the entire movie without killing someone deserves a Nobel Peace Prize; Jesus Christ himself would reconsider saving us if he had to watch this thing. The worst thing about the movie is the main character herself: the "unique" Mary Horowitz. Sandra Bullock's Mary dresses trashy, looks trashy, talks too much, makes crossword puzzles for a living, stalks men to psychopathic levels, and has solidified her candidacy for the top spot when AFI announces its 100 years of Annoyingly Annoying characters. Here's the kicker though... we're supposed to think she's annoying, and then we're supposed to feel bad about thinking that way when we realize she's just... "special". I don't know what's more offensive, the idea that all smart women have to be weird, desperate, and socially clueless or the fact that this movie tried to make me feel guilty. If I wanted to feel guilty I would've done it more rewardingly by watching a movie about the holocaust. From the artificial cinema de quirk premise to actor DJ Qualls's high-handed lines, there's just too much bad in this movie for one reviewer to handle. As if there isn't reason enough to stay away, I'll just end with this: Geraldo Rivera makes a cameo, yes, Geraldo. | | | | Did he or didn't he? This is the lingering question throughout All Good Things as the relationship between David Marks (Ryan Gosling) and Katie Marks (Kirsten Dunst), his wife, is examined. The question arises from her mysterious disappearance in 1982 and it remains an unsolved case to this day [as the film is inspired by the actual Durst case]. The film begins when David and Katie meet, fall in love, and start their life together. David is part of one of the wealthiest, albeit scandalous, family's in New York City. Katie grew up in a middle-class Long Island family but found her way to the city to build another life for herself. These two very different people found in each other an alternative life than what they were given from birth. David is a sad soul with demons from his childhood and what he endured before and after his mother's suicide. With a father more concerned with fortune and ambition than his son's feelings he lived with privilege but without love. Katie has a strong bond with her family and is the embodiment of sweetness, carefree living, and loving without expectation. They appear to complement each other perfectly and live a peaceful life, far from the grip of David's father, in Vermont. When David decides to join the family business in New York their world changes as David slowly deteriorates into a form of mental illness and Katie carries the abuse caused by it.
The charming lovers that were David and Katie are slowly manipulated into darker versions of themselves. David gives way to violence, attacking Katie when she upsets him. Katie loses the loveliness of herself and becomes sad, lonely, and scared for her life. As well as selfish as one cannot think but to ask why she does not leave David as his temper worsens and the abuse grows more frequent. The film paints her as having a motive to stay with David, the comfortable life he provides as well as the ability for her to complete medical school while at the same time making the viewer assume she will leave him once she has her life established. Their tumultuous relationship leads to the unanswerable question the film provides: Did David kill Katie? There is no clear answer although the film does offer its own sequence of events as to what transpired.
The movie does not end after Katie's disappearance, and this is where it falters. It continues by showing David's life after the scandal when he goes into hiding. A definite change occurs in the narrative and a more episodic, movie-of-the-week approach is taken. This is also where liberties are taken with what we know to be true and what is imagined. New characters are introduced while old characters resurface that may have been involved, or not, with Katie's disappearance. It all becomes far too predatory towards sensationalizing the story and the sense that this has all been very believable up until now fades away. When David is finally taken into custody and tried for a separate murder the film does regain credit with the viewer. This final portion of the film is incredibly important and necessary to the story of David and Katie. One cannot help but think though that the post-life for David should have been handled differently to keep in line with the excellent direction up until that point. | | | | | They are cute, cuddly, and now there's SIX of them! Get ready to spend some time with the chipmunks and chipettes in this kid friendly sequel. Alvin, Simon and Theodore are still rocking out to some of the greatest music ever created, and the chipettes add a more modern flair to the film as they sing contemporary hits. Did we ever think we would see chipmunks singing 'Single Ladies' by Beyonce? It is quite hilarious since they throw in the dance moves along with it. This movie is not about the musical performances alone, as they are very secondary to the plot. Alvin, Simon and Theodore are doing something they never imagined...going to school! The horror! They must make friends, adapt to their surroundings, and learn to deal with being bullied along the way. Then there is the matter of chipmunk lust/love to handle also. Leave it to three female chipettes to shake things up for the boys. Oh my, what a lot for three little chipmunks to take on in only 90 minutes. They do it smashingly and give the kids in the audience lots to smile and laugh about consistently. As an adult, do not be surprised if you are laughing too, especially at Theodore. He is so sweet and adorable you just wish you could grab him off the screen and take him home. Ah, Theodore. | | | | | When chronicling an individuals' past, especially an iconic figure, it is essential to give a fluid representation of time and place and motivation. This movie neglects to adhere to a any sort of real structure and briefly glances over most of Amelia Earhart's life; it's only explanation seems to be the repetitive notion that "she must fly" to give reason to the entire film. Instead of a well-rounded depiction of her life and story we are given small moments that only occur after her rise to stardom began. There is no backstory to this film as it solely represents the Amelia the public may have known. A choice was made with dire results as instead of seeing a rare glimpse into her private world, you are merely given a live action newspaper re-enactment. | | | | Review Coming Soon. | | | | | "All that poetry and all those songs for something that lasts no time at all." Seventeen-year old Jenny, played by an amazing Carey Mulligan in a breakthrough performance, says this line after her first experience with sex. She isn't necessarily disappointed, but rather enlightened with a new perspective. It's as if at that very moment she realizes that losing one's virginity is not the end all of becoming a woman, but merely one of the many unrelenting life experiences to come. Jenny matures right before the audience's eyes in a matter of seconds and it's truly a cinematic miracle to behold. The viewer is fortunate enough to witness several similar moments of instantaneous clarity as "An Education" is a coming-of-age story about a teenage girl in 1960s London, a time when life was still quite Victorian as the Beatles had yet to arrive on the scene. The primary vehicle in which Jenny receives the majority of her education is not via school, but through her relationship with an older man twice her age (Peter Sarsgaard). The situation would be questionably creepy if not everyone, including Jenny's own parents, was so accepting of the circumstances. It is indeed true that coming-of-age stories have been done dozens of times before, but it's been a while since it's been done with such precise simplicity, sophistication and class. The film comments on the merits of going to school vs. living life, the 1960s costumes and production design are flawless, but whom we really adore is Jenny. Near the end of the film she states, "I feel old. But not very wise." Jenny knows she still has a lot more to learn despite everything she's been through. We only wish we could continue to follow her education because the few lessons we've shared with her so far have been near perfect. | | | | | The film offers up a great mystery that will grab you along for the ride. By blending the scientific with the religious there is a constant pull between what may be proven and what is based on faith, making for an experience that is highly gratifying. Even though it never quite builds up the suspense as much as one might expect, it still satisfies in the final moment. | | | | | Please refer to our Frame of Mind section for the full review of this film here. | | | | The big debate that has always raged in both literary and theatrical circles about Shakespeare is whether or not he actually wrote everything that bears his name. The newest film from director Roland Emmerich (Independence Day, The Day After Tomorrow), called Anonymous, deals with one of the theories as to who Shakespeare really was, and, more importantly, who he wasn't.
Anonymous follows Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford (Rhys Ifans from Hannibal Rising), who has spent his entire life composing plays but, because of his puritan upbringing, must do his writing in secret. He makes a deal with a young playwright named Ben Jonson (Sebastian Armesto from Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides) to have his plays performed with Jonson's name attached as the writer. Feeling unethical about the deal, Jonson instead puts the plays on with the writer listed as "anonymous," and the first one, Henry V, is a huge success. The audience starts cheering for the playwright to come forward, and an unknown actor named William Shakespeare (Rafe Spall from "Pete Versus Life") seizes the opportunity to take credit. Edward and Ben are forced to strike a deal with Shakespeare to keep their secret from Queen Elizabeth (Vanessa Redgrave) and her chief advisor, William Cecil (David Thewlis, Remus Lupin from the Harry Potter movies) in order to preserve Edward's fortune, possible claim to the throne of England, and, ultimately, their lives. What they find out is that the Queen has secrets of her own that she works very hard to keep.
Anonymous has all of the flash and pageantry of Emmerich's previous films without destroying the world. The film is a thinly veiled political thriller set in Elizabethan England. Written by John Orloff (Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole), the screenplay is much more than just the story of who wrote Shakespeare's plays. It is a story of oppression, intrigue and deceit. The bulk of the story takes place at the end of Queen Elizabeth's reign, when seemingly everyone in England thought that they had a legitimate claim to the throne. No one trusts anyone else, and Edward and Ben (who barely trust each other) are forced to put their faith in Shakespeare. Told partially through flashbacks, the plot jumps around a bit time-wise, which is a little confusing in the beginning until it becomes clear who is who in the past and present. The Queen and Edward have a long, torrid history, and it all comes together organically, if not a little shockingly. The twists and turns of the betrayals and double-crosses will keep even the most alert viewers guessing, and that's what makes Anonymous such an entertaining movie. The film is a success on every level - it's beautifully shot, well written and flawlessly acted - and the only material destruction that occurs is the burning of a theater.
| | | | Rhoda Williams (Brit Marling) is your average teenager, enjoying a night of partying with her friends after her recent acceptance to MIT for college. Like many teenagers, she drives herself home from the party, and just maybe she should have taken a cab. But it is not her inebriated state that will cause events that change her future forever but the news on the radio of the discovery of 'another earth' in the solar system. One that has just become visible in the night sky on her drive home. Peering out the window at the other Earth, that looks identical to our own, Rhoda is not paying attention to the road. The result is a fatal car crash between her and a vehicle carrying three passengers; the final result is Rhoda's incarceration for the next four years.
Another Earth begins with the aforementioned tragedy, and then swiftly moves forward to the day Rhoda is released from jail to start her life over again. Plagued with considerable guilt over the accident she is unable to find a comfortable existence. Her relationship with her parent's is strained, her brother is on the path she once foresaw for herself, and while she possesses a high level of intelligence she wants nothing to do with her intellect, and instead takes a job as a janitor at the local school. Another Earth is a character piece, conjoined with the constant science fiction backdrop over the other Earth's existence. The science fiction angle is never adequately examined and remains a constant presence but not a strong influencer in the actions on screen. The main part it plays is the possibility of escape for Rhoda, a way to leave behind the life full of pain on her Earth for the possibility of another. The complication occurs in her meeting and growing close to John (William Mapother), the man whose family's life she took in the fatal car crash.
While watching Another Earth is a completely enjoyable experience, thanks in part to the performances by the very talented William Mapother (John) and Brit Marling (Rhoda) it is a very routine and predictable film. Rhoda is awash with grief and must reconcile with herself and the man she hurt; as she goes about doing this it is obvious where the film is going to take you. The side-story of there being another Earth out there, and the upcoming launch of a group of civilians going to visit it, is important but obvious in the direction of the story. The ending, completely expected and a tad redundant.
As little as the film is impressive for its storyline the only bothersome part is the cinematography, and it does effect the congenial experience of watching Another Earth. The technique, as I have rarely seen it before, can only be termed in my mind as 'jump focus'. The camera is still, usually at a medium or close-up shot, when the camera literally jumps, while remaining in the same timeline (so not a jump cut) to move in closer to a subject. The focus is lost for a moment, as is the solidity of the frame. It does not happen once in a scene but sometimes many times. It is disorienting, and a tad sloppy on the part of the cinematographer (Mike Cahill, also the Director). Clearly being used as an artistic expression, and more avante garde indie approach to filmmaking, it does nothing to excel the scenes in question or compliment the internal, or external, dialogue of the film. Adding to it is some poor framing decisions as well that scream, "look at me, I'm trying to be different"--and failing.
If one is seeking a film about human emotion and entanglements then Another Earth fits nicely (if your eyes can forgive the cinematography gimmicks). For someone who desires a departure from the norm, and an interesting science fiction tale about the possibility of life on another planet just like ours, they will be less than impressed. | | | | Apollo 18 follows the crew of the last manned expedition that NASA supposedly sent to the moon. The mission's commander Nate (Lloyd Owen) and his partner Ben (Warren Christie) are the two unfortunate astronauts who land on the surface to collect some rocks and set-up cameras. Once there, the men experience strange and terrifying feelings of paranoia and fear. First, they think they see things moving on the outside of their capsule. Next, the cameras pick up footage of moon rocks moving on their own. When the astronauts take a walk over to the dark side of the moon, where they lose radio contact with Houston and their orbiting craft, they discover a Russian landing module, complete with a dead cosmonaut. Later that night, their radio is knocked out at their capsule by an unseen force, leaving them with no way to communicate with other people. While trying to fix the transmitter, Nate is attacked. Ben saves him, but the two are left stranded, alone and really freaked out. With no help from the outside world, the astronauts struggle to stay alive, solve the mystery of what attacked Nate and figure out what happened to the Soviet mission.
Apollo 18 is another one of those "found footage" films, supposedly edited together from 84 hours of footage uploaded to an underground website. It purports to be a documentary, and actually has the feel of a good one for the first half or so. Once the threat is discovered, special effects and makeup tricks take over and blow the whole "truth" angle and turn the film into a full-fledged drama. Spanish director Gonzalo Lopez-Gallego uses an unknown (but still familiar looking) cast to make the faux-documentary more realistic, and his longtime cinematographer Jose David Montero makes most of the shots look like authentic NASA footage. In the hands of experienced horror editor Patrick Lussier (who did the original Scream trilogy as well as some of the later Halloween films), the film comes off as suspenseful and taught; it just isn't very scary, and it disappoints at the end. | | | | | Action. Suspense. Great twists. Explosive thrills. If only I was talking about this film. It is not all bad. The last five minutes were decent. The rest is completely formulaic. There is nothing wrong with formula if it delivers as it should but Armored does not. The story does not move fast enough and with the circumstance the characters are in it feels way too slow. These are men trying to pull off a heist of massive proportion when something goes wrong. They only have a small window of time to fix it and therefore succeed with the plan. If that is the case why does it feel like ages before anything happens? Or something exciting? So much time is spent trying to decide what to do that nothing ever really gets done, until it is too late. Not even a dose of witty banter between the guys or moderately funny jokes exists. If it were not for the consistent banging of metal occurring in much of the film I may have fallen asleep. This movie should have been a thrill ride but instead it feels like a ride that broke halfway through and now you are stuck on the tracks without a means of exit. | | | | In 1981 the original Dudley Moore classic was widely praised and went on to win two of the four Academy Awards for which it was nominated. Thirty years later, I guarantee that the remake will have no such luck. The plotline of the new Arthur is pretty much identical to its predecessor: set in New York, an English millionaire drunk named Arthur (Russell Brand) is pushed into marrying a similarly wealthy woman, Susan (Jennifer Garner) or face being completely cut off from the family funds ($950,000,000). Before Arthur goes through with it he meets the perfect girl, Naomi (Greta Gerwig), and the typical wealth vs. true love dilemma ensues. Although the framework for the film has been retained, what has changed is the surrounding world rendering an already unnecessary remake into an inappropriate one as well. I'm not sure if any of the top executives at Warner Bros. have kept up with the news lately, but the country was hit with one of the worst recessions in history, unemployment is soaring, budget cuts are hurting everyone from Planned Parenthood to Wisconsin Labor Unions, and China is kicking our ass. So remind me again how a multi-millionaire wandering the city drunk as he recklessly squanders his assets on foolishness is funny again? I'm guessing all the Wall Street big wigs and Goldman-Sachs CEOs who still got their bonuses despite screwing everyone else over will find Arthur hilarious.
Perhaps the film is meant to be a satire? But whatever scathing commentary the writers had intended has been sidelined in favor of cheesy '90s Romantic-Comedy preposterousness. So in order to remain a millionaire I have to marry Jennifer Garner? And this is bad because... Oh yes, because she's an evil b**ch and obviously I'm supposed to marry the other girl. One would think that in the post-Apatow world of romantic comedy, characters would actually be presented as real choices in opposition to each other rather than obvious, no-brainer mistakes. But no, the characters are pretty much live-action Disney cartoons with Arthur as the overly exaggerated, man-boy wealthy prince, Naomi as the impoverished princess, and Susan as the evil queen standing in the way. If that type of obvious nonsense is your cup of tea, then by all means buy a ticket and enjoy, for everyone else, it might be best to see what else is playing.
All personal venting aside, Arthur, although not a good film is not altogether terrible either. Thanks to the talents of Russell Brand, Helen Mirren, and Greta Gerwig, there are indeed snippets of enjoyment to be found from scene to scene. Although not as lovable as Dudley Moore, Russell Brand utilizes his quick wit and plays Arthur as likable as possible, not an easy feat considering Brand's eccentric persona. Mirren plays Hobson (the role that earned John Gielgud an Oscar in the original) perfectly straight, a strict nanny, but sincerely in defiance of ever giving up on Arthur. And Greta Gerwig as the quirky love interest earns the affection of the audience making a scene in which Arthur clears out Grand Central Station for her on a date somewhat justifiable.
Thanks to a likable cast and a few sight gags, Arthur is not without its occasional charm. Nevertheless, replicating a formula from thirty years ago without any real alterations makes the entire project feel dated. Hollywood remakes rarely see success and here again is another example. | | | | | This film provides for a great action adventure story that will leave you feeling fulfilled. It takes a very intelligent scientific stance on animated films and never once plays the cutesy role of trying to entertain a child. What you get is a well-rounded real story with a very large adventurous spirit. The main character, Astro, holds an idealistic sense of wonderment throughout that is apparent in the wonderful rendering of his animated eyes and the well chosen and placed dialogue in the story. This film may have very dramatic undertones and deal greatly with a caste system and equal rights but it maintains a childish sensibility throughout; making it an excellent source to learn an important moral while being fanciful enough to make someone want to pay attention and gain greater knowledge about life lessons at the same time. | | | | | There are few, if any, words to describe the shear magnitude of awesomeness this film provides for a lover of cinema. It takes you back to that place where movies were meant to be seen on the big screen. No, not the big screen in your living room but the one at the cineplex. Avatar is an epic movie that will go down as a groundbreaking achievement in special effects. Every film in the future will be compared against it and the level in which they must reach to match its perfection in craft is immeasurable. The only downfall of the film is the lack of uniqueness to the actual plot. The man vs. nature, profit over humanity, and all the other tried and true themes that litter science fiction cinema are ever present. What makes Avatar so unique though is the visual imagery and creative imagination behind the spectacle that is the world of Pandora. Any misgivings you have with the plot and any moments you come across where you realize you may have seen this before in another film are all but disregarded. The experience of what you are seeing, hearing, and feeling take control instead. You do not care that the writing is sophomoric. Or how many of the characters are typecast to exist in a science fiction and/or action movie. The story keeps you engaged but it is the wonderment you feel and the awe inspiring effects that make it a movie you cannot wait to watch at home. It must be seen in the theatre, and in 3D preferably. If this is what movie goers get every 12 years from Director James Cameron, plus around 300 million dollars, then we should all happily anticipate what he will deliver in 2021. I will be shocked if he can outdo himself but I am excited at the prospect. | | | | | If a holy entourage consisting of Jesus, the prophet Muhammad, Buddha, Ra, and any other deity went out to catch a midnight showing of "Avatar" even they more than likely declared, "Yahweh!" at one point during the movie. No matter who you are and what you've seen before, this is simply a technically and visually impressive film on the grandest scale. The writing, okay, it could use a little work. The siding with the natives storyline has been done in half a dozen Westerns before, the characters are a bit flat, the dialogue is often hokey and obvious, and the go green, anti-Iraq, machine vs. nature messages are pretty high-handed. But who cares! "Avatar" is the extremely rare exception to the rule that story is everything in that the actual experience actually transcends the narrative. Director James Cameron is clearly some kind of wizard straight out of Hogwarts because he manages to bring magic back into the Cineplex. In an age where the average viewer can simply wait four or five months for the high-definition Blu ray or download the movie illegally onto an iPod, here is a film that finally demands you to watch it at the theater multiple times, an experience worth your ten plus dollars. Can't afford a family trip to Disneyland this year? That's okay; take everyone to see this film in 3D instead. Watching "Avatar" will completely transport you to another world, it will capture your imagination, and it will reawaken your inner-child, reminding you why you fell in love with going to the movies in the first place. |
| | | Review Coming Soon. | | | | | The film offers a mildly funny look at the trials and tribulations of a High School Senior as he deals with finding the perfect Prom date and changes in his family life. That said, it should not be seen as a teen centered film as it deals with much deeper themes of commitment, friendship, and familial bonds that involve all of the characters. This movie is rich with sentiment, heart, and love that will give the viewer a positive feeling as they exit the cinema. | | | | | A world of peace and love and prosperity. Sounds like a dream. As with any dream, you have to wake up - and the inhabitants of Terra must do just that in order to save their home from being destroyed by the humans. The film does not attack the human sensibility, as it presents people who are both for and against the war; even if it does give more time to the ones for it but well, there has to be an enemy. What this movie does show you is how compromise, communication and understanding can help overcome any disagreement or conflict. This film gives hope that a peaceful existence is possible if only given the opportunity; and that just may start with befriending someone who is different from you, your world, or your customs. | | | | | The film is highly entertaining, exciting and imaginative for both adults and children. The comedy works on a variety of levels and the visual and special effects are a joy for the eye to reckon. The underlining message of the use of imagination is refreshing and leaves the viewer wanting more of this magical world created through the eyes of children and adults alike. | | | | Beginners is an odd little love story. Ewan McGregor (Obi-Wan Kenobi from the Star Wars prequels) is Oliver, a sad young graphic artist who has just had two big bombs dropped on him. The first big shock is that his father Hal (played by the legendary Christopher Plummer) has announced that he is gay, and has been for his entire life. The second is that Hal also has terminal cancer. Oliver struggles to come to terms with his father's impending death and newly reborn homosexuality while dealing with the fact that Hal's marriage to Oliver's dead mother was a sham. That much alone would be enough for anyone to have trouble digesting. Poor Oliver's life gets even more complicated when he finally meets Anna (Inglourious Basterds' Melanie Laurent), who, after several failed relationships, he believes may be the girl of his dreams. Beginners is Oliver's story of relating to his father, during his life and after his death while trying to relate to Anna at the same time.
The film is mostly told through flashbacks. Oliver looks back at his father's final days and gathers clues about who he was and how that differs from who Oliver thought he was. The audience is introduced both to Oliver's mother, Georgia (Television actress Mary Page Keller) and Hal's boyfriend Andy (Goran Visnjic from "E.R."). Through memories of his mother and father and father's boyfriend, Oliver learns why he may have so much trouble relating to the people in his life. The flashbacks are effective â without them, Beginners is a simple boy-meets-girl story â but confusing at times, as the film jumps back and forth between the past and present very quickly and suddenly without any prompting or warning. The time-juggling leaves the whole package feeling a little disjointed. | | | | Uxbal (Javier Bardem) is a good father, tangled up in a world full of deplorable things. Raising his two young children alone in the slums of Barcelona he does the best he can and keeps them sheltered from the life of crime he is involved with outside the home. His love for them is without question, even as the toll of taking care of them can be seen across his face. Uxbal's story is burdensome. When faced with impending death his life swiftly changes from protecting his children today to finding a way to secure their uncertain future. His wife suffers from addiction problems as well as a personality disorder making her unfit to raise the children. He has no close friends to speak of, and his brother is not trustworthy. Uxbal is very much alone, while being surrounded by people every day. Complicating matters is Uxbal's profession. He is an exploiter. Whether it is the selling of knock-off products to people on the street through illegal aliens from Senegal or brokering out the Chinese illegal's as day laborers he is involved with the unsavory.
Biutiful is a film about a man in crisis who is trying desperately to do right by his children while also reconciling what he has done wrong on a spiritual level. Shot with a clear 'take to the streets' approach the camera work is handheld and rough. The colors muted yellows and browns with little light. The only loveliness that exists in this dark world is the love shared between Uxbal and his children. As a desperate ill man he refuses to let them see his pain, or experience the fear of knowing their father will soon be gone. Javier Bardem is remarkable in his portrayal of Uxbal. The deepness of emotion that registers on his face is transcendent. As fine a performance as his is and although the film is heavy with emotion it feels very scattered and without a clear focus. There are the trademark multiple story lines of Director Inarritu but it is only Uxbal's story that finds any sort of actual development. Everything comes back to him and the extra instances of seeing other characters in their personal lives feels unimportant. As beautiful and meaningful as the film is, and how it resonates deeply with the viewer from the father-child bond that is presented, it does not have a tight enough structure to keep the mind from wandering. It appears that Inarritu has introduced more than is needed in order to convey Uxbal's story, resulting in a memorable love story between a father and his children getting lost amongst the excess. | | | | Review Coming Soon. | | | | | The concept of a world gone blind is exciting, and fearful. Watching it play out on screen is thought provoking and definitely stirs up all sorts of anxieties about life and existence, and the animal instincts that are awakened when people are stripped of any remnant of a controlled society. With all this potential it is unfortunate that the film is not wholly entertaining. You find yourself lacking the engagement you desire from a movie and the seriousness is lost throughout by characters actions or the disbelief in many of the occurrences. Although the story is strong, the actual plot fails to deliver. | | | | | The overall premise for the film may appear to be funny but the actual movie given to the viewer is anything but satisfying. There is no real comedy or level of sentiment to the story and it fails to enthrall or delight the viewer with the characters antics. Instead you get a large amount of whining and screaming from the women and passive aggressive men who are merely there as props who occasionally say something but no one is really listening. | | | | Bridesmaids is the new movie from "Saturday Night Live" cast member Kristen Wiig. In it, Wiig plays Annie, a woman with a failed business and a ruined relationship who has been asked to be the Maid of Honor in the wedding of her life-long best friend Lillian (SNLâs Maya Rudolph). By accepting Lillian's request, Annie is also accepting the responsibility of planning all of the pre-wedding festivities with Lillian's other Bridesmaids, all of whom are new friends of Lillian's who Annie has never met. Annie gets along well with all of the ladies with the exception of the high class and beautiful Helen (Rose Byrne from Insidious), who claims to be Lillian's new best friend. Much of the movie is centered round the jealous competition between Annie and Helen as they both try to outdo each other in every facet of the wedding preparation, from picking the dresses to planning the bachelorette party. The rivalry between the two women is where the meat of the story comes from. Throw in a romantic subplot for Annie and a lot of fun scenes with all of the girls together and you've got Bridesmaids.
The promotional campaign for Bridesmaids makes it look like a female version of The Hangover. While that may not be too far off the mark, it's not entirely accurate either. Produced by Judd Apatow and written by Wiig and her Groundlings comedy troupe conspirator Annie Mumolo, Bridesmaids tells the woman's side of the wedding preparation story, and it does it hilariously. It's got all the fun and laughs of The Hangover with more heart and less mystery. Yes, it's a chick flick. But, it's a chick flick that should appeal to the guys, too. It's a comedy about a wedding, so, of course, there are tears, but even the most serious of scenes are broken up by snippets of laughter and amusement. This balance makes Bridesmaids a great choice for both the ladies and the gentlemen. It's the perfect date movie. | | | | | The ill-fated romance depicted in Bright Star may not reach overwhelming proportions in terms of romance, but it still delivers a conventional and heartwarming love affair. Between the under appreciated poet Keats, while living that is, and the eccentric fashionable girl next door Fanny, a honest and forbidden love blooms in this movie that will make you laugh, cry, and yearn for a simpler way of life where walking in the park or holding hands meant more than anything else. The movie itself plays like a poem on screen, filling you with deep emotion drawn from despair, heartache, love, comedy, respect, and most of all an undying connection between two people that no place, circumstance or person could tear apart. | | | | Review Coming Soon. | | | | | The camera cranes above in a wide aerial shot of the Brooklyn Projects. Large sterile identical buildings litter the ground of this place, mimicking the perception that a people, not people, inhabit their walls. Different divisions of the Police force patrol this area, or are encased in it as undercover agents. The film takes us into their lives and their struggles. It offers us a glimpse into a place that is broken; overrun by drugs, dirty money, and unspeakable crimes. This is a dark world that Director Antoine Fuqua invites the viewer into. Where suspense and turmoil are at every turn and it becomes difficult to separate the good from the bad, the redeemable from the lost. | | | | | Made up of two drastically different plot lines that inevitably come together in the end, Brothers is full of so much tension and anticipation you forget all time exists while watching. It is about two very different men. One the decorated marine with the beautiful wife and children; a picture perfect life. The other an ex-con who has never accomplished anything or had a goal to speak of besides trying to break free of his older brothers shadow. When the marine, Sam (Tobey Maguire), is believed dead in Afghanistan his brother Tommy (Jake Gyllenhall) takes it upon himself to step in and help with his children and widow. Then things start to get complicated (and very interesting) because while everyone at home is grieving and trying to move on with their lives Sam is a prisoner of war facing the unimaginable and doing things one cannot even fathom ever coming to terms with. This juxtaposition of tone in the film is done wonderfully by the Director Jim Sheridan as he glides between home and Afghanistan. One moment you are in the trenches of the desert, watching a marine harden and change before your eyes. The next finds you at home where everyone is experiencing playful times. The viewer knows Sam is alive and it only makes the sexual tension and relationships that are building at home appear even naughtier than they normally would. A constant state of will they or won't they, will he make it home or will he not, is there hope for a man to live a normal life again after what he has seen and done...the questions are endless. With all of the questions it raises it never completely provides answers. I think this is one of the strongest features the movie holds. Nothing is tied up into a neat little package at the end. All is not forgiven or forgotten. Life does not ever return to normal. Everything has changed but as a viewer we will never fully know the fate that awaits the characters. We do know one thing for certain, if anyone ever finds the videotape all hell is going to break loose again. | | | | | Here is a film that is ferociously ridiculous, outrageous, and thoroughly remarkable. It is full of comedy but also stages commentary on societal norms, inherited culture, pop culture, and morality. You never know what is going to happen to Bruno on his journey and as the film continues you just get one shock after another after another. It may appear staged at times but it is a mockumentary/narrative feature so this should be expected. Just sit back and enjoy the hilarity that is Bruno; and realize there is no preparing yourself for this movie. (Warning: If you cannot see the humor in society, its stereotypes and ideology, and realize that sometimes what we need is a humorous view on certain subjects to break down the barriers that exist between people, this movie may bother you at times if not offend.) | | | | The only feasible reason to ever be trapped in a coffin is to watch this movie. Even though you will not actually be inside of a coffin, although that would make for an interesting twist on immersive cinema, you will have bouts of claustrophobia while watching Paul (Ryan Reynolds) who is indeed buried alive in a wooden coffin-like box for the duration of the film. If you are expecting the expected cuts to characters outside of his enclosed space you will be sorely, but all the more frighteningly, disappointed as the entire film takes place with Paul in nearly real-time. The only connection he has to the outside world is through a cellular phone but the voices on the other line are never given faces. This is a movie about a man desperately trying to escape his confinement while battling the elements that come with being buried deep in the sand of Iraq. The only escape possible is through Paul for the viewer, and his torture is your torture.
How did Paul end up in this box? Well, he was working as a non-military truck driver when his convoy was attacked. He blacked out and when he woke up was buried, without any recollection of who put him there or how. With limited supplies he must try and communicate with the outside world in the hopes that he will be rescued by the US military. Paul's struggle becomes more and more terrifying as each moment passes and his air supply runs low, or unexpected obstacles occur inside of the coffin as nature cannot be contained and Paul is impeding upon the natural elements of the desert.
The film takes a decisive direction halfway through as the bureaucracy of the government/corporate America take hold and the frustration mounts over the lack of help Paul is given. His captors are demanding money in exchange for release while making threats that are larger than leaving Paul to suffocate. What turns ones stomach is the representation of the American government in the film as well as the necessity to make clear how no one is willing to be held accountable for his kidnapping. It is quite clear a political message is being made and there is no denying the filmmakers have incredible issues with the treatment of hostages in Iraq by the American government. For the viewer, it is a disgusting display of events we naively hope are fictional renditions while deep down we know what happens in this film is closer to the truth than anyone would like to admit. The politics aside it is also incredibly emotional as Paul deals with his own mortality, life choices, and the possibility (and likely reality) that he will never see his family again. This story about a man being buried alive goes in a direction that is off-putting to say the least but it is the stylistic endeavor of filming an entire movie in such an enclosed space, and pulling it off where the momentum never ceases and the suspense only grows as time passes, that is the real triumph of Buried. | | | | Ali is a small town girl from Iowa, who can sing with such powerful intensity she could stop anything or anyone in their tracks. Her decision to leave her nowhere town behind and head for the bright lights of Hollywood is a common story with all of the makings for a cliche movie. Burlesque does have all of the essential elements to make it fall into the cliches but it also has something that sets it apart: it's a musical that makes it incredibly hard to not want to stand up in the theater and start shaking your backside, shimmy your chest, and get in touch with your inner sexy vixen.
When Ali stumbles upon the club Burlesque she is as green as one may be to the underground enchanting world of the burlesque performer. She watches the dancers on stage and is immediately intoxicated by the atmosphere of the entire club and determined to become one of the dancers in the show. With a little Hollywood magic she gets a job at the club, as a waitress. The Diva who runs the show, Tess (Cher), is not taken in by her at first but when a technical glitch caused by the resident bad girl, Nikki (Kristen Bell), silences the music Ali has her chance to show the crowd just what she can do, without lip synching. All focus is on Ali as she sings like her life depends on it. Watching the dancers perform up to this point has been entertaining, and they have put on a great show, but it is Ali that is a true star. This is also the point where things begin to get really good. The movie becomes a full blown song and dance act above all else with a touch of romance thrown in for good measure; for what would a musical be if there was not romance. Then again, there must also be the realization that not everything is as glamorous as the performances on stage. Tess' club is in trouble. She has only weeks to pay the bank or she loses everything and although Ali is filling the house with her talent it is not enough to save Burlesque. Fear not, there is always a solution, and sometimes it comes out of thin air.
Burlesque is the greatest of guilty pleasures. It is not structured perfectly for a musical as not every song relates back to the character or necessarily moves the story along but it is a great deal of fun. The lack of polish is quite clear in both the performances by Aguilera and Cher (surprisingly) but when the direction is present they carry their roles adequately. But if you love to watch song and dance numbers. Crave to feel the music ripple through your body until you cannot help but have it control you, then Burlesque is perfect. It may not have a great deal of substance beneath the surface but what you see and experience is enough to keep the smile on your face and awaken the desire to put on your dancing shoes.
| | | | Comic book fans have been waiting with bated breath for Captain America: the First Avenger, the newest of the Avengers "prequels." With The Hulk, Thor, and Iron Man already on board, Cap was the only missing main member of the team. Luckily for Marvel Comics, Captain America doesn't miss.
Steve Rogers (played by Chris Evans, who may be the Marvel "It" boy, having donned the tights as Johnny Storm in both Fantastic Four movies) is a ninety pound weakling who wants nothing more than to join the army during World War II and go off and fight some Nazis with his buddy Bucky (Hot Tub Time Machine's Sebastian Stan). Unfortunately for him, he gets rejected every time he tries to enlist. He finally catches the attention of Dr. Abraham Erskine (Stanley Tucci from The Lovely Bones), an army doctor who wants Rogers to try out an experimental serum that will turn him into a "super soldier." The experiment works, and Rogers becomes a media hero. The Army christens him "Captain America," and uses him as a promotional tool to sell war bonds, until one of his USO shows takes him to Bucky's unit's camp and he discovers that his old friend has been captured by a group called HYDRA, a terrorist organization who manufactures weapons for Hitler and the Nazis. With the help of weapons developer Howard Stark (Dominic Cooper from The Devil's Double) and British Agent Peggy Cooper (Hayley Atwell from The Dutchess), Rogers goes into enemy territory to rescue Bucky. While there, Rogers meets Johann Schmidt, also known as Red Skull (V for Vendetta star Hugo Weaving), who is Dr. Erskine's first test subject, and has the same strength and speed as Rogers, but is so evil that he thinks Adolf Hitler is a wimp. Rogers, with the help of his Colonel, Chester Phillips (the iconic Tommy Lee Jones), puts together a team of soldiers whose mission is to stop Red Skull from using his advanced weaponry to destroy America and win the war.
Captain America is just what people expect from a summer movie. The production is slick, the script is well written and the actors deliver great performances. There is a bit of suspension of disbelief necessary on the audience's part, as it is set during World War II yet the weaponry and vehicles are not only modern, but futuristic. However, it is a superhero movie, so realism is not a huge priority for the watcher. Director Joe Johnston (who brought us The Rocketeer and Jurassic Park III) has made a movie with plenty of action and lots of heart. The viewer can't help but feel good at the end. Anyone who doesn't cheer for Captain America is, well, Un-American. | | | | Cars 2 represents such a dearth of imagination, energy and charm I'm almost loath to waste words describing the extent to which it fails as a film. The heroes of the 2006 Cars , championship racer Lightning McQueen (Owen Wilson) and his tow truck best friend Mater (Larry the Cable Guy) return to Radiator Springs for about a second before they're off racing in the World Grand Prix, a globe-trotting contest devised by Sir Miles Axlerod (Eddie Izzard), a former oil magnate using the race as a testing ground for his new alternative fuel, Allinol. Also interested in the race are British spies Finn McMissile (Michael Caine) and Holley Shiftwell (Emily Mortimer), tracking a stolen weapon the nefarious and mysterious baddie is poised to use to sabotage the Grand Prix. All the while, Lightning is battling with a boastful Italian Formula One racer (John Turturro, way over-the-top) and his conflicted affection for Mater whose embarrassing behavior is a constant thorn in Lightning's side. The sequel to Pixar's Cars is, for most of its runtime, and for no discernible reason, a spy movie. In a clumsy and predictable move to meld the world of racing and the world of espionage, Mater is mistaken for an American agent in deep cover and so joins Finn and Holly in their super suave investigations.
I didn't care about any of these characters. Perhaps that's because I didn't see the first Cars, but even still, any sequel should supply reason enough for me to get invested in its stakes. Here, the stakes are almost non-existent. We know that Lightning McQueen will eventually win the Grand Prix. We know that Mater, though an unfunny buffoon, will eventually gain self-acceptance, save the day and get the girl. Everyone will learn a valuable lesson in friendship.
Most egregious is the film's central "mystery," the one that takes up most of the plot machinations and character efforts (not to mention the overlong runtime): who's sabotaging the Grand Prix? Within thirty seconds of his introduction, it's painfully obvious Miles Axlerod is the culprit. As obviously as Finn McMissle is the James Bond of the Cars world, Axelrod is obviously the Bond villain; a five year old could figure it out. The film doesn't even have the courtesy to throw in a red herring or two to keep things interesting. What we do get is a tacked-on subplot about Axelrod's henchmen, all undesirable makes and models ("lemons"), and some lazy moralizing about alternative fuels.
On the whole, the film is probably not as terrible as my ire suggests; it is only truly heinous because of the Pixar brand and the level of quality that brand has come to represent. Yes, Cars 2 is boring, lifeless, and by-the-numbers. By any measure, the film is a failure; but with the triumphs of masterpieces like Wall-E and Up still fresh in mind, such uninspired dreck is especially baffling. Why was this film made? Cars 2 simply doesn't have a story to tell. It must be viewed ultimately as a wasted opportunity, an abuse of the talent and imagination of a studio fully capable of making exciting, inspiring entertainment. | | | | | Please refer to our Frame of Mind area for the full review of this film: Centurion Is Bloody Good Fun by Kathryn Schroeder. |
| | | Review Coming Soon. | | | | Certified Copy is a movie about its ideas more than about its plot or even its characters. Director Abbas Kiarostami is renowned for utilizing the tight spaces of everyday life, like the insides of cars, to give us scenes of daily life unfolding at its natural pace. Couples talk, their conversations full of pauses, hesitations, parried opinions and careful retractions. The naturalism and improvisation in Certified Copy speak to a larger issue of the power of reality vs. fiction. Are the actors really improvising their dialogue or is it written and directed in such a way as to give that impression? What is the value of a reproduction? Can you "reproduce" love? Can a relationship survive on the remnants of its original intent alone? Kiarostami raises more questions than he answers in this playful and masterfully conceived movie about the legitimacy of affection and artifice.
Take the opening scene. The first shot is of a table, on which sits a book, "Copie Conforme" ("Certified Copy"), and nothing else. We are at a lecture for this book but the speaker is absent. The camera holds the angle, not cutting away to the conversations we hear all around us. Finally, the speaker enters the frame. He is James Miller (opera singer William Shimell in his first screen role), the British author of "Copie Conforme," a book on the value of reproduced works of art. Now, the film expands its viewpoint; we get an angle on the audience where we see an unnamed woman enter the lecture hall and take a seat in the front row. She (or "Elle," in French) will remain unnamed, and is played by Juliette Binoche. Elle is toting a shaggy-haired son, who, engrossed in a handheld video game, sulks in the corner of the hall, totally bored with the man giving the lecture and his mother, still listening intently. Kiarostami gives us three angles, one at a time, each introducing a character, but resisting the standard shot/reverse/shot rhythms of conventional filmmaking. Consequently, we are unsure of the relationship between Elle and James or James and the son. Only after the lecture do we learn Elle is an antiques dealer, which explains her interest in James' lecture. She sells reproductions for a living.
But the relationship between the two is never as easy as it seems. James and Elle spend the day together, walking, talking, and driving around Tuscany. Do they know each other, or are they strangers who've just met? Kiarostami, who also wrote the script, never fully embraces an explanation, leaving it up to the viewer to decide what these people know, or don't know, about each other's lives.
Certified Copy never gives you the real thing; or if it does, it never gives it explicitly. James and Elle are always arguing separate points, clashing over ideologies, viewpoints, and philosophiesâevery facet of their personal and professional lives. The film never situates your allegiances to either character; at different times you find yourself agreeing with one but moments later may side the other way. This is shifty and slippery film that challenges the viewer as much as the characters challenge each other.
There have been many films about attractive people wandering through Europe, probing life's most enticing mysteries while falling in love. This subgenre has more recently been co-opted by Americans-in-Paris travelogues like Richard Linklaters' Before Sunrise and its sequel Before Sunset . Kiarostami knows this. He plays up the ambiguity in Certified Copy as a sly response to history of the subgenre, at once acknowledging the filmic stereotype of sexy, free-spirited Europeans waltzing through sun-drenched cities and falling in love, while subverting our expectations visually.
For example: in a restaurant scene, a female waitress whispers something in Binoche's ear that we can neither hear nor see. She reacts in such a way that affects the tenor of the rest of the movie. But we will never know its importance. In another scene, we can see a man and a woman standing next to each other. The man, it appears, is screaming at his wife. We assume an argument. With a simple change in perspective, Kiarostami reveals the man to be talking on a hands-free cell phone, his wife merely listening. The director's use of deep space, of obstructive objects in the foreground, and of reflective surfaces like windshields and mirrors, provide many ways to hide in plain sight.
The film is constantly establishing perspectives only to reveal them false. Kiarostami plays with the form of cinema, what we can see and what we cannot see, using single long takes that develop an idea visually, allowing the scene to evolve organically over time. Characters enter and exit the scene: as James and Elle react to the shifting landscape, so do our perceptions as a viewer.
Nothing much happens in Certified Copy, which is its charm. Despite an obvious lack of narrative complication, the film builds to an emotionally shattering climax. It is here that we understand the weight and import of James and Elle's relationship. Juliette Binoche, whose performance won Best Actress at the 2010 Cannes Film Festival, is devastating in the film's final moments.
Certified Copy is sure to provoke a strong response in anyone who sees it. I was captivated; some people are sure to be bored. But in Kiarostami we have a witty, provocative filmmaker indulging in beautiful photography and visually clever technique to produce a sweet and satisfying romance. It may not appeal to everyone, but Certified Copy is the first essential film of 2011.
| | | | Review Coming Soon. | | | | | Into the small world of the Courtesans the film dives directly and offers the viewer a delectable glimpse into the glamor, the mischief, and the heartache of a questionable profession. The variety of characters with their own specificities are hard to resist, and the remarkable settings paint a picture of a fantasy world with the vibrant colors and breathtaking countryside. With Michelle Pfeiffer (Lea) as the aging Courtesan who finds love where, and when, she least expects a ripe story of love and loss is portrayed and she gives a performance with such beautiful vulnerability and strength you cannot keep your eyes off of her for a moment. It is by far a film you will not soon forget, or guess as to what it has in store for the characters, and the audience. | | | | | This film may not be for everyone. The subject matter is not easy to handle and much of the dialogue is not for the faint of heart but it is an exceptionally fulfilling film. For being made on such a small budget and with a very tight shooting schedule it made the most of a though provoking character driven adaptation that is worthy of your time. | | | | American writer/director Aaron Schock wanted to make a documentary about a traveling circus, but in the U.S. that kind of entertainment is a relic of a bygone era. So, he went to Mexico. The subject of Schock's film, La Gran Circo de Mexico, is nowhere near as majestic as its name, consisting only of members of the Ponce family who can trace back their participation in the circus business a century. The leader of the family now, Tino Ponce, is a man determined to live and die by the circus. He and his wife Ivonne are raising their four children in the hardscrabble, nomadic existence of a traveling circus troupe. Circo doesnât spend much time on the ins and outs of the circus show or what appeal these small entertainments have on the out-of-the-way Mexican villages they visit. Schock's primary concern is on the Ponce family dynamic, immediately presenting the intense physical labor it takes to put on a new show in a new town every day, and then slowly revealing the even more severe psychological toll Tino's fanaticism wreaks on his wife and children. Circo has all the drama, heartbreak, and familiar discord of a telenovella, made all the more wrenching for its authenticity.
At the heart of the documentary are the Ponce children. As Tino says in a double-edged insight, "Without children, there is no circus." Alexia, the eldest girl, is a talented gymnast and contortionist; middle sons Moises and Julio practice gymnastics, train as clowns and walk the high wire; as the eldest son, Cascaras trains as the troupe's animal trainer and ringmaster, prepping to replace his father. Everyone does everything. At the crack of dawn, they help Tino set up the massive big top and take it down every night. Cascaras drives the semi truck of supplies from one remote village to the next. Every family member has multiple acts in each performance, a burden that wears heavily on young people who can't quite understand why they're doing this.
Tino's children are enacting a legacy. Tino's father trained him and his three brothersâwhose families all have their own circusesâin the only trade he knows. Generational tension is high; Tino's father still collects most of the circus' meager profits, to the great frustration of Tino's wife, Ivonne. Tino is a stubborn man, set in the old ways of tradition and these traditions are sometimes hard to stomach. In one scene, Tino's niece Naydeline, who can't be more than five years old, is forced to practice backflip after backflip at the insistence of her grandmother. The young girl screams and cries while contorting endlessly; all she wants to do is perform with hula-hoops like her older cousin. But circus performing is the family trade and it is strictly, blindly enforced, sometimes passed all sense and reason. Ponce children never attend school. Tino can barely write his own name; his own children stand little chance of ever rising above their own lot in life. Where most children in America dream of running away to the circus, the children of Circo dream of running from it.
Circo is a sad, complex insider's look into one family and the ambition that fuels it. Director Aaron Schock doesn't pass judgment on the Ponce family, but merely documents their inner workings and inevitable implosion. The traveling circus is a lost art, an entertainment form too often either idealized or demonized in an American nostalgia culture that cannibalizes its own history. Rarely has there been such a grounded, humanistic insight into the real grit and self-sacrifice required to entertain.
| | | | | Albeit this is an entertaining movie, but nothing really unique or striking goes on throughout. It follows the good vs. evil formula to a tee, and throws in a bit of the whole finding yourself and learning to stand up for what you believe themes, but the story itself is old and tired. The only new spin is incorporating the freaks into the mix but even they are a very small part overall of the plot at hand. Even with a dose of PG action the movie just never quite gives enough to satisfy completely, but it does not falter in making you feel it was a complete waste of time. Given this is the first installment is what may be a franchise you do feel a tinge of hope for what will come next in a sequel for that it seems is where the real fun shall begin. For now, you just get a tiny dose of enjoyment and a tone that is always fun and playful. | | | | "City Island" is a film built upon a foundation of family secrets. Small secrets have the ability to corrode the bonds between even the closest families and the Rizzo family is no exception. These hidden thoughts, habits and motives may have seemed harmless enough to keep, but over the years they have grown large enough to tear a hole in the Rizzo family bond. The lies that were meant to cover up something minorely shameful, ended up causing even more miscommunication and pain. Andy Garcia plays prison guard Vince Rizzo, a man who finds quiet release in taking acting classes. Rather than tell his family about his newfound interest in the dramatic arts, he decides to conceal it to avoid being made fun of and seen as less of a man. This tiny lie is misread by his wife, Joyce Rizzo (Julianna Margulies) and, instead of demanding an explanation, she jumps to the conclusion that he is unfaithful and vows to get even. Their daughter, Vivian Rizzo (Dominik Garcia-Lorido), has dropped out of school because of financial issues and has taken on a rather unsavory occupation. Their youngest son, Vince Jr. (Ezra Miller), is dealing with his newly forming sexual fantasies. Ironically, it only takes one person to enter the home of this tight-lipped family for all the secrets to come spilling out. Tony Nardella (Steven Strait), an inmate that Vince took a special interest in, was released into the custody of the Rizzo home. He becomes an innocent bystander that gives the audience a more grounded perspective of the family relationships. However, in a bizarre twist of discovery, we find that Nardella may not be exempt from the secret keeping after all.
Although "City Island" has a relatively simple premise and plot structure, it is a film that is so tightly wound and clean that it moves along like a well oiled machine. The film never loses the audiences' interest because it has layers like an onion and to watch this film is to constantly peel back layers of secret meaning. This film is is heartwarming, serious and back breaking funny; but perhaps its best quality is that it is uncompromising and brutally honest. | | | | "Your money would be better spent on lottery tickets." - my unfortunate movie companion to "Clash of the Titans".
After the above comment I do not think there is any more that needs to be said in regards to the Production of this film. What I have written so far has consumed more time than the film is worth. | | | | | It's raining every type of imaginable food, and I like it. This movie may not be full of laughs but it is full of visually delightful animation and has a great moral at its core: accepting people for who they are and loving them all the more for being unique. With the not so mad scientist Flint creating food out of water all sorts of chaos breaks out when the 'food weather' takes a terrible turn for the worse. That is when the real fun begins and the action adventure element of the story takes flight, literally. Be prepared to battle evil Gummy Bears and headless chickens defending their creator. Along with a wonderfully greedy, obese and grossly excessive town Mayor. There is also a really sweet love story thrown in between Flint and the weather girl, Sam Sparks. If you want something entertaining, light, and fun for everyone this film will not disappoint. | | | | | A delightful film that is fun and enjoyable with enough lightheartedness to keep you upbeat throughout while adding a dose of drama to keep you engaged. It serves its purpose as pure entertainment while serving a small dose of romance and the theme of finding ones self. Not to mention it is a hyperbolic explosion of color on screen. | | | | Conviction is something of a rarity in modern film culture: a well-acted ensemble drama for adults that doesn't engage in sensationalism or visual trickery to hook its audience. But given it is based on a true story, undo sensationalism would be superfluous. The film opens in Ayer, Massachusetts in 1980. A handheld camera sweeps through an empty house gradually revealing bloody handprints on the sink, on the refrigerator, on the walls; a murder scene. Three years later, Kenny Waters (Sam Rockwell) is arrested, tried and sentenced to life in prison for the murder. Kenny's sister Betty Anne (Hilary Swank) never doubts Kenny's innocence and dedicates her life to overturning his sentence. It's no spoiler to tell you she succeeds. What is so gripping about the film is how it tracks the trials and tribulations of one woman's singular dedication to justice. When Kenny was arrested, Betty Anne didn't even have a GED; while juggling a failing marriage and two young sons, she financed college and law school to become her brother's lawyer when no one else would.
The film flashes back between Kenny's trial and appeal to Kenny and Betty Anne's troubled childhood as the children of a deadbeat mother. As kids, they were routinely arrested for breaking and entering and other petty crimes. Although they were virtually orphans just looking for a home and some solace, the Massachusetts police didn't see it that way. The pair were separated and sequestered in different foster households. Betty Anne grew out of her delinquency; Kenny didn't.
Because Conviction hews so closely to its factual basis, at times the action is slow. The truth of the matter is that Kenny had to rot in prison while Betty Anne worked toward her law degree. It is not until she meets up with a fellow law student, Abra, played by Minnie Driver, and the two begin to re-investigate the crime that the film picks up some steam. The two crusading lawyers bring a determined energy to the reinvestigation, showing up everywhere-records offices, crime labs, police stations-to personally sift through twenty year old evidence. This police procedural section of the film feels the most familiar, but it is also the most entertaining.
Pamela Gray's screenplay also does a good job of accurately portraying the friendship between Swank and Driver. Unlike most female friendships in movies, when Driver's Abra calls out Betty Anne over her depression, the friendship doesn't end. Betty Anne recognizes she's right and they continue looking for evidence that could overturn Kenny's conviction. That the script and film bring so much strength and authenticity to typically overlooked relationships (brother and sister and female friend/colleagues) is one of the great pleasures of Conviction. Although the story occasionally veers into melodrama (unavoidable considering the subject matter), the movie never feels like it is working to manipulate the audience.
 | | | | | To put it quite simply...the movie does not work. It has a storyline, about a baseball card that gets stolen, that branches out into so many directions your focus is forever lost. One second it's all about the card and the next a gang of drug dealers. The buddy cops, Willis' Jimmy and Morgans' Paul, are a definite odd couple in the worst way as the differences in their characters and delivery do not complement but actually alienate. Paul is such a simpleton you are shocked they allow him to carry a gun. I suppose that in itself is a joke against the police force but still, you almost feel sorry for him and his inability for intelligent and skillful thinking. As for Willis' Jimmy, he must have forgotten this is a comedy as I fail to remember anything remotely funny come from him or if he ever cracked a smile. The movie may have its comedic moments but as a whole it is not worth the time it takes to watch the trailer. | | | | | Although the film is visually remarkable and inventive the story is not very exciting. It takes you from the real world into a fantastical place where a child's dreams appear to be fulfilled, but only if one is willing to let go of their soul. The eyes are seen as the gateway to the soul and in order to live within this fantasy world Coraline must have her eyes removed and replaced with buttons. What at first seems to be the greatest place to live turns into a living nightmare, but not one that really makes you fear for her safety or future. It does make you happy that finally there is some sort of suspense and action, albeit towards the very end. Any form of remark about the film is sure to be the "look" of it, not the actual story and/or plot. | | | | | Marriage is difficult and it takes some effort to make it work. Well, duh. It doesn't take a tropical resort vacation to figure that out, but that's basically all that happens in this movie. Jason (Jason Bateman) and Cynthia (Kristen Bell) are having problems with their marriage so they decide to go to a couples therapy paradise called Eden. The problem is they can only afford the trip if they purchase the group rate. Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding! The bells of convenience ring as the rest of the characters just drop their lives and come along for the painful ride. That's mostly what's wrong with this movie; everything from the overly convenient plot, far too attractive wives, and the glossed over happy ending screams out fake plastic trees Hollywood. We don't feel sorry for these characters because they're not characters, they're just some likeable actors having a grand old time in Bora Bora. The great cast looks like they had fun during their time together; our time however, is wasted on an unromantic, unmemorable, and banal piece of filmmaking. | | | | Set in 1873. Cowboys & Aliens starts with Jake Lonergan (Daniel Craig, who is also James Bond) waking up in the Arizona desert with no memory and a big, metal bracelet on his arm. When he makes it to the nearest town, he discovers that he is wanted by the law. Before being arrested, he meets a mysterious woman named Ella (played by Olivia Wilde from "House"), who seems to know who he is and claims to "need" him. While Jake is being turned over to federal marshals, a powerful cattle farmer named Colonel Woodrow Dolarhyde (Harrison Ford, who is also Indiana Jones), from whom Jake has stolen a sum of gold, rides in and tries to take Jake himself for a little "frontier justice." Before Dolarhyde can get Jake away from the marshals, the town is attacked by crazy flying crafts that shoot lasers, blow things up and lasso the townspeople and fly off with them. During the assault, Jake discovers that his bracelet is actually a gun and shoots one of the things down. The creature that was piloting the craft flees, and Dolarhyde (whose son is one of the abducted townspeople) organizes a tracking party to follow it. Dolarhyde and Ella wisely convince Jake to join the expedition, since he seems to have the only weapon that is effective against the aliens. Along the way, the group not only has to deal with more alien attacks, but is also confronted by more typical wild-west obstacles like Indians and outlaws. Eventually, Jake regains his memory and Ella reveals her true identity, and the group realizes that there is more to the quest than simply getting their family and friends back from the aliens.
There are a lot of huge names attached to Cowboys & Aliens. Not only does it feature both James Bond and Indiana Jones, it is directed by Jon Favreau, who directed both Iron Man films. It is produced by Favreau and, among others, Steven Spielberg and Ron Howard. The visual effects were done by Lucasfilm and the sound was mixed at Skywalker Ranch. There are some heavy Hollywood players involved with Cowboys & Aliens, and it all adds up to summer blockbuster.
There's more to Cowboys & Aliens than high-tech effects, sweet sound and a high-profile cast. Slick production is nothing without a captivating story, and Cowboys & Aliens has a great story that is not only original, but entertaining. The film avoids being a simple mash-up of genres by playing more to the science fiction angle instead of the western one, and the result is less gimmicky than one would expect. The whole thing feels like an organic and genuine science fiction film. | | | | | The entire film is merely an excuse for excessive violence, swearing, stereotyping, and nudity. The actual story is so ridiculous it is laughable while it has been shot with a video game aesthetic that can be utterly annoying and disruptive giving you little if any time to ever gain focus. | | | | Review Coming Soon. | | | | | With great relief this film moves away from the standard immigration story (Mexico and the U.S.) and portrays a variety of people from different Nations attempting to become nationalized in the United States. The promise of the film as a whole is great but the actual delivery is not the greatest. The film is not boring, it will keep you in the moment because of the multiple story lines and the over the top actions of some of the characters; it is touching, moving, angering, even heart-wrenching at times but it lacks something. Something that cannot really be described, only felt. You leave the theater unsure, not really knowing if you enjoyed or film or not, but having learned something regardless. | | | | | In an attempt to escape the monotony of marriage, Clara (Tina Fey) and Phil (Steve Carell), head out for a night on the town. The result of this escape from the humdrum is a film bordering on just that; leaving the viewer to ponder whether staying home with their kids, a good book, or even quiet solitude would have been time better spent. There is simply not enough of an upbeat temperament to the film. It continually reminds us that this is a couple who lives a life lacking in excitement. They do not bicker, for these two people do honestly love and like each other, but they never let loose just enough to give the movie a hell on wheels level of excitement it desperately needs. When things do pick up everything suddenly comes to a crashing halt as marital counseling sessions make an inappropriate appearance. Time passes slowly as they meander through the city on the run from two corrupt cops who have been mislead that they are another couple. The role of mistaken identity is far too simple and the stupidity of all involved who believe Clara and Phil could be masterminds behind stealing from one of the most dangerous mobsters in town is hilarious in itself. It is a shame that the movie falls below expectations and is no more than a sad excuse to believe entertainment could be derived from placing two popular comedians on screen together. It takes more than star power to make a comedy great, as this film demonstrates quite clearly. | | | | | From the first blood curdling scream of a child a mere minute into the film you think to yourself...this should be an interesting ride. You are right. The plot is interesting. Almost the entire world population has turned into a Vampire and they run things now, using humans as a means for blood through harvesting. The problem is that the human race is dying out, and the blood reserves are empty. The entire world is starving and without a solution the Vampires will die also. This epidemic they are facing is allegorically presented in relation to world hunger which gives the movie a grander meaning when looked upon closely. They are also inevitably searching for a cure for humanity itself. To be rid of the soulless undead who are full of greed and power from their presumed invincibility. Not only do get a horror/thriller/science fiction film full of deeper meanings and tons of metaphors but it also delivers on the action and conspiracy levels. It may not be extremely fast paced as it does take its time moving along but it never puts you in the place of feeling like you are waiting for something to happen. You may think it takes itself overly serious at times but it is trying to be more of an intelligent horror film. No harm in their attempt as far as I could tell. When it fails at the seriousness just laugh for a second. Laughing is never a bad thing. | | | | No one can forget the rush of a first love; the excitement, the uncertainty, and quite often, the resulting pain. Savannah (Amanda Seyfried) and John (Channing Tatum) meet on the beach while vacationing one summer. From the moment they meet there is an undeniable connection between them and, after falling in love under a moonlit sky at a backyard barbeque, they are completely inseparable. The problem? They only have two weeks in this beachside paradise until they have to return to their respective lives. John is a soldier on leave until he recovers from a minor bullet wound. Savannah is a university student strongly involved with special needs children. In order to make their relationship work, they decide to correspond through detailed letters while he is deployed.
Dear John, a film by director Lasse Hallstrom based on the Nicholas Sparks book by the same name, attempts to capture the intensity and intimacy of a new relationship. While the film does have the audience blushing, smiling and crying right along with the characters, it also uses almost every cliche ever written and never really allows for any character development. Instead of revealing the inner thoughts of the characters, the film offers a very external view of their relationship. Therefore, although their relationship is sweet, the viewer is never akin to its depth. Dear John also has very poor transitions between scenes and the emotional impact is often cut off at the knees because the film rarely allows emotional moments to linger and fully develop. This results in a film that constantly feels a little bit like a trailer: the emotion and sweetness may be captured brilliantly, but at the film's end, we still don't feel like we really know Savannah and John, we just know what they do and what is happening to them. | | | | | Death does not have to be serious; and this movie shows us it can be downright hilarious. Revolving around the funeral of a beloved father, uncle, friend, and so on, the movie may appear to be about the grief of a family. It could not be anything further from it with excellent results. The funeral may hold the movie together but it is the constant dosing of comedy that keeps you entertained and loving every single moment. As secrets are revealed and decisions made you come to love this dysfunctional family for with everything they do, it is done with care, concern, and love. Even if it is in the most outrageous and out of the ordinary methods. | | | | | What could have been an epic story about fighting for ones survival against oppression and evil is instead a melodramatic bore. As a viewer you | | | | | For someone so despicable, Gru sure does come across as a bit of a softy and kind of lovable. It might have something do with the continuous use of playful music that accompanies his evil doings or the plain fact that he is not your average evil mastermind. To be honest, Gru is not a very successful villain. His plans never match up to the expectations. He did steal the Eiffel Tower - the one in Las Vegas. Same goes for the Statue of Liberty. By having Gru play at being a mean old grinch of a villain only makes the movie stronger as it is not really about his plan to steal the moon in order to become the greatest villain of all. A title that has been bestowed upon his newfound nemesis, Vector. This movie is actually about family and opening your heart up to love. This part of the plot coming in the form of three orphan girls Gru adopts as a part of his moon stealing plan. As plans go, especially with Gru, things do not always turn out how they were intended. Despicable Me ends up being a feel good movie as Gru and the girls bond over time. As much as it would have been nice to see the story line of Gru vs. Vector elaborated on a bit more you walk away satisfied because of the sweet sentiment Gru develops and the love he ends up sharing with his girls. In the end Gru becomes an unlikely hero, in both his personal life and the villain world. | | | | | Do you remember the days of debilitating, nay, paralyzing self-doubt? The torturous days in the gridlocked classrooms of what is more formally known as Junior High school? As our hero Greg astutely remarks, it's the place where "parents dump their kids so they don't have to look at them" while they're going through this awkward stage. As much as you may have hated being in middle school, Director Thor Freudenthal's children's film "Diary of a Wimpy Kid" does a great job of putting you right back in the shoes of your sixth grade self. Suddenly we are transported back into a world in which following the social rules and regulations imposed upon you by your fellow classmates become of utmost importance. Our guide is Greg Heffley (Zachary Gordon), a precocious sixth grader whose goal is to make it into the yearbook as one of the "class favorites". In order to reach his goal, he does everything he can to try and be what people want him to be. Ironically, everything he tries gets him bumped further and further down the ranks in popularity. Greg becomes the perfect narrator to guide us through the ups and downs of middle school life precisely because he is not one of the cool kids and has a removed perspective. Zachary Gordon is able to portray the blindly self-confident Greg with just the right amount of cockyness and vulnerability to make you feel for his every success and failure. Greg and his best friend Rowley Jefferson (Robert Capron) have great chemistry that the film is essentially built upon. Capron plays the bumbling, good-natured Rowley with just the right amount of spunk and naivete. In this heart-warming film about learning to find your own voice, your spirits will be lifted and you will find yourself turning back into your middle school self: bad hair, braces and all. | | | | Review Coming Soon. | | | | | Take an estranged couple from the big city and place them in a small town together without any outside communication. Sounds like a recipe for a great romantic comedy. Think again. The movie spends a great deal of time poking fun at small town life and belittling the people who live in Ray, Wyoming so it forgets to actually develop a romantic comedy. Sure they throw in a couple of funny scenes between the couple, Meryl and Paul, but they are short and not so sweet. Meryl continually comes across as a bitter, miserable New Yorker who is more excited over a ten dollar sweater than getting to know her husband again. Paul is but a bumbling idiot for the greater duration, trying everything in his power to win Meryl back and only looking pathetic in the process. Do yourself a favor and watch a tried and true romantic comedy you have seen before. Time would be better spent in repeat then a first look at this pile of worthlessness. | | | | | An easy task of bringing a schmuck to dinner ends up turning Tim's (Paul Rudd) world upside down. For the viewer, it also gets a bit bumpy along the way. All Tim wants is a promotion to the 7th floor. As his assistant states, their floor smells like cabbage and she needs to get away from all the loser's. His quest for respect in the company and the oh so bright new office can be attained if he manages to pull off one thing: find the perfect schmuck to impress his boss at the annual idiot dinner. The moral dilemma of agreeing to openly exploit those who are different runs deep in Tim but when he meets Barry (Steve Carrell) he sees just how easy it can be and the harm of it all is easily overlooked. Befriending Barry, the taxidermist who recreates famous paintings, moments in history, and the like with dead mice, is not just a one night event for Tim as he had planned. Barry shows up a day early and the next twenty-four hours of Tim's life involves one catastrophe after another. The majority of the movie is spent during the hours leading up to the dinner. We follow Tim as he tries to mend what Barry consistently breaks in his life. It is all well and good as the comedic moments remain steady but the impending dinner feels far away consistently when it is what you inevitably crave to see as time goes by. This is not to say the film bores you with too much material beforehand but it does lack a strong focus throughout. You are never quite sure what the main plot is exactly as you are bombarded with quite a few different storylines all involving the same characters and none of them are very interesting or different from what has been done or seen before. All of the lines of action do not get resolved until the end so the amount of questions that build upon each other throughout become overwhelming. What seems to be a simple comedy becomes something that is simple, but convoluted at the same time. | | | | Review Coming Soon. | | | | | You should already be at the theatre watching this movie. | | | | Dolphin Tale is based on the true story of Winter, a dolphin that was injured by a fishing trap and had to have her rear tail removed due to infection. It is also about the relationship between Winter and the young boy, Sawyer Nelson (Nathan Gamble), who assisted in the rescue of her on the beach in Florida. Dolphin Tale falls right in line with films centered around animal care, rescue, and bonding, such as Free Willy. It is an emotional roller coaster, and not purely because of Winter's story alone.
Sawyer Nelson is a boy who does not do well in school, has no friends, and is very lost. His father left a few years ago and while his single mother Lorraine (Ashley Judd) loves him dearly the loss of his father has left Sawyer damaged. Sawyer's cousin Kyle (Austin Stowell) tries his best to play the father-figure Spencer desperately needs but Spencer is unique, and his shyness is hard to overcome; Kyle leaving on deployment does not help matters either. A fated meeting on the beach with a dolphin soon to be named Winter changes Spencer's life forever, just as it changes Winter's too. Spencer becomes involved with the Clearwater Marine Hospital where Winter is taken, and it is the bond he forges with Winter that gives him the ability to come out of his shell as well as her the ability to fight for her own survival when her tail is removed.
The course of Winter's treatment at Clearwater Marine Hospital is fascinating. She finds the ability to swim without her tail but her struggle is not nearly over. Fate steps in again when Winter is in need in the form of tragedy. Kyle is injured at war and sent to the VA hospital back home. Spencer visits him there and meets a prosthetics doctor, Dr. McCarthy (Morgan Freeman), that just may solve the problem Winter faces by not having a tail. What looked to be a movie about a dolphin learning to swim again turns into a moving story about overcoming disabilities, for a dolphin and people alike.
Dolphin Tale is a great movie, full of inspiring moments that evoke deep emotional stirrings with a lead child actor who shows immense talent. It is the combination of the incredible bond between Winter and Spencer, and the positive reinforcement Winter has on disabled people that makes it full of sentiment and heartwarming. As true stories go this is one you will want to watch because of the positive messages it portrays, and it has the happiest of endings. | | | | Guillermo del Toro knows scary. As a producer, writer and director he has been responsible for such horrifying films as Pan's Labyrinth, The Orphanage and Cronos. So when he says that the 1973 T.V. movie Don't Be Afraid of the Dark is the scariest movie ever aired on television, people listen. And when he wants to remake it, people let him.
Don't Be Afraid of the Dark stars Katie Holmes (who found fame as Joey Potter on "Dawson's Creek") as an interior designer named Kim who, along with her architect boyfriend Alex (played by Guy Pearce from Memento), is renovating a beautiful gothic mansion. When Alex's daughter Sally (Bailee Madison from Just Go with It) comes to live with them, strange things start to happen. Sally discovers a hidden basement to the house and, while playing in it, hears voices coming from an old sealed off fireplace. Sally opens up the fireplace to investigate, unwittingly setting free dozens of weird little creatures that are afraid of bright lights and feed on human teeth. Of course, at first, Alex and Kim think that the creatures are simply figments of Sally's vivid imagination, but soon they realize that the odd happenings around the house are more than just coincidences. Kim does a little research and finds that the house has a sinister history. Sally, Kim and Alex learn the secret behind both the creatures and the house, and decide they must get out of the house before it's too late.
Del Toro and Matthew Robbins (who also collaborated with del Toro on Mimic) give Nigel McKeand's ("The Waltons") original teleplay a modern spin and turn it over to first-time director Troy Nixey (more famous as a comic book artist) with terrifying results. Don't Be Afraid of the Dark is suspenseful, frightening and just plain creepy. The movie is not perfect; the acting is inconsistent and the dialogue borders on corny. However, these faults can be overlooked when the film is seen as the sum of its parts. Nixey takes an uneven script and average actors and turns them into one heck of a scary movie. | | | | | The subject matter may not be for everyone but this is a very well done film. It has drama and suspense and mystery all rolled up into one. The film is filled with moments that you may not soon forget and revelations that cause you to gasp. | | | | Being confined to one house for nearly the entire film there is no choice than to feel suffocated just like the characters. Karl (Robin Hill) and Bill (Robert Hill) have recently been released from going to prison and are now concerned with discovering who set them up. As their paranoia and uncertainty rises yours does also as every question you have about what the family business is exactly, who is honest and who is deceitful, as well as why they are living scared, is never fully answered. You are forced to make conjectures, piece together answers, and hope that what your mind decides is going on is actually correct. Here we find the downfall of Down Terrace. It is trying very hard to be unique and subjective in so it forgets to give the viewer what they need, valid information. The few answers it provides only add confusion. The build up of a mystery succeeds from the very beginning because everything the family has done, or is doing, is never mentioned directly. They are obviously not honest citizens - murder and violence are quite frequent, as well as threats. Even the main players, or who has the most power, is not ever revealed; giving a nice twist to the patriarchal structure of most gangster genre films. Essentially this is a gangster movie tied up in a dark comedy and then wrapped around a mystery.
As the dry humor permeates the screen and everyone dives further into panic you are left without much substance. The B storyline concerning Karl and his pregnant girlfriend adds some much needed dimension after all of the he said/she said jabbering within the family. It is also the only time we see Karl attempt to change and become his own man who will not be ruled by the family or influenced by his father. The movie reaches its peak around halfway through and then flatlines until the final climactic scenes where it does something highly typical to gather shock and awe from the viewer but not unique. Thus ruining the entire experiment in non-conventional cinematic storytelling. You walk away still questioning much and feeling a tad cheated at how the ending became generic.
This film was screened during the 2010 Los Angeles Film Festival. | | | | | Finally a horror film that fulfills its purpose - to scare you (and make you laugh in that way only campy horror movies can). | | | | Initial reaction: When bad movies happen to great actors.
Peter (Downey Jr.) is on his way home from a business trip. His wife is scheduled for a c-section in a few days and he will for the first time in his life become a father. Ethan (Galifianakis) is on his way to Hollywood to pursue his dream of becoming an actor. When their paths cross everything goes wrong from that point on and in a certain twist of fate they end up driving cross country together. They are two men who could not be more different than each other; a perfect odd coupling - or not. The misadventures they encounter along their trip are meant to be funny and keep the viewer entertained with how just about everything can and will go wrong when you are paired with a man like Ethan. Alternatively, everything is completely unimaginative and frustrating. The casual surprises one desires from a comedy of this sorts are nonexistent. The jokes do not play well between Ethan and Peter, nor is their inevitable buddy romance on any level believable. When the twist comes that brings them together as a unit on a mission to get Peter home, it is an homage to the worst stagy direction you can imagine on screen. Include then the overemotional music that chimes in at that exact moment and all one can do is groan over the pathetic attempt at making these two characters mesh even with their different personalities. Due Date goes through the motions as it must and relies on the general likability of its stars to carry the film. But without solid material to work with or a developed screenplay with well-targeted jokes and non-cliche scenarios it merely becomes a film that one might want to omit from their resume. | | | | | The charming smile of Clive Owen (Ray) could not save this movie; or the star persona of Julia Roberts (Claire). It is quite frankly, a horrible mess. The entire film moves back and forth in time as the character's plan their con. The problem: you never know where in time you are, how you got there, or what is going on. By the time these questions are explained you have lost interest from being thoroughly confused the moment prior. It is an intriguing plot but the structure completely ruins it for an audience member. It is one thing to keep the audience guessing, it is another to completely leave them in the dark. | | | | | The film delivers a good amount of British humor and wit, while dealing with the collision of oppression and freedom in a changing world. It provides a wide variety of characters, all with very distinct personalities and desires, who play off of each other so well at times you may believe you are watching a real family having dinner, or tea. | | | | | As a woman just out of a divorce and a tumultuous rebound relationship, Liz Gilbert (Julia Roberts) decides to leave everything behind for a year. This decision, which takes her to Italy, India, and Bali, sounds like a grand adventure for a single woman to embark upon. While also breaking the stereotype of a single woman traveling alone as being strange, unnatural, and not proper etiquette. What results in the film is adventurous, but the motivation not wholly relatable. Liz's problems lie in her inability to exist without a man or accept the choices she has made in life. As she travels the world we are forced to watch her try and overcome these issues but it all becomes very monotonous and off-putting to watch for so very long. The main obstacle, herself, is always present but the needed additional trials to keep the story interesting do not exist or are never fully realized to the point where they appear to actually motivate the story along. Even her relationship in Bali, with Felipe (Javier Bardem), is translucent. The charm and connection they share is only briefly touched upon. It is enjoyable to watch her fall in love with pizza, embrace her newfound muffin top, or let her mind go in an Indian ashram, and see just how difficult that turns out to be. Yet the entire time all that crosses your mind is she is using other things to compensate for her being alone. Unable to be at peace with herself she is constantly filling the void with the inconsequential. Or using other people's misfortunes to occupy her time. The desire to see Liz as herself, free of the burden of having to do things weighs heavy on the viewer. If you can find a way to connect with Liz she may be a great character to get behind and root for her future. If you find she is nothing but an empty shell of a person seeking fulfillment in exotic places then the film will be a dire disappointment. As well as annoy you with the constant use of a hazy golden aura-like light behind her head that makes absolutely no sense except to highlight her blonde hair as her character is far from spiritual, or pure of heart and mind.
| | | | | This film is just another go at the man vs. his own creation story line; the poor man's Skynet comes to mind. It lacks any sort of new excitement, unless you consider mysterious text messages exciting and fresh. You are purely given a tired story that would fare better on the small screen, as a movie of the week, then in a theater. | | | | | A mystery thriller with little thrills and a mystery so overinflated you forget half of the pieces before the middle of the second act has played out. There is simply too much talking and explaining without enough revelations to keep the pace moving and your brain from wandering. Each moment you feel something big is coming it does not arrive. You are forced to keep waiting while given more and more information. When all has been divulged and the mystery is solved you simply sit back and realize you have known the answers for a very long time. The film just would not stop itself from going further than need be. | | | | | Family. Such a small word holds great meaning. This film takes the idea of family and examines how the people we think we know, those we love and care for, are not always whom we perceive them to be. As Frank ventures out on his journey to see all of his four children, after they have inadvertently cancelled on him to come and visit, he uncovers an unexpected truth about all of them: he does not know them at all. Just like the pictures he takes with his camera (with real film no less) of his children, the picture Frank has in his mind for them is a mere production. The reality is much different and very much an awakening for a father such as he who has spent his entire life expecting so much, and in turn never knowing the truth. With this comes the reality for Frank and the viewer how the pressures of family resonate in all of us throughout our lives. The solution is acceptance, something Frank discovers along the way providing the viewer with a heartfelt, warm and touching story about family. | | | | | Welcome to the workplace, enjoy your 90 minute stay...or not. Many of us go to the movies to escape from our reality. This movie offers little escape. Set in a suburban factory it is full of the archetype personalities you find everyday in your own world and some you hope to never encounter. There are multiple storylines and the unfortunate result is that they never fully come together in the end as planned. Perhaps that is the point, for when dealing with life nothing ever fits together perfectly into a little box. Then again, this is a movie, and cohesiveness is always something desired and needed. Regardless, you may be laughing throughout even if the end result leaves something to be desired. | | | | | For all the attempts the film makes to garner empathy from the viewer it is ultimately unsuccessful. Focusing on the need to develop a cure for a rare disease called Pompe, in which the main characters children are suffering, it delves into the politics of drug manufacturing and the trials of a family dealing with the foreseeable death of two adolescent children. The subject matter is heavy but the movie neglects a more melodramatic tone for sarcasm and jokes. Every moment that should be dramatic and touching is interrupted by a joke or sly remark. It ruins the entire scope of the film as the audience member is constantly torn between seriousness and comic relief. As the viewer you walk in knowing what to expect, melodrama. Why the filmmakers chose to offset this at every turn with pointless humor that feels completely out of place is a mystery. The end result is a film that could have given rise to emotions in the viewer that were deep and heartfelt. Instead you feel practically nothing up until the end and even then you are indifferent to the outcome. Its only redeeming quality is how it showcases the methods and decision-making of drug companies in the modern world. It never falters to tell the truth of how decisions are made and the altogether shady practices and consistent neglect for human welfare. The picture it paints is not a pretty one but it is honest. If anything the film does give the viewer one thing to go home with, knowledge. | | | | | This entire movie focuses on a variety of students at the Performing Arts Academy and their desire to "make it" in their respective fields. The issue is that the movie cuts between each of these storylines so quickly it only gives you a brief look into what makes these characters click. There is such little development for each character that caring whether or not they "make it" is impossible for the viewer. Not to mention how the film jumps around so quickly between school years that nothing is ever fully resolved. The ending gives you an idea of where they may heading but the excitement you could have felt for them if the film had given you the chance is invisible. This can only be due to the bad movie-of-the-week acting and poorly written script that includes little if any backstory for any of the characters. It would have been better to just show people singing and dancing for almost two hours then to try and attempt to develop a plot or cohesive structure. | | | | | This film would have been better had it stuck to what it is, an action movie, and not tried to dive heavily into drama and the solving of a crime. It is not terrible to watch as it has its moments of fun and excitement but overall it just barely delivers on its expectations. Plus, it does not have that one line to remember the hero by; a sad oversight on behalf of the screenwriter. | | | | In a film where the characters do not have names but monikers it goes to show that even they wish to be kept hidden from being recognized as part of the train wreck that is Faster. Driver (Dwayne Johnson) has just been released from prison after ten years and he is hell bent on revenge. A man of very few words he lets his car do the talking, and his over sized muscles. Fashioned with a classic Chevelle he tears down the streets on the way to his next victim. These victims are of course the people who set him and his brother up many years ago, leading to both of their deaths. Yes, both Driver and his brother were killed but Driver refused to die. He is now a "ghost" in the flesh and anyone who sees his marked tatoo runs from his presence. Cop (BIlly Bob Thornton) is assigned to the case of catching Driver, as well as Cicero (Carla Gugino). There is one more figure that makes an appearance in Driver's life, the technology genius who moonlights as a hired assassin. His name? Killer. Catchy, isn't it?
Now what is wrong with this revenge action thriller you ask? Everything, except the Chevy Chevelle. Although it is not boring, my attention was miraculously held for the duration, it is absolutely ridiculous and the writing is below the lowest of standards. You can see screenwriter's Tony and Joe Gayton attempt to draw from prior exploitation films and even the kitschy cult mainstays that draw in audiences to this day late on a Saturday night. They have missed the mark completely. The lines that should be serious, yet funny, just sound stupid coming out of the character's mouth. When Cop's wife (Moon Bloodgood) screams at him that she is "getting her associate's degree" I nearly wept from the horror of the line delivery. Better yet was Gugino's Cicero using the word "Dude" at the end of a sentence when speaking to Cop. The look on her face expresses what you are thinking - how much worse can this get? It gets worse, every time the frightening sound of the western score pipes up. Then more so when the gospel becomes a part of the story. The blatant attempts to create something from Faster that could become a cult sensation turn out to be it's inevitable downfall. Had Director George Tillman Jr. made some adjustments he could have had a low level revenge/thriller/action film that could contend with the masses. This is not the case and so one can only run faster, and faster, to avoid Faster. | | | | | The film moves along incredibly slow and possesses no real substance. There is little, if any, character development and it fails to show you just why this guy from the streets is seen as such an excellent fighter for he never proves himself to the audience. Without this very important element in the story you are left with nothing to grasp. | | | | About halfway through Final Destination 5, Tony Todd (better known from Candyman, and also a veteran of the first three Final Destination movies) delivers the line, "I've seen this before." So have we, Tony. So have we.
For those unfamiliar with the Final Destination films, they basically all have the same story; just before a horrible catastrophe, one of the characters has a vision that the disaster is going to take place and saves a group of people. These people, who have "cheated death," spend the rest of the movie dying in strange and creative ways as death makes its way through them. In Final Destination 5, the character who has the vision is a likeable guy named Sam (Nicholas D'Agosto from Fired Up!), and he saves a group of his co-workers, including his ex-girlfriend Molly (Emma Bell from Frozen and "The Walking Dead") and his buddy Peter (Miles Fisher, who looks so much like a young Tom Cruise that he actually plays him in Superhero Movie), from a horrific bridge collapse. Of course, the survivors all start to die in crazy, unbelievable ways. Sam and the rest of the survivors are forced to find a way to cheat death a second time, or die trying.
The Final Destination movies are literally carbon-copies of each other. Every film has followed the same storyline as the first one, and Final Destination 5, despite a few small changes, is no exception. If these movies just keep rehashing the same ten year old plot, then why are they so much fun? Simply put, it's death. The antagonist is the entity of death itself, and death comes up with some pretty inventive ways to take people in Final Destination 5.
Final Destination 5 is a throwback to the earlier movies in the series. Directed by Steven Quale (who was the second unit director on Avatar and Titanic), it is more of a suspense horror film than a dark comedy. The screenplay was written by Eric Heisserer (who also did the screenplay for the reboot of A Nightmare on Elm Street as well as the upcoming re-reboot of The Thing), and he seems to make a conscious effort to steer the action away from the humor of 2009's The Final Destination. That's not to say that it doesn't make fun of itself; there are nods and winks to the past films throughout the picture. However, the new film plays a lot like the original, and it races towards an ending that is, in a word, genius. The last ten minutes alone are worth the price of admission. | | | | | Given the fact that this movie simply reuses much of what has been seen in other teen comedies it becomes very dull, very fast. The characters are not original and the plot is wholly predictable. One would do better to watch an old teen movie that you know delivers what you desire. | | | | | Here we have a story full of both revenge and redemption, focusing on two peoples complicated past and the one moment which brought them together. By showing the past through flashbacks through the minds of the two main characters you are given a window into the world they lived in, and the different world they inhabit now. As the story unfolds it only draws you further into their mindsets and the difficult choices they have to make in order to forgive, not only one another but themselves. | | | | | The story is interesting, and watching him fight for credit is dramatic. Overall though the film just does not do much for the viewer. You are never fully emotionally invested in his fight, and you actually find yourself questioning his actions far to many times as you should a protagonist. Watching the little man succeed is always fulfilling but getting to that point in the film is slow and unmoving. | | | | At the height of one particular scene between Jo (Janet Jackson) and her husband, he simply tells her, "You don't just have trust issues, you have issues." This line not only puts Jo's life into painful perspective, but the intersecting storylines of all the women within the film. This is indeed a woman's film directed by a man not afraid to set the enduring courageousness of all women on high while simultaneously blasting his own sex. Writer/Director Tyler Perry's ambitions to evolve artistically are tested as he adapts Ntozake Shange's critically acclaimed play into his own ballet, damaged souls and tragedy initially disguised by a beautiful fairy tale. In many respects Perry succeeds, especially in terms of casting. Everyone: the vivacity of Loretta Devine's Juanita, Kimberly Elise's heartbreakingly conflicted Crystal, the numbed soul of Janet Jackson's Jo, Anika Noni Rose's performance as a victim to trust, the self-loathing, self-prostitution of Tangie as played by Thandie Newton, Phylicia Rashad, Whoopi Goldberg, Kerry Washington... Tyler Perry is nothing but extremely lucky to have such beautiful talents bring poetry to the screen. The life of a colored woman is not set to the poetry of a pop song, but to the inflicted lyricism that rises out of a woman's struggle. Yes, as the title suggests, the issue of race is brought to light, but For Colored Girls is dedicated to all women tired of men saying "sorry", tired of letting sex and love ruin their lives, tired of being partially responsible for allowing it all to happen. Thanks to a gorgeous cast and Shange's original material, Tyler Perry brings to the screen a respectful love letter to all girls of the rainbow.
With all this said, For Colored Girls falls flat of greatness due to too much too often. Perry never learns to pull a punch, layering one emotional wallop of a scene after another and another and another... The result is overkill despite what powerhouse performance the audience is currently witnessing. With no room to breathe or build, it becomes impossible to completely fall in love with the movie and catharsis is replaced by exhaustion. Even Perry's faithfulness to the original play betrays him as one poem after the other calls too much attention to the production being an adaptation. It all never feels quite right, with scenes feeling staged, even hokey at times. For Colored Girls is sincere and heartfelt in its admiration for women, but mixed results are the consequences of being overly sincere to the stage.
| | | | | If you are looking for a film that will make you laugh, you have found it. The story is enjoyable, as our the performances by an ensemble cast. It it overall a film that serves its purpose, to entertain. | | | | "I think I might be confused, but I'm not sure." So says Waj, a dim, young British Muslim who just happens to be a terrorist with a bomb strapped to his torso. Bad time to be confused. Waj is just one in a gang of homegrown terrorists at the center of Four Lions, a satirical comedy from British provocateur Chris Morris.
Bound to offend some but guaranteed to entertain all, the film's protagonists are a gang of wayward Muslim men: their leader Omar (Riz Ahmed) lives a comfortable middle class existence with his wife and son; his friend Waj (Kayvan Novak) is the well-meaning idiot of the group; there's the crazy one, Faisal (Adeel Askhtar) whose master plan involves training crows as suicide bombers; Hassan (Arsher Ali), the young one, and Barry (Nigel Lindsay), the Britisher whose recent conversion to Islam has rendered him the most extreme of the group. They're all blunderers but Barry's absurd bluster takes the cake. An overt stereotype of Muslim extremism, upset at his crummy car's ailing parts, Barry explodes in irate intolerance, "Jews invented spark plugs to control global traffic!!"
Again, confusion. Four Lions doesn't forcibly ask questions about terrorism or law enforcement or happiness or unhappiness, but it delves so deeply into the flaws and eccentricities of its characters that these questions arise in the viewer naturally. Why, for instance, does Omar, who has a steady job and lives in the suburbs, commit himself to a life of martyrdom at the expense of his young family? In an effort to explain to his young son why he was away at a terrorist training camp, Omar compares himself to Simba and his quest for Jihad to the plot of The Lion King, which gives the film its title. Waj, whose childlike simplicity makes him a natural subordinate to Omar (the Timon or Pumba to his Simba, if you will), constantly compares the ultimate thrill of the martyr's heavenly reward to an amusement park ride. "Rubber dinghy rapids, bro!" he repeats over and over with the same glassy-eyed fanaticism Lennie enthused for rabbits.
And while we're privy to the inner-workings of homegrown Jihad, the so-called authorities are none-the-wiser. They're just another clueless group of men crusading for a cause they probably don't even believe in. Like any worthy satire, Four Lions highlights the inherent absurdity of existence. The terrorism bent lends the film an air of eerie prescience, but "terrorist satire" is not its defining legacy. Four Lions leaves you with a nagging sense of sadness and exasperation at having witnessed the hilarious, touching and ultimately tragic trajectory of men who ally themselves with a cause from which there is no coming back. It's a classic slice of satire and a film worth seeing, regardless of your political ideology.
| | | | Review Coming Soon. | | | | | This film is an appalling addition to the horror genre. It spends an incredible amount of time on a storyline that is boring and predictable and even less time giving meaning to why Jason kills any of the characters. It goes against the standard horror movie format and by doing so delivers nothing to the audience that is entertaining, scary, or new. It instead offers an absurd plot and acting that goes beyond bad, even for a horror movie. | | | | Charley Brewster (The Beaver's Anton Yelchin) is a normal high school kid living in suburban Las Vegas. He's got a cool mom (Toni Collette from The Sixth Sense), a hot girlfriend named Amy (Imogen Poots from 28 Weeks Later) and a vampire that just moved in next door to him. Charley's friend Evil Ed (Christopher Mintz-Plasse, who was Red Mist in Kick-Ass) tries to warn him about his new neighbor, a charming stud named Jerry Dandridge (Colin Farrell from Horrible Bosses), but Charley doesn't believe him. One by one the families from the neighborhood disappear, and soon Charley accepts the truth about Jerry: that he is a vampire. Along with Amy, Charley enlists the help of a Las Vegas showman and "vampire hunter" named Peter Vincent (David Tennant, the Doctor himself from the BBC's "Doctor Who"), who Charley quickly learns is nothing more than an illusionist and a fraud. Nonetheless, Peter is all the help that Charley and Amy have as they fight to save the neighborhood and themselves from Jerry.
Fright Night is a fairly faithful remake of the campy 1985 film of the same name. Director Craig Gillespie (Mr. Woodcock) takes screenwriter Marti Noxon's (I Am Number Four) update of Tom Holland's (the man who also brought the world Child's Play) initial story and turns the volume up. The acting is upgraded immensely from the original, so the reboot is more of a traditional horror film than a campy b-movie tribute. Fright Night is still the same cool vampire flick, but with the upgraded production values it just looks slicker. This is how horror movie reboots should be - fix the flaws in the original film without compromising the fun. | | | | | Ahhh, an action buddy flick with panache. The quintessential pairing of an odd couple, to an extreme, is what we find in this film. On a mission that is never clear, with a plan that may as well be hatched out of a mad mans brain, Wax (John Travolta) and Reece (Jonathan Rhys Meyers) make their way through the story by shooting, mutilating, and contorting bodies with grandeur. Reece is a mere prop though in comparison to Wax, the true scene stealer and a riot in his antics. Wax can take down six men in a matter of seconds, and come out smiling ready for more. He is the equivalent of a good Cocaine Cowboy, so to speak. A cowboy that will have you laughing over his disregard for political correctness and inability to hold back any thought or idea that may come into his mind. Travolta appears to delight in playing Wax on screen and the enjoyment he is feeling radiates to the viewer. Wax is a man who loves what he does, and we love him all the more for how he does it; with robustness. The movie has the action to sustain itself, enough intrigue and mystery to keep us wanting more, and an all around comical infrastructure that makes an action movie, and this one in particular, a pleasant diversion. | | | | Review Coming Soon. | | | | | On paper the idea of meditating on life, death, one's decisions and the subsequent consequences through the eyes of comedians sounds amazing. Throw Director Judd Apatow into the equation and one fills up with warm excitement. And yet, the movie never really works. The film serves as a behind the scenes look into the comedic writing process, but the audience is ultimately still left in the dark. It tries also to be an insight into a typical comedian's life: the struggle, competition, fame, loneliness; but the audience never really feels any of it. It's as if weâve been invited to an intimate family dinner while knowing in the back of our heads that they don't want us there at all. Add to all of this a slow moving 146 minute running time and the outcome is an ambitious challenge for artistic growth that unfortunately leaves the viewer saying, "nice try, better luck next time". | | | | | Every film aimed at children must have a good moral at its core. "Furry Vengeance" achieves this without question. The entire film though is not the greatest. Dan (Fraser) works for a large conglomerate housing developer who wants everyone to believe he runs a green business. When said developer decides to demolish most of the Rocky Springs forest to build a super community the greenness of the company quickly diminishes. Luckily, a very smart raccoon inhabits Rocky Springs and with the help of a few of his forest friends this development will never happen. Unfortunately, it is Dan who takes the brunt of the punishment. The movie starts out with much promise. It is entertaining for both children and adults, has a definitive message of preserving nature, and even shows the importance of honesty in business. It is only as the film continues that the steam is lost. Too much time is spent on the animals torturing Dan and driving him practically insane to really developing anything. There are no real arcs in the story or any type of climactic moments. It simply moves along on a straight and narrow path leaving the viewer dazed and by the end, inattentive. | | | | | From the moment the film begins you discover that it is lifeless. The guinea pig characters are cute to look at, but the personalities each one holds are far from entertaining. They are stereotypical (not shocking for a Disney picture) and repetitive. The adventurous nature of the film one may expect never finds its grounding, leaving little more than a boring story line and forgetful characters. | | | | | As I walked out of this film I immediately knew what I should write for the production portion of the review: avoid, avoid at all costs, save yourself. To merely write that seemed more than enough time and energy to give to a movie such as this. I say this because the film makes absolutely no sense for the most part. The attempts at explanation are so far out there and confusing you never fully grasp how things are happening. The virtual world and the real world tend to overlap which contradicts what you have been told before and then it is never explained how that happened or if it really did. Maybe they were still in the virtual world? I have no idea. From the lack of response from everyone else in the theatre, I do not think they had a clue what was going on either. One part that was entertaining, and wholly unexpected, occurs at the end with Michael C. Hall (Ken Castle) busting into a dance sequence as Gerard Butler (Kable) seethes with anger. That part was fun to watch, unlike the rest of the movie, even if it made no sense whatsoever (well, on that point it makes complete sense to have it in this movie). Save your time, money, energy, and any shred of respect for the movie-going experience you have and avoid this film.
| | | | | The mixing of comedy and science fiction in this film turns out something that is curious for the viewer. To say you will either love it or hate it is not far off from the truth. A host of out-there characters line the screen. Some of which are hard to stomach by their appearance. The writing is superb with its very unique character eccentricities, references to science fiction, development of the story, and how the seriousness that is intended resonates to the viewer as comedy. The final one being what is most evident and exciting about this movie. The seriousness has not failed, as in camp, but was intended to fail; but only where the viewer is concerned. In the movie it holds true and keeps the story moving. This is a serious story, with many bumps along the way for the main character Benjamin, that leave you either laughing or swearing at the screen. No matter how angry you may get or how many times you shake your head in wonderment at just how bad something can look or act in the end you will want to stand and up and cheer. | | | | | It is raunchy, unpredictable, out of control at times, and always hilarious. It is also sweet on sentiment and a story about two unlikely men who form a bond of friendship. Even if that bond if forged through drunken debauchery, prolific drug use, broken relationships, and torrid one night stands. "Get Him To The Greek" contains the mixture of outlandish humor and human emotion that makes it stand apart as it will make even the most stoic individual laugh and shake their head in disbelief at the gaul the filmmakers and actors have to put some of the material on screen for the world to see. As Aaron (Jonah Hill) tries desperately to get Aldous Snow (Russell Brand) to his performance at The Greek Theater he is met with every possible obstacle a rockstar can throw out. This makes for quite the wild ride with a multitude of twists and turns. As Aldous repeats throughout, "This is Rock N' Roll."; if that is true, then more rock n' roll for all of us please. | | | | Get Low is the story of Felix Bush (Robert Duvall), a hermit living in the Tennessee backwoods during the Great Depression. Felix has sequestered himself in exile for forty years, a self-imposed punishment for an unknown sin in his past. Bent and grizzled with age, he's become the subject of local rumor with a boogeyman reputation the crazy-haired, shotgun-toting Felix encourages. But what is this mysterious secret that Mr. Bush keeps and it is a really bad enough to justify a forty year withdrawal from society? The film doesn't answer that question until the last ten minutes, by which time perhaps no explanation is sufficient to support the suspense created in the beginning of the movie.
Felix takes an interest in his own legend, enlisting the proprietors of the local funeral parlor Frank Quinn (Bill Murray) and his assistant Buddy Robinson (Lucas Black) to throw him a funeral party so that he can hear the townspeople tell all their stories about the eccentric Mr. Bush. Quinn, who is not a particularly moral man and strapped for cash, gleefully agrees to throw Bush a funeral while he's still alive. Bill Murray is quietly brilliant in the role of Quinn and his unscrupulous business practices ("Ooh, hermit money. That's good.") are a highlight of the film.
We're clued into a possible solution to the mystery when Felix is re-introduced to an old friend named Mattie Darrow (Sissy Spacek). The two appear to have a romantic history and both have a connection to Mattie's long-deceased sister. Adding to the complications, Mattie also seems to be seeing Frank Quinn. This is where the film loses much of its interest, dissolving into a traditional melodrama. Instead of zeroing in on the quirks of the various characters and their struggle to come to grips with their complex and interconnected pasts, the movie is overwhelmed by hackneyed sentimentality. The ending in particular is marred by a conventional denouement; a shame which threatens to overshadow Robert Duvall's heart-wrenching monologue at Felix's funeral party.
Director Aaron Schneider previously won an Oscar for his short subject film Two Soldiers. Get Low often feels like an overly long short film; there just isn't enough plot to justify its feature length. The movie hinges on the reveal of Felix's past misconduct, a climax that is drawn out for much too long and undercuts the dramatic impact of his reveal. Although purportedly the story of a true American eccentric, Get Low delivers a disappointingly conventional tall tale. | | | | | This film offers nothing as a whole for the viewer. It is so focused on showing the womanizing ways of the main character that it completely forgets it is suppose to be a romantic comedy. Aside from decent antagonistic banter between Connor (McConaughey) and Jenny (Garner) they barely share any time together that makes you feel these are two people meant to be together. It is regretfully a romance that lacks any real semblance of romance throughout. | | | | | If you can think of all the expectations you have for a film such as this, and then imagine them all being fulfilled you have G.I. Joe. This movie is all about action, playfulness, and pure fun. The story works, the pacing is perfect, all the characters are great, and in the end you are smiling. Plus you get to see so many cool advanced weapons and imaginative technology your mind is constantly in awe. This movie brings back to life the action genre with a whole bunch of imagination and what matters most, great entertainment! | | | | | Great movies transform the bored spectator into an active participant by completely transporting him or her to another world. It could be a fantastical world full of adventure or a bleak reality full of loneliness and despair. Either or, the viewer expects some kind of fulfillment from a film after dedicating two hours of life to sitting in front of a flickering screen. If it's a comedy, we want to laugh, it it's a drama, we long for tension and emotion, and even from a documentary based on actuality, we crave insight and the sense that we learned something new. In a way, "Gigantic" tries to be all of these things, but it fails miserably because it tries too hard to be original, quirky, and to be "real." There probably is a true to life Brian Weathersby (Paul Dano) in the world; a guy who speaks in monotonous whispers devoid of enthusiasm because his life consists of a monotonous day to day routine selling mattresses trapped in a damp warehouse. But who cares? At least 90% of the world's population hates what they do for a living so why does Brian Weathersby deserve a movie? Okay, he's oddly obsessed with adopting a Chinese baby and he gets beat up by an imaginary bum, but these forced eccentricities don't make sense at all and they don't make up for holes in story development. Yes, real life often makes no sense, people come and go, and random things happen out of nowhere, but film cannot function this way. Filmmaking is an art form that requires skillful planning and masterful manipulation in order to simulate real life. It needs to make sense, we need to know characters in order to empathize, and randomness is not a substitute for story. Watching "Gigantic" is like observing people at the mall: it's interesting enough, but a movie? That would be far too boring. | | | | Review Coming Soon. | | | | Long distance relationships are difficult. This film does not try to change that well known fact. What it does do is offer a fresh perspective, from a younger point of view, on just how difficult they can be due to many circumstances while providing enough comic relief to make it worth watching. Erin (Drew Barrymore) and Garrett (Justin Long) meet over the summer in New York City. She is an intern with a New York newspaper while he works for a music label. Their romance is ill-fated from the beginning as she is due to return to graduate school in California in a mere six weeks. The agreement is that they will enjoy the six weeks they have and that is where their story ends. As is typical (in real life) with these types of summer romances the two do not want their relationship to end and embark on what they think will be an easily acceptable long distance relationship.
Upon this decision the movie could have moved in a variety of directions. It could have made it all look easy, or doable, in the long term. But what is so wonderfully refreshing is that it does not. Instead we see the real ways in which a long distance relationship is seemingly impossible to manage. Neither Erin or Garrett have discretionary income and it is made evident time and time again in the film just how expensive plane tickets are from one coast to another. Flying out every weekend, or month, is impossible. As for the holidays - forget it. Then there are the trust issues. How does one always trust in the other when you cannot always reach them due to time differences and you do not know their friends because you live on the other side of the country? It results in a variety of misunderstandings and things to overcome as the film unfolds. Considering the time difference there is the inevitable issue with making, and finding, the time to speak with one another. When Erin gets off work it is 4am in New York. On Garrett's lunch hour she is in school or sleeping. It makes for plenty of late night phone calls, missed calls, and the occasional video chat. Not much of a relationship. With all of that the question is constantly being raised by those close to both of them of just how much they really know about each other when they never spend the day to day together. Everything can be easy and practically perfect when you only see each other for a couple days every few months.
When Erin and Garrett are together there is a free-spiritedness to their relationship. They genuinely like each other and the confrontations that could occur do, but not so much as to overwhelm the film with drama. This is a comedy and it remains so throughout. It is also a film about two young people trying to find a way to be a part of each other's lives while living thousands of miles apart without a simple solution. It would appear an easy fix to have one of them move to be with the other but in true life form jobs are scarce in the newspaper and music business, respectively. As much as Erin and Garrett may care for one another they are responsible in their actions to not just pick up and go without a job. The dramatic love story may be lost there in the film, if you desire to see a grand gesture occur from one or the other, but it is what makes Going The Distance bearable to watch. The sappy romanticism of love is not present, just the honest tellings of what it means to make the hard choices and decisions in life. Some may watch the film and think it projects a selfish attitude at times but if you look closer you will find it is not showing the selfish tendencies of the characters but their independent natures. Erin and Garrett do not have an easy time of making things work but it is nice to watch them try. | | | | | The storyline is interesting and engaging but it falls short due to the poor acting ability of many of the cast. It is also full of a variety of racist comments and stereotypes that may be offensive to the viewer. | | | | | Where are those pesky WMD's? Good question. The answer is even better. In "Green Zone" an Army Chief (Roy Miller, played by Matt Damon) leads his Unit on the search for WMD's (weapons of mass destruction) in Iraq. After his intelligence keeps coming up short, and completely incorrect, he begins to question just how accurate a source his Country (the USA) is using. This is where the fun begins. The story turns into a full fledged action-packed suspense thriller with twists and turns and cover-ups. It questions who the real enemies are and who you can trust, what information is valid and what is fabricated, and whether the choices made were done logically or without basis leading to a twist at the end that will have you wanting to discuss the possibility, and probability, for hours afterwards. The movie is not anti-American but it makes some serious attacks upon the integrity of the United States' government's personnel while at the same time glorifying other members of the U.S. Government whose intentions are not solely fueled by the desire for power and absolute control. Dealing with a sensitive subject it attempts to answer a question many Americans' have been asking since the failure to locate WMD's occurred years ago and it does it splendidly. | | | | | Ben Stiller is Roger Greenberg in writer/director Noah Baumbach's newest film, "Greenberg". In this zany but honest film, 1970s neo-realism is the name of the game and everything from the zoom shots, coloring, drug use and use of diegetic sound is in line with this. Stylistically this film is refreshing to watch because it plays around with sound, cinematography and point of view boldly and unexpectedly. Roger Greenberg is a man who has just returned to Los Angeles after a year long stint in a psychiatric hospital. He's not crazy though, or at least not clinically; he checked himself into the hospital after having a severe emotional breakdown. Now he has returned to his old life and is determined to keep a safe distance from everyone to avoid leaving yet another destructive path of hurt behind him. Unfortunately, his plans to remain detached fall through. Not only does he reconnect with some ghosts from his past, including a past band mate (Rhys Ifans) and a former flame (Jennifer Jason Leigh), but he also ends up falling for his brother's assistant, Florence (Greta Gerwig). She is not exactly the girl of his dreams, but she is pretty enough to keep him coming back to her. It is interesting to see Roger, an odd and complex character who is blunt to a fault and has obvious anger issues, fall in love with someone as calm and organic as Florence. Ironically, Roger could not be worse for Florence: he has a tremendous capacity to injure, while she has a tremendous capacity to absorb the pain he incurs. However, together they manage to have some pretty spicy chemistry as they suffer each other's shortcomings. | | | | | As a true comedy, this movie has failed. As a showcase for discovering what matters most in terms of family and friendships, it achieves an average grade. Sitting back and watching the very large cast of characters meander through a weekend in the country reminiscing over their childhood experiences is not all together painful. At times, it is quite enjoyable. This is a softer and more grown up, no pun intended, version of the Sandler-Rock-Spade-James-Schneider type of film. No longer are these men playing at being boys but instead they are learning how to raise their own children. That there paves the way for an abundance of opportunities of pure hilarity. The movie never makes it that far though; leaving the viewer appeased with what they have been given but saddened at how so much promise has been wasted. | | | Review Coming Soon.
 | | | | Guy and Madeline on a Park Bench, the stunning debut feature from twenty-five year old writer/director Damien Chazelle, harkens back to a time when intimate, docu-realist love stories were common and the lines between film genres werenât so rigid. Chazelle's film feels both classic and thrillingly new, something we haven't seen much of since the French New Wave pioneered that kind of storytelling more then fifty years ago. Guy and Madeline is a love story set to music, scored by the jazz that he (trumpeter Jason Palmer) plays and she (Desiree Garcia) longs to share.
The set-up is as simple as the title as we're shown within the first five minutes how the couple met and that they broke up. The details are never provided. In the mean time, scenes of their interactions-a trumpet lesson, a charged and intimate subway ride-are intercut with scene of the pairs' lives apart. Madeline gets a job as a dishwasher at the Summer Shack and Guy shacks up with a girl named Elena (Sandha Khin) whose hobbies include lying about her name and picking up men in the park. Neither life is especially fulfilling and although the couple is apart, they seem to sense it.
Shot in beautiful black and white 16mm, Guy and Madeline has a wonderfully loose, hand-held spontaneity. Chazelle captures the characters' Boston environs in fleeting glances-kids playing in a fountain, street performers and flower peddlers blend together to provide the film's atmosphere of immediacy. Guy and Madeline are both adrift among the city's denizens, connected by the memories of music shared.
Holding together the shifting narrative is an original score with music by Justin Hurwitz, lyrics by director Chazelle and performed by the Bratislava Symphony Orchesta. Characters periodically break into song and dance numbers so suddenly, they catch you off guard in the middle of a scene and sweep you up in their magnetic beauty. The simple act of cleaning the Summer Shack after a shift becomes a full-blown MGM-style musical number, complete with tap dance solos on the countertops. Guy and Madeline is dotted with moments like these where it seems the pooled anxieties and frustrations of its characters cannot be suppressed any longer and burst into vibrant, electrifying life. And as soon as the numbers are completed, life returns to normal. Unlike classical musicals, there is no self-consciousness to the performances, nor any audience wink to the artificiality of the form. The feelings expressed are heart-felt and genuine. Guy and Madeline on a Park Bench is a totally unexpected and wholly welcome departure from most films you'll see this year-a truly romantic and engrossing cinematic experience.
This review was originally featured in our Frame of Mind as it was screened during the Anaheim International Film Festival, 2010. To see the original posting please go here. | | | | | If you have not seen the first re-make, by the same director Rob Zombie, of Halloween from a few years ago you will be completely lost during this movie. It is not just a sequel, it is a continuation. The changes made to it, from the first Halloween as the story is almost identical, are detestable. Michael is now lead by ghosts consisting of a white horse, his mother (looking ethereal while being evil in all white) and the remnants of himself as a child. Sound interesting? It's not, even in the slightest. The only really interesting part of the movie is one of the sub-plots involving Dr. Samuel Loomis (McDowell) and his quest for fame and notoriety through his first hand knowledge of Michael Myers past and the prior killings he did. This small fragment of a sub-plot cannot save this movie in any way. Gone is any form of internal desire or deeper meaning to why Michael kills. No, this film is only concerned with showing him kill and the gory mess that comes along with it. This is a sad excuse for a horror movie, or any type of movie at all. | | | | Under the fantastic direction of David Yates and a screenplay that may be the closest adaptation to the book yet by Steve Kloves, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part One is a more than fine start to the finish of the epic story that is Harry Potter. The times have changed for Harry, Ron, and Hermione as the world has grown darker from the formidable presence and strength of the Dark Lord, Voldemort. Their lives are no longer protected by the elder wizards, and the comforting halls of Hogwarts are only a mere memory of their youth. The kids who first graced the screen over nine years ago have grown up only to become young-adults fully capable of protecting themselves, each other, and their world.
This film truly belongs to Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), Hermione (Emma Watson), and Ron (Rupert Grint). Left alone together for the majority it is a quest of the closest friends to destroy the greatest evil as they must find and destroy Voldemort's horcruxes. The other characters we have come to grow fond of, from Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane), Mad-Eye Moody (Brendan Gleeson), Remus Lupin (David Thewlis) and the entire Weasley family all make their fateful appearances but as the Death Eaters take control of the Ministry of Magic and Harry Potter becomes public enemy no. 1 there is no choice but for Harry, and his two most trusted friends, to break away on their own. The time has officially come for them to take a stand, braving the cold winters, lack of rest and food, foregoing the security of home and maneuvering through the treacherous wilderness and towns, to put an end to the Dark Lord. The confinement seen in the prior films is no longer applicable as the scenery has changed. Grimwold Place still exists, as does the Ministry of Magic, and the Weasley's home, but it is the solitude that confines them in this installment, not stone or wood walls. Their magic keeps them hidden from their enemies but nothing is full proof when danger lurks around every corner and no one can be trusted.
Even in such dark times there remains the spark of childhood innocence in Harry, Hermione, and Ron. Their lives are no longer solely their own and their responsibility great but they can still find moments to jest with each other, feel the pangs of love, and even grab a dance to celebrate the holidays. This is a threesome that came to be out of necessity, the three odd-ball students at a school famous for family heritage. This film only secures fully the great bond of friendship they hold and how amongst even the most terrifying and horrific dealings they are a family who will do anything for each other.
When the final climactic moment comes at the end, where hope proves possible for Harry, Hermione, and Ron on their quest, just as evil grasps the ultimate powerful weapon, you are left with a bolt of excitement and inevitably begin counting down the days until the final installment of the franchise is released.
| | | | | The Harry Potter films will always be Cliff Notes to the books on which they are based, which inevitably prevents any movie in the series from achieving true greatness. Nevertheless, this installment comes pretty close. Although the mystery behind the Half-Blood Prince's identity is never fully developed, Director David Yate's vision of genuine dread more than makes up for any holes in the plot. Yes, this is as close to a Hogwarts horror film than any film preceding it. The movie is scarier, more art-house influenced, and the most emotionally satisfying of the mythology thus far. Fans looking for PG rated fun will still get their money's worth of laughs, but those craving artistic maturity to parallel Harry Potter's growth will not only be granted their wish, they'll be transfixed with healthy, series-continuing anticipation until next year. | | | | | The world of dating is examined and torn apart in this film and not for the better of the viewer or the characters. The entire movie is spent showing what the women in the film are doing wrong, or how they are wronging others, and everyone comes across as a needy, desperate, and pathetic being. This is not a feel-good movie for the single girl or guy as it does not promote understanding ones self but instead how to play a game with one another and hope you are the "exception, not the rule". | | | | The only thing that would be better than being able to quit a terrible job would be for the worker to be able to kill their boss. It's every McJob holder's fantasy. It's the American way. It's a concept to which just about everyone in the country can relate. How can a filmmaker go wrong with that premise?
Horrible Bosses is the new film from television director Seth Gordon (who's worked on just about every show on NBC's Thursday night lineup, including "The Office" and "Parks and Recreation"). It is the story of three friends who are all having problems with their respective bosses at work. Nick (Jason Bateman from "Arrested Development") has been slaving away while his boss, Mr. Harken (Kevin Spacey from American Beauty) dangles a promotion in front of him, only to pass him up when the time comes. Dale ("It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia's" Charlie Day) is a dental assistant who is constantly putting up with sexual harassment from his boss, Dr. Julia Harris ("Friends'" Jennifer Aniston). Kurt ("Saturday Night Live" cast member Jason Sudeikis) actually likes Jack Pellit (Donald Sutherland), his boss at the chemical factory where he works, until he is unexpectedly killed and his coke-head son Bobby (Colin Farrell from Miami Vice) takes over. Nick, Dale and Kurt cannot quit their jobs (for various convenient reasons), so they decide to rid themselves of the reasons why they are unhappy at work. Their quest for a hit-man leads them to a bar where they meet Dean "M-er F-er" Jones (Ray's Jamie Foxx), who gives them the idea to kill each other's bosses, and even becomes their "murder coach." Horrible Bosses follows the exploits of the three wannabe murderers as they try to plot and execute their plans.
Horrible Bosses has a scene where the characters compare their plot (and basically the movie) to Hitchcock's Strangers on a Train (and, in the same breath, Danny DeVito's Throw Mama from the Train). For having such a great setup, Horrible Bosses does not pack much punch. Its attempt at dark comedy is only dark because it involves a murder plot, and is only funny because of the cast. The story has a couple of good surprises and twists, but once those precious few moments come and go, the viewer is left wondering what more could have been done with such a great idea for a movie. | | | | | The film provides a decent mystery but is lacking on the thrills side. It does keep you invested in the story, while making some interesting twists that may leave you perplexed and stunned. Aside from the graphic displays of the victims there is not much else that incites any amount of fear or suspense; although the images will make you cringe and want to look away from the screen. At the core of the film is not necessarily a religious mantra, as the synopsis may imply. This is a tale of revenge, redemption, regret, and the ability to cause pain to those who have caused others pain - whether directly or indirectly given their circumstance. | | | | | The premise is absolutely ridiculous. Come on, a time traveling hot tub, really? But it works wonders for this outrageous comedy that is at times vulgarly delightful and at others sweet on sentiment (the former being greater, of course). The movie revolves around four men. Three of which have been friends since the 80s, and one who is only 20 years old and was conceived in the 1980s. Sounds a tad bit familiar on one angle but it uses the references from other time traveling films, Back to The Future (Robert Zemeckis 1985) most specifically, as a form of pastiche rather than parody or mockery. It embraces the humor of time travel and the ideas of the butterfly effect; showcasing on the idea we have all muttered once or twice in our lives, "If I could go back I would do this, or that, or never ...". The four men are thrust back to one night in 1986 and left to their own devices on whether to follow the same pattern they did before or break the rules and gamble on the future. There may not be much substance to the plot essentially but in the end it is all about the humor and that is perfectly fine. | | | | | With a highly imaginative story that stems from the creativity and skill of the kids and teens the movie is both entertaining and heartwarming. It may center on giving forgotten dogs a home but essentially is about building a family and establishing roots where it seemed impossible. | | | | | A phenomenal animated film that makes you want to buy another ticket to experience it again the minute it ends. Hiccup is a Viking teen who lacks the Viking strength and grit that his father, the leader of the tribe, believes makes a true Viking. The Vikings have been fighting Dragons since the beginning of their time and all Hiccup wants is to be regarded as a true Viking Dragon Slayer, or so he thinks. When faced with his first opportunity to slay a dragon a twist of fate occurs and before long he finds himself a new best friend in the most feared of all dragons. The adventure picks up from this point and weaves its way into an incredible tale of friendship and bravery. As Hiccup learns, to be the bravest of all does not always mean doing what others perceive to be brave but by taking a chance and changing the world you live within. | | | | | With Tyler Perry's most recent parable movie, this experience was the closest I've been to attending church in a very long time. There are lessons on the consequences of committing crimes, having a "whole lot of life to live", beauty being beyond materialism, the importance of family, selfishness, and of course, who can forget true love. Now there is nothing wrong with having faith or teaching positive values, but problems arise when the vehicle that intends to promote these principles is in question itself. In this case the morality lobbyist is the movie, which all together, just isn't that good. Judas is disguised as indecisive tone; the film tries desperately to be highbrow drama, laugh-out-loud comedy, concert musical, and even action in one particular scene. On occasion a film can miraculously weave multiple genres into an Oscar winning masterpiece, but this time around high ambition is more sin than virtue. April, played by Taraji P. Henson, eventually makes her way back to church. The rest of us however, are constantly checking our clocks during mass so we can get back to seeking answers elsewhere. | | | | | This is a cute story about finding the love of your life when you least expect it, or desire. It deals with the awkwardness of dating and the expectations that come along with it in a very true to life form. Humor is found throughout as it develops into more of just another love story and becomes a thorough examination of why we have the relationships we do, and how to move past the barriers we set for ourselves and let someone into our life. | | | | | There is nothing new to see in this film, or anything that has been re-imagined to make watching it worth your time. It follows a seemingly endless formula and besides a few laughs here and there it gives very little. There are the stereotypical teenage characters but none of them resonate any nostalgia or empathy with their actions. Put plainly, you have seen this film done before, and it was much more entertaining. | | | | | The film is a great experience for men and women alike. It is full of laughs and gags that do not go to the overly extreme or come across as contrived. All of the characters are amusing and the actual story is well thought out and poignant. For anyone who has ever experienced the ups and downs of friendships and relationships this movie will surely awaken something inside of you, and make you laugh out loud in the process. | | | | | The third installment in the franchise still brings the laughs and even throws in a bit more action this time around along with a few new characters. It sticks with the general themes of friendship, loyalty and the importance of family but has a unique enough new story line as to not feel repetitive. Overall, it is just plain fun for everyone. (and the 3-D, it really makes no difference, save your money) | | | | On October 27, 2008 Joaquin Phoenix, an award winning and oscar-nominated actor, announced his retirement. He did not call a press conference, or announce his decision through his publicist. Joaquin simply told a reporter from the television show Extra, on a red carpet for a charity event he was involved in, that his as yet to be released film Two Lovers would be his final performance. As shocking as the announcement was to everyone in Hollywood and fan's alike, what would become even more shocking was his future plan. Joaquin Phoenix had decided he wanted to pursue a career in music. After being hailed for his performance in Walk the Line as Johnny Cash the possibility for success seemed likely. Many film stars have successfully branched off into music, and vice versa. But he did not want to venture into that genre of music; Joaquin wanted to be a hip-hop artist. This choice, instead of being supported by the media, was seen as a huge joke. The months that followed were full of heckling, bad jokes, and an all out media attack on the once highly regarded star. Adding fuel to the fire was the intent to document his new path in a documentary. I'm Still Here (Casey Affleck 2010) begins with the announcement of his retirement and then follows him as he tries to reinvent himself as a hip-hop artist.
The film opens with video footage of a boy, in the year 1981 in Panama, being filmed as he jumps into a waterfall's pool. The camera is focused only on the boy as he stands atop the rocks, delaying the inevitable decent into the pool below. This is Joaquin Phoenix as a child, before stardom struck, but still on-camera. Cut to various archived videos of Joaquin in Hollywood being interviewed, receiving awards, and playing the part of media darling. Once again, in the spotlight of the camera. Immediately we know this film is more than just the chronicling of a movie star trying to break into the music business. It is also about the man behind the image. After the archived footage has passed we meet the Joaquin Phoenix who we will follow through the documentary. One of his first comments, when trying to explain why this film is being made, is "I don't want to play the character Joaquin anymore". He continues to remark how his life has been a fraud up until this point and by making the documentary he will be able to represent his true self.
Taking a good look at Joaquin Phoenix at this point, and to be completely blunt, you can only think he has suffered some sort of mental break and emotional breakdown. His appearance alone is upsetting as he has gained a considerable amount of weight, has a beard that is overgrown and mangy, his hair is a knotted mess that may or may not have been washed in the past month, and even his clothing are in tatters. He smokes far too many cigarettes, partakes in various recreational drugs, drinks large amounts of alcohol, enjoys the occasional hooker or groupie and looks like he has not had a decent nights rest in years. His attitude is sometimes positive and carefree but in a moment may turn to angry, paranoid, or loopy. Phoenix is a mess, and taking him serious when he is in this condition is a difficult task. Then again, we do not know the real Joaquin Phoenix, as he made quite clear in the beginning. We only know what the machine that is Hollywood has shown us over the years, or "the character Joaquin". So if this is the real Joaquin Phoenix you are in for a shocking treat as the film unfolds because there is absolutely zero censorship. It is a raw portrait of a man dealing with personal crisis while being scrutinized everywhere he turns. We meet his close friends who are also his employees. We witness his mood swings, enjoy his humor, listen to his philosophical musings, but never grow to actually like him personally. Although you do emphasize with him by the end and are moved on occasion by his seemingly honest desire to find happiness. Joaquin is motivated, from start to finish, to make his career in music a success. The reason for the unsuccessful outcome, based on what we see in the documentary, can be attributed to a variety of things. It could be his lack of talent (depending on your taste in music I suppose), the media's negativity towards his new career path, his own belief that it would be easy based on his prior successes, or even his own ego getting the better of him. The conjectures are endless in this case and no clear answer is given.
The greatest internal moments shown on screen happen where fame is considered. He wants to walk away from the false world he has been living in only to move into another realm of false reality, the music business. He sees music as a means of true self expression. That is correct, in a sense, if you avoid the business of it all. If this is what he wants then why does he instantly gravitate towards the most high profile music producer, Sean Combs? Good question, difficult to answer. Throughout the film Phoenix cannot let go of his star status. He has problems handling the negative media attention and his having to make concessions with his means of travel/lifestyle and such because his circumstances have changed. He is no longer wanted and desired by all. We see the breakdown of his star status unfold. With that comes an internal struggle as to who he is without the fame. He wants to be free but at the same time cannot come to a reconciliation. When he makes his debut open-mic performance at a bar in Venice, California, the crowd is not cheering him on. He remarks afterwards that all they can see is "Joaquin Phoneix" and therefore are not paying attention to the lyrics and meaning behind them. That may be true, but he does not try and change the media perception or invite them into his new world. He ignores the bad press, acts awkward during his final press junkets for Two Lovers and only feeds their capable hands with more and more material with every misstep he makes. The press ends up becoming his absolute worse nightmare as things deteriorate before his eyes and he himself must battle the loss of identity that came with his choice. Phoenix appears to believe he knows himself and in order to save who he is he must abandon his film career. What we see happen is the exact opposite. Phoenix unravels without his fame, and the person we believed to exist behind the character of Joaquin Phoenix does not in fact appear to exist. He is only a man burdened by his past and incapable of securing his future. The end finds him back where he began as a child; on-camera in a pool of water, but his eyes hidden from view. Joaquin Phoenix has become a broken man and the film does not try and hide this fact from the viewer. Unable to return to acting, unwanted in the music business, Phoenix is left with nothing by film's end except himself. It seems then that by losing absolutely everything he gained the one thing he was living without, reality.
Real or Fake?
If you are reading this review you must be curious as to whether the film is in fact a documentary or if it is a mockumentary. In other words, reality or fictional reality; two things that are very hard to tell the difference between in today's "reality" obsessed culture. Well, you will receive no answer from me or even an attempt to answer the question. I overheard a fellow critic after the screening turn to her companion and say, "I would really like to know if this was real". I for one, should I run into Joaquin Phoenix or Casey Affleck one day, have no desire to know if it was indeed "real" or one big made-up social commentary on fame, the media, self and perception. If they were to tell me it would ruin the experience. I like not knowing the intentions, if any, or if everyone is being played for a fool by believing it is real. What I do know is both Casey Affleck and Joaquin Phoenix are credited as the writer's of the film. Does this mean anything? Not really. Every documentary has a writer as well as reality program or mockumentary. There is the suspiciously good sound and camera set-ups throughout the film. Making one believe it is staged as the quality is just too good and the camera in just the right place at the right time to get the most clear shot possible when dramatic instances occur. It makes for great footage and a very easy film to cut as the linear progression of the narrative is incredibly smooth. Getting lost in where it is going or what is happening never occurs. It definitely plays more like a narrative feature than a documentary. Then of course are the random cameo's from other famous people. Their conversations with Phoenix do not come across as completely genuine. Great documenting or a great script? Hmmmm....watching the movie only seems to bring up more questions than existed before I even watched it.
The other thing everyone is wondering...
The biggest question is the most obvious: Why would a successful young actor walk away from the fame, fortune, perks, and success? I have heard time and time again how we, the non-celebrities of the world, should not feel bad for celebrities. They have chosen the life, knowing full well all of the negative aspects that come along with it, and so they should knowingly accept all of it without complaint. In our media obsessed culture, where you can any time of day go to the internet, turn on the television, listen to the radio, even look at the newest update on your favorite phone application, and instantly be bombarded with all of the newest gossip about someone you do not know, yet believe to know because of all the information afforded to you via the media, the definition of privacy evolves continually. Having made this choice early on his life Joaquin Phoenix barely knew any other lifestyle. Can we fault him if he actually did want to simply walk away from it all? No. The media can be cruel. They have no limits on what can be reported and should not be for the sake of privacy, or personal feelings. Phoenix bashes the life of an actor yet when he realizes he cannot return to that world, after he is attacked for the hoax rumor surrounding the documentary, it destroys him. Self perception just may be the most difficult thing to hold on to in a media obsessed culture such as ours. When you are constantly being watched when can you honestly separate the image from the individual? Whether this film is real or fake should not matter at this point. What does matter is what it says about the world we are living in without complaint but mere compliance.
A line I cannot seem to forget occurs very early in the film but held much meaning for the events that unfolded: "Is the dream unattainable, or did you have the wrong dream" - Joaquin Phoenix. Regular people make decisions and choices everyday. Some of them work out and others do not. They simply move on with their lives, returning to what they did before or finding something else to fulfill their time. It is an acceptable part of life. So then, the idea that Joaquin Phoenix could return to Hollywood and resume his career is a nice thought. It is unfortunate then that the notion seems impossible as Joaquin Phoenix is not a "normal" person, but a celebrity. The rules are different. The film makes a point at the end to show other celebrities mistakes, and the quick forgiveness by the media and fans. The title then appears to be a plea to everyone to remember the character of Joaquin Phoenix. Whether it is so he can be accepted back into the Hollywood machine we cannot know. But whether it is to remember him as he was, or how he is now in all his rawness, it is certain that with this film Joaquin Phoenix will not soon be forgotten.
This review was originally published in the Frame of Mind Section of the website. | | | | | For a film aimed at children and family's it is incredibly slow to get started and very short on laughs. The majority of the movie focuses on Evan's worklife and places his relationship with his daughter Olivia second. For all the ways you want to see the two of men build a strong relationship and have fun together you are never given the opportunity as the movie reverts back quickly to the confrontations and decisions he must make for his career. It does redeem itself in the end but only barely and not enough to make you forget the multitude of boardroom scenes you had to sit through to get there. | | | | | Politics is nasty business. Someone knows something, someone else wants to know, another person is trying to stop everyone from knowing, and another is confused about how he got involved in all this nonsense to begin with. Enter "In The Loop" with its satirical look at the world of politics from both the British and American sides. War is on the horizon, or so many believe, and one paper written by an assistant on the pros and cons of war is about to tear the roof off the Capitol Building and Parliament. Good times indeed. | | | | | Are you in the mood to see a Nazi simultaneously suffocated with a pillow and stabbed in the face? Are you the type of soldier longing to engulf the Third Reich in an enclosed chamber of fire? Well, this movie is perfect for you! There's only one catch, you have to sit through a lot of people talking before you can claim your revenge. Inglourious Basterds is an entertaining movie for cinephiles accustomed to 153 minutes of mostly subtitled dialogue and finely tuned scenes. In all likelihood however, this film will probably be "pretty boring" to everyone else. This is a great movie for movie-lovers in that never before has a movie theater and its projectionists been portrayed as so dangerous and sexy. In this fictional account in fact, it's the movies that literally end the war! Ultimately, it would seem as though all five chapters of the film divide audience reaction on purpose. What exactly is this movie? There's not enough kung-fu explosion to be an action flick, too few laugh-out-loud moments to qualify as comedy, and it doesn't take itself seriously enough to be a drama. No, just as the Inglourious Basterds leave bloody swastikas carved onto their unfortunate survivors' foreheads, this is a genre-defying World War II movie made my a director who always leaves his mark. | | | | | The fantasy journey of the film is entertaining for both adults and children but the story tends to drag on with only sporadic moments of action and adventure, mixed with special effects that are few and far between. Regardless, the premise of the film, bringing books to life and the consequences of such, is enough to keep one happy for the duration if their expectations are kept relatively low. | | | | | "Invictus", which means unconquered in Latin, is the title of a poem that enabled the great Nelson Mandela to endure whilst he was imprisoned for three decades in South Africa by apartheid forces. Invictus, the movie, successfully captures that unconquerable spirit. This accomplishment does not rely on flashy editing or impressive special effects, but rather classical storytelling in a restrained though effective manner. The story of how newly elected South African President, Nelson Mandela, turned to a rugby team to unite his post-apartheid nation is compelling enough and Director Clint Eastwood takes that fact into full account. Younger audiences with attention deficit disorder may disapprove of the slowed pace, but those craving a well-crafted film simultaneously serving as a history lesson and sports entertainment will surely be satisfied. The movie is one part political biopic, focusing on Nelson Mandela's initial efforts to unite his country in the face of racial prejudice. On the other hand, the film is an entertaining, defying all odds feel good sports movie of the year. It should be that cliche completely ravages the film, but in this case the mesh of politics and a happy ending not only works, it inspires. Whether it comes from a president, winning the World Cup, a song, or a poem, inspiration can be a powerful weapon. In this case, inspiration is the soul of the movie. The majority of Invictus takes place in 1995, but a movie dealing with leadership and change never felt more relevant. | | | | | Just when you think this may be a touching story about a father and daughter you find it is merely a film with very poor acting and a story line overflowing with bad melodrama. It would have been better suited as a straight to DVD release or better yet a movie-of-the-week. Then again, maybe it just should never have been made. | | | | | As a sequel this movie plays as a much quieter version of the former Iron Man franchise offering. On its own, it will leave those who have not seen the first film a bit confused and grasping for answers as to whom many of the characters are and the backstory that surrounds much of them. Even still, it remains true to the original as being an intelligent, smart, action film that just happens to involve a man wearing a futuristic armored suit. Mix in a great dose of comedic innuendos, witty banter, superb special effects, and chemistry between characters that is seldom, if ever, found and it all mixes up into one entertaining movie. What sets this film apart from its predecessor is how it focuses more on the internal struggle of the man behind the suit instead of the creation and glorification of the alter ego Iron Man. Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) is dealing with his mortality and in many ways maturing before our eyes. The narcissistic, egocentric Tony still exists but he is more subdued and slightly humbled. This humbling coming in the form of a Mad Russian Physicist, Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke), and the very own United States Government. This added dimension of internal struggle does not take away in any form the pure enjoyment factor of "Iron Man 2". It merely makes it a more mature installment, while also producing the popcorn bliss that is watching an action/superhero movie done well. | | | | | We do not need morals. Forget about being the better person. Put aside what is right because it may be fun to do wrong. It does not matter if you hurt someone else when they did it to you first. These are all things this movie teaches us with its unrelenting basis of a plot: the complications of having an affair with your married ex-husband. As much as the film is funny, and quite simply hilarious in some scenes, you cannot get over the fact that Jake (Alec Baldwin) and Jane (Meryl Streep) are being callous and juvenile in their actions. They have little if any regard for the other people who are affected, like their children and Jakes current wife. Nor can you just disregard how Jake cheated on Jane ten years ago resulting in their divorce. He may admit it was a mistake but you never believe him. He is far too flippant in his actions and overly eager to engage in an affair, again. Watching the two of them banter and find themselves in funny situations cannot salvage the film. Underneath the comedy is continually the aching feeling that what you are watching has gone one step too far. All the while completely underusing the comedic genius of Steve Martin, the divorcee architect who is so incredibly sweet in his affection for Jane it is unfathomable why she would choose her cheating ex over him. If there is one thing this movie tells us with complete honesty and for our own good, in the grander scheme of life, it is 'you should never get drunk with an ex'. Lesson learned. | | | | I have never read "Jane Eyre", Charlotte Bronte's epic Gothic romance. I have never even seen a filmed version of the novel, which is quite an accomplishment considering there have been dozens of adaptations, sequels, re-imaginings and homages. So, I went into this newest screen version without any preconceived notions beyond what the trailer provided.
The trailer for Jane Eyre is moody, and so is the film. Jane (Alice in Wonderland's Mia Wasikowska) is a young woman in early Victorian England and her "tale of woe" is as heart-rending as it gets. Orphaned at a young age, Jane is batted from abusive household to abusive household, first as a guest of an uncaring aunt and her monstrous children, then, after the aunt tires of Jane's obstinacy (read: distaste for constant physical and emotional torture), at a horrible boarding school. Jane's time at school is the stuff of nightmares. The fanatical headmaster likes to whip the girls with switches when he's not banishing them to isolation on "the pedestal of infamy." The actress playing Young Jane (Amelia Clarkson) makes for a compelling pale, wide-eyed wastrel. Her performance and her physical similarity to Wasikowska goes a long way in establishing continuity between the two time periods.
Now a young adult, Jane enters the employ of the mysterious and all-around cranky Mr. Rochester (Michael Fassbender) as the governess to his ward, a French girl named Adele. It is only here, at Thornfield Hall, where Jane ever feels free and unburdened by masters who would seek to exploit or contain her. Although rude to his housekeeper (Judi Dench), Jane finds in Rochester an intellectual and spiritual equal. Jane and Rochester exchange jibes and witticisms in a few scenes that serve to establish a courtship based on mutual respect and understanding. They begin to fall in love. Everything seems to be going well, until strange ghostly cries ring out in the night. Unexplained fires are started. A houseguest is savagely attacked. Mr. Rochester's behavior grows increasingly guilty and erratic. What ever could be going on, and what is Mr. Rochester hiding?
Jane Eyre adeptly balances its romantic moments with some legitimately spooky scenes. It's a ghost story without a ghost. Instead, the landscape and the people themselves seem to be haunted by their histories. The film underlines these hauntings via diffused lighting, as if the whole movie has a veil of gauze over it, obscuring the characters' clear view. Moorish fog and hearthfire smoke add to the murky milieu.
It's almost impossible for the film to divest itself of the melodrama which characterizes the narrativeâand indeed, accounts for its longstanding popularity and eternal relevanceâalthough it is occasionally overwhelmed by swoony sentiment, particularly in the last act where incident piles upon incident to a tragic (and slightly hysterical) climax. But "Jane Eyre" is the quintessential Gothic romance and the cliched elements of its story--trudging across muddy moors! spooky, old estates! long-lost inheritances!--are handled deftly by screenwriter Moira Buffini and director Cary Fukunaga. Non-linear editing keeps the audience on its toes while deepening the mysterious elements of Jane's story, never quite allowing us to get comfortable in any one space. The construction helps to keep the film swift moving, although at a little under two hours, still feels long in parts.
And, ultimately, it is the intelligence of the production--acting, writing, and directing--that makes Jane Eyre an enjoyable and exciting movie. Fukunaga's oft-handheld camera is never satisfied to merely photograph staged readings of the classics. He imbues the production with the life of its time and place. The harsh landscape of Northern Englandâpurplish heather, brown bracken, gray stone estatesâdetermines the film's aesthetic elements, from the costumes, to the interiors and even the lighting scheme. Aiding the visual immediacy, Wasikowska and Fassbender's intimate grasp of Victorian language and mannerisms is skillfully parlayed into naturalistic modernism. The net result is a picture that deftly injects a well-worn story with fresh blood. | | | | | Sorry to say, but this is not a great horror movie, or a good one, or even an acceptable movie at all. It's just an excuse to make an attractive woman a literal man-eating demon slut. And you do not even get to see any nudity - now that is scary! If any film was one to pass on this would top the list. | | | | | Listless: Having or showing no interest. That about sums up the feeling a viewer has while watching "Jonah Hex". The film quickly establishes the backstory of Jonah and why he now leads the life of a loner outlaw, showing a hint of promise that it will be an interesting ride; especially stylistically as it appears to begin a noir-western style. Then it all just results in nothing but a meek and mild story of a man bent on vengeance with a soft spot for a prostitute and the ability to talk to the dead. Some of the most entertaining points in the film, and well written also, occur between Jonah and dead men. There is just no edginess to Jonah. Josh Brolin gives all he can and the fact that he manages to speak clearly with the prosthetic make-up on his face for the contorted cheek/mouth of Jonah is commendable in itself. But all is forgettable. Even the action sequences are a complete let down. As for the deaths, all implied. If you expect to see some great killings and fancy violent acts look elsewhere. The film conveniently cuts away every time; characters still die you just do not see it. If this choice was made to get the PG 13 rating then what a complete shame to have to cheapen a film for sake of the teenage market. If it was intentional to adhere from showing violence on screen then, wow, the filmmakers really should have re-thought that one. "Jonah Hex" never hits its stride with the viewer. To say it is terrible is too harsh, but to say it is worth watching is a far cry from the truth. I equate it to background television. It may be on, and you might pay attention every few minutes or so when something grabs your attention, but by the next morning when your co-worker asks, "What did you watch last night", your response will be, "I do not remember". That is "Jonah Hex". | | | | | Combine one part France 1949 with one part Queens, New York 2002 and one gets a not great, but decent meal of a movie. The film does not succeed in achieving its full potential because the two parts never add up to become one uniformed piece. The viewer is pleasantly transported to Paris during the Julia Child segments; but during the transitions back to Julie Powell's contemporary New York, one feels as if he/she is being dragged along unwillingly. This is not to say the movie hasn't accomplished anything. On the contrary, the experience of witnessing two women in their journey for success is a delightful one. In the end the fun of making food wins out. The sincerity of gratification seen in both Julie's and Julia's faces when they've finally reached their goals is just enough desert to make up for the lack of entree. | | | | I believe it is safe to say that no matter what the story, or who plays opposite him, an Adam Sandler led film is always pleasing for an audience member. Sandler has grown up, but his characters continually remain childlike, and Danny is no exception in Just Go With It. As a man born with a nose impossible to miss he thought he had found the woman to spend the rest of his life with, until he discovered her real feelings on their wedding day. Now many years later he has a new nose, a successful plastic surgery practice, and a wedding ring he uses as a prop to pick up woman in bars and never see again. Danny's fear of rejection from his early trauma has led him to become a man with absolutely no commitments in his personal life. A chance encounter with the young and very beautiful Palmer (Brooklyn Decker) makes Danny reconsider his commitment lacking bachelorhood but there is a slight hurdle to overcome...she discovers the wedding ring. Enter the fiasco that is Danny trying to convince Palmer he is getting divorced. Not easily persuaded, Palmer wants to meet the ex-wife, and the only woman Danny has in his life to play the part is his long standing assistant, Catherine (Jennifer Aniston). The plot thickens as Palmer meets Catherine and only gets more problematic when her two children suddenly become Danny's as well. It is a big complicated mess that leads the entire dysfunctional family to Hawaii for a vacation; with an added bonus, Danny's cousin Eddie (Nick Swardson) posing as Catherine's boyfriend whom she cheated on Danny with while they married. Adding more fuel to the fire is Catherine's college nemesis, Devlin (Nicole Kidman), conveniently staying at the Hawaii resort with her husband as well. Oh my! With so many characters playing other characters and having to keep track of the lies upon lies they tell each other it would have been quite easy for a viewer to get lost in the shuffle. The script is structured surprisingly well that following along goes very smoothly and the film easily settles on you like a familiar romantic comedy has the ability to do.
The real bulk of the plot occurs during the Hawaiian vacation and this is where everything becomes a great deal more entertaining. The simple act of pretending to be divorced goes to hell with the college nemesis afoot. The addition of the Devlin character is what saves the film from having to fall back on very old cliches to get two people together and the film has plenty of the standard formula already. Casting Nicole Kidman in the role was a smart choice with her ability to play the perky, annoying, and oh-so-perfect stepford wife without difficulty. The movie may be extremely predictable but Just Go With It is refreshing with it's final outcome. One must know going in that the ugly duckling assistant (although casting Jennifer Aniston in this role is laughable) will inevitably be the love interest for Danny by film's end; we are dealing with formula after all. Danny and Catherine are two people who are friends and genuinely have a relationship that has endured years. Her children are not a hindrance to their romance but an added bonus. This is more a film about falling in love with the right person, than simply falling in love. Leaving the film you actually believe this is a relationship built to last, not one that would be over in the real world before the credits finish rolling. This honest relationship tied together with family bonding and genuine heart, with a few decent laughs mixed in, makes Just Go With It an agreeable distraction.
| | | | | Sometimes you just want a playful distraction; and one can be found with "Just Wright". Leslie Wright (Queen Latifah) is the girl all the men love to be around. Just not in the way she would prefer - romantically. She may be cursed by her "homie" status but it does not stop her from believing that love is possible with the right person and this is what makes her an incredibly wonderful character to get behind and root for. She refuses to be anyone but herself and shrugs off every negative comment that may come her way as to her appearance or mannerisms with men. When she finds herself treating the recently injured basketball star, Scott McKnight (Common), who just happens to be engaged to a close family friend, well, she takes it in stride even as her feelings for him grow. She has class, intelligence, talent, and the ability to be a best friend like no one else can. Watching McKnight realize the beauty of Leslie inside and out is all around fun. | | | | | If you combined a slightly crude, coming of age comedy and a gory, action-packed blockbuster, put it in a blender and poured it into a new film, you would get Kick-Ass. This compilation of the two genres makes for a slightly jarring viewing experience because it constantly refutes your expectations. Based on the popular graphic novel by the same name, Kick-Ass is a fun, in your face, action ridden comedy that dares you to get out there and do something. Dave Lizewski (Aaron Johnson), our anti-hero was just a regular teenage boy who liked doing regular teenage boy things which included, but was not limited to, reading comics. His interest in these comics birthed in him a desire to become a real life "super" hero. His cool superhero name? Kick-Ass. His mission? To bring down disturbers of the peace, to stand up for the voiceless and to have more friends on MySpace. Although Dave's initial intention was simply to be a metaphor for society to take action in the name of justice, he unintentionally finds enemies in high places. That's when two other masked characters Big Daddy, a mustached Nicholas Cage, and Hit Girl (Chloe Moretz) pop in to save Kick-Ass's ass. This father-daughter combo could not be more hilarious or bad-ass. In addition, the film finds a way to incorporate new media through its employment of YouTube videos, website hits and social networking and this allows it to stay very current. "Kick-Ass" had a number of original ideas at its start but unfortunately, it reverts back into a more generic revenge epic rather than focusing on the symbolic and metaphorical aspects of being a super hero which gave the film spunk. Also, there were too many pseudo-climactic moments in the film which kept the arc of the story from being very clear and made it tiring to watch. | | | | Killer Elite stars Jason Statham as Danny Bryce, an ex-special ops agent-turned-mercenary who, after a botched job, decides to retire to the country. He is pulled back into the "business" when his friend and mentor Hunter (Robert De Niro) is kidnapped by an oil sheik (Rodney Afif). The sheik's demands are simple - he wants the British Special Air Service soldiers who killed each of his three sons dead, he wants the deaths to look like accidents and he wants videotaped confessions from each of them. If Danny can accomplish the mission, he will earn six million dollars and, more importantly to him, Hunter's freedom. Danny enlists the aid of two of his trusted allies and goes after the men. Unfortunately for Danny, another ex-SAS soldier named Spike (Clive Owen from Children of Men) notices that his colleagues are dying and, with his own team, sets out to stop him.
Based on the novel "The Feather Man" by Ranulph Fiennes and adapted for the screen by Gary McKendry (who also directs), Killer Elite is a surprisingly complex tale of extortion, blackmail and murder-for-hire. While not exactly a think piece, it does require a little bit of paying attention to understand why everyone is shooting at each other. The complicated plot is driven by the similarities between Danny and Spike, both badass killers who are trying to save their friends. Danny is the hero, but the same film from a different camera angle could just as easily show Spike as the good guy.
Killer Elite ends up exactly as advertised. It's an action-packed fun-filled thrill ride. It's a bit unfortunate that all of the action distracts from the plot, or maybe the plot interrupts the action. Either way, the storyline is packed with twists and turns that make it more than just a popcorn movie, but not too much more. | | | | | A good suburban girl falls in love with the perfect man, who just happens to be an ex assassin for the CIA. Life is sublime in the suburban bubble until it turns deadly when Spencer's (Kutcher) past catches up with him. Too bad for the viewer on all fronts with this one because the movie has no redeeming qualities. Unless you count seeing Kutcher without his shirt on or Heigl walking around the house in a bra - for no apparent reason I may add. "Killers" is a mash up of action, comedy, and romance without ever deciding on what genre it actually belongs to or succeeding at delivering expectations from any of the three. It is rarely funny, the action is choreographed so slowly you feel like the characters have forgotten they are being shot at, chased after, or whatever else. In terms of romance, never once is a real connection formed between Jen (Heigl) and Spencer (Kutcher). They may as well be zombies or robots. Lest me not forget Tom Selleck as Jen's father, Mr. Komfeldt. The quintessential tough guy appears to be suffering from a terrible case of constipation. Perhaps he should join his on screen wife (Catherine O'Hara) in a cocktail to loosen himself up a bit since the only reason she exists in this film is to drink herself silly and portray the stereotypical suburban housewife agony. She may be on to something here because after watching this film all you will want to do is find something to numb the pain and erase the memory of the time spent watching a movie as terrible as "Killers". | | | | | So much suspense...over pastry? The documentary Kings of Pastry chronicles sixteen chefs as they vie for the coveted Meilleurs Ouvriers de France (Best Craftsmen in France). Please refer to out Frame of Mind section for the full review of this film here. | | | | | This is just a good old fashioned action movie. The twists and turns are no big shock and the plot seemingly generic. What gives it an edge is the slightly cooky, not exactly all together or traditional, CIA agent Roy Miller (Tom Cruise). He is not the run of the mill serious agent. When he gets June (Cameron Diaz) wrapped up into his mission he treats the entire thing with casual, humorous, and at times flirtatious, sarcasm. Roy (Cruise) and June (Diaz) make an enjoyable pair with enough chemistry from all angles but leaving most of the expected romantic entanglements to a bare minimum. What matters in this movie, and makes it work for the most part, is how well Roy and June work together. Even if she spends a great deal of time getting them into predicaments they could have avoided. They are an unlikely pair at first but as time goes by the two of them together begins to make more and more sense. As a viewer you look forward to what will come next; even when you know exactly what it will be. The movie is a piece of escapism, providing enough of every needed ingredient to make the time fly by while keeping your attention in check. | | | | | As an apocalyptic thriller the film could have been excellent but the added science fiction and horror angles detract from the story and takes it to far into "alien" territory. If you can get through the short and forgettable scenes that take it there you will be entertained by a great mystery. One that delves into science and theology and the eternal conflict of man vs. nature. | | | | Po returns in the sequel to the 2008 Kung Fu Panda with a new group of comrades, as well as a new enemy who threatens China and kung fu. When we last saw Po he had been made The Dragon Warrior of kung fu, a title shockingly bestowed upon a panda. He is now basking in the glory of his title while maintaining his goofy lovable self one cannot help adoring. Things drastically change for Po (voiced by Jack Black) when a new enemy threatens his home and awakens memories of his beginnings. The combination of fighting this new nemesis, the peacock Lord Shen, and trying to reconcile what happened to his birth parents is a heavy load for The Dragon Warrior and it is with the help of his friends, Tigress (voiced by Angelina Jolie), Mantis (voiced by Seth Rogen), Monkey (voiced by Jackie Chan), Viper (voiced by Lucy Liu), and Crane (voiced by David Cross) that he is able to handle the pressure.
Kung Fu Panda 2 is an adventure story that also dives into deeper themes about love, family, loss, and adoption. Po is clearly not the biological son of the goose Mr. Ping (voiced by James Hong) and the time has come for him to learn about where he came from and just how he ended up in Ping's noodle shop kitchen. The methods screenwriters Jonathan Aibel and Glenn Berger take to tell Po's story as well as his and Mr. Ping's feelings over the matter is a perfect tonal blend of affection and humor. As Po learns of the devastation that befell his family at the hands of Lord Shen it is a tad frightful, and possibly too dark for younger children given some of the visuals used to depict the panda slaughter that occurred, but the sentiment is there. As well as a wonderful lesson in how a family can consist of any manner of people, it has no bearing on genetics. While the quest revolves around defeating Lord Shen the real heart of the story comes with Po growing up, learning about his origins, and achieving the greatness he has inside of him because of his life experiences.
There is also plenty of humor in the film from Po and all the rest of the characters. The mood is always high-spirited, making it possible to parlay into more serious scenes without the effect of bringing the viewer's enthusiasm or attitude down. Becoming a part of the quirkiness of the humor is part of the fun of Kung Fu Panda 2; you can fight bad guys, be part of the seriousness of kung fu, and still have a great time doing it all. And watch out for the Pacman homage with a chinese dragon, it is quite hilarious.
| | | | | The movie will produce more annoyance in you than thrills or suspense. From the beginning you can see this is going to be all about race and the tensions it produces with certain people. The problems between the two neighbors is never realized beyond the point of race relations and the script does a poor job developing the characters past this angle. There are no thrills here or heavy dramatic moments; simply a crazy Police Officer with a nasty temper and control issues. | | | | | So much for a comedy-adventure movie that is fun and entertaining. This movie is quite boring and lacking in the comedy but heavy on the violence. It relies almost completely on the star persona of Will Ferrell to carry it along but with a script that gives him little, if anything to work with, the viewer is left with barely anything to take from the movie except regret. | | | | Tom Hanks wants to be a legitimate Hollywood triple threat. Not only does Hanks star in Larry Crowne, but he wrote and directed it as well. Everyone is familiar with Tom Hanks the actor, and now everyone gets to see a little more of what he can do on the other side of the camera.
Hanks plays the titular character Larry Crowne, a likable and popular manager at a big-box department store called "U-Mart" who is laid off because, having never been to college, he is considered "not promotable." After licking his wounds for a while, he takes the advice of his neighbor Lamar (played by Cedric the Entertainer) and enrolls in college. The first classes he enrolls in are a speech class and an economics class. In his speech class he meets Mrs. Mercedes Tainot (Julia Roberts), a heavy-drinking but no-nonsense woman trapped in an unhappy marriage. In his economics class he meets the free-spirited Talia (Gugu Mbatha-Raw from "Undercovers"), who gets him to loosen up a bit. He trades his SUV in for a scooter, starts wearing his polo shirts untucked and gets a hip new haircut to make his college transformation complete. He even joins Talia's scooter club, led by her boyfriend Dell (Wilmer Valderrama, Fez from "That 70âs Show") which leads to his running into Mercedes outside of class. Sparks fly between the two, but neither wants to admit it for obvious student-teacher reasons. Larry is stuck with the task of balancing his educational goals with the feelings that he and Mercedes have for each other.
Larry Crowne is a difficult film to pin down. It's not serious enough to be considered a real drama, as it is just a simple point A to point B back-to-school story. It doesn't have the feel of a comedy, either. The humor is circumstantial, organic and genuine, and the funny moments occur naturally, just like they do in real life. What Larry Crowne does feel like is an engaging, entertaining coming-of-age story, except that the main character is coming of age in his forties. | | | | | This movie is not only a touching love story of two people who have given up on finding love again but also a heartfelt story about family and the ways in which we can mend that which we thought had been broken. It is full of sentiment and laughter, and will leave you believing that all is possible, no matter what stage of life you find yourself in. | | | | | Games. Games. Games. This film is full of them. The main characters, Clyde (Butler) and Rick (Fox), are embroiled in a cat and mouse game throughout and you cannot help but shift from being on either side. By strongly focusing on the injustices and severe flaws of our justice system it makes the viewer question whether the bad guy is really bad. Perhaps just going a little too far in making his point? Maybe. With his brilliant and imaginative mind you will find yourself in awe of his capabilities. The film may not be full of suspense, or any real grand revelations or twists and turns but it does keep you in the moment. Mostly from the intense likability of Clyde (Gerard Butler). He may be killing people left and right but with his charm and intensity you grasp on and want more. If there is one great thing this movie offers it is how your brain is constantly thinking and pondering what will happen next and how he is managing to do everything from prison. The film is ultimately intriguing and the final reveal that answers all of your questions further secures the belief that Clyde is brilliant, and a decent film villain after all. | | | | | There is only one reason to see this film: Matthew Goode as Declan. Not since Cary Grant graced the screen many moons ago has a male actor been so incredibly charming, funny, and quite frankly irresistible. He may be in a film that simply regurgitates one romantic comedy stunt and cliche after another but it is all the less painful having him to fawn over. Amy Adams (Anna) has a few moments where the ice cold princess melts but she is bland and forgettable. As for the other man in the film, her fiance Jeremy (Adam Scott); it is absurd to even think for a moment she would have anything to do with him after meeting Declan. If you want drab, ordinary, and unworthy of a second thought choose Jeremy. Nothing compares to Declan's quick wit, adorable facial expressions and spot on comedic abilities. If the film was trying to paint a realistic love triangle and make us actually consider she may choose Jeremy over Declan then they think the moviegoing audience are a bunch of idiots. One look in those beautiful eyes of Matthew Goode and no other man exists. Then you hear him speak with the accent and the World just stops rotating. Go for the romance if you must but be prepared to not care whether Declan and Anna or Jeremy and Anna end up together. Your mind will only find itself concerned with one thing...trying to find out how you can get in touch with Matthew Goode, or hitching the next plane to Ireland in search of your very own Declan. I have a feeling Tourism in Ireland is about to sky rocket. | | | | Common literature has always taught us to root for the light and against the darkness. What happens then, when what is supposed to bring light to the world begins to wreak havoc on mankind? Can we really put our faith in the will of a higher being whose intent is to exterminate the human species? This is the premise Scott Stewart's Legion attempts to grapple with. Apocalypse is nigh, and the angels have arrived, not to protect but to destroy the human population because God himself has lost faith in his people. This idea of angels, what we have come to understand in our cultural subconscious to be good and fair protectors, turning against man is particularly dark and disturbing. The only hope for mankind lies in the birth of a child who has been prophesied to lead the people out of darkness. This is a loose parallel to the birth of the Christ and coincidentally occurs on Christmas day. Paul Bettany gives a well-balanced performance as the archangel Michael, who has decided to rebel against the orders from God to exterminate mankind and instead, comes to earth to ensure the baby survives.
This is all good and well and could have panned out to be a relatively interesting film. Unfortunately this vaguely intriguing apocalyptic story was basically tacked onto the back of a very generic horror film. In fact, Legion uses every horror convention in the book and becomes a nonsensical mish mash of horror set pieces; featuring scary children, possessed beings, pustular rashes, old women, bugs, raw meat etc. Nine strangers are trapped at a dinner in the desert and have to fend off blood-thirsty, zombie-like people who are possessed by angels. I would say more, but you should know how it goes from there. Ultimately, Legion is not an apocalyptic film, rather it is a conventional horror film with apocalyptic themes loosely tying everything together. | | | | Abby is not your average twelve-year old girl. She holds a dark secret that is all together frightful. Her sweet angelic face is quickly forgotten when the intense sound of her stomach growling occurs. Abby is a vampire, and she needs blood to survive. Owen is a sweet boy who has no real friends. His days at school are a scary experience as the school bully has chosen him as his prey. All he wants is someone to be friends with and to love. When Abby and Owen find each other it is a friendship they both need but one that may be headed for tragic results. Let Me In tells the story of the friendship between Owen and Abby in the midst of murder and mystery that has befallen the small, snowy town they live in. Knowing that Abby is a vampire you are constantly waiting for what may happen next. The tension so great throughout that you can hardly breathe at times because as much as you want to believe Abby would never hurt Owen you can never be sure. When the taste for blood overtakes her, and her eyes turn into the demonic possessed animal she truly is, the evilness inside of her cannot be held back. This is a film that is not altogether scary for what is shown, but more for the emotional and psychological effects it has on you as the story escalates into a climactic ending that is disturbing yet gratifying. With an ending that will shock you, as well as raise questions as to what the future could possibly hold for Owen and Abby, the film never ceases to keep you guessing or simplify anything. This is not your average vampire movie, and that is what makes it unique and spectacular to watch.
With two fantastic performances by Kodi Smit-McPhee (Owen) and Chloe Grace Moretz (Abby), and flawless direction by Matt Reeves, this film shows that a re-make can live up to its predecessor. The original film, Let The Right One In (Tomas Alfredson 2008 Sweden), having been released only two years ago was praised by audiences and critics alike. With great trepidation the American re-make was looked upon. Thankfully it is an excellent re-imagining of the original film and adaptation of the novel, Let the Right One in by John Ajvide Lindqvist. | | | | | Romance is alive and well once again thanks to this film. In the city of Verona, Italy, where Romeo met his Juliet, Sophie (Seyfried) and her fiance Victor (Bernal) are on vacation. A vacation they inadvertently are not spending together. Sophie is set to discover the city on her own and it leads her to Juliet's balcony; and a letter left by a young girl, Claire, 50 years before asking for guidance in love. With the assistance of Juliet's secretaries she answers the letter and to everyone's shock and pleasant surprise Claire (Vanessa Redgrave) arrives in Verona to find her long lost first love. Thus begins the adventurous journey of Sophie, Claire, and Claire's grandson Charlie, as they travel through Tuscany on a romantic endeavor so cleverly crafted it leaves you with a stupid grin on your face for hours after watching the film. The search for love lost but never forgotten and the subtle charm of new love found are weaved together in a story made for a viewer who wants to feel the butterflies in their stomach or the promise of a future filled with unexpected delight. This is a movie built upon love and anyone willing to let go and indulge themselves with easily fall in love with every single part of it. | | | | | When tragedy befalls, two very different people become instant parent's to a baby providing the viewer a film that is watchable, but far from really enjoyable. When Holly and Eric's best friends are killed in a car accident they are given custody of their one-year old baby. The catch, Holly and Eric hate each other. Or do they? In flashbacks we see how they came to know one another and it is quite obvious a playful flirtation, masked by disdain and hate, has always been present. Cue likelihood that Eric and Holly will in fact get together in the end of the film and a new family created. Therein is the predictability of Life As We Know It. There is nothing original about the story or the circumstances the two characters get themselves into by not having any experience with a baby. If you can think of something a baby can do or do to a person then you know every joke before it happens. As for Holly and Eric's romance, it comes together just as it should but one cannot help but think it would have been better to have them end up apart, as friends and caregivers, instead of lovers as well. Holly and Eric make a great pair as friends/brother-sister-esque types. That somewhat progressive idea is vacant from Deitchman and Robinson's script, especially since the respect Eric and Holly must attain for one another in order to be co-parents is never fully realized. Instead the standard formula persists throughout, never offering a new spin on an old story, or even a decent sinful treat of a fluff movie for the masses. | | | | There is never such a thing as a casual affair. It is those who believe it is possible that end up losing themselves in the throws of passion, and eventually fall in love. As is the case between Jamie Randall (Jake Gyllenhaal) and Maggie Murdock (Anne Hathaway). They meet under the most unusual circumstances, in a Doctor's examination room, and their affair begins as nothing more than a quick fling in lieu of actually finishing their coffee. It continues on as a dirty, sexy, spontaneous romp where Maggie continually pushes Jamie away and he never lets go. Every inhibition between the two is stripped away and Gyllenhaal and Hathaway ease into the comfortableness of their naked bodies just as any real couple would after sharing intimate moments. They have an easy chemistry where you feel at times like you are invading their privacy by watching them on screen. It is the natural way they present themselves together that makes you actually care to see where their love affair will lead. As with any love story there is the complication. In Love and Other Drugs it is not merely a complication you can communicate through or learn to accept with time. Maggie has an incurable disease and there is no medication that will set her free from Parkinson's Disease.
Jamie and Maggie are in two very different places in their lives. He is a rising star in the pharmaceutical sales field thanks to Viagra, the promise land of prescription drugs. While Maggie lives wondering whether she will be able to open a package of Pop Tarts in the morning. This casual affair should have ended before it ever began but call it fate, or circumstance, or being blinded by the idea of someone and not the reality but they try to make it work through the good and the bad. The film has an uncanny ability to blend together the free spirited nature of Maggie and Jamie's relationship while building upon the struggles that threaten to tear them apart. It never disguises her disease, or makes light of the future that lies ahead for Maggie, and Jamie should he remain with her. The tone continues to change as they grow deeper in love and the likability towards the film begins to dissipate as the emotional toll grows heavy. Even as it changes from a fun romp to a serious dramatic piece you cannot help but see the importance in their love affair and how the touching moments they share will ultimately change who they both are forever.
| | | | | If love is happening, it's happening somewhere else. To categorize this film as a romance or give the impression to an audience member that that is what you will get is a gross exaggeration. The main plot of the movie actually deals with Burke Ryan (Eckart) overcoming his demons stemming from the death of his wife. As a self-help guru, capitalizing on his wife's death and his supposed method to overcoming grief, he spends the majority of the movie with a room full of strangers working out their problems. The romantic angle of the movie, and Jennifer Aniston's character Eloise, are merely a 'C' storyline at best. She appears now and again but a romance never fully develops between the two of them. And trying to throw a quick montage into the screenplay does not and cannot substitute for love blossoming. The real 'B' story, as it may be called, is between Burke and Walter, one of his seminar attendees. This storyline takes up a very large part of the film and it is also the most endearing part of the whole movie. Watching Walter deal with his young son's death is incredibly moving. The entire romantic angle is mere filler, and could have been done without completely resulting in a much more entertaining and fulfilling film. As each minute ticks by you only wish more and more that you had bought a ticket for something, anything else. | | | | | Aside from the dance sequences this movie is solely reliant on the chemistry between the two main characters, Jessica and Jake. The problem is the performance by Tom Malloy, as Jake, is without emotion or range. Amy Smart (Jessica) has much promise as she twists her way through romantic entanglements and learning to dance professionally but she can only do so much to save this romance from feeling forced and stale. There is just not enough of anything to keep you in the moment and to feel something is happening you want to experience. | | | | | As far as stupid, low brow, and completely void of any redeeming quality comedies go, "MacGruber" falls right in line. What makes it surprising and unique is that it is entertaining the entire time. Based off of a Saturday Night Live character, featuring the lead Will Forte as MacGruber, what could have been a sad attempt at bringing to the big screen a character better suited for five minutes on the small screen has instead turned into something anyone willing to forego any level of intelligent cinema will enjoy. This credit for such must be given to the main characters of the film and their performances. MacGruber (Will Forte) is a man child given the fate of the world in his hands and Forte makes this ridiculous incarnation of a sad MacGyver-type with a piece of Rambo thrown in thoroughly captivating. Mostly because of his inept ability to actually stop a threat. Then there is Kristen Wiig as Vicki St. Elmo. Each line she delivers in her deadpan comedic style gives the audience something to grin about. The two work incredibly well together with their seemingly different styles of performance and comedy making the movie more accessible to different tastes. By pairing them together, along with a more statuesque, rule abiding Lt. Dixon Piper (Ryan Phillippe) to balance out the two, the movie becomes more than thought possible. Watching MacGruber attempt to save the World from the evil Dieter Von Cunth (Val Kilmer) is not going to win any awards or have you telling your friends to run out and watch it...BUT...it will not make you completely wish you had gone bowling instead. | | | | As part of the Special Screenings section of the 2010 AFI FEST, Made In Dagenham held the promise of a rousing tribute to the women of Dagenham, England, who in 1968 went on strike against Ford Motor Company to demand equal pay to the men employed at the factory. This Norma Rae type film ended up being a practically disgraceful representation of this proud moment in women's history.
The Ford Motor Company made Dagenham an industry town. Dependent on the work in the factory the citizens of Dagenham lived and worked under the control of Ford. The men held the "skilled" labor positions while the women were unskilled because the sewing of upholstery, and the like, was considered the lowest of all forms of work at the factory. This distinction led to the capability of Ford to pay the women far below the men in the factory and offer them little respect. As part of the Union the women have had enough of the run around with Ford, trying desperately time after time to gain their respect and increase their status as well as pay. When Rita O'Grady (Sally Hawkins) is made the main representative for the women for the Union she is at first squeamish of her role. Not one to make a fuss about anything Rita makes the most unlikely of heroine's. Her strong will eventually comes through when she stands amongst the women and orders the first walk-out of women workers in England's history. This joyous and powerful event sets the stage for more excitement and exhilarating moments in this fight but the direction of the film never reaches this point.
In all of the ways Made In Dagenham should be a portrayal of women's liberation and the fight for equal rights, as this story becomes bigger than just Ford but a complete change in the country's laws towards female workers, it lacks the grandness and bite to pull it off. Hawkins' Rita makes for a great character as she appears soft in the beginning and slowly finds her voice as the film progresses but the film never offers her, or any of the other ladies, a shining moment. The major obstacles the women face in this battle are all played out in a monotone fashion without any dramatic effect. There are times when something feels like it is about to get good, about to change for the better, and with hope snap you out of the coma you have fallen into from the dullness that befell the former scenes of the movie. But this moment never comes. As the film travels from the Union headquarters, to meetings with Ford, and eventually to Parliament itself it never finds the bold sentiment one expects. The lifeless direction continues throughout making this story of rebellion more rebellious for not being compelling than for the actual true-life fight it is depicting.
I for one wanted to see the women's movement have a shining moment in Made In Dagenham. To see a movie for a new generation that will lift people's spirits to remember how their predecessors fought for them to have the rights and freedoms they have today. Not only does this film disappoint as a narrative feature in general for the simple fact that it is bland, but also for shaming the fine women of Dagenham who stepped forward when no one else had and paved the way for equal rights for women in the United Kingdom.
*This review was originally published as part of the AFI FEST 2010 coverage in the Frame of Mind section.* | | | | | With two separate story lines that do not intersect until close to the end of the film you are left wondering for most of it what role the Madea character has in the story, if any at all, except to moan and pick fights with her family and strangers. The real story belongs to the characters Joshua and Candice and it is far from comedy; but even with it's dark and dramatic subject matter it makes for a story that gives you faith in the power of friendship and redemption. | | | | | When it comes to love people move at different paces, as this movie keenly demonstrates. The unabashed all in love Mike (Zahn) is the dire opposite of Sue (Aniston) and this mismatched love match makes for a very fun ride throughout the film. For what may seem romantic to one person is borderline stalker to another. Sue takes it all in good grace and warms to the hapless Mike but a future between the two never seems possible. With his over the top antics to try and woo her you cannot help but smile at the prospect of someone feeling something so deeply he would go to any lengths to prove his love. It may be the tenderness and charm of Steve Zahn as Mike that wins your heart in this movie but it is the undeniable greatness of love that makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside as the movie draws to a close. | | | | | How long can you watch a dog eat a couch, bark at the lightning, run off its leash, and just simply cause havoc in people's lives? Not this long. The film is so concerned with the antics of the dog that it forgets to really focus on the other characters, who just happen to be the ones who can talk and engage with the audience. As the disillusionment of life sets in for the characters you do not feel emphatic or any form of relating. Whenever the moment comes where you may get to glimpse something of a relationship between them, something real and tangible you can relate with, Marley does something to distract from the moment. In the end all you really get is a small look at the lives of two people, the choices and sacrifices they make, a brief look at their dissatisfaction, and way to much of the dog. | | | | Review Coming Soon. | | | | Meek's Cutoff is an exemplary entry in the canon of revisionist Westerns, a sub-category of that most famous American film genre (although how much more can be "revised" after fifty years of mucking with the formula is questionable). Anyway, "classical" Westerns are in short demand these days. Most modern entries in the genre self-consciously play with the cinematic legacy of the film Western (see: this year's Rango), so it is refreshing that Meek's Cutoff is less concerned with what a film Western is and more concerned with what the American West actually was. Reteaming director Kelly Reichardt with her Wendy and Lucy muse Michelle Williams, Meek's Cutoff has been dubbed a feminist Western, which is no doubt true, but the film hews too closely to historical fact and documentary attention to detail to really be viewed as a picture with an overt political agenda.
The title refers to a real trail just off the famous Oregon Trail that took wagon trains through the little-seen deserts of northeastern Oregon. The trail was named for Stephen Meek, a trapper and guide who led pioneer families through the barren and untested landscape. In the film, Meek is played by Bruce Greenwood, buried in a dirty, grizzled beard and garbled, raspy speech. In 1845, the real Meek blazed the trail with settlers, but the journey was full of hardships: oxen died, families fell ill and died, and the pilgrims began to doubt Meek's familiarity with the area. In the film, the settlers are comprised of three couples: fierce and practical Emily and Solomon Tetherow (Williams and Will Patton), pregnant Glory and skittish William White (Shirley Henson and Neal Huff), and young couple Millie and Thomas Gately (Zoe Kazan and Paul Dano). The families begin to suspect that Meek is leading them astray on purpose and, with water supplies quickly dwindling, the men debate whether to hang Meek for his treachery. Tensions are heightened when they encounter a Native American (Rod Rondeaux) who may or may not know the way back to water and civilization. | | | | Megamind is the most evil of all villains! Ok, not quite. But he can be a pleasant diversion. Megamind (voiced by Will Ferrell) and Metro Man (voiced by Brad Pitt) shared the same fate as children. Their planets on the brink of destruction, their parent's placed them in space pods to save them from death and to find a new life on a new planet (Superman origin story should be cueing in right about now). Metro Man landed in the lap of luxury and grew up with everything he could ever want. Megamind landed in the yard of a prison, for the criminally gifted. The constant odd man out he experienced life as a child being the last one picked for everything and without any close friends, except for his trusty minion fish his parent's so thoughtfully sent with him as a baby. His only hope at being noticed in this world was to be bad; very, very bad. So he became the archnemesis of Metro Man and the two have spent the better part of their adult lives battling in Metro City.
The world changes for Megamind when Metro Man is no longer around to save the day and the city is under his control. He goes through an existential crisis; as what good is it to be bad when there is no good around to keep things level? His one true love, Roxanne Ritchi (voiced by Tina Fey) hates him for his evil doings. Megamind must think of something to bring him joy once again. The solution: to create a new superhero he can do battle with and get his evil mojo flowing again. Titan (voiced by Jonah Hill) is his creation but just as all of Megamind's plans go awry so does this one and Titan is anything but a hero. This kink in his plan leaves him another state of distress as he must decide whether to be evil, or save the city as a hero from the evil Titan.
As the above plot progresses you are in somewhat of an animation daze. The dazzling colors and constant effects keep your eyes glued to the screen. But the actual story leaves you wanting more. More excitement, more peril, more laughter, and definitely more originality. The character of Megamind is delightful. Mostly due to the fact that no matter how evil he appears to be his constant blundering of his evil plans makes him more of a joke than a serious evil genius. Add to this his sublime chemistry with his sarcastic sidekick Minion and you have a great character on screen. When he is alone, in his secret chamber conjuring up his next evil deed, or even moping over the loss of his one true love you are mesmerized by him. It is when he returns to the bigger picture, the actual movie so to speak, that the film loses your attention. Megamind is to be regarded as a film that has potential that was never fully realized. It is full of great characters that could go on to be in great animated films, but as it stands, this film is merely a passing fancy for moviegoers. | | | | | The infamous French Gangster Jacques Mesrine's life is chronicled in a two-part film that attempts to show the man behind the media sensation that he became as French Public Enemy No. 1. Please refer to our Frame of Mind section for the full review of this film. | | | | | The infamous French Gangster Jacques Mesrine's life is chronicled in a two-part film that attempts to show the man behind the media sensation that he became as French Public Enemy No. 1. Please refer to our Frame of Mind section for the full review of this film. | | | | Micmacs, or Micmacs a tire-larigot in the original French, is a nearly untranslatable slang idiom meaning roughly something like "troublemakers" or "shenangians". Like its title, the plot of this film is equally bizarre. The film opens in North Africa where a soldier is blown to bits by a land mine. Cut to France where a young boy mourns the loss of his father. Fast forward thirty years and that same boy, now a man named Brazil (Dany Boon) working at a video store in Paris, is improbably struck in the skull by an assassin's errant bullet. On the flip of a coin, the doctor decides to leave the bullet in his head. You see, Brazil's survival chances were fifty-fifty: he could have easily died during the operation. Of course, the bullet could migrate into his brain at any moment, causing instant death. To add insult to injury, upon his release from the hospital, Brazil discovers he has lost his job and his apartment. He becomes a street performer and is taken in by a band of scavengers and inventors who live in a trash heap. The group includes an ex-con named Slammer (Jean-Pierre Marielle) and a prickly contortionist (Julie Ferrier). Together, they plot revenge against the two arms manufacturing companies that made the land mine that killed Brazil's father and the bullet that nearly killed Brazil.
If you thought it was exhausting just reading that synopsis, imagine watching the movie. Jeunet (Amelie, A Very Long Engagement) is known for his over-stuffed plots and dizzying visual inventiveness. Unfortunately, Micmacs has neither the wit and charm of Amelie, nor the lush romanticism of A Very Long Enagement. As Brazil, Dany Boon is an inert and un-engaging protagonist, perhaps necessarily because of his head injury, but the film never fully recovers from the lack of charm and depth at the center of the story.The supporting cast tries to compensate and they are all admirable weirdos, including a man who speaks only in cliches and another trying to make the Guinness Book of World Records for human cannonballing.
But all of this eccentricity adds up to nothing. The arms dealers are just as odd as our heroes (one collects celebrity body parts), but the film stalls when it tries to confront the dealers with the atrocities they've committed in North Africa and around the world. Such serious business has no place in such a silly film as this. And that's the main issue with Micmacs: there is no sense of reality. It clearly wants to take place in the real world, where the war in Afghanistan is ongoing and office workers spend hours a day on YouTube, and yet, the characters inhabit a green and gold-tinted Paris where there is never any traffic (except when the script calls for it) and Brazil can plan and execute elaborate surveillance schemes with scavenged equipment. Ultimately, Micmacs is a disappointment for Jeunet fans and probably just too weird for mainstream audiences. | | | | Midnight in Paris, undoubtedly Woody Allen's best movie in over a decade, is an unmitigated delight: 100 minutes of Parisian swoon, written by F. Scott Fitzgerald, painted by Pablo Picasso, and scored by Cole Porter. Despite his curmudgeonly air, Allen has never exactly eschewed sentimentalism and his newest film recalls some his most romantic flights of fancy like The Purple Rose of Cairo and the nostalgic Broadway Danny Rose.
In the film, the Woody character (and there's always one) is Gil (Owen Wilson), a successful Hollywood writer who is fed up with penning commercialist pablum, yearning instead to start work on his own Great American Novel. He finds the opportunity on a vacation to Paris with his shrew fiancée Inez (Rachel McAdams, in full bitch mode). To Inez and her rich, WASPy parents, Paris is a city for haute couture shopping and guided museum tours. Gil longs for the bygone glories of the Lost Generation, when Jazz Age expats like Ernest Hemingway swarmed Montmartre, bursting with once-in-a-generation creativity. For Gil, the eternal romantic, the famous city looks its best at night, in the rain; Inez wouldn't want to muss up her hair.
And thus the seeds of discord as sewn. Gil clearly has no use for these modern times, which he disparages while turning a blind eye to the fact that his success as a screenwriter affords him an enviable lifestyle of luxury of which few would day dream. Gil is our hero and Owen Wilson lends a critical likability to a character so mired in the past he often threatens to turn into an irredeemably whiny child who dreams of an idealized past he cannot possibly attain. | | | | Review Coming Soon. | | | | Monogamy is an example of a rare success: a familiar story that draws its power from simply being well-told. Theo (Chris Massina) is a wedding photographer by day but moonlights as "Gumshoot," an alias he uses to photograph clients who hire him to document them without their knowledge. As the name implies, Theo fancies himself some kind of photorealist detective, scoping out the scene, locating the target/client and snapping away. Things get a little complicated when a client with an alias of her own, "Subgirl," hires Theo via email to photograph her performing sex acts of escalating exhibitionism. At the same as Theo's obsession with Subgirl is increasing, he's drifting away from his fiance Nat (Rashida Jones). They live a comfortable artists' existence in Brooklyn (she's a singer/songwriter), but their ideal arrangement is threatened by Theo's increasingly untethered artistic focus.
An artist consumed by obsession: not exactly new territory. However, director Dana Adam Shapiro strikes some novel chords with pinpoint accuracy, steering the film away from tonal pitfalls. Monogamy is neither an erotic thriller nor a romantic drama; it tows the line between mystery and character study, but unlike a typical genre film, it treats Theo and Nat's relationship seriously.
Massina and Jones are both performers with natural humor and charisma and their inherent appeal keeps Monogamy lighter than its subject matter would suggest. Their interactions anchor the film and give it heart. They are two people who obviously love each other very much, but living as they are in a state of arrested post-hipsterdom, are reticent to commit to maturity. Theo's self-image is intimately tied to his art and he's not ready to retire the wandering-eye freedom Gumshoot affords him.
Director Dana Adam Shapiro comes from documentary filmmaking, including 2005's Academy Award-nominated Murderball and the documentarian's precise eye for detail sets Monogamy apart from similarly budgeted independent films. It is a finely observed and smartly acted first feature with a compelling visual style and well-balanced tone. | | | | There is an expected story arc when it comes to monster movies; original thought never appears to be present anymore. Then a film comes along that changes the entire idea of a monster movie. It breaks the conventions and offers something greater than one might expect, especially if the title of said film is Monsters.
To make one thing clear, and to be very clear on how this film differs from other said monster-alien invasion movies, is the monsters are living on Earth. They are here, everyone knows about them, and measures have been taken to keep them quarantined from the human population. Within the first few minutes of the film you see what the monster looks like on a news program as it attacks. So, the entire creepy crawly creature in the night or body-feeding alien life form ideas should be put to rest. You should be afraid as these are incredibly large tentacled creatures with great strength; but the fear is not in the unknown, it is the known. This is a more intelligent monster movie. Like migratory birds the monsters in Monsters move with the seasons. The world has adapted to them and the United States' solution has been to erect an enormous wall that covers the entire border leading into Mexico. It is heavily armed and at all times there are military personnel surveying the area, ready to attack a monster on sight. When the migration begins anyone who is in the area infested with the monsters must leave by a determined date or be stuck there for the season. In other words, you are risking your life and just may not survive.
This is where the film's story begins. Samantha (Whitney Able), the daughter of the owner of a United States newspaper, needs to get home safely before the border closes. Andrew (Scott McNairy) is a photographer who has been desperately trying to get a picture of a living monster for the newspaper he works for - it just happens to be Sam's fathers. He is hired to safely get Sam home so she can return to her life, and her fiance. It all appears to be simple enough but with the season beginning in mere days the easy passage Sam's father expected to occur is anything but for Andrew and Sam. The film takes us with them on their harrowing journey through the quarantined zone. A place where the locals have come to accept their reality of possible death at any moment, and the term "safe" never qualifies. Sam and Andrew are two strangers with their own personal issues, complications, and demons. The heart of this monster story is in the friendship they build and the ways in which each one is changed forever from what they see, hear, and witness on this journey.
There is no destroying the monsters in this film. No big shoot out or bomb explosion that will send them all back up into the sky where they once came. Monsters is a monster movie; as the feeling, and sight, of impending encounters with a more powerful and foreign being is ever present. But it is also about adapting to a new environment. The Mexico they travel through has been beaten and broken by war. The cinematography captures the beauty of the country while juxtaposing it against carnage. The aliens appear evil through the media broadcasts but this perception is doubted as their habitat is explained further. The larger world sees them as the enemy, and building a cohesive society an impossibility. The local people treat them with the respect of an animal race, even if they fear them for what they have, can, and will do. As for Sam and Andrew, their lives will forever be changed by what they encounter and learn about themselves over the course of a few days together. Priorities change, and the harsh reality of what is becoming of their "safe" world is brought to the surface, leaving their future uncertain even as the credits begin to roll. | | | | | For a film that is primarily aimed at children it is shockingly violent, full of sexual innuendo and lots of "potty mouth" comments. That aside, it is seemingly enjoyable but nothing near fabulous. All of the characters are taken from a page out of B movie history, and homage of sorts, that is sure to delight audiences with an affinity for science fiction/horror films of days gone by. To see them all on screen, in a positive role, and banded together to save the world is fun; and may even be seen as an inside joke for parent's bringing their children. Something they can dive deeper into while their children experience the character's for the first time in a new light. Overall, it is a decent story that has a good message behind it. If only it was being told without so much severity and a bit more childish humor. | | | | | This film is a rarity. It takes you on a journey that is thought provoking, mysterious, and whole heartedly science fiction. You will have many questions, and many will be unanswered, but that is part of the enjoyment you get from watching the movie. It makes you think, and feel, and ponder the human existence. What makes us human and what do we need to sustain ourselves when we agree to live in solitude? How can we rectify the choices made by others for us when we have no knowledge of those decisions? Is progress at the expense of human life and the manipulation of human consciousness? The questions this film raises are endless and completely dependent on how you view the reality created on screen. It is a fascinating story that portrays a future very different from those seen before and one full of corporate antics and deceit. | | | | When Becky Fuller (Rachel McAdams) is unexpectedly let go from her local news station she is in desperate need of a job; not only to cover the bills but also to keep her sanity. Becky is a workaholic who has separation anxiety issues from her Blackberry and cannot maintain a conversation on a date without work somehow getting in the way. As luck would have it, or an ill-fated circumstance, she lands a job as Executive Producer of the lowest rated morning news show on Network television, Daybreak. Faced with the challenges of running a low-performing show, as well as juggling a new found romance with a fellow Producer (Patrick Wilson as Adam Bennett), she has her two anchors to deal with, Mike Pomeroy (Harrison Ford) and Colleen Peck (Diane Keaton). Becky may have landed her dream job but the day-to-day of trying to figure out how to make this sad excuse for a morning show a hit with viewers makes for a steady stream of comedic misadventures. Her solution consists mostly of taking segments to the extreme while working off of the complete hatred the co-anchors feel for each other.
What makes Morning Glory ultimately work despite some flaws in the romance development area, is the relationship between Becky and Mike. Mike is a veteran news man who has one every award possible and who sees himself solely as a real journalist. Being hired to work on Daybreak is only a contractual glitch and therefore he is anything but easy going about well, anything. The struggle between Mike and Becky is a constant butting of heads that leads to many a comedic moment for the viewer. The sentimental parts of this relationship build up slowly over time but it is obvious they are meant for a strong bond by film's end. As for Colleen Peck (Diane Keaton), she is greatly underused in the grander scope of the narrative but her key scenes with both Becky and Mike keep her important, if not a tad forgettable. Morning Glory is a movie that dives fully into the workaholic nature that lies inside all of us, and how pride can be one's worst enemy. Rachel McAdams is charming, Harrison Ford at his crankiest best, and a great team of supporting actor's keeps everything running smoothly from start to finish. Best of all, it shows us how there are more important things than work, or the next best thing for your career. Sometimes you need to put the Blackberry or Smartphone down and choose life and love - or in this film's case, hide it in the refrigerator.
| | | | Review Coming Soon. | | | | | To say the least, this film is not entertaining. It lacks the elements of a romantic comedy, and a comedy in general. The story line has been done before, and with better results. | | | | | With a great ensemble of characters and laughs aplenty the film is a pleasure to view. The romance aspect may be a bit on the light side but it does not lessen the experience because you are constantly engaged with all of the different characters and their antics while traveling through Greece. What you essentially get is a lighthearted comedy which aims to show that changing your mindset is completely possible when you open your eyes and your heart to those around you. | | | | | In one moment Anne Deveraux decides to leave her cheating husband, grab her two teenage boys, and set out for somewhere, anywhere else. Did I mention it is the 1950s? Not your typical act for a 50s housewife; which makes it wholly enjoyable and refreshing. The film is full of twists and turns and laughter throughout. This is one road movie where you want to take the ride. | | | | | When it comes to melodrama, this movie just may be the definition. The story starts off a bit slow, and uses to much voice over to explain a varying amount of details, but about mid way through it lays on the melodramatic tone so heavy your heart feels like it has been crushed, beaten, and broken all at the same time. The story is very deep, and troubling, but it has its moments of pure joy and is full of love. There is no doubt throughout that the family cares for each other and there is a bond between the sisters that is not easily, if ever possibly, broken. The movie is just so incredibly draining emotionally and mentally that it is hard to say whether one could actually enjoy watching it, even if it gives just as it should. | | | | | If you are six years old, enjoy dancing, swimming pigs, and a good dose of (child-appropriate) suspense, then Nanny McPhee Returns should easily please. If you are one of those adults who thoroughly enjoyed the character of Nanny McPhee in the first film, then you may find she is a bit on the outside of this one. Present always, since she is watching the children, the five lessons occur very quick and without much assistance from Nanny herself. The film appears to fly by with the use of lots of magic, but without a considerable amount of real story. The attention grabbing is merely because of the onslaught of effects, or occasional look upon the problems plaguing Isabel Green (Maggie Gyllenhaal) as she tries to keep her family farm afloat while her husband is away at war. As a children's film it hits every mark it should as it teaches kids to share, mind their parent's, take care of each other, and be respectful. It even throws in courage to round things out. This may not be the best possible film for the wonderful character that is Nanny McPhee but it is adequate.
| | | | On the third adventure to Narnia, Lucy (Georgie Henley) and Edmund (Skandar Keynes) travel without their two older siblings as they have grown up and moved to America. Lucy and Edmund have been left behind to live with their aunt and uncle as well as their obnoxious cousin Eustace (Will Poulter). When a painting of the sea and a ship comes alive in Lucy's bedroom it is her and Edmund, along with Eustace, who get swept into the current and taken to the sea of Narnia, and placed upon Prince Caspian's (Ben Barnes) ship. Before long the reason for their return is made apparent as they must assist Prince Caspian in discovering the location of an evil green mist that has been collecting Narnian's in order to fuel its evil. So the adventure begins on the high seas but it never reaches a charged high. There are an array of visuals that are outstanding but the grounding story of the film does not rouse the viewer. The characters are all dealing with their own obstacles to overcome, be them the desire to be someone else or letting go of their demons from the past, but it is all vacant of actual substance and it does little to add a layer of depth to the film. Whether or not they succeed on their mission is trivial as one never feels they are in any large amount of danger as the stakes are never raised and the momentum of the story never grows. The film itself is pleasant to watch and easy to get through as the minutes pass but it is also completely forgettable once over. Lucy and Edmund have grown up and with that they have lost much of the childish awe that enticed them in Narnia; and so have the movies as they draw to a close with this final installment in the Franchise .
| | | | | If you are looking for a light-hearted romantic comedy that will make you smile and feel good walking out of the theatre this film delivers. The film has a great deal of personality and offers the viewer laughs, a possible cry, and may even make you cheer. | | | | | The film is more an excuse to animate and bring to life historical figures, famous paintings, and treasured art than to offer a well rounded story. It purely moves along at a stagnant pace and never truly offers up stakes that make you invest more than a fleeting amount of your attention. The only redemptive quality is the playful imagination it possesses in bringing history to life. | | | | | [This film was screened at The 2010 Los Angeles Film Festival. Please refer to our Frame of Mind section for the full review here.] | | | | | The movie is not the best romance you could watch, or melodrama, but it does have it moments. You will laugh at times, and cry at others, but you will also find yourself bored and twiddling your thumbs. It just does not have enough drama, or romance, to sustain a viewer for the entire length of the film. | | | | | This film has no place in modern American cinema. It belongs to the long forgotten and cast aside brilliance of the International cinema of the Italians and the French. It is at once a linear progression and then disjointed. It begs you to question a man's morality and the love of a woman, or many. To embrace the muse and realize the limitations of one. This is not an American film and it will not please an uneducated filmgoer, as harsh as that may sound. It is to be appreciated as a piece of art and the performance by Daniel Day Lewis as the Director Guido a showcase in how to be a tortured man whom you (we) love for all the ways he is flawed, unacceptable, and seemingly without hope. Or perhaps it is to be seen as a piece of cinema where the fetishization of women is prevalent and accepted. They are merely on display for Guido when his mind takes him out of reality and into a deep imaginative state. It has at its core a deep love story between a man, his work, and the women in his life: past, present, and near future. Yet it is also strongly focused on his egotism. His self doubt is a facade, a mere picture of what he does prior to creating greatness. Guido has lost his way though, and finding it through the myriad of obstacles he himself has put in front of him is no more easier than juggling seven women at once. Taking the journey with Guido may not be for everyone. For those willing to embrace something far from the norm it just may be a welcome treat. | | | | Emma (Natalie Portman) and Adam (Ashton Kutcher) have a history, kind of. They have met three times over the past fifteen years. The first when they were at camp as teenagers, the second at a fraternity party Emma randomly attended, and third in Los Angeles during a farmers market outing. The first two times were during very serious moments in their lives, the third completely free of any entanglements except that it brought them together in the here and now. To clarify then, in case the marketing campaign around the film has led you to believe they are best friends (as is what I thought was the case), they are not best friends who begin a no strings attached "friends with benefits" relationship. They are two people who have had multiple chance meetings over time and find themselves attracted to one another, unattached to anyone else, and are very open to the idea of pursuing nothing else than an on-call sex buddy relationship. That is not altogether true because Adam could not be anymore obvious with his adorable attraction towards Emma or the fact that he is completely in love with her. Emma on the other hand is not the commitment type. She loathes the idea of love and is deeply afraid to open up to anyone. Emma and Adam do become friends over the course of their time together but as this is a romantic comedy things get complicated, and very quickly.
Credit the superb direction by Ivan Reitman, or the warm and fuzzy feelings Portman and Kutcher ooze onto the viewer, or just the carefree humor that fills the script and is hit spot on by everyone in the film, but this is a younger, more natural romantic comedy that works every angle almost perfectly. One could do without a few of the side storylines going on as there are a ton and half of them no one cares about in the least. The relationship that is built between Emma and Adam will have you rooting for them to end up together, and yes, it is obvious from the beginning that they are headed to a life of bliss with each other. It is the getting there part, the watching of Emma dodge her feelings at every turn but then do some thing that makes them completely evident. Or seeing Adam struggle with keeping his cool while inside all he wants to do is cuddle. It is a winsome romp that Reitman has directed and not one that will dissatisfy a viewer looking for a breezy romantic comedy. | | | | | For a comedy, this movie is seriously lacking in anything humorous. Rogen (Ronnie) is just short of terrible with no personality. He merely remains the same character the entire time and slowly becomes annoying to watch as the film moves along. Finding the actual plot of the movie is merely impossible and it itself forgets what the point is about half way through. By this time, you are wishing you had done something else with your time. | | | | | What we have here is just something more of what you have seen before. A woman finds a man attractive, becomes overly attached, and decides she should go crazy and try to ruin his marriage and life when he does not reciprocate the feelings. Nothing more, nothing less. Ali Larter (Lisa) is quite excellent as the crazed, psychotic woman; and more than likely the only reason you may actually sit through the whole film. The plot just gives you nothing and it is incredibly slow. The twists and turns that should surprise you, thrill you, and excite you, just come and go without a thought. The only time you may sit up and get excited is in the last ten minutes; and who wants to wait that long for a small payoff? | | | | | Two men over the age of oh lets say 50 to be kind have their lives sent into a spiral when !surprise! one of them has a pair of 7-year old twins whom he must watch for two weeks. Not really what you may want when your company is about to close a deal worth over 45 million dollars. This scenario does make room for a high dose of comedy and some sentimental charm. Charlie (Travolta) and Dan (Williams) make an unlikely but pleasantly surprising pair of best friends who have seen each other through the worst of times. They play off each other well, even if Travolta takes Charlie as being a little more eccentric than his character need be. Dan carries most of the story as he slowly adapts to having children but do not expect to see a whole lot from the children themselves. They are grossly underused in the film and act more as a hub for Dan and Charlie to grow and change into family men. This does not hurt the comedic nature of the movie but it does deter from what you may have expected walking in. Overall it is a decent piece of entertainment with two actors doing their best to make us laugh and succeeding; with a little help from two children, a sidekick (Seth Green as Ralph) and lots of cameos from some random actors in roles as unpredictable as the tattoo on Dan's chest (sorry, no spoiler, you will just have to see for yourself). | | | | | The film progresses at a very slow pace but once you get to the third act it is a whirlwind ride of revelations that will have you muttering to your companion something along the lines of "what the ?!?!". For all it lacks in the beginning it surely makes up for in the end, you just have to be patient. For the secret Esther, the adopted daughter, holds is one that is highly unlikely you will guess until the moment it is carefully revealed. | | | | | A Black Man and a Mexican Woman are going to get married. Let the racial tensions begin, and never end. The film sets up the tension between the family's because of race/ethnicity but it forgets that there needs to be more to a story. The term "grow up" comes to mind when listening to the absurd comments and witnessing the poor ways the two father's treat each other because they are not thrilled about their children becoming part of a mixed-race couple. Carlos Mencia, as Lucia's father Miguel, is incredibly whiny; Marcus' father Bradford (Forest Whitaker) is a womanizer who prefers women half his age. Neither man is someone you want to like, or invest in, as a family patriarch, nor show any respect for with their disgusting displays of machismo. As for the couple themselves, Lucia and Marcus, they are insignificant as neither one seems to have a personality of their own. Overall, attending this wedding is like attending the wedding from hell, where you hope there is an open bar so just maybe you will forget it ever happened the next morning. | | | | Paul Rudd (Role Models) stars as idealistic hippie Ned, the titular idiot brother in Our Idiot Brother. Upon being released from prison, the lovable Ned finds out that his girlfriend has been living with another guy, is throwing him out of their home and is keeping his dog, a golden retriever named Willie Nelson. With nowhere else to go, Ned is forced to stay with his sisters. He means well, but ends up messing up each of their lives in the process. One of Ned's sisters, Miranda (played by Elizabeth Banks, Miri from Zack and Miri Make a Porno) is a rising journalist who has just been assigned the story of her career, only to have Ned screw it up for her by making friends with the subject of her interview. Meanwhile, another sister of Ned's named Liz (Emily Mortimer from Lars and the Real Girl) is in the middle of a failing marriage, and Ned seemingly feeds the flames by discovering her husband Dylan's (Steve Coogan from 24 Hour Party People) infidelity. Finally, Ned finds out that his third sister Natalie (Zooey Deschanel from (500) Days of Summer), a bisexual struggling stand-up comic, is pregnant and inadvertently spills the beans to her live-in girlfriend, Cindy ("Parks and Recreation's" Rashida Jones). All three sisters blame Ned for the mishaps in their lives, but eventually they must come to grips with the fact that their problems are their own and that Ned is simply the messenger.
Written by Evgenia Peretz and David Schisgall, and directed by Evgenia's brother Jesse Peretz (The Ex), Our Idiot Brother doesn't have much of a plot. The film is completely made up of subplots, and the subplots do not interweave at all. It comes off as a loose framework for the three sisters' stories, tied together by the common thread of Ned. While all three sisters undergo a classic character arc, the Ned that the audience sees at the beginning of the movie is the same Ned that they see at the end. While his family is going through all its stress and strife (for which he is being blamed), his main conflict in the story is getting his dog back from his ex-girlfriend. The movie is devoid of any real heart, drama or humor, although it does have an ending that is toothache sweet. | | | | | The problem with this movie is not that it obviously feeds off the creativity of some past sci-fi horror films such as Alien and Event Horizon, but that it eats away at the audience's patience far too long before it decides to be any good. For the first hour or so all one knows is that in the year 2174 most of the earth's resources have been depleted, a massive spacecraft has thus been sent to settle the Planet Tanus, but the only people who seem to be aboard the ship are Captain Payton (Dennis Quaid) and Colonel Bower (Ben Foster), who incidentally do not remember diddly squat. The pitch sounds promising enough for an engaging mystery, only the mystery is never really felt due to frustrating holes in the plot. If it were not for Payton commanding, "We need to get to the bridge", over the radio like bad voice acting in a video game, then one would have no idea of why Bower is currently crawling through an enclosed tunnel of wire. I can understand that director Christian Alvert wishes to keep the audience in the dark as long as the story's characters are, but the end result is a muddled mess. Pandorum refers to a psychological disease occurring in hyper-sleep resulting in trembling, nosebleeds, and crew-threatening insanity; the title is misleading though in that the movie is more about monsters than it is mental illness. The film attempts to sell its' self as science fiction, horror, mystery, and psychological drama, but most of time is the monsters' makeup that succeeds. The good news is that after a few flashbacks, some new characters, and a little action, Pandorum actually gets better as the movie progresses. The bad news is that before this happens one must endure annoying whisper dialogue, poorly lit sets, and enough holes to make space envious for at least an hour. By that time, the sanity of the audience may be in just as much jeopardy as those stranded in space. | | | | | "Paper Man" begins with a very promising, visually interesting title sequence that involves an extended stop motion paper collage that prepares its viewers for the meshing of the real and imaginary worlds. Unfortunately, the film does not live up to its artistic opening and it becomes visually bland and repetitive after the first forty minutes. "Paper Man" attempts to sew together three relationships into one cohesive storyline while never offering an explanation for any of them. The first is an unlikely friendship between a writer, Richard (Jeff Daniels), and a young girl, Abby (Emma Stone), that is sweet despite its inappropriate context. The second is a relationship between Richard and his imaginary friend, Captain Excellent (Ryan Reynolds). According to the film, Captain Excellent has played a major part in Richard's subconscious since he was in second grade however their relationship onscreen does not prove symbiotic in any way. Instead, Captain Excellence comes off as more of a burden to Richard rather than an assistant. The idea of making an imaginary friend a prominent secondary character was novel but the realization of it on screen was ultimately uncreative. Reynolds's character is almost completely unnecessary and actually drags down the pacing of the film. The third relationship is a marriage between a realist, Claire (Lisa Kudrow) and the dreamer, Richard. Their relationship is very unique in that they are living separately but are not separated. Kudrow and Daniels really were able to play off each other well and some of the best scenes in the film occurred between the two of them. What results from this cinematic sewing together is a film that feels as haphazardly stuck together as paper mache and as folded up as the origami Richard attempts to make. It definitely feels like three separate movies because the three relationships are neither well integrated nor meaningfully put together. There are intriguing elements of dark comedy and a great potential for depth, however the film seems to teeter on the edge of being beautiful and philosophical but it never plunges down into it and therefore achieves nothing noteworthy. | | | | | "Paranormal Activity" is a ridiculously low-budgeted movie ($15,000) shot in 7 days. After a brilliant marketing campaign asking horror movie fans to bring the number of request to have the movie released in their city to a million, the film has finally been blessed with a wider release. The ridiculousness stops with the budget though in that "Paranormal Activity" ends up being one of the scariest movies of the year or of any year. Taking place in San Diego, California in 2006, couple Micah and Katie have been experiencing some strange occurrences on a daily basis. Micah decides to invest in a hefty digital camcorder and by following everything his girlfriend does through a series of documentary-like interviews we find out that faucets have been turning on and off, that weird noises are often heard throughout the house. Katie is cautious because these "hauntings" have frequented her since she was eight years old, but Micah is an excited detective obsessed with solving the case and protecting the girl. The real suspense occurs every night, for 21 nights, as Micah leaves the camera on as they sleep and the audience witnesses some downright terrifyingly creepy events. Ten years agoâ "The Blair Witch Project", was a bad movie that simply became a low-budget pop-culture phenomenon; "Paranormal Activity" may have low production quality, but it's an expertly crafted horror-mystery. The movie's frightfully fun to watch with a big audience, but the ride home at night may not be so pleasant. | | | | What if aliens existed? And what if instead of being discovered by dark-suited government agents (Men in Black ) or adorable moppets (E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial ), one of these aliens was picked up by two dyed-in-the-wool, "I Want To Believe," British science fiction nerds traveling from San Diego Comic-Con to Roswell, New Mexico on the geekiest roadtrip of all-time? Welcome to the world of Paul, a film that celebrates its nerd cred while satirizing the genre it so obviously adores. The road tripping nerds are Clive Gollings, a middling science fiction writer played by Nick Frost, and Graeme Willy, the illustrator of Clives' books, played by Simon Pegg. BFFs in real life and in the film, Pegg & Frost also wrote the film, which plays both as a genuine expression of love of cinema and science fiction, and as a natural extension of the duo's on-screen chemistry and comedic interplay.
Pegg & Frost are probably best known for starring in two comedies by director Edgar Wright (Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz ). Both films were aggressive genre mash-ups (of zombie and action flicks, respectively), characterized by Wright's hyperkinetic visual style, break-neck editing, and jam-packed pop culture wit. Paul's director is Greg Mottola, whose comedies, Superbad and Adventureland , underscored the bittersweet undercurrent of adolescent friendships and romances. Like Mottola's previous work, Paul is much more concerned with relationships and personal development than it is in visual inventiveness.
Graeme and Clive are taking a very personal journey: America is the seat of American pop culture, which they regard in semi-religious esteem, and their RV tour of the Southwest is something of a spiritual pilgrimage (as much as it can be for avowed atheists). When the two men meet Paul, the only surviving alien of a 60-year old UFO crash (voiced by Seth Rogen), Graeme and Clive must confront proof of the beliefs they'd previously held but never actually considered could be proven. (Imagine a Christian meeting Jesus on Earth.) Complicating matters of faith vs. science (or science fiction), the pair also encounters Ruth (Kristen Wiig), a woman kept repressed and naive by her religiously devout father (John Carrol Lynch). Ruth begins to question her faith after meeting Paul, whose very existence seems to contradict her entire worldview. Chasing Paul and all of his new friends are some classic sci-fi baddies: Jason Bateman as a stern, impersonal government operative and Sigourney Weaver (queen of all science fiction movies) as his shadowy superior, known only as The Big Guy. | | | | | The movie is not terrible, but not great either. You will laugh at times, some brought on by the actual comedy and others for its failure. It does try to up the "cool" factor by having the bad guys lovers of extreme sports; everyone grab your BMX bike and skateboard and lets take over the mall. It just does not achieve the laugh out loud comedy you may desire, leaving it merely a movie you will not hate, but one you will more than likely never want to watch again. | | | | | The Gods are angry. As they should be considering their names are attached to this lackluster, pathetic example of an adventure story. Zeus has every right to strike down upon the Studios behind the production of this film with his lightning bolt, turning them into a pile of rubble and ash. Yes, that may sound far more harsh than need be but if you plan on spending two hours watching this movie you will feel the exact same way afterwards. If you have read the novel you just may walk out midway through it to save yourself the agony of seeing how it has been raped of any semblance of the narrative, or any of the wonder that came with it. Percy Jackson (Logan Lerman) comes across as a punk kid who is full of sarcasm and a lack of respect for authority, not to mention a decent size ego when he discovers he is the son of Poseidon; all the more making him a hero the viewer wants absolutely nothing to do with. His friends along the way, Grover and Annabeth, are no better. Grover is overtly made into the most stereotypical Black character you can put in a film. Everything he says, his word choices, overdeveloped sex drive, the way he walks, even what he dreams about during a somewhat dreamy sequence in the script, is disgustingly typecasting him. If this were a horror film he would have been the first to die. What they do to Grover to try and make him seem cool and hip is an abomination to the representation of race, any race, on film. As for Annabeth, she is a fleeting presence. As the daughter of Athena her wisdom and skill is never showcased to portray a strong young woman. She can fight but the film is more concerned with showing how she looks at Percy, and he at her, than making Annabeth into a role model for young girls. Where the actual story is concerned you find even less to go with. They are searching for Zeus' lightning bolt, as it has been stolen. The quest they set out on should be filled with peril, moral decisions, and a coming of age foundation. There may be a few scenes of peril but otherwise they may as well have just walked through Central Park after midnight. The film gives us nothing to go with as the mystery/adventure angle is completely ignored and any sort of danger we perceive that Percy and his friends should encounter is watered down. There is nothing mythical about this film and it shall remain a forgettable portrayal of the Greek myths in modern times. | | | | | The year is 1966 and the '60s, as the movie boldly declares, is the greatest era for British Rock and Roll with bands like The Who making your daddy upset. In this film, "daddy", is the BBC and the only way to get popular rock on the radio is to broadcast from the sea aboard a vessel inhabited by DJ veterans, several swingers, one virgin, and one woman, who happens to be gay. "Pirate Radio" has everything going for it: great actors, a great soundtrack, but the movie itself is disappointingly bland. For a movie about musical freedom and standing up to the man, one would expect more stylistic ingenuity throughout rather than merely at the beginning and end credits. In fact, the film almost unintentionally supports the man by reducing its only Black character to a mime and presenting women solely as cooks and objects to be shagged. Sure, maybe the '60s were all about sex, drugs, and rock and roll, but why then is the party so devoid of fun? That's ultimately what's wrong with this film, unintentional racism and sexism aside, the audience cannot enjoy themselves because with very little character development aimed for empathy we never really feel like we're actually invited. Director Richard Curtis (Love Actually) goes with an episodic aesthetic that captures the scene and some of the mood of '60s Brit Rock, but none of its spirit. At the end of the film album covers from everyone from Nirvana to Taylor Swift to Eminem are flashed upon the silver screen. Bands who rocked out in the '60s most definitely paved the way for the artists of today, but unfortunately, this particular film isn't nearly as inspiring. | | | | | Why do I have the feeling I have seen this movie before? Oh right, because it uses so much from so many other movies to tell its story that it is like watching old favorites again, all in one. With a new twist that is, since the humans are the invaders on a planet inhabited by what humans call aliens. Where else can you find the alien, from Alien, as a pet? Or revisit the flying by the moon scene from E.T. done with a comic twist? Yeah, it is kind of silly, but silly fun. | | | | They don't make movies like this anymore. Point Blank harks back to the 70s action crime thrillers that were more about the thrill and suspense of solving the mystery than blowing up cars and jumping from helicopters to get the viewer excited.
In Point Blank Samuel (Gilles Lellouche) is studying to become a Nurse when he has the unfortunate timing of being on staff in the hospital when an attempted murder occurs on one of his patients. He saves the man's life, only to have his house invaded and his pregnant wife kidnapped with the one demand that he must get the patient, gangster and wanted criminal Hugo Startet (Roschody Zem), out of the hospital, amidst police guard, or his wife will be killed. This ordinary man has just been thrown into an extraordinary situation and one he cannot fully realize as to just how complicated it will become over the course of the next few hours. This simple break-out of a gangster leads to much more than Samuel could have imagined and the stakes that come along with his mission grow higher by the minute.
Point Blank is as fast paced and taut as a crime thriller can be. It has all of the makings of a great film of the genre, with twists and turns aplenty and the the blurring of whom exactly are the bad guys and who are the good played perfectly. As well as placing an ordinary man into the shoes of having to become something he is not, a person on the opposite side of the law trying to find his way back. The tension builds exponentially as time passes and the pacing of the action never slows. Samuel is a man willing to do anything to save his wife and unborn child, while Hugo is a man bent on solving the greater mystery of why he was targeted for death after a job he was hired to do went as planned. Point Blank takes you on a surging rush of a ride, with an ending that satisfies beyond a doubt. | | | | | Remember the books you loved as a kid? Do you remember how even if you could not understand every word, you just kept marveling at the illustrations, and somehow you knew the story exactly? Just about in every frame of Ponyo are those beloved childhood stories brought to life. The world of Ponyo is a magical one where the lives of all earth's creatures are celebrated on every available inch of the screen. If ever one were still unsure of what true imagination looks like, one would have to look no further. After the film is over you'll feel good because somehow you're a kid again. Your mind is lost in another world, not knowing that you've witnessed a piece of art. | | | | | Entertaining? Yes. New and exciting? No. That pretty much sums up this entire movie. It is one of those common coming of age films where you watch the main character stumble through life after graduation before she finds what really makes her happy, or what she really wants. This one does throw in a quirky family and that helps immensely in making it enjoyable. Led by the hilarious Jane Lynch (the mother Carmella), a slightly off Dad (Michael Keaton as Walter), a parental described "weird" little brother, and the grandmother with the biting tongue (Carol Burnett as Maureen) they give the film that extra something to get you through its formulaic predisposition. All in all, it keeps you going, and it is the perfect length. There are no regrets but no accolades either as you grab what's left of your soda and walk out the door. | | | | | Feeling down about your life? Do you wonder why everything seems to happen to you? Well it doesn't and your life is not that bad. Don't believe me - see this movie. Chronicling about two years in the life of a Black teenager in the New York City ghetto this film delivers a story that is all too cliche but heartbreakingly true. Precious, as she is aptly nicknamed, tells her story in the movie and it is all but unbelievable. Sexually abused her entire life by her father, mother and sister to her children, illiterate, mentally and physically abused by her mother, poverty-stricken, and with absolutely zero self esteem (and one more thing that you will just have to witness to believe - it is that bad). This is Precious. As you watch her journey from victim to survivor it is uplifting but never seems to get passed the showcasing of every horrible act or roadblock she encountered in these brief two years. The film is so determined to make you empathetic. To make you feel bad so you can inevitably feel a ray of hope at the end that it forgets to find a decent balance.
Every time you think it may improve it drags you back into the deep dark depressing void. | | | | | The hunters become the hunted but not with such great effect. In a definite pull from the short story, The Most Dangerous Game by Richard Connell, Predators merely goes through the motions but never gains great momentum. The film begins by plunging the characters straight into an unknown jungle. No one knows each other but they all have similar backgrounds, they are trained killers. They soon discover this is not an exercise in their own skill but a planet in another world where an unknown species hunt game. The game is of course the humans. What follows is a series of run, hide, and stay alive for all involved. The predators are as always deadly and highly intelligent but we see very little of their skills in the film. Most of the time is spent in conversation with the humans as they discuss how to stay alive from an unknown enemy. When the predators do make an appearance it is hardly with any great surprise or terror. The film as a whole ends up being more of a piece about human vs. animal nature. Given such a circumstance, what do you value more, your own life or the life of others? What is more important, to stay alive or die with honor protecting another? As much as it tries to be more of an introspective piece of filmmaking it cannot overcome its own obstacle: the expectation of violence and gore. Neither of which are provided to a great level. Nor can it escape the fact that none of the characters are someone you want to see survive, or find redemption in, to care enough about what they have to say or what choices they will make in the end. Had there been more action, plot twists, and mystery's developed you could do without easily the failure to connect with the character's. Since none of these things are present after the first act of the film you desperately need something more to grasp onto and hold your attention. That something never develops. If you do not mind sitting through a film that continually suspends you into waiting and watching for something to happen then this will not disappoint. If you care more for non-stop action and some serious blood spilling then better to take a pass. | | | | | Following the standard hero's journey, "Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time" provides the viewer a great adventure story. Destan (Gyllenhaal) is the adopted son of the King of Persia and is anything but a calm and obedient Prince. It is his penchant for doing what he wants, and not necessarily what he is told to do, that sets him on his journey to protect the mysterious and magical sands of time while also clearing his name for the murder of his father, the King. Destan's journey is full of action, humor, and death defying tasks that build his character as well as open his heart to the love of a spitfire woman, Tamina (Gemma Arterton). The movie gives just enough history and myth, plenty of action, and the right dose of playful sarcasm between characters to keep you fully engaged. Add in very good performances by all involved, with the bonus of a hilarious anti-taxation character Sheik Amar (Alfred Molina), and you cannot help but be satisfied. The most gratifying element just may be that this is a film adapted from a video game yet you would never know it as it is written with a level of maturity and directed with the intention of providing original thought on the material. | | | | In 1973 Columbia University behavioral psychologist Herbert Terrace had an idea. What if a chimpanzee baby was taken from its birth mother and raised as a human child, in a human household? This idea would become a reality when he made arrangements with a Primate Center to take one of their newborn chimpanzees just days after birth. The chimps new "mother" would be a former student of his, Stephanie Lafarge; a woman who already had children of her own and was living an above average middle class life with her new husband and his children in New York City. The LeFarge household was far from common, it had the air of a hippie commune, and Stephanie not the greatest of disciplinarians. When the chimp, whom they names Nim arrived playtime began. The science of the experiment, to see if by teaching a chimpanzee sign language from birth and having him live as a human child could produce the development of language, and grammatical sentences, was all but lost on the Lefarge's. At one moment in the documentary you just may believe Stephanie and her less than conservative ways would be open to letting Nim explore his sexuality with her; the mother-child bond exceeding past the appropriate by any standards.
For Nim, living with the Lefarge's was a great time. He had full run of the house, lots of people and toys to play with, and an overabundance of love. The complication of course came in the form of discipline, and the science began to suffer because Stephanie was not raising Nim as a human child would be raised but letting him be free to explore his "animal side". The detrimental effect it would have on the experiment, and did have, is explored vaguely in the documentary Project Nim. No one directly wants to blame anyone for why Nim never was quite human, or perhaps it is the reality that an animal cannot be caged, changed, and made to be something else. The nature vs. nurture debate floats in one's mind constantly as the many people who come in and out of Nim's life have different approaches on how to treat him. Nim is taken from the LeFarge's and sent to a beautiful home upstate that is owned by Columbia University and Terrace creates a home for him with several teacher's to continue the experiment of language development. To be clear though, Terrace has little contact with Nim throughout the years, except for media appearances.
Nim's life will not end in this home, and the rest of the story is shocking to watch. One may call it a documentary that belongs in the horror genre as it narrates just what fate became of Nim, and the struggles he would face in his life for being nearly abandoned, and branded different. Because Nim does learn to sign, he is able to communicate with humans, and express his wishes when he wants something. Nim's progress is remarkable, but he is not treated as remarkable as he grows older and the animal instinct inside of him grows. It is this point that will anger you while watching the movie. The documentary paints a picture of an animal with violent tendencies that cannot be controlled while all of the information leading up to the point would point elsewhere, unless provoked (as even a human is capable). There are interviews with some of his teacher's that point in the direction of non-violence, but just enough of the other side to call it into question. There is also a great deal of information left out of the film. Endless questions are raised as the story unfolds, through interviews with the people who worked with and raised Nim, as well as actual archive footage of the time spent with Nim in "school" and at play. The audience sees one side of the story as it is presented before them in footage but the people who were there tell a story plagued with holes, and suspicion.
When Terrace is asked questions as to the treatment of Nim, or what happened to the experiment, he plays the fool. His despicable demeanor, and all around creepy tone of voice that makes you shiver, gives him little credibility. You know he remembers, and you know he had bigger motivations that what he is saying to the documentarian then he wants revealed or let on. It is his complete lack of responsibility for the way his actions influenced the life of an animal that makes him deplorable. There is a villain in this story, and that villain is Herbert Terrace.
Project Nim is a revealing revelation in not only a historical science experiment but also in the matters of respect for life. Nim may have been a chimpanzee, but he was not just an animal. He had feelings of fear and happiness, he bonded with those who raised him and had found a home amongst Terrace's teachers. What happened to Nim is a story you will never forget, and it is documented in the film with full impact and influence. Project Nim is not a film about a happy chimpanzee who came to live with humans. It is more a commentary on the flaws of behavioral science, the flaws of mankind, and above all the realization that it is possible for a primate species to evolve in unimaginable ways--if only humans were a strong enough species to allow the flourishing to occur without dire consequence.
| | | | Review Coming Soon. | | | | | Walking in you may be expecting a fast-paced, thrill filled, gangster movie. This is not how it is presented. It is actually a very slowly paced film that is more about character development and romance than action or more specifically, robbing banks. It is refreshing to see more of a human side to a story such as this and not just a glorification of a lifestyle full of crime and dangerous circumstances. Essentially the film is a biographical and contemplative look at the workings of a man who was the most wanted in America while being caring, compassionate, and remorseful. The movie brings a level of depth to John Dillinger that is unexpected, and well received. | | | | | To say this film is not very good is harsh. Its fault lies in following the plot and the backstory. It never fully explains quite a lot of things and that leaves you wondering about how something is possible or why certain people are referred to as a distinct type of person with abilities. Even with this it is still entertaining and has the potential to hook you in its twisted world. | | | | Adapted from the stage play of the same name, the film Rabbit Hole examines the ways in which a married couple cope with the loss of their 4-year old son. Moving away from the initial aftermath of such an emotional and life-changing loss the story takes place eight months after his death. It focuses on what happens as days go by, and how we as people move forward when unexpected and unforseen actions rip apart our simple existence.
The opening scene of Rabbit Hole takes place in an idyllic backyard garden. A nearly unrecognizable Nicole Kidman (Becca) is planting a colorful, and quite beautiful flower. Everything appears to be perfect with the white picket fence and picture perfect suburban house in the background. But this home holds a great deal of pain that will be examined as the film progresses and we learn just what struggles Becca (Kidman) and Howie (Aaron Eckhart) deal with each and every day inside the pristine walls of their home. Losing a child is shown to be one of the most difficult things a person can live through, but moving past it shows to be even more straining. Through the characters struggles you see how life does go on but how can you accept that simple fact when you feel none of it should have happened. As Becca angrily states during a group therapy, "Why didn't God just make another angel". This one line says so much more than any long-winded monologue ever could in relation to Becca's feelings and Kidman delivers it with great force while her eyes do the rest.
As the film deals with heavy subjects such as grief, infidelity, the re-establishment of intimacy, and forgiveness it rarely reaches the level of dramatic seriousness one might expect. The script, by David Lindsay-Abaire, is full of dynamic dialogue and lines of great emotional depth, as well as being pertinent to the trials of life. There is a level of humor though that permeates the entire film. Many scenes evoke laughter in the viewer instead of empathy. The only explanation I can find is the uncomfortable nature of what is being shown on screen. The character's are constantly being put in situations where they must relive the horrors of the past and even explain it to complete strangers or their own family. These are the times you would expect to be brought to tears yet you are not. In life humor is used when people are nervous, excited, depressed (sarcasm), and in times of great pain to mask the true feelings beneath the surface. That is what Rabbit Hole does without even trying, it represents the reality of the situation and how even the most devastating moments can cause bouts of laughter. Then there are the lines written out of pure genius. A great many of them belonging to the fantastic Dianne Wiest as Becca's mother Nat. Having lost her adult son previously she is aware of what Becca is going through and tries to help as much as possible; even as Becca pushes her away because the circumstances were wholly different. Near the end of the film Nat answers Becca with the most profound, honest, and altogether truthful statement about living past what happened. She states, "At some point it becomes bearable." Bearable indeed. Life will never be as it was for Becca and Howie, nor should it be. But life does go on, one step, day, and event at a time.
With the performances by Nicole Kidman, Dianne Weist, and Aaron Eckhart and screenplay by David Lindsay-Abaire Rabbit Hole is a film dependent on performance and dialogue delivery amongst the characters. Thankfully everyone involved has succeeded at bringing everything together making it not the easiest film to watch in terms of subject matter but a film worth watching for what it represents candidly.
| | | | | The film is slow to get started and loses even more steam as it moves along. The stakes are just never raised enough to where you are invested in the character's and what they are trying to accomplish. It also spends to much time on a B storyline involving the Jack Bruno character that is ultimately time that should have been spent developing the larger plot of the film. The movie does have some fun action sequences and great special effects but as far as holding the attention of the audience, and one of a child especially, it fails. | | | | Ballad blasting princesses, cute, cuddly sidekicks covered in soft fur, and magical kingdoms soaked in overwhelming pastel are all elements not present in Rango. This is not to say that the film is devoid of any kind of music and love in that an owl mariachi band narrates the story while two lizards, rather than a duo of airbrushed royalty, begin to fall for one another. The supporting characters too, can be described as "cute" if one's opinion of the adorable happens to include slimy fat toads, pet rats, and one-eared hares. Director Gore Verbinski's foray into animation embraces the deformed and the ugly; favoring damp, dirty, and reptilian over traditional teddy bear. This chosen art direction is well suited to the classic spaghetti-western world in which Rango is set.
The film begins with a close-up of a lizard named Lars (Johhny Depp). Delivering some of the funniest voice-work of his career, Depp's Lars acts out various scenes of complete randomness with a headless Barbie and a dead cockroach as props. The audience quickly learns that Lars is a pet trapped in an aquarium, where his crazy imagination is the only thing he's got going for him. All of that changes when a car accident breaks him free and throws him into the Mojave Desert. He soon comes across a small town in the midst of a severe drought where innocents are helpless to its outlaw inhabitants. And here the classic western begins as Lars lets his imagination run wild, eventually becoming the new town sheriff, Rango. The movie has everything a western should have: gun standoffs, shootouts, campfire stories, riding into the sunset frontier, and even Clint Eastwood's classic Man with No Name character makes an appearance! Excellent voice work by a talented cast including Isla Fisher, Abigail Breslin, Ned Beatty, Alfred Molina, Timothy Olyphant, Ray Winstone, and Bill Nighy, help in bringing the west to life. And when the film isn't a western, it's a dark comedy or a mystery involving water and a corrupt mayor that would make any fan of the classic, Chinatown , smile. Despite it's old-western charm, the movie isn't perfect. The screenplay tends to ramble off base at times resulting in a sluggish middle and the story doesn't have enough dramatic arc to ever really get fully behind Rango's quest. With that said however, the movie manages to polish everything up in the end, still packing enough action, adventure, humor, and originality to warrant a fun trip to the theaters.
Is this a trip for the whole family? Toddlers may wish to stay clear in that Verbinski doesn't hold back on his images of terrifying rattlesnakes at all. And that an armadillo/road-kill missing his entire midsection initially sends Lars on his quest, should give some kind of clue to the film's overall dark-comedy tone. For everyone else? Thanks to some incredibly beautiful animation, older kids will have fun with how creatively cool and weird this unique adventure truly is and for adults, there's a sequence where the townspeople march like zombies to a weekly ritual, every Wednesday at noon, where the mayor proclaims the event to be a "time of deliverance." Little touches on religious debate such as that one in addition to various clever movie references are just enough to satiate our appetites for decent filmmaking. Being pretty much the only animated feature not distributed in 3D these days, Rango proves that a good time at the theaters can be reliant on focusing on originality and imagination rather than whether or not four-million dollars should be spent on conversion gimmickry.
| | | | Do not let their ages fool you, this group of over-the-hill spies still has more than enough left inside of them to deliver a movie that is full of charm, laughter, and most importantly, big guns and plenty of action. Frank Moses (Bruce Willis) is a retired CIA agent who has found a new life in suburbia. Adapting to this life has become a challenge and his only excitement is the once a month phone call he makes to Sarah Ross (Mary Louise-Parker) at the pension fund; as well as his romance novel reading brought on by his phone relationship with Sarah. When he wakes up one night to a house full of hired assassins his quiet life gets a great deal complicated - and he likes that. Dusting off his agent skills he sets off to solve the mystery of why he is marked, enlisting a little help from some old colleagues along the way. There is the more gentile, brainy agent Joe Matheson (Morgan Freeman), the feisty Victoria (Helen Mirren), a cooky, crazed, and delightfully paranoid Marvin Boggs (John Malkovich), and last but not least the Russian with a severe soft spot for romance, Ivan (Brian Cox). You could call this team of ex-agents (plus one call center representative) a dream team of comic and action proportions. They blend together effortlessly, and each and every line that rolls off their tongue's is timed genius. The story itself may not be the most creative, or innovative, but it is the characters and their chemistry together that make the film absolute good fun. Giving RED two hours of your time is not only a good investment, but one you may want to make over and over again.
[RED is based on the graphic novel RED
by Warren Ellis] | | | | | Young romance is sweet, at times simple, and altogether tragic. Tyler (Robert Pattinson) is dealing with the untimely passing of his brother, Michael. Ally (Emilie de Ravin) is haunted by the murder of her mother, when she was only a child. When these two meet it may be under unusual circumstances but what transpires is desperately common and only makes the film all the more enjoyable. This is not a film where the story, the romance and familial drama, are unlikely or hard to believe. There is no forcing their emotions or overdramatizing the conflicts. It is honest and real with characters who are far from perfect but battling emotions as those in the "real" world may. The film grabs you from the beginning and builds until the final moments. In the end it feels like it may be cheating to gain your sympathetic empathy but the emotion passes and suddenly you realize this is not a love story about two people. It is much larger than that and full of much more depth than the surface layer may suggest. | | | | | Debt is deadly. Especially when it is your vital internal organs you are financing. A visit from the repo men is what is in store for those who fail to make their monthly payments and well, get ready for a gory mess of fun when they come to collect. They are kind enough to offer to call an ambulance for you, after they remove your organ, but a lot of good that will do you when you have no heart. "Repo Men" may border on the absolute ridiculous but it has camp cult status written all over it; making it one of those films you may not want to watch but cannot seem to stop yourself from enjoying. Set in a futuristic world where you can purchase an organ instead of waiting on that pesky donor list this movie does not deal lightly with the subject matter. The repo men will cut your heart out without flinching, remove a kidney in less than five minutes, and never bat an eye at slicing off your ears. When one of these men has a crisis of conscience the simplicity of repossession becomes anything but, turning the film into a wild ride of man vs. The Man. The story may be plagued with numerous plot holes, poor pacing where you never know exactly when something has ended and when something new has begun and subpar development of certain important relationships, but it is still at times hilariously funny, hugely entertaining, and shockingly in your face with its lack of conformity to the idea that blood and guts may suit an audience member better if left on the cutting room floor and not in the final cut. | | | | | Alice (Milla Jovovich) has returned in the fourth installment of the Resident Evil franchise. The film spends little time getting to the action as the first scenes in the film are an abundant display of Alice taking down yet another Umbrella Corporation headquarters, Tokyo. In all of its great display of explosions, gunfire, and fancy acrobatic stunts the real fun comes with the twist that occurs; setting in motion something new for Alice. The twist: she is now human. No longer is Alice a weapon, and her goals change because of the fact. What this installment spends a great deal of time on is the search for the elusive Arcadia, the idyllic place where infection does not exist and life can go on after the contagion. Prepare yourself to spend a great deal of time with Alice alone as she searches for survivors, ultimately finding her way to Los Angeles. There is also more of the same fun of watching Alice, with some help from a few other non-infected, including Claire (Ali Larter) from the third film, battling the infected, just not as much as one may expect. This film seems more interested in the idea of survival and re-birth for the human race, and not as much about the destruction of an evil corporation. It has its share of action and plenty of effects but the spacing is more sporadic. It remains entertaining on a lower level, as the dialogue is spotty and unemotional, and the action small-scale. Jovovich still gives her all as the not to be messed with Alice, even in her pure human form; and watching her wield a sword, shoot a gun, and move with graceful swiftness as she chops off someone's head or blows it to bits is every bit as exciting as it has been in the past. She also remains every bit as sexy while doing it, something time has not taken away from her. | | | | Gus Van Sant is as hit-and-miss of a director as there is working today. For every well-written, insightful Good Will Hunting that he makes, he seems to balance it out with a shameful waste of time like Psycho. Although it has potential, his new film, Restless, falls into the latter category.
Restless tells the story of Enoch Brae (played by Henry Hopper, son of the late, great Dennis Hopper), a young man who spends his time tracing chalk outlines of himself on the street and attending the funerals of people that he doesn't know. At one of these memorials, he meets Annabel Cotton (Mia Wasikowska from Alice in Wonderland), a terminally ill young woman who is as transfixed on life as Enoch is on death. Enoch introduces Annabel to his parents (by bringing her to their grave) and to the ghost of a Japanese Kamikaze pilot named Hiroshi (Ryo Kase from Letters from Iwo Jima) who haunts him. Annabel shows Enoch that there are things in life that make it worth living - things like songbirds and Halloween candy. The two fall for each other, but of course their romance is doomed from the start since Annabel has only three months to live. The couple is forced to cram an entire relationship, along with all of the ups and downs that go along with it, into those three months.
On the surface, Restless feels like an update of Harold and Maude. Both feature death-obsessed boys who are taught how to live life to the fullest by women who are damned to die. That's pretty much where the similarities end, however, as Harold and Maude is a dark comedy and Restless tries to be a sentimental tearjerker. Restless moves slowly, has no character or story arc and just never really gets up to speed. The ending is foretold as soon as Annabel's illness is revealed, and the film does nothing to change the path to its inevitable conclusion. Restless seems like a made-for-T.V. Lifetime network movie, not a feature film. | | | | Remember a time, long ago, before every animated feature film had to be a Pixar masterpiece? There is no doubt that Pixar is home to some of the most talented filmmakers in the world, but because of that it's almost unfair to compare every animated film released to their Holy Grail standards. Rio is a decent night out with the family, a film focused more on fun than winning an Oscar.
The film starts with a beautiful shot of Rio de Janeiro from the tall trees of the Amazon. As the camera pulls back the audience has the pleasure of enjoying a choreographed musical number performed by a chorus line of exotic birds. This joyous celebration comes to a sudden end however, when smugglers arrive and a bright blue baby macaw, appropriately named Blu (Jesse Eisenberg), falls from his nest. The next scene reveals the birds aboard an exotic pet truck in snowy Minnesota where baby Blu again happens to fall from. Fortunately, he is picked up and cared for by a nerdy little girl named Linda (Leslie Mann). Flash-forward fifteen years and Blu has no recollection of ever being in the rainforest; he's an over-domesticated pet bird who never learned to fly. Just like his owner who prefers the confines of her bookstore rather than traveling to strange and distant lands, Blu enjoys his cage, and his routine that starts with Linda's hot cocoa every morning.
The world of owner and pet collapses and the story really takes off when a bird conservationist named Tulio (Rodrigo Santoro) persuades Linda to travel closer to the Equator. She must bring Blu back to Brazil in order to mate with another macaw named Jewel (Anne Hathaway) in order to preserve their endangered species. The vivacity of the Rio de Janeiro lifestyle is captured beautifully in the film. Through a bright palette of lively colors combined with some amazing wide shots from the rooftops of the slum, Brazil is everything one would imagine it to be. From soccer to sunbathing, motorcycles to samba, and of course the city's annual Carnival festival, Rio de Janeiro is the perfect place for Linda and Blu to let loose, let go of their comfort zone inhibitions, let instinct take the place of over-analysis and just have fun. And there's plenty of fun to go around. There's a chubby security guard with a golden underwear outfit, a drooling bulldog voiced by Tracy Morgan, an entertaining musical number by a cannibalistic cockatoo voiced by the "Flight of the Conchord's" Jemaine Clement, and even a fight scene of birds vs. monkeys. And with Jamie Foxx and Will i Am of The Black Eyed Peas accompanying the soundtrack, the old Disney musical formula doesn't feel as stale. Even if the film occasionally falls into some racial stereotypes (Mexican Actor/Comedian George Lopez plays a toucan with too many kids to count) the excellent cast still provides plenty of laughs for kids too young to notice.
The problem is that the big kids do notice. Not just racist subtext, but adults know when a movie seems to be running a little too long. Messages of breaking free of one's cage and learning to fly free are fine, but not when the message is learned with fifty minutes remaining. Almost instantly the audience knows the leads will fall in love and live happily ever after, the orphan child will be adopted into the family, that the hero will learn his lesson and defeat the bad guy. Predictability makes the film drag, which otherwise is a decently constructed family outing. Rio won't be one of the ten best picture nominees come next January, but for anyone looking for a quick vacation, the Brazilian sun is a simple drive to the theater.
| | | | Forget everything you know, remember, or think you know about the story of Robin Hood. Now go and watch this film.
Ridley Scott's "Robin Hood" tells the story of the origins of the legend of Robin Hood. It begins during the Crusades and moves forward from the death of King Richard. The years that follow are turbulent and full of drama, deceit, and full fledged fighting. As the film packs full its entire two plus hours with many characters and subplots it can be disorienting at times. There is much to learn and grasp and although it is tightly edited there are many instances where you are trying to remember exactly who someone is or how a new subplot fits into the story. Once you wrap your mind around all that is going on you find it is an incredibly enjoyable movie with solid performances by all involved and just enough action and romance to please any filmgoer. The best part is how it breaks away from the convention of the Robin Hood films and weaves a tale that is fresh and engaging. Marion (Blanchett) is a strong, take charge woman who can wear a pretty dress just as well as she can plow a field. Robin (Crowe) is full of mystery and his background and future a puzzle to unravel for both the audience member and Robin himself. The resident bad guy, Godfrey (Mark Strong), is deliberately evil with his traitorous ways. Every way you look at it each character is developed just enough so we care, or care to despise, them; which in turn makes the movie more than just another period piece about men running amuck in a forest. It makes it a good film worth watching. | | | | A tire lays abandoned in the desolate desert. Surrounded by an array of other discarded items it is out of place in the natural world. Without warning, the rubber tire begins to move, the sand around it unsettling. The tire stands upright, without any known assistance, and falls again. Like a baby animal taking its first steps it motions upwards again, rolls a few feet, and drops back down into the desert sand. This is "Robert", an inanimate object that has without reason found life. The camera follows Robert closely, watching as he learns about its new environment. What happens if I roll over a plastic water bottle? Can I defeat the glass beer bottle in front of me? That rabbit there, is it a threat? Is the crow a friend or foe? Robert is learning as he rolls along, and before long, and possibly out of boredom as the desert holds no great mysteries, he turns his sights on human beings. Again, for no apparent reason, he takes on the human - his weapon is the rhythmic shaking of himself, producing a high pitched treble that results in the explosion of a human's head. Yes, this tire is killing people, for no apparent reason.
On the other side of the desert, within binocular range of Robert, a group of people are watching him. The "show" he is putting on excites them. The reason for them to be watching the spectacle that is Robert is unknown to the viewer. The fate that awaits them again has no reasoning behind it. The story that unfolds around Robert with the local police officials - no clear reason. How Robert suddenly finds the voyeuristic nature of man when he comes in contact with an attractive female - no reason. Why Robert kills his victims: no reason. How this tire got the name Robert in the first place - no reason (except that is what the filmmaker calls him).
The pattern and main theme surrounding the film Rubber is an homage to the no reason. As the introduction states, "Life itself is filled with no reason". There is no reasoning behind why a rubber tire would suddenly gain consciousness; nor does there have to be. Such is the draw to the film Rubber: to try and make sense of it only plays into the idea of life being full of things beyond reasoning. Sometimes you just have to commit to the fact that there is no explanation. There is no actual reason for an event or an action. It just happens. Just as a group of people watching a rubber tire go on a desert killing spree just happens. Or why a screening of a film about a tire killing people in the desert would have a near sold-out crowd on a Friday evening at a film festival - no reason (almost).
Rubber is a film destined for midnight movie cult status as well as RiffTrax, and that is in itself a compliment to the creativity behind a film that clearly appears to have been made for no reason at all.
This film was screened at AFI FEST 2010 presented by AUDI. For more information about the festival please refer to its website here.
| | | | | Evelyn Salt is a spy. Is she bad or good? That question is what makes Salt such an enjoyable, fast-paced, action thrill ride. Throwing away the need for strong dialogue, but heavy on back story, the film produces one simple thing: action.
At first, when Evelyn Salt is accused of being a Russian Spy working within the U.S. government, her only goal appears to be to contact her husband. Her concern for his life occupies a great deal of her motivation and it does not always come across as genuine. The occasional flashbacks with the two of them fall too heavily on the melodramatic side of things and I must say, your eyes roll. Thankfully the film makes up for this by delivering a second and third act full of intensity that gives little time for anything but shocking stunts. When Angelina Jolie forgoes the sensitive side for the all out action heroine the viewer finally accepts Salt for what she is: one hell of a spy with incredible abilities and MacGuyver-esque skills. Getting to try and guess whether Salt is indeed working for the Russians is answered somewhat early on but it only opens up a wealth of new twists and turns to keep the momentum of the film going until the very climactic finish. Which just happens to include one of the most creative ways to strangle someone I have ever seen on film. You will never know exactly what motivates Salt and where she is going to lead you next. Making this a film that has succeeded in fulfilling expectations. | | | | The lush rain forest of Papua New Guinea is unmatched with it's striking beauty and desolateness. It stretches for miles, as the helicopter carrying some of the main characters glides over its tree line and between river ravines. The forest breaks apart to reveal a large crater-like hole, reminiscent of a black hole entrenched in this beautiful landscape and wholly out of place. This is where Frank McGuire (Richard Roxburgh) has been exploring; this is the entrance to the Esa-ala Caves. The cave itself, from above, is a sight to behold. With an unfathomable circumference and terrorizing deep dark depths for both the experienced climber and layman, the cave is a natural wonder that cares not for man, or anything else.
We find our main character, Frank McGuire, deep inside of the cave with his fellow divers and crewmen. It has been 17 days since they have seen daylight and their time is almost up as a storm is approaching the island that will undoubtedly flood the caverns. With top of the line equipment and years of experience it is this team that plans to map the entire cave system, going into its depths where no human has ever been before. Joined by his son Josh (Rhys Wakefield), financier Carl (Ioan Gruffudd), team members and Carl's inexperienced girlfriend Victoria (Alice Parkinson), what should have been one final dive before the storm breaks turns into a journey of survival. The storm arrives early, the radio is down so the early warning signal is missed, and as the water rushes into the caves everyone becomes trapped inside without a clear means of escape. The only option these climbers and divers have is to go deeper into the cave, into uncharted territory, hoping to find an exit via the river Frank believes the cave lets out into.
This is where the film should heighten the stakes for the characters. These people are trapped in one of the deadliest natural phenomena that exists in the world, pitted against the strongest and most violent of villains, nature itself. Yet the movie plays out at a uniform pace, never exerting itself on the viewer or giving way to an amplified level of terror. Deaths occur, painful decisions are made, and everything is done in a monotone fashion. The script does nothing to try and exemplify the situation as the history of the caves is barely covered, the threats that lay in wait for the team are never discussed; everyone seems to just know what they are in for, except the viewer. Had the script used this lack of knowledge of the viewer to it's advantage and shocked us with the many ways mother nature can completely screw with man it would have been fantastic. Does not happen though. Even the claustrophobic spaces are neglected as you realize you feel quite safe and secure in your theatre seat because the inner turmoil, anxiety, and fear the characters are presumably feeling stays put on screen. Sanctum may not lose your interest, save for the visuals, but it does not engage you either. The father/son bonding adventure it becomes near end is a snooze after the action-adventure it promised has yet to be fulfilled. The film reminded me of an underwater documentary where there is not much talking, not much of a story, but enough visual stimulation to keep you focused until it is over. Unfortunately, all Sanctum has is age old rock formations and lots of bubbles, no sharks or fish. | | | | With careful consideration and debate, FilmFracture has made the decision to not review this film. In no way does this imply that we feel the movie is not of specific standards or merits to be screened. We just feel that given it is the sixth sequel of a franchise, and one that has repeatedly shown great similarities in plot and theme throughout its films, it is best to take a pass. Should you see it and feel that it does deserve to be reviewed because it shows signs of a revival of the franchise please feel free to contact us and we will reevaluate our decision. Thank you for your understanding and continued support. | | | Editors Note: It is Halloween weekend once again and has been commonplace over the past seven years a new Saw franchise film is being released. As is also expected, we, at FilmFracture, have decided to not review this newest installment - and what also promises to be the last. This is in no way meant to imply that we do not respect the filmmakers or cast of this film. It is purely a decision based on our experiences with the former films and the generic formula they have created.
For all of our readers who are excited about the film we wish you a great time at the movies. If you feel this installment really breaks convention please email editor@filmfracture.com and we will consider changing our minds given your argument.
Happy Halloween everyone. Thanks for reading.
| | | | Warning: Review written by impartial party who has absolutely no connection to said material. Pilgrim lovers beware.
The amount of potential found in the first 45 minutes of Scott Pilgrim vs. the World is immense. It is unique in its delivery, through editing and with the special effects, and you immediately gravitate towards every character. Scott's plight in life, that of being a loser, is relatable. His slacker status not entirely pathetic but more comedic as we learn more about him. Then we meet Ramona V. Flowers and our excitement is raised even more so. The first battles with the exes are incredible. The humor immense as Scott wanders through his world barely completing a full thought. The term "ADD generation" comes to mind. We accept all of this because it is creative and natural in an unnatural sense. The viewer easily adapts to the choppiness of the editing, the random thoughts and experiences that are never fully answered or built upon. You even start to enjoy this deviation from the norm. Throw in the direct references to the anime style of the books through square frames and on-screen written dialogue blurbs and suddenly you are seeing things differently. About now the half way point hits and slowly things start to unravel and never come back together. It is a sad thing to witness.
The entire film is based on the six books of the Scott Pilgrim series. That said, a great deal of material is being covered in a short amount of time. The majority of the film is dedicated to the first and final books of the series. What is overlooked completely is Scott's journey into manhood in order to feel worthy of Ramona and most importantly, his relationship with Ramona. He is risking his life to defeat her evil exes but as a viewer we have no idea why. Ramona's character is devoid of any personality. She is as bland as can be and if not for her brightly colored, constantly changing, hair color she would blend into the background and be forgotten each time she appears on screen. Fighting for her comes across as just another pointless activity for Scott to participate in in order to keep his pathetic, loser existence intact. You desire to learn more about what makes her so special. Without this the culmination of fights with the exes grows tired regardless of the grand special effects they possess or for the most part interesting characters. There comes a point where you start noticing the background activity more than the foreground - and it is more interesting. The film lacks substance from its main plot point, the romance between Scott and Ramona. Without this it becomes a mere action movie with a videogame language all its own. But no matter how many '1ups' make you chuckle or the unmistakable familiar sounds of a hand to hand combat game nothing prepares you for the let down of never successfully establishing relationships. By the end you do not care what happens to Scott Pilgrim, or if he defeats the final ex and wins Ramona's heart. All you want is to leave them to their on screen existence and get back to your own world.
The film ends up in the land of a niche audience. Fans will be able to admit the flaws in the adaptation but still come out praising the film. Those unfamiliar will be left wondering why the high level of excitement existed for the film in the first place. | | | | | A sane, intelligent, successful, beautiful woman can snap in an instant, given the right circumstance. The circumstance in this case just happens to be her husband announcing he is leaving her for another woman. Call her a woman on the verge of a breakdown but do not call her crazy. That just makes her more nuts, but in a good way. The cheap thrill of watching her duct tape him to the toilet may come across as extreme but it works for the duration of the movie as a wild solution. Largely in part from the performances by both Meg Ryan (Louise) and Timothy Hutton (Ian). It is this out of the ordinary reaction that gives rise to unexpected sentiment and the chance to watch two people who have fallen out of love deal with their feelings and face exactly what went wrong. When a twist of fate occurs it puts them both in a larger predicament but not everything is always as it seems and although the twist is almost predictable it makes for a great final scene. | | | | | The girls from one of the most favorite cable television shows have returned and with great results. Following briefly where the series left off the movie version makes good on catching up the viewer with snippets during the opening credits of what came before and where everyone is at this time. Carrie, Charlotte, Miranda, and Samantha remain the closest of friends even as their lives have taken a variety of paths. The main focus of the film lies with Carrie and Big getting married and the ultimate break up of their relationship. Anyone familiar with the series knows this is a common occurrence between the two. This time around things are more complicated, not just for Carrie, but all the women as they are each faced with hard life choices. The film plays like a love story to friendship. It has the ups and downs, the tears, and most importantly plenty of laughter. There is a bit too much squealing whenever Samantha enters the room and the character of Louise, with her very large love for love, borders on eye rolling at times but these are small things we can let slide. Whether or not the women find their happy endings with the men in their lives the foundation of what these women stand for is solid: friendship above all else. Having the pleasure to watch them on screen together again will satisfy the most devoted fan as well as new additions to the saga that is Sex and the City. | | | | | The girl's are back, and one can only wish they had stayed away. In this continuation of the first "Sex and The City" film and HBO series, the four fictional women countless real women have come to admire, respect, and look to for both relationship advice and fashion forwardness have themselves gotten old. Not old in the sense of their ages, even if they are all approaching middle age, but old and tired in the sense that these characters have lost the sparkle a viewer comes to expect from them. Without a clear plot to the film we are left meandering through their boring and drab predicaments. Carrie (Sarah Jessica Parker) is trying to come to terms with married life and what it means for her social calendar, Charlotte (Kristen Davis) has found that being a mother is more work than she expected, Miranda (Cynthia Nixon) is at a career crossroads, and the once fabulous Samantha (Kim Cattrall) is doing everything she can to forego menopause, besides having sex with handsome young men. In every way these life trials could have been sewn together into a piece about finding yourself later in life all over again and the hilarity that comes along with it; instead they come across as making these women appear miserable. Even the expectation of witty one-liners and gut wrenching laughter they have provided time and time again is non-existent. A small dose of comedy is what you are given and it is not enough to balance out the dullness of every other moment in the film. Things do pick up when the girl's head to Abu Dhabi but in a disgusting attempt at humor the film actually insults the culture and makes American's look like the most ignorant and disrespectful people on the planet. Life has not turned out the way they intended or desired and it is the viewer who must live through the torture of watching the girl's try and get back what they have lost in themselves. Only to realize that there is no coming back from a sad rendering of beloved characters as such is in this film. | | | | | With Director Guy Ritchie (Snatch, RocknRolla) at the helm and Robert Downey Jr. taking on the role of the iconic British detective I desperately wanted to like this movie. 128 boring minutes later I wished I had waited for the DVD. It's not that the film is a complete waste of time; the costumes, production design, and action sequences are solid enough. Still, none of it ever seems to impress or inspire. The best part of the movie is the casting of Robert Downey Jr. as Sherlock Holmes himself and Jude Law as Dr. Watson. Gone is the Watson in which his only purpose is to serve as Holmes's fiercely loyal assistant. Law's Watson has the brains and brawn to see Holmes eye to eye. And Robert Downey Jr., utilizing his smarts, his wit, and his charm, is just an impossible actor to dislike. Law and Downey have a great onscreen chemistry together as the legendary duo, and yet there's not enough of it on display. Despite the failure to truly showcase the dynamics of Holmes's and Watson's relationship, the true culprit in this unsuccessful update is a lack of any real fun. Where's the fun in a mystery if the audience is never allowed to participate in the solving of the case? We get that Sherlock Holmes is a brilliant man, but it's no fun just hearing Holmes talk about everything after he's already figured it out. Due to an overly plotted and underdeveloped script, the audience is never engaged and the experience is never really joyous. The film definitely hints at a possible sequel or two. Let's hope that next time Guy Ritchie comes up with material worthy of his actors' talent and a mystery entertaining enough to be worth our time. | | | | | He's a 5, she's a 10. He's an unmotivated TSA worker at an airport. She is a successful and wealthy event planner. It is a seemingly impossible match but somehow Kirk (Jay Baruchel) and Molly (Alice Eve) make it work; the audience never feels like their relationship is preposterous. Kirk's boisterous guy friends that guide him through the ups and downs of his relationships are likable, authentic and their group has a good rhythm in their banter. "She's Out of My League" is a surprisingly fresh romantic comedy that reminds us that beauty is truly in the eyes of the beholder. At times the movie is a little unfocused, but it is a lot of fun from beginning to end and carries an important message about self awareness and self confidence. | | | | | In order to suspend your disbelief for however many minutes a film is, it needs to have a coherent structure. This film lacks any form of real structure. The whole movie is told via voiceover and utilizes a pause, rewind, fast-forward feature usually reserved for home viewing of a television show. It does not translate well onto film, especially in a movie theater. To say there is a beginning, middle, and end is impossible as it continually switches to various 'shorts' to tell parts of the story. The idea is that a kids memory cannot recall a whole story so they must tell what they remember or know. It may be a dream for someone with a short attention span since each short in itself is a mini-film, but for anyone who can actually focus for more than ten minutes at a time it feels incomplete. Sure, it has special effects, a tiny bit of imagination, and a couple cute kids but it does not have anything that truly grounds you in the story. | | | | | In the fourth, and final chapter, of the films featuring the practically beloved ogre Shrek and his gaggle of peculiar friends, everything is kept very simple. So simple it makes the movie quite enjoyable from beginning to end. In its attempt to not regurgitate the same old story lines from films prior it takes the viewer on a new journey; one where Shrek never saved Fiona, Donkey never met Shrek, and everyone else but Rumplestiltskin knows nothing of the famous ogre Shrek has become. By taking the story to this new place it not only gives a veteran viewer of the Shrek films something fresh but also opens the film up to a wider audience who may not be familiar with some, or any, of the films prior. Resulting in a Shrek that is a whole new adventure tale with the same old characters performing in ways they never have before, and giving a story that is not only enjoyable to watch but a welcome end to an animated franchise. | | | | | With an intellectual look into the psyche of people from all different backgrounds, whether rich and famous or seemingly anonymous, the movie takes you on an unforgettable journey. As you watch the many characters deal with their problems, ranging from the suicidal death of a loved one, or the harsh effects of fame, or drug-use as a coping mechanism, this dark world entrenched in Hollywood fills you with a sense of contempt for what is, and what may have been, in their lives had they, or those close to them, made different decisions. The movie presents an image of crumbling and destructive lives while surprising you with the idea that change is possible when you accept the truth and let it set you free. | | | | "We haven't heard the truth once yet, Chuck" - Leonardo DiCaprio as Teddy
Sanity hangs by a thread on Shutter Island and it is becoming increasingly difficult to differentiate the sane from the insane, the real from the hallucinations. The facility situated on this tumultuous island is a mental hospital for the criminally insane. The convicted patients sent to Shutter Island have been rejected from all other mental institutions because of the nature of their extreme psychosis and gruesome crimes. Teddy Daniels (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his partner Chuck (Mark Ruffalo) are US Marshalls who have been sent to Shutter Island to investigate the mysterious disappearance of one of the insane murderers, Rachel. Although DiCaprio's Boston accent drops in and out, he is still able to give a very well-measured and layered performance. Teddy and Chuck arrive by ferry, the only way onto and off the island, through a blanket of white mist, as if arriving from nowhere. From the moment they dock, the visual motifs of barbed wire and electric fences make the island seem claustrophobic. Initially, Daniels's arrival was met with openness and cooperation. Dr. Cawley (Ben Kingsly), the head psychologist, was extremely generous in providing them with the information necessary to conduct their investigation. As Daniels begins to delve deeper into to Rachel's disappearance, it soon becomes clear that things are not as simple as they seem. His trust in the hospital staff quickly turns to suspicion and before long Daniels is swept up in the whirlwind maze that is the hospital, which threatens to take away what he has come to believe is reality.
Martin Scorsese's Shutter Island is a richly crafted suspense thriller with elements of terrifyingly docile horror. It combines stunning visuals with the ugliness of human nature to create a complex world in which reality is always subjective. Since we view the entire film from the perspective of Teddy Daniels, our perception of reality is always tied to his. The film does a fantastic job of suspending the knowledge of the viewer by using Daniels as a potentially unreliable narrator. The viewer is perpetually left with ambiguous conclusions, never knowing which way is up even at the film's end. However, because the establishment of a firm sense of reality was not prioritized at the film's beginning, we, unfortunately, do not get a very good sense of the loosening of the seams of reality as Teddy Daniels slips further into insanity. | | | | | "RUN!" - every character at some point in Skyline. After a night of partying a small group of people are awoken in the middle of the night to blue lights filling the sky. The iridescent light looks like signal beams reaching down to the ground below. One direct look into the light and it takes hold of you, drawing you in, until suddenly it literally takes you; if the initial light does not get you then one of the flying alien vessels will by scooping you up into an orifice that resembles the female vagina. This is an alien invasion and survival does not appear to be part of the plan. The entire film deals with the invasion and the decisions the group must make to try and stay alive, and escape the aliens. There is a definite feel and tone of an older generation science fiction/monster movie as the deaths are exaggerated, there are lots of gooey substances, and the dialogue is of course full of over the top nonsense on occasion. But Skyline is enjoyable to watch for a science fiction fan and the special effects alone will keep you glued to your seat. The aliens are strong and without weakness; they merely regenerate and become even more pissed off. This is a go for it all take on alien disaster movies where nothing is sacred and human life an unbearable nuisance for the aliens who have only one purpose: to harvest everyone. | | | | | As the film weaves between the present and the past you are fully engaged in the character's life experiences and how through them he is able to answer his questions correctly to win the grand prize. The movie moves with perfect momentum and with such intimacy you never feel you are watching a film but instead you are experiencing it; the triumphs, the tragedy and the comedy that lives within the story.
| | | | | As the film opens you are thrown into a teenage boys dream. Young women having a pillow fight, bouncing on a trampoline in lingerie, drinking and debauchery everywhere you look. You have entered the most extreme sorority house on Earth, and it looks really fun. As always, something goes terribly wrong and all of a sudden a murderer is loose; with a "tricked" out tire iron and black hooded cape. This film does not simply focus on the killing of the sorority girls, it actually sets up a mystery to be solved. This makes the viewing of the film so much more enjoyable. Not only do you get the horror mainstay of killing people in inventive ways (and the killings in this film are very inventive) but you also have the chance to use your brain to try and figure out the who, what, and how of it all with the main characters. Be ready for suspense, a few shocks, and some very creative death scenes because who knew bubbles could be so frightening. | | | | Set in Hamburg, Germany, Soul Kitchen is a comedy of errors centered around Zinos, a small-time restaurant owner who has seen better days. His girlfriend is moving to Shanghai, his restaurant performing below expectations, and his parolee brother causes him the occasional amount of grief. To make matters worse, he injures his back causing a herniated disc, making it impossible for him to cook. Adding to the already full plate he has is a childhood friend who is set on purchasing the land the restaurant sits upon and he will stop at nothing to make it his own. Poor Zinos, he just cannot seem to catch a break. Thankfully this adds up to a great amount of comedy for the viewer as we watch him stumble through the multiple trials put in front of him.
The solution to having no chef is the hiring of a crazy gypsy chef who can throw a knife faster than you can blink. So long to the frozen, fried food of Soul Kitchen's past and hello to fancier fare that brings people in by the droves. Add live music and a DJ to the mix and Zinos finally looks to have succeeded in his work life. But this is not a film about the achievement, it is about the unexpected pitfalls along the way and with each success Zinos encounters something new crops up to put an end to the happy ever after scenario.
Soul Kitchen is what may be referred to as a playful jaunt of a film. It has heart and soul throughout and never falters in entertaining the viewer. Zinos, as well as the rest of the misfit cast, are developed enough to where we care about their goings on and futures but even in the most dire of situations the tone always remains light. This is a comedy, focusing on the humor that comes with bad situations as well as the greatness that occurs when people come together to make successes happen. Zinos may be a tragic hero but it is his good soul that keeps the viewer happily engaged with him throughout the film.
This film was screened at the Reykjavik International Film Festival, 2010, and was originally posted in the Frame of Mind section of FilmFracture.
| | | | Hello world, it is time to meet Dren. A human animal hybrid who is a lab created creature that should never have been born. Yet as a viewer of this film you may be more than happy she (it) has been. "Splice" delves into the scientific world of cloning and all of the implications it develops. This is not a horror film and if you are looking for such it is not going to satisfy you in any form. The film takes a more science fiction turn by showing the evolution of a species unknown to man. The horror remains in the idea of the unknown and what it means for civilization, the future of science, and the human condition. Dren may be a monstrous being but reconciling whether this monster is indeed good or evil is where the fun of "Splice" occurs. You never know where the film is going to take you or how far it is going to go as it grapples with the underlying issues of creating something unnatural. If not for the faltering in the end with originality and use of overtly sexualizing the creature the movie would be greater overall. Even still, "Splice" is a great film to get your brain working and to test the boundaries of what is natural and what is monstrous.
[Interested in reading more about "Splice"? Check out "Splice" Up Your Summer by Kristen Sales on Frame of Mind. | | | | | As a prequel to the former Star Trek films and the Television series the movie is anything but a strictly fan focused endeavor. It offers something for everyone regardless of your experience with the history of Star Trek and the tone is much more lighthearted and fun than you may expect. As a whole it delivers plenty of action, comedy, and a great mix of characters that make it easy to sit back and enjoy the show. | | | | | This is a movie that provides a great mystery and plenty of twists and turns that keep you fully engaged and wanting more. With a cast of characters that are likable and also detestable, given the circumstance; and a back story among them that is wholly unexpected but only makes for great entertainment it is well worth the 2 plus hours you spend in the theater. | | | | | If you are seeking a film that is heartfelt, touching, and wholly believable this is the one. The characters are full of range and emotion, and meld together on screen with a simplistic ease. It is a story about family, about overcoming ones past, finding your future and accepting who you are and the choices you have made. More importantly, it will make you feel something while bringing you laughter and possibly a few tears. | | | | J.J. Abrams and Steven Spielberg have teamed up to bring us what they hope will turn out to be the blockbuster hit of the summer. Super 8 revolves around Joe Lamb (played by Joel Courtney in his first role) and his friends as they make a zombie movie. One night, while shooting, they stumble upon a horrible train wreck that they happen to catch on film. The kids realize that the catastrophe was no normal accident when the U.S. Air Force shows up to investigate and play clean up. Soon after the wreck, strange things start happening in the town. First, every dog in town runs away. Next, random mechanical devices such as car motors and microwave ovens just vanish. When people start disappearing, the town's Deputy Sheriff, who's also Joe's father (played by Kyle Chandler, Coach Taylor from "Friday Night Lights") has his hands full trying to find out what is going on. It's only when the kids watch the film of the accident that they realize that the problem is much bigger than anyone could have imagined â their town has been invaded by a bona-fide monster.
Super 8 is exactly what audiences have come to expect from Abrams. In fact, replace New York City with a small town and twenty-something yuppies with middle-school children and Super 8 is Abram's Cloverfield without the "found footage" gimmick. What viewers can look forward to is a fun film that has jumps and starts mixed with subtle humor to break them up. Super 8 is a standard monster movie, but one with heart. Abrams, as both writer and director, keeps the audience riveted to their seat waiting for what will happen next, but also makes the viewer care about his characters. It's just the right mix of E.T. and Independence Day. | | | | | In this world of freaky doll-like surrogates the term 'plastics' takes on a whole new meaning. The premise of the movie had potential going in, but it loses you within minutes. There is no suspense or real mystery. Anyone who has ever been to a movie will be able to guess who the 'bad' guy is that's trying to put an end to surrogacy. Trying to actually understand how surrogacy is possible, and in such a short amount of time, is never fully explained. The explanation given is choppy and without real technological merit. The grand climactic moment at the end is anything but climactic. It comes and goes without a second thought. Falling asleep in the movie is quite possible, and being able to pick up at the moment you did fairly likely. Giving any more thought or analysis to this film is pointless. It is a science fiction thriller that lacks both the science fiction and the thrill. | | | | | The main premise of the film might be a little over the top and dark; it is about women being sold into the sex trade. Do not let this discourage you though as the movie is a great action thriller. Liam Neeson as the main character Bryan Mills is surprisingly tough and wholly believable as an ex-spy who has subsequently aged but can still hold his own in the field. Quite simply, this movie is an exciting ride worth taking. | | | | | This is a film that has something for everyone, but it may have too much for some (if you have issues with drug use, nudity, and sexuality in its purest forms). Do not let this deter you from watching though since so much of what it offers is unbelievably grand. As the story moves along it only becomes more engrossing and you find yourself in a trance. This trance overtakes you as the infectious nature of the people, the "hippies" so to speak, affects each and every character and you, the viewer, in return. Life is breathed into those who thought their lives were over, and also into those who had not a clue what or where their life was going to take them. The festival is not the focus upon which the movie ultimately falls. It is about self-expression, love, acceptance, and peace. Things everyone can, and should, subscribe to in their daily lives. Do not be surprised if you have a smile upon your face throughout as you experience first hand the people and the passion that brought three days of peace and music; with a dose of love, happiness and togetherness for all to create a cultural milestone. | | | | Tangled is Walt Disney Studio's attempt to relive the glory days of decades past and for the most part they're successful. The classic princess longing for a world other than her own is this time a fresh take on the Grimm brothers' Rapunzel  . Kidnapped from the King and Queen as a baby for her magical hair by Gothel, Rapunzel is held captive in a tower not against her will, as she believes Gothel to be her real mother simply protecting her from the evils of the outside world. A life of somewhat voluntary confinement has bred a welcome addition to the Disney princess lineup in that Rapunzel is an interesting, multi-talented girl who can sing, paint, chart stars, act as a ventriloquist, and use her long blond hair the way Indiana Jones uses his whip. As charming as Rapunzel may be, the real show belongs to the cast of supporting characters. Gothel is surprisingly complex as a mother who loves her daughter, but maybe loves being young forever just a tad bit more, and as sidekicks, Pascal the chameleon and Maximus the horse are the film's experts in slapstick comedy. Yes, with classic supporting characters, themes of escaping an over-protective mother in order to grow up, and a pretty princess all set in a happy ending world where love and dreams do come true, it would seem that classical Disney has indeed been restored. And yet the magic is never quite the same. Maybe it's the translation to computer animation? Maybe Alan Menken's bland musical numbers just don't have the same grandeur as they did twenty years ago? It could be that the film's adventure, romance, and emotion, although there, always feels two steps behind. Whatever the reason, Tangled is a good movie that just falls short of being a true Disney classic. Not that it'll matter; after seeing the film with my six-year old cousin, I told her I would give the movie a B. Her grade, A+. | | | | | The film offers a new twist on the Terminator saga and it is a welcome addition. Quite possibly the best thing about the movie is the way it is presented, as a war film. There is more to it than just explosions, machines, and special effects. It runs at a slower more methodical pace, building intensity as it moves along showing that a deeper meaning exists, one that goes beyond the simple man vs. machine dynamic. While giving rise to a whole new meaning to what a cyborg is and can be, along with the ideas of consciousness, it tests the notion of "know thy enemy, for thy enemy may be thyself". | | | | Review Coming Soon. | | | | It's a romance! For adults! Who like science fiction, even when it delves into the existence of there being a higher power who makes all of the decisions. This science fiction romantic (almost thriller) effortlessly works, thanks to the chemistry and likability of its two main characters, David Norris (Matt Damon) and Elise Sellas (Emily Blunt), and the wonderful directing choices made by George Nolfi.
David Norris is about to concede an election in the Senate and he needs a few minutes alone. What he gets is by far one of the best meet-cutes ever in cinema. David has just met Elise, in the men's bathroom; she is hiding after getting caught crashing a wedding. The sparks between them immediately fly and her quick wit, feisty and wholeheartedly honest conversation is just what David has been in serious need of on this night, and maybe his entire life. Their time is short but impressionable as they part ways. He goes on to make the greatest speech of his career, she runs down the stairs in an effort to elude security and make an escape. David and Elise were meant to meet on this night, but in their respective "plans" it was never to happen again. The group of people who are to make certain they never see each other again are the adjustment bureau. Men who wear bowler hats and perfectly tailored suits more fitting in another era. They work for the Chairman, a person/thing/something who makes the decisions as to how someone's life will play out, or at least nudges them in the general direction. Yes, we are dealing with a God-like figure but the religious undertones are subtle enough to not offend and the story would not logically work any other way. One mistake by agent (angel) Harry (Anthony Mackie) and oh no, David and Elise meet again. The ripple effects are now in full motion and the thrill that comes with this film begins to show its existence.
The second encounter of David and Elise meeting is not by chance as it was foreseen by the Chairman. As with any well thought out plan things do not always go as intended, as the adjustment bureau knows very well in their line of work. Taking the necessary measures to make sure David and Elise never meet again they must reveal themselves to David and make him understand a relationship with Elise is not going to happen. Chance, or fate, whatever you want to call it has very different plans. Over the course of time Elise and David will meet again, and there will be consequences for both. Reason vs. emotion plays a very large part in the decisions David makes when he must choose his path to be with her or without. Elise is left primarily without a choice as she is unaware of the existence of the adjustment bureau. In her mind she has free will, whereas David knows they only have the appearance of free will. Something that will definitely resonate with the viewer as you yourself consider if everything that happens in your own life is purely chance, if it is meant to be, or fated. Questions that bode well for romance of the adult nature. In the end the leap of faith Elise must take to trust David in order to find their future is of an epic love story proportion. I must admit the ending feels slightly rushed and much of what logically should be revealed to Elise prior to their adrenaline fueled run is left unanswered but she leads with her heart, not her mind, and it is with that that the story becomes greater than two people fighting to be together. | | | | | The title of this film makes complete sense as the main character is an American in Italy. The rest of it is nothing like its marketing campaign would have you believe. What we do know, from the few clues given, is that Jack (George Clooney) is an assassin and people want him dead. Or is he? His line of work is never directly made clear but we can assume this is the case. Even if the only time he shoots a gun is out of self defense. As for being touted as an action movie, or suspense thriller. That is worthy of a great laugh. This movie has very little action and in my own opinion, I would not call the scenes that are considered the action parts anywhere near action. As for suspense and thrills...none of these either. This movie is actually an attempt at an introspective piece on a character, Jack (George Clooney). But it does not even offer a character that can fulfill this goal. The American is only fascinating because you spend the entire time trying to figure out what you are watching and even if you are in the right theater. | | | | | The film may be considered a romantic comedy but it offers up a great deal more. This movie is by far a character piece as it centers on showing the traits and little quirks of each individual. It is full of moments that will make you think deeper about life, love, and sadness and the ways in which people deal with these issues individually or with the help of others. | | | | | In life, nothing ever seems to go as planned and well, that is what makes it so much fun; as this film points out time and time again. Zoe (Jennifer Lopez) has everything in life except one major thing she had planned on by this point - a baby (and presumably a man to help her out with having one). Taking matters into her own hands she does what any successful, independent, modern day woman would do and gets artificially inseminated. As fate would have it on the same day she meets the man of her dreams. Whoops! It is one thing to have to tell someone you're dating you, for example, have a tendency to snort when you laugh let alone that you are pregnant from a can of frozen sperm. Watching Zoe struggle with this dilemma is overtly entertaining and watching her new beau Stan (Alex O'Loughlin) deal with the news is even better. The blank stare into nothingness as he ponders his impending future with Zoe is spot on as a man overwhelmed and bewildered at the reality of what his future holds. Once the initial shock wears off you are treated to the generic escapades of a woman and man preparing for baby while also getting to know each other. This may not be the greatest romantic comedy you will ever see but it still holds true to the formula and you feel in the end satisfied. Sometimes that is all you can ask for and all you need.
| | | | | Movies are all about suspending our belief and withdrawing into worlds where the unbelievable becomes real, even if for a mere 120 minutes or so. This film is a rarity as you find yourself doing just that but then realizing along the way this is a true story. As unbelievable as it may seem. With good judgement the filmmakers made the choice to not dwell on the negative. To not hash out all of the terrible things that happened to Michael Oher before he met the Touhy family. It gives you just enough to work with to understand how a chance encounter on a rainy evening changed a boy's life in ways unimaginable. Never one to live in self pity or doubt Michael shines as a survivor; and the Touhy family, led by a sassy ball busting performance by Sandra Bullock as matriarch Leigh Anne, come across as loving people who opened their home to a stranger only to end up bettering his life and theirs as well. There is a genuine sense of love that comes across as you watch and a surprisingly jovial tone to most of the film. It is full of smart wit and comedic jaunts when least expected. It is a movie that will touch your heart while showing the power one has inside of themselves to overcome anything and achieve greatness. | | | | | In a post-apocalyptic world the battle is not one of survival, but one of power through religion. The film begins in the all too familiar barren landscape of the atypical world brought to ash. A savage land full of cannibals, rapists, and murderers. One man is the focus, Eli (Denzel Washington), as he travels the long road west in search of what he has been told is the place he must share the prized possession brought upon him years before: the King James Bible. It is the Bible that takes the center stage and all that it promises. Be it power in the hands of Camegie (Gary Oldman), a Czar of sorts, over the surviving inhabitants. As he so pointedly remarks when questioned as to the importance of the book by his men, "It's not a $&*#*^ book, its a weapon!". In Eli's eyes it is a link to redemption, value and the promise of a future for humanity. The film does successfully paint the picture of a messiah figure in Eli yet it does not succeed in accomplishing the main twist of the film. When the ending is brought upon us we are delighted at the unexpected events but upon further thought and analysis realize it is without question faulty in its execution. There is much to analyze throughout the movie and those who have faith, or those who question the very idea of religion, will take pleasure in experiencing how the bible is seen as a powerful force over people. Whether in the hands of good or evil. | | | | If we had the power to fast forward through movies in the cinema this would be the first one I would use the technology with. The movement between story lines during the first hour leaves you bored and uninterested. The detectives are merely baffling around while they drool over the new FBI agent assigned to the murder case that inevitably brings the Saints out of hiding and back to Boston. When the Saints are on screen it is a pleasure to watch. They have the charisma, chemistry, and comedy that makes for a great duo. Even their new sidekick, Romeo, adds a level of charm to their world of vengeance. If only the film merely focused on their story directly and left the rest of the movie, including the lame and disruptive flashbacks, on the cutting room floor it would have made for a great film.
There is also the great disappointment with the poor attempt at creating a Godfather-esque family with Judd Nelson portraying the boss Concezio Yakavetta. The moment he opens his mouth and the raspy voice of his character is heard you cannot help but roll your eyes at what a disgrace this performance is to the history of amazing gangsters on screen. If you ever thought he may be a force to be reckoned with you immediately lose any hope of that when he chooses his weapon of choice to make a point to one of his guys, a gigantic salami. If it was intentional to make him and his gang look like a bunch of buffoonish thugs the Director, Troy Duffy, exceeded beyond belief. He did not succeed in having the audience understand his intentions though. Only adding to this disgrace is the napoleon complex given to one of the antagonists as well as the holier than now judging of the other one. Their motivation is never really explained and the one explanation you do receive is fraught with holes.
If you can hold out until the last 40 minutes you will finally begin to enjoy yourself and find little wrong with the movie at all. It is just getting to this point that hurts. | | | | | As a bounty hunter it may be a dream come true to get the job of taking in your ex-wife. Especially when your feelings for her are from positive. Milo (Gerard Butler) takes great pleasure in performing this deed on his ex, Nicole (Jennifer Aniston), and he appears to be having the time of his life for the majority of the film. Nicole on the other hand never escapes the bitter, angry, and downright annoying nag of not only the jilted ex but also the reporter trying to solve a possible murder case and being blocked by her arrest warrant. The film desperately tries to get us to enjoy their negative responses to each other while throwing in a B and C storyline into the mix. Milo is wanted by a loan shark and Nicole by those her story will expose. A large majority of time is of course spent on the relationship between Milo and Nicole and this is where the film falters as they do not possess a strong enough connection or story arc to keep you interested. Once the other elements from outside parties pick up the film improves but it takes quite a while to get there and even then it is not full of much substance. Frankly, "The Bounty Hunter" just misses the beat in far too many ways to make a viewer feel satisfied in the end. Instead you remain on the hunt for a better, more entertaining, romantic comedy. | | | | WTF?!? This is what the viewer is constantly asking himself/herself throughout the majority of the movie and that's not exactly a bad thing. In fact, the weird factor is the film's most entertaining aspect. Based on a Twilight Zone episode and a short story by Robert Matheson , The Box takes place in 1976 Virginia near NASA's Langley research center. Actors James Marsden and Cameron Diaz play a financially troubled couple; Arthur Lewis sees his astronaut application denied and Norma Lewis is a teacher who limps not because of her off-putting accent but due to a few missing toes. Enter Arlington Steward (Frank Langella) who offers the couple a million dollars if they press a big red button atop a box, a cheap looking wooden contraption with a snow globe on top. The only catch? Someone they don't know will die instantly. However the contrived premise isn't the primary culprit in this ultimately unsatisfying movie, it's the fact that much of the fun is deteriorated by film's end. The first half is creepily delightful with a mystery involving NASA, the NSA, Mars, lightning, zombie-like "employees", and lots and lots of bleeding noses. Although still creepy, any intrigue is lost in the second half as the film is reduced to an overly serious, pretentious mess complete with Sartre philosophy, religious undertones, and lessons on desire. It may be ambitious, but it's difficult to take the movie seriously when the set piece's psychedelic wallpaper is more captivating than any inkling of chemistry shared between the two lead actors. Director Richard Kelly's (Donnie Darko) latest sci-fi suburban tale of sacrifice isn't a complete waste of your time, but it's not exactly memorable either. | | | | | Overall, the film is a delight to watch. It is funny, romantic, exciting, and engrossing. All of the elements work together with such ease that you truly do escape into the world of the Brothers Bloom. | | | | | There is an incredible layer of sadness that resonates throughout this film. It is only exemplified by the muted colors, character personalities which are somber and distant, and the deep unspoken feelings that produce a melancholy world. The entire film is presented as a puzzle and the viewer is given pieces, spanning time and space, in unexpected ways throughout. Each of the story lines intersect and overlap without effort, and the transitions crossing time are so smooth you practically forget whether you are in the past or present. The deep richness of the tragic story surrounding Sylvia (Theron) slowly builds and by the time all of the pieces have come together you have witnessed a moving portrait of people consumed by pain, lies, betrayal, deceit, and little hope. The vulnerability and desperation that lies within any and all of us is painstakingly brought to life on screen while reiterating how hope and forgiveness are always possible. | | | | Set amidst the 2008 United States financial crisis, The Company Men focuses on three men from the same ship building company, a fictitious GTX, as they deal with the effects of downsizing. The film begins with archived news footage detailing the crisis juxtaposed against the spoils of wealth; setting the stage for the trickling down affect the crisis will have on the three main characters of the film. Bobby Walker (Ben Affleck) is introduced, a young hard-working and successful member of the GTX team who has the perfect home/family, a shiny Porsche, and an untouchable air about him. Phil Woodward (Chris Cooper) has spent nearly his entire life working for GTX. He is older and wiser than Bobby, and can see how the threat of being laid-off will prove disastrous for his family. His paranoia and fear evident from the first moment he appears on screen. Finally we meet Gene McClary (Tommy Lee Jones). The second in command he built the company alongside his best friend, James Salinger (Craig T. Nelson), and is now watching it being taken apart piece by piece as the good people who work for him are sacrificed to keep stock prices from dropping. Gene is the sympathetic company man as compared to his business partner James, the ruthless businessman. These are three very different men and the downsizing of the company takes them each on very different paths.
Bobby finds himself in a state of denial. Unwilling to give up the life he has become accustomed to he continues on with the assumption that he will find another job within a couple weeks and his family will not have to make any sort of changes. His wife is the more sensible and realistic part of his life. We watch them struggle through weeks, then months, and onto a year of Bobby being out of work. The once cocky man in a suit finds that he must make sacrifices he never imagined or wanted to make for his family. His road is an emotional one, and Ben Affleck gives a very good performance showcasing the change in Bobby as his spirit is nearly broken and the uncertainty of his future weighs heavy on him. Phil Woodward is the troubled soul of the film. Your heart aches for him when he goes to his post lay-off career counseling session and is told everything about him will keep him from getting a job; add it up and one thing is clear, he is too old. Chris Cooper does not fail to develop a great amount of empathy for Phil but Phil's path is tragic and it is quite evident that he cannot find the strength to get through his crisis. Phil exists to display the disastrous effects downsizing can have on a man of his age and the film manages to convey it as bluntly as possible. The most interesting character ends up being the man on the other side, Gene McClary. Gene is a wealthy man who could have retired years ago. He is greatly opposed to the downsizing and has alternate ideas to keep the company out of the red while they ride out the economic turn. It is in Gene that the screenplay does not entirely blame the capitalist swine for Bobby and Phil's fate. It is also with Gene that the possibility for a great future develops. The decision to make Gene the wild card, the man who still has everything even as he has lost his greatest achievement, but cannot make peace with how he inadvertently hurt so many is where the film gets its heart. The compassion and work ethic Gene has is of another era and generation. He is a remnant of the days company's respected their employees and valued them. Gene may take on a bit of the savior role in the end but amidst all of the misfortune that has plagued so many in the film it is with great relief that we see some form of hope.
The Company Men paints an appalling picture of a failing economy. It emulates the idea that loyalty means nothing in business any longer and the bottom line is what drives decisions. The film also proves that not all is lost. With change, sacrifice, and adapting can come greater realizations about the strength of family and friendships, and changing business models. That a group of very qualified, smart people who cannot find jobs is not for their lack of trying. The situation is larger and runs deeper than just two men but it is in the home that the greatest amount of the aftermath can be witnessed. The Company Men gives you a glimpse into the homefront of those affected by downsizing and it may be sad and off-putting but it also resonates deeply, as it should with such subject matter. | | | | | There's something in the water and it's giving this small town in Iowa something to scream about, though I doubt you'll be screaming with them. The water supply in the small town of Ogden Marsh has been mysteriously contaminated and it is making those who drink it unexplainably violent and mutinous crazies. The sheriff of this small town, David Dutton (Timothy Olyphant), his wife Judy (Radha Mitchell), and his trusty deputy Russell (Joe Anderson) attempt to get to the bottom of the mystery and protect the townspeople who have not yet gone crazy. When the military gets involved and puts the town on lock down, it becomes clear that the story is much bigger than the water supply. "The Crazies" has a potentially disturbing and horrific plot; a town's population becomes violent and zombie-like and begin turning on each other. However, because nothing in the filmic world is firmly established, there are essentially no rules, discernible causality or tension. For instance, the crazies themselves are never fully defined or consistent; sometimes they are zombie-like and sometimes they are coherent, sometimes they can die and sometimes they cannot. The lack of establishment makes for a rather uninteresting, one-layered film that only works on the level of cheap horror thrills. | | | | The year is 1997 in Tel Aviv, Israel, and the lead female character's daughter has just published a book chronicling her mother Rachel (Hellen Mirren) and father Stephan's (Tom Wilkinson) secret mission in East Berlin during 1965-66. Rachel and Stephan were joined on this mission by David (Ciaran Hinds), a man who in the first minutes of the film finds himself in a desperate situation, the outcome propelling the rest of the story along. The Debt begins in the present-past but the majority of the film is told in flashback, to offer the viewer the real story behind what happened during their mission to capture and send back to Israel the Nazi war criminal Doctor Dieter Vogel, a man who tortured Jewish people for Nazi medical experiments.
The lead-up to the beginning of the flashback sequences is plagued with tension, and hidden secrets. Everything is hidden from the viewer except the guilt washed across Helen Mirren's face as Rachel. The story her daughter has published is obviously full of lies, and it is up to the viewer to try and guess just what Rachel, Stephan, and David hid over 30 years ago. This set-up is for the most part very enticing, and a great mystery sets itself up in the process. As the plot unfolds in East Berlin it remains wholly interesting, thanks to the excellent performances by all of the cast members, as well as the historical significance of the story. The capturing of a Nazi war criminal, and a doctor who performed experiments no less, is enough to keep even the most easily distracted viewer engaged.
The issue with The Debt comes when the secret is revealed. It is not a great twist, nor original; dull and predictable are more accurate adjectives. As the film moves back into the present this level of predictability, and dullness, only becomes greater when Rachel embarks on a mission to make things right over their lies. Adding insult to argument is the completely ridiculous climax that will leave anyone thinking how impossible the entire scenario is, given the age of the characters at this point (no ageism intended but it is seriously inconceivable). The Debt has a strong story in the beginning, and enough of the needed elements to deliver a significant filmic achievement, if not for the faulty ending and lack of originality. | | | | Review Coming Soon. | | | | The symbol of the Roman army, a golden eagle, was lost 20 years ago when the ninth legion travelled into Northern Britain, along with 500 soldiers. The leader of this legion of men had a son who has grown to be a courageous and loyal subject of Rome. A soldier like his father he shows bravery in battle and strong instincts. Marcus (Channing Tatum) is a tortured man though, as his family's name is tarnished because of the loss of the eagle and the disappearance of all the men involved, including his father. He seeks to travel to the North to recover the eagle and remove the shame cast over his family name. His journey is long and arduous but he is not alone. A slave he helped save from death accompanies him, Esca (Jamie Bell), who hails from the tribes of Northern Britain and is the ideal guide; save for the fact that he hates Rome and all it stands for making him also a threat to Marcus at every turn. Their unlikely kinship builds from the moment they leave on their journey and this film becomes less of an action roman epic than a story about friendship, loyalty, and the movement towards change.
As Marcus and Esca travel through the treacherous lands of the North they discover hidden secrets about each other as well as what occurred twenty years ago. With very few scenes of fighting and action the movie is more introspective than one may expect. The dialogue is sporadic and plain and the performances restrained. Jamie Bell shows great talent with the conflicted role of Esca, whose pride and honor are tested by his allegiance to Marcus. Channing Tatum's Marcus is a mere figurine of an atypical Roman soldier on his quest. The role could be played by anyone without better result or worse as the script requires nothing abundant from the character. The pacing of the film is slow throughout with very little substance beyond the bonding of enemy's thematics. This does not make The Eagle a boring film to watch but it is very simplistic in its execution. The enemy does not lurk around Marcus and Esca but shows itself very clearly giving absolutely no assemblage of suspense or thrill. The Britains' are viewed as savage, with Esca seen as a hybrid of civilized Roman having been a slave for Rome for years mixed with a tribal bloodline that enables him and Marcus to move freely in the North without harm. The humanizing of the enemy comes in the form of a child, as well as hope for a peaceful future, but it is made certain by film's end any compassion for the savage is not to be felt. The constant battle between the old ways and new beginnings is felt as the minutes pass and the action subdued in order to make a statement to this effect. The Eagle of course delivers with the final battle, and the moment of truth in whether Marcus and Esca will join together or be torn apart by history. It is not the grandest display of heroism, then again it does make sense given the more tepid tone of the entire film.
| | | | | This is a movie full of complications. The complications of love, loss, desire, distance, fear, and war. It deals with a multitude of emotions and the commitments we encounter during life. What it offers is a great love story, one between two women thrown together in the toughest of times and with a common bond to begin with, that of a man. Their friendship is never simple, but their love for each other is fascinating in its complexity. | | | | | There is nothing like the sweet smell of testosterone in a movie theatre. With this cast it is inescapable and hard to not love. Barney Ross (Sylvester Stallone) leads an elite group of men who are good at one thing - killing people. Maybe not just killing but given the smiles on their faces when they get to blow something up or start shooting it is clear they love what they do. Their current assignment turns into something bigger, as it tests their honer and loyalty. They must overthrow an ex-CIA agent and the Dictator of a small island who are involved in drug running while saving a woman. Spending just enough time building the relationship between the men and developing an amount of chemistry that is fantastic the movie also supplies action at every turn. Definitely prepare your ears as they will be tested. This movie is VERY loud. It rumbles and shakes the seats. Makes you jump a little, and will definitely make you want to cheer quite a bit. These men may be on the older end of the scale but they can still deliver the action just as in their heydays. Now it just involves more comedy as they poke fun at their ages and everything that comes along with that. With their age has also come more sensitivity, depth, and relationship advice. As Mickey Rourke's Tool comments about wanting to die in the arms of a woman and not in battle, you realize these men have grown out of their machismo fueled desires to prove something. They have feelings just like anyone else, regardless of their tough exteriors, multiple tattoos, and skill with combat weaponry. The Expendables manages to move past the stark plane of action films to give balance to the characters involved while also kicking some serious ass. Well done, Director Sylvester Stallone. | | | | | This movie may be animated but it's not a movie for children alone. It is enjoyable for everyone and the laughter and good natured feelings you receive can be appreciated by anyone who sits down in the theatre. This world is one of many different animals. You have foxes, possums, rats, and badgers. They have manners, jobs, mortgages, and are for the most part civilized to human standards. Mr. Fox is a reformed bad boy, um I mean fox, who is looking for one last adventure. He finds it, and with it a whole load of trouble. This is a high spirited adventure story that brings a smile to your face and laugh out loud laughter to all who experience it. I must agree with one of the most memorable lines of the film and pass it on to you in the hopes that you will reward yourself with a great movie watching experience as you will..."have a cussin' good time". | | | | | The latest disaster from New Line Cinema is titled The Final Destination; one can only hope that the studio keeps their word. The "story" begins with a premonition that foresees the deaths of several in a bloody explosive accident at a race car track. Nick, the one cursed with these visions, thus saves his friends by forcing them to leave the arena before the accident ever happens. Fate cannot be cheated however, and so it takes eighty-two precious minutes from our lives to take the lives of characters the audience never cares about at all. Does that plot sound familiar? This rehashed and unoriginal film has nothing new to offer except for some bad special effects in 3D, but even that cannot possibly make up for characters with less dimension than a piece of cardboard. Okay, maybe this film was never destined to be driven by story or character development, but it's never really entertaining either. The movie manages to kill off a racist, a douche bag who cheats on his girlfriend, and an alcoholic who killed his family by driving drunk. The movie does forget to kill someone though: the audience member who has been praying for death since this piece of garbage's first frame. | | | | | Every great mystery should start with a murder. Perhaps not every one must but in this films case it develops a very large unanswered question and casts doubt upon many of the characters from the very beginning while also lending a token of comic relief that will radiate throughout the film. The murdered man or apparent suicide, we do not know as this is a mystery, is the ghost writer to a former British Prime Minister (Pierce Brosnan). It is the replacement ghost writer (Ewan McGregor) that we, as viewers, come to depend on to unlock the secrets of the ex Prime Ministers life and unravel the mystery of whether he did commit the atrocities he is being accused of by the International Court and/or was involved with the untimely death of his former ghost writer. To reveal exactly what he is accused of would be to reveal far too much of the plot and would no less spoil much of the excitement that comes with the revelations throughout the film. The drama and moderate thrills unfold at a meticulous pace never once allowing your mind to wander or having you believe you have solved the puzzle before the main character. Up until the very last scene you will be guessing, conjecturing, and fully engrossed in unearthing the truth and revealing the secrets of a conspiracy that goes deeper than you can imagine. All the while also reveling in the unique temperament of the characters and their penchant for sarcasm and dry humor that comes from the impeccable adaptation of the novel the film is based upon done by the Director himself, Roman Polanski, and Robert Harris as screenwriters. | | | | Beginning exactly where the second film ended this third installment in the Millennium trilogy fails to acknowledge the possibility of a new viewer to the series. For the returnee it will require a very good memory as to prior events, characters, and motivations. Focusing primarily on the conspiracy behind Lisbeth Salander's (Noomi Rapace) life it is a tangled web of lies, deceit, cover-ups, murder, and an all together confusing yet interesting investigation into a secret society revolving around Lisbeth's father. With Lisbeth confined to a hospital bed, after suffering three gun shots - and one to the head no less - the film lacks the pacing of an action thriller. It makes up for it in spades though with the psychological and political thriller it instead has become. Lisbeth remains a perplexing and exciting character while Mikael (Michael Nyqvist) is confined to a mere supporting character with his goal to set Lisbeth free by revealing the truth. His romantic side-story with Erika (Lena Endre) is an altogether waste of screen time but thankfully the time focused on it passes quickly and is easily forgotten. With Lisbeth's trial pending she is given the opportunity to tell her story in print, through Millennium, and becomes a part of the sensationalized media in an attempt to help her gain her rights back as a citizen and be acquitted for the attempted murder of her father. The myriad of possibilities this tell-all provides are all but overlooked in the plot as it amounts to little in the end. What makes the case for Lisbeth is the unforgettable rape video, originally made in the first film, The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo. Once again making this installment an impossible film to fully comprehend or understand unless the two before have been seen by the viewer.
The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet's Nest is wholly dependent on our connection with Lisbeth. Lisbeth, with her cold demeanor and emotionally charged looks, remains strong on her own. The interest in her life never waivers nor bores as outside of her confined space everything we want to know about why she has lived her life this way comes to light. Nor is she left helpless in captivity as in true Lisbeth form she communicates with the outside world and is able to make discoveries and solve mysteries with a little help from an electronic device. Even in the courtroom, she is cool and composed. Her answers beyond the intelligence level those who surround her expect, and her clear defiance for authority at an all time high as she dons a dominatrix type ensemble, gothic make-up, and a mohawk. It is the solving of this grand puzzle the Millennium trilogy has built around the unforgettable character of Lisbeth that holds the film together. The culmination of the story could not be more perfect and the growth of the character Lisbeth perfect. Her past has been revealed and rectified, making a future possible. | | | | | The movie as a whole may be a bit on the sloppy side but it still delivers plenty of laughs. The main enjoyment comes from the variety of characters and the varying personalities they create. From the kind and sweet good girl to the overly racist, absurdly out of order war veteran, there is a character type to please everyones mood or disposition towards what you believe is funny. The actual story leans towards the lame side; car salesman can only be so interesting when trying to actually sell a car. Luckily, the film overshadows any type of plot with continual jokes about anything but cars leaving you adequately satisfied and completely forgetful as to what the story was really about. | | | | | This is a wonderful film about a young man searching for himself and another desperate to hold on to what he once had. It is all about people and relationships, the ones they have with others and with themselves throughout life and is full of laughs thanks to a magnificent performance by John Malkovich (Buck Howard) and an exceptionally crafted supporting cast. There is also a very distinct dramatic edge to the story that lends itself wonderfully to your emotional connection with the characters. At once they may disgust you, enlighten you, charm you, cause you pain with their actions, or reach inside of you and pull out your heart for what has happened to them. You may even say the film uses fame as a metaphor for life; the ups, the downs, and the moments in the middle where the people who surround you love you, even when you are not a "star". | | | | | This just may be one of the most ridiculous and over the top movies ever made, and it is hilarious. It plays out in the format of, "what happened last night?, oh that did" and just repeats from there. It is this structure that starts to wear on you as the film progresses but there are so many great laughs you just let it go and enjoy yourself. | | | | | The film carefully blends the suspense of a thriller with the all out fright of a horror movie. With perfectly placed scares, that will make you jump just enough in your seat, to a mind boggling story you cannot imagine to actually be based on real events it provides the necessities to keep you in the moment. Its main fault, and what ultimately makes it only worthy of a small part of your time, is as it progresses it moves far away from the believable and into the world of the strange and indescribable. To take liberty with a story in order to make it more cinematic is at times necessary, but this film goes one step too far. | | | | | This film offers a deeply moving introspective look at man during times of war and the sacrifices and risks he makes to fulfill his duty. It provides a seamless look into a world that is fraught with danger and delivers characters that are so emotionally invested and damaged they seek but a small moment of normalcy. Only to find that normal is something they can never be again. With a level of suspense that never lets up through the movie and a story that is utterly engrossing and fascinating throughout the film makes for a visit to the theater that is unforgettable. | | | | | There comes a certain moment while watching a film when everything comes together. The experience has been and continues to be rewarding until the final frame passes on the screen. There is another moment that is extremely rare and only occurs in a very small fraction of movies. It is when you realize everything you have seen before has not caused such a stir in your mind as the film you are currently watching. 'The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus' joins the ranks of these rarities in cinema. The plot may seem simple. A man on the run joins a circus-like show run by the immortal Doctor Parnassus, his daughter, his closest friend, and an orphan they took in as a boy. The Doctor's immortality stems from a bet with the Devil many years before, and the devil has come to collect his part of the bargain. Doctor Parnassus' daughter is to become the Devil's servant on her 16th birthday. In an effort to thwart this from happening a new bet is forged. Whomever can capture five souls first wins. If it is Doctor Parnassus he will save his daughter from the Devil. Moderately simple to comprehend, right? Nothing in the world of Doctor Parnassus is simple and nothing makes complete sense at first glance. An inquisitive mind is needed to decipher the many layers and intricate details of the story. The multitude of canted angles only strengthen this fact. Nothing is balanced but structure is present. This is not a film you can sit idly watching while never taking the extra step of losing your person in the story. It will challenge everything you know of cinema and the ways in which the mind comprehends information, both visually and aurally. It will entertain you to the point of exhaustion because you have not been given the chance to be passive. Just as it temps the characters to choose the good or evil path, it will tempt you into either releasing your mind to its whims or fighting the freedom that it may bring to your cinematic involvement. It is my hope you give in to the temptation of release. | | | | | Welcome to the wonderful world of white-collar crime. The Informant! is the mostly true story of an executive turned whistle-blower named Mark Whitacre. Now I say "mostly true" because although the movie is based on actual people and events, the audience is never quite sure of what to believe even as the end credits begin to roll. Yes ADM, an agribusiness giant responsible for the lysine that goes into everything from orange juice to maple syrup, was fined billions of dollars for an international price-fixing scandal in the '90s. And yes, this was mostly due to Mark Whitacre serving as an informant for the FBI for two and a half years. But no, Mark Whitacre is never really that dependable of a source. As the story unfolds, lies do not seek to make themselves clear, but rather throw themselves upfront to become the center of attention. And it's completely fascinating. Everything from the insider's look into corporate crime to Mark Whitacre as a character study is incredibly interesting and what's even more interesting is that the movie's a comedy. This exercise in style may not appeal to most people, but for those looking for entertainment other than explosions and robots look no further. The Informant! is like watching an eye-opening documentary, only funnier. | | | | | This is not a film for everyone. It lacks a great deal of what you would expect from a movie, and does not care. It takes patience and a level of acceptance to the nature of the story to truly understand and enjoy the experience of watching the story unfold. For it is full of excess and exaggeration and never actually finds its moment of redemption. | | | | | What should have been a suspense thrilled movie is instead dry and uneventful with little if any action and a story that wants to be overly intellectual but fails. | | | | | A world where no one can lie - that is something you could really contemplate for hours. In this filmic world, where it is a reality, the being unable to lie is not cause for concern, it's the way in which people spout out every thought and idea in their head. The ability to lie and the ability to keep ones' thoughts to themselves are completely different things but this movie treats them as one and the same. Not only do people tell the truth about everything but they tell you everything they are thinking, doing, feeling, and so on. This is obviously meant to add humor to the plot but instead it makes for an awkward and over done script that is begging you to laugh at the lack of self-control people have over their own minds. As this lightens up towards the middle you are thrown into a multitude of other focuses. The main one being: how to explain a lie when you are the only person with the ability to do so. The solution is...create "the man in the sky" aka God. To go any deeper into that would ruin most of second half of the film but all I will say is that it is not very entertaining or humorous. This is not because God should not be seen as a lie, no, that has comic potential of "biblical" proportions. Its simply the execution and how it stalls the movie completely. You never really know where it is going or where it will end up. The romance and attempts to woo the girl is always at the forefront but it gets lost so often as the covering up of the lies takes over. This may be a film that grows on you with multiple viewings, but do not expect to walk out feeling satisfied the first time around. | | | | | I have to have it! Why? I do not know exactly but I want it. Why? Well, John has one and Lucy is getting one so I have too also. There begets the story of the Joneses'. A make believe family who are paid to get their neighbors, and their neighbors, to want what their company is selling on behalf of the brands we all know so well. While also delving into the idea of manufacturing happiness when even a manufactured family is not perfect. This is a film all about keeping up with the Joneses' and the ultimate catastrophic results that can occur from the pressure to have what others have, no matter the personal consequence. The film is a simplified look into the aforementioned but in all its simplicity it remains fascinating to watch. It makes you examine just what drives you to purchase the newest gadget, the brand name sunglasses, join the latest diet fad, or rely on your credit card to keep you in the game. For at the end of the day he who dies with the most toys wins. Or does he? | | | | | You may have heard of a film called "The Karate Kid". It was released in 1984 and starred a teenager by the name of Ralph Macchio. It has since become a treasured piece of film history. This is a re-make of that film. Not so much a re-imagining, but an almost true to story re-make that even with its slight differences offers very much of the same greatness the original did for audiences over 20 years ago. Set in China, this karate kid is actually learning kung fu. and is only 12 years old. Two points made very clear early on in the film. (Why then it is called "The Karate Kid" is a mystery besides the apparent desire to work off of a brand to get people in their seats, but we can let that slide). Regardless of the change from karate to kung fu the film holds true to its roots. It is about a boy in a new city who is trying to fit in but because of his friendship with a girl makes enemies. In order to protect himself from the bullies he learns what they already know very well, kung fu. Enter the weathered, broken, and funny older man who becomes not only his teacher but his closest friend. Their bond of friendship, loyalty and respect is a key ingredient in making a film such as this work. Thankfully, Jaden Smith (Dre) and Jackie Chan (Mr. Han) work perfectly together. Their tender moments bring a tear to your eye while the humorous ones a smile to your face. Throughout the film Jaden Smith (Dre) proves not only that his character possesses bravery, a strong will, and dedication but also that he, as an actor, is coming into his own. He takes on the role with great energy and most importantly, has the viewer cheering for him from start to finish. The film may lack momentum in the second act but by the end all is forgiven and forgotten as it is inspiring and emotional. "The Karate Kid" will always be the true underdog story. The new kid on the block proving himself; not through possessions or popularity but through determination and discipline. If this is the karate kid for a new generation then so be it; and may it be remembered by them as it was [and is] for so many before.
| | | | If you've seen the commercials and trailers for The Kids Are All Right, you probably think it's a comedy. Why wouldn't you? The happy, smiling faces of beautiful, upper middle class people wining and dining in the brilliant California sunshine; it's the feel-good indie of the year! Well, not exactly. The plot sounds like a wacky sitcom premise: Joni (Mia Wasikowska) and her half-brother Laser (Josh Hutcherson) have two moms, flaky but maternal Jules (Julianne Moore) and breadwinning doctor Nic (Annette Bening). Each mom had one kid each using donated sperm. Now eighteen and eligible to find out about her father, Joni contacts the sperm bank as a favor to Laser, who's longing for some fatherly guidance. Their donor/father it turns out is Paul (Mark Ruffalo), a hairy, earthy, motorcycle-riding organic gardner and restauranteur who conveniently lives nearby.
What follows is funny, but not nearly as cheerful and sunny as the posters advertise. The interactions between the kids and newly-discovered dad are awkward in the extreme; Laser seems disappointed Paul is such a laid back hippy stereotype, while Joni finds his freewheeling lifestyle refreshing and inspirational in contrast to her own academic rigors (a star student in high school, she is leaving within a month for college). Although both kids are willing to accept Paul into their life, Nic and Jules' reactions are more complex. At first, Nic is hurt that Joni and Laser didn't consult them before contacting Paul, but it gradually becomes clear she's more threatened than upset. Jules, on the other hand, is wary but open. When Paul offers to hire her for some landscaping (a contract Jules' upstart business needs desperately), she happily accepts.
I won't divulge any more of the plot, but it gets messy. Director Lisa Colodenko and her co-writer Stuart Blumberg avoid many of the cliches that could have easily sidetracked the story. In a small film of this type, where the honesty of the writing and performances determine its success, cast and crew hit all the right notes. | | | | | Let us all hope that the title will make good on its promise and this will in fact be the last airbender film. Because I cannot imagine sitting through anything again that is so undeniably boring and poorly structured. The fact that the script uses more voiceover narration to explain missing parts of the plot, not story, cues you in very early on that there is not going to be much focus on continuity. Which is a serious problem when dealing with a story that has a large amount of material it must explain and move forward with in a short amount of time. This cheap short cut leaves much unanswered or explained even with the narration and the characters very one-dimensional. The airbender himself is devoid of personality. As the "savior" figure he is something far from one of the people since his people skills are in desperate need of work. If he was meant to possess one note emotions than Noah Ringer (airbender/Aang) did exactly what the character portrayal called for. As a viewer trying to embrace this character, it never happens. As for his two comrades, Katara (Nicola Peltz) and Sokka (Jackson Rathbone), Mr. Shyamalan must have forgotten they existed when it came to direction because they fair no better in acting ability or delivery. Surprisingly, there is one performance, and character, with a small amount of potential, Dev Patel's Prince Zuko. He moves between being the son set upon reclaiming his dignity with the feared fire nation and the more pacifist man he actually is inside. I would like to say the film tries to enact adventure, supply action, and develop a strong foundation to build on with the war between the fire nation and the others, with the airbender leading the charge. All I gathered from the film though, and I believe you will also, is that no one seemed to be trying to make a great movie. Or even a decent one. At some point it seems everyone gave up on The Last Airbender and as a viewer you will have no choice then to do so also. | | | | | Oh no, another horror movie with the word "exorcism" in the title. Sounds like a great time for a nap. Think again horror film fans. This movie is actually worthy of the genre. [To read the full review of this film please visit our Frame of Mind section here] | | | | | When it comes to delivering a truly disturbing film, those behind this one have exceeded expectations. The movie has everything you could ask for from a thriller, and a dose of horror thrown in for kicks. With the sublimely creepy characters your skin crawls with their devilish deeds and your stomach turns as they perform their morbid acts on the (almost) pure and innocent victims. It strikes terror into the audience and a newfound disgust for the lower depths of mankind. But, alas, there is vindication; equally gruesome and overly ripe it satisfies that place inside you that believes true evil should be punished, and punished it is. | | | | | Wake me up when it's over. The cure for insomnia can be found in this latest adaptation of a Nicholas Sparks novel. There must be a story somewhere in the first three-quarters of the movie, aside from boy meets girl and has a mud fight or girl hates dad for divorcing mom, yet nothing happens. The slow pace is unmanageable as there are no real turning points so you never know exactly where the plot is leading you and where it may end up. Then out of nowhere it hits you with what is becoming the "Sparks Cliche of Tragedy". This turn of events may pull at the heart strings and touch a nerve but it is still quite vapid. "The Last Song" should merely be a last resort. | | | | | As the credits rolled on "The Losers" something occurred to me, as bad as this film is people will enjoy it. This is not to say that the general movie going public has no taste in movies. It is simply that the film provides the loose, comedic, action driven plot that will draw people in and have them quite possibly leaving fulfilled. If they do not have expectations walking in the door that is; most do have expectations and that is why the film receives the lowest of lows for production. Marketed as a fast paced action flick with comedic undertones "The Losers" moves at a snails pace. It is only the bouts of humor that keep it alive from mainly two of the characters, Max (Jason Patric) and Jensen (Chris Evans). Max is the overtly effeminate bad guy who has no regard for human life but holds dear his ability to forge destruction and live the high life. Jensen is just another part of the team whose knack for computers runs parallel to his love for questionable t-shirts and his nieces soccer team. They are the ultimate comic relief and without them the film would suffer more than it already does. As for the plot itself, it is tired and lacking any form of originality. While also falling prey to a variety of holes and poor development. This movie is popcorn cinema at its worse. | | | | | With some of the most visually stunning cinematography and special effects drawn out of a wildly imaginative mind the film fails to actually deliver a well planned and engaging plot even though the story shows so much promise. The Director, Peter Jackson, spent too much time focusing on the in-between, where the deceased Susie Salmon exists, and not enough time building up substance in the plot. The basis of the movie is the disappearance and assumed murder of the 14-year old Susie, and of course the search for her killer. All the while Susie is still present, in the in-between, constantly watching over her family and seeing the effects her death has on all of them. We know who killed Susie, it is no secret, but we never know exactly how it happened and to what degree she was attacked by her neighbor George Harvey, a sinfully creepy pedophilistic character played by Stanley Tucci. It is left to the viewer to infer through carefully planned imagery and scenes drawn from the memory of Susie herself. Nothing is done on a linear level or with complete rationality. Answers are never given and while we do not need to see her murder, something I myself think was an excellent choice by Jackson, we do feel the need to have closure. Not only for ourselves but for her family and the authorities. What occurs is incredibly powerful but it is far too drawn out and without clarity to keep a viewers full attention for the duration. Time almost feels as if it has stopped about halfway through and there will never be an end or a resolution to the story. When a semblance of it does hit, at the almost two hour mark, you have spent so much time waiting it does not have the impact one may expect. | | | | | Never could I have imagined the force would be with me in a movie with a title such as this. Yet the force is there, and it is very strong in terms of laughter, plot, and top-notch acting by a cast of nearly all men. (I will leave my feminist rantings on that subject for another time and place.) These men are part of the Earth Army; a kinder gentler army, built on the idea of peace and love and harmony in the world. These men just happen to work for the United States Government. Perplexing...yes; executed brilliantly...a resounding yes. To give away any of the plot or specific originality it displays will only ruin the movie for a perspective viewer. For this is a film that you must expose yourself to in order to really grasp how much fun it truly is and how fulfilled you feel walking out of the auditorium. One thing is for sure though, you will never look at a goat in the same way again. | | | | Review Coming Soon. | | | | | The film presents an insightful look into the angst and experimentation of 20 somethings. From the way in which we love, to the familial ties that must be broken to truly find ourselves, it is a powerful story for it brings a great level of sentimentality to the experience that is life. | | | | Director Michel Leclerc has created in The Names of Love a film about two drastically different people finding one another in the midst of their own much needed reconciliations and reflections. On the simplest front the film is a love story. Arthur Martin and Bahia Benmahmoud have the most unlikely of meetings, when she bursts in on him during a radio interview to chastise his remarks and beliefs. As Bahia is not your typical female protagonist she offers to take Arthur home with her, after a quick cup of coffee, because she believes you must have sex on the first date. Arthur, a more conservative older male is taken off guard, and kindly states he must perform an autopsy on a dead bird. The passing up of a tryst with the beautiful and enigmatic Bahia by Arthur is shocking, but it makes perfect sense in the context of his personality. Arthur is not a risk taker, he is a scientist who is very methodical and proper. Bahia is a woman who sleeps with men whom she believes are fascists, or right wing, in order to convert them to the other side of the political spectrum. Technically, Bahia is a whore, but a whore with a grander more positive purpose; whose body is used as a weapon of mass destruction.
Arthur and Bahia quickly meet again, in yet another unexpected moment, and so begins their love affair. But both Arthur and Bahia have a great deal more going on within themselves that dates back to their parent's generation, and in line with the title of the film, their given names. This is what makes The Names of Love stand apart from any other romance or politically fueled film. It balances the two genres impeccably well, injecting humor at every turn, and allowing these two character's to flourish amongst each other. The Names of Love is a movie that takes risks but keeps a firm hold on genre specifications to make it accessible to a wide range of audiences. The politics are not overbearing, the love affair is not seeping with amore, and the reflections on the negative that have existed in both Bahia and Arthur's pasts never depresses but opens ones eyes to a way of telling an important story about the repercussions of history on future generations. | | | | John Brennan (Russell Crowe) is an average man. He works as a professor at a community college and has an all too common life in Pittsburgh, PA. His life takes a drastic turn when his wife is convicted of murdering her boss and he is left to take care of their young son and continue the fight to secure her freedom as he believes, without any doubt, that she is innocent. This is the backdrop of The Next Three Days and it is a gripping thriller from start to finish.
The film is about John's plan to break his wife Lara (Elizabeth Banks) out of prison after her final appeal is denied. But it does not begin there. Instead it takes us three years back in time to where it all began, then three months prior, and finally to the last three days he has to set her free before she is transferred to a maximum security prison far away from the city. Paul has been doing his research up until this point and we learn along with him just how difficult such a task can be and how with everything that goes right a multitude of other things can go wrong. The cookie-cutter approach to prison escapes does not exist in this movie. It is full of sacrifice, tough choices, and the foregoing of morals or beliefs in order to take action; while shying away from the excitement of pulling off such a deed to instead deal with the more emotional toll it can take on a person. John is a troubled and conflicted man and Russell Crowe is at his finest in balancing his role as concerned father, loving husband, and future fugitive. He carries the entire movie and does it flawlessly.
When the escape does finally happen you may as well warn your lungs they will not be taking deep breaths anytime soon. You are holding your breath as John and Lara race through the streets, diverting the police, and finding themselves having to make the ultimate, most dramatic, and devastating choice for their family. All you can do in The Next Three Days is sit back and prepare to have an intelligent, deeply affecting, quietly thrilling two hours of your life. | | | | | When it comes to dysfunctional family dramas this movie hits the mark. It may not be a fast paced ride, but its full of emotion and it makes you think and consider what could possibly be going on between the characters below the surface. If you give it a chance and enter with an open mind you will find a deeply moving story about family, love, and the connections between people. | | | | | There are the hot shot detectives who get all the fame. Then there are the other guys. In this film's case the other guys are quite hilarious but their story is sorely lacking. Two men, one a disgraced detective after an unfortunate incident when he shot Derek Jeter, and the other, a forensic accountant with an unsavory past, spend their time completing paperwork chained to a desk. Detective Hoitz (Mark Wahlberg) is tired of desk work and eager to redeem himself. Accountant Gamble (Will Ferrell) wants nothing more than to remain seated in the safety of the office. Their pairing as partners becomes a full fledged war of different personalities and styles. It is this partnership that makes the film watchable as they learn more about each other and get into a multitude of predicaments. The plot itself, that of proving corruptness in one of the largest company's in the world, is inconsequential. It may be what gets them out from behind their desks and onto the street but it does not propel the story or ultimately give the viewer any form of real entertainment. You may actually forget what the movie is actually about from time to time because the focus is so very skewed. Everything lies with watching the two men interact and thankfully they work incredibly well together. Buried deep down in this comedy of errors is a political message; as shocking as that may sound. The credits roll to the song "Maggie's Farm", as recorded by Rage Against The Machine, while various bailouts, Ponzi schemes, and the like, flash across the screen. The political message may be there in small doses throughout but the darker humor that could have been drawn from it is not dark or sarcastic enough to break through. The raw edge is soft and mushy which is not entirely a bad thing but it does not bode well when you are trying to make a statement. The film remains structured more like a sketch show than an actual movie; it may be funny but it is nothing else. | | | | | This is a movie that will make you laugh out loud and cheer at the sublime performance of Steve Martin as Inspector Clouseau. The film supplies a fun and entertaining mystery even if it does tend to leave the story to the sidelines and showcase the talents of the entire ensemble cast at times. | | | | | Everyone meet Tiana. She is not a Princess. She comes from a working class family and currently holds two jobs in order to save up to open her own restaurant. She is also Black, in case you were not aware. By being the first Black Disney (soon to be) Princess she has broken a long standing mold at Disney Studios and by also being a strong independent woman who does not need a man (or Prince) to make all her dreams come true she excels as the most modern of their heroines to date. Now meet Prince Naveen. He is a Prince who has spent his entire life being pampered. He is also a Playboy. Most importantly though is that he is broke. His parents have cut him off and he has not a dime to his name. Now that changes the usual dynamic quite a bit. When he and Tiana meet it is anything but love at first sight and so ensues the witty banter, the casual flirtations and blatant brush offs and the makings of a screwball comedy romance that will have you laughing out loud. Tiana and Prince Naveen are two very different characters but with the help of each other, and some colorful friends along the way, they both grow and change and come to realize once you learn who you are you discover exactly what you need. Which is not always what you expected or imagined. The film shows us that life may not be a perfect fairytale but it is what you make of it, and perfection is relative. | | | | | This is a movie about getting to know Pippa Lee. From the second of her birth to the day she finally does something out of character. With a heavy dose of voiceover her life unfolds before us, and all of the questions we have from the first scene are answered slowly throughout - like her matter of fact rhetorical statement, "I wonder if i'm having a very quiet breakdown". As the story unfolds we are given memories and present day occurrences that spark our interest in Pippa, but there is also plenty of uninteresting and slowly paced moments where your investment in her is lost. Many things come across as cliche and drab while others, like her sleepwalking to the market to buy cigarettes that she then chain smokes without knowing in her car, are downright hilarious. This movie takes patience, and a desire to look deeper into what it may be showing and not exactly telling about a woman. For Pippa could be any woman, and she is many woman, all rolled into one debacle of a package. | | | | | This may be just another formulaic romantic comedy but it is great fun. It is full of laughs, great chemistry, and characters you will fall in love with along the way. It may not be something new, but it is a welcome addition to the group. | | | | | As the film begins everything is idyllic. The scenery, the soundscape, even the characters look as if they are living in a garden of eden. Then the sounds change, the lights go out and the Man gets up to fill the bathtub with water. The world will never be the same. In a post-apocalyptic tale such as "The Road" one can only sit in silence, watching and waiting, hoping and dreaming, that something somewhere good will appear. That hope still exists in a world taken over by fire, dust, debris, and cannibalism. It is a visual portrait of the end of the world and one man's fight for survival. Not purely for himself, as he is unselfish in his desires, but for his son. A son born into a crumbling world. As the Mother character states, "What kind of world is this to be born into", you as a viewer can only agree. It is this world that creates an incredibly touching film that will not only satisfy but touch you on the deepest most sacred levels. | | | | | "Girl's don't play electric guitars". Wanna bet? The Runaways took the music scene by storm in 1975, paving the way for female "rock" musicians for decades to come and this film does just what it should to portray their story...it rocks. Focusing primarily on two of the band's members, Joan Jett (Kristen Stewart) and Cherie Currie (Dakota Fanning), it chronicles how the band came to be and the circumstances leading to its demise. This whirlwind of a trip for the band is far from glamorous and even further from idealistic. It is plagued with drugs, alcohol, sex, and ego. At the same time it is full of female empowerment without heavy off-putting tones of feminism. As musical biopics goes it fully delivers on the promise to entertain, illuminate, and make you want to blast a favorite song that gets you up on your feet dancing, screaming, or doing whatever comes to mind as the moment takes a hold. In short, I love rock-n-roll and I love "The Runaways"; you just may also. | | | | Mark Zuckerberg is the youngest billionaire in the world. This is the story of how he earned that title. Although "earned" is not the correct word to use when referring to his success. This success is of course from the creation of the website facebook.com, or as it was first named Thefacebook.com. If you are not aware of what facebook is, you are in the minority and quite frankly may have been living under a rock for the past four years when it has really taken over the social media experience on the Internet. As the film states at one point, "people in Bosnia do not have roads but they have facebook". It has become a phenomena of proportions no one could have imagined. Not only a place for college students to connect with one another, as was the original intention, it is now an open site for any and every person to join, regardless of University affiliation. As for bridging the generational gap, it has done that in spades, where people from the age of 6 to the age of 80 and beyond are using it daily. Searching for long lost loves, old classmates, and keeping in touch with those close to them in a way unheard of before. The day to day business of buying coffee is now broadcast for all to see, "checking in" to a location commonplace, opening up the ability to know where someone is at all times of the day. Facebook has changed the way we interact with the people we know. Yes, your grandmother is on facebook; the choice of whether to accept her friend request is your own moral predicament to ponder. How did one website become the go to, and end all, of online social networking? The Social Network, based on the novel The Accidental Billionaires: The Founding of Facebook: A Tale of Sex, Money, Genius and Betrayal by Ben Mezrich, aims to tell the story of how it was created and the turmoil that ensued between all involved. The film is successful in offering the relevant information so that we, as viewers, know just how this highly addicting website came to be. What it also does, and possibly unintentionally, is make you wish you were not supporting such a site given the shady history of its formation.
Harvard University, the Fall of 2003. Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg) has just been dumped by his girlfriend and he deserved it. He is drunk, angry, and bitter. His revenge, to use his exceptional programming skills to create a website where people rate the women at the school against each other while writing on his blog negative remarks and hurtful comments about his ex Erica (Rooney Mara). It gets over 22,000 hits in a couple of hours. He makes a name for himself on campus, gets put on academic probation, and is hated by every girl. For the first time ever, Mark has a social status. Before long he is approached by three fellow students about joining an in-progress website exclusive to the Harvard community where people can meet online and share things about themselves. He agrees to join in, but instead takes the basic concept and develops something greater, but similar, while leading them on that he is working on their site. His partners for thefacebook.com are those closest to him, including his best friend Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield). With the launch of "his" site begins a spiraling out of control mess. Enter now the main plot of the film, the lawsuits Mark is embroiled in as he defends his facebook, and the actions taken in order to make it what it is today.
Told in a variety of flashbacks, the present day activities all take place in conference rooms of attorney's during depositions. As a piece is uncovered in the meeting we are taken back to that place in history and shown the scene unfold instead of having it explained through dialogue. A nice choice for a biographical piece such as this by screenwriter Aaron Sorkin as the generation this film may appeal to most is used to the visual aide form of storytelling. But besides from the occasional sarcastic remark that generates a laugh the movie itself has absolutely no motivational flow or viewer pull. There are no observed risks or great stakes for the characters. One might equate it to html script: it is telling you something, but it has no finesse on its own. As for the main character Mark, he comes across as wholly insecure but using cockiness and his intelligence to suggest he is not. To like Mark is impossible, especially as the film unfolds and you see exactly what he did in order to get where he is today. Even more so, he gets more and more annoying as the film progresses making it very difficult to watch. This is a film full of lying, and no apologies. Mark does not see anything wrong with what he has done to those around him, including screwing his best friend out of the company while keeping the fame-whore Sean Parker (Napster phenom) on board. All of the emotion you feel is that of pity for Mark Zuckerberg. The philosophy behind facebook is "Facebook helps you connect and share with the people in your life". Mark may be a billionaire but he is a lonely one, even if he has 500 million friends.
On a final note....the most disturbing thing about this film is how it is being hailed as a film about a generation. If the story of Mark Zuckerberg stands for the current generation they are a vengeful, thieving, dishonest, yet talented people, who are easily influenced and incapable of respecting each other. A people who are so obsessed with social status everything else means nothing. While a simple act of getting dumped by a girl can perpetuate your entire life so that you feel the need to show that you can be successful, at any cost. For in the end of The Social Network it all reverts back to the girl, Erica, and Mark's obsession with having her notice him again. I for one hope she denied his friend request.
| | | | | This is a truly wonderful film that will make you believe in the power of friendship and that acceptance above all else is the greatest gift one can give to another. The performances are absolutely fantastic and it moves at such a pace you only become more and more engrossed in the story as time passes. And for those who have a love for classical music, or the ability to appreciate the beauty in it, you will only dive further into the wonder and the power it holds. | | | | Laden with a heavy backstory of sorcery and age old feuds The Sorcerer's Apprentice pays far too much attention on young romance to keep the momentum going and viewer invested. Many centuries ago the magician Merlin had three apprentices. He was betrayed by one, Maxim Horvath (Alfred Molina), who teamed up with his greatest foe, Morgana, to end his reign and conquer the world. They were thwarted by the other two apprentices, Balthazar (Nicholas Cage) and Veronica (Monica Belluci). Upon Merlin's death he bestowed his magicians ring upon Balthazar and foretold the coming of a great sorcerer who would one day rid the earth of Morgana once and for all. Balthazar has spent many years searching and when he finds this soon to be great sorcerer it is by chance, or even fate. The heir to Merlin's power is none other than a geeky college kid by the name of Dave (Jay Baruchel) who specializes in physics. This part of the story is fun and held great potential. Especially the physics angle as sorcery is defined as science and magic, a key element in the finale of the film.
Watching Balthazar train Dave, with some success and many bumps along the way, gets you in the mood for the impending fight between good and evil. There are some great scenes of magic being conjured and small battles between other sorcerers. As well as remarks on history that will interest anyone with a penchant for witches and wizards. Then the film takes a turn and introduces a love interest for Dave. The introduction of this B-story does nothing to support the main plot and instead detracts the viewer from the enjoyment that was watching Dave become the sorcerer he was born to be. You desire more along the lines of training and magical doings, you do not wish to see an awkward teenager arrange a date. Bringing in the love interest for Dave is an obvious choice by the screenwriters as it tests Dave's commitment to the role of apprentice. It was not handled in a way to where we care whether he gets the girl or not. The real connection here, and the relationship that could have used more development, is the one between Balthazar and Dave. Their potential for a strong bond exists from the moment they meet, and they have a great master-apprentice chemistry going on at all times. More of the two of them and a stronger focus on the magic would have made this a really enjoyable film. Instead it passes as mediocre, neither boring or exciting. | | | | | Bob Ho (Jackie Chan) just wants to retire from being an international spy and live a quiet life in the suburbs with his girlfriend and her kids. A group of ridiculous Russian villains have another plan for him. Most of the film is dedicated to Bob and the kids adapting to each other and his pathetic attempts to try and get them to like him. An occasional cut-back to the hapless Russian villains occurs but I am sorry to report this is a "family" movie in the worst way. The worst way being how it does not ever establish a real relationship between the characters to constitute the happy family togetherness the end should bring. It merely treads along never actually trying to make us connect with the characters and their plight. As for the Russian villains plot...the leader is more concerned with finding a tasteful modern outfit than actually taking over the world. There is no intrigue or suspense. It all is quite obvious how the film will end and everything that happens up to the end. The real antagonists of the film are the children. The filmmakers may as well have cut out the entire B storyline of the Russians and focused more on developing the familial bond. Then perhaps the movie would not feel like a bunch of wasted film stock. | | | | | The movie starts and as we all may expect a mystery develops - is he, or isn't he, a serial killer. Wait though, this movie forgot to do that. Instead it just gives everything away in the first ten minutes. Then it forces you to sit through a multitude of melodramatic family going ons while the stepfather, David (Dylan Walsh), develops more sinister and creepy facial expressions. It is sad to say but the film is more focused on showing the pubescent teenage female body, scantily clad throughout in bikinis, than actually giving the viewer a real story to latch onto. | | | | | Wally Mars (Jason Bateman) has hijacked Kassie Larson's (Jennifer Aniston) pregnancy. Although it takes him seven years to realize it and only by spending time with her sweet, neurotic child, Sebastian. His actions were not done with malice or on purpose exactly; it was purely accidental - in a strange, twisted sort of way. When Wally meets Sebastian for the first time he is six years old and quite a character. Full of neurosis, an inquisitive disposition, intelligent beyond his years, with a huge imagination, and cute as one can possibly be, he bonds with his "uncle" Wally immediately. What develops is a friendship between man and boy that they both need desperately in their lives. Kassie welcomes the relationship and wants Wally in Sebastian's life, even as she dates whom she believes to be the actual donor (aka Sebastians's father). In a small way it almost seems like Kassie knows Wally is Sebastian's father the entire time. Or at least treasures the similarities in their personalities and mannerisms. Perhaps it is just the familiarity with Wally, and the safeness he provides as her friend, that makes having her son so much like him a positive predicament. Seeing Kassie's love for her son, who is just like her best friend, makes it all the more easy to welcome the idea of more than just friends between Kassie and Wally. Their romance is not something out of a fairytale or romantic novel. The humor of the film is drawn from real experiences and predicaments. The movie is not one that makes you have to suspend your disbelief that this situation could in fact occur, or the relationships develop. Wally and Kassie's relationship is not easy, nor is it difficult to imagine the two best friend's together. As the viewer you delight in experiencing the ups and downs, and the glimpses into how these two people, along with their child Sebastian, make up a modern family with ease. | | | | | The film does provide a great deal of suspense but the extreme seriousness of the situation the plot is trying to convey never quite reaches the level one would expect. It also lacks any real twists in the story and what is supposed to be a surprise is so clearly obvious given the build up to the moment. What it does make quite obvious is how traffic in a big city can be most inconvenient. | | | | Review Coming Soon. | | | | The Thing follows a paleontologist named Kate Lloyd (Mary Elizabeth Winstead from Scott Pilgrim vs. the World ) who is asked to go to a Norwegian research station in Antarctica by a scientist named Dr. Sander Halversen (Season of the Witch âs Ulrich Thomsen) and his assistant Adam (Eric Christian Olsen from T.V.'s "Community ") to investigate an extraterrestrial discovery. Once there, the visitors learn that the team has not only found a U.F.O. under the frozen ice, but they've brought its inhabitant back to their outpost, frozen in a block of ice. While everyone on the base celebrates their huge scientific breakthrough, the alien escapes and, after it kills one of their colleagues, the others track it and burn it to death. While performing a scientific autopsy on it, Kate discovers that the creature can imitate any cell it comes into contact with perfectly, which means that they have no way of knowing who's human and who's not. With the help of the only other person she can trust, a helicopter pilot named Carter (Warrior's Joel Edgerton), Kate must kill or quarantine the alien before it reaches any type of civilization.
The big debate surrounding The Thing is whether it's a remake or a prequel. The answer is that it's both. It's a remake of the original 1951 The Thing from Another World and a prequel to John Carpenter's 1982 remake, simply called The Thing . Written by Eric Heisserer (no stranger to horror, as he also wrote the screenplay for the reboot of A Nightmare on Elm Street as well as Final Destination 5) and directed by newcomer Matthijs van Heijningen Jr., the film is visually consistent with Carpenter's vision but is also very reminiscent of the Alien trilogy with its long, drawn out attempts to heighten suspense. The film moves at a decent pace, but there's nothing in it that hasn't been seen before. The storyline is predictable, a bad trait for a story that is driven by the fear of the unknown.
There are places in the film where it succeeds at building tension. For example, in one scene where Kate figures out a method to detect who is human and who is not, she goes from person to person, dividing the room into two camps, humans and aliens. It's a great moment, but there's no punch at the end of the threat. That's how the whole film rolls along: all bark but no bite.
The film does get a huge gold star for continuity - the closing credits are interspersed with a scene that sets up the first scene from the 1982 film (even including the Ennio Morricone score), answering all questions that still may linger as to whether or not it's a prequel. | | | | | Government cover-ups, conspiracy theories, and mysterious doings are works of fiction. They are what we expect from the latest movie at the cineplex and what we happily equate to being make-believe because to admit our government could lie to us, its people, is something of too great a consequence. The reality of the situation is that cover-ups do happen. People are lied to in order to hide the truth that a perfect system does not in fact exist. The Tillman Story brings to light a very controversial, and very true, story about Pat Tillman. Pat was a football star who chose to leave a multi-million dollar contract and join the Army Rangers. He did not want to be seen as a hero but as a citizen who felt a need to defend his country. It is what happened to Pat Tillman that made him into a propaganda tool for the army as well as part of one of the most unimaginable military cover-ups in recent history. [Please refer to our Frame of Mind section here for the full review of this film.] | | | | | The one thing you need to know before you enter the theatre: bring a tissue, or three. This is a love story that will tug at your heart and have you grasping for answers as to how and why anything is possible. In the end you will be telling yourself with great love comes great sorrow and loneliness and you would not want it any other way. | | | | | As a paying audience member you should not have to wait an hour for a movie to get good; or decent, as is the case with this film. It is a bumpy ride of poorly placed jokes, subpar direction, and lackluster character development through the entire first and second acts. It finds its footing in act three but getting to this point is a yawn. Dwayne Johnson as Derek, aka The Tooth Fairy, tries to lay on the charm and supply humor to his predicament. He is after all a very large muscular man dressing up as a fairy - yes, many campy moments ensue from this alone - but even his sparkling smile and bumbling antics are no match for the absolute lack of, well, anything remotely substantial in the plot. There is a good moral buried deep down only making its appearance in the end, and by then it is a relief to see some good natured fun, character growth, and sentiment. This is a movie about believing in dreams. Reaching for what may seem to be unattainable. Perhaps it does just that in itself. One cannot imagine it could become something mediocre at best but it surprises you in the end. Alas, no matter how much it redeems itself it is still something that should be avoided. Unless of course you have a thing for men in fairy costumes. | | | | There's so much wrong with this movie that it's extremely difficult knowing where to start. "The Tourist" stars Johnny Depp as Frank Tupelo, an American math teacher who finds himself running from Russian mobsters in Venice after a woman named Elise, played by Angelina Jolie, chooses him on a train in order to fool the London Police into thinking that he is indeed the real Alexander Pierce, a criminal withholding 744 million pounds in illegal assets. Did you get all that? If not, don't worry because the film's on the nose writing makes the plot apparent over and over again. At a cafe in Paris via a letter is where Elise first gets instructions from the real Alexander Pierce to pick someone in "similar height and build" as himself. The camera focuses on the letter like a silent film just in case anyone in the audience is deaf. Right before Elise meets Frank for the first time she scans the onboard train passengers and we hear voice over: "similar height and buildâ¦.". I can only assume voice over is used just in case anyone watching is blind. Then later in the film Frank is arrested and just in case anyone suffers from short-term memory loss he reiterates the entire plot to an officer. Oh come on! Director Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck (heehee) seems to confuse catering to one's audience with treating them like five year olds. It's either that or he's just very considerate of the handicapped. And if blatant obviousness isn't insult enough the script "surprises" us with one of the most preposterous endings in recent memory.
Dozens of hokey scripts are remarkably given the greenlight in Hollywood; the difference with this film is the extreme criminal misuse of its ridiculously talented cast. Johnny Depp and Angelina Jolie are arguably the biggest and sexiest stars on the planet so one would think putting them together in a romantic-comedy-action film would be a no-brainer smash hit. Disappointingly, "The Tourist" is rarely funny, unromantic, and the action sequences so devoid of adrenaline that a Barbie Doll would be offended. In one particular scene the mob shoots at Frank and Elise as they escape on a pair of motorboats. They might as well have used rowboats as I swear I saw a family of snails slide right past them. The audience is repeatedly reminded of how attractive Jolie is, but nowhere to be found is the Tomb-Raiding, Wanted, Salty Jolie. If Donnersmarck just wanted someone to stand there and look pretty he could have employed a statue. Just watch the film and you can almost feel Angelina Jolie's lack of interest in being coerced into a project gone terribly wrong. As for the rest of the cast, Johnny Depp replaces his usual antics with minimalism when eccentricity might have actually lended a hand to the film's lack of spunk. Paul Bettany is placed in another supporting role not worthy of his skill and 007 himself, Timothy Dalton, makes two appearances, one to say this operation is over, and two, to say this operation is over.
Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck is a gifted filmmaker whose 2006 art-house drama, The Lives of Others
took home the Oscar for best foreign film. But in an attempt to helm a Hitchcockian wrong-man suspense movie, he strays too far from his talents mistakenly in favor of mainstream Hollywood. The only reason "The Tourist" isn't a complete waste of your two hours is the spectacle of seeing Depp and Jolie on screen together for the first time. Do they share any real onscreen chemistry? Not really. But fans and admirers are willing to follow these two pop-culture icons anywhere. Here's hoping their next projects, shared or not, showcase the Johnny Depp and Angelina Jolie we've come to love. | | | | Bank Robbery is a family business that goes much deeper than the simple act of robbing a bank, as The Town clearly demonstrates. The film begins with a bank robbery gone wrong; a hostage is taken and the need to tie up loose ends imperative. The simplicity of such an action turns into anything but as Doug MacRay (Ben Affleck) develops a relationship with the hostage, Claire (Rebecca Hall). The FBI are feverishly on the hunt for his team and the one time hostage turned lover knows more than she should about one of Doug's crew, making her a prime witness should she decide to let the FBI know her secret. Everything becomes a tangled mess of personal relationships encompassed within this criminal laden world. Doug must choose between the life he knows and the prospect of a new one far from the entanglements of Charlestown. His childhood friend and accomplice, James Coughlin (Jeremy Renner), is the loose cannon constantly pressuring him to go further and demanding he do so based on his familial ties. Claire signifies a life far from anything he has ever known but the secret he hides from her is one destined to come to the surface and cause a series of repercussions wholly imaginable but hopefully avoidable. This team of bank robbers are far too perfect and FBI agent Frawley (Jon Hamm) is more than happy to go to any length, and threaten those close to them, in order to find weakness. As the film plays out it all appears to be very predictable with layer upon layer of borrowed cliches and re-hashed plot points. Yet it remains fresh in its own unassuming way. The characters typecast but still interesting. The twists expected but happily encountered, and the ending a dramatic climax where no one escapes unscathed or not emotionally bruised.
Buy advance tickets to The Town and earn points towards free Blu-rays, DVDs and download.
| | | | | **Special Engagement Release** Please refer to our Frame of Mind section for the full review of this film. | | | | | After you get over the initial shock of some of the dialogue in the beginning of the film you find that the movie is nothing shy of drab. You are simply put in a situation throughout where you feel indifferent. It does not seem to matter what happens next because you are never brought to be invested in the story. There is no excitement or an unpredictable moment throughout. It is purely a poorly done formulaic romantic comedy that feeds off of what has come before it but tries to differentiate itself with some vulgar, or shocking, dialogue from its main character. Unfortunately, that one small change in the formula is not enough to save the film from being an utter waste of time. | | | | | If it were not for the subpar performances, ridiculous story, cheap thrills, and poor special effects this may have been a decent film. Then again, that is just about everything you expect from a film like this, and it fails on every level. | | | | | Looking for a decent horror movie? Look elsewhere. This movie is a complete bore. You will be trying to forget you saw it immediately. | | | | The Ward is horror icon John Carpenter's first film since 2001's Ghosts of Mars. While many directors, especially those in the horror genre, evolve and change their style as they develop as filmmakers, Carpenter has, for the most part, remained fairly consistent with his style. A John Carpenter film is obviously a John Carpenter film, and The Ward is obviously a John Carpenter film.
The Ward takes place in 1966 at a psychiatric hospital. A young amnesiac named Kristen (played by Amber Heard from Zombieland) is brought in after being caught burning down a barn in the country. Once there, she meets Dr. Stringer (Jared Harris from "Mad Men") who believes that he can help her regain her memory. Kristen makes friends with the other patients, a tight-knit group of girls who tell Kristen about Alice, a former patient who died. Kristen begins to see the ghost of Alice, a monstrously ugly specter. None of the doctors or orderlies at the hospital believes her story when she reports what she sees, and when the other patients start to be killed off one by one, Kristen knows that she has to escape. Not only do the doctors make her escape difficult, but the ghost of Alice does not want Kristen to leave, either. Alice keeps killing, Kristen keeps running and the film grinds its way to its shocking conclusion.
The Ward was written by the brothers Michael and Shawn Rasmussen. On the surface, it seems like just another haunted house story. The house is a mental institution and it's haunted by a being that can cross the physical barrier and actually kill people, but it is basically a ghost story. But there is much more to The Ward. It's a slasher film. It's a suspense film. It's a psychological thriller. And it all wraps up into a clever if not completely original ending. Kristen's final realization of what has been happening has been done before, even in the not-too-distant past, but it doesn't make it any less effective as an ending to the story. Carpenter's direction compliments the Rasmussen's story perfectly. | | | | Part western, part martial acts, and part freaky carnival? Yes, put all three together, plus a baby, and you have The Warrior's Way. A film that in itself is not spectacular, nor epic in martial arts proportions, but sneakily entertains your senses for unexplainable reasons.
The story is narrated for the duration by Ron (Geoffrey Rush), who will soon become known to the viewer as the drunken retired bank robber who lives in the run-down western town. He introduces us to Yang (Dong-gun Jang) who is the greatest swordsmen that ever lived. After defeating his enemy clan he makes the choice to spare the final member, a baby he later names April (Analin Rudd). Knowing he must leave his world behind in order to keep the child safe he ventures to the West in search of an old friend. His journey ends in the town of Lode, an American frontier town that has seen better days. The inhabitants of this desert town are carnival dwellers and outcasts. They have been plagued by horrors over the years from the Colonel (Danny Huston) and the spit-fire town maiden, Lynne (Kate Bosworth) has vowed revenge over what he did to her, and her family. Even with the racist tendencies of the townspeople Yang is able to find a home in Lode with the baby April but before long trouble finds him, and the rag tag band of residents. This trouble is not only from the Colonel and his gang but also Yang's old clan master and his most fearful army of swordsmen. What transpires is a mixture of martial-arts choreography and a down and dirty western style shoot-out. Swords cut through the air while bullets penetrate skulls. It is loud, bloody, dizzying, and kind of a fantastic ending to a film that has a very slow start.
If you can relinquish your predetermined ideas about how a martial arts/western movie should be done then there is great possibility in you enjoying The Warrior's Way. The dialogue is simple, as are the characters. The acting mimics this simpleness to a fault and neglects ever reaching naturalness by any of the characters involved. They are just that...characters; put on display to act out their parts in this carnival-esque display on screen. Yang is practically devoid of emotion, while Lynne shows brazen fire but also her naivete for the world yet never appears normal enough or crazy enough to make the viewer understand her motivations. There are serious pacing issues from the very beginning making it an incredibly slow film from start to finish; and it is only just over 90 minutes. But as I said above, liking this movie is entirely possible but finding the exact reason why...impossible. It is a gamble which way your feelings may fall but I think it is a gamble worth taking if you're feeling brave.
| | | | First, the audience is engulfed in the overpowering darkness of the screen. Then, slowly and languidly, the opening shot of a man riding his horse fades from black and makes its way onto the screen. Now, you are fully immersed into the world of 1913 Germany, only a year before World War I begins. Odd events are occurring in this small, highly religious village in Northern Germany. It begins with a doctor falling off his horse after coming upon a wire that was intentionally tied between two trees to injure him. This opening builds a kind of tension that lasts throughout the length of the film, as if one should constantly be worried of some unforeseeable threat. From there, other instances of torture unfold, each act more heinous and chilling than the last. However, the mystery remains: who committed these dark acts and why? Do these acts point to the mental instability of a solitary individual or to larger social issues, inbred by cultural emphasis? The title, "The White Ribbon", refers to the white ribbon of purity tied to a child's body after they have committed a sin. White is the representative color of innocence, however, in this film it signifies a sinner. This film basically undermines the societal preconception of innocence and begs the question, can innocence be trusted? Does it exist?
"The White Ribbon" is a beautiful and impeccably made film that is both stunning and emotionally gripping. Haneke's employment of certain Neo-realism characteristics allowed the story to have an incredibly affective quality. However I must forewarn you, it is not for the faint of heart. Aside from it being a long movie, it has some very disturbing themes such as incest, abuse, death and torture that are presented in a very realistic, uncompromising manner. Ultimately, this may not be the most entertaining night at the movies, but, I assure you, you will not be able to leave the theatre unaffected. | | | | | Staying true to B-movie aesthetics "The Wolfman" toys with the notion of serious horror and kitschy elegance. The hauntingly dark and forbearing countryside is engulfed in the mystery of a beast who hunts on the full moon, ripping his prey down to their bones. It is this beast that engages the viewer, causing both laughter at the cheap thrill of seeing him appear in flashes on the screen, his teeth barred ready to bite. Or the sudden burst of distress that engulfs you as he swiftly kills his victim, leaving the body (or body parts) sliced on the ground. The film appears to know it is not, and cannot be, taken seriously. Joe Johnston, the Director, makes sure of that with his choices to frighten while being playful with dialogue and the scenarios at hand. It never reaches a campy level, and this is to be thankful for, as it is a well-rounded story if somewhat predicable in its twists. Overall, its not going to change or develop the horror genre, or the tale of the Wolfman, in any manner; but it just may make you have a bit of fun for a couple of hours in the dark. | | | | | The film follows a very generic story line. Four women who are distinctly different, but the closest of friends, are faced with a difficult situation and must bond together to overcome the obstacle. It is a formulaic storyline but rewarding regardless for the audience member who is eager for female empowerment.
| | | | | The familiarity we have with certain Queens of England leaves little left to be explored in cinema. There is one Queen we have yet to meet during her rise to power, Queen Victoria. Be prepared to welcome her story, with its deep romance and familial drama, to the line of films on British Royalty. With a modern flare to the dialogue, that is a great relief from the stuffiness you can find in period pieces, the film immediately engages us with the teenage Victoria. We watch as she is made Queen but must fight for the right to actually be Queen by breaking free of those in her world who would try to stifle and control her life. Dealing with being a teenage Queen is the least of her worries as she also falls in love. This is not an arranged marriage form of love, or one of convenience. It is an honest and true romance between two people who both have responsibilities larger than themselves. It makes for an engaging long distance romance and even though we may know how it all turns out in history it is a pleasure to watch the romance unfold on screen. The two alternating story lines intersect on occasion leaving a large amount of space for Victoria to discover herself before giving her life to another offering a great independent heroine who just happens to find love while finding her own way at the same time. | | | | | Twenty-two year old Aura has just come home from college in Ohio with a degree in film theory and no idea what to do with herself. "I'm in a post-graduate delirium," she says. Tiny Furniture plays like a post-graduate, post-The Graduate-quarter-life crises of Woody Allen if Woody Allen was a twenty-two year old girl. [To read the full review of this film please refer to our Anaheim International Film Festival coverage in the Frame of Mind section here.] | | | | Welcome back Woody, Buzz, and all the rest of the gang. This installment in the Toy Story franchise has made me (and you shortly) realize just how much we have missed you. Andy is all grown up and moving away to college. Bad news for his trusty old toy pals who have spent the past years neglected from use and are now under threat of being thrown away. Andy makes a decision on what to do with them and in true plot twist fashion they find their way to a daycare center. What sounds like a dream come true for toys, who would not want to have a never ending amount of children to play with them year after year, becomes a nightmare. "Toy Story 3" turns into a rousing adventure while we experience the drama and endless comedy of a bunch of misfit toys, who have themselves become a family, try to escape the horror that is daycare. The evil doer behind their terrible experience is none other than Lotso, a seemingly lovable older bear stuffed animal who is suffering from a mean case of abandonment. His right hand baby is just that, a creepy baby doll who walks and can spin its head backwards. Their tight hold over the daycare should be envious of some of the most hated villains in cinematic history. The suspense of the break out is only magnified by the fear that they will catch and cause harm to our beloved toys. Only making this an adventure story that keeps you on the edge of your seat as even though we know things have to work out for the gang there is much peril to overcome and obstacles to face before calm and happiness can be reestablished.
Daycare holds a wealth of new additions to the toy world, both good and bad, but the most memorable has to be the Ken doll. With his endless need to defend his masculinity while showcasing his excellent taste in fashion he is a riot. Speaking of a riot, there is a point in the film where Buzz gets his wires crossed and we are treated to a Spanish Buzz, full of lust, passion, and all around suaveness. His repressed feelings for Jessie come spilling out with such charm you laugh and melt at the same time. It is the funniest bit in the film and occurs at such the right moment in time it showcases the perfection in writing behind this movie. In the end, the root of the story remains comradeship amongst friends and the unbreakable bonds we acquire. No matter how old we get, or how much of the past gets left behind, you must remember it fondly while embracing the future and new beginnings. This film brings to a close a chapter in Andy's life, and his toys all the same, while also opening up new possibilities for the future. It is great on every level and worthy of any accolade it may receive. | | | | | With a plot that tries very hard to be overly serious, and fails, the movie is simply a mash up of transformer robots in multiple battles and humans running for their lives. It does not have the excitement and the heart pumping thrill of the first installment in the franchise. It is so concerned with showcasing the CGI effects that it forgets the viewer would like more from a two hour plus film and most importantly a plot we can invest in fully. It does not help also that any big movie fan will see that much of the story line, new robots, and various production design elements have been borrowed and subsequently altered for use in this film. Originality is one thing Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is sorely lacking. | | | | | The film supplies great moments of action. It is a moderate thrill ride throughout but tends to focus greatly on the love story angle, which takes you away from the point of the film: the action and effects. As for a story, it is practically nonexistent. It takes to long to find out what the actual plot of the film is and when you do you find it, it is nothing new with no great spin. | | | | The Grid has returned and this time it is bigger, brighter, more alive, and quite a spectacle. It has been over twenty years in Tron time since Flynn (Jeff Bridges) came back from his first battle inside his created computer world. In between his initial visit with moviegoers, in the first film Tron, and where we find him today he has since disappeared from the real world and become trapped in the alternate world made up of programs designed to look human and an ever shifting landscape of computer generated spaces, flying ships, light cycles, creative weaponry and of course very beautiful woman. The story may begin with Flynn, but it is his son Sam (Garrett Hedlund) that has become the focal point of the new plot.
Sam said goodnight to his father after being told the most amazing story about a creation named Tron, another named Clu, and his father in a computer-generated world humans could actually enter. As his father sped away on his Dukati motorcycle it would be the last time Sam, or anyone, heard from the elder Flynn. Sam has since grown up and become the arch-nemesis of his father's company, even if he is the largest shareholder. The free information system his father foresaw as the future ceases to exist and he wants no part in that world. When he discovers a secret office in his father's old arcade and a computer that is still operating, counting time to the second, Sam finds himself transported onto the Grid. His entrance into this alternate world is shocking, to say the least. The word human does not exist, but User is a very well known term. Programs and Users - but until now only one user has ever entered this reality, and he just happens have been stuck there for the past twenty years.
Tron Legacy is both a science fiction film rooted in the advancement of technology and computers as well as a father and son reunion outing where they must band together in order to destroy the evil that exists in this world. It is refreshing in that it does not rely heavily on melodrama nor does it forego all means of "human" connection just to display the achievements in special effects. The film offers two points of reference for viewers but it is the science fiction possibilities, and visuals, that make it a film worth watching. As well as seeing Michael Sheen as the Program Castor give his greatest David Bowie impression. Maybe Flynn Sr. had a thing for Bowie in the mid-eighties when he created Castor? Regardless, he is fantastic. The movie is not high on energy but it does manage to appease the average filmgoer with its simple plot of man set to save the world while at the same giving the sci-fi computer geek a multitude of things to ponder, dissect, and interject with the current state of artificial intelligences. Built on a completely foreign landscape that is constantly changing and conceptualizing new ideas Tron Legacy is a sci-fi lovers dream while establishing a core built around the familial bond and self sacrifice. | | | | | In contrast to the original 1969 film starring John Wayne, the Coen's version of True Grit stays true to the Charles Portis novel by telling the story through the eyes of young Mattie Ross, played convincingly by newcomer Hailee Steinfeld. Mattie's father is killed by a fugitive named Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin), she hires an old U.S. Marshal named Rooster Cogburn (Jeff Bridges), and in simple, straightforward, classic Western style, they set out on the Arkansas frontier to kill Chaney and regain justice. Just as the Coens' stay sincere to the original source material, the Old West has never looked and felt so authentic on film. With beautifully meticulous art direction and costume design shot by master cinematographer Roger Deakins, the sepia-soaked filth and grime of a dusty wooden city looks as if the movie itself was painted in 1870. Even more authentic, The Coen brothers, as screenwriters, have always had an ear for great dialogue and that talent is showcased to great effect as the authenticity of language in True Grit is reason enough to make the trip to the theater. Where else, but in a Western would one hear a character craving 'pickled buffalo tongue'? Remarkable authenticity aside, the film ultimately lacks any kind of show-stopping scenes that would evoke any real emotion and thus True Grit fails at resonating once the viewer leaves the theater. There may be a climactic showdown here and a few inglorious acts of ugly violence there, but this is still a Western where thrilling adventure is not a priority. Being unconcerned with build-up to cheap thrills and sentimental catharsis is understandable, but where are the Coens' audiences have come to expect? Fans expecting a darkly comic reinvention of the genre will only be partially satisfied. True Grit is by no means a bad film, it's actually great filmmaking with great actors navigating the sacrifices required to bring one common nobody to justice. With that said, it's also nothing new, which is disappointing considering the dynamic duo saddled up behind the camera.
| | | | The guilty pleasures that are the Twilight movies reach their highest level of melodramatic woe with this third installment. The movie must be referred to as a sequel, or threequel, because it starts right back up where the second one left off. If you do not know the backstory good luck figuring out who these people are and their motivations. I still firmly believe there is little, if any, merit to watching any of the Twilight movies (see Twilight: New Moon). It is still very difficult to watch many of the talented actors in the film perform worse than the guy on the street corner reciting lines from a random 70s movie. I was surprised though how Eclipse struck a chord of likability in me while watching. Considering I was in my teenage girl mindset I could see why millions flock to the theatre to watch these vapid characters. It is the same reason millions watch soap operas everyday on Television. The heightened melodrama, sexual tension, fits of jealousy, dangerous doings, and of course, the forbidden. When you bottle all of these up into a film it is very difficult to not find pleasure. Eclipse also manages to do what the others have not, it lightens the mood and quite often pokes fun at itself. The most obvious instance having to be when Edward remarks about Jacob, "Does he own a shirt?". Yes, the objectification and fetishizing of the young not quite legal Jacob is indulged quite frequently throughout the film. At least this time it is met with laughter both on and off the screen. This is where I think the acceptance happens with Eclipse than with any of the films before. No longer is it taking itself so serious all the time. All of the characters have adopted sarcasm into their dialogue and so just when you think you cannot take any more of the toneless delivery, or ridiculous lines, a moment of relief occurs.
In terms of story there is not much new to Eclipse than what has come before. The love triangle between Bella, Jacob, and Edward is in full swing. Some new levels being added, to twist it even more and leave the viewer salivating at the thought that Bella just may go hot animal over cold hearted blood sucker. Much of the movie is spent in conversation between Bella and Jacob, Bella and Edward, and even Jacob and Edward. Gasp! These boys are learning to play nice, or are they? As for the dreaded fight between the new vampire clan and the old, wise Cullen's...it gives you one great fight scene but otherwise, no real build up of suspense. This movie belongs to the love triangle and all else is just filler. | | | | | Vampires, Werewolves, a Virgin, oh my. That is the basis of the film, nothing more, nothing less. There is only one way to describe the magnitude of just how horrible is the production of New Moon. As I sat, about an hour into the film, a strange feeling occurred in my stomach. At first I thought the movie was having an impact on me. As if suspense and empathy were somehow breaking through the monotony and lack of anything remotely climactic or engaging thus far. Then I realized it was not for good reason I felt this way but that the bile in my stomach was slowly churning, trying to expel itself onto the seat in front of me and the poor audience member seated there. Luckily I was able to contain myself and make it through to the end but it was difficult. How many others felt the same I am unsure but from gathering that the only positive reaction heard during the entire film was when Taylor Lautner (Jacob) removed his shirt for the first time to reveal his man candy I fear I was not alone in my reaction. | | | | | When Jacob Black (17-year old Taylor Lautner) takes off his shirt for the first time teenage girls literally faint and more than half of the theater audience can now be classified as cougars. I'm not attracted to guys, but one doesn't have to be gay to admit, "Damn, that boy is stacked!" Not since Brad Pitt took off his shirt in 1991's "Thelma & Louise" has a shirtless bod made such a lasting impression on pop culture. And yet, Lautner's abs, a ridiculously attractive cast, some slightly improved special effects, nor turning up the volume of the pop soundtrack during action scenes can possibly save this movie from sucking. Sure the relationship between high school senior Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart) and heart throb vampire, Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson) may be overly melodramatic, but that's not the problem. The problem is there's not enough of that cheese and rather the audience is tortured with a werewolf storyline that seems to drag on for Edward's 109 year-old lifetime. Fans of the book will be quick to defend, but ladies, movies ain't books. In this specific case, a faithful adaptation is more constraining than satisfying because the Bella-Jacob storyline seems to lack any real tension. Nothing really happens for the majority of the movie and so when something does, such as Bella racing to save Edward, we don't really care. There's plenty more wrong with the movie: ridiculous slow motion, cutting away too soon from potentially exciting scenes, laughable fading Edward holograms, etc., but I don't want every "twi-hard" out there to hate me. The film compares the Bella/Edward relationship and the Vampire/Werewolf feud to "Romeo and Juliet" very early on. I'm no English professor, but I'm sure Shakespeare would agree with me: the only tragedy is one must wait 120+ minutes before the end credits begin to roll. | | | | | The choices we must make in relationships and our future is examined in the film. It is a story about doing what is expected of us, and what is safe, versus taking a chance and experiencing something you thought impossible. With excellent performances and a script that is straight out of your own head and family life it is a movie that will bring about emotion and conversation. | | | | | The storyline of the film is nothing extraordinary. It has action and romance but they are not overly exciting and the acting is by no means great. It does entertain for the duration and gives insight into how the other films in the franchise fall into place, being this is a prequel. | | | | | When Dr. Martin Harris wakes up from a brief 4-day coma he suffers from slight memory loss. His wife is not with him and everything he believes to be true is contradicting itself. Dr. Martin Harris (Liam Neeson) is having a really bad trip to Berlin, and it is about to get worse. Set-up as a mystery thriller more than an action film, Unknown develops it's story around what the viewer knows briefly from the beginning of the film (pre-amnesia) and then concocts a web of mystery over whether anything you saw was true. At one point in the film Martin asks his doctor if he "knows what it is like to lose your mind"...this is the basis for the entire story of Unknown. Martin must solve the mystery of who he is and why his life has been erased; or has it? The suspense consistently builds throughout as new pieces of the puzzle are revealed and valuable information uncovered in Martin's own memories for he is the key to understanding everything. Martin finds help with an illegal immigrant Gina (Diane Kruger), as well as a former Eastern Germany Stasi member who is very good with "details". Between the three characters there is coverage befitting a mystery, with a few good car chases and fights to keep your blood pumping. The film does suffer from multiple ending syndrome but it can easily be forgiven when the (actual) finale takes place as it is an excitable thrill to find out who Martin actually is, and the fates of all involved in this twisted conspiracy. | | | | | The veteran (Denzel Washington as Frank Barnes) and the Rookie (Chris Pine as Will Colson) were meant to have a typical day on the train tracks. What they got was an action-packed, thrill filled occasion due to one man's stupid mistake. The 777 train was only supposed to be moved to another track to make way for an incoming train. Instead, in a sick twist of bad luck and mismanagement, it became a runaway train headed for Scranton, Pennsylvania - with enough hazardous chemicals on board to destroy the entire city. Tony Scott brings to life this based on true events story in Unstoppable and he delivers on the promise of an action-packed ride from start to finish. The train is the enemy of the film, coupled with corporate ridiculousness, where as things go from bad to worse to impossible it leaves two men to make the ultimate sacrifice to try and save the people of Scranton. The hero's call Frank and Will answer is one out of moviemaking heaven and they measure up to the task easily. Scott remains consistent throughout, keeping the momentum flowing and suspense on high. With the news-esque style of cinematography and near-perfect cross cutting the film keeps the viewer informed from all angles of what is happening on the train, in the main office, and at the corporate level. As well as the onslaught of media coverage that ensues bringing the reality of the situation to the forefront. This is not an occurrence that happens remotely, away from the public eye, but right in the center of it all. As a viewer, you are pushed into it as well and the excitement of seeing two regular men go against what they are told to do and risk their livelihood's to save the people they love, as well as strangers, makes for an action film that never lets up, but keeps moving along just like the runaway train. | | | | | An incredibly touching story of love and loss and adventure has been brought to life in this animated tale. | | | | | Every day we wake up and make a choice. These choices dictate our lives in the present moment and impact our future. For Ryan Bingham (George Clooney) the choices he makes are simple. Go to work, fire employees he does not know for a company he has no connection to, and continue racking up his frequent flyer miles in the hopes of joining the elite club of those who have flown ten million miles in their lifetime. He also occasionally has a casual romantic fling with a woman who has a similar lifestyle to his, or so he believes. This makes for a very shallow existence and the film attempts to portray him as such a person, shallow. A glimpse of possible change occurs when Ryan must fight for his own job and way of life. His antagonist being a webcam. It may sound strange but you could also interpret it is the character Natalie (Anna Kendrick) who comes up with the webcam idea [but I like it as the webcam itself]. A man who lives for his work does not have to fear losing his job, but his entire way of life. Ryan is being grounded and grounded to a man as great a loner as he is may as well be castration. So his journey begins to prove that the personal connection between firer and the fired is much to important to leave to a computer screen. Is Ryan thinking of others or just himself in this matter? That is a very good question. The film almost answers it in the end but with a character such as Ryan we may never know the truth. Then again, in all the ways he comes across as a man more concerned with getting through airport security quickly than having any form of emotional connection with his family or friends we, as the audience, know better. Ryan is not so emotionless after all and it takes two very different women plus a webcam to help us, and him, come to realize that fact. Taking this flight with Ryan is worth the cost of admission, if only for the way you feel in the end. You may not be happy, or sad, or feel much of anything. Yet as you reflect on the story, the hidden meanings lurking inside of it, do not be surprised if you start to examine your own life and the choices you make every day. | | | | Valentine's Day is a film about Los Angeles in love but it is also a film about Los Angeles. The film brings in Los Angeles as a character in the film by displaying specific landmarks (Hollywood Forever Cemetery), landscapes (Santa Monica beach) and specific streets (Wilshire Blvd). It attempts to embed the plot of the film into the complex movement of the city. Unfortunately, the film portrays LA in such broad strokes that only the stereotypes happen to surface and the presentation of the city seems forced rather than meaningful. LA becomes a place that has shallow values, is full of frustrated immigrant life, and is crawling with celebrities. The film's treatment of LA is rather similar to it's treatment of Love in LA. It tries to make the ubiquitous sentiment, love, the main character in the film. It does so by showing some important landmarks of different kinds of loves including old, new, grandparental, parental, shallow, high school, modern, cheating, sexual and old fashioned love. Ultimately, the film paints love in broad strokes and only the stereotypes (and cliches) happen to surface and the presentation of love seems forced rather than meaningful.
The film unfolds over the course of one day, Valentine's day, and follows a slew of celebrities as they take part in their Valentine rituals. I say celebrities not because the characters are characterized as celebrities but because the only thing that makes these characters interesting is their star power outside of the film. In some ways, the sheer volume of well-known stars in Valentine's days helps to fulfill and cement a kind of fantasy of what Hollywood (and by extension LA) is: a place lousy with celebrities. One positive aspect that did stem from this star effect was that the audience already felt familiar with the characters onscreen; it feels like watching a bunch of your oldest friends go through different stages of love and loss. Watch this movie if you are looking for 2 hours of high-gloss, mindless entertainment with fantastically beautiful people. | | | | | Watching Valhalla Rising requires an incredible amount of patience and mental stamina. Telling the story of a man named One-Eye, a mute warrior with tremendous strength, who escapes his captors only to journey on a quest into unknown lands, with practically no dialogue the entire experience depends on finding meaning and substance in the visuals. As much as the cinematography is beautifully done, the editing bordering on the avante garde, and the sound evoking emotion at particular moments nothing can save the film from being what it essentially is, boring. It is far too introspective and allegorical for the casual viewer. One must be prepared to delve deeper into the cinematic experience and even still find disappointment. The toying with modern conventions to make a film outside of the norm where any sort of box you may wish to put it in it will fail to fit is commendable. This makes it even more of an unfortunate circumstance that the film does not succeed. It takes more from you in terms of trying to understand exactly what is going on and what the plot is that you forget you are watching a movie. The alienation is constant and builds as the film continues on. The pieces eventually come together but the disdain you feel by then is irreparable. | | | | | The story the film delivers is fascinating and provides a glimpse into a historic moment that could have changed everything. It portrays the struggle to take down one of the most powerful and frightful men in history with vigor but falls short of truly engaging the viewer for the duration. | | | | Viva Riva! is the story of Riva (Patsha Bay Mukuna), a young man who has just brought a large amount of stolen gasoline back to his hometown of Kinshasa in the Congo, where fuel is in very high demand. Unfortunately for Riva, the former owner of the gas, a hoodlum named Cesar (Hoji Fortuna), has also arrived in Kinshasa along with a couple of his goons, and he is looking for revenge. With his new found wealth, the happy-go-lucky Riva starts partying all night without a care in the world, even when he finds out that Cesar is on his trail. Riva has more important things on his mind, most notably Nora (Manie Malone), the girlfriend of a big-time Kinshasa gangster named Azor (Diplome Amekndra). Meanwhile, Cesar has, through blackmail and extortion, enlisted the help of a military commander known simply as the Commandante (Marlene Longange) to help him track Riva down. Of course, when Azor finds out about Riva's gasoline haul, he seizes the opportunity and tries to take it for himself. The lines are drawn, the alliances are formed, and the plot of Viva Riva! starts to get complicated.
Viva Riva! is the creation of Congolese writer/producer/director Djo Tunda Wa Munga. It is a violent, grim and desolate vision of life in Munga's hometown of Kinshasa. Munga took a mostly unknown and inexperienced cast and made a classic crime film that is a perfect mixture of City of God and Scarface . Viva Riva! is an action-packed throwback to classic crime dramas, but not a parody of them. The style is similar to Quentin Tarantino's films, but without the tongue-in-cheek humor. | | | | At this very moment America is struggling with its worse economic climate since The Great Depression. With that said, it would seem a sequel to controversial director Oliver Stone's Wall Street would be perfectly catered to American audiences craving indictments for the suits responsible. Unfortunately Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps is not so much about financial meltdown than it is about Gordon Gekko's reconciliation with his daughter. Gordon Gekko, a former Wall Street king who went to jail in the 80s, is finally released from prison in pre-9/11 2001. He gets his belongings back including one preposterously over-sized 1980s cell phone, he earns his freedom, and yet there's no one there waiting at the gates. The movie then flash-forwards seven years to 2008 where Gekko's daughter, Winnie (Carey Mulligan), is dating a hot-shot Wall Street trader named Jake (Shia LaBeouf), she runs her own successful website, and yet daddy Gekko is still absent from her life. The melodrama is not necessarily a bad thing mainly due to a terrific cast able to bring life to the film's various characters, but frustrated viewers expect more than cheesy music selection, split-screen gimmicks, and bubble metaphors to explain our nation's current cluster $*@#. This is not to say the movie completely ignores topics of relevance as Gordon Gekko promotes his new book with lectures frowning upon speculation, rumors are shown to be the cause of company downfall as well as lives, questions of capitalism vs. socialism are raised with the 2008 bailout, Jake's passionate about clean technology and fusion, and even Susan Sarandon makes a cameo as a failed real estate agent. And still it's not enough. We want incendiary filmmaking from a maverick director; instead we're left with a film where Money Never Sleeps, but its audiences just might. | | | | Adapted from the best selling novel of the same name, Water For Elephants is a film that held great potential to be an epic sweeping romance built around the early American traveling circus. The grandiose expectations attached to the film remain unfulfilled sadly, not for a lack of trying but due to a weak foundation from screenwriter Richard LaGranenesse script.
The narrative begins in the present day, as an old man finds himself outside of a circus on a rainy evening having missed the show. As a resident of the local nursing home he has not become lost, he has all of his wits about him, but merely alone without a ride home. Sitting with the current circus manager his story begins to unfold as he glances at pictures on the wall and one very famous photo of a woman atop a elephant. It is this woman's photo that brings him to tears, and his story begins. The year is 1931 and Jacob (Robert Pattinson) is about to graduate from Cornell University with a degree in Veterinary Science. His family fled Poland to find themselves in America, proud to have a new start at a great life, even in the midst of the Great Depression. What should have been a joyous occasion for Jacob and his parents, becomes the greatest of tragedies as they are killed in a car accident. Left alone, without money or a home, Jacob becomes a wanderer. But he does not have to wander far as the first train he hitches a ride on belongs to the traveling Banzini Bros. Circus. He finds work with the circus as a veterinarian, and soon finds himself in a forbidden romance with the Circus Owner's wife, Marlena (Reese Witherspoon).
Before Jacob meets Marlena there is the moment he experiences awe with the circus; something that will sustain the entire film once the romance proves to be lifeless. The train stops on the tracks and suddenly dozens of men and women disembark. The tent is raised in glorious splendor and the animals rolled out in their cages. Jacob's eyes light up as the show begins, and the entire sequence of scenes that follow fall into a melodic pace, timed to music made for dreaming. The sounds of dialogue, animals, and all other ambient noises fade to a barely audible level while the score slumbers quietly in the background as Jacob takes in the beauty, the grandeur, of the circus acts. Most notably, that of Marlena and her horses. But this wonderment that crosses his face is not mingled with lust but excitement. Everything becomes illuminated, it glows through his eyes, and the circus at once is magical. This is the moment Water For Elephants feels like an epic film; this is also the last time it maintains such a glimmer.
The shiny surface of the circus is quickly dulled and beaten away when the reality of circus life, as run by August (Christoph Waltz), is revealed. August is a man with many faces. He can be gentile, entertaining, and charming; while a moment later harboring such cruelty in his eyes he is frightening. He is a man who is surrounded by animals, but treats them like property, with violence and cruelty. His wife, Marlena, is his greatest possession; a beautiful woman who is the star of his show. Between Jacob, Marlena, and August, August is the one character who is given the time and dedication in the script to be built upon. If not well-developed he is at least understood in a greater manner than anyone else and made to be a larger-than-life influence on the viewer. August is exhausting to watch as his mood and temperament are impossible to gauge. One tiny glint in his eye and you see the polarity of his personality. Jacob and Marlena always remain themselves, from the beginning until the end. There are no layers to their characters, nothing to reveal of importance that is not superficial or expected.
This is where the script fails the viewer. As an adaptation there must have been more depth and emphasis on the love affair between Marlena and Jacob in the novel. You cannot help but think there are important scenes missing from the film, like chapters of a book, that if they were present the story would have a much greater impact. The elephant, Rosie, and Jacob forge a bond stronger than he and Marlena, which in a romance between a man and a woman does not say much for the romance. Water For Elephants is an emotion driven film, yet it lacks the components to realize great emotional depth. This is definitely an epic story, it just was not given the epic treatment. | | | | Review Coming Soon. | | | | | A genuinely fun romantic comedy has arrived in 'When In Rome'. I can hardly believe it myself but it is true. The story follows Beth (Kristen Bell) to Rome to attend her sister's wedding. Beth is a workaholic who has little if any time for romance. She is the cliche romantic comedy lead as her pessimism for love and happily ever after are tainted beyond belief. This is the main reason the audience comes to like her especially. It is not about falling into a man's arms after a romantic escapade in Rome. This women is cursed, in the worst way. She denounces love and steals coins from the fountain of love; thereby making the men who threw them in follow her back home to New York City to profess their undying love for her. All the while she must also deal with the man she met in Rome making advances. With the band of misfits who have fallen madly in love with her and the adorably sexy appeal of Josh Duhamel (Nick) the movie moves along at breathtaking speed with bouts of comedy at every turn. Bell gives a charmed performance as Beth and every one of the misfits (a model, magician, sausage king, and artist) are uproarious. The "real" romance of the film may be cut too short as it would have been nice to see additional build up between Nick and Beth but you do not for a minute care as the entire film is so enjoyable. This may be what you call a piece of fluff filmmaking but its great fluff and sure to please those looking for a fanciful time in the cineplex. | | | | | "Let the wild rumpus start!" Just as Max shouts this out in Maurice Sendak's beloved children's book, perfectly cast Max Records shoots this first order of business as king of "Where the Wild Things Are" into the sky and throughout the entire film. This movie is not only a wildly fun time, but also a turbulent and poignant piece of art. Being 9 years old is both simple and complex. On one hand a boy's only concern is to let his imagination run free, building igloos in the snow and rocket ship forts in the living room. On the other hand, life's overwhelming ideas of love, death, divorce, separation, loneliness, and even existence is complicated stuff for any adult and so one can only imagine what a child goes through when trying to make sense of the world around him. Max results to visually striking bouts of mischief, violence, and temper tantrums. For him, Where the Wild Things Are ultimately lies within his heart and we are more than happy to be invited into this beautiful, terrifying, and undoubtedly personal space. Not since Dorothy left for Oz in 1939 has the journey home felt so emotionally profound. | | | | | Watching this movie is an experience. Everyone on screen is having such a great time it resonates into the audience. You want to cheer at times, scream at others, and rage against for reasons I will not divulge for fear of ruining some of the best parts. Ellen Page shines as Bliss, a girl stuck in a small town who is awkward and shy while being absolutely endearing. Watching her come out of her shell and grow as she finds her passion, in roller derby, is delightful. I will say this with much trepidation, this movie is a bit of a "chick" flick. It can appeal to everyone, as any movie has the power to do, but it is incredibly full of female empowerment. It is what lies at the core of the entire movie. Men take a back seat here. What is great for its very feminist viewpoints is how it is a mixture of the feminine and the masculine. These are not girly girls but they are also far from being pegged as manly women. It provides a great blend of displaying your independence as a woman while retaining the mystique of being a woman. These women have personality and watching them on screen is time well spent. | | | | | This just may be one of those movies you desperately try to like but cannot seem to pinpoint why you can't. It starts out strong and you are intrigued by the murder mystery; then it loses you about halfway through. Much of this is not due to the main storyline but the flashback sequences. They feel irrelevant and out of place. Instead of adding to the story at large they take away from it causing the momentum of the film as a whole to be lost. It grabs you now and again towards the end, and there is one action scene in the final act you will be on the edge of your seat for but that is about it. As the mystery unfolds the moment of climax you have been anticipating falls short of all expectations. You are disappointed at its generic and downright lame revelations. For all the ways it is creative in its other elements, the twist we all love and expect holds little if anything to get excited about, or feel fulfilled. | | | | | Director, Writer and Producer Tyler Perry's film "Why Did I Get Married Too" is not as cynical as the title insinuates. Rather, it is a film that seems genuinely interested in revealing what goes on between couples behind closed doors. While at times excruciatingly slow and talky, it somehow manages to have heart and to portray marital life in a relatively realistic way. Most of the time, the film moves too slowly and seems underdeveloped which is both tiring to watch and exactly like real life. The film centers around four married couples (and an ex-husband) that each have their own set of issues whether they be subtle or obvious. These nine friends and frenemies embark on a luxurious couple's retreat to the Bahamas where they hope to recharge and evaluate where they are in their relationships. Tyler Perry is effortlessly charming in his portrayal of Terry and Janet Jackson's portrayal of Patricia, a woman who loses control of her perfect life, is surprisingly layered and moving. Throughout the course of the film, as the characters return from this luxurious couple's retreat back to their their banal daily lives, the viewer is able to catch a rare glimpse of the messy innards of a marriage. | | | | Victor Maynard (Bill Nighy) comes from a family of assassins with a long legacy of deadeye pride. His mother (Eileen Atkins), who he has recently moved into a retirement home after living with her all his life, is none too pleased Victor has heretofore failed to produce an heir to continue the family trade. Lonely, exacting, socially awkward and approaching his fifty-fifth birthday, Victor is a failure. (The fact that he's the most ruthlessly efficient and expensive assassin in London does not seem to impress dear, old ma.) But when Victor is hired to kill Rose (Emily Blunt), a beautiful thief on the wrong side of an elegant criminal (Rupert Everett), it seems his legacy problems might be solved. When Victor refuses to assassinate Rose, his employer orders his henchmen to kill both of them. In the midst of this complicated setup, Rose and Victor pick up a teenaged drifter named Tony (Rupert Grint) who was caught in the hit man crossfire. And if you think Rose and Tony become Victor's surrogate family, you're absolutely right. - Please refer to our Frame of Mind section here for the full review of this film.
This film was screened during the Anaheim Film Festival 2010. | | | | | As the film revolves around the main character's life situations it is wholly apparent you are to see pessimism as not an incredibly negative way of life nor a healthy means of existence. Ben is a broken man who does not know how to balance the multitude of questions and doubts he has with the World with the things he should be overtly proud to have surround him. When he meets a woman from Senegal his tendencies to be a shut-in recluse slowly melt away but the romantic angle of the story never reaches a peak of true believability. We know she helps to bring about his change but there is not enough given to actually make us give her any credit. It is really just Ben making his way through the trials set before him that actually draws him out of his dark place. As much as watching this character piece of a film is just that, watchable, it lacks any real high or low points of dramatic sentiment. It merely moves along begging you to follow it through, only to never deliver on a level where you feel something great has occurred. | | | | | You may walk into this movie with high hopes. It does have Robin Williams as its star and Bobcat Goldthwait, a comedian, as the Director/Writer. Those are decent odds when it comes to a comedy. They missed the mark on this one though. It has its moments but its essentially really boring. The story throws you for a loop - i will give it that but nothing more. Happily sitting through the whole movie is highly unlikely. | | | | | This film not only delivers a wide array of special effects and action but it has a solid story that will please the viewer who is looking for a greater amount of satisfaction; not just another comic book based movie. It carefully blends a story of sibling rivalry, romantic entanglements, and vengeance that offers a variety of viewers something to grasp onto while watching. It also has a decent amount of humor when you least expect it that is a welcome relief from the highly serious and dramatic storyline. | | | | | As the film follows Zed and Oh on their adventure it inevitably becomes clear this is a movie that is all about poking fun at the biblical and historical stories we have heard our whole lives. If only it had a tad bit more creativity behind it to keep you in the moment for the duration. The movie is always humorous, if you are paying attention, but never quite great with its delivery. Plus, many of the big moments of action or drama are cut right when you least expect it and all you get to see is the outcome, not the actual moment. You start to feel cheated as this formula repeats itself over and over again. | | | | The character Yogi Bear was created by Hanna-Barbera Productions and debuted on the small screen in 1958. Over half a century later Yogi makes his appearance in a live-action film with the handy use of CGI and he and his trusty best friend Boo Boo are just as special and wonderful to watch today as they were many years ago.
Yogi (voiced by Dan Aykroyd) and Boo Boo (voiced by Justin Timberlake) are still living in Jellystone National Park. Their day-to-day life consists of perfecting the ultimate picnic nabbing device. Yogi is not the average bear you see but as much as he has great ideas they do not always work according to plan. Boo Boo, the more sensible and grounded of the two, cannot help but go along with his plans though as he always has a great amount of enthusiasm. Yogi's positive and jovial outlook on life is infectious to all around him even if the fumbled antics and picnic basket thievery drives Park Ranger Smith (Tom Cavanagh) crazy. But Yogi is who he is and why hunt for food when so many nice visitors to the park bring tasty treats with them? Yogi may not be the most authority friendly bear but he has an incredibly kind and loving heart, as the film shows throughout, and is always willing to help even if his "help" does the opposite of just that. When Jellystone is threatened to be shut down by the Mayor it takes Yogi, Boo Boo, Ranger Smith, and the help of a newfound friend in the documentary filmmaker Rachel to save the day.
For most people who grew up with a television during their childhood over the past 5 decades they are well aware of who Yogi Bear and Boo Boo are and their history. For children who may not know the film does an incredible job of introducing the characters so everyone is on equal ground. The plot itself is very simple and easy for any child to understand but not dumbed down to the point where an adult is counting the seconds until the movie is over. Yogi Bear, the movie, is very much like a cartoon as it does not dive very deep into the thematics but it does offer excellent commentary on loyalty, friendship, and acceptance while never losing speed with the action. Something is always happening so your mind never wanders or loses interest. What makes the film really shine is the spot-on re-creation of Yogi and Boo Boo by Aykroyd and Timberlake, respectively. When they speak for the first time it is shocking how much they sound just like the Yogi of your youth. The inflection and humor does not falter at any time and for a second you are transported back into your childhood. To a simpler time when watching a sweet bear and his best friend steal a picnic basket was the best time of your entire day. Being able to share this with a new generation is a great treat and everyone involved in bringing this film to the big screen has succeeded in making life a pic-a-nic once again. | | | | | Tragedy, Comedy, Romance, Betrayal. Adjectives reserved for the likes of Shakespearian plays; or Woody Allen films. You Will Meet A Tall Dark Stranger is reminiscent of older Allen films but maintains a fresh perspective and originality. The story revolves around one family and their trials with each other, as well as with themselves, as they meander through the constantly changing stages that make up life. Alfie (Anthony Hopkins) and Helena (Gemma Jones) are recently divorced. Alfie is obsessed with reclaiming his youth, constantly reminding anyone who will listen he has "longevity in my genes". Helena accepts growing older but has become a basket case over the divorce and her future and no pill seems to help. Their daughter Sally (Naomi Watts) married poorly, as Helena makes clear time and time again with her perfectly timed digs towards Sally's husband, Roy (Josh Brolin). Each one of these characters desires something more in life and the film spends its time examining the means to achieving it and the possible bumps that occurs along the way. Helena finds balance by visiting a "seer". Alfie chooses to marry a very young, with a questionable profession, woman. Sally battles her misgivings with her life, at work and at home, while developing a crush on her employer, Greg (Antonio Banderas). As for Roy, he needs to figure out how to become a successful writer and curb his obsession with the next door neighbor, Dia (Freida Pinto). With a heavy use of voiceover to introduce the characters, as well as keep us informed of their doings throughout the film, the narrative is constantly disrupted so one does not feel they are part of the story but merely outsiders. Connecting with the characters does not occur but it is not needed. You watch their lives unfold, with every twist and turn, each moment of laughter or despair, with a great level of curiosity as it is obvious the decisions they are making cannot possibly lead to a happily ever after moment. Every scene builds perfectly onto the next and regardless of how heavy the subjects being dealt with the jazzy swing-esque music keeps the mood light. Woody Allen has shown, once again, that with comedy comes tragedy and life is full of truths but also self-made illusions. | | | | | In a world taken over by Zombies' the final human inhabitants are a band of misfits, who are quite a bit of fun. Whether they are killing zombies with baseball bats and garden shears, or conning each other out of their belongings the treat of watching them on screen in this Zombie filled world is just that, a special treat. In no other film has a Twinkie meant so much to one man, or the desire to make friends been such a necessity. Or who knew that everything is made better with a trip to an amusement park? Even if it is full of flesh-eaters. At the end of the movie you will have laughed, maybe teared up a little, and realized that it is not just about surviving the Zombie apocalypse. It is about surviving the world in general by having people you care about by your side. (A small warning, this movie is very graphic. Lots of blood, guts, and gore. If you get squeamish, it may be an issue for you. I think you will be fine though, it is worth it after all.) |
|
