Friday, April 17, 2009
NMR: Uncle Buck
I love John Candy movies and I used to watch them all when I was kid, however my parents would never let us watch this one. I always wondered what could be so bad about this seemingly innocent family comedy. Well I found out quickly when I saw the opening 10 minutes basically composed of a profanity-laced rant by children. How was this movie PG? A people complain about the ratings board now! Anyways, I wasn't only protected from adult material, but I was also protected from a lousy movie. I just did not enjoy this at all. It tries to present the usual John Hughes schmaltz with an undertone of dark humor that doesn't work at all. Most of the characters were loathesome and I was just waiting for it to end. John Candy tries his best and his presence is the only salvageable thing in this otherwise lousy movie. Once again I thank my parents for showing keen judgment by preventing me from seeing this for so long. Rating: **
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
RIP keyboards?
Apparently this video is more than a year old, but it was new to me. It's a guy describing Dasher, a one finger user interface that allows text entry without a keyboard. I don't think I could see myself using this, especially not for my dissertation, but it's interesting nonetheless. Check it out...
Mr. Sand(ler)man
I took a brief respite from the heavy Oscar films and caught Adam Sandler's most recent film, Bedtime Stories through Netflix. Despite the fact that it had the taint of "Disney family film", I was still interested in seeing this as I tend to still enjoy Sandler's films.
I don't know if I just caught this one at the right time or what, but I ended up really enjoying this one. Yes, the humor isn't as crass as it is in most of his previous films, but I found myself still laughing quite a bit throughout the film. A handful of Sandler's regular sidekicks (i.e. Rob Schneider) appear here, but the film is really helped by some of the additional cast, namely Aisha Tyler and Russell Brand, who plays Sandler's friend.
If you didn't see the commercials, the film's premise is that Skeeter Bronson (Sandler) is asked to babysit his niece and nephew. Every night he tells them a bedtime story and the following day the events of the story end up coming true. The film does a nice job of coming up with a variety of cliched bedtime stories (cowboys and indians, fairy tale, outer space tale, etc.) and weaving in elements that will work with the events in Skeeter's life.
As we see the bedtime stories unfold, everyone in the cast gets a chance to have fun playing characters in the story. This gives the film an added level of energy that prevents the film from ever becoming boring even if the plot is pretty familiar. Unlike Night at the Museum, this film has a liveliness to it that makes it more appealing to a wider audience. I never found myself embarassed that I was watching a "kids film" because it never felt like I was.
Yes, Bedtime Stories employs some tired plot devices and has a deus ex machina conclusion, but I didn't mind it here. Those are the things you tend to absolutely loathe when the film is bad, but also tend to ignore when you're having a fun time. In this case, I was able to look past those flaws.
I should mention once more how refreshing Russell Brand was in this film. He steals the show with his usual bag of wackiness that fits right into this movie. I also enjoyed Keri Russell, who plays the potential love interest. She doesn't do a lot of films, but I'd like to see her do more, especially in these 'girl next door' type of roles. I'd be neglectful if I forgot to also mention Guy Pearce. Here's another actor who isn't in a lot of films (outside of one my favorite all time films, Memento) but works nicely as Sandler's foil here.
I wouldn't say that you need to rent this immediately, but if you stumble across it, you may want to give it a look. It's a fun film that's likely to be enjoyed by people of all ages. I certainly hope that this doesn't mark Sandler's permanent move into family films, but on this occassion he showed he can do nice just as well as naughty. Grade: B+
I don't know if I just caught this one at the right time or what, but I ended up really enjoying this one. Yes, the humor isn't as crass as it is in most of his previous films, but I found myself still laughing quite a bit throughout the film. A handful of Sandler's regular sidekicks (i.e. Rob Schneider) appear here, but the film is really helped by some of the additional cast, namely Aisha Tyler and Russell Brand, who plays Sandler's friend.
If you didn't see the commercials, the film's premise is that Skeeter Bronson (Sandler) is asked to babysit his niece and nephew. Every night he tells them a bedtime story and the following day the events of the story end up coming true. The film does a nice job of coming up with a variety of cliched bedtime stories (cowboys and indians, fairy tale, outer space tale, etc.) and weaving in elements that will work with the events in Skeeter's life.
As we see the bedtime stories unfold, everyone in the cast gets a chance to have fun playing characters in the story. This gives the film an added level of energy that prevents the film from ever becoming boring even if the plot is pretty familiar. Unlike Night at the Museum, this film has a liveliness to it that makes it more appealing to a wider audience. I never found myself embarassed that I was watching a "kids film" because it never felt like I was.
Yes, Bedtime Stories employs some tired plot devices and has a deus ex machina conclusion, but I didn't mind it here. Those are the things you tend to absolutely loathe when the film is bad, but also tend to ignore when you're having a fun time. In this case, I was able to look past those flaws.
I should mention once more how refreshing Russell Brand was in this film. He steals the show with his usual bag of wackiness that fits right into this movie. I also enjoyed Keri Russell, who plays the potential love interest. She doesn't do a lot of films, but I'd like to see her do more, especially in these 'girl next door' type of roles. I'd be neglectful if I forgot to also mention Guy Pearce. Here's another actor who isn't in a lot of films (outside of one my favorite all time films, Memento) but works nicely as Sandler's foil here.
I wouldn't say that you need to rent this immediately, but if you stumble across it, you may want to give it a look. It's a fun film that's likely to be enjoyed by people of all ages. I certainly hope that this doesn't mark Sandler's permanent move into family films, but on this occassion he showed he can do nice just as well as naughty. Grade: B+
Friday, April 10, 2009
Yet another reason to hate Texas
Wow, could this opening series have gone any worse for the Indians? Getting swept by the average Rangers? Unacceptable. Our starting pitching just looked dreadful and our offense was pretty anemic until it didn't matter. It seems insane to think everything is over already, but I really need to see a drastic change in this weekend series against Toronto if I am going to believe we have any chance of being contenders this season. As if I didn't have enough reasons to want Eric Wedge fired, this start just fueled that fire even more. I just pray we turn things around because I do not want to have to go through this summer having nothing to enjoy. Go Tribe!
Lacking faith
The Oscar parade continues this week as I just got Doubt through Netflix.
Doubt boasts an impressive cast of Meryl Streep, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Amy Adams, all of whom were nominated for their work here along with Viola Davis. It's important to note though that even with these four acting nominations, the film did not receive a nomination for Best Picture. After seeing the film it became abundantly clear why that was the case.
The film, set in the 1960s takes place at a Catholic church where the pastor (Hoffman) is suspected by Sister Aloysius (Streep) of innapropriate acts with the only African-American boy attending the church's school. Already leery of the priest's modern attitude, the nun begins a witchhunt in order to take him down. As a result we get some really good, intense scenes between the actors as they debate the story's key points and try to make the other crumble.
If you didn't already know, as you watch the film, you'll quickly pick up on the fact that this story was originally designed for the stage. The film is very dialogue-heavy, which is fine given the story. However, the few artistic touches that the director adds seem heavy-handed and unnecessary. They detract from the film rather than add anything, which makes me question why they bothered turning this into a film in the first place. There's nothing here that film medium adds to this story.
Perhaps though this was the only way to get top notch actors involved with the story. And if that was the case, well then I'm thankful because they are all great here. Streep is perfect as the prim and strict Mother Superior. As for Hoffman, here's a guy who I couldn't stand for a long time, but have recently begun to appreciate his talent and he shines again here. He plays this role in such a way that makes it so easy for you to understand why someone would be suspicious of him, despite the lack of evidence proving anything. And while I think Amy Adams can be too precocious for her own good at times, that works in her favor with the naive nun she plays here. I would be remiss if I didn't mention Viola Davis too, who may turn in the best performance of everyone, even though she's really only in one extended scene. Playing the victimized boy's mother, she runs through a gamut of realistic emotions while discussing the situation with Sister Aloysius.
While I may not have been alive during the 60s, so much of this film felt realistic to me. Having grown up Catholic and attended a Catholic grade school, I saw a lot of similiarities that rang true to me. It probably helped that nothing was new in my school and the building looked like you were still living in the 60s. I'm getting away from the point though. I just wanted to commend the film for giving such an authentic feel to the church and school scenes.
I was really into this movie until the very conclusion. The final scene (not unlike this year's Wrestlemania) completely negates all of the goodwill that the film had built up. Regardless of who you side with in the film, you won't feel satisfied by the conclusion. It's ambiguous and completely undercuts several of the film's main characters. The final line of the film sounds so hacky, like it came from the screenwriter of a bad off-Broadway show. It's meant to be profound and powerful and instead it's cringeworthy.
I hate not recommending the film, because the performances here deserve to be seen. I'll just say don't have anything loose lying around as you watch this because you'll likely want to throw something at the TV as the film concludes. Go ahead and see this movie because it can produce a lot of good discussion, even if it is just to debate how bad the finish is. Though not a perfect film, it's a good one to enjoy watching great performers do what they do best. Grade: B
Doubt boasts an impressive cast of Meryl Streep, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Amy Adams, all of whom were nominated for their work here along with Viola Davis. It's important to note though that even with these four acting nominations, the film did not receive a nomination for Best Picture. After seeing the film it became abundantly clear why that was the case.
The film, set in the 1960s takes place at a Catholic church where the pastor (Hoffman) is suspected by Sister Aloysius (Streep) of innapropriate acts with the only African-American boy attending the church's school. Already leery of the priest's modern attitude, the nun begins a witchhunt in order to take him down. As a result we get some really good, intense scenes between the actors as they debate the story's key points and try to make the other crumble.
If you didn't already know, as you watch the film, you'll quickly pick up on the fact that this story was originally designed for the stage. The film is very dialogue-heavy, which is fine given the story. However, the few artistic touches that the director adds seem heavy-handed and unnecessary. They detract from the film rather than add anything, which makes me question why they bothered turning this into a film in the first place. There's nothing here that film medium adds to this story.
Perhaps though this was the only way to get top notch actors involved with the story. And if that was the case, well then I'm thankful because they are all great here. Streep is perfect as the prim and strict Mother Superior. As for Hoffman, here's a guy who I couldn't stand for a long time, but have recently begun to appreciate his talent and he shines again here. He plays this role in such a way that makes it so easy for you to understand why someone would be suspicious of him, despite the lack of evidence proving anything. And while I think Amy Adams can be too precocious for her own good at times, that works in her favor with the naive nun she plays here. I would be remiss if I didn't mention Viola Davis too, who may turn in the best performance of everyone, even though she's really only in one extended scene. Playing the victimized boy's mother, she runs through a gamut of realistic emotions while discussing the situation with Sister Aloysius.
While I may not have been alive during the 60s, so much of this film felt realistic to me. Having grown up Catholic and attended a Catholic grade school, I saw a lot of similiarities that rang true to me. It probably helped that nothing was new in my school and the building looked like you were still living in the 60s. I'm getting away from the point though. I just wanted to commend the film for giving such an authentic feel to the church and school scenes.
I was really into this movie until the very conclusion. The final scene (not unlike this year's Wrestlemania) completely negates all of the goodwill that the film had built up. Regardless of who you side with in the film, you won't feel satisfied by the conclusion. It's ambiguous and completely undercuts several of the film's main characters. The final line of the film sounds so hacky, like it came from the screenwriter of a bad off-Broadway show. It's meant to be profound and powerful and instead it's cringeworthy.
I hate not recommending the film, because the performances here deserve to be seen. I'll just say don't have anything loose lying around as you watch this because you'll likely want to throw something at the TV as the film concludes. Go ahead and see this movie because it can produce a lot of good discussion, even if it is just to debate how bad the finish is. Though not a perfect film, it's a good one to enjoy watching great performers do what they do best. Grade: B
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Office Space part deux?
Check out the trailer for Mike Judge's latest workplace comedy, Extract that stars a lot of familiar, funny faces...
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Good news, bad news
First, the good...reports came out today that two new Michael Crichton books are set to be released this year, even though the author passed away last year.
From comingsoon.net:
As for the bad news...a story was published today indicating that Reaper may not make it past this season.
From The Hollywood Reporter:
From comingsoon.net:
HarperCollins is readying for publication two new novels written by the late author, who was behind the hit Jurassic Park films and "ER."
The action adventure "Pirate Latitudes," set in Jamaica in 1665, hits store shelves Nov. 24, while a yet-to-be-titled technological thriller will bow late next year.
"Pirate Latitudes" was written before Crichton's death last year and discovered in his files by an assistant, while the untitled book will be completed based on the writer's notes.
"Latitudes" revolves around plans by a notorious pirate named Hunter and the governor of Jamaica and to raid a Spanish galleon filled with treasure.
As for the bad news...a story was published today indicating that Reaper may not make it past this season.
From The Hollywood Reporter:
The CW's devilish TV show, Reaper, is starting to show signs of atrophy. News leaked out today that the show's producers have inked a deal with another studio, so is Reaper headed for the pit?
According to the trades, Michele Fazekas and Tara Butter are in a two-year deal with 20th Century Fox TV. So is it back to the salt mines for the good looking and sometimes funny cast? Most likely.
If Fazekas and Butter take this deal, they would have to leave Reaper for Fox, and seeing as no one else is stepping up to the plate, we're betting against Reaper. Under the seven-figure pact, the duo will join a Fox TV series and develop projects for the studio.
NMR: Crimetime live
A pair of crime movies to review today based on my recent Netflix viewing...
Entrapment: This was a fun, albeit forgettable heist thriller starring Catherine Zeta-Jones and Sean Connery. It's nice see Connery still trying here (I still believe that was a robot that looked like Sean Connery in The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen) and he has a lot of fun as the aging thief. The film has a lot of twists and turns, but a lot of it already feels dated; particularly the Y2K subplot. I didn't quite get the film's end due to some scratches on the disc preventing me from seeing everything, but I got the gist of it. A fun diversion, but nothing more. Rating: ***
Once Upon a Crime: A 1992 mystery comedy starring John Candy and directed by Eugene Levy. Given those two names, I thought this would be fun, but I was wrong. Like the far superior Clue, this is about several characters being possible suspects in a murder. Unlike Clue, all of the characters here are shrill and unlikeable. You end up wishing they all were the killer so they could all be locked up for good. Candy does his best to milk some laughs out of this dud, but it's not enough. Rating: **
Entrapment: This was a fun, albeit forgettable heist thriller starring Catherine Zeta-Jones and Sean Connery. It's nice see Connery still trying here (I still believe that was a robot that looked like Sean Connery in The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen) and he has a lot of fun as the aging thief. The film has a lot of twists and turns, but a lot of it already feels dated; particularly the Y2K subplot. I didn't quite get the film's end due to some scratches on the disc preventing me from seeing everything, but I got the gist of it. A fun diversion, but nothing more. Rating: ***
Once Upon a Crime: A 1992 mystery comedy starring John Candy and directed by Eugene Levy. Given those two names, I thought this would be fun, but I was wrong. Like the far superior Clue, this is about several characters being possible suspects in a murder. Unlike Clue, all of the characters here are shrill and unlikeable. You end up wishing they all were the killer so they could all be locked up for good. Candy does his best to milk some laughs out of this dud, but it's not enough. Rating: **
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Easy money
So the 2008 Best Picture winner decided to skip the budget theater and go straight to DVD. Luckily for me, I was able to snag a copy quickly through Netflix and can still do a normal review for it.
Slumdog Millionaire is certainly one of the most unlikeliest films to win top honors at the Oscars, but that certainly doesn't make it a bad film. I'm hard pressed to say it was worthy of the award since I haven't seen any of the other nominees yet. However, I can see how a lot of people got caught up in this movie. It has a theme the resonates in our economically troubling times. It's also an uplifting film that is presented in a unique style.
If you've lived under a rock for the past few months, I'll tell you that the film is about a young Indian boy who grew up in the slums of Mumbai. Through a series of events in his life, he winds up on India's version of Who Wants to be a Millionaire with a chance to win the big prize. Before he can answer the final question, he's accused of cheating and we learn how he came to be on the show via flashbacks and he's interrogated.
Let me get out of the way my biggest complaint about the film, which may sound like an odd nitpick. For some reason, director Danny Boyle chose to display the film's subtitles in a rather small font and have it randomly displayed on the screen instead of fixed at the bottom. With my glasses, I have fine eye sight, but I struggled trying to read everything. I was able to get the jist of most of the story, but it would have made things a lot better had I been able to follow along with the dialogue. While this may seem like a small thing, it made it difficult for me to get lost in the story, which is not a good thing.
Though I didn't care for the font, almost everything else from a visual standpoint works. The film provides you with a very close look at the slum lifestyle that so many people in that country must endure in real life. Boyle also has a lot of cinematic flare that prevents the film from ever getting dull. In many ways, it's shot in a way unlike most films, which gives it that something special that you would want in a best picture nominee.
As for the acting, the cast is made up of mostly children so it's hard to really evaluate. None of the performances were bad, nor were any of them amazing (as proven by the fact that the film didn't receive any acting nominations). What I can say is that the actors did enough to have you maintain your interest in the story.
And while the story is engaging, I still felt somewhat detached from it all. That may have to do with the film's central theme of destiny. I hate to use the word crutch, but in a sense destiny is used that way here. It's a plot device that I'm not fond of because there's no appealing end result. You either try to prove that destiny does not exist, which is depressing. Or if you stick with destiny well then the outcome is obvious because you've had your characters say what will happen throughout the film because "it's our destiny!". I suppose depicting that destiny exists is the lesser of two evils, which is what this film opts for. It may not be the most surprising of conclusions, but it should make you feel good nonetheless.
I personally would have liked more scenes to have taken place while Jamal (Dev Patel) was on Millionaire. The game show has worked in real life because of the tremendous drama that is built into it. The film wisely tapped into that by making it a part of the story, but I thought it could have been used more to provide some added drama. The best scene of the film for me is when he uses his phone a friend. I won't go into details on it, but it perfectly captures the drama of the show while also paying off so many of the plot points that had been developed over the course of the movie.
I'm not sure how this movie will be remembered down the line. It's a wonderfully appealing movie, but I think a lot of the connections people have with it are rooted in our present time. I don't know if it has that universal quality to it that will have people looking at it fondly 10 or 20 years from now. I definitely recommend the film though as it's well done and enjoyable to watch. And for most, it's a film unlike many you've probably seen, so it works as a nice change of pace. Too many of the Best Picture winners are either too dark or too cerebral to be appreciated by a wide audience, so it's nice to see a film win that is so accessible and easy to appreciate. Grade: B+
Slumdog Millionaire is certainly one of the most unlikeliest films to win top honors at the Oscars, but that certainly doesn't make it a bad film. I'm hard pressed to say it was worthy of the award since I haven't seen any of the other nominees yet. However, I can see how a lot of people got caught up in this movie. It has a theme the resonates in our economically troubling times. It's also an uplifting film that is presented in a unique style.
If you've lived under a rock for the past few months, I'll tell you that the film is about a young Indian boy who grew up in the slums of Mumbai. Through a series of events in his life, he winds up on India's version of Who Wants to be a Millionaire with a chance to win the big prize. Before he can answer the final question, he's accused of cheating and we learn how he came to be on the show via flashbacks and he's interrogated.
Let me get out of the way my biggest complaint about the film, which may sound like an odd nitpick. For some reason, director Danny Boyle chose to display the film's subtitles in a rather small font and have it randomly displayed on the screen instead of fixed at the bottom. With my glasses, I have fine eye sight, but I struggled trying to read everything. I was able to get the jist of most of the story, but it would have made things a lot better had I been able to follow along with the dialogue. While this may seem like a small thing, it made it difficult for me to get lost in the story, which is not a good thing.
Though I didn't care for the font, almost everything else from a visual standpoint works. The film provides you with a very close look at the slum lifestyle that so many people in that country must endure in real life. Boyle also has a lot of cinematic flare that prevents the film from ever getting dull. In many ways, it's shot in a way unlike most films, which gives it that something special that you would want in a best picture nominee.
As for the acting, the cast is made up of mostly children so it's hard to really evaluate. None of the performances were bad, nor were any of them amazing (as proven by the fact that the film didn't receive any acting nominations). What I can say is that the actors did enough to have you maintain your interest in the story.
And while the story is engaging, I still felt somewhat detached from it all. That may have to do with the film's central theme of destiny. I hate to use the word crutch, but in a sense destiny is used that way here. It's a plot device that I'm not fond of because there's no appealing end result. You either try to prove that destiny does not exist, which is depressing. Or if you stick with destiny well then the outcome is obvious because you've had your characters say what will happen throughout the film because "it's our destiny!". I suppose depicting that destiny exists is the lesser of two evils, which is what this film opts for. It may not be the most surprising of conclusions, but it should make you feel good nonetheless.
I personally would have liked more scenes to have taken place while Jamal (Dev Patel) was on Millionaire. The game show has worked in real life because of the tremendous drama that is built into it. The film wisely tapped into that by making it a part of the story, but I thought it could have been used more to provide some added drama. The best scene of the film for me is when he uses his phone a friend. I won't go into details on it, but it perfectly captures the drama of the show while also paying off so many of the plot points that had been developed over the course of the movie.
I'm not sure how this movie will be remembered down the line. It's a wonderfully appealing movie, but I think a lot of the connections people have with it are rooted in our present time. I don't know if it has that universal quality to it that will have people looking at it fondly 10 or 20 years from now. I definitely recommend the film though as it's well done and enjoyable to watch. And for most, it's a film unlike many you've probably seen, so it works as a nice change of pace. Too many of the Best Picture winners are either too dark or too cerebral to be appreciated by a wide audience, so it's nice to see a film win that is so accessible and easy to appreciate. Grade: B+
Back to reality
Hope everyone enjoyed my April Fools' Day reviews and anti-On Notice board. Everything's back to normal today. To get things back on track, here's a couple new trailers for two summer releases.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
NMR: Best movies ever!!!!
Got a couple of great movies I recently saw...
Sex and the City: Wow, usually movies based on TV shows aren't very good but this one was just fab-u-lous!! All of the witty banter and stylish outfits from the show are here and then some. I was in tears during the breakup scene, but I knew it couldn't last. I cannot wait for the sequel!! Rating: *****
Twilight: Talk about perfect casting. All of the actors are perfect in their roles. I really felt the tension when the girl had to choose whether or not to date a vampire. The themes of the film really spoke to me. Watching the movie just makes me want to read the books over and over again. Rating: *****
Sex and the City: Wow, usually movies based on TV shows aren't very good but this one was just fab-u-lous!! All of the witty banter and stylish outfits from the show are here and then some. I was in tears during the breakup scene, but I knew it couldn't last. I cannot wait for the sequel!! Rating: *****
Twilight: Talk about perfect casting. All of the actors are perfect in their roles. I really felt the tension when the girl had to choose whether or not to date a vampire. The themes of the film really spoke to me. Watching the movie just makes me want to read the books over and over again. Rating: *****
Friday, March 27, 2009
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Booby prize
I had another opportunity to see a sneak preview at the campus theater. This time it was Adventureland, which is coming out on April 3rd. As with any of my early reviews, spoilers ahead!
Having spent several summers working at my city's recreation center, I know a thing or two about lousy summer jobs. They're low paying, thankless, and usually involve you having to work alongside a bunch of other deadbeats. But somewhere amongst that misery, you find you gain a lot of good stories and fond memories. You may not want to have that job for the rest of your life, but you end up grateful for the opportunity nonetheless. I was hoping to see a similar situation emerge in Adventureland, the new film directed by Superbad's Greg Mottola.
The film, set in 1987, centers around James Brennen (Jesse Eisenberg), a recent college grad whose plans for a trip to Europe over the summer are dashed when his father receives a demotion. In order to make money so he can go to grad school, Brennan takes a job at the local amusement park.
The park employs a number of interesting characters including SNL's Bill Hader and Kristen Wiig, who run the place, Ryan Reynolds as the park's maintenance man, and Martin Starr (Knocked Up). All of these characters are great in their limited roles. There are even a couple other lesser known actors who also shine in their brief appearances. Each of these characters in their own way provide a lot of humor to their scenes.
If only the film had managed to stay in the park longer, this would have been an instant classic. Instead, the film opts to place most of its attention on Brennen's attraction to Emily (played by Kristen Stewart), who also works at the park. I have no problem with including a love story into the film as a subplot. I also wouldn't have minded if it was the central focus if you provide the audience with a rooting interest in the characters. However, in this film the romance really drags the film down.
The central flaw in this love story is the character flaws of both characters. Brennan is an indecisive virgin who unnecessarily opens up to anyone who will listen. Emily comes with a ton of baggage and may not be as pure as Brennan thinks she is. If done right, you can make a romance between flawed characters work, but their flaws just seem incompatible. By the end of the movie they seem smart enough to recognize their flaws but eschew improving on them and instead just settle with being together.
Brennan's lack of growth is particularly frustrating. You would think that with the way the story is structured, his time spent at Adventureland would have provided him with the life lessons needed to improve himself and better handle this relationship. Instead, it appears the carnival setting was just a mere prop to inject some humor into a film centered on a flimsy love story.
It's hard to be completely critical of the film because when it chooses to be funny, it really succeeds. Mottola once again shows that he can create realistic depictions of teenagers that are embarassing, awkward, and still hilarious. I just wished he would have embraced it more. This almost seems like two movies put together. The stuff at the carnival works, everything else doesn't.
In the end, the film is just like the rigged games you'd find at an amusement park like Adventureland. You're easily drawn in by the flashy lights and big prizes, but once it's over you feel like you've been ripped off. I'll give the film a mild recommendation based on the strength of its hilarious supporting cast. However, you may be best to wait until DVD for this one. I have a feeling a lot of good stuff found its way onto the cutting room floor so that more time could be spent on a mopey romance that fails to set off any Fourth of July fireworks. Grade: B-
Having spent several summers working at my city's recreation center, I know a thing or two about lousy summer jobs. They're low paying, thankless, and usually involve you having to work alongside a bunch of other deadbeats. But somewhere amongst that misery, you find you gain a lot of good stories and fond memories. You may not want to have that job for the rest of your life, but you end up grateful for the opportunity nonetheless. I was hoping to see a similar situation emerge in Adventureland, the new film directed by Superbad's Greg Mottola.
The film, set in 1987, centers around James Brennen (Jesse Eisenberg), a recent college grad whose plans for a trip to Europe over the summer are dashed when his father receives a demotion. In order to make money so he can go to grad school, Brennan takes a job at the local amusement park.
The park employs a number of interesting characters including SNL's Bill Hader and Kristen Wiig, who run the place, Ryan Reynolds as the park's maintenance man, and Martin Starr (Knocked Up). All of these characters are great in their limited roles. There are even a couple other lesser known actors who also shine in their brief appearances. Each of these characters in their own way provide a lot of humor to their scenes.
If only the film had managed to stay in the park longer, this would have been an instant classic. Instead, the film opts to place most of its attention on Brennen's attraction to Emily (played by Kristen Stewart), who also works at the park. I have no problem with including a love story into the film as a subplot. I also wouldn't have minded if it was the central focus if you provide the audience with a rooting interest in the characters. However, in this film the romance really drags the film down.
The central flaw in this love story is the character flaws of both characters. Brennan is an indecisive virgin who unnecessarily opens up to anyone who will listen. Emily comes with a ton of baggage and may not be as pure as Brennan thinks she is. If done right, you can make a romance between flawed characters work, but their flaws just seem incompatible. By the end of the movie they seem smart enough to recognize their flaws but eschew improving on them and instead just settle with being together.
Brennan's lack of growth is particularly frustrating. You would think that with the way the story is structured, his time spent at Adventureland would have provided him with the life lessons needed to improve himself and better handle this relationship. Instead, it appears the carnival setting was just a mere prop to inject some humor into a film centered on a flimsy love story.
It's hard to be completely critical of the film because when it chooses to be funny, it really succeeds. Mottola once again shows that he can create realistic depictions of teenagers that are embarassing, awkward, and still hilarious. I just wished he would have embraced it more. This almost seems like two movies put together. The stuff at the carnival works, everything else doesn't.
In the end, the film is just like the rigged games you'd find at an amusement park like Adventureland. You're easily drawn in by the flashy lights and big prizes, but once it's over you feel like you've been ripped off. I'll give the film a mild recommendation based on the strength of its hilarious supporting cast. However, you may be best to wait until DVD for this one. I have a feeling a lot of good stuff found its way onto the cutting room floor so that more time could be spent on a mopey romance that fails to set off any Fourth of July fireworks. Grade: B-
In the beginning...
You saw the teaser during the Super Bowl, now here's the first full trailer for the prehistoric comedy, Year One, starring Jack Black and Michael Cera and directed by Harold Ramis due out this summer.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Movie magic
Three movies came out this past weekend that I put on my Top 30 to see in '09 list, yet I ended up seeing something else this weekend. Thankfully, I wasn't disappointed. The Great Buck Howard is currently out in limited release in theaters, but it's also available already On Demand through your cable provider, which is the way I saw it.
Those that know me, know that I have been a fan of pro wrestling for almost all of my life. Being a fan, I'm frequently asked why I bother watching it. I've heard all the complaints and criticisms, and yet I still watch it. I've given up trying to rationalize it, I simply say that I'm a fan and will always be a fan. I thought about my love for a fake sport as I watched The Great Buck Howard.
Buck Howard, played by John Malkovich, is a aging mentalist who's main claim to fame is that he performed on The Tonight Show 61 times. Even though, he doesn't receive the coverage he once did, he still performs in tiny theaters around the country. We see this latter part of his career through the perspective of Troy (Colin Hanks), a law school dropout who is hired as his road manager in order to make some money.
Malkovich does a great job with this character providing him with the right amount of showmanship energy that makes it realistic that he could still entertain audiences. Of course, like most beyond their time celebrities, there's also this bubbling anger that occassionally emerges when he's not treated with the celebrity status he believes he still has.
Colin Hanks does a nice job of responding to Buck in the same way most people watching the film would. Buck brings us to the brink of repulsion but keeps drawing us back in by creating a sense of whimsy and awe over the tricks he's able to do. As a result, I found myself drawn to Hanks' character and interested in how he would continue dealing with such a combustible boss.
The film is strengthened by a couple of decent supporting roles as well. Emily Blunt does a nice job as the love interest for Troy. In the few things I've seen her in, I've been impressed and I hope she continues to get larger roles, as I feel she definitely has a future. She provides a good balance of cute and confident. Colin's father is played by his own father, Tom Hanks (who also has made out with Emily Blunt on screen, in Charlie Wilson's War). In a small role, he comes in at just the right moments to urge him to go back to law school, which only helps remind him why he's taking this thankless job in the first place. That reason being is that he's on a search to find something that he loves to do.
That brings me back to my point about being the wrestling fan. The film does a good job of establishing the message to do what you love to do. Troy doesn't want to be in love school because he doesn't love it. Seeing Buck refusing to retire even though convention says no one cares about him anymore inspires Troy to eventually get his dream job of being a writer.
This is a message that easily could turn the film into a schmaltzy mess, but that never happens. You find yourself getting caught up in Buck's, and by extension, the film's magic. The film takes you on a fun ride and leaves you feeling happy afterwards, something that should be seen in more films these days.
The film is a little too small in scale to truly feel significant. But for a smaller film, it succeeds at virtually everything it sets out to do. Buoyed by some great performances, The Great Buck Howard is a real treat. It doesn't take a mentalist to figure out why this a fun film. I have no doubt that if you see it, you too will quickly be engaged by the magic of Buck Howard. Grade: B+
Those that know me, know that I have been a fan of pro wrestling for almost all of my life. Being a fan, I'm frequently asked why I bother watching it. I've heard all the complaints and criticisms, and yet I still watch it. I've given up trying to rationalize it, I simply say that I'm a fan and will always be a fan. I thought about my love for a fake sport as I watched The Great Buck Howard.
Buck Howard, played by John Malkovich, is a aging mentalist who's main claim to fame is that he performed on The Tonight Show 61 times. Even though, he doesn't receive the coverage he once did, he still performs in tiny theaters around the country. We see this latter part of his career through the perspective of Troy (Colin Hanks), a law school dropout who is hired as his road manager in order to make some money.
Malkovich does a great job with this character providing him with the right amount of showmanship energy that makes it realistic that he could still entertain audiences. Of course, like most beyond their time celebrities, there's also this bubbling anger that occassionally emerges when he's not treated with the celebrity status he believes he still has.
Colin Hanks does a nice job of responding to Buck in the same way most people watching the film would. Buck brings us to the brink of repulsion but keeps drawing us back in by creating a sense of whimsy and awe over the tricks he's able to do. As a result, I found myself drawn to Hanks' character and interested in how he would continue dealing with such a combustible boss.
The film is strengthened by a couple of decent supporting roles as well. Emily Blunt does a nice job as the love interest for Troy. In the few things I've seen her in, I've been impressed and I hope she continues to get larger roles, as I feel she definitely has a future. She provides a good balance of cute and confident. Colin's father is played by his own father, Tom Hanks (who also has made out with Emily Blunt on screen, in Charlie Wilson's War). In a small role, he comes in at just the right moments to urge him to go back to law school, which only helps remind him why he's taking this thankless job in the first place. That reason being is that he's on a search to find something that he loves to do.
That brings me back to my point about being the wrestling fan. The film does a good job of establishing the message to do what you love to do. Troy doesn't want to be in love school because he doesn't love it. Seeing Buck refusing to retire even though convention says no one cares about him anymore inspires Troy to eventually get his dream job of being a writer.
This is a message that easily could turn the film into a schmaltzy mess, but that never happens. You find yourself getting caught up in Buck's, and by extension, the film's magic. The film takes you on a fun ride and leaves you feeling happy afterwards, something that should be seen in more films these days.
The film is a little too small in scale to truly feel significant. But for a smaller film, it succeeds at virtually everything it sets out to do. Buoyed by some great performances, The Great Buck Howard is a real treat. It doesn't take a mentalist to figure out why this a fun film. I have no doubt that if you see it, you too will quickly be engaged by the magic of Buck Howard. Grade: B+
KU's Cole = UD cold
The Flyers' tournament came to a close earlier today after losing to Kansas. I have mixed feelings over the game. Our defense played great, but we just couldn't get anything going on offense, thanks mostly to Kansas' Cole Aldrich just dominating the middle and blocking everything in sight. I wish UD could have gone further, but they had their first NCAA tournament win in almost twenty years, so I'm happy about that. There were a lot of positive things about this season for UD, so I'm hoping that they can build on this and have an even better season next year!
Friday, March 20, 2009
Thursday, March 19, 2009
NMR: Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist
Wow, I cannot recall the last time I saw a movie this bad. This was just downright terrible. There were several times where I thought about just shutting it off, but I kept waiting to see if things would get better. Thankfully the movie was only 90 minutes, although it felt much longer than that. This movie was just a representation of everything that I'm not: indie music, New York nightlife, teenage drama. The whole thing was just an unappealing mess. About the only thing I enjoyed were the random cameos by SNL cast members like Seth Meyers and Andy Samberg. I get why there are some that would be really into this movie, but if you're anything like me, you will not enjoy this in the least. Strong recommendation to avoid this one! Rating: *
Shall we dance?
March Madness is upon us once again! And while I'm excited, it's been tempered a bit by the fact that I've got so much work to do and probably won't have time to watch many of the games outside of Dayton's first round game Friday afternoon. Here are my Final Four picks though: Louisville, Missouri, Villanova, and Oklahoma. I have Louisville beating Oklahoma in the finals.
And if you're not excited about the tournament yet, here's a video to get you in the mood. If students are putting that much on the line in a meaningless game for the College Basketball Invitational, just think what they'll do when everything is on the line.
And if you're not excited about the tournament yet, here's a video to get you in the mood. If students are putting that much on the line in a meaningless game for the College Basketball Invitational, just think what they'll do when everything is on the line.
Quick review: Better Off Ted
So after weeks of quirky promos for the show, I decided to give ABC's latest sitcom, Better Off Ted a chance last night. I haven't watched a sitcom regularly on ABC since the heyday of TGIF back when I was 10. Well scratch that, I did watch The Knights of Prosperity back in 2007 for all 6 of its episodes that actually aired. Anyways, this show about a mysterious company Verdian Dynamics and the people that work there provided enough laughs for me to give it a second shot. I'm always happy to see Arrested Development cast members get work, so it was nice to see Portia de Rossi here as Ted's blunt boss. And even though it's cliched, I bought right in to the office romance that's developing between Ted and Linda (Andrea Anders). This is not a perfect show, but probably the best new sitcom this year. If you missed it, you can watch the first episode on ABC.com and the show airs regularly on Wednesdays at 8:30, right before Lost (which had another killer episode last night. I'm loving the new take charge Sawyer, or excuse me, LaFleur).
Monday, March 16, 2009
NMR: Super terrific review
I have never really seen the original Superman movies in their entirety and since almost all of them were available for instant viewing on Netflix, I decided to partake in a little marathon.
Superman: The one that started it all. You can see why this one is still used as a standard bearer to compare newer comic book films. Director Richard Donner just did a fantastic job here. The cast was absolutely perfect. Reeve does a great job of doing nerdy as Clark and heroic as the Man of Steel. The star though is Gene Hackman who is awesome as Lex Luthor. I used to think that 2006's Superman Returns was bad because Superman is an uninteresting character, but this film has a great energy level to it, making Returns just a bad movie. This may not have the visual sophistication of today's comic book films, but it's still a great movie. Rating: ****
Superman II: Still a fun movie, but definitely a notch below the original. It's really apparent, at least to me, that there were changes made mid-stream during this film. If you're unfamiliar with the backstory, director Richard Donner got into a fight with the studio and was replaced halfway through. As a result, Marlon Brando is completely gone from the film and Gene Hackman is missing from a large chunk in the middle. I plan on seeing the Donner cut that was released a few years ago to see how significantly different it is. FYI, this is the only one for some reason that is not available to instantly view. Rating: ***
Superman III: The quality level significantly drops off here. After the Donner incident, Gene Hackman didn't return for this one and Margot Kidder (who played Lois Lane) is only in it for literally five minutes. In place of them we get Robert Vaughn, Richard Pryor, and Annette O'Toole. They're all fine actors but sorry replacements for the characters we've come to love. The story here is really stupid and the whole film is way too comedic. That is for one of the final scenes where a woman is turned into a machine. I saw that scene when I was a kid and it scared the shit out of me and seeing it today still gives me the willies. Overall, this is just a plain awful movie. Rating: **
Superman IV: The Quest for Peace: This provided the death knell for the series and is often slammed, but I found myself enjoying this one a lot more than III. Most of the original cast was back and they all seem to still be giving it a go, which helps. Sure, the film comes off a bit preachy with its whole nuclear disarmament storyline, but I wasn't bothered by it, maybe because I'm seeing it so long away from the time when this was a major issue. The battle between Superman and Nuclear Man is also pretty cheesy, but I've also seen worse. One thing that's surprisingly though is that the visuals in the film look really cheap. Visually the films seemed to regress over time, which isn't a good thing. I also felt the story could have been bolstered more; this is the only film in the series that clocks in under 2 hours. So while it's an imperfect film, I'd recommend it over III. Rating: ***
Also available for instant viewing on Netflix is a 1 hour documentary that aired last year on the Starz channel called Starz Inside: Comic Books Unbound. It covers the history of comic books and their film adaptations. It's an interesting look at the genre with a lot of interviews with people from the industry. At only an hour long though, the coverage is fairly superficial. It may not provide a lot of surprising information, but it's still a cool look at a genre that was once ignored by Hollywood and has now become one of its biggest cash cows. It's worth a look if you've got the time.
Superman: The one that started it all. You can see why this one is still used as a standard bearer to compare newer comic book films. Director Richard Donner just did a fantastic job here. The cast was absolutely perfect. Reeve does a great job of doing nerdy as Clark and heroic as the Man of Steel. The star though is Gene Hackman who is awesome as Lex Luthor. I used to think that 2006's Superman Returns was bad because Superman is an uninteresting character, but this film has a great energy level to it, making Returns just a bad movie. This may not have the visual sophistication of today's comic book films, but it's still a great movie. Rating: ****
Superman II: Still a fun movie, but definitely a notch below the original. It's really apparent, at least to me, that there were changes made mid-stream during this film. If you're unfamiliar with the backstory, director Richard Donner got into a fight with the studio and was replaced halfway through. As a result, Marlon Brando is completely gone from the film and Gene Hackman is missing from a large chunk in the middle. I plan on seeing the Donner cut that was released a few years ago to see how significantly different it is. FYI, this is the only one for some reason that is not available to instantly view. Rating: ***
Superman III: The quality level significantly drops off here. After the Donner incident, Gene Hackman didn't return for this one and Margot Kidder (who played Lois Lane) is only in it for literally five minutes. In place of them we get Robert Vaughn, Richard Pryor, and Annette O'Toole. They're all fine actors but sorry replacements for the characters we've come to love. The story here is really stupid and the whole film is way too comedic. That is for one of the final scenes where a woman is turned into a machine. I saw that scene when I was a kid and it scared the shit out of me and seeing it today still gives me the willies. Overall, this is just a plain awful movie. Rating: **
Superman IV: The Quest for Peace: This provided the death knell for the series and is often slammed, but I found myself enjoying this one a lot more than III. Most of the original cast was back and they all seem to still be giving it a go, which helps. Sure, the film comes off a bit preachy with its whole nuclear disarmament storyline, but I wasn't bothered by it, maybe because I'm seeing it so long away from the time when this was a major issue. The battle between Superman and Nuclear Man is also pretty cheesy, but I've also seen worse. One thing that's surprisingly though is that the visuals in the film look really cheap. Visually the films seemed to regress over time, which isn't a good thing. I also felt the story could have been bolstered more; this is the only film in the series that clocks in under 2 hours. So while it's an imperfect film, I'd recommend it over III. Rating: ***
Also available for instant viewing on Netflix is a 1 hour documentary that aired last year on the Starz channel called Starz Inside: Comic Books Unbound. It covers the history of comic books and their film adaptations. It's an interesting look at the genre with a lot of interviews with people from the industry. At only an hour long though, the coverage is fairly superficial. It may not provide a lot of surprising information, but it's still a cool look at a genre that was once ignored by Hollywood and has now become one of its biggest cash cows. It's worth a look if you've got the time.
Friday, March 13, 2009
NMR: Beerfest
I know this movie has already reached cult status with certain viewers, but I just wasn't digging it. Perhaps I needed to be on something to enjoy, but being stone cold sober, I just didn't find it particularly funny. I thought the coolest part was seeing all of the different competitive events that were part of Beerfest, but those are really only seen in the last fifteen minutes of the film. The whole training for the competition, which is the bulk of the film didn't make any sense and just drug on forever. I didn't find any of the protagonists to be funny, nor did they make me have a rooting interest in them. If you want a funny, wacky sports tournament movie, just go re-watch Dodgeball for the millionth time. Rating: **
Saturday, March 7, 2009
and the trailers keep rolling in
I tell you, this is the week for new trailers. Here's a sample of some previewing some of this summer's biggest releases:
Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince
Up
Star Trek
The Hangover
Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince
Up
Star Trek
The Hangover
Beauty and the bleak
As mentioned before, I decided to go see the midnight screening of Watchmen. I should have remembered before I bought my ticket that this movie was 243 mins. long, because I may not have been as eager to catch such a late showing. Luckily though I'm a night owl (no pun intended) so I made it through all right.
Full disclosure upfront, I have never read the widely loved graphic novel which the film was based on. I had minimal knowledge of the characters and story, but I always enjoy an event film, so I wanted to see why this was such a big deal for comic book fans. To say I was shocked by what I saw would be an understatement. This film earns every bit of its R rating as it is bloody, gruesome, and sometimes downright vile. And what's most shocking is that many of these deplorable actions are committed by the 'heroes' of the story.
If, like me, let me set up the premise of the story. The year is 1985, but very different from the one we remember. After winning the Vietnam war, Richard Nixon remains president of the United States. The country, however, is still entrenched in a Cold War with Russia and nuclear holocaust seems imminent (this is represented by a Doomsday clock set at five minutes to midnight). While there used to be several superheroes protecting our country, the President has banned all masked heroes and now most of them are retired. The film starts with the murder of one of the former superheroes and it appears someone is trying to kill them all off. The remaining heros band together, somewhat, in order to figure out who's behind this.
That's a lot of story, and yet it barely scratches the surface of what this film covers. Director Zach Snyder (300) is to be commended for making such a strong effort to remain faithful to the original story in this film. Again, while I've never read the comic book, based on what I've read this seems to closely resemble the novel's events. This is a mixed blessing for the film. While it is likely to please rabid fans, it gives the film too much of a structured feel. You can tell where segments of the book began and finished as the film covers each of the main character's backstories. At times it plays more like an anthology than a fluid narrative.
And while most of the characters are fleshed out through their histories, the story still seems somewhat incomplete. There were parts of the film that I wondered why the scenes were included and other plot points that I wished were explained better. The story itself is not terribly confusing, but for a neophyte to these characters, it can be difficult to get into the story.
The other problem for outsiders that I briefly mentioned before is the shock factor. Watchmen puts the graphic in graphic novels. There are scenes of dismemberment, mutilation, and abuse of women. There's also an extended sex scene that didn't really have to be included as well. Given that so many of these acts are done by the superheroes themselves, you begin to wonder who you're supposed to have a rooting interest for in this movie. The more you know about this story and these characters before watching the movie, the better off you'll be.
I ended up having a similar detached feeling while watching this film as I did watching the Lord of the Rings films. In both cases, I had never read the source material before seeing the films. I was also able to see why the stories were loved by fans because of the rich characters and intricate themes that the respective authors had created. While gruesome, Watchmen does provide a lot of interesting discussion points on issues like nuclear war, religion, responsibilty, and corporate greed.
As important as those issues are to discuss and unpack, I don't feel the film allows for that as much as the book. Unless you're already familiar with the material, you're more likely to be consumed by the visuals of the film than its themes. This is not necessarily a knock against the film. It should be noted that this is an extremely well made film. The production is top notch and is visually stunning. The final product is the end result of someone who was clearly passionate about this project.
The acting here is a mixed bag. Some deliver solid performances. For instance, Jackie Earle Hayley brings an amazing about of intensity to his performance as the enigmatic Rorshach. Other actors are subpar at best, like Patrick Wilson as the nerdy Night Owl. His performance reminded me too much of Bob Odenkirk, which in this case wasn't a good thing.
In the end, this is a well made film but a difficult film to enjoy. If you have read and loved the novel, you don't need me to tell you to run out and see this. You've waiting a long time for this film and you likely won't be disappointed. For the rest of the world, brace yourself. This is an acquired taste that may not sit well with everyone. If you're the squemish type or if you just don't want to see the concept of what is a superhero turned on its head, then you may want to enjoy it. As for me, I'm glad I saw it, but I'm not likely to be making any repeat viewings of it in the near future. Grade: B-
Full disclosure upfront, I have never read the widely loved graphic novel which the film was based on. I had minimal knowledge of the characters and story, but I always enjoy an event film, so I wanted to see why this was such a big deal for comic book fans. To say I was shocked by what I saw would be an understatement. This film earns every bit of its R rating as it is bloody, gruesome, and sometimes downright vile. And what's most shocking is that many of these deplorable actions are committed by the 'heroes' of the story.
If, like me, let me set up the premise of the story. The year is 1985, but very different from the one we remember. After winning the Vietnam war, Richard Nixon remains president of the United States. The country, however, is still entrenched in a Cold War with Russia and nuclear holocaust seems imminent (this is represented by a Doomsday clock set at five minutes to midnight). While there used to be several superheroes protecting our country, the President has banned all masked heroes and now most of them are retired. The film starts with the murder of one of the former superheroes and it appears someone is trying to kill them all off. The remaining heros band together, somewhat, in order to figure out who's behind this.
That's a lot of story, and yet it barely scratches the surface of what this film covers. Director Zach Snyder (300) is to be commended for making such a strong effort to remain faithful to the original story in this film. Again, while I've never read the comic book, based on what I've read this seems to closely resemble the novel's events. This is a mixed blessing for the film. While it is likely to please rabid fans, it gives the film too much of a structured feel. You can tell where segments of the book began and finished as the film covers each of the main character's backstories. At times it plays more like an anthology than a fluid narrative.
And while most of the characters are fleshed out through their histories, the story still seems somewhat incomplete. There were parts of the film that I wondered why the scenes were included and other plot points that I wished were explained better. The story itself is not terribly confusing, but for a neophyte to these characters, it can be difficult to get into the story.
The other problem for outsiders that I briefly mentioned before is the shock factor. Watchmen puts the graphic in graphic novels. There are scenes of dismemberment, mutilation, and abuse of women. There's also an extended sex scene that didn't really have to be included as well. Given that so many of these acts are done by the superheroes themselves, you begin to wonder who you're supposed to have a rooting interest for in this movie. The more you know about this story and these characters before watching the movie, the better off you'll be.
I ended up having a similar detached feeling while watching this film as I did watching the Lord of the Rings films. In both cases, I had never read the source material before seeing the films. I was also able to see why the stories were loved by fans because of the rich characters and intricate themes that the respective authors had created. While gruesome, Watchmen does provide a lot of interesting discussion points on issues like nuclear war, religion, responsibilty, and corporate greed.
As important as those issues are to discuss and unpack, I don't feel the film allows for that as much as the book. Unless you're already familiar with the material, you're more likely to be consumed by the visuals of the film than its themes. This is not necessarily a knock against the film. It should be noted that this is an extremely well made film. The production is top notch and is visually stunning. The final product is the end result of someone who was clearly passionate about this project.
The acting here is a mixed bag. Some deliver solid performances. For instance, Jackie Earle Hayley brings an amazing about of intensity to his performance as the enigmatic Rorshach. Other actors are subpar at best, like Patrick Wilson as the nerdy Night Owl. His performance reminded me too much of Bob Odenkirk, which in this case wasn't a good thing.
In the end, this is a well made film but a difficult film to enjoy. If you have read and loved the novel, you don't need me to tell you to run out and see this. You've waiting a long time for this film and you likely won't be disappointed. For the rest of the world, brace yourself. This is an acquired taste that may not sit well with everyone. If you're the squemish type or if you just don't want to see the concept of what is a superhero turned on its head, then you may want to enjoy it. As for me, I'm glad I saw it, but I'm not likely to be making any repeat viewings of it in the near future. Grade: B-
Friday, March 6, 2009
The German job
I would have had this review up last night, but I chose to instead also see the midnight showing of Watchmen, so look for that review up later today. But for now, our next review is of Tom Cruise's latest, Valkyrie.
I had a hard time figuring out what to expect with this film. Originally set to open last July, it went through a number of release dates before settling on last December, a time that didn't seem to fit with the tone of the movie. Then despite that, and despite Cruise really, the movie ended up doing fairly well at the box office.
Valkyrie marks director Bryan Singer's first film since his overbloated, boring Superman Returns. Thankfully, this is a better effort although still not a great film. The plot centers around General Claus Stauffenberg (Cruise) and several other German officers devising a plan to kill Hitler. Unhappy with the way Hitler was running things, Stauffenberg and company planned to kill Hitler and then fake a coup in order to stage their own coup.
While the basic events are based on one of the several attempts at Hitler's life, the movie plays like a true Hollywood film. The film lacks the authentic feel to create a sense that you're watching history unfold before your very eyes. From the dramatic soundtrack to Cruise's cartoonish eyepatch, the film is more Indiana Jones than History Channel documentary.
Clearly, the filmmakers were more concerned with making a good movie than trying to thrust the audience into 1940s Germany. This is perhaps best evidenced by the decent supporting cast that the film boasts. Valkyrie includes great actors like Tom Wilkenson, Bill Nighy, and Kenneth Brannagh, yet none of them, nor Cruise, speak with a German accent, let alone actual German. If Hitler were not the target, this film could have easily taken place in any other country around the world.
Now while I'm quick to criticize the film for lacking authenticity, I cannot aruge that it does do a good job of creating drama and tension. Every attempt that this crew makes to off Hitler comes off well and would be really suspenseful if you didn't know how it ended. I knew the events and still found myself on the edge of my seat a few times.
The film takes a while to get going as we're introduced to a bevy of characters that were at times difficult to keep straight. But once we get into the actual assassination attempts, things pick up nicely. It's a shame the aftermath of their actions wasn't longer or more interesting in real life, because I felt the film could have used a bigger ending.
One wonders, though, why a film about this was even made. It's not like this was the only attempt to kill Hitler (although it was the last). You could make some crude comparisons between Hitler and Bush and the idea of standing up against power for what you believe is right. But they aren't fleshed out enough to make it a worthy consideration.
Given the way the film plays out, I almost wished they would have just created a fictional story of about a Hitler assassination. If the producers want a Hollywood war movie, why restrain yourself with historical facts. You just box yourself into a corner doing that.
The bottom line here is that the movie is entertaining. It has enough action and drama to keep anyone entertained. And if you haven't seen many World War II films or aren't real familiar with the events, then the film's historical accuracy won't be a big problem. If you're looking for something with a little bit more meaning, then you may want to pass on this one. Valkyrie is nothing more than the fast food equivalent of a history lesson. Grade: B
I had a hard time figuring out what to expect with this film. Originally set to open last July, it went through a number of release dates before settling on last December, a time that didn't seem to fit with the tone of the movie. Then despite that, and despite Cruise really, the movie ended up doing fairly well at the box office.
Valkyrie marks director Bryan Singer's first film since his overbloated, boring Superman Returns. Thankfully, this is a better effort although still not a great film. The plot centers around General Claus Stauffenberg (Cruise) and several other German officers devising a plan to kill Hitler. Unhappy with the way Hitler was running things, Stauffenberg and company planned to kill Hitler and then fake a coup in order to stage their own coup.
While the basic events are based on one of the several attempts at Hitler's life, the movie plays like a true Hollywood film. The film lacks the authentic feel to create a sense that you're watching history unfold before your very eyes. From the dramatic soundtrack to Cruise's cartoonish eyepatch, the film is more Indiana Jones than History Channel documentary.
Clearly, the filmmakers were more concerned with making a good movie than trying to thrust the audience into 1940s Germany. This is perhaps best evidenced by the decent supporting cast that the film boasts. Valkyrie includes great actors like Tom Wilkenson, Bill Nighy, and Kenneth Brannagh, yet none of them, nor Cruise, speak with a German accent, let alone actual German. If Hitler were not the target, this film could have easily taken place in any other country around the world.
Now while I'm quick to criticize the film for lacking authenticity, I cannot aruge that it does do a good job of creating drama and tension. Every attempt that this crew makes to off Hitler comes off well and would be really suspenseful if you didn't know how it ended. I knew the events and still found myself on the edge of my seat a few times.
The film takes a while to get going as we're introduced to a bevy of characters that were at times difficult to keep straight. But once we get into the actual assassination attempts, things pick up nicely. It's a shame the aftermath of their actions wasn't longer or more interesting in real life, because I felt the film could have used a bigger ending.
One wonders, though, why a film about this was even made. It's not like this was the only attempt to kill Hitler (although it was the last). You could make some crude comparisons between Hitler and Bush and the idea of standing up against power for what you believe is right. But they aren't fleshed out enough to make it a worthy consideration.
Given the way the film plays out, I almost wished they would have just created a fictional story of about a Hitler assassination. If the producers want a Hollywood war movie, why restrain yourself with historical facts. You just box yourself into a corner doing that.
The bottom line here is that the movie is entertaining. It has enough action and drama to keep anyone entertained. And if you haven't seen many World War II films or aren't real familiar with the events, then the film's historical accuracy won't be a big problem. If you're looking for something with a little bit more meaning, then you may want to pass on this one. Valkyrie is nothing more than the fast food equivalent of a history lesson. Grade: B
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Sink your claws into this
The latest trailer for the new Wolverine movie has just hit the net. It could be good, but for a film that supposed to be an origin story, this seems to have a whole lot of bang and not a lot of talk.
NMR: Trifecta
No regular movie review today, so instead, here's a trio of brief reviews for films I recently caught through Netflix.
Bigger, Stronger, Faster: This was the documentary on steroids released last year that caught the attention of a lot of wrestling fans. The film was made by Chris Bell, who along with his two brothers, was a bodybuilder. Bell lays it out early on how torn he is on the subject because he didn't feel it was right to take steroids but he kept discovering all of his childhood heros (Ah-nuld, Hulk Hogan, Sly Stallone) had all taken them. Bell does a really good job at presenting arguments on both side of the issue. However, Bell's own non-commital stance on the issue grows wearisome as the movie progresses and you'd like him to pick a side. This is not a great documentary, but if you have any interest at all in the subject, it's probably worth a look. This one is available to watch instantly. Rating: ***
The Invasion: This was yet another remake of Invasions of the Body Snatchers that came out back in '07. I was initially interested in it as it was going to be one of Daniel Craig's first post-Bond films. However, the film kept getting delayed and there always seemed to be more re-shoots. Soon the writing was on the wall that this wasn't going to be very good, and for the most part that's true. There are a handful of good scares in the film, but it provides nothing new to this classic story. There are hints of what could have been (the idea of the possibility of world peace if the pod people completely take over), but all of that is loss for generic action scenes. The end result is a film that had more knives put to it than Joan Rivers. Rating: **
The Heartbreak Kid: Another '07 release that had some promise but turned out to be a dud. Ben Stiller re-teamed with the Farrelly brothers in this remake of a 1972 comedy. While providing some occasional laughs, this one ends up being too crass and stupid. It's another one of these Three's Company comedies where simple communication would have prevented all of the conflicts. The film doesn't do itself any favors by including in its supporting cast unfunny guys like Carlos Mencia and Danny McBride. Little known actress Malin Ackerman (soon to be seen in Watchmen) seems talented though, so hopefully she'll continue to get more roles. This film, however, is totally skippable. Rating: **
Bigger, Stronger, Faster: This was the documentary on steroids released last year that caught the attention of a lot of wrestling fans. The film was made by Chris Bell, who along with his two brothers, was a bodybuilder. Bell lays it out early on how torn he is on the subject because he didn't feel it was right to take steroids but he kept discovering all of his childhood heros (Ah-nuld, Hulk Hogan, Sly Stallone) had all taken them. Bell does a really good job at presenting arguments on both side of the issue. However, Bell's own non-commital stance on the issue grows wearisome as the movie progresses and you'd like him to pick a side. This is not a great documentary, but if you have any interest at all in the subject, it's probably worth a look. This one is available to watch instantly. Rating: ***
The Invasion: This was yet another remake of Invasions of the Body Snatchers that came out back in '07. I was initially interested in it as it was going to be one of Daniel Craig's first post-Bond films. However, the film kept getting delayed and there always seemed to be more re-shoots. Soon the writing was on the wall that this wasn't going to be very good, and for the most part that's true. There are a handful of good scares in the film, but it provides nothing new to this classic story. There are hints of what could have been (the idea of the possibility of world peace if the pod people completely take over), but all of that is loss for generic action scenes. The end result is a film that had more knives put to it than Joan Rivers. Rating: **
The Heartbreak Kid: Another '07 release that had some promise but turned out to be a dud. Ben Stiller re-teamed with the Farrelly brothers in this remake of a 1972 comedy. While providing some occasional laughs, this one ends up being too crass and stupid. It's another one of these Three's Company comedies where simple communication would have prevented all of the conflicts. The film doesn't do itself any favors by including in its supporting cast unfunny guys like Carlos Mencia and Danny McBride. Little known actress Malin Ackerman (soon to be seen in Watchmen) seems talented though, so hopefully she'll continue to get more roles. This film, however, is totally skippable. Rating: **
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
#1 with a bullet
The first trailer for Michael Mann's new movie, Public Enemies. From the looks of things, I'd say I was justified in putting this so high up on my must see list. Can't wait!
Unwelcome visitor
Back to the movies we go and this time it's for the remake of the 1951 sci-fi classic, The Day The Earth Stood Still.
When I first heard that this remake was coming, I was generally intrigued. A lot of that was due to the fact that I had just seen the original in a film class. I was impressed with the way that film, like so many of the sci-fi films of that era used out of this world creatures as an apt metaphor for the Red Scare. It fed into audiences' fear of the unknown to make a truly scary movie. With all of the important issues going on in our world today, I was interested to see how they would make this update appropriate for our current time. Unfortunately, they decided to forego coming up with an appropriate methaphor and focused on more important things like finding a cool way to depict the destruction of Giants stadium.
As in the orignal, Klaatu (Keanu Reeves) arrives in an alien spacecraft on Earth with a warning to the human race. Jennifer Connelly plays Helen, the astrobiologist who first meets Klaatu and strikes up an odd bond with him. She's hopeful of finding a way to convince Klaatu not to destroy all of humanity. Also along for the ride is her step-son Jacob (Jaden Smith) who is not as willing to listen to what Klaatu has to say.
You see, Klaatu is going to kill off all human life because they are detrimental to themselves and the planet. In the 1951 version, you can see how the fearmongering and Communist witch hunts would appear to an outsider like humanity was destroying itself. And today, there are certainly plenty of reasons why you could blame humanity for the way the world is. Things like the war on terror, global warming, and addiction to technology all reveal the dark side of humanity. If this film had chosen any one of those and focused on it, the message would have more resonance. Instead the film takes a generic, humans are bad and must be eradicated approach.
Rather than trying to make the audience think, the film distracts you with a bunch of superflous visual effects. Sure the glowing orbs across the earth and the nanobot storm eating any non-living thing look cool but they don't add any gravitas to the film. If I wanted eye candy, I would just go watch a Roland Emmerich film. At least there, I know I'm not getting any substance, so I won't be disappointed.
The one cool visual that does add to the film, though, is their version of Gort, the robot that protects Klaatu and his ship. While the 1951 film had a guy in a silver rubber suit (I don't think metal bends that way), this director creates a visually stunning creatures that truly elicts the fear that the original should have, but didn't. Their interpretation of Gort is the best thing about the film (although I rolled my eyes over the fact that Gort this time is an acronym created by the Army).
But for as much as I liked their interpretation of Gort, I was equally dismayed by their treatment of the Professor Barnard character. In the original, Barnard is the voice of rational thought in an irrational situation and also helps Klaatu better understand humanity. Here, his inclusion is shoehorned into the story and doesn't really add anything. John Cleese is wasted here in the role neither providing any comic relief nor any real words of wisdom to justify the character's inclusion. If you had never seen the original, you would wonder why this scene was even included in this version.
As disappointed as I was about the film's failure to pick an issue to use drive its message, that can be overlooked if the film does a good job at providing an emotional and meaningful climax to the story. But as you may have guessed, this doesn't do it. First of all, the action that causes Klaatu to change his mind about humanity is so basic and ordinary, you begin to wonder why it took so long for him to figure out that humans have the capicity to be compassionate. The film builds things up to make it seem like there's something special about Helen and/or Jacob that Klaatu will see, but their actions are not unlike most average humans. It's truly baffling why that moment creates the change in Klaatu's perspective.
Then as the film ends we aren't given a proper sense of the aftermath. Will humanity change? What, if any, lessons have they learned from this experience? The whole climax is as emotionless as Klaatu himself. I'm left wondering what I'm supposed to take away from any of this.
Like a lot of movies that came out this past Winter, it seems this one may have been a victim of the writer's strike. There were just too many poorly constructed or underwritten scenes. You feel like if the script had gone through one more revision, a lot of the problems could have been tightened up. While I can give some other films some slack for this, this film shouldn't haven't had those problems. First, it's a remake, so you already have the core script ready. Secondly, the film was originally supposed to be released in the summer, so this may have been a case of too much tinkering instead of not enough.
Regardless of the reason, this is a disappointing film to anyone who saw the original. And if you haven't, I can't see it being very enjoyable for you either. The whole thing has a very dour tone that never eases up. This film is neither scary nor uplifting. This alien invasion feels more like your mother-in-law having an overextended stay. You just want them to leave so we can go back doing our regular thing. Everyone will be better off just going out and finding the original rather than wasting your time with this disappointing redux. Grade: C
When I first heard that this remake was coming, I was generally intrigued. A lot of that was due to the fact that I had just seen the original in a film class. I was impressed with the way that film, like so many of the sci-fi films of that era used out of this world creatures as an apt metaphor for the Red Scare. It fed into audiences' fear of the unknown to make a truly scary movie. With all of the important issues going on in our world today, I was interested to see how they would make this update appropriate for our current time. Unfortunately, they decided to forego coming up with an appropriate methaphor and focused on more important things like finding a cool way to depict the destruction of Giants stadium.
As in the orignal, Klaatu (Keanu Reeves) arrives in an alien spacecraft on Earth with a warning to the human race. Jennifer Connelly plays Helen, the astrobiologist who first meets Klaatu and strikes up an odd bond with him. She's hopeful of finding a way to convince Klaatu not to destroy all of humanity. Also along for the ride is her step-son Jacob (Jaden Smith) who is not as willing to listen to what Klaatu has to say.
You see, Klaatu is going to kill off all human life because they are detrimental to themselves and the planet. In the 1951 version, you can see how the fearmongering and Communist witch hunts would appear to an outsider like humanity was destroying itself. And today, there are certainly plenty of reasons why you could blame humanity for the way the world is. Things like the war on terror, global warming, and addiction to technology all reveal the dark side of humanity. If this film had chosen any one of those and focused on it, the message would have more resonance. Instead the film takes a generic, humans are bad and must be eradicated approach.
Rather than trying to make the audience think, the film distracts you with a bunch of superflous visual effects. Sure the glowing orbs across the earth and the nanobot storm eating any non-living thing look cool but they don't add any gravitas to the film. If I wanted eye candy, I would just go watch a Roland Emmerich film. At least there, I know I'm not getting any substance, so I won't be disappointed.
The one cool visual that does add to the film, though, is their version of Gort, the robot that protects Klaatu and his ship. While the 1951 film had a guy in a silver rubber suit (I don't think metal bends that way), this director creates a visually stunning creatures that truly elicts the fear that the original should have, but didn't. Their interpretation of Gort is the best thing about the film (although I rolled my eyes over the fact that Gort this time is an acronym created by the Army).
But for as much as I liked their interpretation of Gort, I was equally dismayed by their treatment of the Professor Barnard character. In the original, Barnard is the voice of rational thought in an irrational situation and also helps Klaatu better understand humanity. Here, his inclusion is shoehorned into the story and doesn't really add anything. John Cleese is wasted here in the role neither providing any comic relief nor any real words of wisdom to justify the character's inclusion. If you had never seen the original, you would wonder why this scene was even included in this version.
As disappointed as I was about the film's failure to pick an issue to use drive its message, that can be overlooked if the film does a good job at providing an emotional and meaningful climax to the story. But as you may have guessed, this doesn't do it. First of all, the action that causes Klaatu to change his mind about humanity is so basic and ordinary, you begin to wonder why it took so long for him to figure out that humans have the capicity to be compassionate. The film builds things up to make it seem like there's something special about Helen and/or Jacob that Klaatu will see, but their actions are not unlike most average humans. It's truly baffling why that moment creates the change in Klaatu's perspective.
Then as the film ends we aren't given a proper sense of the aftermath. Will humanity change? What, if any, lessons have they learned from this experience? The whole climax is as emotionless as Klaatu himself. I'm left wondering what I'm supposed to take away from any of this.
Like a lot of movies that came out this past Winter, it seems this one may have been a victim of the writer's strike. There were just too many poorly constructed or underwritten scenes. You feel like if the script had gone through one more revision, a lot of the problems could have been tightened up. While I can give some other films some slack for this, this film shouldn't haven't had those problems. First, it's a remake, so you already have the core script ready. Secondly, the film was originally supposed to be released in the summer, so this may have been a case of too much tinkering instead of not enough.
Regardless of the reason, this is a disappointing film to anyone who saw the original. And if you haven't, I can't see it being very enjoyable for you either. The whole thing has a very dour tone that never eases up. This film is neither scary nor uplifting. This alien invasion feels more like your mother-in-law having an overextended stay. You just want them to leave so we can go back doing our regular thing. Everyone will be better off just going out and finding the original rather than wasting your time with this disappointing redux. Grade: C
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
False positive
So it's spring break this week and while I've still got plenty of work to do, there's a ton of movies over at the budget theater that I need to catch up on, so I'll try and get to as many of them as possible. So be on the lookout for more reviews as the week progresses.
We'll start things off though with Jim Carrey's latest comedy, Yes Man. I'll admit that nothing really stood out to me from the previews for this one. The premise seemed similar to Liar Liar and I didn't find myself laughing that much. It turns out that my instincts ended up being fairly accurate.
The premise here is that Jim Carrey plays Carl, a pessimistic banker who jumps at the chance to say no to every offer put in front of him until he takes a motivational seminar in which the guru gets him to start saying yes to everything asked of him. Hopefully in reading that sentence some warning bells should already start ringing in your head that this sounds like a pretty flimsy concept.
First of all, we're never really given an adequate explanation as to why Carl is so pessimistic. There is some mention of a failed marriage, but that idea isn't really explored enough to make us buy that as the justification. After this brief introduction into the character, Carl runs into a Contrivance #1 aka John Michael Higgins character. These two supposedly know each other, but we're not told where they know each other from. Higgins' encourages Carl to attend this positivity seminar and soon we're thrust right into the main plot.
Of course, all of the things asked of Carl seemed like they'll go terrible if he agrees to them, but he does and then end up turning out great for him. The best thing is he ends up meeting Contrivance #2, Allison (played amicably by Zooey Deschanel). Being a free spirit herself, she really likes how spontaneous and optimistic Carl is. We then spend the crux of the film watching them do zany things like breaking into the Hollywood Bowl or flying to Lincoln, Nebraska. Any of this sound exciting yet? All the while, we're supposed to be laughing at Carrey's zany, spur-of-the-moment antics, but instead it just appears that this character has some sort of mental deficiency.
Carrey's character is flawed in so many ways that it basically ruins the entire movie. Aside from acting like a lunatic, he doesn't come across as likeable when he pessimistic or optimistic. It's hard to root for someone who is so stupid to believe that saying yes to everything is the answer to all of life's problems. By the end of the film, he learns the lesson that while it's important to be positive, major decisions require critical thought, not just blindly agreeing to everything. How hard was that to figure out? The audience figures this out waaaaay before the main character does, which just makes for a frustrating experience.
There are an assortment of subplots introduced that could have been potentially interesting like Carl's friends abusing his inability to say no, or the fact that Carl works at a bank and is suddenly giving loans to everyone who asks for one. In our current financial times, this could have been particularly pertinent, but it's abandoned for more wacky Carrey antics.
Any of these minor stories are spurned in favor of the cliched romance which of course involves Contrivance #3 causing Allison and Carl to briefly break up when she realizes he's 'not the man I thought he was' only for them to quickly reconcile by the movies end.
Nothing in the movie feels real or genuine. Perhaps the best example of that is one of the final scenes, which in a way mirrors one of the final scenes in The 40-Year Old Virgin. Without giving too much away, they both involve the main character on a bike chasing after their love interest. If you do see this movie, you'll understand how cheesy and lame this scene comes off as in comparison to the emotion that's packed into the scene from Virgin.
I was excited to see Carrey come back to the genre that brought him, the slapstick comedy, but this was not the right vehicle for him. The film tries to put a fresh spin on a tried and true method of storytelling, but fails completely. Nothing rings true about the story or the characters or the message. If I were you, I don't see a need to waste your time renting it. It'll probably show up on the USA channel fairly quickly anyways, so if you're really a big Jim Carrey fan and you haven't seen it, you can watch it then. Otherwise, just say no to Yes Man. Grade: C-
We'll start things off though with Jim Carrey's latest comedy, Yes Man. I'll admit that nothing really stood out to me from the previews for this one. The premise seemed similar to Liar Liar and I didn't find myself laughing that much. It turns out that my instincts ended up being fairly accurate.
The premise here is that Jim Carrey plays Carl, a pessimistic banker who jumps at the chance to say no to every offer put in front of him until he takes a motivational seminar in which the guru gets him to start saying yes to everything asked of him. Hopefully in reading that sentence some warning bells should already start ringing in your head that this sounds like a pretty flimsy concept.
First of all, we're never really given an adequate explanation as to why Carl is so pessimistic. There is some mention of a failed marriage, but that idea isn't really explored enough to make us buy that as the justification. After this brief introduction into the character, Carl runs into a Contrivance #1 aka John Michael Higgins character. These two supposedly know each other, but we're not told where they know each other from. Higgins' encourages Carl to attend this positivity seminar and soon we're thrust right into the main plot.
Of course, all of the things asked of Carl seemed like they'll go terrible if he agrees to them, but he does and then end up turning out great for him. The best thing is he ends up meeting Contrivance #2, Allison (played amicably by Zooey Deschanel). Being a free spirit herself, she really likes how spontaneous and optimistic Carl is. We then spend the crux of the film watching them do zany things like breaking into the Hollywood Bowl or flying to Lincoln, Nebraska. Any of this sound exciting yet? All the while, we're supposed to be laughing at Carrey's zany, spur-of-the-moment antics, but instead it just appears that this character has some sort of mental deficiency.
Carrey's character is flawed in so many ways that it basically ruins the entire movie. Aside from acting like a lunatic, he doesn't come across as likeable when he pessimistic or optimistic. It's hard to root for someone who is so stupid to believe that saying yes to everything is the answer to all of life's problems. By the end of the film, he learns the lesson that while it's important to be positive, major decisions require critical thought, not just blindly agreeing to everything. How hard was that to figure out? The audience figures this out waaaaay before the main character does, which just makes for a frustrating experience.
There are an assortment of subplots introduced that could have been potentially interesting like Carl's friends abusing his inability to say no, or the fact that Carl works at a bank and is suddenly giving loans to everyone who asks for one. In our current financial times, this could have been particularly pertinent, but it's abandoned for more wacky Carrey antics.
Any of these minor stories are spurned in favor of the cliched romance which of course involves Contrivance #3 causing Allison and Carl to briefly break up when she realizes he's 'not the man I thought he was' only for them to quickly reconcile by the movies end.
Nothing in the movie feels real or genuine. Perhaps the best example of that is one of the final scenes, which in a way mirrors one of the final scenes in The 40-Year Old Virgin. Without giving too much away, they both involve the main character on a bike chasing after their love interest. If you do see this movie, you'll understand how cheesy and lame this scene comes off as in comparison to the emotion that's packed into the scene from Virgin.
I was excited to see Carrey come back to the genre that brought him, the slapstick comedy, but this was not the right vehicle for him. The film tries to put a fresh spin on a tried and true method of storytelling, but fails completely. Nothing rings true about the story or the characters or the message. If I were you, I don't see a need to waste your time renting it. It'll probably show up on the USA channel fairly quickly anyways, so if you're really a big Jim Carrey fan and you haven't seen it, you can watch it then. Otherwise, just say no to Yes Man. Grade: C-
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Reaper reminder
I just wanted to make all of you aware that the underappreciated comedy action show, Reaper returns for its second season this week on the CW. Here's a little preview of the season #2...
And if you need a better refresher before the season begins, you can watch the season 1 finale here.
And if you need a better refresher before the season begins, you can watch the season 1 finale here.
NMR: Cage-d heat
I caught a couple of Nicolas Cage movies on Netflix's instant viewing and I think they're a couple of examples why he's one of the most polarizing actors out there today.
Next: This 2007 sci-fi action flick revolves around the idea that Nic Cage has the ability to see 2 minutes into the future at any point and the gov't is trying to hunt him down to use his ability to stop Russians from using a nuclear bomb. The whole thing is completely preposterous and poorly acted. I could have maybe bought into the concept if it had been given any sort of decent explanation, but at barely 90 minutes, the film wastes the idea and uses it as a weak prop for a generic action movie. Not even the hotness of Jessica Biel could save this one. If only Nic Cage actually he had this ability, he could have seen how terrible this movie would be. Rating: **
Matchstick Men: A complete 180 here as Cage turns in a terrific performance, along with nearly everyone else in the film. The film centers around a con man (Cage) who has OCD and is trying to deal with meeting his 14-year old daughter for the first time. Somehow the movie is a character study of a neurotic individual, an emotional family drama, and a con movie and gives each of these aspects of the story enough time to make them significant. Ridley Scott (Gladiator) turns in one of his best directing efforts here. This is a movie that works on a lot of levels and provides something for a lot of different audiences. Ironically, not many people saw it. Do yourself a favor and see it now. Rating: **** (although if I could it would be 4 1/2 stars)
Next: This 2007 sci-fi action flick revolves around the idea that Nic Cage has the ability to see 2 minutes into the future at any point and the gov't is trying to hunt him down to use his ability to stop Russians from using a nuclear bomb. The whole thing is completely preposterous and poorly acted. I could have maybe bought into the concept if it had been given any sort of decent explanation, but at barely 90 minutes, the film wastes the idea and uses it as a weak prop for a generic action movie. Not even the hotness of Jessica Biel could save this one. If only Nic Cage actually he had this ability, he could have seen how terrible this movie would be. Rating: **
Matchstick Men: A complete 180 here as Cage turns in a terrific performance, along with nearly everyone else in the film. The film centers around a con man (Cage) who has OCD and is trying to deal with meeting his 14-year old daughter for the first time. Somehow the movie is a character study of a neurotic individual, an emotional family drama, and a con movie and gives each of these aspects of the story enough time to make them significant. Ridley Scott (Gladiator) turns in one of his best directing efforts here. This is a movie that works on a lot of levels and provides something for a lot of different audiences. Ironically, not many people saw it. Do yourself a favor and see it now. Rating: **** (although if I could it would be 4 1/2 stars)
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Break(dance)ing news!
Do they realize that the cameras are rolling? Apparently, there is NOTHING of significance to report in Cincinnati as that's the only way I can explain why this is happening. Unbelieveable.
NMR: 2 for 1
Here's the latest from my Netflix viewings...
In Bruges: A small film that came out around this time last year. It got a lot of rave reviews and even had an Oscar nomination for its screenplay, however I just couldn't get into it. It stars Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson (Mad Eye Moody in the Harry Potter films) as a couple of hitman who are trying to lay low in Bruges (hence the title). There were several times in the film where I could recognize what the director was trying to do, but I just wasn't buying it. Maybe I just wasn't in the right mood or maybe it's for a different audience, but for whatever reason I just didn't enjoy this. If you've seen it, feel free to tell me why this film is supposed to be good. Rating: **
The Hunting Party: An odd film that turned out to be pretty good. It stars Richard Gere and Terrence Howard as a couple of journalists who are in Bosnia looking for an infamous war criminal, The Fox. The beginning of the film there is a disclaimer that only the most ridiculous parts of the movie are real and then at the end of the movie they show you what in fact actually did happen. For most people, they may have trouble enjoying a film about the Bosnian conflict, but if you stick with it, it's a decent thriller that also has a fair amount of laughs. It's not the conventional type of film I would enjoy, but I liked it nonetheless. Rating: ***
In Bruges: A small film that came out around this time last year. It got a lot of rave reviews and even had an Oscar nomination for its screenplay, however I just couldn't get into it. It stars Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson (Mad Eye Moody in the Harry Potter films) as a couple of hitman who are trying to lay low in Bruges (hence the title). There were several times in the film where I could recognize what the director was trying to do, but I just wasn't buying it. Maybe I just wasn't in the right mood or maybe it's for a different audience, but for whatever reason I just didn't enjoy this. If you've seen it, feel free to tell me why this film is supposed to be good. Rating: **
The Hunting Party: An odd film that turned out to be pretty good. It stars Richard Gere and Terrence Howard as a couple of journalists who are in Bosnia looking for an infamous war criminal, The Fox. The beginning of the film there is a disclaimer that only the most ridiculous parts of the movie are real and then at the end of the movie they show you what in fact actually did happen. For most people, they may have trouble enjoying a film about the Bosnian conflict, but if you stick with it, it's a decent thriller that also has a fair amount of laughs. It's not the conventional type of film I would enjoy, but I liked it nonetheless. Rating: ***
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
More good news for the day
From EW.com:
I love the original Clue film, but also feel that a new version could be really great. They should once again film multiple endings that are shown at various theaters. I think having the people who are usually in Christopher Guest's films would be ideal for this cast. So, are you as excited as I am or is this news met with more apathy from you?
Gore Verbinski (Pirates of the Caribbean) has been tapped to direct and produce a new adaptation of the game Clue, Variety reports. Like the previous 1985 movie and the classic Hasbro board game on which both films are based, Verbinski's project will be a murder mystery. It's the latest Hasbro property headed to the big screen, after Transformers and this summer's G.I. Joe.
I love the original Clue film, but also feel that a new version could be really great. They should once again film multiple endings that are shown at various theaters. I think having the people who are usually in Christopher Guest's films would be ideal for this cast. So, are you as excited as I am or is this news met with more apathy from you?
Getting the band back together
So last Friday was Conan's last show on Late Night and I've been kind of sad about it. Moving to the 11:30 slot, it seemed like Conan was selling out and would be abandoning a lot of the humor that we've come to love from him and go to a more broad, pandering style that we've come to loathe in Jay Leno.
Well today we got news that really made me happy. Andy Richter is coming back full time as Conan's sidekick (Read story here). I've really missed their banter and rapport these past few years so it'll be great seeing them back together again. So of Conan's best bits (If They Mated, In the Year 2000, On the Aisle, Staring Contests) haven't been the same without Andy involved. Hopefully this is a good sign that all is not lost once Conan takes over The Tonight Show in June.
EDIT: So reading the announcement a little bit more closely, it seems that Andy is being brought on to be the announcer. However, he will still be involved in some of the show's comedy bits. It's not quite the same thing, but still good news nonetheless.
And here for your amusement is a classic Conan/Andy bit, fittingly enough of them taking a 'drive' in LA:
Well today we got news that really made me happy. Andy Richter is coming back full time as Conan's sidekick (Read story here). I've really missed their banter and rapport these past few years so it'll be great seeing them back together again. So of Conan's best bits (If They Mated, In the Year 2000, On the Aisle, Staring Contests) haven't been the same without Andy involved. Hopefully this is a good sign that all is not lost once Conan takes over The Tonight Show in June.
EDIT: So reading the announcement a little bit more closely, it seems that Andy is being brought on to be the announcer. However, he will still be involved in some of the show's comedy bits. It's not quite the same thing, but still good news nonetheless.
And here for your amusement is a classic Conan/Andy bit, fittingly enough of them taking a 'drive' in LA:
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Judd-ging the latest Apatow trailer
Judd Apatow's third directing effort comes out this summer and the first trailer has hit the net. I like the premise seen here, but this clearly seems to be a much more serious film than his previous efforts. I've got no problem with that as long as the quality is still there and I have a feeling it will be. Check it out for yourself.
NMR: Oscar greats
Since none of this year's Best Picture nominees have made it to the budget theater yet and I'm too poor to shell out the big bucks to see them, I decided to watch some older Oscar winners through Netflix instead. All films are available to watch instantly if you're interested in them.
All the President's Men: Just a great, great film and I'm embarassed that it's taken me so long to see it. This is the retelling of Woodward and Bernstein's investigation into the Watergate scandal. Fantastic acting from everyone involved and does a nice job of playing more like a detective story than some extended political statement. I really enjoyed seeing such a thorough look into the world of journalism and the quest people will take in order to get the story. Rating: *****
Network: Another great film directed by one of the most legendary directors, Sidney Lumet (12 Angry Men). This look at a fictional TV network's exploitation of their lead anchorman, who's having a mental breakdown seems all too realistic today in our tabloid driven world. The movie is way ahead of it's time and fascinating to watch now from this perspective. I'm not crazy about the love story they included between Faye Dunaway and the news director; it just didn't feel organic to the story. Otherwise this is an excellent film. On a related note, Peter Finch was the first man to win an acting Oscar posthumously for his role as Howard Beale for this movie. Heath Ledger could become the second one to do so this Sunday. Rating: ****
The Counterfeiters: This won the Best Foreign Language film Oscar a couple of years ago. I've seen my fair share of Holocaust films and I was impressed with the originality of this one. Yes, it depicts the terrible conditions that Jewish people endured during this time, but the primary story is of a counterfeit artist who is captured and used by the Germans to create fake dollars and pounds in order to help fund their war effort. This forces him into a situation to either choose between helping the enemy or avoiding the same horrible treatment that his fellow prisoners are enduring. It is a riveting film, but it is subtitled, so if that isn't your thing, you may not enjoy this. Rating: ****
All the President's Men: Just a great, great film and I'm embarassed that it's taken me so long to see it. This is the retelling of Woodward and Bernstein's investigation into the Watergate scandal. Fantastic acting from everyone involved and does a nice job of playing more like a detective story than some extended political statement. I really enjoyed seeing such a thorough look into the world of journalism and the quest people will take in order to get the story. Rating: *****
Network: Another great film directed by one of the most legendary directors, Sidney Lumet (12 Angry Men). This look at a fictional TV network's exploitation of their lead anchorman, who's having a mental breakdown seems all too realistic today in our tabloid driven world. The movie is way ahead of it's time and fascinating to watch now from this perspective. I'm not crazy about the love story they included between Faye Dunaway and the news director; it just didn't feel organic to the story. Otherwise this is an excellent film. On a related note, Peter Finch was the first man to win an acting Oscar posthumously for his role as Howard Beale for this movie. Heath Ledger could become the second one to do so this Sunday. Rating: ****
The Counterfeiters: This won the Best Foreign Language film Oscar a couple of years ago. I've seen my fair share of Holocaust films and I was impressed with the originality of this one. Yes, it depicts the terrible conditions that Jewish people endured during this time, but the primary story is of a counterfeit artist who is captured and used by the Germans to create fake dollars and pounds in order to help fund their war effort. This forces him into a situation to either choose between helping the enemy or avoiding the same horrible treatment that his fellow prisoners are enduring. It is a riveting film, but it is subtitled, so if that isn't your thing, you may not enjoy this. Rating: ****
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Oscar spoilers?!?
So there is this document floating around the Internet right now supposedly from AMPAS president Sid Ganis which lists all of the winners to this Sunday's Oscar ceremony. A lot of the purported winners seem like the likely choices, but there are a couple that raise some eyebrows. If you're curious, the link is below. Look at your own discretion.
Possible list of Oscar winners
Possible list of Oscar winners
Friday, February 13, 2009
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Insufficient funds
So I gave myself a treat tonight and saw a sneak preview of The International, starring Clive Owen and Naomi Watts, which opens this Friday. Since this is an early review, let me say "spoilers ahead!"
I put this film on my top 30 to see this year based on the strength of its premise and trailer. Given it's plot about a corrupt bank, it also has the fortune(?) of coming out at a time when most people don't think too highly of economic establishments.
For the first three quarters of this movie, I was really digging it. It does a great job of building suspense by making this European bank, the IBBC, a nefarious organization. It appears that they won't let anything get in their way of global domination and they provide plenty of scenes to make the audience believe that. Not only do you worry for the main characters' safety but you also want to see this bank get taken down.
Trying to stop them is Lou Sallinger (Owen) who's been trying to build a case against the IBBC for years. Owen turns in another one of those glowering performances that he can only do, but in this case it works. Helping Sallinger out is Watts, who plays a New York FBI agent. Her role is actually kind of underwritten and seems frivolous at times. It seems a shame to waste some as talented as her in a thankless role like this.
As Sallinger gets closer and closer to exposing this organization, the tension builds. Unfortunately, the film climaxes too soon. The best moment of the film comes from an unbelieveable shootout scene done in the Guggenheim museum. This is pure unadulterated action that just keeps building in awesomeness. Having this bloody battle done with the backdrop of this pristine setting just makes for a really cool scene. I don't want to gush, but the scene is so great, it's almost worth the price of admission alone.
Like I said though, once that scene is over, the film limps to a finish. A major factor in this is that they wrote themselves into a corner. As Sallinger interrogates one of IBBC key players, he says that it's impossible to truly take the bank down. Their reach is so wide that there would be too many people invested in seeing the company thrive to let anyone expose it for what it's really doing. Now this statement in of itself is fine. The film had clearly established the strength of the bank throughout the film, so what he says is plausible. But if we're to buy into that, then there isn't a whole lot you can do to create a satisfying ending.
At that point, they either have to create some deux ex machina that would seem phony or you have to create a more philosophical finish where you have to accept moral victories over actual ones. And while neither of those options seems appealing, what this film does is even worse. They try finding a happy medium between those two options. The end result is a befuddling and anti-climatic finish. As the movie ends, you're left with too many loose ends that you want answers to. The film tries to answer these in a cheesy newspaper montage as the credits roll, but by that point it's too late.
Overall, while the film seems somewhat relevant given what's currently going on with our financial institutions, you also get the sense that this movie has been sitting on the shelf for a while. In fact, doing a little reading on the film, it seems that the film did some reshoots in order to bolster up the action. If any of the Guggenheim stuff was added late in the process, I shudder to think what this movie was like before it.
One final thing I will say though is that this movie is beautifully shot. Scenes are shot across the globe and are beautifully done. If aesthetics is something you enjoy in the film, well then this one has got it going on.
In the end, I'm going to give this the mildest of recommendations. The film was able to build up enough goodwill that it's unsatisfying ending didn't completely ruin anything. It's not at Cast Away level, but you will be disappointed with the film's finish. Still if you're looking for something to see at the cineplex, this is a decent alternative to all of the romantic comedy dreck that's being shoveled out there right now. Grade: B-
I put this film on my top 30 to see this year based on the strength of its premise and trailer. Given it's plot about a corrupt bank, it also has the fortune(?) of coming out at a time when most people don't think too highly of economic establishments.
For the first three quarters of this movie, I was really digging it. It does a great job of building suspense by making this European bank, the IBBC, a nefarious organization. It appears that they won't let anything get in their way of global domination and they provide plenty of scenes to make the audience believe that. Not only do you worry for the main characters' safety but you also want to see this bank get taken down.
Trying to stop them is Lou Sallinger (Owen) who's been trying to build a case against the IBBC for years. Owen turns in another one of those glowering performances that he can only do, but in this case it works. Helping Sallinger out is Watts, who plays a New York FBI agent. Her role is actually kind of underwritten and seems frivolous at times. It seems a shame to waste some as talented as her in a thankless role like this.
As Sallinger gets closer and closer to exposing this organization, the tension builds. Unfortunately, the film climaxes too soon. The best moment of the film comes from an unbelieveable shootout scene done in the Guggenheim museum. This is pure unadulterated action that just keeps building in awesomeness. Having this bloody battle done with the backdrop of this pristine setting just makes for a really cool scene. I don't want to gush, but the scene is so great, it's almost worth the price of admission alone.
Like I said though, once that scene is over, the film limps to a finish. A major factor in this is that they wrote themselves into a corner. As Sallinger interrogates one of IBBC key players, he says that it's impossible to truly take the bank down. Their reach is so wide that there would be too many people invested in seeing the company thrive to let anyone expose it for what it's really doing. Now this statement in of itself is fine. The film had clearly established the strength of the bank throughout the film, so what he says is plausible. But if we're to buy into that, then there isn't a whole lot you can do to create a satisfying ending.
At that point, they either have to create some deux ex machina that would seem phony or you have to create a more philosophical finish where you have to accept moral victories over actual ones. And while neither of those options seems appealing, what this film does is even worse. They try finding a happy medium between those two options. The end result is a befuddling and anti-climatic finish. As the movie ends, you're left with too many loose ends that you want answers to. The film tries to answer these in a cheesy newspaper montage as the credits roll, but by that point it's too late.
Overall, while the film seems somewhat relevant given what's currently going on with our financial institutions, you also get the sense that this movie has been sitting on the shelf for a while. In fact, doing a little reading on the film, it seems that the film did some reshoots in order to bolster up the action. If any of the Guggenheim stuff was added late in the process, I shudder to think what this movie was like before it.
One final thing I will say though is that this movie is beautifully shot. Scenes are shot across the globe and are beautifully done. If aesthetics is something you enjoy in the film, well then this one has got it going on.
In the end, I'm going to give this the mildest of recommendations. The film was able to build up enough goodwill that it's unsatisfying ending didn't completely ruin anything. It's not at Cast Away level, but you will be disappointed with the film's finish. Still if you're looking for something to see at the cineplex, this is a decent alternative to all of the romantic comedy dreck that's being shoveled out there right now. Grade: B-
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Hitching up some trailers
A couple new trailers of interest.
First is Observe and Report, which will, unbelieveably, be our second mall cop movie of the year. The trailer is red band, so this one isn't aimed at the kids like Paul Blart was. I got more of an action vibe than a comedy vibe though from the trailer. While there were some decent parts, I'm not completely sold on this movie. By the way, I have a feeling I know who the mysterious streaker is in the movie and if I'm right, I'll be so disappointed that they made it so obvious.
The other trailer is the newest one for Angels and Demons. After being on the fence about this sequel given the mediocrity of The Da Vinci Code, I'm now fully on board after seeing this. All indications are that they fixed a lot of the complaints with the previous film. No long hair, more action, compelling story are all here. Let's hope I'm right and this isn't a case of a trailer leading me astray.
First is Observe and Report, which will, unbelieveably, be our second mall cop movie of the year. The trailer is red band, so this one isn't aimed at the kids like Paul Blart was. I got more of an action vibe than a comedy vibe though from the trailer. While there were some decent parts, I'm not completely sold on this movie. By the way, I have a feeling I know who the mysterious streaker is in the movie and if I'm right, I'll be so disappointed that they made it so obvious.
The other trailer is the newest one for Angels and Demons. After being on the fence about this sequel given the mediocrity of The Da Vinci Code, I'm now fully on board after seeing this. All indications are that they fixed a lot of the complaints with the previous film. No long hair, more action, compelling story are all here. Let's hope I'm right and this isn't a case of a trailer leading me astray.
Monday, February 9, 2009
NMR: Big names, small films
Here's a couple of films that really flew under the radar in '08, yet both have pretty decent casts.
Transsiberian: Starring Woody Harrelson, Ben Kingsley, and Emily Mortimer this film begins with a Hitchcockian vibe. Harrelson and Mortimer played a married couple travelling on the Transiberian train from China to Russia. Along the way they meet another couple who may be hiding their true intentions for being on the trip. The first half of the film is intense and mysterious, but once you figure out where it's going the film gets pretty stupid. Characters making illogical decisions and a 'only in Hollywood' ending mar what was turning out to be a decent thriller. It's available to view instantly on Netflix, so you may want to check it out. Rating: ***
The Lucky Ones: I typically don't watch movies on the Iraq war, but this one seemed to be more of a road trip film than about the war. Tim Robbins, Rachel McAdams, and Michael Pena are three soldiers on 30-day leaves who meet each other on their way back to the U.S. They each have different personal issues that they need to deal with and end up forming a bond along the way. It does a nice job of blending emotions as you watch these characters go on this journey. Rachel McAdams is absolutely adorable here and she was one of the main reasons why I rented it in the first place. I was not keen on how the film ends, but it's probably a more realistic ending. If you want something different and light, this is a decent choice. Rating: ****
Transsiberian: Starring Woody Harrelson, Ben Kingsley, and Emily Mortimer this film begins with a Hitchcockian vibe. Harrelson and Mortimer played a married couple travelling on the Transiberian train from China to Russia. Along the way they meet another couple who may be hiding their true intentions for being on the trip. The first half of the film is intense and mysterious, but once you figure out where it's going the film gets pretty stupid. Characters making illogical decisions and a 'only in Hollywood' ending mar what was turning out to be a decent thriller. It's available to view instantly on Netflix, so you may want to check it out. Rating: ***
The Lucky Ones: I typically don't watch movies on the Iraq war, but this one seemed to be more of a road trip film than about the war. Tim Robbins, Rachel McAdams, and Michael Pena are three soldiers on 30-day leaves who meet each other on their way back to the U.S. They each have different personal issues that they need to deal with and end up forming a bond along the way. It does a nice job of blending emotions as you watch these characters go on this journey. Rachel McAdams is absolutely adorable here and she was one of the main reasons why I rented it in the first place. I was not keen on how the film ends, but it's probably a more realistic ending. If you want something different and light, this is a decent choice. Rating: ****
Friday, February 6, 2009
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Know your role
I needed a break tonight, so I went over and caught Role Models at the budget theater before it leaves this weekend.
And as I sit here trying to type up a review, I'm struggling to come up with a lot to say. In this case, it's an example of 'perfectly acceptable filmmaking'. The film certainly wasn't bad. Yet, it also didn't rise above the material and become something special. It has a competent story and a number of laughs, but didn't leave a lasting impression on me. In other words, it's the perfect budget theater movie.
A large part of the blame lies squarely on the shoulders of the film's trailer. It pretty much spells everything out for you in it. You're given the premise, an understanding of the main characters and a sense of how things will turn out. It ended up not leaving a lot of surprises for the actual film. It takes quite a while before you see something in the film that you feel is fresh or unrecognizable.
Contributing to the lack of surprise though is the film's characters. Now don't get me wrong, this film has a great cast and each of them deliver funny performances. But none of these characters truly get developed, nor do they go against the roles we've seen these actors play before. Wow it's Paul Rudd as the smarmy guy. Hey, it's Sean William Scott as the party animal. There's Christopher Mintz-Plasse (aka McLovin) as the geeky teen. It's as if the film was written based on who the actors were instead of creating the characters first and letting the actors work at making them coming to life. Even Elizabeth Banks, who we all know I love, isn't given much to do here besides being the adorable girlfriend.
About the only person who really rises above the material is the always reliable Jane Lynch. Playing the director of Sturdy Wings (the Big Brothers-esque organization that the main characters have to volunteer at), Lynch has a lot of fun playing this no-nonsense character. Her character delivers all of these great lines that sound tough and intimidating but truly don't fit within the context of the conversation. Having Rudd and Scott play straight men to these lines just add to their humor.
While director David Wain (The Ten) may not have the clout that Judd Apatow has in Hollywood, he does still manage to corral a great group of supporting players to play bit parts in the film. Most of them are people you may not know by name, but will easily recognize. And each of them are successful at wringing out a few laughs from their characters.
Of course the plot here, while unrealistic, is pretty formulaic. I didn't have a major problem with it though because it never felt heavy-handed. The idea of boys becoming men isn't revolutionary, but the ideas used to support this story work and seem fresh. I think everyone will think twice about laughing at those who are fans of Dungeons and Dragons and other fantasy related games. Watching these guys 'battle' in the film probably will make a lot of people want to unleash their inner 'Braveheart'.
If the story is lacking anywhere it's in the set up. We really don't get a good sense of why any of these characters are the way that they are. For a comedy, I suppose backstory isn't essential, but it would have been nice. Providing a foundation for who these characters are may have made us care about them a bit more instead of passive watching them and laughing at the funny things they say.
I would definitely recommend this as a rental. If you enjoy these actors, this is another fine entry in their growing list of work. It has plenty of laughs and won't tax your mind. Just don't expect anything special from this movie. It's a role model of the ordinary. Grade: B
And as I sit here trying to type up a review, I'm struggling to come up with a lot to say. In this case, it's an example of 'perfectly acceptable filmmaking'. The film certainly wasn't bad. Yet, it also didn't rise above the material and become something special. It has a competent story and a number of laughs, but didn't leave a lasting impression on me. In other words, it's the perfect budget theater movie.
A large part of the blame lies squarely on the shoulders of the film's trailer. It pretty much spells everything out for you in it. You're given the premise, an understanding of the main characters and a sense of how things will turn out. It ended up not leaving a lot of surprises for the actual film. It takes quite a while before you see something in the film that you feel is fresh or unrecognizable.
Contributing to the lack of surprise though is the film's characters. Now don't get me wrong, this film has a great cast and each of them deliver funny performances. But none of these characters truly get developed, nor do they go against the roles we've seen these actors play before. Wow it's Paul Rudd as the smarmy guy. Hey, it's Sean William Scott as the party animal. There's Christopher Mintz-Plasse (aka McLovin) as the geeky teen. It's as if the film was written based on who the actors were instead of creating the characters first and letting the actors work at making them coming to life. Even Elizabeth Banks, who we all know I love, isn't given much to do here besides being the adorable girlfriend.
About the only person who really rises above the material is the always reliable Jane Lynch. Playing the director of Sturdy Wings (the Big Brothers-esque organization that the main characters have to volunteer at), Lynch has a lot of fun playing this no-nonsense character. Her character delivers all of these great lines that sound tough and intimidating but truly don't fit within the context of the conversation. Having Rudd and Scott play straight men to these lines just add to their humor.
While director David Wain (The Ten) may not have the clout that Judd Apatow has in Hollywood, he does still manage to corral a great group of supporting players to play bit parts in the film. Most of them are people you may not know by name, but will easily recognize. And each of them are successful at wringing out a few laughs from their characters.
Of course the plot here, while unrealistic, is pretty formulaic. I didn't have a major problem with it though because it never felt heavy-handed. The idea of boys becoming men isn't revolutionary, but the ideas used to support this story work and seem fresh. I think everyone will think twice about laughing at those who are fans of Dungeons and Dragons and other fantasy related games. Watching these guys 'battle' in the film probably will make a lot of people want to unleash their inner 'Braveheart'.
If the story is lacking anywhere it's in the set up. We really don't get a good sense of why any of these characters are the way that they are. For a comedy, I suppose backstory isn't essential, but it would have been nice. Providing a foundation for who these characters are may have made us care about them a bit more instead of passive watching them and laughing at the funny things they say.
I would definitely recommend this as a rental. If you enjoy these actors, this is another fine entry in their growing list of work. It has plenty of laughs and won't tax your mind. Just don't expect anything special from this movie. It's a role model of the ordinary. Grade: B
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Some quick TV thoughts
Heroes - I was pleasantly surprised to see that the new chapter didn't suck. Small praise, but the show really lowered the bar for themseleves with the narrative nightmare they created in the first half of this season. Yes, the rounding up of people with powers isn't new, but at least they've given themselves a more focused storyline that has proven to work in the past. Now all they've got to do is kill off one of the original characters (and make it last!) in order to give this show some significance again. Until they do, they'll just be spinning their wheels into obliviion.
24 - I've really enjoyed this season. They've made some changes to adapt to our changing real world and they've seemed to work without feeling forced. I like the rogue CTU squad, but I worry about Tony's true intentions. Anything involving the new female president is a major snoozefest, but for the most part it's been kept to a minimum. The new female FBI agent has been a great addition and aint too bad looking either. I can't wait for the eventual Chloe vs. Janis showdown. And of course, Jack is still Jack, which is always a good thing.
CSI - Just want to comment on how sad, yet wondefully done Grissom's exit episode was. Yes, I know he'll probably be back in some capicity down the line, but it's still sad to see him go. However, I've really like the addition of Laurence Fishburne. In just a few episodes he provides the show with more gravitas than CSI Miami could ever have with David Caruso. Seeing these episodes now though it seems like losing Warrick and Sara has had a more negative effect on the show. There just aren't as many different pairings with the staff, which makes things boring. They need to go ahead and promote lab rat Wendy already. And speaking of the lab rats, I can't believe I actually enjoy Hodges now. The writers have done a nice job of making his appearances something that adds to the show rather than detracts.
Lost - Like the broken record in the opening episode, my head continues to be spinning trying to unpack everything that's being unloaded on us thus far this season. And in case you're unsure, I mean that as a compliment. Time travel can always be a tricky thing, but I think it's paid off thus far on this show and I think it's going to continue to provide us with a number of shockers (like Widmore being an Other!) and answers (now we know why Richard wanted young Locke to pick the compass). I love how Faraday has become such a main player this season. Frankly, I want every episode to remain on the island. Aside from Ben and Desmond, I'm not all that interested in anyone off the island right now. Still though, this has been a killer season so far and I can't wait each week for a new episode.
One other tidbit that I don't want to have to make a whole new post for...it was announced today that the CW is bringing Reaper back earlier than originally planned. The season 2 premiere will now air Tuesday March 3 at 8pm. Let the hell-raising being!
24 - I've really enjoyed this season. They've made some changes to adapt to our changing real world and they've seemed to work without feeling forced. I like the rogue CTU squad, but I worry about Tony's true intentions. Anything involving the new female president is a major snoozefest, but for the most part it's been kept to a minimum. The new female FBI agent has been a great addition and aint too bad looking either. I can't wait for the eventual Chloe vs. Janis showdown. And of course, Jack is still Jack, which is always a good thing.
CSI - Just want to comment on how sad, yet wondefully done Grissom's exit episode was. Yes, I know he'll probably be back in some capicity down the line, but it's still sad to see him go. However, I've really like the addition of Laurence Fishburne. In just a few episodes he provides the show with more gravitas than CSI Miami could ever have with David Caruso. Seeing these episodes now though it seems like losing Warrick and Sara has had a more negative effect on the show. There just aren't as many different pairings with the staff, which makes things boring. They need to go ahead and promote lab rat Wendy already. And speaking of the lab rats, I can't believe I actually enjoy Hodges now. The writers have done a nice job of making his appearances something that adds to the show rather than detracts.
Lost - Like the broken record in the opening episode, my head continues to be spinning trying to unpack everything that's being unloaded on us thus far this season. And in case you're unsure, I mean that as a compliment. Time travel can always be a tricky thing, but I think it's paid off thus far on this show and I think it's going to continue to provide us with a number of shockers (like Widmore being an Other!) and answers (now we know why Richard wanted young Locke to pick the compass). I love how Faraday has become such a main player this season. Frankly, I want every episode to remain on the island. Aside from Ben and Desmond, I'm not all that interested in anyone off the island right now. Still though, this has been a killer season so far and I can't wait each week for a new episode.
One other tidbit that I don't want to have to make a whole new post for...it was announced today that the CW is bringing Reaper back earlier than originally planned. The season 2 premiere will now air Tuesday March 3 at 8pm. Let the hell-raising being!
Grand re-opening
So, surprise surprise I couldn't stay away. Actually after discussing things with my dissertation chair, I realized that it would just be impossible to finish this thing by the end of February, even if I was locked in front of my computer the entire time. I'm now shooting for a summer graduation, which is completely reasonable. That means that while I'll still be extremely busy for the next few months, I have the luxury of posting things on here when I get the chance. So come on back and tell your friends!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)