5. True Grit
Nope, I didn't think I'd like this one either. Coen brothers' movies have always been a hit or miss for me. I find them compelling, but sometimes they are just dumb (Burn After Reading, The Ladykillers). So I wasn't sure what to expect. Add in the western aspect and I was almost positive I wouldn't find it pleasing. I was proven wrong. With the quick wit of the 14 year old lead character, and the drunken nature of Jeff Bridges slurring his words, the story comes together in this western tale of revenge and murder. The plot was simple, the characters were fun and interesting, and the overall concept brought forth a positive vibe from the movie. Not since Fargo have I seen a Coen brothers' movie that created such a realistic nature. The death scenes were quick, the wit was quicker, and the movie kept me intrigued the whole time.
4. The Kids Are All Right
I had no idea what the hell this movie would be about. A friend suggested it to me. It was playing at our "local" indie theater, so we went. The story was so true and realistic to today's society that it was easy to sympathize with the characters even though most of us aren't in their situation. Mark Ruffalo plays a man who once donated sperm when he was young and money seeking. We've all been there. His "daughter" turns 18 and decides to find out who the sperm donor was for her and her brother born from their lesbian mothers. Needless-to-say it was Ruffalo, who happens to live in the same area and becomes friendly with the family. He and Julianne Moore (one of the lesbians) begin an affair when they work together and all family riots ensue. I liked this movie for the real nature of its being. The true cataclysm of the family relationship shows the realistic feel of a dysfunctional American family.
3. Toy Story 3
Yeah, it probably could have been number 1, but it wasn't. This movie was an entertainment fest. I never laughed so hard in my life, that I can remember. This is also because I sat between two of my friends who have the most addicting laughs ever. But the movie was funny all the same. The combination of the characters we have come to know and love over the past 15 years brought us back to the beginning. Making us appreciate toys when we are young, and yes, even at an older age. Some people found it unusual that a 17 year old leaving for college felt so attached to his toys from childhood. But I found it real and inspiring. All people are attached to things for way longer than they should be, and we should cherish that feeling. This film brought everyone back to the comfort zone and took an hour and a half of our lives to make us feel young once again. And it did not hurt to see Mr. Potato Head trapped in a falafel.
2. The Social Network
Yep, a Facebook movie. It happened, and it only took 7 years. Yet the making of this movie was seemingly epic, while the movie itself took us to a whole new level of modern day conspiracy and theft. Identity theft does not hold a candle to the idea of stealing someone's internet dream scape. An escape and vision of reality so true that it redefines what it is to be "online". Who's on Facebook? Everyone. Who knows what Facebook is? Everyone. Who knows where Facebook came from? Now everyone. The fight for the digital frontier is brought about in this film, depicting the treachery and blogisms from Mark Zuckerberg, founder and creator of the Facebook algorithm. Add in Justin Timberlake as Napster frontman Sean Parker and you have yourself a fantastic thing that can only be called a film for our generation.
1. The Town
It's about that time to stop making fun of Ben Affleck. I know he's easy to bash, but why exactly? Is there anything this guy can't do? "He can't act", watch Boiler Room, "He can't direct", watch Gone Baby Gone. Oh, and hey, this movie brings about both of those qualities. The guy is awesome. I don't care who it is, Ben Affleck is the fucking man. He then pulls a great move by bringing in Academy Award nominee Jeremy Renner and brings forth a phenomenal film. The film depicts a group of bank robbers hell bent on getting that one awesome heist. The vivid and emotional story line brings you into the depths of a lowly Boston neighborhood where robbing banks is as common as leaving out the "R" sound in words. Affleck stars and directs in this amazingly display of cinematic genius and prowess. Bring on the awards dude, you deserve it. Although the Academy is so crazy in love with older men getting Best Actor. Eh, maybe we'll see you with a statue in 20 years, long after Shia.
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Top 10 Films of 2010
Alright, here it is. Another reason for you to bitch and moan about how I don't know anything. To be frank, no I did not see every movie to come out this year. But I did see a hell of a lot. Now, in the next week, this all could change if Blue Valentine or How Do You Know? blow me out of the water. But we'll see. This, being December 29, with 2 1/2 days of the year, I have compiled my list of the best films. It was hard to decipher through the mere entertainment of a movie (Jackass), or the true reality of what is possible in our lives (Going the Distance, Love and Other Drugs). Unfortunately, neither of these movies made my list, although they were close. But to judge, not merely on the state of a film's script, but the acting, and the overall engaging nature of the piece to bring my brain into such tranquility that it would make for a great movie. I will not supply you with full summaries, you don't read my shit anyway, but do me a favor. If you do read, give me some feedback. As much as I love being right in my own little brain, I do enjoy a nice discussion (or argument) over the validity of my selections. So we begin.
10. Scott Pilgrim vs. the World
Michael Cera playing awkward? NO! It can't be. Yet it is. But in this modern age re-adaptation of every video game we have come to know and love, the story debunks the true nature of the film and brings it to a whole new level. Pilgrim is a kid fighting for his love. End of story. But with Blu-Ray-esque(?) features and a plot line that is pretty compelling, this film slipped right into my list. This being one of those guilty pleasure type deals.
9. Black Swan
She's hot. That's the only thing I can think of when I think of Natalie Portman. She's Jewish? Check. She's not a tabloid sucking monster? Check check. Portman is a struggling ballet dancer working feverishly toward the top. Vincent Cassel (who is the bad guy from Derailed) brings about a good performance as Portman's douchebag of a ballet instructor. 110 minutes and many personalities later, I was transfixed by the beauty of something that would never usually grab my attention strings. The essence of ballet emits thoughts of beauty and beastry. I don't give a shit if that's not a word. You know what I mean.
8. Shutter Island
Leo's in it. That's all I know. I don't care how homo this sounds, I don't care if Leo was in a remake of Cursed, I would still see it. He's not only a generational actor for me, but someone that got me generally interested in movies. I was 11 when I saw Titanic twice in the theater (guilty). I don't think he's dreamy, he's a fucking good actor. So sue me. The book runs over the movie with an army tank, but the movie was good, too. Ben Kingsley, you still frighten me for a reason I can't explain.
7. The Fighter
Not since Fear (yep) have I seen Wahlberg in such a good movie. Who would have thought that the singer of once pop hit Good Vibrations would be in an Academy worthy movie. No, I don't think his performance was the caliber of award material. But I do find that his co-stars are. Christian Bale and Melissa Leo sink in the depths of a character only once seen before by yours truly in an unforgettable Joker played by the adept Heath Ledger. Bale and Leo steal the show in this once and fifty times told story of a struggling athlete fighting for a comeback.
6. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1
Yes, I read them. Yes, I've seen the movies. And yes, I love both the books and the movies. Don't say you've never been interested. The writing is tailored for audiences that enjoy fantasy and magic without all the guess work. The way the JK Rowling transfixes a mind into a world unknown to the common people is inspiring. She'll refer to something in the 6th book that was barely a headline in the 2nd book. She uses her cast of characters so fine that it brings your mind to a whole new level. The movies have gone up and down in the years with the changing directors and (due to completely uncontrollable circumstances) actor changes. The first two were very good, straight forward to tell a story. The third sucked. The fourth and fifth were fine, and the sixth is difficult to judge because the book and storyline did consist of a lot of talk setting up the seventh and final year for Harry and the gang at Hogwarts. The first part of the split up last movie was consistent with the book and told the story that needed to be told. The emotions brought forth the true nature of a Potter fan. That's all I expected and asked for.
To be continued...
10. Scott Pilgrim vs. the World
Michael Cera playing awkward? NO! It can't be. Yet it is. But in this modern age re-adaptation of every video game we have come to know and love, the story debunks the true nature of the film and brings it to a whole new level. Pilgrim is a kid fighting for his love. End of story. But with Blu-Ray-esque(?) features and a plot line that is pretty compelling, this film slipped right into my list. This being one of those guilty pleasure type deals.
9. Black Swan
She's hot. That's the only thing I can think of when I think of Natalie Portman. She's Jewish? Check. She's not a tabloid sucking monster? Check check. Portman is a struggling ballet dancer working feverishly toward the top. Vincent Cassel (who is the bad guy from Derailed) brings about a good performance as Portman's douchebag of a ballet instructor. 110 minutes and many personalities later, I was transfixed by the beauty of something that would never usually grab my attention strings. The essence of ballet emits thoughts of beauty and beastry. I don't give a shit if that's not a word. You know what I mean.
8. Shutter Island
Leo's in it. That's all I know. I don't care how homo this sounds, I don't care if Leo was in a remake of Cursed, I would still see it. He's not only a generational actor for me, but someone that got me generally interested in movies. I was 11 when I saw Titanic twice in the theater (guilty). I don't think he's dreamy, he's a fucking good actor. So sue me. The book runs over the movie with an army tank, but the movie was good, too. Ben Kingsley, you still frighten me for a reason I can't explain.
7. The Fighter
Not since Fear (yep) have I seen Wahlberg in such a good movie. Who would have thought that the singer of once pop hit Good Vibrations would be in an Academy worthy movie. No, I don't think his performance was the caliber of award material. But I do find that his co-stars are. Christian Bale and Melissa Leo sink in the depths of a character only once seen before by yours truly in an unforgettable Joker played by the adept Heath Ledger. Bale and Leo steal the show in this once and fifty times told story of a struggling athlete fighting for a comeback.
6. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1
Yes, I read them. Yes, I've seen the movies. And yes, I love both the books and the movies. Don't say you've never been interested. The writing is tailored for audiences that enjoy fantasy and magic without all the guess work. The way the JK Rowling transfixes a mind into a world unknown to the common people is inspiring. She'll refer to something in the 6th book that was barely a headline in the 2nd book. She uses her cast of characters so fine that it brings your mind to a whole new level. The movies have gone up and down in the years with the changing directors and (due to completely uncontrollable circumstances) actor changes. The first two were very good, straight forward to tell a story. The third sucked. The fourth and fifth were fine, and the sixth is difficult to judge because the book and storyline did consist of a lot of talk setting up the seventh and final year for Harry and the gang at Hogwarts. The first part of the split up last movie was consistent with the book and told the story that needed to be told. The emotions brought forth the true nature of a Potter fan. That's all I expected and asked for.
To be continued...
Monday, December 27, 2010
True Grit
True Grit
2010
Directed by: Joel and Ethan Coen
Starring: Hailee Steinfeld, Jeff Bridges
Wow. It's a word that is seldom used by me. But the mere velocity of this western brings forth the word from my lips like a stain on a coffee table left by a cold drink. What does that mean? It's a good movie, that's what. The film facilitates true grit as the title suggests by bringing forth a collection of fast-talking, gun slinging, and more balls carried by a 14 year old girl than anyone I know.
The story focuses on 14 year old Mattie Ross (Steinfeld) searching revenge for her father's death. Her father's murderer is man named Tom Chaney (not to be confused with Dick Cheney, who shoots people, too). She is on the hunt for Chaney (Josh Brolin) and hires a gun slinging, quick talking, almost in-understandable Rooster Cogburn (Jeff Bridges). Cogburn ditches the girl and hires LaBoeuf (pronounced La-Beef? We'll get to that later). The girl catches up with the two horsemen and the 3 of them ride together towards their ultimate goal of finding Chaney. Each with their own reason for finding Chaney, the three bump heads more times that I could count. The journey ensued brings forth a sense of a willingness to reach a goal, bring about friendship through strangers, and learning that no matter what age or gender, any one can do something as long as they work hard.
The Coen brothers don't always have a phenomenal movie in my eyes (Burn After Reading, The Ladykillers to name a couple). Anyway, this movie brought back to me the feeling of watching Fargo for the first, second, and even third time. The collection of characters and actors work together well in this gritty old western first brought about by the legendary John Wayne back in 1969. The irony, however, is that the Coen brothers never even saw the Duke's version of the movie. The made a re-adaptation of the book written by Charles Portis. This made sure to be interesting as the Coens made it impossible to create a direct copy of the original film.
Going on that fact, though, how did the Coen brothers know Damon's character's name was pronounced La-Beef? Did they simply guess, ask the author (if still alive), or just want to avoid any confusion with Shia. Yeah, I said it. It's spelled practically the same way, I'm just saying. Also, I know that it is a business, but I hate when movies and studios fail to recognize the main character in a movie. Hailee Steinfeld is the main character in True Grit. End of story. The camera follows her every move, and the other characters are secondary. So, on the poster of the movie, or the trailer, why isn't she first billed? There is a system, I know that. Don't comment to me of "oh they need to show that there's big actors in it, too". Well how come Jeff Bridges wasn't first billed in Stick It? How come Matt Damon wasn't first billed in Team America: World Police? There's a false nature to this business bringing about the hard work and exploitation of young actors that boggles my mind. Hailee Steinfeld deserves a lot of credit, including a Best Actress nomination, if she is to be nominated. Not Best Supporting Actress. The only thing she supported was the rest of the cast.
Oh, and Jeff Bridges, you talk like you have a gigantic tongue and no one can understand you. Please fix it or I'll piss on your rug.
Stars (out of 10): 8
2010
Directed by: Joel and Ethan Coen
Starring: Hailee Steinfeld, Jeff Bridges
Wow. It's a word that is seldom used by me. But the mere velocity of this western brings forth the word from my lips like a stain on a coffee table left by a cold drink. What does that mean? It's a good movie, that's what. The film facilitates true grit as the title suggests by bringing forth a collection of fast-talking, gun slinging, and more balls carried by a 14 year old girl than anyone I know.
The story focuses on 14 year old Mattie Ross (Steinfeld) searching revenge for her father's death. Her father's murderer is man named Tom Chaney (not to be confused with Dick Cheney, who shoots people, too). She is on the hunt for Chaney (Josh Brolin) and hires a gun slinging, quick talking, almost in-understandable Rooster Cogburn (Jeff Bridges). Cogburn ditches the girl and hires LaBoeuf (pronounced La-Beef? We'll get to that later). The girl catches up with the two horsemen and the 3 of them ride together towards their ultimate goal of finding Chaney. Each with their own reason for finding Chaney, the three bump heads more times that I could count. The journey ensued brings forth a sense of a willingness to reach a goal, bring about friendship through strangers, and learning that no matter what age or gender, any one can do something as long as they work hard.
The Coen brothers don't always have a phenomenal movie in my eyes (Burn After Reading, The Ladykillers to name a couple). Anyway, this movie brought back to me the feeling of watching Fargo for the first, second, and even third time. The collection of characters and actors work together well in this gritty old western first brought about by the legendary John Wayne back in 1969. The irony, however, is that the Coen brothers never even saw the Duke's version of the movie. The made a re-adaptation of the book written by Charles Portis. This made sure to be interesting as the Coens made it impossible to create a direct copy of the original film.
Going on that fact, though, how did the Coen brothers know Damon's character's name was pronounced La-Beef? Did they simply guess, ask the author (if still alive), or just want to avoid any confusion with Shia. Yeah, I said it. It's spelled practically the same way, I'm just saying. Also, I know that it is a business, but I hate when movies and studios fail to recognize the main character in a movie. Hailee Steinfeld is the main character in True Grit. End of story. The camera follows her every move, and the other characters are secondary. So, on the poster of the movie, or the trailer, why isn't she first billed? There is a system, I know that. Don't comment to me of "oh they need to show that there's big actors in it, too". Well how come Jeff Bridges wasn't first billed in Stick It? How come Matt Damon wasn't first billed in Team America: World Police? There's a false nature to this business bringing about the hard work and exploitation of young actors that boggles my mind. Hailee Steinfeld deserves a lot of credit, including a Best Actress nomination, if she is to be nominated. Not Best Supporting Actress. The only thing she supported was the rest of the cast.
Oh, and Jeff Bridges, you talk like you have a gigantic tongue and no one can understand you. Please fix it or I'll piss on your rug.
Stars (out of 10): 8
The King's Speech
The King's Speech
2010
Directed by: Tom Hooper
Starring: Colin Firth, Geoffrey Rush
Beginning in 1925, this film follows the story of the Duke of York (Bertie) through his trials and tribulations of public speaking. His father, King George V, asks him to speak at an event on the king's behalf in Wembley Stadium. The Duke, characterized by Colin Firth, fights with a strong stammer in his speaking voice, causing this speech to fail miserably. His wife, played by the lovely and sometimes terrifying Helena Bonham Carter, begs him to go for speech therapy before another big speech.
After trying a few methods, the Duke's wife meets a strange man who claims to be a speech therapist. The quick wit and strong demeanor of Geoffrey Rush's Lionel Logue convince the Duke to take up speech therapy with him. Ensuing are the ups and downs of speech therapy for a king in the wait. While he is in therapy, the clock jumps a bit in this film from year to year. His father dies, leaving the throne to his older brother, David. The brother cannot handle being king, and with the scandal of a forth coming marriage to a once-divorced woman, David gives the crown to Bertie. Now needing to act like a king, and with World War II just breaking out, Berties finds it in himself to make political and hopeful speeches to the country that he is the ruler of.
Firth's performance is believable as a troubled political power with a disability no one can seem to understand. Rush's quick wit and one-liners steal the show as the humor completely takes over any story that the unbalanced chronology seemed to try to have. The story is a simple one, bringing forth the difficulty of creating something this straight-forward into a motion picture. Firth's performance will likely get him an Academy Award nomination, and possible win. I'd be alright with that, but I feel that strong acting only can come about when the challenge is worth it. There is no greater way to tell a good actor than noticing that the actor has disappeared from the film and the character is there instead.
Stars (out of 10): 6
2010
Directed by: Tom Hooper
Starring: Colin Firth, Geoffrey Rush
Beginning in 1925, this film follows the story of the Duke of York (Bertie) through his trials and tribulations of public speaking. His father, King George V, asks him to speak at an event on the king's behalf in Wembley Stadium. The Duke, characterized by Colin Firth, fights with a strong stammer in his speaking voice, causing this speech to fail miserably. His wife, played by the lovely and sometimes terrifying Helena Bonham Carter, begs him to go for speech therapy before another big speech.
After trying a few methods, the Duke's wife meets a strange man who claims to be a speech therapist. The quick wit and strong demeanor of Geoffrey Rush's Lionel Logue convince the Duke to take up speech therapy with him. Ensuing are the ups and downs of speech therapy for a king in the wait. While he is in therapy, the clock jumps a bit in this film from year to year. His father dies, leaving the throne to his older brother, David. The brother cannot handle being king, and with the scandal of a forth coming marriage to a once-divorced woman, David gives the crown to Bertie. Now needing to act like a king, and with World War II just breaking out, Berties finds it in himself to make political and hopeful speeches to the country that he is the ruler of.
Firth's performance is believable as a troubled political power with a disability no one can seem to understand. Rush's quick wit and one-liners steal the show as the humor completely takes over any story that the unbalanced chronology seemed to try to have. The story is a simple one, bringing forth the difficulty of creating something this straight-forward into a motion picture. Firth's performance will likely get him an Academy Award nomination, and possible win. I'd be alright with that, but I feel that strong acting only can come about when the challenge is worth it. There is no greater way to tell a good actor than noticing that the actor has disappeared from the film and the character is there instead.
Stars (out of 10): 6
Saturday, December 25, 2010
The Fighter
The Fighter
2010
Directed by: David O. Russell
Starring: Mark Wahlberg, Christian Bale
Reminding me of the 2008 Oscar race, the best supporting actor award should be a no-brainer. After Heath Ledger's film changing role as the Joker in The Dark Knight, there has been seemingly no clear cut solution to the winner of an award. Until now. Christian Bale (who ironically is the star of the Dark Knight) portrays the crack addicted brother of boxer Micky Ward (Wahlberg). Bale's willingness to let go of all he knows to find a soul in this character brings about the essence of true acting at its finest.
Bale's performance is greatly challenged by those of Amy Adams, Melissa Leo, and Mark Wahlberg himself. Adams plays Wahlberg's bartender girlfriend trying to get him onto the right track for a successful boxing career. Leo is Wahlberg's mother/manager in the film. She's relentless and thinks she only wants best for her son. However, Bale steals the show as Micky's former boxing hero brother and trainer, who is now addicted to crack and very unreliable.
The film follows the struggle of not only Ward's dwindling boxing career, but the family aspect of having your mother for a manager and too many sisters to count. The strong family values bring themselves too much into the story to make Wahlberg's character go crazy. This, in turn, causes him to lose focus on his career.
When his brother gets arrested, Ward hires a new trainer and manager to jumpstart his career again. The family fights ensue arguing over what is best for Micky. Working together and against each other at the same time, Ward's family pushes him to the breaking point to where he seems to want to quit. However, with the release of his brother and the support of his girlfriend, Ward makes a comeback and even is given his chance at a title shot.
The superb acting and directing capabilities are brought to this film in such a heart warming way. Boxing movies never had much appeal to me, but this one was not just about the boxing. It was about the struggle between family, friends, and what we think is right. The film is an instant classic sports movie, along with Hoosiers and Rudy. The fight for our lives is in our soul and our families. To fight we must work together. To win a fight, we must work well together.
Stars (out of 10): 8
2010
Directed by: David O. Russell
Starring: Mark Wahlberg, Christian Bale
Reminding me of the 2008 Oscar race, the best supporting actor award should be a no-brainer. After Heath Ledger's film changing role as the Joker in The Dark Knight, there has been seemingly no clear cut solution to the winner of an award. Until now. Christian Bale (who ironically is the star of the Dark Knight) portrays the crack addicted brother of boxer Micky Ward (Wahlberg). Bale's willingness to let go of all he knows to find a soul in this character brings about the essence of true acting at its finest.
Bale's performance is greatly challenged by those of Amy Adams, Melissa Leo, and Mark Wahlberg himself. Adams plays Wahlberg's bartender girlfriend trying to get him onto the right track for a successful boxing career. Leo is Wahlberg's mother/manager in the film. She's relentless and thinks she only wants best for her son. However, Bale steals the show as Micky's former boxing hero brother and trainer, who is now addicted to crack and very unreliable.
The film follows the struggle of not only Ward's dwindling boxing career, but the family aspect of having your mother for a manager and too many sisters to count. The strong family values bring themselves too much into the story to make Wahlberg's character go crazy. This, in turn, causes him to lose focus on his career.
When his brother gets arrested, Ward hires a new trainer and manager to jumpstart his career again. The family fights ensue arguing over what is best for Micky. Working together and against each other at the same time, Ward's family pushes him to the breaking point to where he seems to want to quit. However, with the release of his brother and the support of his girlfriend, Ward makes a comeback and even is given his chance at a title shot.
The superb acting and directing capabilities are brought to this film in such a heart warming way. Boxing movies never had much appeal to me, but this one was not just about the boxing. It was about the struggle between family, friends, and what we think is right. The film is an instant classic sports movie, along with Hoosiers and Rudy. The fight for our lives is in our soul and our families. To fight we must work together. To win a fight, we must work well together.
Stars (out of 10): 8
Monday, December 20, 2010
Black Swan
Black Swan
2010
Directed by: Darren Aronosfsky
Starring: Natalie Portman, Mila Kunis
Let me begin by saying: what a mind-fuck. Excuse the language, but that is the only proper way to describe this film. The film transcends you into the cutthroat world of professional ballet. I never thought a movie about ballet would interest me. However, the twist that this takes on the subject really brought me into a whole different level. I must say that the film was pretty much exactly what I expected it to be. I had heard different things from friends and reviewers about how it messes with your mind. It was awesome though seeing it for myself.
The movie (without ruining anything) is about a girl who is a dancer in a ballet company. The company's star dancer has retired, leaving the spot for the Swan Queen in their production of Swan Lake wide open for the taking. The film follows Portman as she struggles to achieve this monumental honor. She is overtaken by a sexually harassing boss, an overbearing mother, and a fellow dancer who will stop at nothing to ensure the part will become hers.
The story that follows brings about a spectacle of incidents and drama that entice the mind. Though I was under the weather while viewing the film, I still found it titillating and insanely interesting. The wonder of what will happen next is truly appealing. I really did not anticipate the ending (which I won't give away), but I did know it would be somewhere along those lines. I thoroughly enjoyed the film and look forward to the many awards that Natalie Portman will be nominated for, because I do believe she deserves it.
Stars (out of 10): 7 1/2
2010
Directed by: Darren Aronosfsky
Starring: Natalie Portman, Mila Kunis
Let me begin by saying: what a mind-fuck. Excuse the language, but that is the only proper way to describe this film. The film transcends you into the cutthroat world of professional ballet. I never thought a movie about ballet would interest me. However, the twist that this takes on the subject really brought me into a whole different level. I must say that the film was pretty much exactly what I expected it to be. I had heard different things from friends and reviewers about how it messes with your mind. It was awesome though seeing it for myself.
The movie (without ruining anything) is about a girl who is a dancer in a ballet company. The company's star dancer has retired, leaving the spot for the Swan Queen in their production of Swan Lake wide open for the taking. The film follows Portman as she struggles to achieve this monumental honor. She is overtaken by a sexually harassing boss, an overbearing mother, and a fellow dancer who will stop at nothing to ensure the part will become hers.
The story that follows brings about a spectacle of incidents and drama that entice the mind. Though I was under the weather while viewing the film, I still found it titillating and insanely interesting. The wonder of what will happen next is truly appealing. I really did not anticipate the ending (which I won't give away), but I did know it would be somewhere along those lines. I thoroughly enjoyed the film and look forward to the many awards that Natalie Portman will be nominated for, because I do believe she deserves it.
Stars (out of 10): 7 1/2
Saturday, December 4, 2010
Love & Other Drugs
Love & Other Drugs
2010
Directed by: Edward Zwick
Starring: Jake Gyllenhall, Anne Hathaway
Well here you have it, another romantic comedy. Oddly enough, this is Gyllenhall's first. I guess you could count The Princess Diaries as a rom-com, so Hathaway has been there. Well there was Valentine's Day. But I wouldn't really call that, well anything really. So the scoop. Wait, I've seen this one before. Man who is an overachieving honcho piece of crap who preys on women and makes it look all to easy. Woman who is emotionally unavailable and pretends to not care about anything in the world. Yet, they fall in love.
Emotionally, this film is pretty stable, but physically, it is hot. Anne Hathaway is naked in most of it. Kind of like Havoc, but without the rape. She is smoking. Hathaway makes the movie watchable for guys. Yeah the story was fine. But we all knew what would end up happening? How bout some irony for rom-coms, people? Bring us into the deep, dark pasts of the characters and exploit them at their rawest.
The comedy aspect was pretty good. Josh Gad does a wonderful Jonah Hill impression playing Gyllenhaal's overweight and overwealthy younger brother. When Gad's hot wife dumps him, he lives with Gyllenhaal. He throws out a couple one liners that made me smirk in my chair. One scene that I felt was unnecessary was when Gyllenhaal caught Gad watching a video of he and Hathaway. That's just gross. Who would want to watch a video of their brother having sex? It doesn't matter who it is, it just disturbs me.
Anyway, the movie was good overall. I know I just bashed it a bit, but I really don't have super positive things to say. It was good. Very straight forward. It kept me entertained until the last 5 minutes when I said to myself "oh, figures". But the story line was straight forward, taking us deep into the world of pharmaceutical sales. Seeing Gyllenhaal and Hathaway in a rom-com is a nice new treat. I'm getting kind of sick of the same four people in these types of movies. Thank you for bringing in people that we, as younger people, can relate to.
Stars (out of 10): 6 1/2
2010
Directed by: Edward Zwick
Starring: Jake Gyllenhall, Anne Hathaway
Well here you have it, another romantic comedy. Oddly enough, this is Gyllenhall's first. I guess you could count The Princess Diaries as a rom-com, so Hathaway has been there. Well there was Valentine's Day. But I wouldn't really call that, well anything really. So the scoop. Wait, I've seen this one before. Man who is an overachieving honcho piece of crap who preys on women and makes it look all to easy. Woman who is emotionally unavailable and pretends to not care about anything in the world. Yet, they fall in love.
Emotionally, this film is pretty stable, but physically, it is hot. Anne Hathaway is naked in most of it. Kind of like Havoc, but without the rape. She is smoking. Hathaway makes the movie watchable for guys. Yeah the story was fine. But we all knew what would end up happening? How bout some irony for rom-coms, people? Bring us into the deep, dark pasts of the characters and exploit them at their rawest.
The comedy aspect was pretty good. Josh Gad does a wonderful Jonah Hill impression playing Gyllenhaal's overweight and overwealthy younger brother. When Gad's hot wife dumps him, he lives with Gyllenhaal. He throws out a couple one liners that made me smirk in my chair. One scene that I felt was unnecessary was when Gyllenhaal caught Gad watching a video of he and Hathaway. That's just gross. Who would want to watch a video of their brother having sex? It doesn't matter who it is, it just disturbs me.
Anyway, the movie was good overall. I know I just bashed it a bit, but I really don't have super positive things to say. It was good. Very straight forward. It kept me entertained until the last 5 minutes when I said to myself "oh, figures". But the story line was straight forward, taking us deep into the world of pharmaceutical sales. Seeing Gyllenhaal and Hathaway in a rom-com is a nice new treat. I'm getting kind of sick of the same four people in these types of movies. Thank you for bringing in people that we, as younger people, can relate to.
Stars (out of 10): 6 1/2
Friday, November 26, 2010
127 Hours
127 Hours
2010
Directed by: Danny Boyle
Starring: James Franco, Amber Tamblyn
The true story of a hero. A man, who we shall regard in the highest, finds himself in the lime light for simply saving his own life. The story of Aron Ralston has been heard many times over. In the spring of 2003, he set out alone on a hike and climb through the mountains of the Utah desert. After having a swim with two strangers, he continues to jump and bound throughout the wilderness. No cell phone, no other people there, no notification as to where he was going.
While climbing down a steep rock, a boulder comes loose knocking Ralston and the next five days into an abyss. The rock comes down awkwardly on his right arm and it is now stuck. Standing, stuck for five days, this story of struggle and survival brings forth a sense of awesome heroics and strength. Documenting his battle between a rock and a hard place, he seems to lose his mind, but also gain a realization of how dumb he was to not let one person know where he was going.
Getting to the movie, it was alright. Danny Boyle's fast-paced style convincingly told the story in the 94 minute time frame. However, it felt like he did rush things a bit. I said this right after the movie to a friend who had read the book documenting Ralston's bout. My friend told me that there were some details left out of the movie that he would have liked to see put in. I enjoyed the movie, and it told me the story, but that was pretty much it.
James Franco delivered a somewhat believable performance as a man stuck by himself for 5 days. Having to take such a limited setting and stretch it into a movie I can imagine is indeed difficult, but I thought there would be a lot more flashbacks and back story to his life. The flashbacks that were there fell short of meaningful and some didn't even make sense. I feel that Boyle could have spent more time finalizing a slightly better script and way of directing this amazing tale.
Now for the rant. There was product placement. And I know I have friends who will tell me "it's all about the business" for these people. But the product placement was so blatant that it took away from the movie. When Ralston first becomes lodged between rocks, he begins pulling out supplies to see what he can use to help his arm free. He strategically places a small billfold with a gigantic CAPITAL ONE credit card blinding you in the screen. So here's my question, he brought his fancy credit card but no cell phone? Service or no service, he did not have the phone regardless which is strange for me. Getting back to my friend that read the book, he said that Ralston never had a wallet on him during the ordeal. I understand the showing of the CANON logo on his camera, along with other small decals on his hiking gear, but the Capital One credit card completely turned me off. And this was only about 25 minutes into the movie.
Stars (out of 10): 5
2010
Directed by: Danny Boyle
Starring: James Franco, Amber Tamblyn
The true story of a hero. A man, who we shall regard in the highest, finds himself in the lime light for simply saving his own life. The story of Aron Ralston has been heard many times over. In the spring of 2003, he set out alone on a hike and climb through the mountains of the Utah desert. After having a swim with two strangers, he continues to jump and bound throughout the wilderness. No cell phone, no other people there, no notification as to where he was going.
While climbing down a steep rock, a boulder comes loose knocking Ralston and the next five days into an abyss. The rock comes down awkwardly on his right arm and it is now stuck. Standing, stuck for five days, this story of struggle and survival brings forth a sense of awesome heroics and strength. Documenting his battle between a rock and a hard place, he seems to lose his mind, but also gain a realization of how dumb he was to not let one person know where he was going.
Getting to the movie, it was alright. Danny Boyle's fast-paced style convincingly told the story in the 94 minute time frame. However, it felt like he did rush things a bit. I said this right after the movie to a friend who had read the book documenting Ralston's bout. My friend told me that there were some details left out of the movie that he would have liked to see put in. I enjoyed the movie, and it told me the story, but that was pretty much it.
James Franco delivered a somewhat believable performance as a man stuck by himself for 5 days. Having to take such a limited setting and stretch it into a movie I can imagine is indeed difficult, but I thought there would be a lot more flashbacks and back story to his life. The flashbacks that were there fell short of meaningful and some didn't even make sense. I feel that Boyle could have spent more time finalizing a slightly better script and way of directing this amazing tale.
Now for the rant. There was product placement. And I know I have friends who will tell me "it's all about the business" for these people. But the product placement was so blatant that it took away from the movie. When Ralston first becomes lodged between rocks, he begins pulling out supplies to see what he can use to help his arm free. He strategically places a small billfold with a gigantic CAPITAL ONE credit card blinding you in the screen. So here's my question, he brought his fancy credit card but no cell phone? Service or no service, he did not have the phone regardless which is strange for me. Getting back to my friend that read the book, he said that Ralston never had a wallet on him during the ordeal. I understand the showing of the CANON logo on his camera, along with other small decals on his hiking gear, but the Capital One credit card completely turned me off. And this was only about 25 minutes into the movie.
Stars (out of 10): 5
Monday, November 22, 2010
Top 5 Christmas Movies of All Time
You might as well save yourself some time and text or call me complaining about how I don't know what I'm talking about. You're probably right, but in my opinion (free country), these are the best Christmas movies of all time. To save you some moments of agony and loathing for yours truly, no I did not put Christmas Vacation on the list. In its defense, I have only seen it once and it was on a channel that played commercials constantly. Even the DVR couldn't save me from the turmoil of the Kohl's annual event of opening at (yes, you are reading correctly) 3AM. Turning back to the point. Read it. I bet you think it's interesting, given my opinion on certain movies. And yes, I know it's not even Thanksgiving yet, but I needed something to keep me awake before I had another 9pm meltdown of eyelids and a wake up to coffee that smells all too familiar like another day of driving in the cold, listening to a repetitious Top 40 morning show because Howard Stern isn't on. Anyway, here it is.
5. The Family Stone (2005)
Casted brilliantly, this modern age dramedy about a family's acceptance of a newcomer brings forth the tantalizing portrayal of the ultra-liberal mother (Diane Keaton) and father (Craig T. Nelson) team that has too many children to count. Along with these two elders are a cast of misfit children who are all but grown up. Rachel McAdams portrays the sniveling college student, humble in her home, spilling cereal, and making even more messes of social dignity. Luke Wilson portrays a middle child, stuck with no girlfriend or wife, a loner of sorts who seems to still have his parents pay more attention to his laundry for him than his actions. Tyrone Giordano plays a not only deaf, but homosexual sibling with an African American partner. That partner is portrayed by Brian J. White. Elizabeth Reaser portrays the seemingly eldest of the group with a daughter and one on the way. The story revolves around this family coming together for the holiday season. Dermott Mulroney portrays the actual eldest of the bunch, bringing home his girlfriend (yucky Sarah Jessica Parker) for the very first time. She begins her stay with limited expectations. McAdams' character had already met the horse-faced Parker and warned the family of what a piece of concrete she is. Constantly glue to her cell phone and face mole, Parker finds a way to play an ice queen for the ages. It does seem unfair at times as to why the family does not give her a slimmer of a chance, but they have the trust of their youngest daughter in their heads. So the story goes: Parker realizes everyone hates her and tries extraordinarily hard to fit in. She battles constant berating and attacks, finally calling upon her sister to shed some of the light in a different direction. Said sister is portrayed by Claire Danes, creating an electric glow of unadulterated beauty and finesse as she calmly arrives and is greeting with loving, welcome arms by the family. Meanwhile, we learn that Keaton's character has relapsed with cancer, causing the family to understand that this will probably be the last Christmas spent all together. Parker's character and Mulroney's character happen to fall out of love and he falls for the sister. Parker then ends up with lowly Wilson's character where they can give birth to seemingly headless creatures with gigantic noses. The overall realistic family feel is what brought this movie to a solid #5 on my list. I agree that not many of you will like this assumption, but it's true. The sheer solitude and honesty that is brought forth by this film brings in a sense of passion and compassion for the family that we all strive for. Though this family has money and liberal views, there are many flaws that make it into a real American family story.
#4. Love Actually (2003)
I promise to not go on such a rant like previously. Of course you know the story by now. A collection of smaller stories joined together. Love stories. Did I say that already? Well it's in the title. This properly motivated super-cast comes together to bind stories of betrayal, friendship, and, of course, love. With too many actors to name, I will just say that this collection of vignettes continues along a different line showing that no matter what gender, race, or age, love with always find its way. Of course, coupled with the notion that no one should be alone during Christmastime, people are alone, and with that, this summary will end. Good movie though.
#3. Elf (2003)
Will Ferrell is given his only due by me in this timeless classic (is it already 2010? This movie was made in 2003) Jeez. Anyway, Ferrell portrays a human that had snuck into Santa's sack-o-presents one fateful Christmas while he was munching on cookies in an orphanage. Reluctant to report this to the elf-police, Santa decided to have an elf raise the baby as his own. Brilliantly displaying the hilarity and unfortunately lack of a real Santa Claus, the movie is spun into a deeper hole when Ferrell sets off on a journey of self discovery in that big place we call New York City. Searching for his birth father (played by none other than James Caan), Ferrell finds that it is difficult being an elf inside such a pressure-filled judgment zone known as New York. Until he meets a really hot girl who can sing.
#2. It's a Wonderful Life (1946)
I have to blame this one on my mother. Well, not blame. Thank her. Every year I would know it was Christmastime by hearing her tune to the commercial free viewing of this film on NBC. She would sit and watch it over, and over, and over. This is coming from a woman who hated Independence Day (and yes, we're still related). However, I never saw the allure of the film until she actually sat me down and had me watch it. I never thought that such a classic could have such a profound impact on me. Showing the truly realistic story of a man struggling with his day to day life, though seemingly perfect, is truly tremendous. It turned into my own annual viewing to see this timeless tale, even sitting in my dorm room alone a few days before the winter holidays freshman year. Don't worry, all of my friends were already gone, I wasn't that much of a loser. But getting back to things, Jimmy Stewart and Frank Capra redefined the cinematic genre of the holiday season. And to do this in 1946 was phenomenal.
#1. A Christmas Story (1983)
Finding a dream. Isn't that what every kid thinks about? So what if it's for something that in today's standards would probably be the worst possible Christmas present before a shoe bomb (too soon?). To bring up a good point, why did he want a rifle? BB gun or not, it was an unusual gift. But either way, this movie brings about the very essence of Christmas. The family aspect, dealing with friends and bullies in the cold winter of Indiana, the present aspect. People lose touch with what Christmas is really about. But, to be honest, it hasn't been about the religion in years. Christmas is a commercialized bustle of economics and finance. If you don't have money, you won't have a good Christmas. Presents are the ultimate factor in any happy (or sad) holiday season. To bring forth a movie with such a strong presence, A Christmas Story destroys competition in creating the true nature of the holiday. There is a reason that TBS and TNT show 24 hours of A Christmas Story. There are plenty of other Christmas movies out there, but this one truly defines the meaning of this commercial holiday. Bringing about the comforts of home with the struggles of school, sibling rivalry, and of course, the Bumpuss' hounds.
So there you have it. I know, you don't agree. But tell me, what are you favorites? The world is built on opinion and argument. Let me know.
5. The Family Stone (2005)
Casted brilliantly, this modern age dramedy about a family's acceptance of a newcomer brings forth the tantalizing portrayal of the ultra-liberal mother (Diane Keaton) and father (Craig T. Nelson) team that has too many children to count. Along with these two elders are a cast of misfit children who are all but grown up. Rachel McAdams portrays the sniveling college student, humble in her home, spilling cereal, and making even more messes of social dignity. Luke Wilson portrays a middle child, stuck with no girlfriend or wife, a loner of sorts who seems to still have his parents pay more attention to his laundry for him than his actions. Tyrone Giordano plays a not only deaf, but homosexual sibling with an African American partner. That partner is portrayed by Brian J. White. Elizabeth Reaser portrays the seemingly eldest of the group with a daughter and one on the way. The story revolves around this family coming together for the holiday season. Dermott Mulroney portrays the actual eldest of the bunch, bringing home his girlfriend (yucky Sarah Jessica Parker) for the very first time. She begins her stay with limited expectations. McAdams' character had already met the horse-faced Parker and warned the family of what a piece of concrete she is. Constantly glue to her cell phone and face mole, Parker finds a way to play an ice queen for the ages. It does seem unfair at times as to why the family does not give her a slimmer of a chance, but they have the trust of their youngest daughter in their heads. So the story goes: Parker realizes everyone hates her and tries extraordinarily hard to fit in. She battles constant berating and attacks, finally calling upon her sister to shed some of the light in a different direction. Said sister is portrayed by Claire Danes, creating an electric glow of unadulterated beauty and finesse as she calmly arrives and is greeting with loving, welcome arms by the family. Meanwhile, we learn that Keaton's character has relapsed with cancer, causing the family to understand that this will probably be the last Christmas spent all together. Parker's character and Mulroney's character happen to fall out of love and he falls for the sister. Parker then ends up with lowly Wilson's character where they can give birth to seemingly headless creatures with gigantic noses. The overall realistic family feel is what brought this movie to a solid #5 on my list. I agree that not many of you will like this assumption, but it's true. The sheer solitude and honesty that is brought forth by this film brings in a sense of passion and compassion for the family that we all strive for. Though this family has money and liberal views, there are many flaws that make it into a real American family story.
#4. Love Actually (2003)
I promise to not go on such a rant like previously. Of course you know the story by now. A collection of smaller stories joined together. Love stories. Did I say that already? Well it's in the title. This properly motivated super-cast comes together to bind stories of betrayal, friendship, and, of course, love. With too many actors to name, I will just say that this collection of vignettes continues along a different line showing that no matter what gender, race, or age, love with always find its way. Of course, coupled with the notion that no one should be alone during Christmastime, people are alone, and with that, this summary will end. Good movie though.
#3. Elf (2003)
Will Ferrell is given his only due by me in this timeless classic (is it already 2010? This movie was made in 2003) Jeez. Anyway, Ferrell portrays a human that had snuck into Santa's sack-o-presents one fateful Christmas while he was munching on cookies in an orphanage. Reluctant to report this to the elf-police, Santa decided to have an elf raise the baby as his own. Brilliantly displaying the hilarity and unfortunately lack of a real Santa Claus, the movie is spun into a deeper hole when Ferrell sets off on a journey of self discovery in that big place we call New York City. Searching for his birth father (played by none other than James Caan), Ferrell finds that it is difficult being an elf inside such a pressure-filled judgment zone known as New York. Until he meets a really hot girl who can sing.
#2. It's a Wonderful Life (1946)
I have to blame this one on my mother. Well, not blame. Thank her. Every year I would know it was Christmastime by hearing her tune to the commercial free viewing of this film on NBC. She would sit and watch it over, and over, and over. This is coming from a woman who hated Independence Day (and yes, we're still related). However, I never saw the allure of the film until she actually sat me down and had me watch it. I never thought that such a classic could have such a profound impact on me. Showing the truly realistic story of a man struggling with his day to day life, though seemingly perfect, is truly tremendous. It turned into my own annual viewing to see this timeless tale, even sitting in my dorm room alone a few days before the winter holidays freshman year. Don't worry, all of my friends were already gone, I wasn't that much of a loser. But getting back to things, Jimmy Stewart and Frank Capra redefined the cinematic genre of the holiday season. And to do this in 1946 was phenomenal.
#1. A Christmas Story (1983)
Finding a dream. Isn't that what every kid thinks about? So what if it's for something that in today's standards would probably be the worst possible Christmas present before a shoe bomb (too soon?). To bring up a good point, why did he want a rifle? BB gun or not, it was an unusual gift. But either way, this movie brings about the very essence of Christmas. The family aspect, dealing with friends and bullies in the cold winter of Indiana, the present aspect. People lose touch with what Christmas is really about. But, to be honest, it hasn't been about the religion in years. Christmas is a commercialized bustle of economics and finance. If you don't have money, you won't have a good Christmas. Presents are the ultimate factor in any happy (or sad) holiday season. To bring forth a movie with such a strong presence, A Christmas Story destroys competition in creating the true nature of the holiday. There is a reason that TBS and TNT show 24 hours of A Christmas Story. There are plenty of other Christmas movies out there, but this one truly defines the meaning of this commercial holiday. Bringing about the comforts of home with the struggles of school, sibling rivalry, and of course, the Bumpuss' hounds.
So there you have it. I know, you don't agree. But tell me, what are you favorites? The world is built on opinion and argument. Let me know.
Friday, November 19, 2010
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1
2010
Directed by: David Yates
Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson
Let me begin by saying that if you are not a Potter fan, then you will not like the movie. It's that simple. Even if you have not read the books, the movies are great. They are entertaining and suck the audience into a world that we have come to love and respect. Potter fans are a special breed. I do not expect everyone to be a fan. This is why I feel it is unfair to judge such a movie based on regular critics. I am a Potter fan, so perhaps it is unfair to listen to this review.
I liked it. The first part of the two part seventh chapter in an epic tale came through with shimmering light. David Yates basically took the book, split it into 5 hours of movie then cut that in half. And you know what, it works. This is nothing like the horrendous sequels to the Matrix, because there is actually a story. The books of the Harry Potter series bring people to a different place. In order to correctly tell the final part (and of course to make money along the way), the studio and director decided to split it up.
The movie begins like the book, the middle is like the book, the end (of the first part is like the book). Time seemed to fly by as I was once again sucked into a world of broomsticks, witches, and every British actor known to man. The characters are brought to light and become so life like that I actually feel as if they are a part of the real world. Hell, I've never been to London, so I guess it's possible. The movie brings back every character and facet of the phenomenon that has been happening for nearly 10 years.
Harry Potter and his friends set off on a mission to destroy Horcruxes (objects that contain parts of Voldemort's soul) so they can finally begin to try to defeat him. These objects are scattered throughout the land in various places. It can be a ring, a necklace, or any other mundane object. The other side of the story has Voldemort planning his defeat of Harry Potter.
The cast of characters brings forth the final chapter in such a convincing way. The 2 1/2 hours seemed to fly by as death eaters and the like continued their pursuit of their endeavors. Of course, the absence of Michael Gambon as Dumbledore did not bother me (Richard Harris was so great, it was impossible to replace him). Potter deals with Dumbledore's death like he has any other, with strict vengeance on his mind.
Mild humor and tacky animated sequences were the low points of the movie, but nothing that would completely spoil the experience. I look forward to the second part of the seventh chapter and the conclusion of the series. The experience has been a great ride, but will hopefully come to a great end just like in the books. Yates has done a great job taking over the franchise from the other directors and I look forward to seeing the final chapter of the Deathly Hallows.
Stars (out of 10): 7
2010
Directed by: David Yates
Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson
Let me begin by saying that if you are not a Potter fan, then you will not like the movie. It's that simple. Even if you have not read the books, the movies are great. They are entertaining and suck the audience into a world that we have come to love and respect. Potter fans are a special breed. I do not expect everyone to be a fan. This is why I feel it is unfair to judge such a movie based on regular critics. I am a Potter fan, so perhaps it is unfair to listen to this review.
I liked it. The first part of the two part seventh chapter in an epic tale came through with shimmering light. David Yates basically took the book, split it into 5 hours of movie then cut that in half. And you know what, it works. This is nothing like the horrendous sequels to the Matrix, because there is actually a story. The books of the Harry Potter series bring people to a different place. In order to correctly tell the final part (and of course to make money along the way), the studio and director decided to split it up.
The movie begins like the book, the middle is like the book, the end (of the first part is like the book). Time seemed to fly by as I was once again sucked into a world of broomsticks, witches, and every British actor known to man. The characters are brought to light and become so life like that I actually feel as if they are a part of the real world. Hell, I've never been to London, so I guess it's possible. The movie brings back every character and facet of the phenomenon that has been happening for nearly 10 years.
Harry Potter and his friends set off on a mission to destroy Horcruxes (objects that contain parts of Voldemort's soul) so they can finally begin to try to defeat him. These objects are scattered throughout the land in various places. It can be a ring, a necklace, or any other mundane object. The other side of the story has Voldemort planning his defeat of Harry Potter.
The cast of characters brings forth the final chapter in such a convincing way. The 2 1/2 hours seemed to fly by as death eaters and the like continued their pursuit of their endeavors. Of course, the absence of Michael Gambon as Dumbledore did not bother me (Richard Harris was so great, it was impossible to replace him). Potter deals with Dumbledore's death like he has any other, with strict vengeance on his mind.
Mild humor and tacky animated sequences were the low points of the movie, but nothing that would completely spoil the experience. I look forward to the second part of the seventh chapter and the conclusion of the series. The experience has been a great ride, but will hopefully come to a great end just like in the books. Yates has done a great job taking over the franchise from the other directors and I look forward to seeing the final chapter of the Deathly Hallows.
Stars (out of 10): 7
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Due Date
Due Date
2010
Directed By: Todd Phillips
Starring: Robert Downey, Jr., Zack Galifianakis
Crazy thought. Is this a comedy? Probably. But not because of Zack. Sorry, I don't like your last name, so I'm not going to use it. But the movie was kind of funny. Key word being "of". What does that even mean? I don't know, I'm going out on a limb here. In a string of unfortunate events, two men road trip from Atlanta to Los Angeles together. This "what's-gonna-go-wrong-next?" event consists of debauchery involving masturbation, weed, and Jamie Foxx in a quasi-cameo.
Zack portrays a struggling, down-to-earth actor traveling to Hollywood from Atlanta. How is that different from his actual personality? For some reason, he somewhat gets on my nerves. I feel that his quirky, eccentric nature will eventually become old. I mean, how many movies can he actually be in? Eventually, the character-actor in him will wear off and he will find himself in a pit of despair involving a toothbrush and a candle. He will never succeed late in his career, which is sad. He seems like he has talent, but if he is going to rely on his regular acting status, he's not going to make it.
Anyway, Robert Downey, Jr. did a great job playing an asshole. Well why wouldn't he? He seems like he's a pretty straight shooter in real life. His acting ability amazes me. He has bounced back more than any other famous person I have ever seen. He knows how to take a role, any role, and play it with such conviction that it makes the audience hang on his every syllable.
The movie overall was fine. Like I said. However, the concept of the movie was a little lost to me. Why couldn't Downey have taken a train? It seemed like the logical choice, but who knows. This Rain Man-esque feature focuses on a road trip. But the real story is the idiosyncratic romance between two strangers. It grows over a course of three days. And no matter how ridiculous and illegal a stunt is that they embark upon, they seem to survive and manage to make jokes along the way.
Stars (out of 10): 5
2010
Directed By: Todd Phillips
Starring: Robert Downey, Jr., Zack Galifianakis
Crazy thought. Is this a comedy? Probably. But not because of Zack. Sorry, I don't like your last name, so I'm not going to use it. But the movie was kind of funny. Key word being "of". What does that even mean? I don't know, I'm going out on a limb here. In a string of unfortunate events, two men road trip from Atlanta to Los Angeles together. This "what's-gonna-go-wrong-next?" event consists of debauchery involving masturbation, weed, and Jamie Foxx in a quasi-cameo.
Zack portrays a struggling, down-to-earth actor traveling to Hollywood from Atlanta. How is that different from his actual personality? For some reason, he somewhat gets on my nerves. I feel that his quirky, eccentric nature will eventually become old. I mean, how many movies can he actually be in? Eventually, the character-actor in him will wear off and he will find himself in a pit of despair involving a toothbrush and a candle. He will never succeed late in his career, which is sad. He seems like he has talent, but if he is going to rely on his regular acting status, he's not going to make it.
Anyway, Robert Downey, Jr. did a great job playing an asshole. Well why wouldn't he? He seems like he's a pretty straight shooter in real life. His acting ability amazes me. He has bounced back more than any other famous person I have ever seen. He knows how to take a role, any role, and play it with such conviction that it makes the audience hang on his every syllable.
The movie overall was fine. Like I said. However, the concept of the movie was a little lost to me. Why couldn't Downey have taken a train? It seemed like the logical choice, but who knows. This Rain Man-esque feature focuses on a road trip. But the real story is the idiosyncratic romance between two strangers. It grows over a course of three days. And no matter how ridiculous and illegal a stunt is that they embark upon, they seem to survive and manage to make jokes along the way.
Stars (out of 10): 5
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Saw 3D
Saw 3D
2010
Directed By: Kevin Greutert
Starring: Tobin Bell, Costas Mandylor
And the (hopefully) final chapter has been written. This ghastly series of movies has finally come to an end, or so we think. Was it worth making seven different movies showing people relentlessly murdered for wrongs they have done in their lives? Yeah, probably. There's something appealing to us about seeing repugnant episodes of human brutality that brings us closer to something. I don't know what that something is, but I don't know if I want to.
The Saw series began in 2004 with a well-constructed idea of a man who wants people to appreciate life. In 2005, the series was brought up again with a fun (and I think better) sequel. After that, the downhill slope of cinema began. After the first two movies, it has become more of a chore to drag myself to the theater, or even add a title to my Netflix queue. Nevertheless, I find myself intrigued by these (as a friend would say, "Sawesome") flicks. Watching make-up and so-called body parts fly around in 3D is definitely something new.
Bringing about different story lines, all the Saw movies are supposed to be connected. Yet, each new one feels like a stretch from the actual story. Hope was regained for a little bit during Saw IV, but was destroyed again by the unimaginably terrible Saw V. The only thing that made that movie possibly good was Julie Benz. But even with Benz in a black-haired role, the series seemed to have lost whatever edge was left. The mindless story-telling and acting made for even more unwatchable scenes than the ones showing a man's leg get ripped apart.
This final chapter (or so they say) in the series brought in the newly found (and no where close to perfected) 3D technology. Adding a little touch here and there is not worth $3.50 extra at the ticket counter. Sorry James Cameron, but it seems like you're the only one who knows what you're doing. Just make Avatar 2 happen and we'll all be happy.
As for Saw 3D (or Saw 7), we need to look into the details. The fact that the story was almost to a T the same as from Saw 3. We need to see that no one cares about the rookie cop out for revenge. The only thing this audience member cares about is seeing how creative the Jigsaw character has become. This movie fell nothing short of substandard. The acting and story line created a creature of habit. Too bad this happened 3 movies ago. Bring together the stories. Stop making new ones. Involve the people who have been there from the start. Unfortunately, they did this, but I think a little too late.
I'm not going to spoil anything for anyone, but it seemed really stretched as far as they went to show what would happen next. Does every Saw movie end with someone saying "Game Over" and slamming a door? I have seen them all, yet they all seem to run together. I don't know what else to say about it. The movie was fine, I guess. I just really hope I can enjoy next Halloween without hearing "Game Over".
Stars (out of 10): 4 1/2
2010
Directed By: Kevin Greutert
Starring: Tobin Bell, Costas Mandylor
And the (hopefully) final chapter has been written. This ghastly series of movies has finally come to an end, or so we think. Was it worth making seven different movies showing people relentlessly murdered for wrongs they have done in their lives? Yeah, probably. There's something appealing to us about seeing repugnant episodes of human brutality that brings us closer to something. I don't know what that something is, but I don't know if I want to.
The Saw series began in 2004 with a well-constructed idea of a man who wants people to appreciate life. In 2005, the series was brought up again with a fun (and I think better) sequel. After that, the downhill slope of cinema began. After the first two movies, it has become more of a chore to drag myself to the theater, or even add a title to my Netflix queue. Nevertheless, I find myself intrigued by these (as a friend would say, "Sawesome") flicks. Watching make-up and so-called body parts fly around in 3D is definitely something new.
Bringing about different story lines, all the Saw movies are supposed to be connected. Yet, each new one feels like a stretch from the actual story. Hope was regained for a little bit during Saw IV, but was destroyed again by the unimaginably terrible Saw V. The only thing that made that movie possibly good was Julie Benz. But even with Benz in a black-haired role, the series seemed to have lost whatever edge was left. The mindless story-telling and acting made for even more unwatchable scenes than the ones showing a man's leg get ripped apart.
This final chapter (or so they say) in the series brought in the newly found (and no where close to perfected) 3D technology. Adding a little touch here and there is not worth $3.50 extra at the ticket counter. Sorry James Cameron, but it seems like you're the only one who knows what you're doing. Just make Avatar 2 happen and we'll all be happy.
As for Saw 3D (or Saw 7), we need to look into the details. The fact that the story was almost to a T the same as from Saw 3. We need to see that no one cares about the rookie cop out for revenge. The only thing this audience member cares about is seeing how creative the Jigsaw character has become. This movie fell nothing short of substandard. The acting and story line created a creature of habit. Too bad this happened 3 movies ago. Bring together the stories. Stop making new ones. Involve the people who have been there from the start. Unfortunately, they did this, but I think a little too late.
I'm not going to spoil anything for anyone, but it seemed really stretched as far as they went to show what would happen next. Does every Saw movie end with someone saying "Game Over" and slamming a door? I have seen them all, yet they all seem to run together. I don't know what else to say about it. The movie was fine, I guess. I just really hope I can enjoy next Halloween without hearing "Game Over".
Stars (out of 10): 4 1/2
Friday, October 29, 2010
Paranormal Activity 2
Paranormal Activity 2
2010
Directed by: Tod Williams
Starring: Katie Featherston, Sprague Grayden
Let me begin by saying this is one of the most creative "sequel" concepts I have ever seen. Was it the best sequel ever? No. But the overall idea of creating a prequel then coming to the point where the original began, and finally ending after the original ended, it was just genius. The overall story line was mediocre. Just like the first one. The acting was mediocre, just like the first one.
However, the acting and the story line did not need to be above average. This movie is one of the first horror films in a long time to have a lasting impression on me. Because the acting and story line weren't that great, it felt more realistic. This house could very well have been any house we, as middle class citizens, live in. The hair-raising scenes make you tingle with fright. The suspense of a night-time terror make you cringe in your seat, anxious for the next horror.
The movie took about 45 minutes for anything to actually happen. This may seem like a lot of time, but after that 45 minutes, it is a pure adrenaline rush that terrified me to my very soul. This is not me being a wuss. It is not me being a baby. You can definitely tell that a movie is scary when people run out of the theater. At first I thought they were being stupidly funny, but when they didn't return, I assumed they were actually that scared.
Being inside a movie theater with people terrified at an invisible monster is quite an experience. The movie did have a lot more jumpy scenes. And it even had continuous horror scenes that made you want to put down the popcorn in order to make sure not to spill it. I was very afraid that the movie would be stolid. A senseless, boring sequel to a movie that I thought was very original. I feel the new Paranormal Activity served well to the first film.
The bringing back of the two characters in the first one made me curious throughout the film of how they would tie them together. I was not disappointed, and I cannot think of a better way to end the new film. Paranormal Activity 2 did some things great. Scaring me was one of them. Tying into the first story line was another. I commend them on having this opportunity to completely "Hollywood-ise" the sequel and them having the balls to keep a lot of original ideas.
Stars (out of 10): 7
2010
Directed by: Tod Williams
Starring: Katie Featherston, Sprague Grayden
Let me begin by saying this is one of the most creative "sequel" concepts I have ever seen. Was it the best sequel ever? No. But the overall idea of creating a prequel then coming to the point where the original began, and finally ending after the original ended, it was just genius. The overall story line was mediocre. Just like the first one. The acting was mediocre, just like the first one.
However, the acting and the story line did not need to be above average. This movie is one of the first horror films in a long time to have a lasting impression on me. Because the acting and story line weren't that great, it felt more realistic. This house could very well have been any house we, as middle class citizens, live in. The hair-raising scenes make you tingle with fright. The suspense of a night-time terror make you cringe in your seat, anxious for the next horror.
The movie took about 45 minutes for anything to actually happen. This may seem like a lot of time, but after that 45 minutes, it is a pure adrenaline rush that terrified me to my very soul. This is not me being a wuss. It is not me being a baby. You can definitely tell that a movie is scary when people run out of the theater. At first I thought they were being stupidly funny, but when they didn't return, I assumed they were actually that scared.
Being inside a movie theater with people terrified at an invisible monster is quite an experience. The movie did have a lot more jumpy scenes. And it even had continuous horror scenes that made you want to put down the popcorn in order to make sure not to spill it. I was very afraid that the movie would be stolid. A senseless, boring sequel to a movie that I thought was very original. I feel the new Paranormal Activity served well to the first film.
The bringing back of the two characters in the first one made me curious throughout the film of how they would tie them together. I was not disappointed, and I cannot think of a better way to end the new film. Paranormal Activity 2 did some things great. Scaring me was one of them. Tying into the first story line was another. I commend them on having this opportunity to completely "Hollywood-ise" the sequel and them having the balls to keep a lot of original ideas.
Stars (out of 10): 7
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Jackass 3D
Jackass 3D
2010
Directed by: Jeff Tremaine
Starring (Really? Starring?): Johnny Knoxville, Steve-O
And here it goes. How to write a review of a collection of idiotic stunts? Idiotic is not quite the word, though. Epic. Yes, epic. Who would have ever thought that a group of immature, bruise-seeking psychopaths could create not one, not two, but three huge hit movies. This all started with a small TV show on MTV (when I think MTV actually might have still shown some music). Finding a medium to display a combination of hilarity and vomit was a true find for these gentlemen.
So where do I begin? Is it the multiple water-to-the-face then punching from the other side? No. Is it the viewing of a gigantic man having an apple eaten out of his ass by a huge pig? No. Is it watching someone let scorpions chomp on his face? Maybe. How do people think of these things? The problem is not that these guys are immature. The problem is that they now have too much money. They are celebrities for doing all the things that 16 year old boys want to do but won't do because they will get yelled at by their mothers.
The freedom of speech quotient is thrown into a whole new blender with this cinematic experience. You thought Avatar was intense. Jesus. Watching a bubble get blown out of a guy's ass in 3D is something I truly never thought I'd see. The mere insolence of the mindsets of these men is incredible. But after all is said and done, these guys are just best friends.
Now, getting to the movie. This was an entertainment fest. Documentary-style movies are always (or mostly always) about some horrible situation happening in a country. Whether it's The Cove about dolphins in Japan, or Super Size Me about fat people in America, documentaries usually focus on the negative aspect of some subject. This movie kind of did, too. However, the negative aspect of the subject (being a man's brain) was altered and displayed for all the world to see. There was a 2 minute scene of Bam just peeing on people. Who wouldn't love to do that?
To take us out of the reality of our lives for just a small 90 minutes is truly unimaginable. But, for some reason, this movie brought out the happiness that everyone seems to forget. Forget about your job, or lack there of. Forget about your money, or lack there of. Watch stupid guys do stupid things for your benefit (and the benefit of their wallets of course). What kind of country are we that let these morons make $50 million in 3 days? I want that job. As long as I don't get kicked in the nuts, it'll be fine.
This is a truly entertainment-only movie. It brings us out of our real world and enters us into a world where it's okay to drive a scooter out the front window of a store. It's okay to use a Lamborghini and floss to pull out a man's tooth. I'm fine with that. Seeing this movie made me realize how dumb we really are. But the guys up on the screen are geniuses. "Hey, let's do stupid crap to ourselves and charge people $10 to see it". And you know what? It works.
Stars (out of 10): 7 (for merely entertainment value)
2010
Directed by: Jeff Tremaine
Starring (Really? Starring?): Johnny Knoxville, Steve-O
And here it goes. How to write a review of a collection of idiotic stunts? Idiotic is not quite the word, though. Epic. Yes, epic. Who would have ever thought that a group of immature, bruise-seeking psychopaths could create not one, not two, but three huge hit movies. This all started with a small TV show on MTV (when I think MTV actually might have still shown some music). Finding a medium to display a combination of hilarity and vomit was a true find for these gentlemen.
So where do I begin? Is it the multiple water-to-the-face then punching from the other side? No. Is it the viewing of a gigantic man having an apple eaten out of his ass by a huge pig? No. Is it watching someone let scorpions chomp on his face? Maybe. How do people think of these things? The problem is not that these guys are immature. The problem is that they now have too much money. They are celebrities for doing all the things that 16 year old boys want to do but won't do because they will get yelled at by their mothers.
The freedom of speech quotient is thrown into a whole new blender with this cinematic experience. You thought Avatar was intense. Jesus. Watching a bubble get blown out of a guy's ass in 3D is something I truly never thought I'd see. The mere insolence of the mindsets of these men is incredible. But after all is said and done, these guys are just best friends.
Now, getting to the movie. This was an entertainment fest. Documentary-style movies are always (or mostly always) about some horrible situation happening in a country. Whether it's The Cove about dolphins in Japan, or Super Size Me about fat people in America, documentaries usually focus on the negative aspect of some subject. This movie kind of did, too. However, the negative aspect of the subject (being a man's brain) was altered and displayed for all the world to see. There was a 2 minute scene of Bam just peeing on people. Who wouldn't love to do that?
To take us out of the reality of our lives for just a small 90 minutes is truly unimaginable. But, for some reason, this movie brought out the happiness that everyone seems to forget. Forget about your job, or lack there of. Forget about your money, or lack there of. Watch stupid guys do stupid things for your benefit (and the benefit of their wallets of course). What kind of country are we that let these morons make $50 million in 3 days? I want that job. As long as I don't get kicked in the nuts, it'll be fine.
This is a truly entertainment-only movie. It brings us out of our real world and enters us into a world where it's okay to drive a scooter out the front window of a store. It's okay to use a Lamborghini and floss to pull out a man's tooth. I'm fine with that. Seeing this movie made me realize how dumb we really are. But the guys up on the screen are geniuses. "Hey, let's do stupid crap to ourselves and charge people $10 to see it". And you know what? It works.
Stars (out of 10): 7 (for merely entertainment value)
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
It's Kind of a Funny Story
It's Kind of a Funny Story
2010
Directed by: Anna Boden
Starring: Keir Gilchrist, Zach Galifinakis
Watching this movie, a lot of thoughts ran through my head. Kind of how his head was. The main character's. Am I writing in fragmented sentences? Sorry, my thoughts are just kind of spilling out like a tipped over can of paint. You know, the kind that is impossible to clean up. When the can spills out, it seems that you are the only one that will ever have to deal with that paint spill. A movie about depression. No, a comedy. No, a dramedy that created a complete sense of unrealistic possibility that it actually made me upset.
Become depressed. Check yourself into a mental institution. Decide it's not for you. Get forced to stay for a week. Meet a beautiful girl. Fall in love. Have your life completely figured out in a matter of five days. Yeah, that's realistic. It sounds like a normal life flipped upside down by fantasy and wonder. Is this what we've come to? Fantasy, wonder. What are these words, and why do they sound so...stupid? No, redundant. We plague ourselves in this abstract society of falling in love and finding the true meaning in one hour and forty minutes. Is that all it really takes to find happiness?
Movies make us happy. Movies make us sad. They make us laugh. They make us cry. They make us scared, or angry, or anything from the above. What did this movie do? It lied. It created a sense of possibility that is nowhere near the realm of reality. Realm of reality. I like that. The possible exoneration of anything stressful. The main character had good points. After a certain age, life doesn't seem to matter anymore. It's all about the bills, the loans, the girls, the pressure of being successful.
Fine by me. True story actually. The antiquated realization of a depressed soul is divided in this movie. His character was not suicidal. He would not be in a mental hospital for any reason. Was he sad that his parents put too much pressure on him? Was he sad that his best friend was more smooth with ladies than he was? Sure. That's what made him depressed? No. The human brain gets depressed due to lack of stimulant. He was blaming his friends, his parents, his teachers, for his problems.
Grow up. Everyone has problems. And you know what? Those problems will never be solved in five days staying voluntarily in a mental hospital. The growing unrealistic possibilities of the movie are the flaw. The characters were fine. The outside stories were fine. Finding a happy medium between reality and fantasy seemed a little too difficult. Don't give people false hope. It'll probably just make them more depressed than your characters that get to run around the hospital like free birds.
Stars (out of 10): 6
2010
Directed by: Anna Boden
Starring: Keir Gilchrist, Zach Galifinakis
Watching this movie, a lot of thoughts ran through my head. Kind of how his head was. The main character's. Am I writing in fragmented sentences? Sorry, my thoughts are just kind of spilling out like a tipped over can of paint. You know, the kind that is impossible to clean up. When the can spills out, it seems that you are the only one that will ever have to deal with that paint spill. A movie about depression. No, a comedy. No, a dramedy that created a complete sense of unrealistic possibility that it actually made me upset.
Become depressed. Check yourself into a mental institution. Decide it's not for you. Get forced to stay for a week. Meet a beautiful girl. Fall in love. Have your life completely figured out in a matter of five days. Yeah, that's realistic. It sounds like a normal life flipped upside down by fantasy and wonder. Is this what we've come to? Fantasy, wonder. What are these words, and why do they sound so...stupid? No, redundant. We plague ourselves in this abstract society of falling in love and finding the true meaning in one hour and forty minutes. Is that all it really takes to find happiness?
Movies make us happy. Movies make us sad. They make us laugh. They make us cry. They make us scared, or angry, or anything from the above. What did this movie do? It lied. It created a sense of possibility that is nowhere near the realm of reality. Realm of reality. I like that. The possible exoneration of anything stressful. The main character had good points. After a certain age, life doesn't seem to matter anymore. It's all about the bills, the loans, the girls, the pressure of being successful.
Fine by me. True story actually. The antiquated realization of a depressed soul is divided in this movie. His character was not suicidal. He would not be in a mental hospital for any reason. Was he sad that his parents put too much pressure on him? Was he sad that his best friend was more smooth with ladies than he was? Sure. That's what made him depressed? No. The human brain gets depressed due to lack of stimulant. He was blaming his friends, his parents, his teachers, for his problems.
Grow up. Everyone has problems. And you know what? Those problems will never be solved in five days staying voluntarily in a mental hospital. The growing unrealistic possibilities of the movie are the flaw. The characters were fine. The outside stories were fine. Finding a happy medium between reality and fantasy seemed a little too difficult. Don't give people false hope. It'll probably just make them more depressed than your characters that get to run around the hospital like free birds.
Stars (out of 10): 6
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Saturday, September 25, 2010
The Town
The Town
2010
Directed by: Ben Affleck
Starring: Ben Affleck, Jeremy Renner
I'm going to say it right now. Anyone can fight me on this, but I have to say it. I know specific people that will fight me on it. But I'm still going to say it. Ben Affleck is a great actor. Better than Matt Damon. Strictly opinion of course. I just can't possibly think of a "phenomenal" role that Damon has played. Granted, I have never seen The Informant, but I don't think that should matter. Affleck is fantastic. He is so solid with certain performances, it makes me wonder why people give him so much crap.
This all began when I saw Armageddon for the first time. He does such a great job. No, I'm not saying that Affleck should have won an award. To be honest, I don't think any awards should be given out to anyone for a movie directed by Michael Bay. Those movies are purely for entertainment, and not film savvy folk. Getting back on track, this movie was great.
It wasn't phenomenal, it wasn't horrendous, it wasn't good. It was great. There's as much as an honest opinion as I can throw out there. The movie was very predictable. And yes, it did have many cliches that bank robber movies always do. But the spin that this movie took was very well thought out and executed. I actually cared about the characters. It wasn't like some lunch box robbery movie where everything is in one package but nothing really goes together.
Takers is a perfect example of a robbery movie gone wrong. It all started with their casting. The Town was cast perfectly (all except Jon Hamm, who I actually can't stand). His Boston accent flitted in and out of reality, and his overbearing nature made him seem like the bad guy even though he was playing an FBI agent. The truth is, we were all rooting for the robbers. Affleck and Renner played well off each other, and found a ground that made them seem like they had been robbing banks years before Good Will Hunting.
Affleck's tantric acting makes this movie one of my favorite cops-n-robbers flicks. The desire to hate the FBI agent and even the girl that makes everything blow up was nostalgic and meditating to my soul. The thought of watching another robbery movie won't allow me to have imagination and creativity due to the thoughts I have on this movie. Maybe Matt Damon will make an awesome movie like this one.
Stars (out of 10): 7 1/2
2010
Directed by: Ben Affleck
Starring: Ben Affleck, Jeremy Renner
I'm going to say it right now. Anyone can fight me on this, but I have to say it. I know specific people that will fight me on it. But I'm still going to say it. Ben Affleck is a great actor. Better than Matt Damon. Strictly opinion of course. I just can't possibly think of a "phenomenal" role that Damon has played. Granted, I have never seen The Informant, but I don't think that should matter. Affleck is fantastic. He is so solid with certain performances, it makes me wonder why people give him so much crap.
This all began when I saw Armageddon for the first time. He does such a great job. No, I'm not saying that Affleck should have won an award. To be honest, I don't think any awards should be given out to anyone for a movie directed by Michael Bay. Those movies are purely for entertainment, and not film savvy folk. Getting back on track, this movie was great.
It wasn't phenomenal, it wasn't horrendous, it wasn't good. It was great. There's as much as an honest opinion as I can throw out there. The movie was very predictable. And yes, it did have many cliches that bank robber movies always do. But the spin that this movie took was very well thought out and executed. I actually cared about the characters. It wasn't like some lunch box robbery movie where everything is in one package but nothing really goes together.
Takers is a perfect example of a robbery movie gone wrong. It all started with their casting. The Town was cast perfectly (all except Jon Hamm, who I actually can't stand). His Boston accent flitted in and out of reality, and his overbearing nature made him seem like the bad guy even though he was playing an FBI agent. The truth is, we were all rooting for the robbers. Affleck and Renner played well off each other, and found a ground that made them seem like they had been robbing banks years before Good Will Hunting.
Affleck's tantric acting makes this movie one of my favorite cops-n-robbers flicks. The desire to hate the FBI agent and even the girl that makes everything blow up was nostalgic and meditating to my soul. The thought of watching another robbery movie won't allow me to have imagination and creativity due to the thoughts I have on this movie. Maybe Matt Damon will make an awesome movie like this one.
Stars (out of 10): 7 1/2
Monday, September 20, 2010
Get Low
Get Low
2010
Directed by: Aaron Schneider
Starring: Robert Duvall, Bill Murray
From sea to shining sea, the movie industry has done it again, folks. Another film has been released to prod at the Oscar buzz. It seems this has happened a lot lately. And yes, the film's can be pretty good. The Wrestler, for instance. But certain films in this category (The Last Station, The Visitor, A Single Man) really fail at what they are trying to accomplish. These films seem to be made only to get a good actor an award he deserves but has not yet gotten. Like Scorcese with The Departed, he should have won for other movies, but this was the last time for him to take it. The awards can never truly make up their mind on what is the best, and they realize that these older actors (mainly men) are getting really old.
Robert Duvall is a legend. There's no doubt. Everything from The Godfather to The Apostle to Gone in Sixty Seconds, he shines straight through. But, he has never won an Academy Award. So what happens? The studio creates a film for him to be the star in. A simple role with not too much going on. An independent, so as to not make the Academy voters stray from blockbusters. He was great in it. I'm not down-playing that. I'm down-playing the overall emotion of the film itself. It was eh at best.
Duvall plays an old hermit who is estranged from his small 1930's town. He decides to stage his own funeral party for he feels the end is near. He says he wants all people who have a story to tell about him to come to the funeral. Bill Murray plays the out-of-luck funeral home owner. He has a wicked sense of humor and jumps on the chance to do something that no one has ever done. The morbid humor of the plain slice of pizza that is this movie is the only saving point.
Murray spits out a few quips in an attempt to lighten up an otherwise weary and dull film. The simple storyline allows for Duvall to be the great actor he is. In the end, no one tells a story about Duvall. Only Duvall does. The emotion of the characters is misplaced through an episode of dialogue and curiosity of when the final credits will finally roll. Murray and Duvall are legendary figures. Both in their own right. I feel this film was rushed with the wrong intentions.
Stars (out of 10): 4
2010
Directed by: Aaron Schneider
Starring: Robert Duvall, Bill Murray
From sea to shining sea, the movie industry has done it again, folks. Another film has been released to prod at the Oscar buzz. It seems this has happened a lot lately. And yes, the film's can be pretty good. The Wrestler, for instance. But certain films in this category (The Last Station, The Visitor, A Single Man) really fail at what they are trying to accomplish. These films seem to be made only to get a good actor an award he deserves but has not yet gotten. Like Scorcese with The Departed, he should have won for other movies, but this was the last time for him to take it. The awards can never truly make up their mind on what is the best, and they realize that these older actors (mainly men) are getting really old.
Robert Duvall is a legend. There's no doubt. Everything from The Godfather to The Apostle to Gone in Sixty Seconds, he shines straight through. But, he has never won an Academy Award. So what happens? The studio creates a film for him to be the star in. A simple role with not too much going on. An independent, so as to not make the Academy voters stray from blockbusters. He was great in it. I'm not down-playing that. I'm down-playing the overall emotion of the film itself. It was eh at best.
Duvall plays an old hermit who is estranged from his small 1930's town. He decides to stage his own funeral party for he feels the end is near. He says he wants all people who have a story to tell about him to come to the funeral. Bill Murray plays the out-of-luck funeral home owner. He has a wicked sense of humor and jumps on the chance to do something that no one has ever done. The morbid humor of the plain slice of pizza that is this movie is the only saving point.
Murray spits out a few quips in an attempt to lighten up an otherwise weary and dull film. The simple storyline allows for Duvall to be the great actor he is. In the end, no one tells a story about Duvall. Only Duvall does. The emotion of the characters is misplaced through an episode of dialogue and curiosity of when the final credits will finally roll. Murray and Duvall are legendary figures. Both in their own right. I feel this film was rushed with the wrong intentions.
Stars (out of 10): 4
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Going the Distance
Going the Distance
2010
Directed by: Nanette Burstein
Starring: Justin Long, Drew Barrymore
This was not your every day romantic comedy. It, of course, was cheesy like a typical rom-com. But the humor factor of the dialogue broke into something new for me. I found myself laughing out loud quite a bit (and not just because I was looking at Drew Barrymore's unflattering figure). I realized that Justin Long is one of the greatest actors of our generation. This was not for his acting ability. But his ability to make him irresistible to women, yet awesomely dude-like to men.
Every time I see a Justin Long movie I think of Accepted. What a fantastic movie. He brings out this charisma in every character he plays (probably because he plays the same character repeatedly), but it works. He is like the cheeseburger of actors. He's the same thing every time, but something we crave after. The unsightly coupling of Long and Barrymore did not make much sense, however. First of all, she looks like a cut down tree, all slumpy and hunched like the top of her is missing. And he looks like a greased up recent college graduate. Why is it that Drew Barrymore always plays a newspaper reporter? I liked her better in Scream when she died in the first 3 minutes.
Anyway, the guy from It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia (of which I still have yet to see one full episode) was hilarious. He and this other guy play Long's two loser friends. They grow mustaches to try to take down "post-cougars", and take poops with the door open while trying to give love advice. But the two of them played perfectly into what the filmmakers were trying to do. They played the two guy-friends of the somewhat sensitive guy. They offer him beer and advice like it's popping two Tylenol. What boggles my mind is why this movie didn't revolve around them.
Now, the funniest line in the movie (which I won't spoil) is said by Barrymore, but only because she was drunk in the movie. Drunk Drew Barrymore should always be around. It was like watching an episode of Jersey Shore, except without the melodramatic "do you love me?" bullshit. I feel bad for ripping on her, I just don't understand her sometimes. Like why was she wearing a bow-tie on a first date? She is no where near as good looking as Tom Selleck (who I think is the only man ever to pull off a bow-tie).
Getting back to the movie. There were a lot of characters that I liked in the movie. They all seemed to somewhat have their place, whether it be the funny friends or the quirky over protective sister. The emotions of the movie did not sink in to my soul as much as the filmmakers would have liked. I feel that the ending was a little cheesy and drawn out. There were 2 or 3 other scenes (right near the end) that would have been a perfect fade out spot.
However, the overall presentation of the trials and tribulations of a long distance relationship really came through as very sweet, emotional, and dramatic at times. The jealousy factor played a role, but not too big a role. And overall, I enjoyed the light-hearted look at a real relationship struggling due to circumstances beyond any one's control. The storyline was engaging, and the relationship factor was a bit daft. But the movie drew my attention, which is pretty much all I ask of these people. But Drew Barrymore? Tsk Tsk.
Stars (out of 10): 6
2010
Directed by: Nanette Burstein
Starring: Justin Long, Drew Barrymore
This was not your every day romantic comedy. It, of course, was cheesy like a typical rom-com. But the humor factor of the dialogue broke into something new for me. I found myself laughing out loud quite a bit (and not just because I was looking at Drew Barrymore's unflattering figure). I realized that Justin Long is one of the greatest actors of our generation. This was not for his acting ability. But his ability to make him irresistible to women, yet awesomely dude-like to men.
Every time I see a Justin Long movie I think of Accepted. What a fantastic movie. He brings out this charisma in every character he plays (probably because he plays the same character repeatedly), but it works. He is like the cheeseburger of actors. He's the same thing every time, but something we crave after. The unsightly coupling of Long and Barrymore did not make much sense, however. First of all, she looks like a cut down tree, all slumpy and hunched like the top of her is missing. And he looks like a greased up recent college graduate. Why is it that Drew Barrymore always plays a newspaper reporter? I liked her better in Scream when she died in the first 3 minutes.
Anyway, the guy from It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia (of which I still have yet to see one full episode) was hilarious. He and this other guy play Long's two loser friends. They grow mustaches to try to take down "post-cougars", and take poops with the door open while trying to give love advice. But the two of them played perfectly into what the filmmakers were trying to do. They played the two guy-friends of the somewhat sensitive guy. They offer him beer and advice like it's popping two Tylenol. What boggles my mind is why this movie didn't revolve around them.
Now, the funniest line in the movie (which I won't spoil) is said by Barrymore, but only because she was drunk in the movie. Drunk Drew Barrymore should always be around. It was like watching an episode of Jersey Shore, except without the melodramatic "do you love me?" bullshit. I feel bad for ripping on her, I just don't understand her sometimes. Like why was she wearing a bow-tie on a first date? She is no where near as good looking as Tom Selleck (who I think is the only man ever to pull off a bow-tie).
Getting back to the movie. There were a lot of characters that I liked in the movie. They all seemed to somewhat have their place, whether it be the funny friends or the quirky over protective sister. The emotions of the movie did not sink in to my soul as much as the filmmakers would have liked. I feel that the ending was a little cheesy and drawn out. There were 2 or 3 other scenes (right near the end) that would have been a perfect fade out spot.
However, the overall presentation of the trials and tribulations of a long distance relationship really came through as very sweet, emotional, and dramatic at times. The jealousy factor played a role, but not too big a role. And overall, I enjoyed the light-hearted look at a real relationship struggling due to circumstances beyond any one's control. The storyline was engaging, and the relationship factor was a bit daft. But the movie drew my attention, which is pretty much all I ask of these people. But Drew Barrymore? Tsk Tsk.
Stars (out of 10): 6
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Takers
Takers
2010
Directed by: John Luessenhop
Starring: Idris Elba, Matt Dillon
So here it goes. Another story about another team of robbers. And the crazy thing is that Vinnie James was no where in sight! For all of these heist movies, the plot is pretty vanilla. Show one heist going well. Check. Show the relationship between the team of bad guys. Check. Show the cop with an all-too-familiar history on the force who is on the tail of the bad guys. Check. Any way you all get the point.
The problem with the movie was not the story, however. It was the acting. If you want to call it acting. Watching Paul Walker stumble over words and Chris Brown sit there and pretend to be an actor makes me frustrated. Are you ever driving down the road and see a car and say to yourself, "damn that car is a piece of garbage"? Well this movie was like that. It got the actors to where they were headed, but barely. They made a movie, but the acting caliber in Takers is less than sub par. It actually bothers me to use the word "acting" when referring to this movie.
The movie's only saving grace was Zoe Saldana. Yeah, the blue chick from Avatar. Anyway, she was in the movie for maybe five minutes. Five minutes! What the hell are these people thinking? She's gorgeous and a decent actress. You would think the filmmakers would have said, "hey maybe she should be in the movie more". Well another fail on their part.
The worst actor though had to be Matt Dillon. His vanilla and overbearing acting "ability" brought him over the edge to completely ridiculous. I felt that I was watching a bad episode of Entourage and he was Johnny Drama fighting for a role. Maybe the Dillon brothers should switch careers. Matt Dillon has the same personality and mannerisms in any movie. It seems like he is being shot out of a cannon, but they can only figure out one way to shoot him out of the cannon.
There is so much in this movie that made me not like it. I don't know how to talk about it all. It was a train wreck. The story has very possible potential, but the acting just brought it down. It's like what Saladworks does to salads. Making subpar items and making me spend $11 to realize how terrible it really was. If all heist movies were ingredients in a salad, Takers would be the very optional capers. No pun intended. I mean, what do you expect from a cast consisting of Chris Brown, TI, Paul Walker, and Hayden Christensen?
The very forgettable and sometimes laughable movie also had one of the worst chase sequences I have ever seen. I had heard rumors about a shaky camera, which I have to to admit was not that bad throughout the whole movie. However, in one scene where Chris Brown is being chased on foot by Dillon, the camera is shaking so much that it's hard to tell what's even going on. It didn't make me nauseous (except for the vomit called a story line). The chase scene showed Chris Brown jumping roofs, hopping fire escapes, and running faster that Usain Bolt. Maybe with his history of domestic violence, Brown needs to know how to run really, really fast. It was like watching parkour while sniffing Adderall. This was definitely the Chevy Geo of the film world.
Stars (out of 10): 3
2010
Directed by: John Luessenhop
Starring: Idris Elba, Matt Dillon
So here it goes. Another story about another team of robbers. And the crazy thing is that Vinnie James was no where in sight! For all of these heist movies, the plot is pretty vanilla. Show one heist going well. Check. Show the relationship between the team of bad guys. Check. Show the cop with an all-too-familiar history on the force who is on the tail of the bad guys. Check. Any way you all get the point.
The problem with the movie was not the story, however. It was the acting. If you want to call it acting. Watching Paul Walker stumble over words and Chris Brown sit there and pretend to be an actor makes me frustrated. Are you ever driving down the road and see a car and say to yourself, "damn that car is a piece of garbage"? Well this movie was like that. It got the actors to where they were headed, but barely. They made a movie, but the acting caliber in Takers is less than sub par. It actually bothers me to use the word "acting" when referring to this movie.
The movie's only saving grace was Zoe Saldana. Yeah, the blue chick from Avatar. Anyway, she was in the movie for maybe five minutes. Five minutes! What the hell are these people thinking? She's gorgeous and a decent actress. You would think the filmmakers would have said, "hey maybe she should be in the movie more". Well another fail on their part.
The worst actor though had to be Matt Dillon. His vanilla and overbearing acting "ability" brought him over the edge to completely ridiculous. I felt that I was watching a bad episode of Entourage and he was Johnny Drama fighting for a role. Maybe the Dillon brothers should switch careers. Matt Dillon has the same personality and mannerisms in any movie. It seems like he is being shot out of a cannon, but they can only figure out one way to shoot him out of the cannon.
There is so much in this movie that made me not like it. I don't know how to talk about it all. It was a train wreck. The story has very possible potential, but the acting just brought it down. It's like what Saladworks does to salads. Making subpar items and making me spend $11 to realize how terrible it really was. If all heist movies were ingredients in a salad, Takers would be the very optional capers. No pun intended. I mean, what do you expect from a cast consisting of Chris Brown, TI, Paul Walker, and Hayden Christensen?
The very forgettable and sometimes laughable movie also had one of the worst chase sequences I have ever seen. I had heard rumors about a shaky camera, which I have to to admit was not that bad throughout the whole movie. However, in one scene where Chris Brown is being chased on foot by Dillon, the camera is shaking so much that it's hard to tell what's even going on. It didn't make me nauseous (except for the vomit called a story line). The chase scene showed Chris Brown jumping roofs, hopping fire escapes, and running faster that Usain Bolt. Maybe with his history of domestic violence, Brown needs to know how to run really, really fast. It was like watching parkour while sniffing Adderall. This was definitely the Chevy Geo of the film world.
Stars (out of 10): 3
Monday, August 30, 2010
The Last Exorcism
The Last Exorcism
2010
Directed by: Daniel Stamm
Starring: Patrick Fabian, Ashley Bell
This is one of the harder movies to review. I did like it but I don't know why. My friend told me "it's hard to make exorcism movies now because they did it perfectly the first time." Of course he was referring to The Exorcist (1973), but there was something different about this. The suspense factor was great. There were many times I grabbed the arm of my friend anticipating something to happen that would make me bite the collar of my shirt.
The suspense factor did do a good job of making me nervous whether something scary did happen or not. The movie did not rely on gore like many modern horror movies do. The realism of the documentary style shot created the feeling that you were actually inside this girl's house. So many exorcism movies are very one-dimensional, showing the struggling priest with the hatred of his own life, then moving on to the young, blonde girl with such promise and a big future.
However, this story took a dog-legged turn to show the complexities of how exorcisms can be a total and complete sham. The priest that the documentary crew follows is exposing exorcisms for what he believes they really are. He is a con artist who creates frightening situations for these so-called "possessed" beings. He exorcises minds and not spirits as he believes that all possessions occur due to psychotic episodes.
The priest's own psychosis gets thrown in a whirlwind when he discovers that he may not be completely accurate in his theories. The foreshadowing was very spot on with different things throughout the movie, and you never seemed to know what would happen next. The unpredictability was the most appealing factor of this movie. I never knew what would or could happen, and you never really seem to trust anyone at all throughout the whole hour and 40 minutes. The speculation that the exorcism movie is overdone may be true, but this new take on an old tale kind of did the job for me.
Stars (out of 10): 6 1/2
2010
Directed by: Daniel Stamm
Starring: Patrick Fabian, Ashley Bell
This is one of the harder movies to review. I did like it but I don't know why. My friend told me "it's hard to make exorcism movies now because they did it perfectly the first time." Of course he was referring to The Exorcist (1973), but there was something different about this. The suspense factor was great. There were many times I grabbed the arm of my friend anticipating something to happen that would make me bite the collar of my shirt.
The suspense factor did do a good job of making me nervous whether something scary did happen or not. The movie did not rely on gore like many modern horror movies do. The realism of the documentary style shot created the feeling that you were actually inside this girl's house. So many exorcism movies are very one-dimensional, showing the struggling priest with the hatred of his own life, then moving on to the young, blonde girl with such promise and a big future.
However, this story took a dog-legged turn to show the complexities of how exorcisms can be a total and complete sham. The priest that the documentary crew follows is exposing exorcisms for what he believes they really are. He is a con artist who creates frightening situations for these so-called "possessed" beings. He exorcises minds and not spirits as he believes that all possessions occur due to psychotic episodes.
The priest's own psychosis gets thrown in a whirlwind when he discovers that he may not be completely accurate in his theories. The foreshadowing was very spot on with different things throughout the movie, and you never seemed to know what would happen next. The unpredictability was the most appealing factor of this movie. I never knew what would or could happen, and you never really seem to trust anyone at all throughout the whole hour and 40 minutes. The speculation that the exorcism movie is overdone may be true, but this new take on an old tale kind of did the job for me.
Stars (out of 10): 6 1/2
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Piranha 3D
Piranha 3D
2010
Directed by: Alexandre Aja
Starring: Elisabeth Shue, Adam Scott
Well, where to begin? This movie was not genius. It was not ground-breaking. It wasn't even original. But was it good? Fuck yes. People take movies like this for granted. I do. There's nothing wrong with that. But I got exactly what I expected and more. The acting was atrocious. The story was typical, and every boob was fake. Do I care? Not one bit.
The story is simple. It revolves around the sheriff of a town on a lake. The lake is hosting a giant spring break party for young girls to find an excuse to wear nothing and get back at daddy and young guys find excuses to mess with their heads. Yes, plural. Anyway, there is one kid who looks no older than 15, and of course his mother is the sheriff of the town. She entrusts him to watch his younger brother and sister. He doesn't do it. In fact, he bribes his siblings and ends up on a boat captained by a dude who looks like Condeleeza Rice and Jerry O'Connell acting as a scummy porn director.
They also have two lovely ladies aboard who get naked and share in a wonderful underwater dance sequence. All hell ends up breaking loose when a pack of angry man-eating fish enters the waters below. It's Jaws on crack. The Jaws and Titanic references were hilarious. They found a way to make fun of "horror on the sea" films without making it stupid. Who would have ever thought Richard Dreyfus would be in this movie?
The simple story, dumbed-down dialogue and repetitious stupidity make this one of the most entertaining movies I have seen in a very long time. I wouldn't necessarily say it was a good movie, but it did entertain me in many ways. So for that, I have to give it credit. Otherwise, the 3D effects were lacking, and I felt like I was in a glorified version of Finding Nemo with the effects. The fish looked possessed and robotic. CGI has certainly found a way to take movies to the extreme level of beyond mediocrity.
Riley Steele did not speak one word the whole movie. Not that she needs to, but I have found that she has a rather fun and innocent voice. Was she really so dumb that they couldn't give her a speaking part in a movie that showed a man's detached penis in 3D? Damn, maybe she shouldn't quit her day job.
The movie was terrible but in an amazing way. I was thoroughly entertained. There was no dumb subplot. What you see is what you get. Straight forward thinking and a terrible script make for an unforgettable movie. Did you forget about Snakes on a Plane? That's right, unforgettable.
Stars (out of 10): 7
2010
Directed by: Alexandre Aja
Starring: Elisabeth Shue, Adam Scott
Well, where to begin? This movie was not genius. It was not ground-breaking. It wasn't even original. But was it good? Fuck yes. People take movies like this for granted. I do. There's nothing wrong with that. But I got exactly what I expected and more. The acting was atrocious. The story was typical, and every boob was fake. Do I care? Not one bit.
The story is simple. It revolves around the sheriff of a town on a lake. The lake is hosting a giant spring break party for young girls to find an excuse to wear nothing and get back at daddy and young guys find excuses to mess with their heads. Yes, plural. Anyway, there is one kid who looks no older than 15, and of course his mother is the sheriff of the town. She entrusts him to watch his younger brother and sister. He doesn't do it. In fact, he bribes his siblings and ends up on a boat captained by a dude who looks like Condeleeza Rice and Jerry O'Connell acting as a scummy porn director.
They also have two lovely ladies aboard who get naked and share in a wonderful underwater dance sequence. All hell ends up breaking loose when a pack of angry man-eating fish enters the waters below. It's Jaws on crack. The Jaws and Titanic references were hilarious. They found a way to make fun of "horror on the sea" films without making it stupid. Who would have ever thought Richard Dreyfus would be in this movie?
The simple story, dumbed-down dialogue and repetitious stupidity make this one of the most entertaining movies I have seen in a very long time. I wouldn't necessarily say it was a good movie, but it did entertain me in many ways. So for that, I have to give it credit. Otherwise, the 3D effects were lacking, and I felt like I was in a glorified version of Finding Nemo with the effects. The fish looked possessed and robotic. CGI has certainly found a way to take movies to the extreme level of beyond mediocrity.
Riley Steele did not speak one word the whole movie. Not that she needs to, but I have found that she has a rather fun and innocent voice. Was she really so dumb that they couldn't give her a speaking part in a movie that showed a man's detached penis in 3D? Damn, maybe she shouldn't quit her day job.
The movie was terrible but in an amazing way. I was thoroughly entertained. There was no dumb subplot. What you see is what you get. Straight forward thinking and a terrible script make for an unforgettable movie. Did you forget about Snakes on a Plane? That's right, unforgettable.
Stars (out of 10): 7
The Other Guys
The Other Guys
2010
Directed by: Adam McKay
Starring: Will Ferrell, Mark Wahlberg
For some reason, ridiculous hilarity actually worked here. The story of the movie begins with, well nothing. Samuel L. Jackson and Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson are ridiculously over-the-top cops with big muscles and even bigger egos. Ferrell and Wahlberg play loser desk-job cops who never see the up close of a crime scene. This all changes when Jackson and Johnson die of stupidity. That's the movie in a nutshell.
It tried to have a story of corruption, but focused more on the humor. The movie kind of felt like an episode of the Colbert Report, where he doesn't care about anything he's talking about as long as he can chime in a joke or two. The ridiculous (I don't care how many times I use that word in this review) random scenes provide the hilarious combination of humor and stupidity.
Will Ferrell is obnoxious. Not a surprise. Mark Wahlberg was awkward. The two of them worked well as a team. I still can't get past how much I can't stand Ferrell though. His childish acting failures annoy me to no end. I feel I would have enjoyed the movie a lot more without him in it. Mark Wahlberg is very universal it seems though. His humor limit is extended.
I feel that the movie really had no direction except to make people laugh. That annoys me a little, but the laughs were pretty good when they were on target. The Derek Jeter thing is still making my sides hurt. I love the way people are just randomly thrown in a shit-storm of a story and can make the movie that much better. The small side-story of Wahlberg's character being haunted by an encounter with the Yankee shortstop made the movie all that more interesting.
I also thoroughly enjoyed the end credits where it pretty much explains all the stuff in the movie that would be too confusing to the childish high school students who pretend to like good movies but only go to laugh at the immaturity of Ferrell's flawed acting. The credits explained what a Ponzi scheme is and how the world of financial troubles have hurt the average American but benefited high-powered executives. Oh well, I guess there's no room to sympathize for the other guys.
Stars (out of 10): 6 1/2
2010
Directed by: Adam McKay
Starring: Will Ferrell, Mark Wahlberg
For some reason, ridiculous hilarity actually worked here. The story of the movie begins with, well nothing. Samuel L. Jackson and Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson are ridiculously over-the-top cops with big muscles and even bigger egos. Ferrell and Wahlberg play loser desk-job cops who never see the up close of a crime scene. This all changes when Jackson and Johnson die of stupidity. That's the movie in a nutshell.
It tried to have a story of corruption, but focused more on the humor. The movie kind of felt like an episode of the Colbert Report, where he doesn't care about anything he's talking about as long as he can chime in a joke or two. The ridiculous (I don't care how many times I use that word in this review) random scenes provide the hilarious combination of humor and stupidity.
Will Ferrell is obnoxious. Not a surprise. Mark Wahlberg was awkward. The two of them worked well as a team. I still can't get past how much I can't stand Ferrell though. His childish acting failures annoy me to no end. I feel I would have enjoyed the movie a lot more without him in it. Mark Wahlberg is very universal it seems though. His humor limit is extended.
I feel that the movie really had no direction except to make people laugh. That annoys me a little, but the laughs were pretty good when they were on target. The Derek Jeter thing is still making my sides hurt. I love the way people are just randomly thrown in a shit-storm of a story and can make the movie that much better. The small side-story of Wahlberg's character being haunted by an encounter with the Yankee shortstop made the movie all that more interesting.
I also thoroughly enjoyed the end credits where it pretty much explains all the stuff in the movie that would be too confusing to the childish high school students who pretend to like good movies but only go to laugh at the immaturity of Ferrell's flawed acting. The credits explained what a Ponzi scheme is and how the world of financial troubles have hurt the average American but benefited high-powered executives. Oh well, I guess there's no room to sympathize for the other guys.
Stars (out of 10): 6 1/2
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Scott Pilgrim vs. the World
Scott Pilgrim vs. the World
2010
Directed by: Edgar Wright
Starring: Michael Cera, Mary Elizabeth Winstead
The sheer genius has finally come out of a Michael Cera movie. (No, I'm not counting Superbad as a Michael Cera movie). Was this the movie where he played an awkward guy trying to hook up with a girl? Of course, but there was something different about this. Maybe the way over-the-top antics of the film threw things out of whack for me, but it worked. The supreme originality of the way that a very typical story was told was mind-boggling to me.
Cera plays an unemployed loser in a band with a few friends. The band sucks, and he lives in a one bedroom (one bed only) apartment hole with a gay roommate who does nothing but make his life hell. He begins by dating a much younger girl who falls madly in love with him way too quickly. He then meets a girl named Ramona who changes his life. I know what you're thinking, blah blah blah. But this old time "three's a crowd" storyline has been taken up a notch by amazing visual effects.
The entire movie is surrounded by old-school video game audio and visuals. The characters are introduced as characters would be in a video game. The old Batman "POW" and "BAM" antics are thrown into the mix as well. It was like watching "Kill Bill" meets "Mortal Kombat", but better.
This modern-day twist on an old time tale shows that movies are not dead, originality is not fading, and today's actors and technology do not need to rely on 3D nonsense in order to create something, well, awesome. The bravery of Cera's soul in the movie seemed outlandish, but then I realized, the whole movie is completely outlandish.
What does it take to bring out the competitive side of a guy? What does it take to make a guy really show how much his girl means to him? How come all of her exes have super powers? The crazy thing was that I never expect much from these movies. Like "My Super Ex-Girlfriend", what the hell? That was not a movie worth even talking about, let alone reviewing.
Cera's awkward style finally came through in a not-so-Napoleon-Dynamite type way. He was able to be awkward but just quirky enough to attract the cute girl. She was way too good for him, typical typical, but the flow of the character relationships really flowed over into the extreme reality that was the movie.
The visual effects offset the untimely and humorless Jason Schwartzman (don't get me started). He's like the Enrique Iglesias of the acting world. Everyone seems obsessed with him but no one can seem to figure out why. Anyway, the movie was way better than what I expected. The story was so-so, but the visuals and originality of the fight scenes really brought it up to par.
Stars (out of 10): 8
2010
Directed by: Edgar Wright
Starring: Michael Cera, Mary Elizabeth Winstead
The sheer genius has finally come out of a Michael Cera movie. (No, I'm not counting Superbad as a Michael Cera movie). Was this the movie where he played an awkward guy trying to hook up with a girl? Of course, but there was something different about this. Maybe the way over-the-top antics of the film threw things out of whack for me, but it worked. The supreme originality of the way that a very typical story was told was mind-boggling to me.
Cera plays an unemployed loser in a band with a few friends. The band sucks, and he lives in a one bedroom (one bed only) apartment hole with a gay roommate who does nothing but make his life hell. He begins by dating a much younger girl who falls madly in love with him way too quickly. He then meets a girl named Ramona who changes his life. I know what you're thinking, blah blah blah. But this old time "three's a crowd" storyline has been taken up a notch by amazing visual effects.
The entire movie is surrounded by old-school video game audio and visuals. The characters are introduced as characters would be in a video game. The old Batman "POW" and "BAM" antics are thrown into the mix as well. It was like watching "Kill Bill" meets "Mortal Kombat", but better.
This modern-day twist on an old time tale shows that movies are not dead, originality is not fading, and today's actors and technology do not need to rely on 3D nonsense in order to create something, well, awesome. The bravery of Cera's soul in the movie seemed outlandish, but then I realized, the whole movie is completely outlandish.
What does it take to bring out the competitive side of a guy? What does it take to make a guy really show how much his girl means to him? How come all of her exes have super powers? The crazy thing was that I never expect much from these movies. Like "My Super Ex-Girlfriend", what the hell? That was not a movie worth even talking about, let alone reviewing.
Cera's awkward style finally came through in a not-so-Napoleon-Dynamite type way. He was able to be awkward but just quirky enough to attract the cute girl. She was way too good for him, typical typical, but the flow of the character relationships really flowed over into the extreme reality that was the movie.
The visual effects offset the untimely and humorless Jason Schwartzman (don't get me started). He's like the Enrique Iglesias of the acting world. Everyone seems obsessed with him but no one can seem to figure out why. Anyway, the movie was way better than what I expected. The story was so-so, but the visuals and originality of the fight scenes really brought it up to par.
Stars (out of 10): 8
Saturday, August 7, 2010
Dinner For Schmucks
Dinner For Schmucks
2010
Directed By: Jay Roach
Starring: Paul Rudd, Steve Carell
You know, entering a movie theater for a movie on your birthday is a fun feeling. The fact that I was going to see this movie was not that fun of a feeling. For the five days leading up to my viewing, I had heard nothing but terrible things (except from my brother) about this awkward comedy. My friends at work had all seen it over the weekend, and they all said it was worse than anything starring Will Ferrell. I was told the humor was flat and the story was weak.
I could say that for the first 45 minutes of the movie, I agreed. I didn't care for the characters, which is tough to do with Paul Rudd as the star of a film. Everyone knows that every guy in this world has a small man-crush on Paul Rudd. But that's beside the point. With comedic geniuses leading the pack, I was a little disappointed with the reviews I had heard. About half way through the movie, it began to pick up.
Now, not to ruin anything, but for those who have seen it, I believe the movie turned around during the brunch scene. The characters finally seemed to be serving a purpose and the comedy seemed to come a lot more easily. The jokes seemed very forced during the first half of the movie, but the second half seemed to come together a bit more.
I'm not giving this movie rave reviews, I'm just saying that I was pleasantly surprised with the end result after hearing such dreadful things. Steve Carell has never come off as very funny to me before. I always thought he was dull and brainless, but it seems he found his niche playing an idiot. I don't watch the Office, so I don't know about that character, but in this movie, he seemed to fit the part. And of course Paul Rudd is the guy vying for a huge promotion at work. And of course this interferes with the relationship between Rudd and his girlfriend.
The romantic cliches in these movies need to change. One thing that really bothers me about movies like this is that no matter what, the romantic story line never really matters. The movie went for the heart factor but fell short. The movie could have been a 20 minute after school special about making friends with people who are different than you. But where would be the fun in that? There wasn't that much fun in this either though.
Stars (out of 10): 5 1/2
2010
Directed By: Jay Roach
Starring: Paul Rudd, Steve Carell
You know, entering a movie theater for a movie on your birthday is a fun feeling. The fact that I was going to see this movie was not that fun of a feeling. For the five days leading up to my viewing, I had heard nothing but terrible things (except from my brother) about this awkward comedy. My friends at work had all seen it over the weekend, and they all said it was worse than anything starring Will Ferrell. I was told the humor was flat and the story was weak.
I could say that for the first 45 minutes of the movie, I agreed. I didn't care for the characters, which is tough to do with Paul Rudd as the star of a film. Everyone knows that every guy in this world has a small man-crush on Paul Rudd. But that's beside the point. With comedic geniuses leading the pack, I was a little disappointed with the reviews I had heard. About half way through the movie, it began to pick up.
Now, not to ruin anything, but for those who have seen it, I believe the movie turned around during the brunch scene. The characters finally seemed to be serving a purpose and the comedy seemed to come a lot more easily. The jokes seemed very forced during the first half of the movie, but the second half seemed to come together a bit more.
I'm not giving this movie rave reviews, I'm just saying that I was pleasantly surprised with the end result after hearing such dreadful things. Steve Carell has never come off as very funny to me before. I always thought he was dull and brainless, but it seems he found his niche playing an idiot. I don't watch the Office, so I don't know about that character, but in this movie, he seemed to fit the part. And of course Paul Rudd is the guy vying for a huge promotion at work. And of course this interferes with the relationship between Rudd and his girlfriend.
The romantic cliches in these movies need to change. One thing that really bothers me about movies like this is that no matter what, the romantic story line never really matters. The movie went for the heart factor but fell short. The movie could have been a 20 minute after school special about making friends with people who are different than you. But where would be the fun in that? There wasn't that much fun in this either though.
Stars (out of 10): 5 1/2
Friday, July 30, 2010
The Kids Are All Right
The Kids Are All Right
2010
Directed By: Lisa Cholodenko
Starring: Annette Bening, Julianne Moore
Going into this film, I had no clue what it was about. I remember telling a friend I thought it was about a guy with a drug addiction. Nope. It's a very uncommon thing for me to see a film I have no clue about and like it the first time. But of course, there are those special times.
This film was inspirational, titanic, and flamboyantly recognizable (no pun intended). How could a film about a simple, middle-class family have such great valor and story telling ability? I don't know, but it did. The simplicity of the family life for a middle-aged lesbian couple and their two children focuses on the dynamic of living in a same-sex family. It did not feel weird to see two women raising their kids. The subtlety of the lesbian relationship really meant to me that they chose not to make a mockery of homosexuality.
The two children (each born from a different mother) had the same sperm donor. When the eldest, Joni, turns 18, she chooses to get in touch with the donor. This man meets her and her brother for lunch and they get to talking. The rest of the movie shows the man becoming involved with his new found family. Annette Bening's character does not like the idea of someone interrupting their life, but she know it is something she cannot avoid.
The plot was simple. The characters were pretty one dimensional. But this wasn't a bad thing. All five of the main characters brought through a sense of reality that made me not want the movie to end. The chemistry was there, whether it was a sad moment or a happy moment. Awkwardness was all around the characters, and you could feel that.
Really, this movie seemed like a really well-done reality show. You were able to like each and every character but hate them at the same time. The ability to see real people in the actors' eyes made the realism of the film really come through. I enjoyed learning about this family and each of their attributes. Each actor brought their own taste to the film and they meshed together well to create a family dynamic. The drama that ensues throughout the film seems genuine and not preachy. I enjoyed the film and kind of wished it was a little longer. Instead of wondering when the credits would finally pop up, I found myself wondering what would happen next in the story of this realistic middle-class family.
Stars (out of 10): 8
2010
Directed By: Lisa Cholodenko
Starring: Annette Bening, Julianne Moore
Going into this film, I had no clue what it was about. I remember telling a friend I thought it was about a guy with a drug addiction. Nope. It's a very uncommon thing for me to see a film I have no clue about and like it the first time. But of course, there are those special times.
This film was inspirational, titanic, and flamboyantly recognizable (no pun intended). How could a film about a simple, middle-class family have such great valor and story telling ability? I don't know, but it did. The simplicity of the family life for a middle-aged lesbian couple and their two children focuses on the dynamic of living in a same-sex family. It did not feel weird to see two women raising their kids. The subtlety of the lesbian relationship really meant to me that they chose not to make a mockery of homosexuality.
The two children (each born from a different mother) had the same sperm donor. When the eldest, Joni, turns 18, she chooses to get in touch with the donor. This man meets her and her brother for lunch and they get to talking. The rest of the movie shows the man becoming involved with his new found family. Annette Bening's character does not like the idea of someone interrupting their life, but she know it is something she cannot avoid.
The plot was simple. The characters were pretty one dimensional. But this wasn't a bad thing. All five of the main characters brought through a sense of reality that made me not want the movie to end. The chemistry was there, whether it was a sad moment or a happy moment. Awkwardness was all around the characters, and you could feel that.
Really, this movie seemed like a really well-done reality show. You were able to like each and every character but hate them at the same time. The ability to see real people in the actors' eyes made the realism of the film really come through. I enjoyed learning about this family and each of their attributes. Each actor brought their own taste to the film and they meshed together well to create a family dynamic. The drama that ensues throughout the film seems genuine and not preachy. I enjoyed the film and kind of wished it was a little longer. Instead of wondering when the credits would finally pop up, I found myself wondering what would happen next in the story of this realistic middle-class family.
Stars (out of 10): 8
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Inception
Inception
2010
Directed by: Christopher Nolan
Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Ellen Page
It feels unfair for me to write a review for this. I saw it, of course, but I feel that I did not "experience" it. My initial reaction to the film was that I did like it. However, I soon found things I did not like about. The acting, terrible. The casting of Ellen Page as an intellectual American student studying in London, stupid. The director, well phenomenal. Really, the actual problem was that I was just not into it. It was visually stimulating, yes, but people try to tell me about how it compares to amazing movies. No it doesn't. Granted, my reviews are strictly my personal opinion, but I'm entitled to that.
Don't get me wrong. I liked the movie, but I found there were many things that lacked. Finding a positive acting point in the movie was very difficult to do, but I will give Joseph Gordon-Levitt some credit. He's the man. Anyway, I found that Ellen Page (who was supposed to be this sophisticated genius) completely lacked in her acting ability. Every time I heard her speak I had a flashback of some quip that she would spit out in Juno. Is she really that one-dimensional? And Leo. My boy Leo had a flat and redundant acting style.
For people who have not seen it, please stop reading now.
Who cared about his wife? I didn't. The story about Leo's wife felt overused and underdone. They took a really cool idea and spoiled it. I knew from the first minute they explain what Inception was that Leo did it on his wife. It's been done. The man sabotages his family's life to progress his success into whatever he sinks himself in to.
Don't get me wrong. I thought the visuals and the general idea and concept of the film were great. I feel that maybe if I see it a second time I will realize some things that I missed. But overall I felt that it fell short of the anticipation.
Christopher Nolan is a genius. Memento and The Dark Knight are two of my all time favorite films, but this one seemed a little rushed and very "cinema-y". He went for the huge names and huge effects. At least Dark Knight had Heath Ledger. He made that film what it became. Legendary. Inception fell a little short of legendary.
New rating system because it makes things easier for me:
Stars (out of 10): 6
2010
Directed by: Christopher Nolan
Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Ellen Page
It feels unfair for me to write a review for this. I saw it, of course, but I feel that I did not "experience" it. My initial reaction to the film was that I did like it. However, I soon found things I did not like about. The acting, terrible. The casting of Ellen Page as an intellectual American student studying in London, stupid. The director, well phenomenal. Really, the actual problem was that I was just not into it. It was visually stimulating, yes, but people try to tell me about how it compares to amazing movies. No it doesn't. Granted, my reviews are strictly my personal opinion, but I'm entitled to that.
Don't get me wrong. I liked the movie, but I found there were many things that lacked. Finding a positive acting point in the movie was very difficult to do, but I will give Joseph Gordon-Levitt some credit. He's the man. Anyway, I found that Ellen Page (who was supposed to be this sophisticated genius) completely lacked in her acting ability. Every time I heard her speak I had a flashback of some quip that she would spit out in Juno. Is she really that one-dimensional? And Leo. My boy Leo had a flat and redundant acting style.
For people who have not seen it, please stop reading now.
Who cared about his wife? I didn't. The story about Leo's wife felt overused and underdone. They took a really cool idea and spoiled it. I knew from the first minute they explain what Inception was that Leo did it on his wife. It's been done. The man sabotages his family's life to progress his success into whatever he sinks himself in to.
Don't get me wrong. I thought the visuals and the general idea and concept of the film were great. I feel that maybe if I see it a second time I will realize some things that I missed. But overall I felt that it fell short of the anticipation.
Christopher Nolan is a genius. Memento and The Dark Knight are two of my all time favorite films, but this one seemed a little rushed and very "cinema-y". He went for the huge names and huge effects. At least Dark Knight had Heath Ledger. He made that film what it became. Legendary. Inception fell a little short of legendary.
New rating system because it makes things easier for me:
Stars (out of 10): 6
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Despicable Me
Despicable Me
2010
Directed by: Pierre Coffin, Chris Renaud
Starring: Steve Carell, Jason Segel
Children's movies now-a-days are usually pretty straight forward. There are cute depictions of characters in strange adult situations, then there are some pretty raunchy jokes that only an adult would fully understand. The allure of this movie revolved around the phenomenal advertising. The minion characters came through in the advertisements to showcase the movie in such a way that the movie seemed to possess a "can't miss" ability.
The movie itself, however, lacked a few key ingredients. I feel that the story and jokes were stuck in limbo between adult and child humor. Some of the key jokes were not so much geared toward one group of people, but stuck in a place that couldn't make a decision of whether to flop or be funny.
The story revolves around Gru, a not-so-talented super villian who needs to pull off a big heist in order to gain approval from the so-called "Bank of Evil". He battles fellow villian Vector and the "hilarity" ensues. The basis of the movie also focuses on the fact that Gru adopts three young girls to help him gain access to Vector's lair. The girls are young and fruitful and have lots of love for this strange man that adopts them. They win over his heart and during his villainy he develops a true appreciation for these cute ones. Their innocence transcends through his relationship with them. Does he act evil? Or does he change his ways for the better of the girls?
His assistant, an old doctor, sees how Gru is changing a bit and decides the girls must go. The rest of the movie shows the battle between Gru and Vector. But also there is a battle between Gru and his own soul. The flat, overused and redundant "humor" doesn't catch anything. There are absolutely cute and funny parts, but I found that the comedy factor was lacking. I enjoyed the movie but did not get a humor quotient I would normally expect from a movie with the hype it had. Without the presence of the girls and the minions the movie would have been a 100% bust. Steve Carell's unusual accent is off-balanced, and he should just stick to being the normal looking, goofy, funnyish guy.
Stars (out of 4): * *
2010
Directed by: Pierre Coffin, Chris Renaud
Starring: Steve Carell, Jason Segel
Children's movies now-a-days are usually pretty straight forward. There are cute depictions of characters in strange adult situations, then there are some pretty raunchy jokes that only an adult would fully understand. The allure of this movie revolved around the phenomenal advertising. The minion characters came through in the advertisements to showcase the movie in such a way that the movie seemed to possess a "can't miss" ability.
The movie itself, however, lacked a few key ingredients. I feel that the story and jokes were stuck in limbo between adult and child humor. Some of the key jokes were not so much geared toward one group of people, but stuck in a place that couldn't make a decision of whether to flop or be funny.
The story revolves around Gru, a not-so-talented super villian who needs to pull off a big heist in order to gain approval from the so-called "Bank of Evil". He battles fellow villian Vector and the "hilarity" ensues. The basis of the movie also focuses on the fact that Gru adopts three young girls to help him gain access to Vector's lair. The girls are young and fruitful and have lots of love for this strange man that adopts them. They win over his heart and during his villainy he develops a true appreciation for these cute ones. Their innocence transcends through his relationship with them. Does he act evil? Or does he change his ways for the better of the girls?
His assistant, an old doctor, sees how Gru is changing a bit and decides the girls must go. The rest of the movie shows the battle between Gru and Vector. But also there is a battle between Gru and his own soul. The flat, overused and redundant "humor" doesn't catch anything. There are absolutely cute and funny parts, but I found that the comedy factor was lacking. I enjoyed the movie but did not get a humor quotient I would normally expect from a movie with the hype it had. Without the presence of the girls and the minions the movie would have been a 100% bust. Steve Carell's unusual accent is off-balanced, and he should just stick to being the normal looking, goofy, funnyish guy.
Stars (out of 4): * *
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Grown Ups
Grown Ups
2010
Directed By: Dennis Dugan
Starring: Adam Sandler, Kevin James
I don't care what anyone says. I love Adam Sandler. I think he is not only funny now, but for my generation, he is comedy. He is an icon in my book. Now I know his latest stuff hasn't been the best, but who could compete with Billy Madison, Big Daddy, and Happy Gilmore? The reign of Sandler's career has been overshadowed by a few people, but he definitely is a pioneer of modern comedy.
As for this movie. Before I saw it I heard terrible things. The newpapers, the websites, and even my friends were telling me it was a horrendous movie. I take everyone's opinion, but if I choose to see a movie, I see it. I went into the movie with the negative reviews in mind. I also prepared myself for a typical Adam Sandler comedy. I just hoped it was better than Click. I turned out to be pleasantly surprised.
The movie started off a little slow with the character development, but soon we were whirled into the twelve-year old minds of five brilliant comedians. Every character had their niche. They all had seperate lives but when they came together at their old summer hang out spot, everything else seemed not to matter. Sandler plays a rich agent from LA with a hot wife (Salma Hayek) and two snotty ass kids who wouldn't look up from their cell phones and video games if someone spontaneously combusted in front of them. I'm not going to go into every character, but there was an example.
Anyway, the five of them come together after the death of their childhood basketball coach. They decide to bring their families to an old summer house on a lake for the weekend. The rest of the movie relies solely on these five men making jokes and making us laugh. The great thing about the cast was there was never a lull in comedy. When one person was done saying something there was always someone there cracking a quick joke. The relationships between the characters seemed very natural and they all pull it off quite well.
Of course it's just a slap stick humor fest. But that's good. Now, I heard people saying that it needs to be better than The Hangover in order to be funny. I think we all know that's probably never going to happen. So just take it for what it is. I enjoyed it. And yes I saw it two weeks ago and I've been busy. Deal.
Stars (out of 4): * * 1/2
2010
Directed By: Dennis Dugan
Starring: Adam Sandler, Kevin James
I don't care what anyone says. I love Adam Sandler. I think he is not only funny now, but for my generation, he is comedy. He is an icon in my book. Now I know his latest stuff hasn't been the best, but who could compete with Billy Madison, Big Daddy, and Happy Gilmore? The reign of Sandler's career has been overshadowed by a few people, but he definitely is a pioneer of modern comedy.
As for this movie. Before I saw it I heard terrible things. The newpapers, the websites, and even my friends were telling me it was a horrendous movie. I take everyone's opinion, but if I choose to see a movie, I see it. I went into the movie with the negative reviews in mind. I also prepared myself for a typical Adam Sandler comedy. I just hoped it was better than Click. I turned out to be pleasantly surprised.
The movie started off a little slow with the character development, but soon we were whirled into the twelve-year old minds of five brilliant comedians. Every character had their niche. They all had seperate lives but when they came together at their old summer hang out spot, everything else seemed not to matter. Sandler plays a rich agent from LA with a hot wife (Salma Hayek) and two snotty ass kids who wouldn't look up from their cell phones and video games if someone spontaneously combusted in front of them. I'm not going to go into every character, but there was an example.
Anyway, the five of them come together after the death of their childhood basketball coach. They decide to bring their families to an old summer house on a lake for the weekend. The rest of the movie relies solely on these five men making jokes and making us laugh. The great thing about the cast was there was never a lull in comedy. When one person was done saying something there was always someone there cracking a quick joke. The relationships between the characters seemed very natural and they all pull it off quite well.
Of course it's just a slap stick humor fest. But that's good. Now, I heard people saying that it needs to be better than The Hangover in order to be funny. I think we all know that's probably never going to happen. So just take it for what it is. I enjoyed it. And yes I saw it two weeks ago and I've been busy. Deal.
Stars (out of 4): * * 1/2
Friday, June 18, 2010
Toy Story 3
Toy Story 3
2010
Directed by: Lee Unkrich
Starring: Tom Hanks, Tim Allen
The funny thing about Pixar movies for me is that I usually need to see them twice or three times before appreciating them for what they are. This is the first time that I have seen a Pixar movie and liked it the first time. Scratch that, LOVED it the first time. I saw this movie with no certain expectations. I knew it would be funny. I knew it would be cute. I knew it would be a lot like the first 2. The relationship I had already had with the characters allowed me to focus in on the movie and not trying to decipher who was who and who was where.
It must be hard to write movies like this. Movies that integrate a lot of pop culture need to be spot on or they can just fall flat. Seeing Toy Story 3 was like seeing the first Shrek for the first time again. The integration of nearly every toy we had as a kid and it's "personality" seemed to fit for EVERY toy. Toy Story 1 and 2 did this as well. But there is just something about seeing a Ken doll acting like all of America thinks he would act. There is something about a unicorn with a deep voice that drew us all in. And I'll tell you, it worked.
The story, the characters (new and old), and the sentiment of the movie all rang true for so many of our lives. The animation was fantastic, the jokes were even better. There's just something about a movie that leaves you smiling that has you begging for more. The friends I saw it with and I walked out of the theater saying "I want to see it again".
Watching Andy get ready for college is the main plot of the movie. The toys are scurrying around hoping to be kept as Andy and his mother are packing boxes that either go to college, go in the attic, or get thrown out. The following adventure throws us into a world of a day care center, crazy toddlers, and a collection of toys we won't soon forget. The representation of each toy holds true once again in this film. And even though some of us might not know what certain toys are like, you still feel a connection with each and every one.
There were no dumb songs like in Toy Story 2. There was not a completely complicated story line that tried to reach too far. There was a story line representing the toys that they are and throwing them into an adventure that keeps people glued to their seats. On another quick note, the short film before it was phenomenal. It will soon be a very popular video I believe once a lot of people see it. The way it was shot was beautiful and words aren't needed for the characters to create a strong relationship.
Toy Story 3 was phenomenal. I don't really throw that word around too often. But it was. It was by far the best in the series and also the funniest. There are a lot of movies made now-a-days, but only a few actually catch my eye as really, really good. Toy Story 3 caught my eye.
Stars (out of 4): * * * *
2010
Directed by: Lee Unkrich
Starring: Tom Hanks, Tim Allen
The funny thing about Pixar movies for me is that I usually need to see them twice or three times before appreciating them for what they are. This is the first time that I have seen a Pixar movie and liked it the first time. Scratch that, LOVED it the first time. I saw this movie with no certain expectations. I knew it would be funny. I knew it would be cute. I knew it would be a lot like the first 2. The relationship I had already had with the characters allowed me to focus in on the movie and not trying to decipher who was who and who was where.
It must be hard to write movies like this. Movies that integrate a lot of pop culture need to be spot on or they can just fall flat. Seeing Toy Story 3 was like seeing the first Shrek for the first time again. The integration of nearly every toy we had as a kid and it's "personality" seemed to fit for EVERY toy. Toy Story 1 and 2 did this as well. But there is just something about seeing a Ken doll acting like all of America thinks he would act. There is something about a unicorn with a deep voice that drew us all in. And I'll tell you, it worked.
The story, the characters (new and old), and the sentiment of the movie all rang true for so many of our lives. The animation was fantastic, the jokes were even better. There's just something about a movie that leaves you smiling that has you begging for more. The friends I saw it with and I walked out of the theater saying "I want to see it again".
Watching Andy get ready for college is the main plot of the movie. The toys are scurrying around hoping to be kept as Andy and his mother are packing boxes that either go to college, go in the attic, or get thrown out. The following adventure throws us into a world of a day care center, crazy toddlers, and a collection of toys we won't soon forget. The representation of each toy holds true once again in this film. And even though some of us might not know what certain toys are like, you still feel a connection with each and every one.
There were no dumb songs like in Toy Story 2. There was not a completely complicated story line that tried to reach too far. There was a story line representing the toys that they are and throwing them into an adventure that keeps people glued to their seats. On another quick note, the short film before it was phenomenal. It will soon be a very popular video I believe once a lot of people see it. The way it was shot was beautiful and words aren't needed for the characters to create a strong relationship.
Toy Story 3 was phenomenal. I don't really throw that word around too often. But it was. It was by far the best in the series and also the funniest. There are a lot of movies made now-a-days, but only a few actually catch my eye as really, really good. Toy Story 3 caught my eye.
Stars (out of 4): * * * *
Sunday, June 13, 2010
The Killer Inside Me
The Killer Inside Me
2010
Directed by: Michael Winterbottom
Starring: Casey Affleck, Jessica Alba
Who would have thought a movie starring Casey Affleck, Jessica Alba, Kate Hudson, and Bill Pullman would be god-awful. A remake of a remake of a remake. This movie had zero emotional scale to follow. Even Transformers 2 made you like the characters and wonder about their fates. The Killer Inside Me took decent actors and threw them in a big pot of nothingness with no where to go. The story seemed all over the place, and the overall concept was a bore.
Dry. That's really the one word I can use to describe the acting style of Casey Affleck. I've always thought of him as a mediocre actor at best. Yes, Good Will Hunting was a fantastic film, but honestly, Matt Damon and Ben Affleck are better actors than Casey. I feel that every time I watch a Casey Affleck film, he's really nervous about something. His voice shakes, and he never really shows any true emotion. It seems like he doesn't care. Well I'll tell you what, he should care. He should realize that the acting job he does in a movie like this is the biggest part. Casey plays dry, mediocre roles. Maybe that's just his niche.
Focusing back on this atrocity they call movie, the story was weak, the characters were weak, the emotional aspect was weak. For no reason at all things begin to happen. I'm sure they happened for a reason, but who could tell with the droning, unbalanced voices? Speaking with a southern, out dated accent is one thing. But mumbling nonsense as if you're speaking under your breath is another. The urge to get up and check my phone for messages is the first sign that something is wrong with the movie. Dry, non-entertaining, utter nonsensical movies that actually have a good premice but no direction really get to me. Affleck is the worse of the two Affleck brothers in acting (that's right, I said it). So to wrap up. Waste of time. Waste of money. Waste of on-demand purchase. Get it right Winterbottom. You're not going to have a successful movie if Jessica Alba is only in the first 15 minutes and Kate Hudson looks fat.
Stars: 1/2
2010
Directed by: Michael Winterbottom
Starring: Casey Affleck, Jessica Alba
Who would have thought a movie starring Casey Affleck, Jessica Alba, Kate Hudson, and Bill Pullman would be god-awful. A remake of a remake of a remake. This movie had zero emotional scale to follow. Even Transformers 2 made you like the characters and wonder about their fates. The Killer Inside Me took decent actors and threw them in a big pot of nothingness with no where to go. The story seemed all over the place, and the overall concept was a bore.
Dry. That's really the one word I can use to describe the acting style of Casey Affleck. I've always thought of him as a mediocre actor at best. Yes, Good Will Hunting was a fantastic film, but honestly, Matt Damon and Ben Affleck are better actors than Casey. I feel that every time I watch a Casey Affleck film, he's really nervous about something. His voice shakes, and he never really shows any true emotion. It seems like he doesn't care. Well I'll tell you what, he should care. He should realize that the acting job he does in a movie like this is the biggest part. Casey plays dry, mediocre roles. Maybe that's just his niche.
Focusing back on this atrocity they call movie, the story was weak, the characters were weak, the emotional aspect was weak. For no reason at all things begin to happen. I'm sure they happened for a reason, but who could tell with the droning, unbalanced voices? Speaking with a southern, out dated accent is one thing. But mumbling nonsense as if you're speaking under your breath is another. The urge to get up and check my phone for messages is the first sign that something is wrong with the movie. Dry, non-entertaining, utter nonsensical movies that actually have a good premice but no direction really get to me. Affleck is the worse of the two Affleck brothers in acting (that's right, I said it). So to wrap up. Waste of time. Waste of money. Waste of on-demand purchase. Get it right Winterbottom. You're not going to have a successful movie if Jessica Alba is only in the first 15 minutes and Kate Hudson looks fat.
Stars: 1/2
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Get Him to the Greek
Get Him to the Greek
2010
Directed by: Nicholas Stoller
Starring: Jonah Hill, Russel Brand
There's something appealing about Jonah Hill and Russel Brand coming together for 2 hours of mayhem and misunderstanding. Predictability led the way in this "spin-off" of Forgetting Sarah Marshall. Now at first I didn't like FSM, but after watching it a second time, I grew to like it. I do not feel I would have the same reaction if I saw this again. Did I laugh? Yes. Did I care about the characters? No. I had no care about anything going on except getting to the next joke.
Jonah Hill plays a record producer trying to make his way to the top. P Diddy (or whatever the hell he goes by now) is his fast talking, Ari Gold-like boss. Diddy tells Hill to go to London to retrieve Brand for an anniversary concert in LA in 72 hours. Of course Brand, being a washed-up rock star, does not go so fast. He is not reluctant, but he has a mentality that coursing through life will bring him happiness.
Russel Brand plays the predictable, lovable rocker. Jonah Hill plays the predictable, fat boy fan. The jokes are very few and far between. I laughed at a few parts, but honestly it felt like they were trying too hard. For the most part, I am a fan of this genre. The quick-talking, hilarity ensuing, slightly dramatic pursuits. But it seems that the heart was brought in too much on this one. This was the same for Funny People. Hill and Brand played colorless characters that you never really seem to care about.
There is a side story of Hill's girlfriend issues, which again, I didn't care for. The lack of humor and the strong presence of trying to make this about how we need to coddle rock stars really brought the wrong type of movie to the screen. I felt like I was watching a sequel to Dude, Where's My Car, except Ashton Kutcher is funnier. I enjoy the heart aspect sometimes, but I felt that it was a little overplayed. The best part was a specific scene in a Las Vegas hotel room. But only that scene had a few funny parts.
Trying too hard is not the way to make a movie. A hilarious movie (The Hangover, for example) seemed effortless. Hilarity and a fun story to follow should be the components of this kind of comedy. I'm not sure what the writers were trying to do with this movie. Maybe they were trying to make it heartfelt. Maybe they were trying to make it a run-around comedy with few jokes and even fewer high points. I felt as if most people in the theater were only laughing because of the actors on the screen and not because of things they were doing or saying. People feel inclined to laugh when they see someone who is known to be funny. This movie did not make Jonah Hill or Russel Brand any funnier.
Stars (out of 4): * 1/2
2010
Directed by: Nicholas Stoller
Starring: Jonah Hill, Russel Brand
There's something appealing about Jonah Hill and Russel Brand coming together for 2 hours of mayhem and misunderstanding. Predictability led the way in this "spin-off" of Forgetting Sarah Marshall. Now at first I didn't like FSM, but after watching it a second time, I grew to like it. I do not feel I would have the same reaction if I saw this again. Did I laugh? Yes. Did I care about the characters? No. I had no care about anything going on except getting to the next joke.
Jonah Hill plays a record producer trying to make his way to the top. P Diddy (or whatever the hell he goes by now) is his fast talking, Ari Gold-like boss. Diddy tells Hill to go to London to retrieve Brand for an anniversary concert in LA in 72 hours. Of course Brand, being a washed-up rock star, does not go so fast. He is not reluctant, but he has a mentality that coursing through life will bring him happiness.
Russel Brand plays the predictable, lovable rocker. Jonah Hill plays the predictable, fat boy fan. The jokes are very few and far between. I laughed at a few parts, but honestly it felt like they were trying too hard. For the most part, I am a fan of this genre. The quick-talking, hilarity ensuing, slightly dramatic pursuits. But it seems that the heart was brought in too much on this one. This was the same for Funny People. Hill and Brand played colorless characters that you never really seem to care about.
There is a side story of Hill's girlfriend issues, which again, I didn't care for. The lack of humor and the strong presence of trying to make this about how we need to coddle rock stars really brought the wrong type of movie to the screen. I felt like I was watching a sequel to Dude, Where's My Car, except Ashton Kutcher is funnier. I enjoy the heart aspect sometimes, but I felt that it was a little overplayed. The best part was a specific scene in a Las Vegas hotel room. But only that scene had a few funny parts.
Trying too hard is not the way to make a movie. A hilarious movie (The Hangover, for example) seemed effortless. Hilarity and a fun story to follow should be the components of this kind of comedy. I'm not sure what the writers were trying to do with this movie. Maybe they were trying to make it heartfelt. Maybe they were trying to make it a run-around comedy with few jokes and even fewer high points. I felt as if most people in the theater were only laughing because of the actors on the screen and not because of things they were doing or saying. People feel inclined to laugh when they see someone who is known to be funny. This movie did not make Jonah Hill or Russel Brand any funnier.
Stars (out of 4): * 1/2
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Iron Man 2
Iron Man 2
2010
Directed By: Jon Favreau
Starring: Robert Downey Jr., Mickey Rourke
Now, I'm not a comic book fan. But for some reason, I get very excited about these movies. The big-budget, explosion-ridden movies. They are intriguing. The first Iron Man was awesome. It was well written, acted, and mostly everything about the story reeled you in for an exciting 2 hours. This one was good, but lacking in a few areas.
Robert Downey Jr has proved over the last few years that he is a phenomenal actor. When he speaks, the entire room stops. Everyone hangs on every word that Tony Stark blurts out. His delivery is flawless, and the overall rapport between the characters seems effortless. Never would I think the flow of character development would be so smooth in a comic book movie. The consistency of the characters make the new movie flow from the first one.
Of course, the first movie concentrated on the story of the creation of Iron Man. Which is usually how these things go. But Iron Man did something different. In the sequel, they did not try to squeeze in a million bad guys for him to defeat. There is one bad guy. One foe for Iron Man to overcome. Now of course there are those other foes like the US government and his own self deprivation. But overall, it had less of a comic book feel and more of a hero feel.
The movie focused more on the man underneath the Iron Man suit than the costume itself. The subtle lead-in for the highly anticipated Avengers movie was intriguing but did not take away from the story at hand. And of course, with today's technology, it seems almost unnecessary to mention the special effects, but they were very good as well.
The few things I didn't like did not have too much burden on my experience. Don Cheadle's character seemed a little too flip-floppy for me. He seemed all over the place and couldn't make up his mind on which side he was on. There was also a small issue with some fight scenes. The birthday party fight scene with the non-fitting music seemed a little dragged out, and something from a bad episode of Family Guy. Also, the final fight scene seemed a little short-lived. Usually I find final fight scenes in comic book movies to be too long, this one seemed a little too short. But of course there is always the possibility of another sequel, and though I was confused at first over the scene after the credits, it was explained to me, and I do look forward to the next few years of Marvel comic book movies.
Iron Man 2 was exactly as I expected. Action packed, witty, and 2 hours of pure entertainment. Jon Favreau has seemed to find his niche. Though Elf was pretty awesome as well.
Stars (out of 4): ***
2010
Directed By: Jon Favreau
Starring: Robert Downey Jr., Mickey Rourke
Now, I'm not a comic book fan. But for some reason, I get very excited about these movies. The big-budget, explosion-ridden movies. They are intriguing. The first Iron Man was awesome. It was well written, acted, and mostly everything about the story reeled you in for an exciting 2 hours. This one was good, but lacking in a few areas.
Robert Downey Jr has proved over the last few years that he is a phenomenal actor. When he speaks, the entire room stops. Everyone hangs on every word that Tony Stark blurts out. His delivery is flawless, and the overall rapport between the characters seems effortless. Never would I think the flow of character development would be so smooth in a comic book movie. The consistency of the characters make the new movie flow from the first one.
Of course, the first movie concentrated on the story of the creation of Iron Man. Which is usually how these things go. But Iron Man did something different. In the sequel, they did not try to squeeze in a million bad guys for him to defeat. There is one bad guy. One foe for Iron Man to overcome. Now of course there are those other foes like the US government and his own self deprivation. But overall, it had less of a comic book feel and more of a hero feel.
The movie focused more on the man underneath the Iron Man suit than the costume itself. The subtle lead-in for the highly anticipated Avengers movie was intriguing but did not take away from the story at hand. And of course, with today's technology, it seems almost unnecessary to mention the special effects, but they were very good as well.
The few things I didn't like did not have too much burden on my experience. Don Cheadle's character seemed a little too flip-floppy for me. He seemed all over the place and couldn't make up his mind on which side he was on. There was also a small issue with some fight scenes. The birthday party fight scene with the non-fitting music seemed a little dragged out, and something from a bad episode of Family Guy. Also, the final fight scene seemed a little short-lived. Usually I find final fight scenes in comic book movies to be too long, this one seemed a little too short. But of course there is always the possibility of another sequel, and though I was confused at first over the scene after the credits, it was explained to me, and I do look forward to the next few years of Marvel comic book movies.
Iron Man 2 was exactly as I expected. Action packed, witty, and 2 hours of pure entertainment. Jon Favreau has seemed to find his niche. Though Elf was pretty awesome as well.
Stars (out of 4): ***
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
A Nightmare On Elm Street
A Nightmare On Elm Street
2010
Directed By: Samuel Bayer
Starring: Jackie Earle Haley, Kyle Gallner
I find these movie remakes being a giant waste of money. I admit that I am part of the generation that has a terrible attention span and wants blood, blood, blood. However, the remake of this very classic slasher film is pretty dysfunctional. Story line: horrible. Acting: abhorrent. Freddy character: draining. I never though I'd get sick of hearing Freddy Kreuger speak. The fact is, there will be no Freddy Kreuger other than Robert Englund.
My first experience of Freddy's character was in the 2003 "Freddy vs. Jason". Now that film was just as senseless, but at least it was somewhat interesting. Taking the 1984 original and butchering it (no pun intended) was a mistake. It makes me upset that Wes Craven's genius is thrown down the toilet. "Freddy vs. Jason" had some interesting characters and a story line I could get behind. You got exactly what you expected.
This remake of "A Nightmare on Elm Street" seemed to have no direction. The classic scenes of the girl being thrown around the room held up a bit, but honestly there was no care about the characters what so ever. The movie jumped around from character to character and you never really know who the "main characters" really are.
Now, going into it, I knew what to expect. However, I did expect a little more to be done for me regarding the movie. This was a remake of a CLASSIC. Wes Craven's first nightmare is a staple and a pioneer for the slasher flick. Freddy is a household name of terror and fear. I feel that this movie just took him down a few notches in the terror belt. There comes a time when loud noises just will not do the job of scaring people anymore. This was a poor representation of a collection of nightmares from 1984-2003. It was not as bad as the remake of Friday the 13th, but it was not very good.
Stars: * 1/2
2010
Directed By: Samuel Bayer
Starring: Jackie Earle Haley, Kyle Gallner
I find these movie remakes being a giant waste of money. I admit that I am part of the generation that has a terrible attention span and wants blood, blood, blood. However, the remake of this very classic slasher film is pretty dysfunctional. Story line: horrible. Acting: abhorrent. Freddy character: draining. I never though I'd get sick of hearing Freddy Kreuger speak. The fact is, there will be no Freddy Kreuger other than Robert Englund.
My first experience of Freddy's character was in the 2003 "Freddy vs. Jason". Now that film was just as senseless, but at least it was somewhat interesting. Taking the 1984 original and butchering it (no pun intended) was a mistake. It makes me upset that Wes Craven's genius is thrown down the toilet. "Freddy vs. Jason" had some interesting characters and a story line I could get behind. You got exactly what you expected.
This remake of "A Nightmare on Elm Street" seemed to have no direction. The classic scenes of the girl being thrown around the room held up a bit, but honestly there was no care about the characters what so ever. The movie jumped around from character to character and you never really know who the "main characters" really are.
Now, going into it, I knew what to expect. However, I did expect a little more to be done for me regarding the movie. This was a remake of a CLASSIC. Wes Craven's first nightmare is a staple and a pioneer for the slasher flick. Freddy is a household name of terror and fear. I feel that this movie just took him down a few notches in the terror belt. There comes a time when loud noises just will not do the job of scaring people anymore. This was a poor representation of a collection of nightmares from 1984-2003. It was not as bad as the remake of Friday the 13th, but it was not very good.
Stars: * 1/2
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)