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
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)