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): * * * *
Friday, June 18, 2010
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
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Kick-Ass
Kick-Ass
2010
Directed By: Matthew Vaughn
Starring: Aaron Johnson, Nicolas Cage
Superhero film. Done before? Well yeah. This movie comes out of nowhere showing a lonely high school kid who decides to become a superhero. He buys a scuba costume and walks around with batons. The fact is, he never really does anything. It seems like every time he is ready to be a superhero, someone else comes along and saves his ass. The weird thing is, that when Dave is dressed in his hero costume, he sounds a lot like Tobey Maguire in Spiderman. I'm serious. I don't know if they did that on purpose, but it's just something I noticed.
I'd say about 90% of the movie is predictable. And I know that's not the point. But I would love a little unpredictability from a superhero movie. I did like the movie. I thought it was funny and somewhat creative. But I get really tired of character actors constantly being the same person over and over. McLovin seemed like McLovin. So yeah, I don't really have too much to say. The predictability was lame but it was a good movie. It entertained me.
I would like to have a little soapbox about people bringing their young children (like 4 years old) to a movie that clearly is rated R. If you have kids you have a responsibility. The End. You need to realize that going to a movie is not as easy as it once was. Be a human and take care of your kid. If going to the movies is that important, hire a sitter. Plenty of people are looking for work, it's not that hard. And yeah, kids will probably use bad words and such early in life, but bad parenting is not going to help one little bit. Kids need to be kids. Idiots, be concious of what the hell you're doing.
Stars (out of 4): ** 1/2
2010
Directed By: Matthew Vaughn
Starring: Aaron Johnson, Nicolas Cage
Superhero film. Done before? Well yeah. This movie comes out of nowhere showing a lonely high school kid who decides to become a superhero. He buys a scuba costume and walks around with batons. The fact is, he never really does anything. It seems like every time he is ready to be a superhero, someone else comes along and saves his ass. The weird thing is, that when Dave is dressed in his hero costume, he sounds a lot like Tobey Maguire in Spiderman. I'm serious. I don't know if they did that on purpose, but it's just something I noticed.
I'd say about 90% of the movie is predictable. And I know that's not the point. But I would love a little unpredictability from a superhero movie. I did like the movie. I thought it was funny and somewhat creative. But I get really tired of character actors constantly being the same person over and over. McLovin seemed like McLovin. So yeah, I don't really have too much to say. The predictability was lame but it was a good movie. It entertained me.
I would like to have a little soapbox about people bringing their young children (like 4 years old) to a movie that clearly is rated R. If you have kids you have a responsibility. The End. You need to realize that going to a movie is not as easy as it once was. Be a human and take care of your kid. If going to the movies is that important, hire a sitter. Plenty of people are looking for work, it's not that hard. And yeah, kids will probably use bad words and such early in life, but bad parenting is not going to help one little bit. Kids need to be kids. Idiots, be concious of what the hell you're doing.
Stars (out of 4): ** 1/2
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
For Love of the Game
For Love of the Game
1999
Directed by: Sam Raimi
Starring: Kevin Costner, Kelly Preston
I never thought I'd ever find myself rooting against the Yankees in any type of media form. This film, however, brings you into the world of legendary pitcher Billy Chapel as he takes the mound in his very possible last game ever. While pitching a gem and being perfect throughout, the story throws you into the world of his on-and-off relationship with Jane. You see how the two met, how her insecurities and his fame interfere with their relationship.
The story takes a slow, but necessary turn into this side story of the love. Throughout the film you see his battles with love, physical condition, and baseball. Parts of the film were a little corny, but it was good. I feel that because I actually found myself caring about the main character. Like I said earlier, rooting against the Yankees was tough, but it happened. I was rooting for the perfect game to come together. The Yankees are painted like a bunch of bad guys, which I didn't like, but I understand.
It was a fitting movie to watch during the first week of the baseball season. It brought through that mystique of any baseball movie. Watching a film about baseball is unlike watching a film about any other sport. The tradition is always brought through in such fine form that it makes you want to step onto a diamond.
This film brings out the true tradition of baseball, love, and the juggling of both. I liked it. It was a tad long for the type of film it was, but I didn't mind it as much as I usually would. Still didn't like rooting against the Yanks.
Stars: * * *
1999
Directed by: Sam Raimi
Starring: Kevin Costner, Kelly Preston
I never thought I'd ever find myself rooting against the Yankees in any type of media form. This film, however, brings you into the world of legendary pitcher Billy Chapel as he takes the mound in his very possible last game ever. While pitching a gem and being perfect throughout, the story throws you into the world of his on-and-off relationship with Jane. You see how the two met, how her insecurities and his fame interfere with their relationship.
The story takes a slow, but necessary turn into this side story of the love. Throughout the film you see his battles with love, physical condition, and baseball. Parts of the film were a little corny, but it was good. I feel that because I actually found myself caring about the main character. Like I said earlier, rooting against the Yankees was tough, but it happened. I was rooting for the perfect game to come together. The Yankees are painted like a bunch of bad guys, which I didn't like, but I understand.
It was a fitting movie to watch during the first week of the baseball season. It brought through that mystique of any baseball movie. Watching a film about baseball is unlike watching a film about any other sport. The tradition is always brought through in such fine form that it makes you want to step onto a diamond.
This film brings out the true tradition of baseball, love, and the juggling of both. I liked it. It was a tad long for the type of film it was, but I didn't mind it as much as I usually would. Still didn't like rooting against the Yanks.
Stars: * * *
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)