A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)

I could sum it up by saying I felt the same way as when I watched "Star Trek" last year:  on its own the movie is OK, but in comparison with its predecessor it's not that good.  I only watched the original Elm Street once and that was on basic cable, though I have to admit of all the late 70s-80s super killers Freddy Krueger scared the crap out of me.  I think it was just that creepy burned face.  One thing that bothered me then with the remake is that the face looks wrong.  It doesn't look as scary or even very real.  It looks like some CGI'd it, like "The Mummy" or something.

The plot follows along the same lines as the original.  Some high school kids are terrorized by the evil spirit of Freddy Krueger (Jackie Earle Haley), who wears an ugly striped sweater and wields a hand of razors that he uses to slash his victims to pieces.  He appears in the kids' dreams where their parents can't protect them.  Not that any of their parents seem to be interested in protecting them, or are even around 90% of the time.

After a few deaths, two kids are left standing.  Nancy (Rooney Mara, aka soon to be known as The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo) and her friend Quentin (who's obviously a fan of Team Edward from his pastiness).  They try to figure out who Freddy is and how they can destroy him, all without falling asleep.

I was looking forward to this even though I wasn't a big fan of the original.  Having seen "Little Children" and "Watchmen" I thought Haley would be well-suited to playing the psychotic pedophile.  And generally he's creepy and scary, but is he Freddy Krueger?  Not really.  He doesn't have the same panache as the Robert Englund version.  Maybe some would say the original was kind of cheesy, but that's what made it enjoyable and helped it spawn eight sequels or so.

That's kind of the way it is with the movie in general.  It would be an OK horror movie if taken on its own, but since it's called "Nightmare on Elm Street" there's a lot to live up to.  The movie just doesn't.

BTW, I watched this after midnight, alone, in the dark and slept like a baby afterwards.  So in my estimation, not that scary.

That is all.

My score:  50/100 (2 stars)
Metacritic score: 35/100 (1.5 stars)

Robin Hood (2010)

They really should have called this "Robin Hood Begins."  Essentially this is the same as a recent spate of "reimagined" origin stories like "Batman Begins" or "Casino Royale" or "Star Trek."  Really only the first one of those worked for me; the other two strayed too far from the source material for me.

In this, Robin Longstrides (Russell Crowe) is a warrior with King Richard the "Lion Hearted" returning home from the Crusades.  He has his buddy Will Scarlet with him and soon meets and befriends Little John as well.  King Richard, Robin, and the others are ransacking French lands for the money and supplies needed to get back to England.  But then during a battle Richard is killed.

Afterwards, Sir Robert Loxley, is taking the crown back to England when he's ambushed by the French and killed.  Robin Longstrides and company drive off the attackers.  Robert asks Robin to take his sword back to his father in Nottingham.  So Robin takes Robert's clothes and steals his identity to get on board the ship to England.  He gives the crown to the king's mother, who in turn crowns her son John.  (It's been a few years before history class, but I thought you had more of a process than that.)

Then Robin and his band head up to Nottingham.  There he meets Lady Marian (Cate Blanchett), Robert Loxley's wife.  Robert's father is old, blind, and dying, so he asks Robin to pose as his son so that the king won't be able to take over the land.  As you'd expect, Robin and Marian start to fall in love.

Meanwhile, John's most trusted adviser is plotting to stir up rebellion in order to deliver England to the French.  The only way to stop him is for Robin, King John, and everyone else to band together.  Since they aren't speaking French in England now, you can probably guess what happens.

This movie was not as boring as I feared, but it wasn't all that great either.  The biggest mistake was director Ridley Scott casting his old buddy Russell Crowe in the lead.  At 46, Crowe is too old to play a dashing outlaw, especially one at the start of his career.  He's also too dour to be the charismatic ringleader of the Merry Men.  From a practical standpoint it also doesn't make sense to cast someone that old because it sort of lessens the sequel potential.

On the plus side, at least the traditional elements were there:  Robin, Little John, Marian, Friar Tuck, the Sheriff, King John, and so forth.  Sherwood Forest doesn't really come into it until the end, though.  At least though it wasn't like "Casino Royale" where they took out Q, most of the neat gadgets, and so forth that Bond pictures.  So it's got that going for it.

The fight scenes are pretty reminiscent of Scott's "Kingdom of Heaven" and "Gladiator" which are both superior to this, though "Robin Hood" is more enjoyable on a popcorn level than "Kingdom of Heaven."  There seem to be a couple points in the story where things are a bit rushed, especially at the end.

But overall, it's better than the Kevin Costner version.  Which isn't saying much.  I'd still rather watch "Robin Hood:  Men in Tights."

That is all.

My score:  62/100 (2.5 stars)
Metacritic score:  53/100 (2 stars)

Harry Brown

If you've watched movies like "Death Wish" or "Gran Torino" then you pretty much already know how "Harry Brown" is going to play out.  The only difference is that this vigilante movie is set in London instead of a US city like New York or Detroit or Chicago.  But crime, gangs, and drugs are pretty much universal in any big city.

Harry Brown (Michael Caine) was a decorated Marine during fighting with Northern Ireland years ago.  That was until he married his wife Cath, when he swore never to fight again.  He settled down and they had a daughter who died at age 13--a fact you don't know unless you watch the deleted scenes.

In present day Harry is old and his wife is dying from cancer--another fact you don't really know unless you watch the deleted scenes; all you know in the regular movie is that she's dying.  At the same time, his only friend Leonard is being harrassed by street punks led by the sadistic Noel.

Not long after Harry's wife dies, Leonard gets fed up and decides to confront Noel and the other punks.  As you'd expect, this doesn't go well.  Leonard is killed and Harry decides that he's going to take revenge on those responsible.

The rest of it pretty much goes according to formula.  At least the film stays somewhat grounded in the real world in that Harry never becomes Jason Bourne, performing any gravity-defying stunts.  At the same time, it never really strays too far from the safe and predictable.  As I sort of indicated, some of the deeper stuff about the characters got cut from the theatrical version.

The actors probably deserved a script that took a few more chances, but it's not a terrible film either.  If you liked "Gran Torino" then it's much the same, except no message about tolerance or anything.

That is all.

My score:  62/100 (2.5 stars)

Metacritic score:  55/100 (2 stars)

The Ghost Writer

This may come as a shock, but most books written by celebrities aren't really written by the celebrities themselves.  They use what's known as a "ghost writer."  The ghost writer does interviews with the subject celebrity, writes the manuscript, and then usually receives no credit for it--hence why they are called "ghosts."

When former British PM Adam Lang's ghost writer turns up dead on a beach from an apparent suicide, a British screenwriter (Ewan MacGregor, credited as "The Ghost" and come to think of it, I don't remember if he had a real name in the film.  It's kind of like the assassin character in "Layer Cake" that way.) gets a call from his agent promising him $250,000 if he goes to Lang's New England compound to finish the book.  Naturally he does this, though first he's mugged after being given another manuscript by a lawyer.  (BTW, The Ghost's publisher is played by a very fat, very bald Jim Belushi.  What the hell happened to him?  He looked like he was trying out for a remake of "Kojack."  Seriously.)

Things don't go much better once he gets to the compound.  Lang (Pierce Brosnan) is under siege as a war crimes court is indicting him for turning over supposed terrorists to the CIA for torture.  His head secretary Amelia Bly (Kim Cattrall) keeps the place under very strict security, to the point where The Ghost isn't even supposed to use the Flash drive with the original manuscript on it.  Lang's relationship with his wife Ruth (Olivia Williams) is strained and you instantly suspect that A) Lang is fooling around with the secretary and B) Ruth is up to something.  One of these is definitely true.

Once Lang goes off to Washington, The Ghost begins looking into what happened to his predecessor.  Is it surprising anyone to say that it wasn't an accident?  I mean, would there be a movie if it was an accident?  OK, maybe, but not an interesting one.

That's about as far as I should go with the plot summary or else I might ruin the mystery.  And really this is more of a mystery than a "thriller."  There is a sort of chase that involves The Ghost dodging some goons on a ferry, but it's not like "The Bourne Identity" or anything.  What disappointed me is that Lang isn't involved enough in the plot.  He's there initially and then leaves for over half the movie, returning at the end.  I thought there'd be more of a relationship and bonding between him and The Ghost.  (Because, really, Pierce Brosnan is just awesome.  Really, what hasn't he been great in, except maybe "Mars Attacks" and "Mama Mia"?  Also, Ewan MacGregor is pretty awesome too.  He was clearly the best thing going in the crappy "Star Wars" prequels and other movies like "Trainspotters" and "The Men Who Stare At Goats" are good too.  So really, having those two guys playing off each other would have been great!  Sadly, not enough was made of that opportunity.)  Also, it was too obvious that Ruth was involved somehow, though I won't say how.

There's also the sort of creepy irony in that Lang has to stay in the United States out of fear of being extradited to the war crimes court by another country.  The movie was co-written and directed by Roman Polanski, who inversely can't set foot in the United States because of a murder conviction, from which he fled many years ago.  (This was recently in the news again when he was arrested in Switzerland, though ultimately not extradited to the US.)  So by involving that with Lang, it almost seems like Polanski involving himself in the movie.  How you feel about that might depend on how you feel about his legal situation.  (I really have no opinion because most of that happened when I was a little kid.)

Anyway, it's still an interesting movie, though it drags a little.  It's the kind of movie where even after everything seems wrapped up, you know there's got to be one more twist to it.  It's also the kind of movie where you might want to watch it twice to see what clues you missed on the first time.  I didn't, but I also didn't have time to watch a 2-hour-plus movie twice.

That is all.

My score:  65/100 (2.5 stars)
Metacritic score:  77/100 (3 stars)

The Joneses

The old expression is that you shouldn't try to "Keep up with the Joneses."  In the movie "The Joneses," however, a "stealth marketing" firm hopes that you will.  In lieu of traditional advertising or even "viral marketing" like using YouTube, Facebook, or Twitter, they go a step farther by planting a group of actors in an affluent neighborhood and setting them up with all sorts of trendy goods to plug.

The "family" is aptly named the Joneses.  The movie begins when they arrive in a gated community in their new Audi and wearing fancy new clothes and so forth.  Patriarch Steve (David Duchovny) is new to the game.  His "wife" Kate (Demi Moore, looking hotter than she ever has before) is the old pro and Steve's boss.  Their two teenaged "children" Nick and Jen are also old hands at this.  (What I wondered is why they have two teenagers and not younger children.  Shouldn't they have like 3-4 kids to hit on every age group?  That probably would have been too messy in terms of the story.)

Basically how it works is that for a year the Jones clan pretend to be a family and show off all their high end goods to convince the people around them to buy that stuff.  Nick and Jen infiltrate the local high school while Kate targets the hairdressers and Steve hits the links at the country club.  By virtue that they all are very attractive and friendly and have really neat stuff, slowly everyone buys what they have and sales for those companies go up.  They even have a "grandma" who stops by on occasion to break down numbers with them.

But soon things begin to unravel for the Joneses.  Steve has trouble adapting to the concept of being a family while not being a family--he sleeps in a separate bedroom from Kate.  She struggles with her feelings for Steve and that he starts to outperform her in the sales department.  Nick has issues with a girl named Naomi whom he befriends--and her brother.  And Jen has a problem in being attracted to older men, which includes Steve early on.  There's also the problem of their neighbors Larry and Summer, who do try to keep up with the Joneses, much to their detriment.

I really liked this movie.  It never seemed to drag throughout its 90 minute running time.  The idea of rampant consumerism and our need to compete with each other is a good one, especially at this time of year with back to school sales followed by the XMas shopping season, which seems to go on forever anymore.  But more than that, there's also a lesson on the meaning of family.  While the Jones "family" starts off as a group of actors, by the end they start bonding like a real family.

So overall it's a fun movie and the kind that makes you think a little too.  (And did I mention that Demi Moore looks really hot?  And her "daughter" ain't hard on the eyes either.  Yowza!)

That is all.

My score:  75/100 (3 stars)
Metacritic score:  55/100 (2 stars)

Creation

I remember a couple years ago when the movie "21" came out I thought it was OK, but it was too fictionalized.  The History Channel documentary about the real group of MIT students who learned how to fleece Vegas by counting cards was a lot more interesting because it was real instead of Hollywood-ized with cheesy plot twists and romances and stuff.  The same could be said of "Creation" where a biography of Charles Darwin would be a lot more satisfying because it wouldn't be as Hollywood-ized.

"Creation" doesn't focus on Darwin's entire life.  Mostly it focuses on when he's writing his blockbuster book "The Origin of Species."  For someone who changed the way many people see the world, Darwin was not a social crusader.  He was a shy, nerdy guy who lived in the English countryside with his many children and his wife Emma.  While Darwin is a scientist and has lost his faith in God, his wife is very religious.

As he begins his book, Darwin is beset with physical and mental problems.  His body is failing him with tremors and fevers.  At the same time he's haunted--literally--by the death of his daughter Annie, who shared Darwin's love of science.

Of course it's a foregone conclusion that Darwin writes his book and it's published.  How he manages to do this requires some pre-Freudian psychiatric help.

Anyway, as I said in the beginning, a documentary on Darwin would probably be more interesting and insightful.  Whether you believe in Creationism or evolution, there's not really anything here that will challenge your beliefs either way.  The story focuses mostly on Darwin getting his groove back, which is a shame because there's so much more depth and importance to his story and his work.

Paul Bettany does a good job though of presenting Darwin as a man who changed the world but didn't really want to.  His real life wife (as of the writing of this) Jennifer Connelly isn't given much to do as his wife except occasionally to question him.

Overall I'd say this is one you can miss.

That is all.

My score:  50/100 (2 stars)
Metacritic score:  51/100 (2 stars)

Kick-Ass

I had some reservations about this movie after reading Ebert's review of it when it first came out.  Overall, though, it wasn't bad.  It is violent and sometimes gory--like when someone's leg gets cut off with some kind of spear thing--so you really don't want your young kids seeing it.  Mostly it works best if you consider it a parody of overly violent comic books/graphic novels that have cropped up in the last 30 years or so.

When it starts out Dave is pretty much like Peter Parker in the first Spider-Man movie, only with average intelligence.  After getting mugged (again) he decides to buy a wetsuit and somehow gets some batons and decides to go out and fight crime.  Though you'd think that a comic book fan would realize you can't just go put on a costume and fight crime, not unless you're an alien (Superman) or in some freak accident (90% of Marvel heroes).  Or maybe if you get doped up on steroids (Captain America) or undergo years of ninja training (Batman) or find a suit of magic armor (like this).

But he doesn't, so naturally he gets his butt kicked.  Still, after he manages to drive off some gang members and it's caught on video, he becomes an Internet sensation.  This annoys a real superhero calling himself Big Daddy (Nicolas Cage) who's been a lot smarter about it by keeping on the down low while training his young daughter Mindy how to be a deadly ninja assassin called Hit Girl.  Big Daddy's been trying to knock off a gangster who put him in jail years ago and operates a lumber business.

Things get more dangerous for Dave when the gangster wrongly thinks that Kick-Ass is responsible for a raid on his operation that was in fact carried out by Big Daddy.  The gangster's son (the McLovin kid from Superbad) sets a trap by becoming a "hero" called Red Mist.

It all becomes your typical over-the-top comic book-type story from there.  Again, if you don't take this very seriously then it's fine.  For instance, the Hit Girl character pretty well illustrates the creepiness of kid sidekicks.  I mean, do you really want a bunch of prepubescent ninja assassins running around?  That scares the hell out of me.

Otherwise the only real complaint would be that Nicolas Cage sucks up another superhero movie after the terrible "Ghost Rider."  The cheesy child molester mustache is bad enough, but then in Big Daddy mode he does his Adam West impersonation as well.  It would have made more sense to impersonate more modern Batmen like Michael Keaton or Christian Bale--not George Clooney.

Basically if you're a comics fan or superhero movie fan then this is pretty entertaining.  In some ways not as good as the Woody Harrellson vehicle "Defendor" I previously reviewed, though the effects are probably a little better.

That is all.

My score:  65/100 (2.5 stars)

Metacritic score:  66/100 (2.5 stars)