(2.5/4 stars)
It's pretty obvious during the five minute conversation between the wanna-be Charlie's Angels (Tes, Kyla, and Dawn) that this movie desperately wants to be a Quentin Tarantino film. Which was bad news for me because I don't really like Tarantino's films. "Reservoir Dogs" is pretty good. That's what this seems to aspire to, though it doesn't quite make it.
This is the kind of movie where a lot of it is told in flashback, but I'll give it to you in chronological order, without trying to spoil too many surprises. As I said at the outset there are three young women Tes, Kyla, and Dawn. The latter two we can forget about because they die in the first ten minutes of the movie. Tes (Malin Ackerman) is a former strip club waitress/pickpocket who works for crime boss Mel (Bruce Willis) around the New Orleans area. She and her crew are assigned to go to a diner in the middle of nowhere to intercept a drug shipment (or something). The drugs/cash are the film's MacGuffin, the thing everyone is fighting over and yet they don't really matter.
But as we see early on things go wrong and Tes's underlings are killed. There's a double-cross and then another double-cross and then another double-cross. It'd take too long and spoil too much to say who all is double-crossing who.
Anyway, like the earlier "Smokin' Aces" this is a film by a Tarantino disciple that tries to mimic the master's work, but never quite gets there. It's got a lot of the same pieces, but feels too derivative. (Which is maybe why I never heard of it before it showed up on the Vine newsletter and was released on DVD.) If you're a fan of double-crosses and gore then this is a good rental, but I wouldn't buy it.
BTW, like the earlier "13" I got from Vine the DVD includes no extras. I don't know if the actual sale version does or not. If it does I can't evaluate them since I couldn't see them.
That is all.
Showing posts with label 2.5 stars. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2.5 stars. Show all posts
Saturday, December 24, 2011
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
The Social Network
That "The Social Network" has won numerous awards as the Best Film of 2010 pretty much sums up what a disappointing year it was for films in my opinion. I just watched this on DVD and I was pretty unimpressed. Really I think it would have made for a better hour-long CNBC documentary on Mark Zuckerberg and the founding of Facebook.
Writer Aaron Sorkin and director David Fincher try to inject some life into what is otherwise a pretty dull tale. Essentially what they do is try to set Zuckerberg up as a 21st Century Charlie Kane, going so far as to create a fictitious Rosebud in the form of a former girlfriend named Erica (Rooney Mara), whom Zuckerberg perhaps sees as "the one who got away." They also interweave testimony from two legal hearings against Zuckerberg.
One hearing is for a lawsuit brought on by his former partner Eduardo (Andrew Garfield, soon to be Spider-Man), who put up the cash for Zuckerberg to start "the facebook" which eventually became what we now know as Facebook. Eduardo thinks that the site needs to find some advertisers to make money, while Zuckerberg thinks that would compromise the "coolness" of the site. The former Harvard roommates eventually drift apart, much like Kane drifted apart from his former roommate, played by Joseph Cotten. And just like in "Citizen Kane" there's a final betrayal that fractures their relationship, leading to the lawsuit.
The other hearing is brought on by the Winklevoss twins and another guy, who wanted Zuckerberg to create a dating service called "Harvard Connection." But Zuckerberg had a better idea. Instead of just breaking things off with the twins, he makes excuses and then rolls out "the facebook" on his own, cutting them out of the loop. After exhausting other remedies, including going to Harvard's president, the twins and their partner sue Zuckerberg.
Actually while they were already pilfering so much of one of the greatest films in history, Sorkin and Fincher might as well have gone the rest of the way and used the same style of having a reporter interview everyone to try and find the real Zuckerberg. The real Zuckerberg is what's missing from this movie. We get to see that he's socially awkward, smart, a gifted programmer, and driven to succeed. I'm not sure we really get to see what makes him tick. We never get to see his parents. (Are they alive? Where do they live? Does he have siblings? Aunts, uncles, cousins? I have no idea. Maybe I should check his Facebook page.) "Citizen Kane" at least gave us some glimpses of Kane's background. "The Social Network" just has Zuckerberg springing fully formed from Harvard and bursting onto the scene.
Like Charlie Kane, the film shows Zuckerberg as essentially being a victim of his own success. By achieving fame and fortune he's alienated those (one, really) who cared about him. Probably if they made this movie ten years from now they could include where Zuckerberg builds his palatial house and lives in seclusion from the outside world after a failed attempt to become governor. Overall it's fine, but as I said, a straight documentary would have been more interesting to learn about Facebook and then you can always watch "Citizen Kane" for the rest of it.
Though the greatest accomplishment is that now I probably won't think of Jesse Eisenberg as "that guy who looks like Michael Cera and was in 'Zombieland.'" I have my doubts that he'll become an A-list star after this (I doubt he'll win the Oscar or Golden Globe), but he's on his way to some good parts now.
Anyway, I should probably go see "The King's Speech" which is the other heavyweight Oscar contender. I doubt it could be less impressive than this.
That is all.
My score: 62/100 (2.5 stars)
Metacritic score: 95/100 (4 stars)
Writer Aaron Sorkin and director David Fincher try to inject some life into what is otherwise a pretty dull tale. Essentially what they do is try to set Zuckerberg up as a 21st Century Charlie Kane, going so far as to create a fictitious Rosebud in the form of a former girlfriend named Erica (Rooney Mara), whom Zuckerberg perhaps sees as "the one who got away." They also interweave testimony from two legal hearings against Zuckerberg.
One hearing is for a lawsuit brought on by his former partner Eduardo (Andrew Garfield, soon to be Spider-Man), who put up the cash for Zuckerberg to start "the facebook" which eventually became what we now know as Facebook. Eduardo thinks that the site needs to find some advertisers to make money, while Zuckerberg thinks that would compromise the "coolness" of the site. The former Harvard roommates eventually drift apart, much like Kane drifted apart from his former roommate, played by Joseph Cotten. And just like in "Citizen Kane" there's a final betrayal that fractures their relationship, leading to the lawsuit.
The other hearing is brought on by the Winklevoss twins and another guy, who wanted Zuckerberg to create a dating service called "Harvard Connection." But Zuckerberg had a better idea. Instead of just breaking things off with the twins, he makes excuses and then rolls out "the facebook" on his own, cutting them out of the loop. After exhausting other remedies, including going to Harvard's president, the twins and their partner sue Zuckerberg.
Actually while they were already pilfering so much of one of the greatest films in history, Sorkin and Fincher might as well have gone the rest of the way and used the same style of having a reporter interview everyone to try and find the real Zuckerberg. The real Zuckerberg is what's missing from this movie. We get to see that he's socially awkward, smart, a gifted programmer, and driven to succeed. I'm not sure we really get to see what makes him tick. We never get to see his parents. (Are they alive? Where do they live? Does he have siblings? Aunts, uncles, cousins? I have no idea. Maybe I should check his Facebook page.) "Citizen Kane" at least gave us some glimpses of Kane's background. "The Social Network" just has Zuckerberg springing fully formed from Harvard and bursting onto the scene.
Like Charlie Kane, the film shows Zuckerberg as essentially being a victim of his own success. By achieving fame and fortune he's alienated those (one, really) who cared about him. Probably if they made this movie ten years from now they could include where Zuckerberg builds his palatial house and lives in seclusion from the outside world after a failed attempt to become governor. Overall it's fine, but as I said, a straight documentary would have been more interesting to learn about Facebook and then you can always watch "Citizen Kane" for the rest of it.
Though the greatest accomplishment is that now I probably won't think of Jesse Eisenberg as "that guy who looks like Michael Cera and was in 'Zombieland.'" I have my doubts that he'll become an A-list star after this (I doubt he'll win the Oscar or Golden Globe), but he's on his way to some good parts now.
Anyway, I should probably go see "The King's Speech" which is the other heavyweight Oscar contender. I doubt it could be less impressive than this.
That is all.
My score: 62/100 (2.5 stars)
Metacritic score: 95/100 (4 stars)
Sunday, November 28, 2010
The Expendables
"The Expendables" obviously isn't a great movie in terms of great films like "Citizen Kane" or even "The Godfather." It is at least a movie that knows it's not a great movie and to its credit it doesn't try to be anything it isn't. Basically what you expect with Sly Stallone, Jason Statham, and Jet Li (among others) involved is a kick-ass action movie with lots of blood and stuff blowing up. And that's what you get.
In typical retro action movie style, there's a thin story that provides the excuse to blow stuff up. There's a phony island in the Gulf of Mexico or something called Vilena, where a rogue CIA agent named James Munroe (Eric Roberts) has created a puppet government so that he can produce/sell drugs without sharing any profits.
The Expendables of the title are a group of mercenaries led by Barney (Stallone) and his partner Christmas (Statham) who get the job to take out the evil general in charge of the island. This is provides a cameo for both Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger which wasn't necessary, but is just a fun tip of the cap for great action heroes of yore.
Barney and Christmas recon the island, where they run into Sandra, who is the general's daughter but has gone to ground to avoid running into daddy. Things go sour, with Barney and Christmas barely escaping. But then Barney decides to go back mainly to get Sandra out of there. Except he doesn't know that one member of his team has betrayed him.
The rest is a lot of blowing stuff up. The effects aren't all that great, but you get plenty of explosions--buildings and humans. The really big, loud gun one member of Barney's team uses is particularly nasty--and freaking cool. It's the kind of gun I'd love to have in one of those first-person shooter games.
As I said, the story is paper thin, the characters are flat, and the dialog is corny, but that's what you expect. We're not talking about cinema here.
The only real failure was that if you're going to create a super team of past action heroes, you need Van Damme, Segal, and of course the almighty Chuck Norris. Jackie Chan would be cool too. I mean come on, the first two are just doing straight-to-video movies and the only mentions Chuck Norris gets are in connection with those jokes floating around the Internet. So really, it's not like it should have cost that much money.
Actually now that Schwarzenegger is no longer the governor (or soon not to be) maybe they can do a sequel where his team could have the guys I just mentioned and they initially go up against Stallone's team before joining forces to take out some bad guy. Wow, someone get Stallone's agent on the phone! This thing pretty much writes itself!
If you want a good retro action flick, this is one to watch. I wouldn't buy it, but it's worth the rental.
That is all.
My score: 62/100 (2.5 stars)
Metacritic score: 45/100 (2 stars)
In typical retro action movie style, there's a thin story that provides the excuse to blow stuff up. There's a phony island in the Gulf of Mexico or something called Vilena, where a rogue CIA agent named James Munroe (Eric Roberts) has created a puppet government so that he can produce/sell drugs without sharing any profits.
The Expendables of the title are a group of mercenaries led by Barney (Stallone) and his partner Christmas (Statham) who get the job to take out the evil general in charge of the island. This is provides a cameo for both Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger which wasn't necessary, but is just a fun tip of the cap for great action heroes of yore.
Barney and Christmas recon the island, where they run into Sandra, who is the general's daughter but has gone to ground to avoid running into daddy. Things go sour, with Barney and Christmas barely escaping. But then Barney decides to go back mainly to get Sandra out of there. Except he doesn't know that one member of his team has betrayed him.
The rest is a lot of blowing stuff up. The effects aren't all that great, but you get plenty of explosions--buildings and humans. The really big, loud gun one member of Barney's team uses is particularly nasty--and freaking cool. It's the kind of gun I'd love to have in one of those first-person shooter games.
As I said, the story is paper thin, the characters are flat, and the dialog is corny, but that's what you expect. We're not talking about cinema here.
The only real failure was that if you're going to create a super team of past action heroes, you need Van Damme, Segal, and of course the almighty Chuck Norris. Jackie Chan would be cool too. I mean come on, the first two are just doing straight-to-video movies and the only mentions Chuck Norris gets are in connection with those jokes floating around the Internet. So really, it's not like it should have cost that much money.
Actually now that Schwarzenegger is no longer the governor (or soon not to be) maybe they can do a sequel where his team could have the guys I just mentioned and they initially go up against Stallone's team before joining forces to take out some bad guy. Wow, someone get Stallone's agent on the phone! This thing pretty much writes itself!
If you want a good retro action flick, this is one to watch. I wouldn't buy it, but it's worth the rental.
That is all.
My score: 62/100 (2.5 stars)
Metacritic score: 45/100 (2 stars)
Thursday, September 23, 2010
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)
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)
Sunday, September 19, 2010
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)
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)
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
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)
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)
Sunday, August 8, 2010
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)
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)
Monday, May 31, 2010
Iron Man 2
I waited three weeks to finally see this because the prevailing opinion I got from professional reviewers and amateur ones was that this was OK, but not as good as the first one. On the whole I'd agree with that assessment. "Iron Man 2" doesn't embarrass itself like, say, "Batman and Robin" but it isn't in the same league as "The Dark Knight" or even "Spider-Man 2." Basically it's just a mediocre sequel that's enjoyable but doesn't add a whole lot.
When last we saw billionaire Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr. who has bucked traditional wisdom and thanks to CGI become an action star in his mid-40s) he was revealing to the world that he is Iron Man, pretty much so the director could cue the "I Am Iron Man" song. Anyway, now that he's made this admission, he finds out why the other superheroes keep their identities secret. First off, the government (led by a chubby Gary Shandling) wants the Iron Man technology. Second, a bitter ex-physicist in Russia named Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke) starts work on his own arc reactor so he can take revenge on Stark, whose father stole the arc reactor technology from Vanko's father--supposedly.
On top of all of this, Tony is dying because the mini-arc reactor keeping shrapnel from piercing his heart is poisoning his blood. He decides to foist the daily running of his company to his loyal assistant Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) and takes to drinking and acting erratically to while out the end of his days.
This includes taking over for the driver of his Indy car in a race in Monaco. There as you've probably seen from the commercials, he runs into Vanko, who uses some kind of crazy electrical whips to blow up Tony's car. After Tony stops him and they have their little "Dark Knight"-style jail confrontation, Vanko is sprung by a competitor from Tony's so that he can use his skills for evil.
After that, it's on.
The movie's about two hours long and it feels like it at parts. Besides Vanko there are some other new characters. Some like Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) and Black Widow (Scarlett Johannson) might show up in future Marvel superheroes movies like the "Avengers" movie in the works for 2012 or so. As a result, some characters like Pepper Potts seem to get less time than in the first one.
Anyway, I already said at the beginning of my review this was OK but not great. On the whole it's enjoyable enough, with the same blend of humor and action as in the first one. Still, it doesn't really add much depth to the characters to make it a really good sequel. You'll get your money's worth, but it's not anything you'll really remember much after you leave the theater.
That is all.
My score: 62/100 (2.5 stars)
Metacritic score: 57/100 (2 stars)
When last we saw billionaire Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr. who has bucked traditional wisdom and thanks to CGI become an action star in his mid-40s) he was revealing to the world that he is Iron Man, pretty much so the director could cue the "I Am Iron Man" song. Anyway, now that he's made this admission, he finds out why the other superheroes keep their identities secret. First off, the government (led by a chubby Gary Shandling) wants the Iron Man technology. Second, a bitter ex-physicist in Russia named Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke) starts work on his own arc reactor so he can take revenge on Stark, whose father stole the arc reactor technology from Vanko's father--supposedly.
On top of all of this, Tony is dying because the mini-arc reactor keeping shrapnel from piercing his heart is poisoning his blood. He decides to foist the daily running of his company to his loyal assistant Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) and takes to drinking and acting erratically to while out the end of his days.
This includes taking over for the driver of his Indy car in a race in Monaco. There as you've probably seen from the commercials, he runs into Vanko, who uses some kind of crazy electrical whips to blow up Tony's car. After Tony stops him and they have their little "Dark Knight"-style jail confrontation, Vanko is sprung by a competitor from Tony's so that he can use his skills for evil.
After that, it's on.
The movie's about two hours long and it feels like it at parts. Besides Vanko there are some other new characters. Some like Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) and Black Widow (Scarlett Johannson) might show up in future Marvel superheroes movies like the "Avengers" movie in the works for 2012 or so. As a result, some characters like Pepper Potts seem to get less time than in the first one.
Anyway, I already said at the beginning of my review this was OK but not great. On the whole it's enjoyable enough, with the same blend of humor and action as in the first one. Still, it doesn't really add much depth to the characters to make it a really good sequel. You'll get your money's worth, but it's not anything you'll really remember much after you leave the theater.
That is all.
My score: 62/100 (2.5 stars)
Metacritic score: 57/100 (2 stars)
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Alice in Wonderland (2010)
I watched this in my hotel room in Toronto while on vacation, so obviously I didn't see it with all the 3D bells and whistles. Which if you think about it is how most people will see it when it comes out soon on DVD, unless you have one of those new 3D TVs.
Anyway, after watching this I realized why this movie seemed so familiar--because it was pretty similar to Disney's Narnia franchise. Really you could have called this "Alice, the Witch, and the Wardrobe." It follows roughly the same plot, only Alice goes down a rabbit hole instead of through a wardrobe. She ends up in a magic world where animals talk that's ruled by a wicked queen--the Red Queen. And of course before you can say "Keanu Reeves" Alice becomes The One who has to save Wonderland from the Red Queen and her main monster the Jabberwocky. Replace Wonderland with Narnia, the Red Queen with the White Witch, and Alice with the four kids and you have "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe." Though there isn't so much obvious Christian symbolism in "Alice" which is good or bad depending on your point of view.
If you saw Disney's animated "Alice in Wonderland" back in the day, this is supposed to be a kind of sequel. Basically it takes place 13 years after Alice originally went to Wonderland, which she thought was just a dream. This comes when her boring boyfriend proposes to her in front of a snobby audience. Alice with her father's whimsical spirit decides instead to light out after the white rabbit and ends up going down the hole.
Because I didn't have the 3D and because the plot seemed so familiar, I didn't really love this movie. It wasn't terrible and at least not as trippy as the original Disney version, but it wasn't great either. I read the Alice books way back in grade school, but I don't remember them well enough to compare them to this movie. There are probably some similarities. One probable change is that since they spent millions to get Johnny Depp for the Mad Hatter, they had to give him a more significant and sympathetic role. What was really missing was some kind of love interest for Alice, though maybe in the sequels she could hook up with the Mad Hatter.
Anyway, as I said this isn't a bad movie. (The worst part is Avril Lavigne caterwauling the theme song at the end.) It should be an enjoyable family rental even without the 3D. Or you could watch it in a hotel room like I did.
That is all.
My score: 62/100 (2.5 stars)
Metacritic score: 53 (2 stars)
Anyway, after watching this I realized why this movie seemed so familiar--because it was pretty similar to Disney's Narnia franchise. Really you could have called this "Alice, the Witch, and the Wardrobe." It follows roughly the same plot, only Alice goes down a rabbit hole instead of through a wardrobe. She ends up in a magic world where animals talk that's ruled by a wicked queen--the Red Queen. And of course before you can say "Keanu Reeves" Alice becomes The One who has to save Wonderland from the Red Queen and her main monster the Jabberwocky. Replace Wonderland with Narnia, the Red Queen with the White Witch, and Alice with the four kids and you have "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe." Though there isn't so much obvious Christian symbolism in "Alice" which is good or bad depending on your point of view.
If you saw Disney's animated "Alice in Wonderland" back in the day, this is supposed to be a kind of sequel. Basically it takes place 13 years after Alice originally went to Wonderland, which she thought was just a dream. This comes when her boring boyfriend proposes to her in front of a snobby audience. Alice with her father's whimsical spirit decides instead to light out after the white rabbit and ends up going down the hole.
Because I didn't have the 3D and because the plot seemed so familiar, I didn't really love this movie. It wasn't terrible and at least not as trippy as the original Disney version, but it wasn't great either. I read the Alice books way back in grade school, but I don't remember them well enough to compare them to this movie. There are probably some similarities. One probable change is that since they spent millions to get Johnny Depp for the Mad Hatter, they had to give him a more significant and sympathetic role. What was really missing was some kind of love interest for Alice, though maybe in the sequels she could hook up with the Mad Hatter.
Anyway, as I said this isn't a bad movie. (The worst part is Avril Lavigne caterwauling the theme song at the end.) It should be an enjoyable family rental even without the 3D. Or you could watch it in a hotel room like I did.
That is all.
My score: 62/100 (2.5 stars)
Metacritic score: 53 (2 stars)
Friday, April 9, 2010
The Merry Gentleman
You might never have heard of this movie because I don't think it was every in wide release. It does help answer the question, "Whatever happened to Michael Keaton?" Since the Batman movies in the early 90s he's been in a few movies like "Jack Frost," "White Noise," and whatever the Lindsey Lohan Love Bug movie was called but nothing really major. Someone could have started a death hoax on Twitter and it wouldn't have really surprised me because I hadn't really seen him in anything in so long.
In this case Keaton directs and stars in "The Merry Gentleman" as a hitman who like most hitmen in movies is starting to regret his choice of careers. After completing an assignment to kill some old guy--who or why is never really said--he stands on the ledge of the building and contemplates jumping. That is until Kate (Kelly MacDonald of "No Country for Old Men" and "Choke") sees him and screams, startling him so that he tumbles back safely.
Kate has recently come to Chicago from New York or some place like that after her husband gave her a black eye, which was probably the latest in a series of black eyes. She's starting her life over again and has guys practically throwing themselves at her. There's a guy at the office XMas party and one of the cops who investigates the murder of the guy Frank killed. A dinner between the cop and Kate goes horribly wrong because she doesn't realize that he's making a move on her.
On the way home from this disastrous meeting, Kate decides to buy an XMas tree. Unfortunately the tree is bigger than her, so that she has a terrible time getting up the stairs, until Frank shows up to help her with it. In turn, Kate takes Frank the hospital when he passes out from pneumonia probably caused from too many cold Chicago nights on rooftops waiting to shoot people.
Naturally they begin to spend more time with each other, but things are bound to get complicated.
Don't get the wrong idea that this is a romantic comedy or even romantic in any way. If there was any kissing it was pretty brief and there's no sex at all. When Frank and Kate are hanging out they hardly say anything to each other because they're both keeping so much from each other.
That's the overriding problem with the movie. It becomes frustrating because there's so much left unsaid and so much more that you'd like to know about Frank and Kate. The way it ends was particularly unsatisfying. Not that I necessarily want them to end kissing against the setting sun, but something a little more concrete would have been nice.
Overall this isn't a bad movie, but there's too much missing for it to be a great movie either.
That is all.
My score: 62/100 (2.5 stars)
Metacritic score: 55/100 (2 stars)
In this case Keaton directs and stars in "The Merry Gentleman" as a hitman who like most hitmen in movies is starting to regret his choice of careers. After completing an assignment to kill some old guy--who or why is never really said--he stands on the ledge of the building and contemplates jumping. That is until Kate (Kelly MacDonald of "No Country for Old Men" and "Choke") sees him and screams, startling him so that he tumbles back safely.
Kate has recently come to Chicago from New York or some place like that after her husband gave her a black eye, which was probably the latest in a series of black eyes. She's starting her life over again and has guys practically throwing themselves at her. There's a guy at the office XMas party and one of the cops who investigates the murder of the guy Frank killed. A dinner between the cop and Kate goes horribly wrong because she doesn't realize that he's making a move on her.
On the way home from this disastrous meeting, Kate decides to buy an XMas tree. Unfortunately the tree is bigger than her, so that she has a terrible time getting up the stairs, until Frank shows up to help her with it. In turn, Kate takes Frank the hospital when he passes out from pneumonia probably caused from too many cold Chicago nights on rooftops waiting to shoot people.
Naturally they begin to spend more time with each other, but things are bound to get complicated.
Don't get the wrong idea that this is a romantic comedy or even romantic in any way. If there was any kissing it was pretty brief and there's no sex at all. When Frank and Kate are hanging out they hardly say anything to each other because they're both keeping so much from each other.
That's the overriding problem with the movie. It becomes frustrating because there's so much left unsaid and so much more that you'd like to know about Frank and Kate. The way it ends was particularly unsatisfying. Not that I necessarily want them to end kissing against the setting sun, but something a little more concrete would have been nice.
Overall this isn't a bad movie, but there's too much missing for it to be a great movie either.
That is all.
My score: 62/100 (2.5 stars)
Metacritic score: 55/100 (2 stars)
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Brothers
In years to come there will probably be a better movie about soldiers returning home after the war in Afghanistan. Until then there's "Brothers" a melodramatic look at what happens when a soldier returns from the dead.
That soldier is Captain Sam Cahill (Tobey Maguire). He has a wife Grace (Natalie Portman) and two young daughters. He also as the title suggests has a brother Tommy (Jake Gyllenhaal) who was just released from prison for holding up a bank or something. While Tommy is trying to get back on his feet, Sam is sent for another tour in Afghanistan.
Not long after getting there, his helicopter is shot down. He's presumed dead. It's not giving away anything to say that he doesn't die. Instead, he's captured by the Taliban or some facsimile thereof. Meanwhile, Tommy gets a job as a contractor and decides to help Grace by remodeling her kitchen. He becomes closer to Grace and her children in the process though they don't go so far as sleeping with each other.
Meanwhile, Sam and a fellow soldier Joe Willis are being tortured. Willis cracks first, making one of those silly videos where he condemns America. When Sam breaks he does something far more horrific.
Again, probably not spoiling anything to say Sam is rescued and returned to America. I mean, that was the whole point of the movie. The problem then is Sam has trouble fitting back into normal life with his family and society in general. He also has to reconcile the things that he did in Afghanistan. Making it more awkward is that Grace and especially her kids have come to rely on Tommy.
Eventually it all boils down to an All-Star freak out by Sam that you could see coming from two miles away. Again, this isn't a great movie. It spends too long getting the pieces into place and not enough with them afterward. The whole thing is a little predictable and melodramatic. As I said at the beginning, someone will probably make a better movie on this subject in years to come.
Though it might be unintentional, the movie does highlight an important issue, which is that we in this country do a lousy job with our returning soldiers. We bring them home and just throw them to the wolves without much in the way of psychological care. This leads to problems down the road in the way of suicides and murders. You'd think after Vietnam we would have learned a lesson, but this isn't really the case. Soldiers, especially those who have done and seen terrible things like Sam in the movie, should be given help to readjust to normal life.
That is all.
(BTW, this movie is based on a Danish movie from 2004, which I'm willing to bet is better in terms of less melodrama.)
My score: 62/100 (2.5 stars)
Metacritic score: 58/100 (2 stars)
That soldier is Captain Sam Cahill (Tobey Maguire). He has a wife Grace (Natalie Portman) and two young daughters. He also as the title suggests has a brother Tommy (Jake Gyllenhaal) who was just released from prison for holding up a bank or something. While Tommy is trying to get back on his feet, Sam is sent for another tour in Afghanistan.
Not long after getting there, his helicopter is shot down. He's presumed dead. It's not giving away anything to say that he doesn't die. Instead, he's captured by the Taliban or some facsimile thereof. Meanwhile, Tommy gets a job as a contractor and decides to help Grace by remodeling her kitchen. He becomes closer to Grace and her children in the process though they don't go so far as sleeping with each other.
Meanwhile, Sam and a fellow soldier Joe Willis are being tortured. Willis cracks first, making one of those silly videos where he condemns America. When Sam breaks he does something far more horrific.
Again, probably not spoiling anything to say Sam is rescued and returned to America. I mean, that was the whole point of the movie. The problem then is Sam has trouble fitting back into normal life with his family and society in general. He also has to reconcile the things that he did in Afghanistan. Making it more awkward is that Grace and especially her kids have come to rely on Tommy.
Eventually it all boils down to an All-Star freak out by Sam that you could see coming from two miles away. Again, this isn't a great movie. It spends too long getting the pieces into place and not enough with them afterward. The whole thing is a little predictable and melodramatic. As I said at the beginning, someone will probably make a better movie on this subject in years to come.
Though it might be unintentional, the movie does highlight an important issue, which is that we in this country do a lousy job with our returning soldiers. We bring them home and just throw them to the wolves without much in the way of psychological care. This leads to problems down the road in the way of suicides and murders. You'd think after Vietnam we would have learned a lesson, but this isn't really the case. Soldiers, especially those who have done and seen terrible things like Sam in the movie, should be given help to readjust to normal life.
That is all.
(BTW, this movie is based on a Danish movie from 2004, which I'm willing to bet is better in terms of less melodrama.)
My score: 62/100 (2.5 stars)
Metacritic score: 58/100 (2 stars)
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
The Men Who Stare At Goats
Not so long ago in this galaxy, the US Army ran a short-lived program to use alternative methods to train psychic soldiers known as "Jedi warriors" after the Star Wars films. The program was headed by a man named Bill (Jeff Bridges, the 2009 role that didn't win him an Oscar) who traveled around California picking up various New Age techniques. The goal was that these Jedi warriors could be used to peaceably solve situations. Bill brought into the fold young soldiers like Len (George Clooney) and trained them to use their minds to find people in distant lands, become invisible, and walk through walls. (These were only moderately successful.) It was when the program brought in Larry (Kevin Spacey) that things took a turn for the worst. Larry wanted to turn the Jedi to the dark side by using their powers offensively. As the title suggests, they could stop the beating heart of a goat simply by staring at it.
This is what a young reporter named Bob (Ewan McGregor) uncovers in 2003 in Iraq. Back in his native Ann Arbor, Michigan, Bob encountered a former member of the program, who seems like a crackpot. It isn't until after Bob finds out his wife is cheating on him and he signs up to report on the war in Iraq that Bob runs into Len and decides to go with him into Iraq for a secret mission.
The mission leads them to several dangerous situations, including criminals, terrorists, and bumbling American security contractors. Ultimately Bob grows as a person while uncovering his true purpose in life.
How much of the Jedi program is bunk is left up to you to decide. Certainly in the Iraq scenes most of their "powers" seem like pure crap. In earlier scenes taking place in the early 80s, Len seemingly has the ability to find a missing person in Italy from a couch in America and to stop a goat's heart. But did he really? Who knows.
Naturally this movie isn't as well made as the Oscar-winning Iraq War drama "The Hurt Locker." It takes a more darkly humorous slant of things, especially when Len and Bob are picked up by the security contractors. Seeing them in action it's no surprise that so many Iraqis turned against American forces there. The movie wasn't quite as funny as I thought it would be from the previews, but it wasn't terrible either.
What I think it could have used was to be a little bit longer than its 90 minute running time. That way it could have explored the subjects and characters a bit more fully. As it is, most of the movie is spent just getting all of the characters together in the same room. By the time that's done, there was very little time for them to do much.
This is the second movie I've seen on remote viewing. The first was a thriller from a few years ago called "Suspect Zero" starring Ben Kingsley and Aaron Eckhart. That focused simply on the remote viewing program, where a "psychic" would see and draw a distant scene. If you think this is pure imagination you're wrong. I remember seeing a special on TV about this on Nat Geo or History or TLC or one of those channels about this. It was pretty interesting when the reporter actually tested one of the "psychics" and he passed the test.
In a deleted scene for this movie, Bill teaches his men the martial art aikido. This actually happened. Years ago on a dare I bought a book called "In Search of the Warrior Spirit" that described a similar army program to train soldiers in aikido and other martial arts in the late 80s. The program was abandoned, but as you can see, there is definitely some truth to this stuff.
Overall, this isn't bad for a rental, especially if you're interested in the paranormal.
BTW, do you suppose they cast Ewan McGregor purely for the ironic value of having the guy who played Jedi Master Obi-Wan Kenobi in the Star Wars prequels in a movie about "Jedi Warriors?"
That is all.
My score: 62/100 (2.5 stars)
Metacritic score: 54/100 (2 stars)
This is what a young reporter named Bob (Ewan McGregor) uncovers in 2003 in Iraq. Back in his native Ann Arbor, Michigan, Bob encountered a former member of the program, who seems like a crackpot. It isn't until after Bob finds out his wife is cheating on him and he signs up to report on the war in Iraq that Bob runs into Len and decides to go with him into Iraq for a secret mission.
The mission leads them to several dangerous situations, including criminals, terrorists, and bumbling American security contractors. Ultimately Bob grows as a person while uncovering his true purpose in life.
How much of the Jedi program is bunk is left up to you to decide. Certainly in the Iraq scenes most of their "powers" seem like pure crap. In earlier scenes taking place in the early 80s, Len seemingly has the ability to find a missing person in Italy from a couch in America and to stop a goat's heart. But did he really? Who knows.
Naturally this movie isn't as well made as the Oscar-winning Iraq War drama "The Hurt Locker." It takes a more darkly humorous slant of things, especially when Len and Bob are picked up by the security contractors. Seeing them in action it's no surprise that so many Iraqis turned against American forces there. The movie wasn't quite as funny as I thought it would be from the previews, but it wasn't terrible either.
What I think it could have used was to be a little bit longer than its 90 minute running time. That way it could have explored the subjects and characters a bit more fully. As it is, most of the movie is spent just getting all of the characters together in the same room. By the time that's done, there was very little time for them to do much.
This is the second movie I've seen on remote viewing. The first was a thriller from a few years ago called "Suspect Zero" starring Ben Kingsley and Aaron Eckhart. That focused simply on the remote viewing program, where a "psychic" would see and draw a distant scene. If you think this is pure imagination you're wrong. I remember seeing a special on TV about this on Nat Geo or History or TLC or one of those channels about this. It was pretty interesting when the reporter actually tested one of the "psychics" and he passed the test.
In a deleted scene for this movie, Bill teaches his men the martial art aikido. This actually happened. Years ago on a dare I bought a book called "In Search of the Warrior Spirit" that described a similar army program to train soldiers in aikido and other martial arts in the late 80s. The program was abandoned, but as you can see, there is definitely some truth to this stuff.
Overall, this isn't bad for a rental, especially if you're interested in the paranormal.
BTW, do you suppose they cast Ewan McGregor purely for the ironic value of having the guy who played Jedi Master Obi-Wan Kenobi in the Star Wars prequels in a movie about "Jedi Warriors?"
That is all.
My score: 62/100 (2.5 stars)
Metacritic score: 54/100 (2 stars)
Monday, March 22, 2010
Lesbian Vampire Killers
(The title for the American release was actually watered down to the more generic "Vampire Killers.")
This movie is like "Snakes On a Plane" or "Hot Tub Time Machine" in that the title succinctly summarizes what you'll get. Though to make it clear, it's about killing lesbian vampires, not people who are lesbians and kill vampires. But "Killers of Lesbian Vampires" while more accurate lacks the same panache.
At any rate there was no way I could resist watching a movie called "Lesbian Vampire Killers" any more than I could resist watching "Jesus Christ, Vampire Hunter" a few years ago. The latter is an extremely cheesy movie made on a shoestring budget where the title also tells you exactly what you're getting: the Son of God fighting vampires who were stalking lesbians. (For some reason makers of cheesy vampire movies are drawn to lesbians.)
What surprised me is that this movie is actually from the UK and also that it's not as cheesy and cheap as JCVH either. Granted it's not "Avatar" in terms of effects either, but it doesn't look completely homemade. The closest comparison you could make would be "Shaun of the Dead" only with lesbian vampires instead of zombies. In both cases we have an average British guy paired with his chubby friend.
The average guy is named Jimmy and his chubby friend is named Fletch. Jimmy has just been dumped (yet again) by his girlfriend while Fletch has just been fired from his clowning gig for punching a kid--yet again. With the two of them at loose ends they decide to go on holiday. But Jimmy's money is tied up in his ex-girlfriend's car and Fletch has no money, so they throw a dart in a pub and decide to go to the town of Chagwich to hike. Chagwich is of course terribly creepy, but it's made better by the presence of four young women who are there to study the town's folklore.
That folklore would consist of a queen of vampires who has placed a curse on the town so whenever a girl turns 18 she becomes a lesbian vampire. Only the descendant of a baron who defeated the queen previously can end the curse. Guess who that is?
Jimmy, Fletch, and the girls head through the forest to an even creepier cottage and from there the vampire killing begins. Like in "Shaun of the Dead" the guys are not exactly experts when it comes to lesbian vampire killing. They're helped though by a vicar in the town who is trying to end the curse before his daughter's 18th birthday.
The movie was pretty fun in terms of B-movie horror films. Obviously it wouldn't win any awards for cinematic achievement, but what else do you expect from a movie called "Lesbian Vampire Killers?" Best of all is that the film doesn't take itself too seriously with characters (especially Fletch) pointing out the ridiculousness of it all.
Basically I'd say if you liked "Shaun of the Dead" then you'd probably like this one too. Though from a misogynistic point of view I would have liked some more boobs and more than lesbian kissing, if you catch my drift.
That is all.
My score: 62/100 (2.5 stars)
This movie is like "Snakes On a Plane" or "Hot Tub Time Machine" in that the title succinctly summarizes what you'll get. Though to make it clear, it's about killing lesbian vampires, not people who are lesbians and kill vampires. But "Killers of Lesbian Vampires" while more accurate lacks the same panache.
At any rate there was no way I could resist watching a movie called "Lesbian Vampire Killers" any more than I could resist watching "Jesus Christ, Vampire Hunter" a few years ago. The latter is an extremely cheesy movie made on a shoestring budget where the title also tells you exactly what you're getting: the Son of God fighting vampires who were stalking lesbians. (For some reason makers of cheesy vampire movies are drawn to lesbians.)
What surprised me is that this movie is actually from the UK and also that it's not as cheesy and cheap as JCVH either. Granted it's not "Avatar" in terms of effects either, but it doesn't look completely homemade. The closest comparison you could make would be "Shaun of the Dead" only with lesbian vampires instead of zombies. In both cases we have an average British guy paired with his chubby friend.
The average guy is named Jimmy and his chubby friend is named Fletch. Jimmy has just been dumped (yet again) by his girlfriend while Fletch has just been fired from his clowning gig for punching a kid--yet again. With the two of them at loose ends they decide to go on holiday. But Jimmy's money is tied up in his ex-girlfriend's car and Fletch has no money, so they throw a dart in a pub and decide to go to the town of Chagwich to hike. Chagwich is of course terribly creepy, but it's made better by the presence of four young women who are there to study the town's folklore.
That folklore would consist of a queen of vampires who has placed a curse on the town so whenever a girl turns 18 she becomes a lesbian vampire. Only the descendant of a baron who defeated the queen previously can end the curse. Guess who that is?
Jimmy, Fletch, and the girls head through the forest to an even creepier cottage and from there the vampire killing begins. Like in "Shaun of the Dead" the guys are not exactly experts when it comes to lesbian vampire killing. They're helped though by a vicar in the town who is trying to end the curse before his daughter's 18th birthday.
The movie was pretty fun in terms of B-movie horror films. Obviously it wouldn't win any awards for cinematic achievement, but what else do you expect from a movie called "Lesbian Vampire Killers?" Best of all is that the film doesn't take itself too seriously with characters (especially Fletch) pointing out the ridiculousness of it all.
Basically I'd say if you liked "Shaun of the Dead" then you'd probably like this one too. Though from a misogynistic point of view I would have liked some more boobs and more than lesbian kissing, if you catch my drift.
That is all.
My score: 62/100 (2.5 stars)
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Whip It!
The easy way to describe this movie is that it's "The Mighty Ducks" with an X-Games attitude and a healthy dose of Girl Power! Instead of hockey--or baseball, basketball, football, or some other mainstream sport--it focuses on roller derby in Texas. Of course roller derby was popular in the '70s but a small league still exists in the '00s in Austin. There are five teams of women who bump and push in order to allow the "jammer" to pass the pack and score points. (That's really all I need to say about the rules since the roller derby isn't important to the story.)
Basically this could have been any sport, as it follows the pretty standard formula of a teenage girl defying her parents to do what she wants to do. Bliss (Ellen Page, with the same snarky attitude and vintage rock T-shirts so that she's basically Juno on skates) is 17 and living in a small Texas town, where her mom enrolls her and her younger sister in beauty pageants while her father sits at home watching football. Bliss hates the pageants while her sister loves them.
Then while shopping in Austin she sees a flier for roller derby and decides to go with her best friend Pash to watch the game. She decides she loves roller derby and decides to try out. Except that she hasn't skated since she wore pink Barbie skates. You have to suspend disbelief in that she goes from barely being able to skate to being the fastest on the track.
She gets drafted onto the "Hurl Scouts" who are of course the last place team of not-so-lovable losers like the Mighty Ducks, Bad News Bears, and so forth. You should already know what's going to happen there. It should also come as no surprise that she meets a handsome boy (pop singer Landon Pigg) and falls in love.
Basically there aren't any real shocks in this movie, just a couple of mild surprises. As I said, it could have been about any sport instead of roller derby. And really it probably has been about any sport in movies from the "Bad News Bears" to "Bend It Like Beckham." There's really not much more to say than that. It's an OK movie for a rental, but it's not memorable.
(On a sexist note, for guys there are a lot of women but no nudity or anything. Not that you're into that sort of thing...)
BTW, this like "Gran Torino" was one of the first major movies to be filmed on location in Michigan, which is one of the reasons I rented it. Woo hoo!
That is all.
My score: 62/100 (2.5 stars)
Metacritic score: 67/100 (2.5 stars)
Basically this could have been any sport, as it follows the pretty standard formula of a teenage girl defying her parents to do what she wants to do. Bliss (Ellen Page, with the same snarky attitude and vintage rock T-shirts so that she's basically Juno on skates) is 17 and living in a small Texas town, where her mom enrolls her and her younger sister in beauty pageants while her father sits at home watching football. Bliss hates the pageants while her sister loves them.
Then while shopping in Austin she sees a flier for roller derby and decides to go with her best friend Pash to watch the game. She decides she loves roller derby and decides to try out. Except that she hasn't skated since she wore pink Barbie skates. You have to suspend disbelief in that she goes from barely being able to skate to being the fastest on the track.
She gets drafted onto the "Hurl Scouts" who are of course the last place team of not-so-lovable losers like the Mighty Ducks, Bad News Bears, and so forth. You should already know what's going to happen there. It should also come as no surprise that she meets a handsome boy (pop singer Landon Pigg) and falls in love.
Basically there aren't any real shocks in this movie, just a couple of mild surprises. As I said, it could have been about any sport instead of roller derby. And really it probably has been about any sport in movies from the "Bad News Bears" to "Bend It Like Beckham." There's really not much more to say than that. It's an OK movie for a rental, but it's not memorable.
(On a sexist note, for guys there are a lot of women but no nudity or anything. Not that you're into that sort of thing...)
BTW, this like "Gran Torino" was one of the first major movies to be filmed on location in Michigan, which is one of the reasons I rented it. Woo hoo!
That is all.
My score: 62/100 (2.5 stars)
Metacritic score: 67/100 (2.5 stars)
Monday, February 15, 2010
A Serious Man
There's no way that "A Serious Man" could deal with anyone other than Jews. Only people who have endured thousands of years of persecution since the days of the pharaohs could possibly be believable in a movie about someone who seems tormented by an vengeful God for no apparent reason.
In a prologue, a man is out at night in probably a European village in the 19th Century or so. When his wagon breaks down, an old man shows up to help him. As repayment, the man takes the old gent back to his house to warm up. The only problem is that his wife recognizes the old man as someone who died three years earlier. She believes the old guy to be an evil spirit and goes so far as to stab him in the heart. He stumbles off bleeding into the night. Was he really an evil spirit? Who knows.
Compare this many years later to Larry Gopnik, a physics professor in Minnesota. Larry seems to have a pretty good life in the suburbs with his wife and two kids. Larry's son is having his bar mitzvah soon and Larry is up for tenure at his school. The only problem seems to be his brother (Richard Kind, who's made a career of playing annoying characters) Arthur who sleeps on the couch while working on some crazy theory to unravel the secrets of the universe.
Then abruptly everything goes ff the rails for Larry. His wife announces that she's been seeing a friend named Sy Abelman and wants a divorce. (Worse yet she wants a consensual religious divorce so she and Sy won't be excommunicated.) His son is smoking pot and owes a bully money. His daughter is stealing money to save up for a nose job. A Korean student who's failing Larry's class tries to bribe him for a passing grade. And someone's been writing letters to the tenure committee trying to trash Larry's reputation. (And his TV antenna isn't working right and his neighbor wants to build a boat house practically on his property...we could go all day.)
As things go from bad to worse, Larry futilely tries to understand why all of this is happening and what he can do to make it stop. He seeks the advice of rabbis and his lawyer but can't seem to find any answers. The movie ends very abruptly with no real answers being given. Who of us mortals can possibly understand God's mind? Nobody. Much like the man at the start of the movie, Larry's done nothing wrong and yet for some reason outside forces seem to choose him to avenge themselves on.
The movie is funny, but not the laugh-out-loud rubber chicken funny. As Ebert said, it's "wince-wince funny." You have to keep asking yourself, as Larry certainly does, "How can this possibly get worse?" Through it all, Larry isn't exceptionally whiny or annoying, more like confused--and rightfully so. What did he do to deserve such a fate?
In the end, the answer that there is no answer probably won't be very satisfying. Still, if nothing else, it'll be a cathartic experience.
That is all.
My score: 65/100 (2.5 stars)
Metacritic score: 79/100 (3 stars)
PS: Don't confuse this with "A Single Man" also from 2009 that deals with a homosexual man in the '50s or so.
In a prologue, a man is out at night in probably a European village in the 19th Century or so. When his wagon breaks down, an old man shows up to help him. As repayment, the man takes the old gent back to his house to warm up. The only problem is that his wife recognizes the old man as someone who died three years earlier. She believes the old guy to be an evil spirit and goes so far as to stab him in the heart. He stumbles off bleeding into the night. Was he really an evil spirit? Who knows.
Compare this many years later to Larry Gopnik, a physics professor in Minnesota. Larry seems to have a pretty good life in the suburbs with his wife and two kids. Larry's son is having his bar mitzvah soon and Larry is up for tenure at his school. The only problem seems to be his brother (Richard Kind, who's made a career of playing annoying characters) Arthur who sleeps on the couch while working on some crazy theory to unravel the secrets of the universe.
Then abruptly everything goes ff the rails for Larry. His wife announces that she's been seeing a friend named Sy Abelman and wants a divorce. (Worse yet she wants a consensual religious divorce so she and Sy won't be excommunicated.) His son is smoking pot and owes a bully money. His daughter is stealing money to save up for a nose job. A Korean student who's failing Larry's class tries to bribe him for a passing grade. And someone's been writing letters to the tenure committee trying to trash Larry's reputation. (And his TV antenna isn't working right and his neighbor wants to build a boat house practically on his property...we could go all day.)
As things go from bad to worse, Larry futilely tries to understand why all of this is happening and what he can do to make it stop. He seeks the advice of rabbis and his lawyer but can't seem to find any answers. The movie ends very abruptly with no real answers being given. Who of us mortals can possibly understand God's mind? Nobody. Much like the man at the start of the movie, Larry's done nothing wrong and yet for some reason outside forces seem to choose him to avenge themselves on.
The movie is funny, but not the laugh-out-loud rubber chicken funny. As Ebert said, it's "wince-wince funny." You have to keep asking yourself, as Larry certainly does, "How can this possibly get worse?" Through it all, Larry isn't exceptionally whiny or annoying, more like confused--and rightfully so. What did he do to deserve such a fate?
In the end, the answer that there is no answer probably won't be very satisfying. Still, if nothing else, it'll be a cathartic experience.
That is all.
My score: 65/100 (2.5 stars)
Metacritic score: 79/100 (3 stars)
PS: Don't confuse this with "A Single Man" also from 2009 that deals with a homosexual man in the '50s or so.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Surrogates
Unless you're an A-list celebrity or supermodel you've probably had a bad hair day--or several of them--or some wrinkles that just won't go away no matter how much Botox you use. Wouldn't it be great then if you could have a remote-controlled robot body that never gets old and always looks perfect? That's the basic premise behind "Surrogates." Or to put it another way: it's like "Avatar" only instead of controlling a ten-foot-tall blue alien you're controlling a robot that looks human.
Like another 2009 sci-fi movie "District 9," "Surrogates" starts off with news footage showing how in fourteen years technology goes from a monkey being able to control a robotic limb with its mind to 98% of the world having better-than-perfect reproductions of themselves. It's hard to swallow this the way it's presented. The first part of the technology, the monkey controlling a robotic limb, is actually very real and could lead to the next generation of prosthetic limbs that can actually replace the missing one. But I think this technology is still in the experimental phase. To go from that to what's presented in "Surrogates" in less than 15 years is unbelievable. But if you can suspend disbelief there, the rest of the movie is a serviceable sci-fi thriller in the league of "I, Robot" or "Paycheck" though not in the same league as "Blade Runner" or "Minority Report" in its execution.
OK, so suspending disbelief let's say that 98% of people, even all those goat herders in Afghanistan or Mongolia, are using surrogate robotic bodies. We still have some humans who reject the use of surrogates, seeing them as an abomination. One of these "meatbags" stalks a wealthy seemingly young man. He pulls out what looks sort of like a modified Dustbuster, and fires a burst of blue energy that fries not only the young man, but the actual young man controlling the surrogate. Such a thing has never happened before.
What's worse is that the young man turns out to be the son of Lionel Carver, the creator of surrogate technology who was forced out of his own company when he started making inconvenient statements opposing their widespread use. FBI agent Tom Greer (Bruce Willis) is brought in to investigate the crime. As you'd expect, this investigation leads him to uncover a conspiracy involving a variety of different parties who are all trying to kill each other.
I couldn't help wondering if this movie might have done better at the box office if it had featured Will Smith like "I, Robot" or "I Am Legend." But then Smith isn't really old enough to have enough contrast between him and his surrogate. Since he's pushing 60, Bruce Willis is a better choice for this as you can clearly see the difference between his wrinkle-free surrogate with its creepy blond hair and the bald, wrinkled actor with his graying goatee. The script wisely doesn't have him perform too many "Die Hard"-type stunts in non-surrogate mode, though unlike those other movies he doesn't get set up for many good quips here either. The script also doesn't probably have enough twists or turns, clocking in at less than 90 minutes. What disappoints me is that we see the big factory/headquarters of VSI, the surrogate manufacturer early in the movie when surrogate Tom Greer is investigating the murder but we never go back there. Clearly a chance was squandered to have some fun in there, where maybe Tom could have battled an army of out-of-control surrogates or something. Oh well.
Also, unlike the aforementioned "District 9" or "Blade Runner" this script doesn't have too much on its mind concerning the background issues. The issues about the surrogates and the questions that arise aren't really dealt with all that much. (A couple of questions I have: Wouldn't this put industries like restaurants out of business if everyone's robots who don't need to eat? Though maybe oil changes would do booming business. Also, wouldn't the population start dying out? Presumably surrogates don't have sperm or ovaries. I suppose you could make babies in labs. But what happens if you're in a bar and you meet a nice girl/guy surrogate and fall in love? Is that even possible anymore? Do you move your controller beds in together or just stay separate? Of course one issue that is sort of raised is: what happens if you see that hot girl surrogate in the bar and find out it's a fat guy controlling her?) See, there's a lot to think about here but the movie doesn't really try to build any depth to its world, preferring to just use the surrogates as a prop for chases and fights.
Anyway, I thought it was a perfectly serviceable movie, just not especially memorable. It might be more memorable if that robot technology ever does start really taking off. A definite rental.
That is all.
My score: 62/100 (2.5 stars)
Metacritic score: 45/100 (1.5 stars)
Like another 2009 sci-fi movie "District 9," "Surrogates" starts off with news footage showing how in fourteen years technology goes from a monkey being able to control a robotic limb with its mind to 98% of the world having better-than-perfect reproductions of themselves. It's hard to swallow this the way it's presented. The first part of the technology, the monkey controlling a robotic limb, is actually very real and could lead to the next generation of prosthetic limbs that can actually replace the missing one. But I think this technology is still in the experimental phase. To go from that to what's presented in "Surrogates" in less than 15 years is unbelievable. But if you can suspend disbelief there, the rest of the movie is a serviceable sci-fi thriller in the league of "I, Robot" or "Paycheck" though not in the same league as "Blade Runner" or "Minority Report" in its execution.
OK, so suspending disbelief let's say that 98% of people, even all those goat herders in Afghanistan or Mongolia, are using surrogate robotic bodies. We still have some humans who reject the use of surrogates, seeing them as an abomination. One of these "meatbags" stalks a wealthy seemingly young man. He pulls out what looks sort of like a modified Dustbuster, and fires a burst of blue energy that fries not only the young man, but the actual young man controlling the surrogate. Such a thing has never happened before.
What's worse is that the young man turns out to be the son of Lionel Carver, the creator of surrogate technology who was forced out of his own company when he started making inconvenient statements opposing their widespread use. FBI agent Tom Greer (Bruce Willis) is brought in to investigate the crime. As you'd expect, this investigation leads him to uncover a conspiracy involving a variety of different parties who are all trying to kill each other.
I couldn't help wondering if this movie might have done better at the box office if it had featured Will Smith like "I, Robot" or "I Am Legend." But then Smith isn't really old enough to have enough contrast between him and his surrogate. Since he's pushing 60, Bruce Willis is a better choice for this as you can clearly see the difference between his wrinkle-free surrogate with its creepy blond hair and the bald, wrinkled actor with his graying goatee. The script wisely doesn't have him perform too many "Die Hard"-type stunts in non-surrogate mode, though unlike those other movies he doesn't get set up for many good quips here either. The script also doesn't probably have enough twists or turns, clocking in at less than 90 minutes. What disappoints me is that we see the big factory/headquarters of VSI, the surrogate manufacturer early in the movie when surrogate Tom Greer is investigating the murder but we never go back there. Clearly a chance was squandered to have some fun in there, where maybe Tom could have battled an army of out-of-control surrogates or something. Oh well.
Also, unlike the aforementioned "District 9" or "Blade Runner" this script doesn't have too much on its mind concerning the background issues. The issues about the surrogates and the questions that arise aren't really dealt with all that much. (A couple of questions I have: Wouldn't this put industries like restaurants out of business if everyone's robots who don't need to eat? Though maybe oil changes would do booming business. Also, wouldn't the population start dying out? Presumably surrogates don't have sperm or ovaries. I suppose you could make babies in labs. But what happens if you're in a bar and you meet a nice girl/guy surrogate and fall in love? Is that even possible anymore? Do you move your controller beds in together or just stay separate? Of course one issue that is sort of raised is: what happens if you see that hot girl surrogate in the bar and find out it's a fat guy controlling her?) See, there's a lot to think about here but the movie doesn't really try to build any depth to its world, preferring to just use the surrogates as a prop for chases and fights.
Anyway, I thought it was a perfectly serviceable movie, just not especially memorable. It might be more memorable if that robot technology ever does start really taking off. A definite rental.
That is all.
My score: 62/100 (2.5 stars)
Metacritic score: 45/100 (1.5 stars)
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Julie & Julia
In sort of homage to the movie focusing on two completely time periods, I'm going to write this review as two completely different reviews.
The first review is the one for you, anyone who reads this. On average I've noticed most people who comment on my reviews are female (or at least claim to be) and I think they'd enjoy this movie far more than I did, so I'm gong to direct this portion of the review at them. OK, here goes.
When her life seems stuck in a rut, Julie Powell (Amy Adams)--with some advice from her husband--decides to spice things up by creating a blog and vowing to cook all 524 recipes in Julia Childs' massive "Mastering the Art of Fine French Cooking." As you'd expect, this involves a lot of time and expense, which isn't easy considering Julie is just a phone jockey at an insurance company dealing with 9/11 victim families.
At the same time the movie chronicles how a bored ex-government worker named Julia Childs (Meryl Streep) decides to spice up her life in Paris by learning French cuisine. As an American she faces an uphill battle against French snobbery, but in the end she becomes a real chef and endeavors to create a cookbook of French recipes for Americans. This is a massive undertaking requiring much time and effort.
So you see how the lives of the two women are parallel. In time Julie gains a lot of respect for Julia Childs, becoming sort of obsessed with her. (The feeling is not mutual.) And Julia gains the respect of cooks and publishers. Woo hoo.
Basically it's a nice, gentle movie with no real shocks or twists--except maybe burning something. I have never watched the real Julia Childs so I have no idea how well Meryl Streep impersonates her. (I've heard negative comments on this but obviously the Golden Globe people thought differently, but then again they thought "Avatar" was the best drama, so I'm not sure I'd trust their judgment.) I've never read the blog or book by Julie Powell either, so I have no idea how much of this is accurate. (I thought I read in a review that she did not really come up with the blog in the manner portrayed by the movie, but I can't be sure.)
If you're looking for some harmless fun and great culinary ideas, then this is a good movie to watch.
My score: 62/100 (2.5 stars)
Metacritic score: 66/100 (2.5 stars)
#
OK, now let me say for those few men who might ever see this: there is absolutely nothing in this for you. Nothing. The closest we get to action is that Julie has to kill some poor lobster to the strains of "Psycho Killer" by Talking Heads, though I think actually her husband does the deed.
There's no nudity, which come to think of it is just as well. Do you want to see Julia Child naked? No, no, a thousand times no!
From a purely artistic standpoint, this movie is as limp as a stick of butter left out in the sun. Julia Childs is shown as plucky with a great can-do attitude. Julie is slightly whinier but just as plucky. Their respective husbands are supportive and that's it, though once Julie's husband grows a backbone and walks out on her. Of course he comes back! There are no surprises in this movie, except that the two women don't meet. Since they probably took so many other liberties with reality, what harm could one more have done? Really, they could have hugged and swapped recipes and it could have faded to black and most everyone would go home happy.
I was actually depressed by the time this movie ended. What really bums me out is to think that Julie Powell got a book deal and a movie deal and yet her only discernible talent seems to be being able to follow directions from a cookbook. It's the same feeling I get whenever I see Paris Hilton or Kim Kardashian, complete no-talent whores who have never done a damned thing in their lives to deserve anything they have. (OK, Julie Powell might not be a whore. At the least she probably doesn't have a sex tape on the Internet--yet.) She certainly didn't do anything that most anyone else could have done, so long as they could read directions in a cookbook. You could say she stood on Julia Childs' ample shoulders.
And yeah, I'm jealous. I'll admit it. It's the same envy whenever someone like Madonna comes out with a crappy children's book or someone like Monica Lewinsky gets a huge advance for a book. What the hell do they know about writing? Not a bloody thing! I work and strain, trying to produce a real story and wade through all sorts of muck trying to get the thing published while these no talent ass-clowns just saunter right up to a six-figure advance on a whim or because they were classless enough to get involved with some huge scandal. This is the world we live in. And it's not fair! It's not fair at all!
F**k you Julie Powell, wherever you are.
That is all.
(PS: What I learned from this movie is that all you need is some good schtick to realize dreams of fame and fortune. You think Emotionally Unstable Film Critic has possibilities? They could get Lewis Black to play me in the movie version since Sam Kinnison and Chris Farley are long dead.)
The first review is the one for you, anyone who reads this. On average I've noticed most people who comment on my reviews are female (or at least claim to be) and I think they'd enjoy this movie far more than I did, so I'm gong to direct this portion of the review at them. OK, here goes.
When her life seems stuck in a rut, Julie Powell (Amy Adams)--with some advice from her husband--decides to spice things up by creating a blog and vowing to cook all 524 recipes in Julia Childs' massive "Mastering the Art of Fine French Cooking." As you'd expect, this involves a lot of time and expense, which isn't easy considering Julie is just a phone jockey at an insurance company dealing with 9/11 victim families.
At the same time the movie chronicles how a bored ex-government worker named Julia Childs (Meryl Streep) decides to spice up her life in Paris by learning French cuisine. As an American she faces an uphill battle against French snobbery, but in the end she becomes a real chef and endeavors to create a cookbook of French recipes for Americans. This is a massive undertaking requiring much time and effort.
So you see how the lives of the two women are parallel. In time Julie gains a lot of respect for Julia Childs, becoming sort of obsessed with her. (The feeling is not mutual.) And Julia gains the respect of cooks and publishers. Woo hoo.
Basically it's a nice, gentle movie with no real shocks or twists--except maybe burning something. I have never watched the real Julia Childs so I have no idea how well Meryl Streep impersonates her. (I've heard negative comments on this but obviously the Golden Globe people thought differently, but then again they thought "Avatar" was the best drama, so I'm not sure I'd trust their judgment.) I've never read the blog or book by Julie Powell either, so I have no idea how much of this is accurate. (I thought I read in a review that she did not really come up with the blog in the manner portrayed by the movie, but I can't be sure.)
If you're looking for some harmless fun and great culinary ideas, then this is a good movie to watch.
My score: 62/100 (2.5 stars)
Metacritic score: 66/100 (2.5 stars)
#
OK, now let me say for those few men who might ever see this: there is absolutely nothing in this for you. Nothing. The closest we get to action is that Julie has to kill some poor lobster to the strains of "Psycho Killer" by Talking Heads, though I think actually her husband does the deed.
There's no nudity, which come to think of it is just as well. Do you want to see Julia Child naked? No, no, a thousand times no!
From a purely artistic standpoint, this movie is as limp as a stick of butter left out in the sun. Julia Childs is shown as plucky with a great can-do attitude. Julie is slightly whinier but just as plucky. Their respective husbands are supportive and that's it, though once Julie's husband grows a backbone and walks out on her. Of course he comes back! There are no surprises in this movie, except that the two women don't meet. Since they probably took so many other liberties with reality, what harm could one more have done? Really, they could have hugged and swapped recipes and it could have faded to black and most everyone would go home happy.
I was actually depressed by the time this movie ended. What really bums me out is to think that Julie Powell got a book deal and a movie deal and yet her only discernible talent seems to be being able to follow directions from a cookbook. It's the same feeling I get whenever I see Paris Hilton or Kim Kardashian, complete no-talent whores who have never done a damned thing in their lives to deserve anything they have. (OK, Julie Powell might not be a whore. At the least she probably doesn't have a sex tape on the Internet--yet.) She certainly didn't do anything that most anyone else could have done, so long as they could read directions in a cookbook. You could say she stood on Julia Childs' ample shoulders.
And yeah, I'm jealous. I'll admit it. It's the same envy whenever someone like Madonna comes out with a crappy children's book or someone like Monica Lewinsky gets a huge advance for a book. What the hell do they know about writing? Not a bloody thing! I work and strain, trying to produce a real story and wade through all sorts of muck trying to get the thing published while these no talent ass-clowns just saunter right up to a six-figure advance on a whim or because they were classless enough to get involved with some huge scandal. This is the world we live in. And it's not fair! It's not fair at all!
F**k you Julie Powell, wherever you are.
That is all.
(PS: What I learned from this movie is that all you need is some good schtick to realize dreams of fame and fortune. You think Emotionally Unstable Film Critic has possibilities? They could get Lewis Black to play me in the movie version since Sam Kinnison and Chris Farley are long dead.)
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Career Opportunities
When John Hughes passed away last year, most everyone mentioned his popular '80s movies like "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" and "The Breakfast Club." Probably no one mentioned "Career Opportunities," which Hughes wrote and produced in 1991. But the good thing when you have a Netflix-type program is that it's easy to click on someone's name and find out all the stuff they did and watch it just for the Hell of it. As it turns out, there's probably a good reason no one brought up this movie, because it's not very memorable.
The story features some familiar themes of the aforementioned Hughes classics. Like Ferris Bueller, Jim Dodge (Franky Wright) is a big talker to the point of excess so that he's known as the Town Liar. While he likes to spin tales about working for the FBI or some big company, really he can't hold down a job to save his life, much to the consternation of his family, who wants the 21-year-old to move out of the house.
To help make that happen, Jim's dad gets him a job at the local Target department store as the night cleanup boy. (Watch for an uncredited cameo by John Candy as the Target manager.) The first convenient plot device is that his supervisor locks him in the store and then takes off to rendezvous with someone else. This leaves Jim alone in the store--or so he thinks.
While roller skating around the store just for fun, he comes upon Josie (a young Jennifer Connelly) whose father is the richest man in town. Turns out she was going to shoplift some stuff to get arrested and embarrass her father, but didn't have the guts so she hid in a dressing room. (There's your second convenient plot device.) They share some "Breakfast Club"-style angst about their parents and plans for the future.
This is all fine, but then the movie wipes out with the addition of two criminals (Dermot Mulroney and his brother) who somehow break into the Target. When I read the description I thought this being from John Hughes who wrote "Home Alone" we'd have the same kind of Rube Goldberg-type slapstick traps. Certainly in a Target store there were plenty of possibilities for that kind of mayhem. At the least there could have been some great cat-and-mouse between Jim/Josie and the thieves. None of this comes to pass.
The ending is handled so sloppily that it left me with several questions. First off, the thieves do such a terrible job looking after their prisoners, so why doesn't Jim or Josie use the phone to call for help? (Maybe they don't want it to become a hostage situation or fear retribution, but it never even comes up.) Or since the robbers aren't paying attention, couldn't they set some "Home Alone"-style traps or at least find a couple of butcher knives? And how does Jim know about a shotgun kept in the store since it's his first night in the store and his supervisor wasn't exactly the communicative type?
None of it really made sense. Without the thieves this could have been a perfectly adequate teen comedy, but the sloppy final act just brings the whole thing down and really none of the issues raised in the first 3/4 of the movie are dealt with--notably the problem Jim and Josie have with their respective parents.
Probably the only reason to watch this is if you're either such a huge Hughes fan that you have to watch everything he's done or you're a huge fan of Jennifer Connelly's cleavage. Seriously the shots of her cleavage are as numerous as those of Megan Fox in "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen." And then there's her riding on the mechanical horse going up-and-down, up-and-down...OK, I'm losing focus here. What was I talking about? Oh yeah, basically there's not much reason for most people to watch this unless you fall into the categories above.
That is all.
My score: 62/100 (2.5 stars--the extra half-star for those cleavage shots!)
The story features some familiar themes of the aforementioned Hughes classics. Like Ferris Bueller, Jim Dodge (Franky Wright) is a big talker to the point of excess so that he's known as the Town Liar. While he likes to spin tales about working for the FBI or some big company, really he can't hold down a job to save his life, much to the consternation of his family, who wants the 21-year-old to move out of the house.
To help make that happen, Jim's dad gets him a job at the local Target department store as the night cleanup boy. (Watch for an uncredited cameo by John Candy as the Target manager.) The first convenient plot device is that his supervisor locks him in the store and then takes off to rendezvous with someone else. This leaves Jim alone in the store--or so he thinks.
While roller skating around the store just for fun, he comes upon Josie (a young Jennifer Connelly) whose father is the richest man in town. Turns out she was going to shoplift some stuff to get arrested and embarrass her father, but didn't have the guts so she hid in a dressing room. (There's your second convenient plot device.) They share some "Breakfast Club"-style angst about their parents and plans for the future.
This is all fine, but then the movie wipes out with the addition of two criminals (Dermot Mulroney and his brother) who somehow break into the Target. When I read the description I thought this being from John Hughes who wrote "Home Alone" we'd have the same kind of Rube Goldberg-type slapstick traps. Certainly in a Target store there were plenty of possibilities for that kind of mayhem. At the least there could have been some great cat-and-mouse between Jim/Josie and the thieves. None of this comes to pass.
The ending is handled so sloppily that it left me with several questions. First off, the thieves do such a terrible job looking after their prisoners, so why doesn't Jim or Josie use the phone to call for help? (Maybe they don't want it to become a hostage situation or fear retribution, but it never even comes up.) Or since the robbers aren't paying attention, couldn't they set some "Home Alone"-style traps or at least find a couple of butcher knives? And how does Jim know about a shotgun kept in the store since it's his first night in the store and his supervisor wasn't exactly the communicative type?
None of it really made sense. Without the thieves this could have been a perfectly adequate teen comedy, but the sloppy final act just brings the whole thing down and really none of the issues raised in the first 3/4 of the movie are dealt with--notably the problem Jim and Josie have with their respective parents.
Probably the only reason to watch this is if you're either such a huge Hughes fan that you have to watch everything he's done or you're a huge fan of Jennifer Connelly's cleavage. Seriously the shots of her cleavage are as numerous as those of Megan Fox in "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen." And then there's her riding on the mechanical horse going up-and-down, up-and-down...OK, I'm losing focus here. What was I talking about? Oh yeah, basically there's not much reason for most people to watch this unless you fall into the categories above.
That is all.
My score: 62/100 (2.5 stars--the extra half-star for those cleavage shots!)
Friday, January 15, 2010
Duplicity
As far as caper movies go this one hums along fairly smoothly until the end when it tries to be too clever for its own good. In trying to pull off one last double-cross (or is it triple or maybe even quadruple-cross) it attempts a surprise ending like an M. Night Shyamalan film that seems nearly as implausible.
The story begins in 2003 in Dubai, where MI-6 agent Ray (Clive Own) meets CIA agent Claire (Julia Roberts). They wind up in bed together, where Claire proceeds to drug Ray and steal some valuable intelligence from him. Fast forward five years to where Ray and Claire are brought together again. Only this time they're working for rival corporations--or so it seems. In reality they're working for the same company only Claire is a mole in the corporation run by Howard Tully (Tom Wilkerson) while really working for a company run by Dick Garsik (Paul Giamatti) to get the inside dirt on a major product announcement.
This isn't the first time Ray and Claire have met before, as the film demonstrates in several flashbacks. They're looking to pull one over on their employers and make a fat wad of cash so they can retire somewhere--together. It seems they fell in love after the Dubai tryst because as fellow spies they're the only ones who can understand each other.
Anyway, I'm not going to spoil any of the big twists and turns for you. I will say that the biggest twist at the end is so disappointing because it either requires the villain to be clairvoyant or our heroes to be complete idiots. This would only work if it had been demonstrated early on that the villain was a genius or the heroes were idiots. Really as I said writer/director Tony Gilroy gets too clever for his good by piling on one twist too many.
Other than that, I was shocked to find out Julia Roberts was nominated for a Golden Globe for this movie. She acts like such a frigid bitch throughout the movie that I have no idea why Clive Owen (or anyone else) would want to sleep with her. I'd be afraid she'd eat me afterward. Owen has much more warmth and charisma and yet he doesn't get a nomination. Maybe the people in charge couldn't think of another actress.
At any rate, it's not a terrible movie but I found it disappointing. You'd be better off turning it off at the 105-minute mark or so.
That is all.
My score: 60/100 (2.5 stars)
Metacritic score: 69/100 (2.5 stars)
The story begins in 2003 in Dubai, where MI-6 agent Ray (Clive Own) meets CIA agent Claire (Julia Roberts). They wind up in bed together, where Claire proceeds to drug Ray and steal some valuable intelligence from him. Fast forward five years to where Ray and Claire are brought together again. Only this time they're working for rival corporations--or so it seems. In reality they're working for the same company only Claire is a mole in the corporation run by Howard Tully (Tom Wilkerson) while really working for a company run by Dick Garsik (Paul Giamatti) to get the inside dirt on a major product announcement.
This isn't the first time Ray and Claire have met before, as the film demonstrates in several flashbacks. They're looking to pull one over on their employers and make a fat wad of cash so they can retire somewhere--together. It seems they fell in love after the Dubai tryst because as fellow spies they're the only ones who can understand each other.
Anyway, I'm not going to spoil any of the big twists and turns for you. I will say that the biggest twist at the end is so disappointing because it either requires the villain to be clairvoyant or our heroes to be complete idiots. This would only work if it had been demonstrated early on that the villain was a genius or the heroes were idiots. Really as I said writer/director Tony Gilroy gets too clever for his good by piling on one twist too many.
Other than that, I was shocked to find out Julia Roberts was nominated for a Golden Globe for this movie. She acts like such a frigid bitch throughout the movie that I have no idea why Clive Owen (or anyone else) would want to sleep with her. I'd be afraid she'd eat me afterward. Owen has much more warmth and charisma and yet he doesn't get a nomination. Maybe the people in charge couldn't think of another actress.
At any rate, it's not a terrible movie but I found it disappointing. You'd be better off turning it off at the 105-minute mark or so.
That is all.
My score: 60/100 (2.5 stars)
Metacritic score: 69/100 (2.5 stars)
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Extract
Take one part "Office Space," one part "King of the Hill," and throw in a little stoner comedy for flavor and you get a bland comedy from Mike Judge (creator of the two items above) called "Extract."
Unlike "Office Space" that focused on an office with its meaningless TPS reports and jammed printers, "Extract" focuses on a factory. As the title suggests the company makes flavor extracts that are used in cooking. Reynold's Extract was founded by Joel (Jason Bateman) who has since become bored with dealing with his unruly employees. His partner Brian (JK Simmons) doesn't even bother to remember their names, referring to most of them as Dinkus. Lucky for both of them, General Mills is ready to swoop in with an offer to buy the company.
But then an accident (in a very sensitive location) to an employee named Step threatens everything. A con woman named Cindy (Mila Kunis) convinces Step to hire a sleazy ambulance chaser (Gene Simmons) to sue for big money, which in turn threatens the General Mills deal.
At the same time, Joel is facing a marital crisis. After taking some drugs supplied by his friend Dean (a long-haired Ben Affleck) Joel decides the best way to deal with the situation is to hire a gigolo to tempt his wife and thereby gauge her affection for him.
The way this all plays out isn't as funny as it could be. It's not as funny as the best parts of "Office Space" or even the best episodes of "King of the Hill." For my part I think I could just relate to TPS reports and jammed printers better. Also, there's not really much funny about paying someone to cheat on your wife.
While it's not a terrible movie, it's not a great one either. Most everyone involved has done better work than they've done here. I wouldn't even recommend it as a rental; wait for it to come out on cable.
Here are some fun facts relating to the movie.
Mike Judge (King of the Hill), Jason Bateman (Arrested Development), and Mila Kunis (That 70s Show/Family Guy) have all starred in comedies on the Fox network.
Jason Bateman and Ben Affleck also appear together in the 2009 thriller "State of Play" while Bateman and JK Simmons were both in the 2009 comedy/drama "Up in the Air."
Though he isn't credited, Mike Judge plays one of the workers named Jim (which is easy to tell because you can hear shades of Hank Hill in his voice)
Really, with the right clothes and hair Beth Grant looks just like an older Sarah Palin
That is all.
My score: 62/100 (2.5/4 stars)
Metacritic score: 62/100 (2.5/4 stars)
Unlike "Office Space" that focused on an office with its meaningless TPS reports and jammed printers, "Extract" focuses on a factory. As the title suggests the company makes flavor extracts that are used in cooking. Reynold's Extract was founded by Joel (Jason Bateman) who has since become bored with dealing with his unruly employees. His partner Brian (JK Simmons) doesn't even bother to remember their names, referring to most of them as Dinkus. Lucky for both of them, General Mills is ready to swoop in with an offer to buy the company.
But then an accident (in a very sensitive location) to an employee named Step threatens everything. A con woman named Cindy (Mila Kunis) convinces Step to hire a sleazy ambulance chaser (Gene Simmons) to sue for big money, which in turn threatens the General Mills deal.
At the same time, Joel is facing a marital crisis. After taking some drugs supplied by his friend Dean (a long-haired Ben Affleck) Joel decides the best way to deal with the situation is to hire a gigolo to tempt his wife and thereby gauge her affection for him.
The way this all plays out isn't as funny as it could be. It's not as funny as the best parts of "Office Space" or even the best episodes of "King of the Hill." For my part I think I could just relate to TPS reports and jammed printers better. Also, there's not really much funny about paying someone to cheat on your wife.
While it's not a terrible movie, it's not a great one either. Most everyone involved has done better work than they've done here. I wouldn't even recommend it as a rental; wait for it to come out on cable.
Here are some fun facts relating to the movie.
Mike Judge (King of the Hill), Jason Bateman (Arrested Development), and Mila Kunis (That 70s Show/Family Guy) have all starred in comedies on the Fox network.
Jason Bateman and Ben Affleck also appear together in the 2009 thriller "State of Play" while Bateman and JK Simmons were both in the 2009 comedy/drama "Up in the Air."
Though he isn't credited, Mike Judge plays one of the workers named Jim (which is easy to tell because you can hear shades of Hank Hill in his voice)
Really, with the right clothes and hair Beth Grant looks just like an older Sarah Palin
That is all.
My score: 62/100 (2.5/4 stars)
Metacritic score: 62/100 (2.5/4 stars)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)