3 Reviews

With everything that happened over the past week, reviews for The Proposal and Year One slipped through the cracks. I blame Michael Jackson.

Also… I wrote these like a week ago, except for My Sister’s Keeper, I didn’t have that one done yet. And I don’t feel like writing a full review… So 3 stars to the movie. Trite and contrived, but a well acted weeper.

The Proposal

3 Stars

I’m not one for the standard fair of romantic comedies. And as far as romantic comedies go, they don’t get much more standard than when they star Sandra Bullock. But add in the smart mouth of Ryan Reynolds, and you get a pretty enjoyable flick.

Sandra Bullock (Speed, Crash) stars as overbearing NYC book editor Margaret Tate who finds out she’s being deported back to Canada for failing to file her visa application on time. Enter Ryan Reynolds (Waiting…, X-Men Origins: Wolverine) as Andrew Paxton her much put-upon assistant. If they get married, she gets to stay in America and keep her job. She bribes him with a promotion to get him to along with it, but in order to fool the INS agent assigned to their case, she must spend the weekend with him and his family in Alaska. It follows a pretty cliched trajectory from start to finish. But adding in Betty White provides some good laughs.

Sandra Bullock gives a passable performance as Tate, but what’s more intriguing is that she’s playing her roles to herself. Rather than being an older actress trying to recapture her youthful glory days, she’s adapting her roles to play to her current strengths. And while there is nothing spectacular about her role or performance, her adaptability to the situation is admirable. But I would like to see her do more non-rom/com flicks. I think that era of her career has passed.

But the saving grace of the film is clearly Ryan Reynolds. Rather than playing the male lead as a nervous, submissive underling to the overbearing female lead, he kept up the pace and fired back at her just as much as she fired at him. He got in his own fair share of quips and barbs, and made sure the bribe wasn’t completely one sided. And he’s just one of those actors I can’tfigure out. He can do action, horror, comedy, romantic comedy and drama, all very well, and all with a knowing smirk on his face.

But when all is said and done, the performances couldn’t outshine the drab, cliche ridden plot. I don’t think it really constitutes a spoiler if I say that they end up falling in love in the end. If you go into the film not expecting that, then clearly you’ve never seen a Sandra Bullock film before. I’m not saying I would have preferred an Shyamalan inspired twist ending. But… I saw it coming a mile away. Take a cue from The Break-Up, sometimes… people don’t fall in love.

Year One

1 star

Harold Ramis. Jack Black. Michael Cera. Hank Azaria. Paul Rudd. David Cross. Christopher Mintz-Plaase. Oliver Platt. Vinnie Jones. Bill Hader Oliver Platt. HOW the hell could you fail with a line-up like that? By making a disjointed mess of a film, that’s how.

Black (Tropic Thunder, Tenacious D) and Cera (Arrested Development, Superbad) star as Zed and Oh, two hunter/gatherers who are banished from their tribe and must make a life for their own in new villages. After meeting up with Cain and Abel, their former village is pillaged by Romans, and the loves of their lives are sold into slavery. They begin an epic quest to free them from their lives of servitude.

As this is a comedy flick, I tried to overlook the anachronistic mixing of “cave people” and the Roman Empire. Still trying. Still failing. The film is an attempt to harken back to the days of Monty Python’s The Life Of Brian or Mel Brooks’ History of the World: Part I, but it fails miserably. It’s like watching a bunch of comedy sketches strung loosely together by a flimsy overall plot arc.

As a fan of Cross’ days on “Mr. Show” and Black’s on “Tenacious D”, I do in fact find certain scenes funny. But a few funny scenes does not make a funny movie. Or, clearly, a coherent one.

Everybody involved just seemed to phone this one in. No one really tried. Like, someone said “We’ve got these set pieces, and this script, and these costumes. You guys busy?” And everybody else just responded with “Well… I am bored enough.” This was a paycheck film. I can’t think of any other reason for this movie existing.

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

2 stars

You never really go into a Michael Bay flick expecting plot. Hot chicks, big explosions… that’s about it. And when the movie is space robots fighting other space robots, you shouldn’t expect much, regardless of who directs. But still, there was something lacking.

The movie picks up a year after the first one, Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf) is off to college on the east coast, for some reason leaving eye candy girlfriend Mikaela Barnes (Megan Fox)back in LA. Unfortunately for Sam, after coming into contact with a broken piece of the All Spark (source of power for the Transformers), an ancient script detailing the origins of the metallic species gets implanted in his head. Now the Decepticons, led by the recently resurrected Megatron, want Sam so they can reclaim their former glory and take over Earth.

Here’s the thing, Mr. Bay, can I call you Michael? Here’s the thing, Michael… kick ass action scenes can only take you so far. I gave Bad Boys, The Rock, Armageddon, The Island and Transformers a pass because the action was good, and there was just enough plot to not completely suck. And in case you or anyone else out there is wondering, I do realize I left Pearl Harbor off the list. That film was basically Titanic Goes Hawaiian. And to quote Kevin Smith, “Really? Must we go tropical?”

But Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen? It was an alternating cycle of stuff blowing up, Megan Fox wearing something tight, and Megan Fox wearing something tight while running away from stuff blowing up. And I don’t mind that. I’m a 23 year old guy. That stuff is fine. But not for two and a half hours. I like White Castle sliders, but even I think the box of 30 is too much. Put some in the fridge. Heat them up for later.

I felt bored by the film. It was tragic. I didn’t walk away wanting two and a half hours back, but I did wonder why they were charging full price for essentially half a film. They left the plot on the cutting room floor. I took solace in the fact I didn’t pay.

—————-
Now playing: Tito & Tarantula – Strange Face of Love
via FoxyTunes

07/07/2009 0

BIG NEWS FROM THE ACADEMY!

BRODIE FANNS!

Big news from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences: Starting next year at the 82nd Academy Awards Ceremony, they will now have 10 nominees for Best Picture, instead of five. Click the link for the full press release.

This means that while they’ll still nominate films that really have no reason being on the list (*ahem* The Reader), films that should be there (The Dark Knight, WALL-E) also now have a shot.

– Brodie Mann

24/06/2009 0

Top 100 Revisited

Brodie Fanns!

It’s been about a year and a half since I did my top 100 of all time list. And I felt it time to revisit it for a few additions and revisions.

Now… in the midst of compiling the list, I neglected Closer, and slipped it into the 30’s, pushing everything back one spot, bumping The Longest Day out of the top 100 (much to the chagrin of my dear old dad).

Since then, I’ve felt compelled to move a film up (it was criminally low, despite it’s strong showing in the Top 20), and make three additions.

So… the first addition was Zodiac to #79, between North by Northwest now at #80, and Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, at #77, and bumping Kill Bill: The Whole Bloody Affair out of the top 100.

Since the remaining changes affect only the top 20, I’ll post that list. Changes in red

1 – The Godfather
2 – Pulp Fiction
3 – It’s A Wonderful Life
4 – Sin City
5 – Donnie Darko
6 – Dazed and Confused
7 – The Godfather II
8 – Nosferatu
9 – Rear Window
10- Jaws
11- Shawshank Redemption
12- Beauty and the Beast
13- The Dark Knight
14- Casablanca
15- Clerks
16- Requiem for a Dream
17- American History X
18- WALL-E
19- Citizen Kane
20- Ocean’s 11 (2001)

Now, the first change is I moved Dazed and Confused to #6, bumping The Shawshank Redemption out of the top 10. I did some reflection, and considering all that the film really does mean to me, I had to bump it up.

The second changes came with the addition of last year’s The Dark Knight and WALL-E. The Dark Knight, no matter how you look at it, is one of the most finely crafted films of all time. With some of the finest performances put to film. But since this is a list of my FAVOURITE films, it didn’t pull higher rank, because I also added personal connection to films. And WALL-E, just a beautiful film. I stare in awe at what they can do.

They bumped Die Hard and Fight Club out of the Top 20, Young Frankenstein and The Big Lebowski out of the Top 50, and Chinatown and Halloween out of the top 100, placing The Dirty Dozen at #100.

I would like you to keep in mind, that while this has altered, these are all 5 star films in my book. Hell, you’d probably have to go all the way to the bottom 100’s (nearing 200) before we hit 4.5 star films. Based on the sheer amount of films I have seen in my life. So far I have seen 42 different films in theatres this year alone (actually it’s closer to 50, when I add the award season ’08 releases I had to wait till Jan/Feb to see). So yeah… there’s that.

You can flip to my archives in Dec. 07/Jan. 08 to see the full list as originally posted. For those reading this on FaceBook, go to http://www.brodiemanfilm.blogpsot.com.

Peace out, honkies!

23/06/2009 0

Imagine That/The Taking of Pelham 123

Imagine That

.5 Star

What happened to you Eddie? You used to be hilarious. There’s proof all over the internet of this. But even Beverly Hills Cop III was better than this. I’d like to call it a family friendly comedy, but I wouldn’t subject my family to this. I just wouldn’t. There’s not even a fun message in the film. It’s just bad.

Eddie Murphy stars as Evan Danielson, a high powered stock broker in Denver, who is constantly butting heads with his equally high powered colleague, Whitefeather (Thomas Haden Church). In fact he’s so focused on his job, that he’s neglecting his daughter, Olivia (Yara Shahidi). But once her imaginary friends start predicting booms and falls in the stock market, he learns to connect with his daughter, and let his inner child out.

Yes, that is the plot synopsis I am going with. Eddie Murphy needs to step away from movies for a bit. Stick with Shrek, you’re doing good with the voice over work. But go the Bill Murray route, take a few years off, return with some edgy, indie comedies. Or do what Chevy Chase and Dan Aykroyd are doing, stepping out of the starring roles, and showing up in delightful cameos. But stop with the family friendly crap. It’s not working.

Murphy aside… the film was still pretty terrible. We’re never really keyed into why the imaginary princesses in Olivia’s fantasy world know so much about the NYSE. And how they’re able to predict mergers, acquisitions and what not. Maybe we’re not supposed to know, but if we’re not, that’s a really terrible plot device. The message they’re trying to convey is to spend time with your kids. That much is clear. You could gather that from the trailer. But they waste and hour and a half trying spell it out for you in the must ridiculous and not-hilarious way possible.

This film does however get a point for the antics of Thomas Haden Church (Sideways, “Wings”). He steals every scene he’s in, and actually makes something comical out of the drivel he’s been given.

But I leave you with this, a reminder of when Eddie Murphy was funny:

The Taking of Pelham 123

2.5 stars

While there’s nothing particularly terrible about this new action/thriller from Tony Scott, Denzel Washington and John Travolta, there really isn’t anything particularly great about it either. It just kind of coasts by on the charisma of the two leads, and let’s them have an interesting conversation for a little over an hour.

New York City Transit dispatcher Walter Garber (Denzel Washington) is settling in for a normal day. Until the Pelham 123 line is stopped and seperated, followed by an announcement from the hijacker known only as Ryder (John Travolta) that NYC has just one hour to get him $10 million or he starts killing hostages. It’s a race against the clock for Garber to save the lives of everyone on that train.

John Travolta has done some of his best work as a villain (Broken Arrow, Face/Off, Pulp Fiction). And this is no different. There’s something about seeing this usual nice guy be bad. And he notches up a great performance opposite the always likeable Washington (Man on Fire, Inside Man).

Unfortunately, that’s when this movie actually gets good, when these two are talking over the radio communications. It starts off kind of slow and disjointed, but once we get into the rythym of the Travolta/Washington conversations is where the movie starts to heat up. You get this wonderful exchange that pulls you in. They start exposing each others weaknesses, playing on certain personal faults. It culminates in a thrilling showdown in the third act.

But, the movie can’t coast on their charm alone, and no matter how good their exchange is, the mediocrity of the rest of the movie does not go unnoticed.

Go see it for Washington/Travolta, but if that doesn’t motivate you to get to the theatre, then definitely check it out in a few months on the rental shelves.

14/06/2009 0

Six Reviews in Twelve-ish Paragraphs

I’ve got mini reviews for Terminator: Salvation, Night At The Museum II: Battle of the Smithsonian, Up, Drag Me to Hell, Land of the Lost, and The Hangover. So let’s jump right in, shall we?

Terminator: Salvation

3.5 Stars

It’s a franchise that has a longstanding place in the cannon of sci-fi/action. And McG decides to explore the future-history of Judgement day, focusing more on the action, less on the sci-fi. What made the first two so groundbreaking is that they dealt heavily with the consequences of technological evolutions, as well as the intricacies of time travel. Here we get a war movie, only instead of Allied troops vs. Nazis, it’s the Resistance vs. Robots. But I will give them this, the action was top notch and pulse pounding. And there is a great visual referance to The Great Escape, to more or less drive home the “war-action” point.

Christian Bale turns in a great performance, which are starting to become the standard for him. You also get interesting turns from Bryce Dallas Howard (Spider-Man 3, The Village) and Anton Yelchin (Alpha Dog, Star Trek). I would have actually liked to see more of Anton as Kyle Reese in the movie. But the true powerhouse of the film was Sam Worthington (finally beign introduced to American audiences) as unaware Terminator Marcus Wright. Arguably the best scene in the film goes to him, when he finds out he’s not human. See the film for the action, and Worthington’s performance, but Terminator purists will be disappointed.

Night at the Museum II: Battle of the Smithsonian

3.5 Stars

If you enjoyed the first one, you’ll definitely enjoy the second one. A bunch of very funny actors collaborate (and that’s the key word, they all collaborate) to bring historic characters to life in a very hilarious manner. Amy Adams shines by holding her own in a verible boys club of comedic actors, that includes Ben Stiller, Owen Wilson, Steve Coogan, Robin Williams, Christopher Guest, Ricky Gervais, Bill Hader and Hank Azaria.

Unfortunately with all that does go on in the film, it is a bit scattered, and there’s a chaotic element to it that drags it down. But the film pulls out of the muddled mess to bring it home with a great third act. Definitely one to check out.

5 stars

Pixar continues their hot streak. They’re now 10 for 10 (gonna go 11 for 11 next year with Toy Story 3). Where other animation houses (Dreamworks, Sony, even Pixar’s parent Disney) are more interested in being goofy, and making sure they can do product tie-ins, Pixar is ambitious. They want to tell a wonderful, emotional story, and present some of the most beautiful pieces of animation out there. And they do it. I will admit to getting a little misty eyed during Up. And no, not at the end. Within the first 10 minutes.

Ed Asner is pitch perfect as the curmodgeony Carl Frederickson. He’s lived in the same house for fifty years, and wants to honour his recently deceased wife by going on an adventure to South America, and takes the house along with him. It’s my second favourite Pixar film (behind Wall-E) and third favourite animated film (behind Beauty and the Beast and Wall-E).

Drag Me To Hell

4 stars

One thing director Sam Raimi knows is horror. He can scare the crap out of you, and make you laugh in the same scene. And with Drag Me To Hell, he returns to his Evil Dead/Army of Darkness roots. Not a scare is wasted in this tale of revenge and gypsy curses. It’s helped by the great performance of Alison Lohman in the principle role.

It does get admittedly cheesey at parts, but it’s hard to really call that a fault, since that’s Raimi’s style. And luckily for the audience, we’re given a completely satisfying ending. This is light-years beyond the normal drivel that passes for horror these days.

Land of the Lost

2.5 stars

It’s hard to figure out what they wanted to do with this film. Keep true to the spirit of the original show, or make a Will Ferrell movie (that also features the hilarious Danny McBride, currently batting a thousand). Unfortunately, they said ‘Screw it!’ and did both. And it just doesn’t work. It’s much more risque than I had expected. Not that I’m a prude or anything, far from it, I just expected a nice family film.

But, in taking it as what it is, it still offers up some good laughs, and keeps in the cheesey spirit of the show. Danny McBride is, as stated earlier, hilarious. His interactions with Cha-Ka provide for some of the best scenes. And Anna Friel provides a good balance to the macho humour of the two leads.

The Hangover

4 stars

In the grand tradition of Bachelor Party and Very Bad Things, we get a guys night out that goes horribly hay-wire, with hilarious consequences. What’s great is that we never see the night of debauchery. We’re left to piece together the night along with groomsmen, who are trying to locate the now missing groom. It’s full of raunch and ridiculous shenanigans, but anybody who’s taken part in a bachelor party (be it in Vegas or not) can relate to something these four do.

Bradley Cooper is funny, and, with his performance, reminds us to ask the question, “Why isn’t he a bigger star?” Comedian Zach Galafianakis finally gets the credit he is due with a starring role in this dark comedy. Definitley the comedy of the year, and for the first time in four years, it doesn’t feature Seth Rogan.

07/06/2009 0

The Hannah Montana/Fight Club Theory

This post includes in depth discussions of the plots for both Fight Club and Hannah Montana. Spoiler Alert would be an understatement. If you haven’t seen them yet, and subsequently don’t want them ruined for you, I recommend you don’t read this. Otherwise… enjoy.

Now, Fight Club is one of my all time, top 20 favourite movies. It was #20. It’s a film about a great many things, tackling a great many topics. White rage. Male aggression. Yuppie backlash. But ultimately, it’s about Multiple Personality Disorder. At least, for the purpose of this post, that’s what it’s about.

Edward Norton’s character, which had no name, but we’ll refer to as Jack from here on out, was an unhappy, bored, single, young urban professional. He wasn’t all that impressive. Jack suffered from insomnia, which led him to seek comfort in the misfortune of others by attending support groups for various diseases.

In his mind, he creates the perfect vision of the man he wishes he could be, in Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt). Tyler even goes so far as to say to Jack – “All the ways you wish you could be, that’s me. I look like you wanna look, I f**k like you wanna f**k, I am smart, capable, and most importantly, I am free in all the ways that you are not.”

Jack didn’t like his life, so he created another one.

Hannah Montana does not exist. She is not a real person. She is a fabrication of Miley Stewart’s (Miley Cyrus) mind so she can effectively have a career as a pop star (Hannah) and have a normal life as a normal teenage girl (Miley).

Miley is a normal, teenage girl from small town Tennessee. She’s nervous about the normal teenage girl things. Going to the dance. Learning to drive. Puberty. Being popular. The new Justin Timberlake album. Her friends. Does the cute football player like her? Normal teenage girl stuff.

Hannah is one of the biggest popstars in the world. Thousands upon thousands of people adore her. Stores and boutiques are falling over themselves to have her shop at their store. Celebrities want to hang out with her. She’s confident.

All the ways Miley wishes she could be, that’s Hannah. She looks like she wants to look, she acts like she wants to act. She is smart, capable, and most importantly, Hanna is free in all the ways that Miley is not.

When Tyler and Jack are together, only one is addressed by a third party. Only one interacts with said third party.

When Miley is Hannah, she is addressed as Hannah. When she is Miley, she is addressed as Miley.

The primary difference is that the people in Miley’s life are enablers. For Jack, no one knew about his delusions. They figured there was something going on, but they didn’t know. For Miley, they not only know, but they play along.

Miley is a lonely little girl with delusions of grandeur. Jack was a lonely man with delusions of grandeur.

Hannah is Tyler. Miley is Jack.

17/05/2009 1

X-Men Origins: Wolverine/Star Trek/Angels & Demons

So about 3 weeks ago, my computer decided to take a crap and stop working. I had to completely reformat to get it up and running again. So here are 3 full reviews, plus a few mini-reviews.

Sunshine Cleaning – 3 stars – A solid dark comedy, but doesn’t live up to it’s stylistic predecessor, Little Miss Sunshine.
Obsessed – 0 Stars – There is nothing to like about this film… not even Idris Elba.
17 Again– 2.5 Stars – It was fun to watch Zac Efron be Matthew Perry for an hour and a half.
Ghosts of Girlfriends Past – 1.5 Stars – It’s the same as every other Matthew McConaughey movie, only this time it’s Dickens-ian. So it still sucks.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine

3 Stars

He’s a comic book character who is third only to Batman and Superman in popularity, yet has one of the most storied and intriguing backgrounds. Yet the film falls into the same traps that the source comics fell, too… good story, but poor storytelling. To fully and properly tell his story, you’d have to do at least two films, with this one being the second.

James Howlett/Logan/Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) is a child of privilege in the early 19th century Canada. After witnessing the murder of the man he believed to be his father, and subsequently revenge killing his real father, he and his now half brother Victor Creed/Sabertooth (Liev Schrieber) embark on a Gump-ian journey through time. Participating in every major war through Vietnam, before being executed and then brought into the Weapon X program. Wolverine then turns on his superiors, going rogue to regain and hold onto his humanity.

Jackman (X-Men, The Prestige) returns to the role that made him famous. But it’s also a role that he made. The issue with many comic book characters is that they work entirely outside of the real world. Jackman brought that character into the real world for us in the previous X-Men films. This film would not have worked without Jackman. It is his character, and he of course does a fantastic job.

Schrieber (The Manchurian Candidate, Scream 2) is, in turn, a perfect foil in Victor to Jackman’s Logan. The humanity in Logan doesn’t exist in Victor. Victor is pure animal instinct, and Schrieber encapsulates that perfectly.

It all falls apart with the decent, yet ultimately forgettable turns from the supporting cast. Don’t get me wrong, they were good. And did add to the story. But the story was all Logan/Victor/Stryker (Danny Houston). You could have swapped out Bolt, The Blob, Deadpool and Gambit for just about anyone else in the Marvel cannon, and no one would have noticed. The movie would have been very similar. But they had to set up Deadpool for Ryan Reynolds ( Waiting…, Blade: Trinity) who did a good job. And they did have to include Gambit, finally. But really, it was all incidental.

Gavin Hood, you’re a competent enough director. I liked Tsotsi. But you either didn’t understand the material… Or you just didn’t care enough. This seemed like a throw away project for you. The fight scenes and special effects were cool, but that was how it was with Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace. And we all know how that turned out.

All I’m saying is that this movie was good, and it should have been better. After Iron Man, The Dark Knight and Watchmen, you really have to step up your game when handling comic book franchises.

Star Trek

5 Stars

J.J. Abrams made it very clear that this was “not your father’s Star Trek,” and it isn’t. While maintaining the spirit of one of the longest running franchises in Sci-Fi fantasy, it gives it a face-lift, and brings it into the modern era.

We follow Kirk (Chris Pine), Spock (Zachary Quinto), McCoy (Karl Urban) and Uhura (Zoe Saldana) in their early days at Starfleet Academy, and their early clashes. But when Romulan Commander Nero (Eric Bana) threatens planet Vulcan, Starfleet snaps into action to ward off this enemy that haunts Kirk’s past and, through time warps, Spock’s future. This young, unruly band must come together when Cpt. Pike (Bruce Greenwood) of the U.S.S. Enterprise is taken captive by Nero. Not only are we treated to some first class action, but also to the great political subtext we’ve come to know and love in the Star Trek franchise.

The Star Trek brand, and indeed the original cast of characters, are such cultural icons that it at first seems sacreligious to even attempt a recreation. But where several flim makers have ultimately failed, J.J. Abrams in recognizing the origins of the franchise, taking things in his own direction, but all the while never insulting the original, has succeeded. You sometimes get adaptations of beloved TV shows, and they clearly had no idea what the original was about, and it comes off as insulting to the spirit of the original. But Abrams knows his roots. He himself is a geek, and stepped carefully to create a great film that fit into the original story, but was clearly it’s own entity.

Try and follow this if you will, and you’ll see what Abrams was up against- To stay true the original blueprint of the series, Abrams had to refer to the 1966 version of the future, even though 2009 version of the future is now vastly different (especially considering all the technological advancements made since, you know, like man on the moon), than the 1966 version. So in order to present the current future, he had to use the past future, and update it to the present. All the while creating his own versions of classic characters.

Much could be said about the interaction of the two Spocks (Quinto/Leonard Nimoy), and don’t worry, I’ll get to that. But first, I want to talk Chris Pine (Bottle Shock, Smokin’ Aces), the relative unknown who had to step into William Shatner’s shoes. Say what you will about Shatner, Kirk wouldn’t have been nearly as great without Shatner back in the 60’s. So Pine had the daunting task of playing this icon, without reducing it to a charicature. Pine did the best thing he could do: forget the original. He created a whole new Kirk. And his Kirk is the cocky, reckless, rebelious, reluctant hero he should be. And he beds the green chick. Hat’s off to you, Pine. Admirably performed.

Quinto (“Heroes'” Sylar) makes his feature film debut, also tackling an iconic character. But Pine had it easy compared to Quinto. Quinto has to be in the movie with the original Spock, Leonard Nimoy. Quinto had to follow the rigidity of the character, but was able to take a few more liberties with the character, given the Vulcan’s relatively young age. And you’ll geek out when young and old Spocks share a scene.

Everybody else in the cast was perfect as the young counterparts to the originals. And the only one who I really had any reservations about, John Cho (Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle) as Sulu, far surpassed what I could have hoped for the character.

I like the new direction Abrams is taking the franchise. He’s mixing bombastic action and special effects with the global policitically aware writing of the franchise. If this is just the start of it, I can’t wait to see where they take it. Count me in.

Angels & Demons

2.5 Stars

Well… it’s better than The Da Vinci Code, but Angels & Demons suffers from a lot of the same pitfalls its predecessor did. Too much story trying to fit into too little time. An over the top religious conspiracy. A theme loftier than the movie generally warrants. Having been written by Dan Brown.

Harvard Symbologist (if that were a real thing, I’d care if it was spelled right) Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) is called to the Vatican after the death of the Pope and the kidnapping of the four primary Cardinal nominees to become the new Pope. One of CERN’s top scientists, Vittoria Vetra, is also called in on the case as the group behind the kidnappings, claiming to be the long secret society “Iluminati,” had stolen a canister of anti-matter to use to blow up the Vatican if their demands are not met. It’s a race against the clock to save the Cardinals, stop the bomb and solve the mystery before midnight.

Unfortunately it’s not as pulse pounding as it wants to be. The end result is as human and fallible as anything, without the mythos and mystery that accompanied The Da Vinci Code. On the flipside, director Ron Howard created a tighter film, less convoluted film than the first. I’ve viewed the Langdon character as somewhat of a descendent of Indiana Jones (the similarities are there), and I’m more than happy to let him live in the realm where these conspiracies are true. They should have kept some of that in, instead of building it up, then tossing it aside with a “the bad guy lied” explanation. As long as the Vatican doesn’t turn into a UFO at the end, I’m happy.

The presentation of science vs. religion is a) handled poorly and b) a little too big for the film. This is a popcorn flick. Don’t go existential on me if you’re not going to follow through with it. They kind of half assed their way through it.

Hanks abely plays Langdon, but honestly, and this goes back to the first film, too, I don’t think he’s really right for the role. I’m thinking more Jeff Goldblum or David Duchovney. My friend Jenny even mentioned Bill Pullman. But Hanks just doesn’t click right with me on this role. He’s not bad. It’s just a bit off.

If you really must go see it, and really want to, then yeah, I guess I can recommend it. But this one is worth a rent. Maybe a viewing on ON-Demand.

Oh and one more thing… They say that if you lock up 500 monkeys in a room for 500 years with typewriters, they’ll eventually write Shakespeare. If you lock up about four, over a weekend, with grocery bag apiece full of cheesy bean and rice burritos from the Taco Bell value menu… they’ll crap out Dan Brown’s next book. I just wanted to point out that Dan Brown is a terrible writer.

17/05/2009 0

Hannah Montana/Observe and Report plus others

First a recap of some I didn’t write full reviews of…

Fast & Furious– 2.5 stars – Not terrible… but really… what’s the point?
Monsters vs. Aliens – 3.5 stars – Entertaining little film, definitely worth a look see in 3D
I Love You Man – 4 stars – Not as fall down hilarious as similar flicks, but has a million miles of heart
Adventureland– 3 stars- Didn’t know what genre it wanted to be… coming of age teen drama, or goofy comedy
Duplicity– 3.5 stars- Good old fashioned romp, but ultimately got too smart for its own good.
Race To Witch Mountain – 3 stars – Enjoyable family flick that gets by on the natural charisma of Dwayne Johnson
12 Rounds – 1 star – As Joel put it, Die Hard: With a Vengeance, without the witty banter.
Last House on the Left – 3.5 stars – Brutally intense, keeps the spirit of the original.

AND Now… the meat of it…

Hannah Montana: The Movie

3 Stars

Some of you may be saying “You’re a hard drinkin, hard fightin’, smokin’, drinkin’, tattooed son of a bitch. 3 Stars? Have you gone soft?” I went in expecting the worst. I even took my friend’s fiancee along, so I wouldn’t seem like “Creepy old guy at the Hannah Montana.” But you know what? I wound up enjoying myself with this cute little kids flick, as generally mindless as it maybe.

Miley Cyrus plays Miley Stewart, who leads a double life as pop sensation Hannah Montana. Only a close knit crew of people know of the double life, and Miley must make the difficult choice of keeping Hannah in her life, or reserving herself to a normal life as Miley. Her father/manager Robbie Ray (Billy Ray Cyrus) ships her off to her hometown in Tennessee following celebrity shoe battle with Tyra Banks to get a dose of the real world, and there she learns to love life as not Hannah. Even finds time for a love life as Miley with farm hand Travis. After it comes out that Miley is “good friends” with Hannah, she’s forced into the awkward situation of being with friends and family at the Hannah Montana benefit concert, put on to save her hometown from being bought up by greedy land developers.

This movie combines all the best elements of an 80’s sitcom, throws in the “Superman Complex”, and rounds it all out with, good, wholesome family fun, that last part I can’t, in good conscience, fully decry.

Remember in “Family Ties” when Alex would get a date with one girl for 7pm, and another for 9pm, and then the girl at 9 had to reschedule for 7, so rather than call one off, he tries to manage both dates at the same time? Oh, and at the same restaurant? He’d have to pretend to smoke for one of them, so he could get 9 to sit in the smoking section. Yeah… it was marginally funny then. And got decreasingly funny when Kirk Cameron did it on “Growing Pains,” then Joey Lawrence on “Blossom,” then it got passed around “Family Matters,” “Step by Step,” “Boy Meets World,” and countless other 80’s and 90’s sitcoms. Yeah, that’s pretty much Hannah Montana. And the “Superman Complex?” – No one seems to realize that Superman looks exactly like Clark Kent without glasses. Likewise… no one seems to realize that Hannah Montana is a blonde Miley Stewart.

The thing about Miley Cyrus, is that I’m rooting for her… she’s got some great potential that has yet to be fully realized. I don’t think she’s a brightly burning star that will fizzle in a year when the Hannah Montana black hole collapses. That’s not a slam against Hannah Montana, I just felt like running with the astronomy reference. And she does show a phenomenal screen presence that I would like to see continue on throughout for career. I hope she isn’t hampered by the long arm of the Disney Channel. Think a female Shia Lebouf. Let’s just hope she doesn’t go on to ruin the 80’s.

The thing of it is… It’s not made for people like me. You know, the over 14 crowd. And it’s not made for critics. It’s made for kids. We all had movies that we loved as kids, and looking back, we wonder why? Mighty Ducks? Anyone? That was our kids movie, and sticks with us to this day. I now realize it as a mediocre at best flick, but it holds a special place in my heart. And it will for kids these days (that makes me sound like a fogey). I can’t fault these kids for that. I’m gonna let them have their movie.

Look for fun cameos from Rascal Flatts and the very lovely and talented Taylor Swift. Barry Bostwick pops up in a funny little role. But in all seriousness… what would have made this film… is Billy Ray Cyrus singing his signature song, “Achy Breaky Heart.” You picked up a guitar. You were in front of a mic. You couldn’t do the “Achy Breaky?” Throw us older folks a little something.

P.S. For those of you who don’t know, I’m not as old as I make myself sound. I’m 23. But I am older than the target audience for this flick.

Observe and Report

2 stars

Alright this is more like it. Seth Rogan in a dark action comedy? I should be all about this. Oh wait… IT SUCKED! This was an exercise in defining WTF?!?! that was all over the place, and too scattered for it’s own good.

Ronnie (Rogan) is a bi-polar mall security guard with dillusions of grandeur. He takes himself way too serious, and that is his own downfall. He’s on the hunt for a serial flasher terrorizing his mall parking lot, and targeting the pretty make-up counter girl Brandi (Anna Faris). He feels some competition from the actual police, especially Det. Harrison (Ray Liotta), so he steps up his game to bring the pervert to justice. Oh, and there’s a rash of robberies at the mall. Oh, and he’s trying to be a real cop. Oh, and there’s an underdeveloped possible love story between Ronnie and Brandi.

It’s significantly darker in tone than the other Mall cop flick to come out this year, Paul Blart. But that doesn’t change the fact that it’s the second mall cop flick to come out this year (within 2 months of each other). Really Hollywood? Two? Are you coming out with a Go-Bots flick this year, too?

Hollywood’s desperation for original storylines aside, like I said, it’s a scatter shot flick that never even tries to find it’s proper footing. One minute we’re on the pervert. The next minute we’re on Ronnie’s badge and gun ambitions. The third we’re on the mall store robberies. What is the movie about? Everything, which ultimately leads to nothing. And not in the cool nihilistic way. But in the “What the hell did I just watch?” kinda way.

There was a minor controversy surrounding the implicit date rape scene in the film. I don’t exactly see how it could be strictly considered date rape. Sure Brandi is drunk. But we go from him sneaking a kiss on the front walk, to them doin’ the horizontal tango. We miss the in between. We don’t know went on between the two… And when he does stop to consider that she has fallen asleep, she replies “Why’d you stop, mother******?” So…. we don’t really know what went down. But it is an offputting scene in general.

Rogan (Pineapple Express, Knocked Up) is a tremendous comedic talent and I dig what he does. And I give him props for extending his comedic range into darker territories. But this film was just wrong on so many levels, that I ask the question I do so rarely actually ask… Why the hell was this film even made? But he at least gets props for trying.

Luckily you can never count out the comedic talents of the beautiful Anna Faris (House Bunny, Waiting…). Usually despite how I feel about the film, I’ll almost always enjoy her performance.

Despite a strong performance from Faris, and the interesting turn from Rogan, I can’t recommend this film. Not even to rent. Skip it. You’re not missing a damn thing.

19/04/2009 0

Watchmen

This one is coming in a little later than usual. I knew that out of any movie I had ever reviewed, I would probably have to do the most explaining myself on this one, due to the fan base. I wanted to take my time with it… Reviewing this film, I run into very similar obstacles I did when reviewing Sex and the City last year. No really… I did… With Sex and the City, I had to separate my male brain from my film critic brain. With Watchmen, I have to separate my fanboy brain from my film critic brain. So, with that said, here goes nothing…

OH Before I get to it…

Fired Up! – 2.5 stars – not as bad as I expected, but still not that good.
Revolutionary Road – 3.5 stars – Great performances, but otherwise quite drab.
The Wrestler – 4.5 stars – A great bio-flick, even if it’s fake.

Watchmen

5 Stars

What do you do when charged with the task of filming what is considered not only the greatest graphic novel of all time, but one of the greatest novels of the 20th century? What has been dubbed the unfilmable? Where your every cinematic and artistic choice will be scrutinized by fanboys and critics alike? If you’re Zak Snyder, you make the best damn movie you can, and hope for the best.

Set in an alternate 1985, where Nixon is still president, American/Russian tensions are at an all time high, and costumed vigilantes are the norm, Watchmen is an epic morality tale. After the Watchmen, the second generation of costumed vigilantes are declared illegal by a government ban, few refuse to give up the good fight. When someone kills one of their own, the remaining few must figure out if it was random, or part of a deeper conspiracy to wipe out ex-heroes.

Since I would be spending a significant amount of time delving into the film, I decided to keep the summary brief and concise. The story is much bigger, and better than that summery leads you to believe, but all I can say is, read the book.

The performances matched the scope of the film. In that they were epic. Any lack of character development that exists, the blame falls on the editor. To fans they were beloved. But to the un-initiated, they were problematic. No matter who the usual comic hero is, Spider-Man, Superman, Batman, there’s an expectation of perfection as the hero. The alter-ego may be full of character flaws. But the hero is perfect. Again, to the fans, we know the Watchmen. We know their flaws. We know their moral ambiguity. For Jackie Earle Haley to create both the unlikable Walter Kovacs and questionable Rorschach to both satisfy the fans in their expectations and appeal to the un-initiated, despite him being a dislikable character. It’s not just true for Haley’s Rorschach. It’s true for Patrick Wilson’s nebbish Dan Dreiberg/dauntless Nite Owl II. Malin Ackermin’s Laurie Jupiter tends to over-anylize things, but her Silk Spectre II is fearless. All of the actors involved made the characters relatable, likeable and personable, but never let you forget that there were lines that were going to be crossed.

Aside from Haley (Little Children, Bad News Bears), the stand-out performances belong to both Jeffrey Dean Morgan (“Grey’s Anatomy”) and Billy Crudup (Almost Famous) playing Edward Blake/The Comedian and Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan, respectfully. Going scene to scene for Morgan, you’d get Blake’s twisted, depraved side, and then in the next you’d get his vulnerability. In one scene, you got both. At the same time. As for Crudup’s Manhattan, he was a man so detached from our world, he eventually just leaves, only to later realize the value in humanity.

This film never could have lived up to any fan’s expectations, unless that fan’s expectations were low. While that statement may inherently contradict the 5 star rating I gave it, it’s exactly why I took so long to write this review. With any film based on something with a huge cult fanbase, and such a prestigous pedigree that Watchmen has, fan’s (aka “fanboys”) expectations are going to be extremely high, and extremely strict. We (I say we, as a fan of the novel) look at it through the prism of the source material. It’s true for X-Men. It’s true for Star Trek. It’s true for Watchmen. We hold the cinematic adaptation to a higher standard than other films. An impossibly high standard.

The first thing I learned in film class (even though it is, technically, blatently obvious) is that books and films are two vastly different mediums. Things can be done in books that can never be done on film. Each individual reader has their own interpretation of the written word and the artistically rendered panel. It’s true for “Frankenstein.” It’s true for “Grapes of Wrath.” It’s true for “Watchmen.” The cinematic version is one man’s interpretation… the director’s, in this case, Zack Snyder. And when it comes to properties that have such a rabid following, he not only has to please the fanboys, but also appeal to a general movie going audience. He also had to make changes, because somethings in the book either a) won’t translate to film or b) would make the film 4 hours long.

Snyder (Dawn of the Dead, 300) made the film as he saw it, to the best of his ability. But he knew full well going in that people weren’t going to like it. That was the chance he took. I admire him a great deal for taking that risk. He had the balls to step up to the plate. He had the balls to make the best film he could.

The film never suffers from pacing problems. It appears to be a scatter shot focus, but there’s so much story to tell, and so little time to tell it, even if it does run almost 3 hours long. He effectively uses the opening title sequence as exposition, setting up the back story of masked vigilantes, and how we got to where we are now, in terms of the actual film. Specific back stories are explored more indepth throughout the film, but the credit sequence is where we are brought up to speed.

There were a few faults I did end up seeing, but this could cycle back to the “fanboy’s personal interpretation.” I felt the focus was on the wrong two characters. Too much Silk/Owl, not enough Rorschach. I still feel that, since the thrust of the story is Rorschach investigating Comedian’s murder. But the Silk/Owl segments are integral, too. I initially had reservations about the changing of Rorschach’s back story, as pertaining to what finally pushed him over the edge. The book’s explanation was pitch perfect, and gave a moral ambiguity to the character. The film removed that. As was pointed out by friend/co-worker Jeff, had they gone with the book’s version, people would have easily drawn a connection to Saw, and that would have left a bad taste in many viewers’ mouths.

The major fault with the film, is also a fault of this review so far. Little was actually done with Adrien Veidt/Ozymandias, played by Matthew Goode (Match Point). It’s important to the story. Both book and film version. But little is done with him. For a layperson, that would be quite frustrating and confusing. For a fanboy, it’s just frustrating.

When reviewing a film, you have to place it both in context of it’s time, and in context of the history of film. This film is visually stunning, well put together, a faithful adaptation and wonderfully acted. In the history of film, does that not earn it recognition amongst the finest? It does. In context, when judged against it’s contemporaries, is it a step above? Does it raise the bar? Does it change the game? Yes.

I give it 5 stars because Zack Snyder and crew set out to make the best movie they could given the odds they were up against. And they overcame those odds. Any nit-picking aimed at the film is just that… nit-picking by a fan is angry that the tiniest detail that THEY wanted wasn’t in the film. Nit-picking by a fanboy who expected 1 Million%, not fully understanding that percents only go up to 100.

Also, make all the jokes you want, but the glowing blue Dr. Manhattan nudity… I didn’t have a problem with it. I didn’t notice after awhile.

The end.

18/03/2009 0