Premise: A psychiatrist takes a new job at a mental hospital and learns about his past.
Stars: Aaron Eckhart * Ian McKellen * Brittany Murphy * Nick Nolte * William Hurt
Story: Zach Riley (Eckhart) is a psychiatrist who takes a job at a new mental hospital. While employed there, he discovers that his father (Nolte), a noted children's author, had stayed there after his descent into dementia. He begins reading his father's files and learns how his father knew of another patient, the schizophrenic Finch (McKellen), and through Finch's madness, he learned of this fantasy world where Riley was conceived of as a hero. While investigating his past and treating his patients, he meets Maggie (Murphy), a childhood friend and they grow attracted to each other.
Review: The film is reminiscent of Don Juan DeMarco, where it seems allowing individuals to live within their fantasy worlds may not be such a bad thing. It's lush and soft light seems to dominate the movie, especially when Ms. Murphy is on-screen.
McKellen and Eckhart give solid performances and the film is pretty straight-forward with its appeal. Nolte (as the tortured writer and loving father who descends into madness) and Hurt (as Eckhart's boss and fellow psychiatrist) also give respectable performances.
The film is pretty standard fare, however. It is a positive film, showing that both self-discovery and coming to terms with the past can be a curative for a person feeling alone and adrift in the world.
It's enjoyable, and bittersweet for being one of the final performances of Ms. Murphy's career.
Overall: Mediocre
Other Sites:
Wikipedia * IMDb * AllMovie * Rotten Tomatoes
Showing posts with label review: mediocre. Show all posts
Showing posts with label review: mediocre. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time
Premise: A prince must save his kingdom, his family, and restore his honor.
Stars: Jake Gyllenhaal * Gemma Arterton * Ben Kingsley * Alfred Molina * Steve Toussaint
Story: An orphan is taken off the streets to live with the King after he impresses the ruler with his skill and willingness to help another poor orphan. Years later, that same adopted prince (Gyllenhaal) accompanies his brothers on a mission against their enemy, but they are diverted to attack a neighboring city previously thought to be neutral. The prince is blamed for an assassination of the King and escapes with the ruler of the attacked city (Arterton). The prince discovers he has been deceived and sets out to right the wrongs done to him, his family, and both kingdoms.
Review: It's a forgettable action film in the vein of the Mummy movies by Stephen Sommers. A nice escapist film that won't engage too many brain cells.
Plot: The plot is simple and predictable. The adopted prince (who wowed the King with his parkour abilities) acts against his conscience and supports his brothers in an ill-advised attack on a neutral city. During the celebration, the king is murdered, the brothers assume it's Dastan (Gyllenhaal, although I kept thinking Dustan, as in "Dustan in the Wind") and order his arrest and execution. Dastan escapes, taking Princess Tamina (Arterton) with him for the predictable love-hate witticisms that accompany any such pairing, as well as escape attempts. Along the way they come across a Sheikh (Molina) and his bodyguard (Toussaint) who imprison them, they escape again, discover the true source of the conspiracy (Kingsley wants the magical dagger the Princess guarded), they escape again, team up with the Sheikh, try to find a way to stop the conspiracy, escape again, confront the presumptive king with the truth, are foiled, then fight the big fight against the end boss to save the world.
Sounds like a videogame, doesn't it?
Effects: There is some excellent stuntwork in the movie: the parkour sequences (there are at least five if not more - I stopped counting) are excellent and thrilling to watch. While the snake-fighting scenes are obviously CGI (who's willing to fight horned pit vipers for real?) they're quick, understandable and reasonably painless to watch. But the wonky CGI definitely pulls the viewer out of the film. Rubber faces, non-practical effects and the over-the-top battle scene near the end seem to be pulled straight out of a Sommers film. There are also a couple of bad edits - not the "which flap of the collar of the coat is on top?" version but the "hey, she was on his left a second ago" kind. Not a killer, but distracting.
(I just had a notion. Jackie Chan has been doing parkour-type work for YEARS. Why does this method of stunt-traveling have a FRENCH name?)
Acting: Gyllenhaal does satisfactory work as a Persian prince (although who knew lots of people in the ostensible Middle East had blue eyes?) and seems confident enough in the role. Arterton also does well enough (channeling Rachel Weisz's performance in the Mummy movies at time, but I was wondering how British accents ended up in the Middle East during the sixth century?) Add in Molina and Toussaint as basically a twist on a pirate and his henchman (think Han Solo and Chewbacca, or at least I did) as some comedy relief / muscle and your basic foursome moves the predictable plot along. Kingsley plays Kingsley. Has he done anything else since Gandhi? The only thing positive about his acting is that he didn't eat the scenery like Jeremy Irons is wont to do when he knows the film is popcorn fluff. The rest of the crew also perform decently enough to keep the audience in the film (okay, at this point basically no one has a Persian accent. They're either American or British. Is this a sign of things to come in the nineteenth/early twentieth centuries?)
Overall: Mediocre
Other Sites:
Wikipedia * IMDb * AllMovie * Rotten Tomatoes
Stars: Jake Gyllenhaal * Gemma Arterton * Ben Kingsley * Alfred Molina * Steve Toussaint
Story: An orphan is taken off the streets to live with the King after he impresses the ruler with his skill and willingness to help another poor orphan. Years later, that same adopted prince (Gyllenhaal) accompanies his brothers on a mission against their enemy, but they are diverted to attack a neighboring city previously thought to be neutral. The prince is blamed for an assassination of the King and escapes with the ruler of the attacked city (Arterton). The prince discovers he has been deceived and sets out to right the wrongs done to him, his family, and both kingdoms.
Review: It's a forgettable action film in the vein of the Mummy movies by Stephen Sommers. A nice escapist film that won't engage too many brain cells.
Plot: The plot is simple and predictable. The adopted prince (who wowed the King with his parkour abilities) acts against his conscience and supports his brothers in an ill-advised attack on a neutral city. During the celebration, the king is murdered, the brothers assume it's Dastan (Gyllenhaal, although I kept thinking Dustan, as in "Dustan in the Wind") and order his arrest and execution. Dastan escapes, taking Princess Tamina (Arterton) with him for the predictable love-hate witticisms that accompany any such pairing, as well as escape attempts. Along the way they come across a Sheikh (Molina) and his bodyguard (Toussaint) who imprison them, they escape again, discover the true source of the conspiracy (Kingsley wants the magical dagger the Princess guarded), they escape again, team up with the Sheikh, try to find a way to stop the conspiracy, escape again, confront the presumptive king with the truth, are foiled, then fight the big fight against the end boss to save the world.
Sounds like a videogame, doesn't it?
Effects: There is some excellent stuntwork in the movie: the parkour sequences (there are at least five if not more - I stopped counting) are excellent and thrilling to watch. While the snake-fighting scenes are obviously CGI (who's willing to fight horned pit vipers for real?) they're quick, understandable and reasonably painless to watch. But the wonky CGI definitely pulls the viewer out of the film. Rubber faces, non-practical effects and the over-the-top battle scene near the end seem to be pulled straight out of a Sommers film. There are also a couple of bad edits - not the "which flap of the collar of the coat is on top?" version but the "hey, she was on his left a second ago" kind. Not a killer, but distracting.
(I just had a notion. Jackie Chan has been doing parkour-type work for YEARS. Why does this method of stunt-traveling have a FRENCH name?)
Acting: Gyllenhaal does satisfactory work as a Persian prince (although who knew lots of people in the ostensible Middle East had blue eyes?) and seems confident enough in the role. Arterton also does well enough (channeling Rachel Weisz's performance in the Mummy movies at time, but I was wondering how British accents ended up in the Middle East during the sixth century?) Add in Molina and Toussaint as basically a twist on a pirate and his henchman (think Han Solo and Chewbacca, or at least I did) as some comedy relief / muscle and your basic foursome moves the predictable plot along. Kingsley plays Kingsley. Has he done anything else since Gandhi? The only thing positive about his acting is that he didn't eat the scenery like Jeremy Irons is wont to do when he knows the film is popcorn fluff. The rest of the crew also perform decently enough to keep the audience in the film (okay, at this point basically no one has a Persian accent. They're either American or British. Is this a sign of things to come in the nineteenth/early twentieth centuries?)
Overall: Mediocre
Other Sites:
Wikipedia * IMDb * AllMovie * Rotten Tomatoes
Monday, May 31, 2010
Orphan (2009)
Premise: Vera Farmiga and Peter Sarsgaard get an unexpected surprise when they adopt Esther.
Stars: Vera Farmiga * Peter Sarsgaard * Isabelle Fuhrman
Story: Vera Farmiga and Peter Sarsgaard portray the Colemans, an American couple dealing with the aftermath of a stillbirth. Kate (Farmiga) has continuing nightmares and John is a little distant. They try to fill this perceived hole in their lives with the adoption of a third child, Esther (Fuhrman), from a local orphanage. Their two living children - Daniel and Max - react differently: Daniel is jealous and unwelcoming, while Max readily takes to having a new sister.
However, Esther has a secret that could threaten them all.
Review: The movie has a solid premise. An adopted child with a secret is a fundamental fear of most adoptive parents. Adoptive parents want to know the child is alright. They want to know the child will adapt well and come to be a loving, contributing member of the family. They also want to know that they are acceptable and loved themselves. However, when secrets are kept in the background, particularly secrets of abuse, murder, violence, etc., then it can turn a dream of having a child into a nightmare.
Orphan begins this way. There is an idyllic beginning with a slightly ominous overtone. But whether that's a natural fear coming to the surface, or something more sinister is debatable. But the premise of uncertainty is quickly removed when a class bully decides to pick on Esther for her way of dress and behaviour - and instead of keeping things hidden, in order to keep the uncertainty and intriguing nature of the child, a quick reveal lets the viewer in on Esther's secret - she's violent and manipulative.
The film brings up several subplots that could have turned this film into a top-notch thriller: John's (Sarsgaard) past infidelity, Kate's bouts with alcoholism, the orphanage's representative Sister Abigail has a violent encounter with Esther - these could all play into the uncertainty and intrigue of Esther's character. Likewise, Esther's background is only briefly referenced - any implication or causation of what made a child into a murderess other than simply stunted growth is thrown out the window. (Should the viewer take the idea that any dwarf is subject to violent tendencies?)
As an example. Kate has cultivated a rose bush that represents the stillborn daughter Jessica. Jessica's ashes fed the bush, so the emotional and psychological tie is there. John tells Esther to express how she feels about Kate. Esther cuts the roses from the bush, enraging Kate. This simplifies Esther; earlier she showed duplicity and manipulation, so why not order roses that look exactly like those of Jessica's rose bush? This would put the psychological onus on Kate, who could - if the story remained true to its premise - be turned into barely clinging onto her sanity.
Instead of building on the fundamental fear that parents have, the film turns into a typical slasher film with psychological overtones. It's a letdown.
Regarding the acting, Vera Farmiga and Peter Sarsgaard appear bored with the material. Aside from a few moments of intimacy and argument, one could easily replace both actors with any of the OC crowd as the roles do not require a lot of work once the adoption occurs. Fuhrman as Esther, however, really does captivate. While her "Lolita" appearance as she tries to seduce John are disconcerting, her transformation into her "authentic" self as the film wraps really does let Fuhrman appear older than her 12 years. While the film does try to maintain the psychological edge early on, it is again, her turn as Esther that keeps the film from falling apart. The rest of the cast - CCH Pounder as Abigail, the child actors playing Max and Daniel - perform ably.
Overall: Mediocre
Other Sites: Wikipedia * IMDb * AllMovie * Rotten Tomatoes
Stars: Vera Farmiga * Peter Sarsgaard * Isabelle Fuhrman
Story: Vera Farmiga and Peter Sarsgaard portray the Colemans, an American couple dealing with the aftermath of a stillbirth. Kate (Farmiga) has continuing nightmares and John is a little distant. They try to fill this perceived hole in their lives with the adoption of a third child, Esther (Fuhrman), from a local orphanage. Their two living children - Daniel and Max - react differently: Daniel is jealous and unwelcoming, while Max readily takes to having a new sister.
However, Esther has a secret that could threaten them all.
Review: The movie has a solid premise. An adopted child with a secret is a fundamental fear of most adoptive parents. Adoptive parents want to know the child is alright. They want to know the child will adapt well and come to be a loving, contributing member of the family. They also want to know that they are acceptable and loved themselves. However, when secrets are kept in the background, particularly secrets of abuse, murder, violence, etc., then it can turn a dream of having a child into a nightmare.
Orphan begins this way. There is an idyllic beginning with a slightly ominous overtone. But whether that's a natural fear coming to the surface, or something more sinister is debatable. But the premise of uncertainty is quickly removed when a class bully decides to pick on Esther for her way of dress and behaviour - and instead of keeping things hidden, in order to keep the uncertainty and intriguing nature of the child, a quick reveal lets the viewer in on Esther's secret - she's violent and manipulative.
The film brings up several subplots that could have turned this film into a top-notch thriller: John's (Sarsgaard) past infidelity, Kate's bouts with alcoholism, the orphanage's representative Sister Abigail has a violent encounter with Esther - these could all play into the uncertainty and intrigue of Esther's character. Likewise, Esther's background is only briefly referenced - any implication or causation of what made a child into a murderess other than simply stunted growth is thrown out the window. (Should the viewer take the idea that any dwarf is subject to violent tendencies?)
As an example. Kate has cultivated a rose bush that represents the stillborn daughter Jessica. Jessica's ashes fed the bush, so the emotional and psychological tie is there. John tells Esther to express how she feels about Kate. Esther cuts the roses from the bush, enraging Kate. This simplifies Esther; earlier she showed duplicity and manipulation, so why not order roses that look exactly like those of Jessica's rose bush? This would put the psychological onus on Kate, who could - if the story remained true to its premise - be turned into barely clinging onto her sanity.
Instead of building on the fundamental fear that parents have, the film turns into a typical slasher film with psychological overtones. It's a letdown.
Regarding the acting, Vera Farmiga and Peter Sarsgaard appear bored with the material. Aside from a few moments of intimacy and argument, one could easily replace both actors with any of the OC crowd as the roles do not require a lot of work once the adoption occurs. Fuhrman as Esther, however, really does captivate. While her "Lolita" appearance as she tries to seduce John are disconcerting, her transformation into her "authentic" self as the film wraps really does let Fuhrman appear older than her 12 years. While the film does try to maintain the psychological edge early on, it is again, her turn as Esther that keeps the film from falling apart. The rest of the cast - CCH Pounder as Abigail, the child actors playing Max and Daniel - perform ably.
Overall: Mediocre
Other Sites: Wikipedia * IMDb * AllMovie * Rotten Tomatoes
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Saw VI (2009)
Premise: The sixth installment of the horror series adds new victims and backstories to the franchise.
Stars: Costas Mandylor * Tobin Bell
Story: Jigsaw and his apprentices are back! This film follows one main victim (Easton) and shows how his story affected that of Jigsaw himself. It also tracks the progress of one of Jigsaw's apprentices (Hoffman) in his efforts to continue Jigsaw's work as well as prevent the discovery of his identity.
Review: John Kramer AKA Jigsaw has been around for six films, even though he died in the third movie. Each installment in the series continues to flesh out John's life prior to becoming Jigsaw as well as introduce new ancillary characters (Easton), bring former characters new life (a presumed dead detective), and expand the motivations and roles of others (Jill Tuck, Amanda).
I honestly don't think I've seen a series where characters that are already dead have as much influence and appearances in the show with the actual living characters unless they are ghosts. And there's nothing supernatural about this film or the series.
Once again, the movie starts out with a twisted test of the desire to live. Again, a central character (this time William Easton, similar to Jeff Denlon in Saw III) must proceed through a series of tests that will determine who lives and who dies. Only this time, instead of tying characters to his desire for revenge, the characters are completely innocent (a couple of people this HMO VP would normally write off as DOA) or are complicit in his schemes to bilk the living of their money while denying care to the dying.
While a lot of sympathy is garnered for a few, the aim of the film is to clearly make the watcher believe that people are complicated, there are no clearly good or evil people. So do you root for the victims? Those willing to force such moral dilemmas upon the protagonist? And then the film throws enough twists and "Gotcha" moments in that there are very few people to identify with, so sympathy is a hard commodity to bargain with.
While points are worth mentioning, and the backstory of John Kramer himself is interesting, the film simply takes a path already followed by earlier films, adds no hero (or villain) to really root for, and loses its audience by the third act.
Overall: Mediocre
Other Sites: Wikipedia * IMDb * AllMovie * Rotten Tomatoes
Stars: Costas Mandylor * Tobin Bell
Story: Jigsaw and his apprentices are back! This film follows one main victim (Easton) and shows how his story affected that of Jigsaw himself. It also tracks the progress of one of Jigsaw's apprentices (Hoffman) in his efforts to continue Jigsaw's work as well as prevent the discovery of his identity.
Review: John Kramer AKA Jigsaw has been around for six films, even though he died in the third movie. Each installment in the series continues to flesh out John's life prior to becoming Jigsaw as well as introduce new ancillary characters (Easton), bring former characters new life (a presumed dead detective), and expand the motivations and roles of others (Jill Tuck, Amanda).
I honestly don't think I've seen a series where characters that are already dead have as much influence and appearances in the show with the actual living characters unless they are ghosts. And there's nothing supernatural about this film or the series.
Once again, the movie starts out with a twisted test of the desire to live. Again, a central character (this time William Easton, similar to Jeff Denlon in Saw III) must proceed through a series of tests that will determine who lives and who dies. Only this time, instead of tying characters to his desire for revenge, the characters are completely innocent (a couple of people this HMO VP would normally write off as DOA) or are complicit in his schemes to bilk the living of their money while denying care to the dying.
While a lot of sympathy is garnered for a few, the aim of the film is to clearly make the watcher believe that people are complicated, there are no clearly good or evil people. So do you root for the victims? Those willing to force such moral dilemmas upon the protagonist? And then the film throws enough twists and "Gotcha" moments in that there are very few people to identify with, so sympathy is a hard commodity to bargain with.
While points are worth mentioning, and the backstory of John Kramer himself is interesting, the film simply takes a path already followed by earlier films, adds no hero (or villain) to really root for, and loses its audience by the third act.
Overall: Mediocre
Other Sites: Wikipedia * IMDb * AllMovie * Rotten Tomatoes
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Iron Man 2 (2010)
Premise: Shellhead is back.
Stars: Robert Downey Jr * Don Cheadle * Mickey Rourke * Gwyneth Paltrow * Scarlett Johansson * Sam Rockwell
Story: Tony Stark has announced he's Iron Man. The son of his father's Russian rival (Mickey Rourke), embittered at Stark's success, makes an attempt on Tony's life. Failing, he teams up with Stark's business rival (Sam Rockwell) to go after him again. Don Cheadle makes an appearance as Stark's best friend and Gwyneth Paltrow reprises her role as Stark's potential love interest/business partner/secretary. Scarlet Johannson and Samuel L Jackson appear as the Black Widow and Nick Fury, both working for SHIELD.
Review: Honestly, on first viewing I really liked the film. It's hard not to love Robert Downey, Jr. and his performance of Tony Stark. The action pieces were timed well and the eye candy - Johansson, the suits, the cars, Paltrow, occasional violence - was liberally sprinkled throughout. Rockwell, another immensely likable character actor, nearly steals the show from RDJ when they're together, and easily plays off the patient menace of Mickey Rourke. And Samuel L Jackson doesn't chew the scenery as normal, so the more cerebral approach keeps him from playing his normally hammy self.
The only performance that I felt was weak was Don Cheadle's as Lt. Col (simply Colonel early in the film) James "Rhodey" Rhodes. Cheadle's a great actor (Hotel Rwanda, for example), but he brings a stiffness to Rhodey in the film, one that wasn't there in the first film. Granted, there is a new tension between the two due to the machinations of the government to acquire the technology, so maybe this can explain the stiffness.
So the performances are pretty spot-on. The special effects crew also do a great job.
The problem this time, tho, is the writing. There are elements of the plot that make little sense. The "buddy fight" between Stark and Rhodey is completely not believable. The exposition in the film implies that Stark somehow knew Rhodey would go get the armor and attempt to "knock some sense" into him. The "accidental" blast where the two suits' repulsor beams hit each other, creating a shockwave of course is used later.
How did Vanko know that Stark would just walk out onto the race track and take his driver's spot? Vanko appeared in pit crew gear at the same time while Stark is getting in the car - yet doesn't appear hurried or scrambling to get into the clothes to infiltrate what was an unexpected set of events.
Vanko builds another set of constrictor whips on a suit of armor. If Vanko knew the suit specifications and language of the War Machine armor to lock it up, why not create a backdoor in case his original plan is hacked? To say, lock up the suit when he personally gets involved? Or turn it into a time bomb to explode? Any number of possible plot points arise from the notion that Vanko could at any time deal with Cheadle's suit. Or, for that matter, given that the suits worked the same, why not retro-engineer a code to take over Stark's suit?
When Vanko removes his helmet during the fight with Iron Man and War Machine, why didn't one of them simply shoot Vanko in the head? Why bother with the repulsor shockwave?
The blood poisoning. So it starts slowly and then takes a big giant leap when Stark does nothing noteworthy or any strenuous activity. It took a larger leap in a shorter amount of time (going to Monaco) than it did during all the flying and fighting of the previous movie put together. Shouldn't that be reversed?
The blueprints for a new element. Seriously? A map of an EPCOT Center ripoff (the Stark Expo) is somehow a new element design that just happens to resolve the blood poisoning? Howard Stark is supposedly dead a decade or so, the film is from the seventies (given Stark's age and the film technology) and somehow Stark Sr. foresaw the need for a new element that would save Tony's life? If it's just a new element that can't be synthesized yet, why not leave some notes in a safe for Tony? It's just a little far-fetched.
I liked it. It's fun, it's not very complicated and it doesn't really engage the brain beyond a few questions here and there. I call it an empty calorie movie, or a run of the mill popcorn flick. But it's not the equal of its predecessor.
Overall: Mediocre
Other Sites: Wikipedia * IMDb * AllMovie * Rotten Tomatoes
Stars: Robert Downey Jr * Don Cheadle * Mickey Rourke * Gwyneth Paltrow * Scarlett Johansson * Sam Rockwell
Story: Tony Stark has announced he's Iron Man. The son of his father's Russian rival (Mickey Rourke), embittered at Stark's success, makes an attempt on Tony's life. Failing, he teams up with Stark's business rival (Sam Rockwell) to go after him again. Don Cheadle makes an appearance as Stark's best friend and Gwyneth Paltrow reprises her role as Stark's potential love interest/business partner/secretary. Scarlet Johannson and Samuel L Jackson appear as the Black Widow and Nick Fury, both working for SHIELD.
Review: Honestly, on first viewing I really liked the film. It's hard not to love Robert Downey, Jr. and his performance of Tony Stark. The action pieces were timed well and the eye candy - Johansson, the suits, the cars, Paltrow, occasional violence - was liberally sprinkled throughout. Rockwell, another immensely likable character actor, nearly steals the show from RDJ when they're together, and easily plays off the patient menace of Mickey Rourke. And Samuel L Jackson doesn't chew the scenery as normal, so the more cerebral approach keeps him from playing his normally hammy self.
The only performance that I felt was weak was Don Cheadle's as Lt. Col (simply Colonel early in the film) James "Rhodey" Rhodes. Cheadle's a great actor (Hotel Rwanda, for example), but he brings a stiffness to Rhodey in the film, one that wasn't there in the first film. Granted, there is a new tension between the two due to the machinations of the government to acquire the technology, so maybe this can explain the stiffness.
So the performances are pretty spot-on. The special effects crew also do a great job.
The problem this time, tho, is the writing. There are elements of the plot that make little sense. The "buddy fight" between Stark and Rhodey is completely not believable. The exposition in the film implies that Stark somehow knew Rhodey would go get the armor and attempt to "knock some sense" into him. The "accidental" blast where the two suits' repulsor beams hit each other, creating a shockwave of course is used later.
How did Vanko know that Stark would just walk out onto the race track and take his driver's spot? Vanko appeared in pit crew gear at the same time while Stark is getting in the car - yet doesn't appear hurried or scrambling to get into the clothes to infiltrate what was an unexpected set of events.
Vanko builds another set of constrictor whips on a suit of armor. If Vanko knew the suit specifications and language of the War Machine armor to lock it up, why not create a backdoor in case his original plan is hacked? To say, lock up the suit when he personally gets involved? Or turn it into a time bomb to explode? Any number of possible plot points arise from the notion that Vanko could at any time deal with Cheadle's suit. Or, for that matter, given that the suits worked the same, why not retro-engineer a code to take over Stark's suit?
When Vanko removes his helmet during the fight with Iron Man and War Machine, why didn't one of them simply shoot Vanko in the head? Why bother with the repulsor shockwave?
The blood poisoning. So it starts slowly and then takes a big giant leap when Stark does nothing noteworthy or any strenuous activity. It took a larger leap in a shorter amount of time (going to Monaco) than it did during all the flying and fighting of the previous movie put together. Shouldn't that be reversed?
The blueprints for a new element. Seriously? A map of an EPCOT Center ripoff (the Stark Expo) is somehow a new element design that just happens to resolve the blood poisoning? Howard Stark is supposedly dead a decade or so, the film is from the seventies (given Stark's age and the film technology) and somehow Stark Sr. foresaw the need for a new element that would save Tony's life? If it's just a new element that can't be synthesized yet, why not leave some notes in a safe for Tony? It's just a little far-fetched.
I liked it. It's fun, it's not very complicated and it doesn't really engage the brain beyond a few questions here and there. I call it an empty calorie movie, or a run of the mill popcorn flick. But it's not the equal of its predecessor.
Overall: Mediocre
Other Sites: Wikipedia * IMDb * AllMovie * Rotten Tomatoes
Monday, July 20, 2009
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)
Premise: Harry and Company are back.
Stars: Daniel Radcliffe * Rupert Grint * Emma Watson * Michael Gambon * Alan Rickman * Jim Broadbent
Story: Harry Potter is back, along with Ron, Hermione, Neville, Luna, Dumbledore and the rest. This time Voldemort is a background player, with the direct threats personified by Draco Malfoy, Bellatrix Lestrange, and Severus Snape. A new professor comes to Hogwarts, Professor Slughorn, who holds a key to defeating Voldemort. Harry also develops a relationship with Ginny Weasley, Ron's younger sister, while Ron and Hermione go through the pains of teen love. In the end, Malfoy represents a threat not to Harry, but to Dumbledore himself.
Review: I'm not going to go into how the changes from the book drastically change the feel and tone of the movie. While a couple of important plotlines and pivotal moments remain, a number are changed or outright removed. Instead I'll focus on the weaknesses of the film.
Draco has been established as a whiny ne'er-do-well who is no serious menace to Potter, instead he relies on his thuggish companions and his connections to more powerful menaces to try and ruin Potter's life. In this movie, he is pretty much the same but is being used to represent the main in-story threat, aside from vague menace from a silent voiceless character who appears vaguely wolfish (Fenrir Greyback is the name and it is seen briefly on a newspaper) and Bellatrix Lestrange who appears a couple of times to try and embody Voldemort's threat at the beginning and end of the film. So the movie lacks a primary credible threat, as Potter has demonstrated multiple times before that he can defeat Malfoy through his wits.
The teen love that dominates the majority of the film is focused on Ron and Hermione. While the performance of Lavendar Brown is refreshing at first, it quickly becomes grating - as it does for Ron in the storyline. Hermione's love affair with Cormac McLaggen plays mainly as her avoidance of a boor who is simultaneously Ron's rival in Quidditch. Luna and Harry have a date, but Harry's eyes are kept on Ginny Weasley. The problem with both romances is that both female characters are played as lovestruck fools - and in Ginny's case mostly a cipher with no established character of her own. Hermione spends most of the movie in an amped up performance of her scenes in earlier films - crying and miserable.
Slughorn (Broadbent), however, is a refreshing change and is a scene stealer when he appears. In his dealings with Dumbledore and Harry, he provides a refreshing change from the teen angst that goes on elsewhere.
Dumbledore (Gambon) is no longer the pre-eminent, wise and seemingly invincible wizard he was in the earlier movies. From his first appearance, Dumbledore appears worn down and constantly weakening - which could be understood if one knew the context from the book, but which is not explained in the movie.
There are pivotal scenes retained from the book, but as a result of the editing presented in condensing a thick text, the film doesn't really captivate the audience, aside from the initial Pottermania euphoria which accompanies every film. As a result, this film feels more like a filler episode in a series, where characters are slightly fleshed out, but it only serves to whet the appetite for a follow-up film - in this case the two adaptations of the follow-up novel.
Overall: Mediocre
Other Sites: Wikipedia * IMDb * AllMovie * Rotten Tomatoes
Stars: Daniel Radcliffe * Rupert Grint * Emma Watson * Michael Gambon * Alan Rickman * Jim Broadbent
Story: Harry Potter is back, along with Ron, Hermione, Neville, Luna, Dumbledore and the rest. This time Voldemort is a background player, with the direct threats personified by Draco Malfoy, Bellatrix Lestrange, and Severus Snape. A new professor comes to Hogwarts, Professor Slughorn, who holds a key to defeating Voldemort. Harry also develops a relationship with Ginny Weasley, Ron's younger sister, while Ron and Hermione go through the pains of teen love. In the end, Malfoy represents a threat not to Harry, but to Dumbledore himself.
Review: I'm not going to go into how the changes from the book drastically change the feel and tone of the movie. While a couple of important plotlines and pivotal moments remain, a number are changed or outright removed. Instead I'll focus on the weaknesses of the film.
Draco has been established as a whiny ne'er-do-well who is no serious menace to Potter, instead he relies on his thuggish companions and his connections to more powerful menaces to try and ruin Potter's life. In this movie, he is pretty much the same but is being used to represent the main in-story threat, aside from vague menace from a silent voiceless character who appears vaguely wolfish (Fenrir Greyback is the name and it is seen briefly on a newspaper) and Bellatrix Lestrange who appears a couple of times to try and embody Voldemort's threat at the beginning and end of the film. So the movie lacks a primary credible threat, as Potter has demonstrated multiple times before that he can defeat Malfoy through his wits.
The teen love that dominates the majority of the film is focused on Ron and Hermione. While the performance of Lavendar Brown is refreshing at first, it quickly becomes grating - as it does for Ron in the storyline. Hermione's love affair with Cormac McLaggen plays mainly as her avoidance of a boor who is simultaneously Ron's rival in Quidditch. Luna and Harry have a date, but Harry's eyes are kept on Ginny Weasley. The problem with both romances is that both female characters are played as lovestruck fools - and in Ginny's case mostly a cipher with no established character of her own. Hermione spends most of the movie in an amped up performance of her scenes in earlier films - crying and miserable.
Slughorn (Broadbent), however, is a refreshing change and is a scene stealer when he appears. In his dealings with Dumbledore and Harry, he provides a refreshing change from the teen angst that goes on elsewhere.
Dumbledore (Gambon) is no longer the pre-eminent, wise and seemingly invincible wizard he was in the earlier movies. From his first appearance, Dumbledore appears worn down and constantly weakening - which could be understood if one knew the context from the book, but which is not explained in the movie.
There are pivotal scenes retained from the book, but as a result of the editing presented in condensing a thick text, the film doesn't really captivate the audience, aside from the initial Pottermania euphoria which accompanies every film. As a result, this film feels more like a filler episode in a series, where characters are slightly fleshed out, but it only serves to whet the appetite for a follow-up film - in this case the two adaptations of the follow-up novel.
Overall: Mediocre
Other Sites: Wikipedia * IMDb * AllMovie * Rotten Tomatoes
Thursday, July 31, 2008
The Ruins (2008)
Premise: Hot American tourists discover a Mayan ruin with a terrible secret.
Stars: Jonathan Tucker * Jena Malone * Laura Ramsey * Shawn Ashmore * Joe Anderson
Story: Four American tourists in Mexico connect with a few Greeks and a German and learn of an archaeological dig and a set of Mayan ruins. When the German asks them to go with him (to ostensibly locate his missing brother), the Americans and one of the Greeks take off with him to locate the missing.
They discover an isolated ruined temple, covered with thick vegetation. Almost immediately, they are accosted by some natives, who startle the Americans. While they are trying to get the tourists to get away from the ruin, one of the tourists steps on the vegetation, instantly provoking the natives. Mistaking their intentions, the Greek soon ends up dead and the rest are forced onto the ruin. The natives set up a hostile encirclement of the ruin, preventing their escape.
Believing the missing brother and his cohorts are in the temple due to the presence of a tent and the sound of a ringing phone in the temple, the five start investigating the ruin. Mathias (Anderson, the German) descends into the ruin, only to have the rope snap, causing him to break both of his legs. Stacy (Ramsey), goes into the temple to help him, cutting her leg. Both are retrieved. Over the course of the next days, they discover the vegetation is alive, and that it lives on flesh & blood. It is also able to mimic sounds, including the ringing of cell phones.
Review: Following in the vein (ahem) of Hostel, Cabin Fever, Turistas, The Ruins falls somewhere in the middle of the pack of the torture porn genre. The gore is limited to two individuals, and while it's gratuitous in its nature, it's quite unlike the sadism present in the Hostel films. Instead the blood and gore comes from the attempt to prevent septicemia and further infection from the plants.
The acting is pretty typical of the young crowds filling up films and television - all in great shape, displaying lots of eye candy for both male and female watchers. Nothing demands a great stretch of imagination: the attempt at stoicism by the macho Jeff (Texas Chainsaw Massacre's McIntire), the attempt at heroism of Eric (Ashmore of the X-Men franchise), the lots-of-crying-and-screaming of Stacy (Ramsey) and the what-the-hell-is-going-on of Amy (independent film star Malone) - these are all straight out of previous entries in the genre.
Portions of the movie make little sense - having learned that the plants are drawn to people, they leave a bleeding Mathias close to vegetation, away from the four Americans. Is this a statement by the director, or is it just slipshod pretensions of ominous overtones? The tent is surrounded by vegetation but only once do the plants invade it, and that early on - did the plants give up? (I admit I didn't watch the unrated version, maybe there's something of value missing.) The plants pretty quickly grab a dead body, but when Stacy is walking around bleeding profusely, the plants do not move after her.
Lastly, the escape attempt is handled pretty honestly. The only question is that as the main ending is hopeful, it does not address the earlier noticed event of the plants growing on their clothes - as the movie progresses clothes get grungier and slightly greener as presumably spores, seeds or pollen end up on them. A more honest ending would've been that the clothing had to be burned at the least - the alternate ending is more in-line with such thinking.
Overall: Mediocre
Links: IMDb * Wikipedia * AllMovie * Rotten Tomatoes
Stars: Jonathan Tucker * Jena Malone * Laura Ramsey * Shawn Ashmore * Joe Anderson
Story: Four American tourists in Mexico connect with a few Greeks and a German and learn of an archaeological dig and a set of Mayan ruins. When the German asks them to go with him (to ostensibly locate his missing brother), the Americans and one of the Greeks take off with him to locate the missing.
They discover an isolated ruined temple, covered with thick vegetation. Almost immediately, they are accosted by some natives, who startle the Americans. While they are trying to get the tourists to get away from the ruin, one of the tourists steps on the vegetation, instantly provoking the natives. Mistaking their intentions, the Greek soon ends up dead and the rest are forced onto the ruin. The natives set up a hostile encirclement of the ruin, preventing their escape.
Believing the missing brother and his cohorts are in the temple due to the presence of a tent and the sound of a ringing phone in the temple, the five start investigating the ruin. Mathias (Anderson, the German) descends into the ruin, only to have the rope snap, causing him to break both of his legs. Stacy (Ramsey), goes into the temple to help him, cutting her leg. Both are retrieved. Over the course of the next days, they discover the vegetation is alive, and that it lives on flesh & blood. It is also able to mimic sounds, including the ringing of cell phones.
Review: Following in the vein (ahem) of Hostel, Cabin Fever, Turistas, The Ruins falls somewhere in the middle of the pack of the torture porn genre. The gore is limited to two individuals, and while it's gratuitous in its nature, it's quite unlike the sadism present in the Hostel films. Instead the blood and gore comes from the attempt to prevent septicemia and further infection from the plants.
The acting is pretty typical of the young crowds filling up films and television - all in great shape, displaying lots of eye candy for both male and female watchers. Nothing demands a great stretch of imagination: the attempt at stoicism by the macho Jeff (Texas Chainsaw Massacre's McIntire), the attempt at heroism of Eric (Ashmore of the X-Men franchise), the lots-of-crying-and-screaming of Stacy (Ramsey) and the what-the-hell-is-going-on of Amy (independent film star Malone) - these are all straight out of previous entries in the genre.
Portions of the movie make little sense - having learned that the plants are drawn to people, they leave a bleeding Mathias close to vegetation, away from the four Americans. Is this a statement by the director, or is it just slipshod pretensions of ominous overtones? The tent is surrounded by vegetation but only once do the plants invade it, and that early on - did the plants give up? (I admit I didn't watch the unrated version, maybe there's something of value missing.) The plants pretty quickly grab a dead body, but when Stacy is walking around bleeding profusely, the plants do not move after her.
Lastly, the escape attempt is handled pretty honestly. The only question is that as the main ending is hopeful, it does not address the earlier noticed event of the plants growing on their clothes - as the movie progresses clothes get grungier and slightly greener as presumably spores, seeds or pollen end up on them. A more honest ending would've been that the clothing had to be burned at the least - the alternate ending is more in-line with such thinking.
Overall: Mediocre
Links: IMDb * Wikipedia * AllMovie * Rotten Tomatoes
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
The Music Within (2007)
Premise: A young speaker seeks his destiny, but finds it by losing his hearing.
Stars: Ron Livingston * Melissa George * Michael Sheen * Hector Elizondo
Story: Richard Pimentel (Livingston) discovers he has a gift for public speaking at a young age, but is turned away from a scholarship contest due to a perceived lack of heart. He heads off to Vietnam, getting wounded in the process. Losing his hearing, he works on learning how to pretend he can still hear by reading lips and developing other skills. He befriends a disabled artist (Sheen) who has cerebral palsy and falls in love with a freethinker (George). By defending his friend in various encounters, he learns what was meant earlier - his passion is helping people who can't help themselves. Pimentel becomes one of the chief proponents of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) which became law under President George H. W. Bush.
Review: The film is a nice biopic/character study of Richard Pimentel, a famous activist for the rights of the disabled. Livingston is a decent character actor (Office Space, Band of Brothers) and performs admirably, but Sheen's work as Art Honeyman really shines. Melissa George is basically a cypher for Livingston, providing a bridge between his college years and his activist work, but contributes little to the film other than a brief love affair that ends badly.
Unfortunately, as with nearly all biopics, the film is saddled with stereotypes: the friend that dies, the addiction (in this case it's the activism) that destroys a relationship, the failed love, the self-destructive period, the successful ending. These cliches overlay the film with a sense of dullness, making the performance of Livingston and Sheen the only reason worth watching the film. The film becomes almost instantly forgettable otherwise.
Overall: Mediocre
Links: IMDb * Wikipedia * AllMovie * Rotten Tomatoes
Stars: Ron Livingston * Melissa George * Michael Sheen * Hector Elizondo
Story: Richard Pimentel (Livingston) discovers he has a gift for public speaking at a young age, but is turned away from a scholarship contest due to a perceived lack of heart. He heads off to Vietnam, getting wounded in the process. Losing his hearing, he works on learning how to pretend he can still hear by reading lips and developing other skills. He befriends a disabled artist (Sheen) who has cerebral palsy and falls in love with a freethinker (George). By defending his friend in various encounters, he learns what was meant earlier - his passion is helping people who can't help themselves. Pimentel becomes one of the chief proponents of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) which became law under President George H. W. Bush.
Review: The film is a nice biopic/character study of Richard Pimentel, a famous activist for the rights of the disabled. Livingston is a decent character actor (Office Space, Band of Brothers) and performs admirably, but Sheen's work as Art Honeyman really shines. Melissa George is basically a cypher for Livingston, providing a bridge between his college years and his activist work, but contributes little to the film other than a brief love affair that ends badly.
Unfortunately, as with nearly all biopics, the film is saddled with stereotypes: the friend that dies, the addiction (in this case it's the activism) that destroys a relationship, the failed love, the self-destructive period, the successful ending. These cliches overlay the film with a sense of dullness, making the performance of Livingston and Sheen the only reason worth watching the film. The film becomes almost instantly forgettable otherwise.
Overall: Mediocre
Links: IMDb * Wikipedia * AllMovie * Rotten Tomatoes
Hitman (2007)
Premise: An elite assassin is hired to kill the Russian President while being trailed by Interpol agents.
Stars: Timothy Olyphant * Olga Kurylenko * Dougray Scott * Ulrich Thomsen
Story: Agent 47 (Olyphant) is an elite assassin that has been operating for years. Whittier (Scott) is an Interpol agent that has been tracking him and is getting close to catching his man. 47 is hired to kill Russian President Belicoff (Thomsen) as he's making things difficult for 47's bosses. When the assassination is successful, a double of Belicoff appears, claiming the assassination a failure. Belicoff's moll, Nika (Kurylenko), is set up to help bring Agent 47 down.
47 kidnaps Nika, along the way killing men assigned to kill her and keep her quiet. The pair bond as 47 follows a trail of leads to Belicoff and the FSB agent who is working to control Russia. Whittier is on his trail all the way, repeatedly coming close to capturing 47, but events often conspire to prevent the arrest.
Review: While the light banter between Kurylenko and Olyphant is pleasing and the action is distracting eye-candy, the plot gets quickly muddled. How many doubles of Belicoff are there? Was the real Belicoff killed and the double is really the evil one? The gun battle with Belicoff's brother is distracting even as it overpowers the senses.
Parts of the film are worth seeing. The fight cinematography is eye-catching. Kurylenko never fails to sparkle. Olyphant's subdued wit is refreshing even as he reminds one of his trademark smart-aleckness (Gone in 60 Seconds, Go, Live Free or Die Hard).
But there are drawbacks. Dougray Scott. Agent 47's past - his training and enforced self-discipline - provides a conflict with Nika's flirtatiousness but provide no emotional payoff. Is he a victim of his training or is he at peace with it? The assassination attempt in the church is reminiscent of the Russian theater hostage crisis, but there is a lack of follow-through in the performance.
The film itself offers no resolution - will Whittier stay away after he's been given a plausible excuse to do so? Is 47 going to be Nika's guardian for the rest of her life? Did he turn his back on all of his support (the agency that manages him for assignments) - and if so, what is his support now? As he's killed several fellow agents, are they hunting him now?
The audience is left with a feeling similar to a few too many beers - a buzz which is enjoyable, but unfilling and fleeting.
Overall: Mediocre
Links: IMDb * Wikipedia * AllMovie * Rotten Tomatoes
Stars: Timothy Olyphant * Olga Kurylenko * Dougray Scott * Ulrich Thomsen
Story: Agent 47 (Olyphant) is an elite assassin that has been operating for years. Whittier (Scott) is an Interpol agent that has been tracking him and is getting close to catching his man. 47 is hired to kill Russian President Belicoff (Thomsen) as he's making things difficult for 47's bosses. When the assassination is successful, a double of Belicoff appears, claiming the assassination a failure. Belicoff's moll, Nika (Kurylenko), is set up to help bring Agent 47 down.
47 kidnaps Nika, along the way killing men assigned to kill her and keep her quiet. The pair bond as 47 follows a trail of leads to Belicoff and the FSB agent who is working to control Russia. Whittier is on his trail all the way, repeatedly coming close to capturing 47, but events often conspire to prevent the arrest.
Review: While the light banter between Kurylenko and Olyphant is pleasing and the action is distracting eye-candy, the plot gets quickly muddled. How many doubles of Belicoff are there? Was the real Belicoff killed and the double is really the evil one? The gun battle with Belicoff's brother is distracting even as it overpowers the senses.
Parts of the film are worth seeing. The fight cinematography is eye-catching. Kurylenko never fails to sparkle. Olyphant's subdued wit is refreshing even as he reminds one of his trademark smart-aleckness (Gone in 60 Seconds, Go, Live Free or Die Hard).
But there are drawbacks. Dougray Scott. Agent 47's past - his training and enforced self-discipline - provides a conflict with Nika's flirtatiousness but provide no emotional payoff. Is he a victim of his training or is he at peace with it? The assassination attempt in the church is reminiscent of the Russian theater hostage crisis, but there is a lack of follow-through in the performance.
The film itself offers no resolution - will Whittier stay away after he's been given a plausible excuse to do so? Is 47 going to be Nika's guardian for the rest of her life? Did he turn his back on all of his support (the agency that manages him for assignments) - and if so, what is his support now? As he's killed several fellow agents, are they hunting him now?
The audience is left with a feeling similar to a few too many beers - a buzz which is enjoyable, but unfilling and fleeting.
Overall: Mediocre
Links: IMDb * Wikipedia * AllMovie * Rotten Tomatoes
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Be Kind, Rewind (2008)
Premise: Two young men try to save a video store from the wrecking ball.
Stars: Jack Black * Mos Def * Danny Glover * Mia Farrow * Sigourney Weaver * Melonie Diaz
Story: Mike (Def) and Jerry (Black) are two young men who love a video store, Be Kind Rewind, owned by Mr. Fletcher (Glover). While Mr. Fletcher travels to try and prevent a developer from buying out the building, Mike runs the store and tries to raise enough money to prevent the buyout. Jerry, in an effort to sabotage the power company, gets electrocuted and heavily magnetized. He accidentally wipes out all of the tapes (the video store is old and only has VHS copies), leaving the store in a jam.
The duo decide to remake all of the films in order to try and keep the store going. Unfortunately, the FBI discovers their copyright violations and shuts them down. With only a week before the closure, they try to raise the money with one original film.
Review: A nice effort by all. The film relies on its one gimmick - "sweding" films, or basically remaking all of the films with Black and Def (and eventually their friends and neighbours) in all of the roles - heavily. It's humourous and engaging in the beginning yet becomes the source of the issue in the third act. Black and Def play off each other really well, driving the film.
There are some issues with the film, however. It feels unfinished and leaves the audience (or at least me) feeling unsatisfied. There are subplots, and indeed even the main plot, left with no real conclusion. Do Mos Def and Melonie Diaz work on their relationship? Does the original film convince the developer to back off, or do they end up closing shop? The film appears to end on a positive note, but as Mr. Fletcher promised a quiet ending to the film and no riots, perhaps that's the route taken. Charming, but unfilling. Like a Twinkie or a light beer.
Overall: Mediocre
Links: IMDb * Wikipedia * AllMovie * Rotten Tomatoes
Stars: Jack Black * Mos Def * Danny Glover * Mia Farrow * Sigourney Weaver * Melonie Diaz
Story: Mike (Def) and Jerry (Black) are two young men who love a video store, Be Kind Rewind, owned by Mr. Fletcher (Glover). While Mr. Fletcher travels to try and prevent a developer from buying out the building, Mike runs the store and tries to raise enough money to prevent the buyout. Jerry, in an effort to sabotage the power company, gets electrocuted and heavily magnetized. He accidentally wipes out all of the tapes (the video store is old and only has VHS copies), leaving the store in a jam.
The duo decide to remake all of the films in order to try and keep the store going. Unfortunately, the FBI discovers their copyright violations and shuts them down. With only a week before the closure, they try to raise the money with one original film.
Review: A nice effort by all. The film relies on its one gimmick - "sweding" films, or basically remaking all of the films with Black and Def (and eventually their friends and neighbours) in all of the roles - heavily. It's humourous and engaging in the beginning yet becomes the source of the issue in the third act. Black and Def play off each other really well, driving the film.
There are some issues with the film, however. It feels unfinished and leaves the audience (or at least me) feeling unsatisfied. There are subplots, and indeed even the main plot, left with no real conclusion. Do Mos Def and Melonie Diaz work on their relationship? Does the original film convince the developer to back off, or do they end up closing shop? The film appears to end on a positive note, but as Mr. Fletcher promised a quiet ending to the film and no riots, perhaps that's the route taken. Charming, but unfilling. Like a Twinkie or a light beer.
Overall: Mediocre
Links: IMDb * Wikipedia * AllMovie * Rotten Tomatoes
Meet the Browns (2008)
Premise: An inner-city mom finds out she has family in Georgia and travels to meet them. She also has to struggle with the burden of being a single mother with three children, including a teenage son who is tempted by friends to follow a wrong path in life.
Stars: Angela Bassett * Tyler Perry * Rick Fox * David Mann * Lance Gross
Story: Brenda (Bassett) is a single mom living in Chicago with three kids, including teenage son Michael Jr. (Gross) She struggles to keep her kids in a safe, loving environment with a positive focus on the future. She gets laid off from work, and as the father of the children is a deadbeat dad with another family, he refuses to support her. She is about to hit rock bottom when a letter arrives, telling her of her father whom she never met as well as her new relatives. Before traveling to Georgia for the funeral, she meets Harry (Fox) a nice man who has discovered Michael Jr.'s basketball skills and wants to coach him.
When she arrives in Georgia, she meets the eccentric family, including L.B. (Mann) who wears flashy clothes, is a prima donna and preacher, as well as other members of her father's family. Harry also lives in the area and begins to romance her. She inherits a house, but leaves to take her kids back to Chicago where she believes things will better. After Michael Jr. starts to fall into drug-dealing and gambling, he gets shot - causing her to change her mind. She returns to Georgia at the end of the film.
Review: The movie is predictable. An inner city drama as well as the appeal of black families and eccentric characters, the film combines many elements popular in urban movies. That notwithstanding, Angela Bassett puts in a solid performance as a single mother trying to do right by her children. It's familiar pap, but it's a nice positive film.
Overall: Mediocre
Links: IMDb * Wikipedia * AllMovie * Rotten Tomatoes
Stars: Angela Bassett * Tyler Perry * Rick Fox * David Mann * Lance Gross
Story: Brenda (Bassett) is a single mom living in Chicago with three kids, including teenage son Michael Jr. (Gross) She struggles to keep her kids in a safe, loving environment with a positive focus on the future. She gets laid off from work, and as the father of the children is a deadbeat dad with another family, he refuses to support her. She is about to hit rock bottom when a letter arrives, telling her of her father whom she never met as well as her new relatives. Before traveling to Georgia for the funeral, she meets Harry (Fox) a nice man who has discovered Michael Jr.'s basketball skills and wants to coach him.
When she arrives in Georgia, she meets the eccentric family, including L.B. (Mann) who wears flashy clothes, is a prima donna and preacher, as well as other members of her father's family. Harry also lives in the area and begins to romance her. She inherits a house, but leaves to take her kids back to Chicago where she believes things will better. After Michael Jr. starts to fall into drug-dealing and gambling, he gets shot - causing her to change her mind. She returns to Georgia at the end of the film.
Review: The movie is predictable. An inner city drama as well as the appeal of black families and eccentric characters, the film combines many elements popular in urban movies. That notwithstanding, Angela Bassett puts in a solid performance as a single mother trying to do right by her children. It's familiar pap, but it's a nice positive film.
Overall: Mediocre
Links: IMDb * Wikipedia * AllMovie * Rotten Tomatoes
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Posse (1993)
Links: IMDb * Wikipedia * AllMovie * Rottten Tomatoes
Premise: A Spanish-American War veteran robs a villainous colonel and heads to the American West with his friends, only to be hounded by the colonel & his goons as well as ghosts of the veteran's past.
Stars: Mario van Peebles * Stephen Baldwin * Tiny Lister * Billy Zane * Tone Loc * Blair Underwood * Big Daddy Kane * Richard Jordan
Story: Jesse Lee (Peebles) is a soldier under the command of Colonel Graham (Zane) in the Cuban field during the Spanish-American War. Graham orders Lee to rob a Spanish gold shipment, and then attempts to kill him after the robbery is successful. Lee survives the attack with the aid of his squad and they flee to New Orleans, hoping to lose Graham and his men.
In New Orleans, J (Baldwin) meets up with a fellow gambler, Father Time (Kane) and they both are forced to flee when Kane is discovered cheating at cards. They return to the other men, only to be confronted by Graham and his men. One squad member (Loc) dies, but the rest escape and head off to find Lee in the American West where Lee's family has roots. The gang (now calling themselves a posse - in the modern sense of the word, but not the legal term) reach Freemanville. It's a town settled by ex-slaves and other black folk, only it's constantly threatened by a neighboring white town and its sheriff (Jordan).
Lee and the posse get comfortable with the residents, and Lee rekindles an old love and a rivalry with a family friend. Lee has to deal with a former friend (Underwood) who has sold out to the whites for money and land. The sheriff and his deputies - the local KKK - as well as Graham and his henchmen all converge on the town, forcing a showdown with the gang and their new compatriots.
Review: A not-bad effort by Peebles, who is taking a political and historical stance with the film in order to promote the history of black cowboys and settlers who are often overlooked. The film is entertaining, but tries to put too many twists on a proven formula. There's the main character which is a take on Clint Eastwood's Josey Wales. There's the gang which is a take on any number of modern black films - the gamblers, the strong loyal man, the bookish black servant, the womanizer. There's the typical villain who is out for his gold and revenge. There's the KKK and the corrupt law in the West. There's the love affair with a half-Native/half-black woman. Any number of these could've been brought together to make a cohesive film. That Peebles tries to work them all in and bookend them with a historical perspective can be admired, but the film suffers for it.
Peebles himself is a successful character actor, but rarely does a film work well with his leaden acting. Several scenes occur that pull you out of the movie: all of the over-effected flashback scenes, extended shots where subtler effects could've produced a tighter film, and the heavy-handed dialogue by Kane and Baldwin (during moments of exposition or foreshadowing).
The movie is not horrible, but it's not really that good either. Watch it for a perspective that is not often presented, and do some more reading. Look for appearances by Isaac Hayes, Pam Grier, Melvin van Peebles and Nipsey Russell as town residents.
Overall: Mediocre
Premise: A Spanish-American War veteran robs a villainous colonel and heads to the American West with his friends, only to be hounded by the colonel & his goons as well as ghosts of the veteran's past.
Stars: Mario van Peebles * Stephen Baldwin * Tiny Lister * Billy Zane * Tone Loc * Blair Underwood * Big Daddy Kane * Richard Jordan
Story: Jesse Lee (Peebles) is a soldier under the command of Colonel Graham (Zane) in the Cuban field during the Spanish-American War. Graham orders Lee to rob a Spanish gold shipment, and then attempts to kill him after the robbery is successful. Lee survives the attack with the aid of his squad and they flee to New Orleans, hoping to lose Graham and his men.
In New Orleans, J (Baldwin) meets up with a fellow gambler, Father Time (Kane) and they both are forced to flee when Kane is discovered cheating at cards. They return to the other men, only to be confronted by Graham and his men. One squad member (Loc) dies, but the rest escape and head off to find Lee in the American West where Lee's family has roots. The gang (now calling themselves a posse - in the modern sense of the word, but not the legal term) reach Freemanville. It's a town settled by ex-slaves and other black folk, only it's constantly threatened by a neighboring white town and its sheriff (Jordan).
Lee and the posse get comfortable with the residents, and Lee rekindles an old love and a rivalry with a family friend. Lee has to deal with a former friend (Underwood) who has sold out to the whites for money and land. The sheriff and his deputies - the local KKK - as well as Graham and his henchmen all converge on the town, forcing a showdown with the gang and their new compatriots.
Review: A not-bad effort by Peebles, who is taking a political and historical stance with the film in order to promote the history of black cowboys and settlers who are often overlooked. The film is entertaining, but tries to put too many twists on a proven formula. There's the main character which is a take on Clint Eastwood's Josey Wales. There's the gang which is a take on any number of modern black films - the gamblers, the strong loyal man, the bookish black servant, the womanizer. There's the typical villain who is out for his gold and revenge. There's the KKK and the corrupt law in the West. There's the love affair with a half-Native/half-black woman. Any number of these could've been brought together to make a cohesive film. That Peebles tries to work them all in and bookend them with a historical perspective can be admired, but the film suffers for it.
Peebles himself is a successful character actor, but rarely does a film work well with his leaden acting. Several scenes occur that pull you out of the movie: all of the over-effected flashback scenes, extended shots where subtler effects could've produced a tighter film, and the heavy-handed dialogue by Kane and Baldwin (during moments of exposition or foreshadowing).
The movie is not horrible, but it's not really that good either. Watch it for a perspective that is not often presented, and do some more reading. Look for appearances by Isaac Hayes, Pam Grier, Melvin van Peebles and Nipsey Russell as town residents.
Overall: Mediocre
Drillbit Taylor (2008)
Links: IMDb * Wikipedia * AllMovie * Rotten Tomatoes
Premise: Three boys starting their freshman year in high school suffer abuse at the hands of a couple of bullies and hire a bodyguard to protect them.
Stars: Owen Wilson * Leslie Mann * Danny McBride
Story: Friends Wade and Ryan are freshmen who on their first day of school attract the attention of two bullies by standing up for a small boy getting stuffed in his locker. After all three receive repeated harassment, they decide to hire a bodyguard. A homeless US Army deserter named Drillbit Taylor (Wilson) answers the call, and since he's the cheapest, they hire him.
Taylor looks at the boys as an opportunity and begins stealing items from them in order to pawn them for money. He begins to bond with them, faking a substitute teacher position in the school while he flirts with a real teacher (Mann). Eventually, the truth about his thievery catches up to him, as well as his past as a deserter. He helps the boys stand up to the bullies and takes his punishment for his actions and history, becoming a better man.
Review: While it has its moments, it's not high on the roster of Apatow-produced films. The dialogue reminds one of Superbad and Freaks and Geeks, but the plot is pretty predictable and no performances really stand out. While the kids are enjoyable, it's a pretty mediocre film.
There is an enjoyable cameo by Adam Baldwin, one of the stars of the seminal My Bodyguard from the early 1980s.
Overall: Mediocre
Premise: Three boys starting their freshman year in high school suffer abuse at the hands of a couple of bullies and hire a bodyguard to protect them.
Stars: Owen Wilson * Leslie Mann * Danny McBride
Story: Friends Wade and Ryan are freshmen who on their first day of school attract the attention of two bullies by standing up for a small boy getting stuffed in his locker. After all three receive repeated harassment, they decide to hire a bodyguard. A homeless US Army deserter named Drillbit Taylor (Wilson) answers the call, and since he's the cheapest, they hire him.
Taylor looks at the boys as an opportunity and begins stealing items from them in order to pawn them for money. He begins to bond with them, faking a substitute teacher position in the school while he flirts with a real teacher (Mann). Eventually, the truth about his thievery catches up to him, as well as his past as a deserter. He helps the boys stand up to the bullies and takes his punishment for his actions and history, becoming a better man.
Review: While it has its moments, it's not high on the roster of Apatow-produced films. The dialogue reminds one of Superbad and Freaks and Geeks, but the plot is pretty predictable and no performances really stand out. While the kids are enjoyable, it's a pretty mediocre film.
There is an enjoyable cameo by Adam Baldwin, one of the stars of the seminal My Bodyguard from the early 1980s.
Overall: Mediocre
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Welcome Home Roscoe Jenkins (2008)
Links: IMDb * Wikipedia * AllMovie * Rotten Tomatoes
Premise: A son leaves home and becomes a success. Heading back for his parents' wedding anniversary, sibling rivalries as well as new and old skeletons lead to comedy and life lessons.
Stars: Cedric the Entertainer * Martin Lawrence * James Earl Jones * Michael Clarke Duncan * Michael Epps * Mo'Nique
Story: Roscoe Jenkins (Lawrence) has left home and become a successful talk show host and author of a self-help book. After seven years, he's heading back home for his parents' wedding anniversary with a new fiancee and a son from a previous marriage.
He harbors a competitive streak with his cousin Clyde (Cedric) and resents his family - his brothers (Duncan and Epps) and sister (Mo'Nique) - as he feels that Clyde replaced him in everyone's hearts, especially his father (Jones). His return home is to prove to everyone that he's become successful and didn't need any of them. He's even taken to calling himself RJ Stevens, changing his name. His fiancee Bianca (Joy Bryant) is also very competitive, pushing the two of them into conflicts with his siblings and Clyde, culminating in him losing face in front of everyone as even his own son becomes embarassed by him.
There's also a story of an unrequited love that haunts RJ - he wanted to date Lucinda, but Clyde reneged on a bet and stole that date and his love.
Eventually there is an epiphany and a resolution to all of the recriminations and struggles and the family comes together.
Review: A funny film, but one that doesn't really surprise. There's nothing here but a paint-by-the-numbers collection of performances by all involved. It will make you laugh occasionally, but it's easily predictable.
Overall: Mediocre
Premise: A son leaves home and becomes a success. Heading back for his parents' wedding anniversary, sibling rivalries as well as new and old skeletons lead to comedy and life lessons.
Stars: Cedric the Entertainer * Martin Lawrence * James Earl Jones * Michael Clarke Duncan * Michael Epps * Mo'Nique
Story: Roscoe Jenkins (Lawrence) has left home and become a successful talk show host and author of a self-help book. After seven years, he's heading back home for his parents' wedding anniversary with a new fiancee and a son from a previous marriage.
He harbors a competitive streak with his cousin Clyde (Cedric) and resents his family - his brothers (Duncan and Epps) and sister (Mo'Nique) - as he feels that Clyde replaced him in everyone's hearts, especially his father (Jones). His return home is to prove to everyone that he's become successful and didn't need any of them. He's even taken to calling himself RJ Stevens, changing his name. His fiancee Bianca (Joy Bryant) is also very competitive, pushing the two of them into conflicts with his siblings and Clyde, culminating in him losing face in front of everyone as even his own son becomes embarassed by him.
There's also a story of an unrequited love that haunts RJ - he wanted to date Lucinda, but Clyde reneged on a bet and stole that date and his love.
Eventually there is an epiphany and a resolution to all of the recriminations and struggles and the family comes together.
Review: A funny film, but one that doesn't really surprise. There's nothing here but a paint-by-the-numbers collection of performances by all involved. It will make you laugh occasionally, but it's easily predictable.
Overall: Mediocre
Monday, July 14, 2008
Meet the Robinsons (2007)
Links: IMDb * Wikipedia * AllMovie * Rotten Tomatoes
Premise: A young orphan gets a glimpse of the family he wants to have, but is focused on finding his past.
Review: A decent animated film where the impossible seems possible and you have to let go of what holds you back in order to move towards the future your dreams are made of.
Lewis is a young boy who was abandoned at an orphanage by his mother. He grows up as a science whiz, dreaming of trying to find his mother. During a science fair, he meets a villain from the future who wants to ruin his life, but is saved by another young boy about his age - Wilbur, also from the future. Wilbur takes Lewis back to meet his family, and discovers things about himself and those around him in the present, by seeing a possible outcome of his actions.
He learns to appreciate what is around him, to let go of the past, and look forward.
The film is pretty straight-forward, the animation is good, and the characters are somewhat memorable - the Bowler Hat Guy, DOR-15, the Robinsons themselves - although in the futuristic type animated films, it seems like a Disney-fied version of the Jimmy Neutron movie and series.
Overall: Mediocre
Premise: A young orphan gets a glimpse of the family he wants to have, but is focused on finding his past.
Review: A decent animated film where the impossible seems possible and you have to let go of what holds you back in order to move towards the future your dreams are made of.
Lewis is a young boy who was abandoned at an orphanage by his mother. He grows up as a science whiz, dreaming of trying to find his mother. During a science fair, he meets a villain from the future who wants to ruin his life, but is saved by another young boy about his age - Wilbur, also from the future. Wilbur takes Lewis back to meet his family, and discovers things about himself and those around him in the present, by seeing a possible outcome of his actions.
He learns to appreciate what is around him, to let go of the past, and look forward.
The film is pretty straight-forward, the animation is good, and the characters are somewhat memorable - the Bowler Hat Guy, DOR-15, the Robinsons themselves - although in the futuristic type animated films, it seems like a Disney-fied version of the Jimmy Neutron movie and series.
Overall: Mediocre
Friday, July 11, 2008
The Bucket List (2007)
Links: IMDb * Wikipedia * AllMovie * Rotten Tomatoes
Premise: A billionaire with terminal cancer meets a dying mechanic. They bond during their hospital stay and decide to make a list of things they'd like to do before they die.
Director: Rob Reiner
Stars: Jack Nicholson * Morgan Freeman
Review: A pleasant movie but it telegraphs almost everything. The billionaire will have the estranged child and a basically unhappy life. The mechanic will have sacrificed his own dreams for that of stability for his family but have kindness and love to share. These two cliched roles are transparent from the start, as are the tasks they put on the list.
The tugs on the heartstrings are obvious, but what makes this film really work is the dynamic between Nicholson and Freeman. They are both top-notch actors doing what they can with a basic plot and lackluster direction by Rob Reiner. The film is glossy and polished, but don't go in expecting an artistic triumph.
Overall: Mediocre
Premise: A billionaire with terminal cancer meets a dying mechanic. They bond during their hospital stay and decide to make a list of things they'd like to do before they die.
Director: Rob Reiner
Stars: Jack Nicholson * Morgan Freeman
Review: A pleasant movie but it telegraphs almost everything. The billionaire will have the estranged child and a basically unhappy life. The mechanic will have sacrificed his own dreams for that of stability for his family but have kindness and love to share. These two cliched roles are transparent from the start, as are the tasks they put on the list.
The tugs on the heartstrings are obvious, but what makes this film really work is the dynamic between Nicholson and Freeman. They are both top-notch actors doing what they can with a basic plot and lackluster direction by Rob Reiner. The film is glossy and polished, but don't go in expecting an artistic triumph.
Overall: Mediocre
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Silk Stockings (1957)
Links: IMDb * Wikipedia * AllMovie * Rotten Tomatoes
Premise: Musical cold war piece where Fred Astaire woos the hard-hearted kommissar played by Cyd Charisse.
Stars: Cyd Charisse * Fred Astaire * Peter Lorre
Review: A by-the-numbers musical where Fred Astaire pursues and catches the beautiful Cyd Charisse. Charisse plays a kommissar who is sent to investigate three Soviet businessmen. She's a stickler for the rules and hates the decadent culture of the West, but is hiding a secret love and admiration for dance and soft clothing.
The best scene in the movie is where Charisse dances with a pair of stockings and finds clothes in hidden places in her apartment. The music is subdued but excellent and the scene is really nice as she moves from the dowdy clothing she wore early on to the elegant silk gown she wears later.
Overall: Mediocre
Premise: Musical cold war piece where Fred Astaire woos the hard-hearted kommissar played by Cyd Charisse.
Stars: Cyd Charisse * Fred Astaire * Peter Lorre
Review: A by-the-numbers musical where Fred Astaire pursues and catches the beautiful Cyd Charisse. Charisse plays a kommissar who is sent to investigate three Soviet businessmen. She's a stickler for the rules and hates the decadent culture of the West, but is hiding a secret love and admiration for dance and soft clothing.
The best scene in the movie is where Charisse dances with a pair of stockings and finds clothes in hidden places in her apartment. The music is subdued but excellent and the scene is really nice as she moves from the dowdy clothing she wore early on to the elegant silk gown she wears later.
Overall: Mediocre
Monday, July 7, 2008
Kung Fu Panda (2008)
Links: IMDb * Wikipedia * AllMovie * Rotten Tomatoes
Premise: A dreamer obsessed with kung fu gets picked to be the mystical Dragon Warrior and save the village.
Stars: Jack Black, Dustin Hoffman, Ian McShane, Angelina Jolie
Review: A pleasant little movie. Typical fare, with silly humour, kid-friendly jokes, good animation. It's a nice addition to the list of average animated fare. It's not breathtaking, although the scenes with Tai Lung escaping the rhino-guarded prison are pretty nice. Actually, all the fights are pretty good.
It's kinda like a Karate Kid meets Legend of Drunken Master, only with plushy-friendly animals and Jack Black. Add in a superhero kung fu group and there you have it.
Overall: Mediocre
Premise: A dreamer obsessed with kung fu gets picked to be the mystical Dragon Warrior and save the village.
Stars: Jack Black, Dustin Hoffman, Ian McShane, Angelina Jolie
Review: A pleasant little movie. Typical fare, with silly humour, kid-friendly jokes, good animation. It's a nice addition to the list of average animated fare. It's not breathtaking, although the scenes with Tai Lung escaping the rhino-guarded prison are pretty nice. Actually, all the fights are pretty good.
It's kinda like a Karate Kid meets Legend of Drunken Master, only with plushy-friendly animals and Jack Black. Add in a superhero kung fu group and there you have it.
Overall: Mediocre
Saturday, July 5, 2008
The Punisher (2004)
Links: IMDb * Wikipedia * AllMovie
Premise: A cop's family is killed by a drug kingpin out for revenge. The cop - believed dead - comes back with his own plan for revenge.
Directed by: Jonathan Hensleigh
Stars: Thomas Jane, John Travolta, Will Patton
Review: I like the film. Tom Jane is a passable Frank Castle, Travolta is a decent enough villain. Small things - like the rockabilly Johnny Cash bounty hunter, the Russian, the popsicle torture scene - are done well. However, the supporting cast and the relatively stupid way that Travolta's character Howard Saint is tricked into believing his wife is cheating on him really are a let down.
If Howard Saint is supposed to be such a smart boss-type figure, how could he not figure out that his right-hand man was homosexual? Or that his wife would begin cheating on him after their son is killed? And to be such a whiny bitch when he figures out he's an idiot for falling for the ruse?
While Rebecca Romijn and the pair of guys she hangs out with are the light comic relief, as well as a support group, they detract from the rest of the film. A straight revenge flick would've been much better, given the nature of the character.
Still, it's better than the Lundgren atrocity.
Overall: Mediocre
Premise: A cop's family is killed by a drug kingpin out for revenge. The cop - believed dead - comes back with his own plan for revenge.
Directed by: Jonathan Hensleigh
Stars: Thomas Jane, John Travolta, Will Patton
Review: I like the film. Tom Jane is a passable Frank Castle, Travolta is a decent enough villain. Small things - like the rockabilly Johnny Cash bounty hunter, the Russian, the popsicle torture scene - are done well. However, the supporting cast and the relatively stupid way that Travolta's character Howard Saint is tricked into believing his wife is cheating on him really are a let down.
If Howard Saint is supposed to be such a smart boss-type figure, how could he not figure out that his right-hand man was homosexual? Or that his wife would begin cheating on him after their son is killed? And to be such a whiny bitch when he figures out he's an idiot for falling for the ruse?
While Rebecca Romijn and the pair of guys she hangs out with are the light comic relief, as well as a support group, they detract from the rest of the film. A straight revenge flick would've been much better, given the nature of the character.
Still, it's better than the Lundgren atrocity.
Overall: Mediocre
Bandidas (2006)
Links: IMDb * Wikipedia * AllMovie
Premise: Penelope Cruz and Salma Hayek as young women out to avenge their fathers' deaths.
Stars: Penelope Cruz, Salma Hayek, Steve Zahn, Dwight Yoakam
Review: Honestly I didn't expect much out of a film that disappeared from the theater faster than you can blink. But it surprised me. Cruz and Hayek are both delightful - and pleasant to the eyes - as Maria and Sara, respectively, who are out to prove that the bank which had their fathers killed is not to be respected. They begin robbing banks - not for the money but in order to demonstrate that the banks are not safe and that the people of Mexico should not put their money in them. This will - hopefully - drive the bank out of the country.
While they do this, they are pursued by Dwight Yoakam - in a send-up of almost every Western bad guy - who draws a number of laughs even when he's menacing. Steve Zahn plays an investigator from New York who is drawn to both women as they compete to prove who's the better woman - they keep kissing him in full view of the other in order to prove to themselves and to each other that they are better.
It's a cute Western comedy.
Overall: Mediocre
Premise: Penelope Cruz and Salma Hayek as young women out to avenge their fathers' deaths.
Stars: Penelope Cruz, Salma Hayek, Steve Zahn, Dwight Yoakam
Review: Honestly I didn't expect much out of a film that disappeared from the theater faster than you can blink. But it surprised me. Cruz and Hayek are both delightful - and pleasant to the eyes - as Maria and Sara, respectively, who are out to prove that the bank which had their fathers killed is not to be respected. They begin robbing banks - not for the money but in order to demonstrate that the banks are not safe and that the people of Mexico should not put their money in them. This will - hopefully - drive the bank out of the country.
While they do this, they are pursued by Dwight Yoakam - in a send-up of almost every Western bad guy - who draws a number of laughs even when he's menacing. Steve Zahn plays an investigator from New York who is drawn to both women as they compete to prove who's the better woman - they keep kissing him in full view of the other in order to prove to themselves and to each other that they are better.
It's a cute Western comedy.
Overall: Mediocre
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)