Showing posts with label New Releases. Show all posts
Showing posts with label New Releases. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
New Release: 21 Jump Street
I had no idea what to expect seeing this movie - the trailers seemed mixed. It could either have been really funny or they could have shown all the funny stuff in the trailer. Thankfully, they stuck to the first 15 or so minutes of humor for the trailer and left another 90 minutes of dick and balls jokes, many of which were really really funny.
I expected it to be a really male driven comedy, but I honestly didn't expect the level of raunchiness of it all. I guess we can assume Jonah Hill's Oscar nomination was more of a fluke than we knew. He's much thinner, but still relies heavily on the kind of sophomoric humor that made him famous. This is Superbad goes to Police Academy. Hill and Channing Tatum were high school opposites - the "not-so-Slim-Shady" and the dumb prom king, respectively. However, they realized at the Police Academy that they could help each other with the parts of the job they found difficult. They become really close friends and make it through together.
However, they're INSANELY juvenile, dry humping their first perp after hand cuffiing him, and forgetting to read his Miranda rights so he gets released. They get dumped on "Jump Street", a unit that uses police officers that look young enough to blend into high schools undercover. They infiltrate a drug ring at a local high school run by Dave Franco (James Franco's younger brother, who has stolen all his brother's tricks). They accidentally switch identities and Tatum is assigned to AP Chemistry and befriends the geeks, and Hill goes to theater and track. However, high school has changed since they went to school - all the things that made Tatum hot stuff and prom king no longer work, and the geeks rule the school so Hill finally gets the chance to relive high school.
They screw up a LOT, but of course save the day in the end. It's really funny and I laughed out loud many times, but mostly from shock or disbelief than any sort of really good humor. Cheap fun, and lots of it, but overall, that's about it. 3.5 of 5 stars/lambs.
Sunday, March 25, 2012
New Release: The Hunger Games
I don't do too many New Release reviews these days. Usually so many people have reviewed them that it feels like I don't have anything else to say. However, as I've managed to avoid reading any other reviews I am going to have my say before I go devour what everyone else thought.
I have read The Hunger Games and it's sequels several times (the audiobooks are terrific). For a change, I would actually recommend reading these books before seeing the movie. While the movie does a good job of explaining the kind of world of Panem, it relies a lot on Donald Sutherland's sinister trimming of roses and sweeping views of "peacekeepers" to imply the terror and poverty that people actually endure. I'm glad the movie decided not to make the movie particularly dark (the concept of children fighting to the death is dark enough) but I think if you haven't read the book, it might come across as too light. I think they captured the overall feel of the book particularly well.
So what is it about? In a futuristic society, factions around the US rebelled. The rebellion was quashed by the Capitol (now located near Denver), and as a reminder of the Capitol's supremacy, every year the 12 districts have to send a young man and young woman to fight to death on national television - required viewing. Our heroine from District 12 (coal country), Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence), volunteers after her young sister's name is picked for the "Reaping". Katniss has been taking care of her family and particularly her sister since their father's death in the mines - she can hunt with a bow. She and the male tribute, Peeta (Josh Hutcherson), are sent to the over the top fashion/appearance obsessed Capitol with Effie Trinket (Elizabeth Banks) and their mentor - a previous winner of the games - Hamich (Woody Harrelson). Obviously the goal of the games is to stay alive and one of the ways to ensure that is to get "sponsors" so a lot of maneuvering is done to set the odds on each of the 24 tributes based on their skills and likeability. That's the first half of the film. The second half is the actual battle in the game - and we see Katniss attempt to stay alive and save Peeta who has confessed he's loved Katniss since he was a kid. The deaths are violent and frequent, and we see it all through Katniss' strength and fear as well as Peeta's attempt to not become a killer.
Jennifer Lawrence does a great job as Katniss - she's tough, but obviously scared. She won't let anyone get in her way, but not because she's ruthless, just because she's used to protecting herself. Hutcherson is convincing as the love interest, but he doesn't have enough lines to carry off his charismatic character to the extent he needs to. Everyone else is well cast, particularly Wes Bentley as the game maker at Sutherland's mercy, and Stanley Tucci as the TV personality interviewing candidates and narrating the Games.
My only big problem with the film was the shaky camera work. There are a LOT of scenes where you feel like you have no idea what you're looking at. For the violent scenes, it's okay, but when Katniss is just walking around and taking things in it can be really disorienting and actually made me feel pretty dizzy for a while afterward. Other than this little problem, I think they brought it to life particularly well. 4.5 of 5 stars/lambs
One of the
I have read The Hunger Games and it's sequels several times (the audiobooks are terrific). For a change, I would actually recommend reading these books before seeing the movie. While the movie does a good job of explaining the kind of world of Panem, it relies a lot on Donald Sutherland's sinister trimming of roses and sweeping views of "peacekeepers" to imply the terror and poverty that people actually endure. I'm glad the movie decided not to make the movie particularly dark (the concept of children fighting to the death is dark enough) but I think if you haven't read the book, it might come across as too light. I think they captured the overall feel of the book particularly well.
So what is it about? In a futuristic society, factions around the US rebelled. The rebellion was quashed by the Capitol (now located near Denver), and as a reminder of the Capitol's supremacy, every year the 12 districts have to send a young man and young woman to fight to death on national television - required viewing. Our heroine from District 12 (coal country), Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence), volunteers after her young sister's name is picked for the "Reaping". Katniss has been taking care of her family and particularly her sister since their father's death in the mines - she can hunt with a bow. She and the male tribute, Peeta (Josh Hutcherson), are sent to the over the top fashion/appearance obsessed Capitol with Effie Trinket (Elizabeth Banks) and their mentor - a previous winner of the games - Hamich (Woody Harrelson). Obviously the goal of the games is to stay alive and one of the ways to ensure that is to get "sponsors" so a lot of maneuvering is done to set the odds on each of the 24 tributes based on their skills and likeability. That's the first half of the film. The second half is the actual battle in the game - and we see Katniss attempt to stay alive and save Peeta who has confessed he's loved Katniss since he was a kid. The deaths are violent and frequent, and we see it all through Katniss' strength and fear as well as Peeta's attempt to not become a killer.
Jennifer Lawrence does a great job as Katniss - she's tough, but obviously scared. She won't let anyone get in her way, but not because she's ruthless, just because she's used to protecting herself. Hutcherson is convincing as the love interest, but he doesn't have enough lines to carry off his charismatic character to the extent he needs to. Everyone else is well cast, particularly Wes Bentley as the game maker at Sutherland's mercy, and Stanley Tucci as the TV personality interviewing candidates and narrating the Games.
My only big problem with the film was the shaky camera work. There are a LOT of scenes where you feel like you have no idea what you're looking at. For the violent scenes, it's okay, but when Katniss is just walking around and taking things in it can be really disorienting and actually made me feel pretty dizzy for a while afterward. Other than this little problem, I think they brought it to life particularly well. 4.5 of 5 stars/lambs
One of the
Sunday, January 29, 2012
30 Days of Oscar Day 5: The Descendents
Movie: The Descendents
Year: 2012
Nominations: Best Picture, Best Director - Alexander Payne, Best Actor - George Clooney, Film Editing (Kevin Tent), Adapted Screenplay (
Wins/Snubs: I'm guessing Clooney will win, but the others will go home empty handed. Although based on other groups nominations, Editing has a good chance. Also, if the Academy doesn't want to award Aaron Sorkin two years in a row for Moneyball, I could see this winning Adapted Screenplay as well. As for snubs, now that I've seen it, I can get on the bandwagon for a Shailene Woodley nomination for supporting actress. Personally, I'd trade her out for Jessica Chastain in The Help. I think Chastain would deserve her nomination for Tree of Life but not The Help.
There aren't a lot of movies that can stand up to a single-sentence description and rise above it, but The Descendants is one of the few. The Descendants is the story of Matt King (Clooney), a man dealing with telling his loved ones about the impending death of his wife after finding out she was having an affair. The movie is so much more than that. I know Whitney (from Frankly, My Dear) hates it when a place is described as a character in a film, but Hawaii plays a particularly strong role in this film. Matt is a lawyer who is the trustee of his family's land trust that is dissolving and selling off pristine land on Kauai. The land has been in the family for more than a century and the concept of selling off paradise is examined throughout the film as strangers talk to Matt about his decision to sell. This is horribly timing as Matt also has to deal with the unexpected and slow death of his wife from a boating accident. She didn't want to be kept alive on machines, so the time has come and Matt wants to give friends and family the chance to say goodbye. He has gone to the Big Island pick up his older daughter Alex (Shailene Woodley) at private school and bring her home to help with his other daughter during this time. She is the one who saw her mother having an affair and now knows it's time to tell her father. His reaction is one of the best and most real moments of someone finding out about an affair I've ever seen. He's obviously upset, but is balancing that with the idea that maybe it doesn't matter anymore, but he still wants to know. This battle continues as he gets some details from Alex - then he runs out the door and runs (literally) to a friends house to get the rest of the details.
The rest of the film plays out in unexpected ways - Matt is coming to grips with what he life actually was: his anger with his dying wife, the distance he has from his daughters, and the family legacy that he is guardian of for now. I loved seeing them travel around Hawaii, from Oahu to the Big Island to Kauai and back. It's a really gorgeous setting to put this unbelievably difficult story of lies and betrayal and family. But the real winner is Clooney - he is in almost every scene of the film, and even though he's dressed in Hawaiian business dress (Hawaiian shirt and pants or shorts), he's really far from being "The Man in the Suit" he's done in the past. There are no moments of acting with only his eyebrows or his "chin and grin". He acts better than I've ever seen him with more authenticity than almost any actor has ever done.
In addition to Shailene Woodley being Matt's best support during this crisis, there are some terrific supporting characters that only make an appearance for a scene or two - Beau Bridges as a cousin, Judy Greer in a non-comedic role, Robert Forster as Matt's father-in-law, and newcomer Nick Krause as "Sid", Alex's dopey friend who goes on this journey with them all. Alexander Payne did a terrific job putting this film together and I know it won't leave the Oscar's empty handed this year. 5 of 5 stars/lambs
Year: 2012
Nominations: Best Picture, Best Director - Alexander Payne, Best Actor - George Clooney, Film Editing (Kevin Tent), Adapted Screenplay (
Wins/Snubs: I'm guessing Clooney will win, but the others will go home empty handed. Although based on other groups nominations, Editing has a good chance. Also, if the Academy doesn't want to award Aaron Sorkin two years in a row for Moneyball, I could see this winning Adapted Screenplay as well. As for snubs, now that I've seen it, I can get on the bandwagon for a Shailene Woodley nomination for supporting actress. Personally, I'd trade her out for Jessica Chastain in The Help. I think Chastain would deserve her nomination for Tree of Life but not The Help.
There aren't a lot of movies that can stand up to a single-sentence description and rise above it, but The Descendants is one of the few. The Descendants is the story of Matt King (Clooney), a man dealing with telling his loved ones about the impending death of his wife after finding out she was having an affair. The movie is so much more than that. I know Whitney (from Frankly, My Dear) hates it when a place is described as a character in a film, but Hawaii plays a particularly strong role in this film. Matt is a lawyer who is the trustee of his family's land trust that is dissolving and selling off pristine land on Kauai. The land has been in the family for more than a century and the concept of selling off paradise is examined throughout the film as strangers talk to Matt about his decision to sell. This is horribly timing as Matt also has to deal with the unexpected and slow death of his wife from a boating accident. She didn't want to be kept alive on machines, so the time has come and Matt wants to give friends and family the chance to say goodbye. He has gone to the Big Island pick up his older daughter Alex (Shailene Woodley) at private school and bring her home to help with his other daughter during this time. She is the one who saw her mother having an affair and now knows it's time to tell her father. His reaction is one of the best and most real moments of someone finding out about an affair I've ever seen. He's obviously upset, but is balancing that with the idea that maybe it doesn't matter anymore, but he still wants to know. This battle continues as he gets some details from Alex - then he runs out the door and runs (literally) to a friends house to get the rest of the details.
The rest of the film plays out in unexpected ways - Matt is coming to grips with what he life actually was: his anger with his dying wife, the distance he has from his daughters, and the family legacy that he is guardian of for now. I loved seeing them travel around Hawaii, from Oahu to the Big Island to Kauai and back. It's a really gorgeous setting to put this unbelievably difficult story of lies and betrayal and family. But the real winner is Clooney - he is in almost every scene of the film, and even though he's dressed in Hawaiian business dress (Hawaiian shirt and pants or shorts), he's really far from being "The Man in the Suit" he's done in the past. There are no moments of acting with only his eyebrows or his "chin and grin". He acts better than I've ever seen him with more authenticity than almost any actor has ever done.
In addition to Shailene Woodley being Matt's best support during this crisis, there are some terrific supporting characters that only make an appearance for a scene or two - Beau Bridges as a cousin, Judy Greer in a non-comedic role, Robert Forster as Matt's father-in-law, and newcomer Nick Krause as "Sid", Alex's dopey friend who goes on this journey with them all. Alexander Payne did a terrific job putting this film together and I know it won't leave the Oscar's empty handed this year. 5 of 5 stars/lambs
Saturday, January 21, 2012
New Release: Animal Edition
This is a special occasion. Two new releases at once. And both deal with animals, War Horse and We Bought a Zoo. I won't be surprised if War Horse gets nominated for some Oscars next week, but I doubt anything will be said about We Bought a Zoo until it gets released on DVD in a few months. But really, these movies aren't terribly far apart in content or appeal to the average viewer. One treads a bit more on the comedic side, and the other takes advantage of spectacular visuals to tell its story. And while their triumphs differ quite a bit, the faults with both films are remarkably similar.
I'll start with the faults and the describe what I liked about each film individually. The fault lies mostly with the great big gaps in the story-telling. I'm not saying they should have held me by the hand to get from point A through the end, but I think both films fall short by setting up a rich, deep structure and then failing to follow through on the promise that the film begins. Both films end with heart lifting triumph (though not as perfect and sweet as you might expect, there are deaths that will upset you) and overcome implausible scenarios. But, the second act in both films, once we've left the original premise, flounders around a bit, unsure of exactly where to go. But in neither film is this horribly problematic, it just keeps the film from being really great.
Okay, War Horse. The story of Joey, a thoroughbred bought to be a plow horse. The bond between Joey and the little boy who buys him is the driving force for the film - will they be able to stay together. When WWI is declared, Joey is sold to be an officer's horse. We follow Joey through the war, changing hands and enduring horror, watching him be afraid and know fun and even joy. I won't spoil the ending, just to say it's really a beautifully shot scene, which unfortunately doesn't fit well with the coloring of the rest of the film. As a stand alone scene it's pretty amazing, but it just seems out of place. I really, really liked Joey. If it's possible for a horse to be a good actor, he is. Spielberg did a great job getting the horse to show human-like emotion throughout. There aren't a lot of stand out human actors, particularly in the middle of the film, but as a group they do keep the story going.
As a film about the horrors of war, it's very successful - this war SUCKED. Does that make for a good film - I'm conflicted about that. There was something better done about showing the problems of war in Saving Private Ryan and War Horse, for all it's softness about following a horse, tips the balance a bit far in the wrong direction about how awful humans can be during war. Watching that kind of terror in the eyes of the soldiers and horror watching what they do and what is done to them might not be something everyone needs to see more than once. I tend to enjoy my films best if I can't wait to see them again. In that respect, War Horse was unsuccessful. So I'd give the film a 3.5 of 5. Very very good in some respects, but a near zero rewatchability. But that's just me.
As for We Bought a Zoo, Matt Damon is the recently widowed father of a 14-year old boy, Dylan, and a 7-year old girl Rosie (scene stealer Mackenzie Elizabeth Jones). After Dylan gets expelled from school for creating artwork that depicts death and stealing, Damon decides to move the kids out of the city. He also needs to escape all of the memories of his late wife. They end up buying a perfect house, that also comes with an Animal Park that is nearly kaput. Damon's character is an adventure writer and thinks getting this park back on track will be an adventure, and Rosie of course loves it. Dylan is still struggling but befriends the niece, Lily (an remarkably annoying Elle Fanning, see her in Super 8 instead) of the head zookeeper Kelly (Scarlett Johannsen). The movie does a good job giving us a goal to cheer for - passing the upcoming inspection before they can open, and keeping it all from becoming ridiculous.
I've always been a fan of zoos. I've visited small zoos in Panama, Mexico, Kenya, and Zanzibar. We Bought a Zoo didn't do anything improbable and kept well within all the kooky standards of animal welfare for my very critical eye. I was nervous going in that they'd pretend that this tiny zoo could have all kinds of exotic species and be really cheap. But the movie makes everything really clear and above board - acknowledging their struggles, and not pretending too much. The supporting cast isn't as strong as the story really requires - they have some good actors - Thomas Hadyn Church as Damon's accountant brother (the funniest character besides the animals), Patrick Fugit as the handyman, Angus McFadyn as another keeper, Carla Gallo (from "Bones") as the nosy bookkeeper and John Michael Higgins as the Inspector. But sadly, the story isn't written well enough for any of them to really shine. Overall, still a pleasure to watch. 4 of 5 stars/lambs.
I'll start with the faults and the describe what I liked about each film individually. The fault lies mostly with the great big gaps in the story-telling. I'm not saying they should have held me by the hand to get from point A through the end, but I think both films fall short by setting up a rich, deep structure and then failing to follow through on the promise that the film begins. Both films end with heart lifting triumph (though not as perfect and sweet as you might expect, there are deaths that will upset you) and overcome implausible scenarios. But, the second act in both films, once we've left the original premise, flounders around a bit, unsure of exactly where to go. But in neither film is this horribly problematic, it just keeps the film from being really great.
Okay, War Horse. The story of Joey, a thoroughbred bought to be a plow horse. The bond between Joey and the little boy who buys him is the driving force for the film - will they be able to stay together. When WWI is declared, Joey is sold to be an officer's horse. We follow Joey through the war, changing hands and enduring horror, watching him be afraid and know fun and even joy. I won't spoil the ending, just to say it's really a beautifully shot scene, which unfortunately doesn't fit well with the coloring of the rest of the film. As a stand alone scene it's pretty amazing, but it just seems out of place. I really, really liked Joey. If it's possible for a horse to be a good actor, he is. Spielberg did a great job getting the horse to show human-like emotion throughout. There aren't a lot of stand out human actors, particularly in the middle of the film, but as a group they do keep the story going.
As a film about the horrors of war, it's very successful - this war SUCKED. Does that make for a good film - I'm conflicted about that. There was something better done about showing the problems of war in Saving Private Ryan and War Horse, for all it's softness about following a horse, tips the balance a bit far in the wrong direction about how awful humans can be during war. Watching that kind of terror in the eyes of the soldiers and horror watching what they do and what is done to them might not be something everyone needs to see more than once. I tend to enjoy my films best if I can't wait to see them again. In that respect, War Horse was unsuccessful. So I'd give the film a 3.5 of 5. Very very good in some respects, but a near zero rewatchability. But that's just me.
As for We Bought a Zoo, Matt Damon is the recently widowed father of a 14-year old boy, Dylan, and a 7-year old girl Rosie (scene stealer Mackenzie Elizabeth Jones). After Dylan gets expelled from school for creating artwork that depicts death and stealing, Damon decides to move the kids out of the city. He also needs to escape all of the memories of his late wife. They end up buying a perfect house, that also comes with an Animal Park that is nearly kaput. Damon's character is an adventure writer and thinks getting this park back on track will be an adventure, and Rosie of course loves it. Dylan is still struggling but befriends the niece, Lily (an remarkably annoying Elle Fanning, see her in Super 8 instead) of the head zookeeper Kelly (Scarlett Johannsen). The movie does a good job giving us a goal to cheer for - passing the upcoming inspection before they can open, and keeping it all from becoming ridiculous.
I've always been a fan of zoos. I've visited small zoos in Panama, Mexico, Kenya, and Zanzibar. We Bought a Zoo didn't do anything improbable and kept well within all the kooky standards of animal welfare for my very critical eye. I was nervous going in that they'd pretend that this tiny zoo could have all kinds of exotic species and be really cheap. But the movie makes everything really clear and above board - acknowledging their struggles, and not pretending too much. The supporting cast isn't as strong as the story really requires - they have some good actors - Thomas Hadyn Church as Damon's accountant brother (the funniest character besides the animals), Patrick Fugit as the handyman, Angus McFadyn as another keeper, Carla Gallo (from "Bones") as the nosy bookkeeper and John Michael Higgins as the Inspector. But sadly, the story isn't written well enough for any of them to really shine. Overall, still a pleasure to watch. 4 of 5 stars/lambs.
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
New Release: Mission Impossible 4: Ghost Protocol
It wouldn't be all that difficult to take almost all of Tom Cruise's characters and believe they are all actually the same person if you could ignore the fact that they were made at different times. For example: Brian Flanagan (Cocktail) gets his life together and goes to law school. He graduates and joins The Firm (Mitch McDeere). However, since that doesn't work out, he joins the navy, becomes a pilot (Maverick, Top Gun) but realizes his legal career might be put to better use and he defends some murderers (Lt. Daniel Kaffee, A Few Good Men). After he's released from military service, the intelligence community decides he's worth the investment since he's already a lawyer (Ethan Hunt, Mission: Impossible series, Roy Miller Knight and Day). Once that's over, he decides politics might be the way to go and he becomes a Senator (Jasper Irving, Lions for Lambs). Of course, you can't be a politician forever, and he goes becomes a music mogul (uncredited, Tropic Thunder). If you can add to this let me know, but it's always struck me as odd that his characters seem to be living out some parallel life to Tom Cruise.
Anyway, his newest movie, Mission Impossible - Ghost Protocol is a good continuation on that parallel life. He's been within the intelligence agency for a while now, but the world has changed a bit and the technology with it. There are new people to fight and lots of people to disavow when they screw up. He works with Paula Patton (the teacher from Precious), Simon Pegg, and Jeremy Renner to fix some of those screw ups. He's much more of a loner than Ethan Hunt was in any of the previous movies. It's pretty unusual for a fictional character to actually learn from his mistakes in previous incarnations of a franchise (I'm looking at you, James Bond), but Ethan seems to have a wisdom and knowledge about him that gives you confidence he knows what he's doing.
I wasn't surprised when I learned a man known for animation (The Incredibles, Ratatouille), Brad Bird did a terrific job with the action and in particular with the visual aspects of the film. You are seriously scared when Hunt is hanging on the outside of a building relying only on one of Simon Pegg's inventions. He doesn't rely solely on dramatic music to create the tension, but from wonderfully scary visuals. This is true throughout the film, which also has more daytime, international scenery than any other action film I've seen in years. All of the usual toys of a Mission Impossible film are present: from hot women in beautiful dresses, to masks, to disavowed rogue agents. Really terrific holiday fare. 4 of 5 stars/lambs
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
New Release: Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows
*Spoilers if you haven't seen the trailer, otherwise, nothing*
The film picks up right where the old one left off. Holmes (Robert Downey, Jr.) is trying to figure out exactly who Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams) is working for. He and Watson (Jude Law) saved the world from destruction, but now Holmes has to survive Watson's wedding to Mary (Kelly Reilly), and first his bachelor party. We find out Ms. Adler is working for Prof. Moriarty, and that doesn't go too well for her. Holmes wants to figure out Moriarty's plans and stop them of course. This leads him to plan Watson's bachelor party (or half-assed plan) at a dance hall that has fortune tellers, where he meets Simza (Noomi Rapace) whose brother is wrapped up in all of the problems. She's a gypsy, handy with a knife, and Holmes has to try to keep her alive, which she's more than capable of doing alone.
So we follow these adventures, the rest of which are mostly based on Moriarty threatening to hurt all the people in Holmes' life. The action is good; the stylized fighting and mental preparation by Holmes is entertaining as well as engaging. The story is a little more complicated than it really needs to be - something about Moriarty attempting to trigger war and then reap the financial benefits from it - and doesn't seem fitting for Moriarty's infamous brilliance. However, there were some pretty great "meta" moments where they link the story to the original novels, but I won't give those away at all. Just know that they're there.
Downey, Jr. and Law were really great interacting again. They had terrific chemistry, with Watson being continuously annoyed with Holmes and Holmes attempting to keep Watson all to himself. Noomi Rapace (famous for the Swedish version of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo) was good, but her role was relatively limited, it was mostly a place holder kind of role and she didn't need to do a lot, but at least it might give her the chance to do more in Hollywood, because what she did do was terrific, she just wasn't a big part of the film in general. I liked it, but it wasn't better than the original, and if you're one of those who just liked the first one, you'll like this one, but you can wait for DVD. Here's my review of the original, which I gave 4.5 stars, and this one I'd give a solid 4 stars/lambs.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
New Release: The Muppets
"Mah na mah na." If reading that means you just sang "Do doo da do da" to yourself, this movie was definitely made for you. Alternatively, if you didn't love the Muppets as a child, but now YOU have a child, this movie might also be made for you. And if you just enjoy watching cultural icons reinvent themselves by going back to their roots, I guarantee you'll like the new film The Muppets.
Starring Jason Segel as Gary, who has been dating Mary (Amy Adams) for nearly 10 years. They're going to go from Smalltown, USA to Los Angeles for their anniversary. Gary's brother Walter has always felt a little different and growing up he bonded with "The Muppet Show" on TV. He wanted to be part of them and has always felt the world just wasn't made for him. Gary and Mary decide to bring Walter to LA to see The Muppet Studio. While there, Walter overhears a plot by an oil baron (Chris Cooper) to tear down the studio and drill for oil unless the Muppets can come up with $10 Million in 2 days. Walter convinces Gary and Mary that they must tell Kermit the Frog and make sure he knows what's going on. And so the adventure begins.
That's pretty much all you need to know, even a bit more than you need to know. If you've ever seen a Muppets movie or TV show, you know more or less how it's going to end. The difference in this movie is that it takes you to some pretty great places along the way. There are the requisite celebrity cameos, but unlike in many other movies of late, they attempt to drive the plot rather than just show us the famous people who like the Muppets. Instead, it shows you famous people who embody what the Muppets attempt to stand for.
The best part of the movie is the music. Some songs are written by Bret McKenzie from "Flight of the Conchords", and it makes such a difference to have a creative force like Bret and Segel behind this movie. The music is completely over the top, but works perfectly with the Muppets. Very tongue-in-cheek throughout, it's almost impossible not to sing along. I highly recommend this movie for it's inherent entertainment, but if you also ever loved the Muppets, you'll love this for more reasons. Check it out! My only criticism is of course the bad guy and his "scheme" that must be thwarted - it's ridiculous, but still keeping with the Muppets past. 4 of 5 stars/lambs
Oh, and if that's not enough, see this in theaters because there's a TERRIFIC short film that carries forward from Toy Story 3. A little girl in my audience put it best after seeing the short, "That was all so funny."
Starring Jason Segel as Gary, who has been dating Mary (Amy Adams) for nearly 10 years. They're going to go from Smalltown, USA to Los Angeles for their anniversary. Gary's brother Walter has always felt a little different and growing up he bonded with "The Muppet Show" on TV. He wanted to be part of them and has always felt the world just wasn't made for him. Gary and Mary decide to bring Walter to LA to see The Muppet Studio. While there, Walter overhears a plot by an oil baron (Chris Cooper) to tear down the studio and drill for oil unless the Muppets can come up with $10 Million in 2 days. Walter convinces Gary and Mary that they must tell Kermit the Frog and make sure he knows what's going on. And so the adventure begins.
That's pretty much all you need to know, even a bit more than you need to know. If you've ever seen a Muppets movie or TV show, you know more or less how it's going to end. The difference in this movie is that it takes you to some pretty great places along the way. There are the requisite celebrity cameos, but unlike in many other movies of late, they attempt to drive the plot rather than just show us the famous people who like the Muppets. Instead, it shows you famous people who embody what the Muppets attempt to stand for.
The best part of the movie is the music. Some songs are written by Bret McKenzie from "Flight of the Conchords", and it makes such a difference to have a creative force like Bret and Segel behind this movie. The music is completely over the top, but works perfectly with the Muppets. Very tongue-in-cheek throughout, it's almost impossible not to sing along. I highly recommend this movie for it's inherent entertainment, but if you also ever loved the Muppets, you'll love this for more reasons. Check it out! My only criticism is of course the bad guy and his "scheme" that must be thwarted - it's ridiculous, but still keeping with the Muppets past. 4 of 5 stars/lambs
Oh, and if that's not enough, see this in theaters because there's a TERRIFIC short film that carries forward from Toy Story 3. A little girl in my audience put it best after seeing the short, "That was all so funny."
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
New Release: Tower Heist
When watching the new comedy, Tower Heist, I couldn't help thinking that when this movie was created the producers and marketing people created a flow chart to figure out how many people would probably want to see this movie, since the concept is not particularly new or creative. Since I now commute nearly 100 minutes M-F I have a lot of time to think, so I thought about the flow chart they might have created. Here's a pretty simple version that I thought they would have grouped people into based on their interest. It definitely starts with the idea that "heist movies" appeal to you. You can follow it to see why I really liked it and if you might too. Click on the image to get a larger version. 4 of 5 stars/lambs
Monday, October 24, 2011
New Release: Moneyball
I know, you're sad because there wasn't a podcast this week. But the Morgan Freeman episode was so much fun we had to wait a little while so you could recover. But we'll return next week with a pretty darn odd actress.
Instead, here's my review of Moneyball. Based on a best-selling book by Michael Lewis, it tracks the off-season of the Oakland Athletic's general manager, Billy Beane (Brad Pitt) and his attempt to create a stellar ball club with a measly $39 million. The recent World Series winners, the NY Yankees, have a budget of nearly $115 with which to buy the best players. Beane thinks this is horrible unfair and rails at the world for a little while since he can't afford to keep his 3 best players any longer. However, at a meeting one day, he runs into Peter Brand (Jonah Hill) who is whispering in another GM's ear to keep certain players - generally "bad" players. Overall, Billy wants to know what's up, and eventually buys Peter from the other GM. Peter is an economics major from Yale and has figured out that if you only look at a players' ability to get ON FIRST BASE, you can pick the best players - many of whom are wildly UNDERVALUED because they have other odd quirks that keep them out of the best salaries. Beane figures he's got nothing to lose and with Peter's help plans a whole new team, even trading players once the season starts. While nearly impossible to stomach, once it begins yielding results, no one can criticize.
This concept, while hardly perfect, revolutionized the way people looked at baseball. "Moneyball" is a coined term looking at very specific characteristics of players and how they theoretically could create a team. The movie hints at the end that the Boston Red Sox adopted this method and finally won a World Series less than 2 years later. For a nerd like me this made for a wonderfully interesting movie. It was like Major League goes to School. And for all that, you get to watch Brad Pitt wheel and deal through what its obviously a very fast-paced process that needs a lot of guts. But he's a more complex character than that - which often drags down the film. We meet his ex-wife (Robin Wright) and daughter who worries about the team's prospects. We also see Billy's past as a high school baseball player whose dreams of going pro happen, but aren't what he'd hoped. Jonah Hill does a good job as the protegee learning the ropes and understanding he might not have the strength to keep going in this job.
We see a lot of the different players - some are chosen very specifically because they get on base, but others are to fill in the roster. It seems that it's hard to commit fully to playing "Moneyball" because it really does involve going against a lot of intuition of players. Billy battles the manager (Phillip Seymour Hoffman) as well as all the previous scouts to try to get them to follow his lead. Overall, I really enjoyed the movie. It was lacking a specific spark that most sports movies have, but it would be hard to say how to add it to the film or if it really would elevate it beyond just a good solid flick. I really enjoyed it and am looking forward to seeing it again. 4 of 5 stars/lambs
This concept, while hardly perfect, revolutionized the way people looked at baseball. "Moneyball" is a coined term looking at very specific characteristics of players and how they theoretically could create a team. The movie hints at the end that the Boston Red Sox adopted this method and finally won a World Series less than 2 years later. For a nerd like me this made for a wonderfully interesting movie. It was like Major League goes to School. And for all that, you get to watch Brad Pitt wheel and deal through what its obviously a very fast-paced process that needs a lot of guts. But he's a more complex character than that - which often drags down the film. We meet his ex-wife (Robin Wright) and daughter who worries about the team's prospects. We also see Billy's past as a high school baseball player whose dreams of going pro happen, but aren't what he'd hoped. Jonah Hill does a good job as the protegee learning the ropes and understanding he might not have the strength to keep going in this job.
We see a lot of the different players - some are chosen very specifically because they get on base, but others are to fill in the roster. It seems that it's hard to commit fully to playing "Moneyball" because it really does involve going against a lot of intuition of players. Billy battles the manager (Phillip Seymour Hoffman) as well as all the previous scouts to try to get them to follow his lead. Overall, I really enjoyed the movie. It was lacking a specific spark that most sports movies have, but it would be hard to say how to add it to the film or if it really would elevate it beyond just a good solid flick. I really enjoyed it and am looking forward to seeing it again. 4 of 5 stars/lambs
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
New Release: Contagion
It's a strange film that can make you feel like you're watching a documentary and actually wonder why you don't know how the whole thing turns out already. This was the sensation I was left with after watching Contagion, which like Soderbergh's other movies, weaves a lot of different stories and characters together to give you a full look at a particular issue (the one that struck me most was a comparison to Traffic, which I don't like, FYI). I'm not sure what he improved for Contagion but I liked the overall effect much better.
Basically, Contagion follows an alternate universe where an epidemic begins. Similar to SARS or Swine Flu or even the most recent H1N1, we see an infection (with a 25% mortality rate) unfold globally and watch how many different elements of society deal with it. First and foremost is the CDC (Centers for Disease Control)
and the WHO (World Health Organization) as the first cases appear in isolated pockets all over the world. There's a mystery element throughout the film as they seek the "patient zero" that initiated the whole outbreak. Unlike movies like Outbreak, this has a relatively low mortality, highly contagious (someone can basically touch you, so like the common cold) and doesn't make people bleed from their eyes. To the film's benefit, they seem to have focused a bit more on the societal and governmental response rather than making an outlandish disease that couldn't exist.
Some of this seems well thought out and creative in how they portray what are certainly published protocols for something like the CDC. Laurence Fishburne is in charge of this outbreak, and sends Kate Winslet to the field (Minnesota) to investigate and get the local health department up to speed in coordinating a response. We see her struggle to investigate the cases (Matt Damon's wife was the first case, which she passed to a lover on the way home) and to get the locals to react accordingly. Fishburne is also working with his scientists, Jennifer Ehle, to understand the disease and eventually create a vaccine, which they seem to do on a realistic, if panic-driven, timeline. And then Jude Law is a semi-paranoid blogger who wants to make the information about this potential epidemic public and points out all the people who benefit from the epidemic (drug companies, etc.) and will withhold the drugs or vaccines until it's most profitable to sell them. His story was a little over the top (or maybe that was just his teeth), but his part of the story needed to be told, if it was done in a really uneven manner.
There were still a LOT of stories that felt criminally under-developed. Marion Cotillard is the WHO representative sent to Hong Kong to map the first case, and is kidnapped and held for months. Matt Damon never becomes sick - why wasn't that discussed at ALL!!! A lot of the weaving together of all the stories is done well, but overall, you still feel like you're watching a documentary and haven't really become involved in very many lives. Good, but not great, leaves you with too strong a need to wash your hands. 3.5 of 5 stars/lambs
Basically, Contagion follows an alternate universe where an epidemic begins. Similar to SARS or Swine Flu or even the most recent H1N1, we see an infection (with a 25% mortality rate) unfold globally and watch how many different elements of society deal with it. First and foremost is the CDC (Centers for Disease Control)
and the WHO (World Health Organization) as the first cases appear in isolated pockets all over the world. There's a mystery element throughout the film as they seek the "patient zero" that initiated the whole outbreak. Unlike movies like Outbreak, this has a relatively low mortality, highly contagious (someone can basically touch you, so like the common cold) and doesn't make people bleed from their eyes. To the film's benefit, they seem to have focused a bit more on the societal and governmental response rather than making an outlandish disease that couldn't exist.
Some of this seems well thought out and creative in how they portray what are certainly published protocols for something like the CDC. Laurence Fishburne is in charge of this outbreak, and sends Kate Winslet to the field (Minnesota) to investigate and get the local health department up to speed in coordinating a response. We see her struggle to investigate the cases (Matt Damon's wife was the first case, which she passed to a lover on the way home) and to get the locals to react accordingly. Fishburne is also working with his scientists, Jennifer Ehle, to understand the disease and eventually create a vaccine, which they seem to do on a realistic, if panic-driven, timeline. And then Jude Law is a semi-paranoid blogger who wants to make the information about this potential epidemic public and points out all the people who benefit from the epidemic (drug companies, etc.) and will withhold the drugs or vaccines until it's most profitable to sell them. His story was a little over the top (or maybe that was just his teeth), but his part of the story needed to be told, if it was done in a really uneven manner.
There were still a LOT of stories that felt criminally under-developed. Marion Cotillard is the WHO representative sent to Hong Kong to map the first case, and is kidnapped and held for months. Matt Damon never becomes sick - why wasn't that discussed at ALL!!! A lot of the weaving together of all the stories is done well, but overall, you still feel like you're watching a documentary and haven't really become involved in very many lives. Good, but not great, leaves you with too strong a need to wash your hands. 3.5 of 5 stars/lambs
Saturday, October 8, 2011
New Release: 50/50
There is a lot about the new movie, 50/50, that resonates with me. I've been in the situation of having to make decisions that only seem like a good guess, with a pretty terrible chance of helping. I've also had health issues that I'm sure I couldn't have overcome without my family and friends. I'm also a huge proponent of therapy, everyone could benefit from a little help learning to deal with their lives and issues. I also have always tried to hold on to my positive attitude about my own life, even when it wasn't going well, so I get the concept that there is a lot of humor (if it's color is close to black) to be found in terrible situations.
50/50 is the story of Adam (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), a 27-year-old NPR story writer who is told he has a particularly bad and rare form of cancer, with the odds of survival giving the movie its name. His best friend Kyle (Seth Rogan) tries to be encouraging and helpful, though mostly in the getting laid department. His girlfriend Rachel (Bryce Dallas Howard) decides to stick with him, but is such a narcissist that all she can focus on is how it affects her life. Adam is reluctant to ask for help from his parents, Anjelica Huston and Serge Houde, because his father has advanced Alzheimer's and his mom seems to constantly overreact. Of course, he realizes eventually that letting someone help you makes the burden that much lighter - whatever amount they're able to carry. One of the bright spots of his treatment is meeting some new people - specifically Mitch (Philip Baker Hall) and Alan (Matt Frewer aka Max Headroom), fellow cancer fighters, and Katherine (Anna Kendrick), his psychologist helping him deal with having cancer.
Joseph Gorden-Levitt carries this movie himself. He is in every scene, and nearly all the events are seen through his eyes. Some of this shows us the isolation that cancer (or any other illness) can create. It's hard to articulate to others what it's like to be inside a body falling apart. This leaves the movie in danger of falling hard on cliches, which thankfully it manages to mostly avoid. Rogan is funny doing his regular shtick trying to get himself and Jo-Go laid. But it's Jo-Go's relationship with his mother and his therapist that are at the heart of the film. Since they're both struggling with how to help Adam, both practically and emotionally, it gives the viewer an avenue to vent some of our own feelings of helplessness with Adam's situation. When Adam does finally break, on the night before his last-chance surgery, we're right there with him wanting to scream at the unfairness of life.
Overall, I really enjoyed the movie. There were a few laugh out loud moments, but mostly watching Jo-Go fight for the right to be "normal" again was what got me. I didn't quite leave in tears, but it's a good movie to make you feel something. Cancer isn't funny, but it's definitely become a part of life, and that's what movies are about - showing you what life can be. 4 of 5 stars/lambs
50/50 is the story of Adam (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), a 27-year-old NPR story writer who is told he has a particularly bad and rare form of cancer, with the odds of survival giving the movie its name. His best friend Kyle (Seth Rogan) tries to be encouraging and helpful, though mostly in the getting laid department. His girlfriend Rachel (Bryce Dallas Howard) decides to stick with him, but is such a narcissist that all she can focus on is how it affects her life. Adam is reluctant to ask for help from his parents, Anjelica Huston and Serge Houde, because his father has advanced Alzheimer's and his mom seems to constantly overreact. Of course, he realizes eventually that letting someone help you makes the burden that much lighter - whatever amount they're able to carry. One of the bright spots of his treatment is meeting some new people - specifically Mitch (Philip Baker Hall) and Alan (Matt Frewer aka Max Headroom), fellow cancer fighters, and Katherine (Anna Kendrick), his psychologist helping him deal with having cancer.
Joseph Gorden-Levitt carries this movie himself. He is in every scene, and nearly all the events are seen through his eyes. Some of this shows us the isolation that cancer (or any other illness) can create. It's hard to articulate to others what it's like to be inside a body falling apart. This leaves the movie in danger of falling hard on cliches, which thankfully it manages to mostly avoid. Rogan is funny doing his regular shtick trying to get himself and Jo-Go laid. But it's Jo-Go's relationship with his mother and his therapist that are at the heart of the film. Since they're both struggling with how to help Adam, both practically and emotionally, it gives the viewer an avenue to vent some of our own feelings of helplessness with Adam's situation. When Adam does finally break, on the night before his last-chance surgery, we're right there with him wanting to scream at the unfairness of life.
Overall, I really enjoyed the movie. There were a few laugh out loud moments, but mostly watching Jo-Go fight for the right to be "normal" again was what got me. I didn't quite leave in tears, but it's a good movie to make you feel something. Cancer isn't funny, but it's definitely become a part of life, and that's what movies are about - showing you what life can be. 4 of 5 stars/lambs
Saturday, September 10, 2011
New Release: Midnight in Paris
I have avoided a lot of reviews and done almost no reading about Midnight in Paris. Mostly because I was pretty sure it would never come to a movie theater near me, and also I haven't really been a fan of recent Woody Allen films. Some work, some don't. Manhattan is awesome, I adore Mighty Aphrodite, thought Match Point was pretty good and that sums up my really positive associations with Allen, though I've seen most of his films. Most of Allen's movies, particularly recently, have used other actors to play the "Woody Allen" role. They nearly always capture his basic personality, but none have done it as charmingly as Owen Wilson in Midnight in Paris. It's almost as if Allen finally saw Wilson in a movie and realized he'd found a more plausible, handsome, funnier, "movie star" to play himself on film with young female starlets.
In less capable or articulate hands, this movie might have fallen completely into farce. Instead, it retains charm, humor, and originality enough to make you smile the whole ninety minutes. The story begins to defy summary, but I'll try. Owen Wilson is a Hollywood writer who has come to Paris with his fiancee, Rachel McAdams, and is inspired by the streets of Paris to work on his novel. She thinks very little of his intellectual pursuits, though loves to listen to Michael Sheen and his wife talk about cultural places and ideas. One night Wilson is drunk and takes a walk back to his hotel. After the clock strikes midnight an old-fashioned taxi appears and the partiers inside take him to a party where he meets Zelda and Scott Fitzgerald (Alison Pill - so awesome!! and a VERY likeable Tom Hiddleston, Loki from Thor). He can't really believe what he's seeing, but when he realizes it's actually Cole Porter, he basically says why not, I'm dreaming so I'll enjoy it. Later that night he meets Ernest Hemingway (perfectly captured for comedic effect by Corey Stoll) who says he'll pass Wilson's manuscript on to Gertrude Stein (Kathy Bates) for her opinion.
Wilson becomes infatuated with this world of 1920s Paris, returning night after night - first attempting to get McAdams to come too, but of course she thinks he's crazy so he goes alone. It's his dream-world. The most perfect place he can imagine being a part of. I can't say I think he's wrong. The number of influential people he meets, particularly as an artists himself, is awesome and not something easily repeatable in our own time. The movie does a terrific job taking us on Wilson's journey, complete with a memorable soundtrack and jokes I could even remember after leaving the theater. There are a lot of diverse characters, and some of the french conversation will be missed by some people (anyone who doesn't speak french or have a good grasp of romance languages will miss about a quarter of the film I think) but that won't actually lessen their enjoyment of the film at all. And if you're not a fan of 1920s literature or art or weren't forced to read a fair amount of it in high school, you'll probably miss some of the references to the notable personalities passing through the scenes, but again, those are just bonus moments rather than the crux of any part of the story.
The blogger formerly known as the Mad Hatter, Ryan asks guests on his podcast a series of questions. One is something along the lines of "what's a movie you wish you'd made". I still remember my own response, Out of Africa just to be a part of recreating 1930s Kenya. So perhaps my own "perfect time" would be actually experiencing 1930s Kenya. Just as in Midnight in Paris Wilson has to convince someone else that the Belle Epoch (1890s Paris) isn't in fact any more perfect than 1920s Paris, I don't need to be convinced that my own "perfect time" isn't any better than the time I'm actually living in. There's a degree of romanticism within the idea of dreaming about living in another time and place, but nearly always that dream comes with stipulations (I'd live in Jane Austen's time but only if I could be rich). And Paris shows us that if we actually live our dreams we can see those stipulations come to life and living our own lives well is a better choice than wishing for something you can't have.
This has to be my favorite Allen film ever made. The best romantic comedy made in years. 5 of 5 stars/lambs
In less capable or articulate hands, this movie might have fallen completely into farce. Instead, it retains charm, humor, and originality enough to make you smile the whole ninety minutes. The story begins to defy summary, but I'll try. Owen Wilson is a Hollywood writer who has come to Paris with his fiancee, Rachel McAdams, and is inspired by the streets of Paris to work on his novel. She thinks very little of his intellectual pursuits, though loves to listen to Michael Sheen and his wife talk about cultural places and ideas. One night Wilson is drunk and takes a walk back to his hotel. After the clock strikes midnight an old-fashioned taxi appears and the partiers inside take him to a party where he meets Zelda and Scott Fitzgerald (Alison Pill - so awesome!! and a VERY likeable Tom Hiddleston, Loki from Thor). He can't really believe what he's seeing, but when he realizes it's actually Cole Porter, he basically says why not, I'm dreaming so I'll enjoy it. Later that night he meets Ernest Hemingway (perfectly captured for comedic effect by Corey Stoll) who says he'll pass Wilson's manuscript on to Gertrude Stein (Kathy Bates) for her opinion.
 |
| Zelda and F. Scott Fitzgerald |
The blogger formerly known as the Mad Hatter, Ryan asks guests on his podcast a series of questions. One is something along the lines of "what's a movie you wish you'd made". I still remember my own response, Out of Africa just to be a part of recreating 1930s Kenya. So perhaps my own "perfect time" would be actually experiencing 1930s Kenya. Just as in Midnight in Paris Wilson has to convince someone else that the Belle Epoch (1890s Paris) isn't in fact any more perfect than 1920s Paris, I don't need to be convinced that my own "perfect time" isn't any better than the time I'm actually living in. There's a degree of romanticism within the idea of dreaming about living in another time and place, but nearly always that dream comes with stipulations (I'd live in Jane Austen's time but only if I could be rich). And Paris shows us that if we actually live our dreams we can see those stipulations come to life and living our own lives well is a better choice than wishing for something you can't have.
This has to be my favorite Allen film ever made. The best romantic comedy made in years. 5 of 5 stars/lambs
Monday, August 15, 2011
New Release: Rise of the Planet of the Apes
I had no interest in seeing this movie - I didn't particularly enjoy the previous incarnations of this series, but mostly for the odd effects and terrible makeup and even costumes. But they definitely had their place in the pop/cult culture, so when a friend eagerly suggested spending the afternoon in the AC watching this, I agreed. And since he's pretty much always right, this was a really great way to spend the afternoon.
James Franco plays Will Rodman, a molecular biologist trying to find a cure for his father's (John Lithgow) Alzheimers. He works in a lab, that has come really far with a gene therapy treatment that shows promise in chimps. However, the movie opens with his big presentation to the board of directors about starting human trials and is interrupted by a rogue chimp who goes crazy and ruins all his plans. The project is shut down and they're sent back to the drawing board. Franco ends up taking home a baby chimp and raising it at home with his dad. Caesar was in utero when his mom got the drugs and it made him really really smart and has a lot of fun living with Franco and Lithgow. Meanwhile Franco's been trying to get his cure up and running again, and violating all kinds of ethics by bringing home the drug to test on his dad. It does start out like a terrible science experiment waiting to go awry. However, the movie rises just a bit above its B-movie schlock roots by having a real life problem move Caesar to a "sanctuary" where he becomes the leader of the other apes. Caesar manages to educate the other apes (with a little help from stolen proto-type drugs from Franco's company) and rig a jailbreak because he's had it with the terrible treatment of his fellow apes by humans. That's when all hell breaks loose.
It's a relatively simple movie concept that actually sets up the story for the Heston version of Planet of the Apes quite well (haven't seen the Mark Wahlberg version so I'm not sure where it fits with that one). I won't explain the details, but suffice it to say there are direct links between them that set it up without whacking you over the head with it. And I'm happy to say the CGI has made leaps and bounds to reach this point where it's neither distracting nor annoying. Andy Serkis repeats his amazing motion capture acting from The Lord of the Rings' Gollem as Caesar and it really makes the whole experience worthwhile. You can actually see the changes within the apes without them looking too human.
The story is totally crazy from a science perspective, but much of the science stays within the plausible (until they had chimps and gorillas swinging through trees and jumping from 5th story windows) so I wasn't bothered by that fact and got to sit back and enjoy the craziness that was apes taking over San Francisco. If you had any desire to see this, you won't be disappointed, it lives up to its predecessor's and exceeds them in all tech respects. And John Lithgow and Franco keep up their streak of good work, which for particularly shallow characters they do have great relationships with other characters, even apes. Sadly Frieda Pinto and Tom Felton are barely window dressing and ignores their previous success. 3.5 lambs/stars (it's not higher because it's apes acting, how amazing can that be?)
James Franco plays Will Rodman, a molecular biologist trying to find a cure for his father's (John Lithgow) Alzheimers. He works in a lab, that has come really far with a gene therapy treatment that shows promise in chimps. However, the movie opens with his big presentation to the board of directors about starting human trials and is interrupted by a rogue chimp who goes crazy and ruins all his plans. The project is shut down and they're sent back to the drawing board. Franco ends up taking home a baby chimp and raising it at home with his dad. Caesar was in utero when his mom got the drugs and it made him really really smart and has a lot of fun living with Franco and Lithgow. Meanwhile Franco's been trying to get his cure up and running again, and violating all kinds of ethics by bringing home the drug to test on his dad. It does start out like a terrible science experiment waiting to go awry. However, the movie rises just a bit above its B-movie schlock roots by having a real life problem move Caesar to a "sanctuary" where he becomes the leader of the other apes. Caesar manages to educate the other apes (with a little help from stolen proto-type drugs from Franco's company) and rig a jailbreak because he's had it with the terrible treatment of his fellow apes by humans. That's when all hell breaks loose.
It's a relatively simple movie concept that actually sets up the story for the Heston version of Planet of the Apes quite well (haven't seen the Mark Wahlberg version so I'm not sure where it fits with that one). I won't explain the details, but suffice it to say there are direct links between them that set it up without whacking you over the head with it. And I'm happy to say the CGI has made leaps and bounds to reach this point where it's neither distracting nor annoying. Andy Serkis repeats his amazing motion capture acting from The Lord of the Rings' Gollem as Caesar and it really makes the whole experience worthwhile. You can actually see the changes within the apes without them looking too human.
The story is totally crazy from a science perspective, but much of the science stays within the plausible (until they had chimps and gorillas swinging through trees and jumping from 5th story windows) so I wasn't bothered by that fact and got to sit back and enjoy the craziness that was apes taking over San Francisco. If you had any desire to see this, you won't be disappointed, it lives up to its predecessor's and exceeds them in all tech respects. And John Lithgow and Franco keep up their streak of good work, which for particularly shallow characters they do have great relationships with other characters, even apes. Sadly Frieda Pinto and Tom Felton are barely window dressing and ignores their previous success. 3.5 lambs/stars (it's not higher because it's apes acting, how amazing can that be?)
Friday, August 12, 2011
New Release: Captain America
I'm a serious "completionist". I will be seeing the final Twilight movies because I've seen the others. I don't give up on a series until it breaks my heart (i.e. kills a character I thought should live). That was my main motivation for going to see Captain America, as he'll be a character in Joss Whedon's The Avengers next summer and I fully intend to see that. Thankfully I was very pleased with the film. Armed with thoughts on what a hero is or should be, I really liked seeing his origin story.
In case you aren't a comic book fan, here's Steve Rogers' story. He desperately wants to serve in WWII, but has too many health issues, as well as being a shrimp, keeping him out. One day Stanley Tucci takes an interest in him for a special project, injecting him with drugs that hopefully turn him into a super soldier. After the serum, he's grown about 8 inches, and has huge muscles without working out. Sadly, Tucci is unable to replicate the whole process and Steve Rogers is the only one. The government decides he's best suited to help raise money for the war, so they put him in a costume and he becomes "Captain America". Thankfully, Steve Rogers has a little more spunk than just being a circus pony, and manages to stage a rescue of his buddy behind enemy lines.
This was where the film really becomes a superhero type movie - he's got his techy side-kick in Howard Stark (yes, Iron Man's relative played by Dominic Cooper) and a sassy lady-friend in Agent Peggy Carter (Hayley Atwell). They fight the bad guys together, along with some real life soldiers (lots of character actors you'll recognize and spend time itching to figure out how they are). Oh, and the bad guys are awesome. I am willing to propose that Hugo Weaving play the bad guy in all movies - he's really really great as the over the top Nazi who becomes known as Red Skull when he is cut off from Hitler and has to kill lots and lots of people. (And while I'm at it, Tommy Lee Jones is a really great military guy too - smart ass goes a long way for him). I anticipated Red Skull's makeup being really creepy, but it was really well done and didn't bring a red Voldemort to mind until very near the end when he whispered something. He was bad-ass fighting. We know he can act without being able to see his face particularly well (see V for Vendetta) and he used his teeth quite well to act crazy (but not in a Jim Carrey The Mask kind of way, much more subtle). There were a few moments before Rogers became Capt. that the CGI was distracting with Chris Evans' face on a smaller guy's body, but overall, that worked well too.
Overall, I really enjoyed the movie, and think he'll make a pretty good addition to The Avengers next summer, but I will say this felt a little more like a place holder than a well-developed movie. We didn't know much about Steve Rogers either before or after becoming Captain America. He got beat up a lot and had a good understanding of how to fight, but he wasn't particularly deep. Yes, heroic, and definitely not dull, but we know so much more about the backstory for all the other Avengers (except Hawkeye? Why doesn't he get a movie?) and even a fair amount about SHEILD, but Steve felt pretty flat. Not bad, just not quite up to snuff and since he's supposed to be the leader, I guess, that might come back to bite them in the ass. Either way, I'll definitely be there to see what they do. 4 of 5 stars/lambs
In case you aren't a comic book fan, here's Steve Rogers' story. He desperately wants to serve in WWII, but has too many health issues, as well as being a shrimp, keeping him out. One day Stanley Tucci takes an interest in him for a special project, injecting him with drugs that hopefully turn him into a super soldier. After the serum, he's grown about 8 inches, and has huge muscles without working out. Sadly, Tucci is unable to replicate the whole process and Steve Rogers is the only one. The government decides he's best suited to help raise money for the war, so they put him in a costume and he becomes "Captain America". Thankfully, Steve Rogers has a little more spunk than just being a circus pony, and manages to stage a rescue of his buddy behind enemy lines.
This was where the film really becomes a superhero type movie - he's got his techy side-kick in Howard Stark (yes, Iron Man's relative played by Dominic Cooper) and a sassy lady-friend in Agent Peggy Carter (Hayley Atwell). They fight the bad guys together, along with some real life soldiers (lots of character actors you'll recognize and spend time itching to figure out how they are). Oh, and the bad guys are awesome. I am willing to propose that Hugo Weaving play the bad guy in all movies - he's really really great as the over the top Nazi who becomes known as Red Skull when he is cut off from Hitler and has to kill lots and lots of people. (And while I'm at it, Tommy Lee Jones is a really great military guy too - smart ass goes a long way for him). I anticipated Red Skull's makeup being really creepy, but it was really well done and didn't bring a red Voldemort to mind until very near the end when he whispered something. He was bad-ass fighting. We know he can act without being able to see his face particularly well (see V for Vendetta) and he used his teeth quite well to act crazy (but not in a Jim Carrey The Mask kind of way, much more subtle). There were a few moments before Rogers became Capt. that the CGI was distracting with Chris Evans' face on a smaller guy's body, but overall, that worked well too.
Overall, I really enjoyed the movie, and think he'll make a pretty good addition to The Avengers next summer, but I will say this felt a little more like a place holder than a well-developed movie. We didn't know much about Steve Rogers either before or after becoming Captain America. He got beat up a lot and had a good understanding of how to fight, but he wasn't particularly deep. Yes, heroic, and definitely not dull, but we know so much more about the backstory for all the other Avengers (except Hawkeye? Why doesn't he get a movie?) and even a fair amount about SHEILD, but Steve felt pretty flat. Not bad, just not quite up to snuff and since he's supposed to be the leader, I guess, that might come back to bite them in the ass. Either way, I'll definitely be there to see what they do. 4 of 5 stars/lambs
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
New Release: The Help
This was probably the most anticipated movie of the year for me. I loved the book last year and have recommended it to everyone. I even got to listen to the audiobook with Octavia Spencer reading the character she brings to life on the screen. So I was well prepared going into this to thoroughly enjoy it and more than a little nervous it couldn't live up to my hopes. I find in situations like this that it's rare a movie can actually live up to your expectations, but if it does a good job outside of what you expected, whether or not it met your hopes, doesn't really matter. That was the case with The Help.
Based on the Kathryn Stockett novel, The Help is the story of two sets of Southern women in Jackson, Mississippi in 1963-1964. One is the black women who work as maids for the other set of white women. Eugenia "Skeeter" Phelan (Emma Stone) wants to be a writer and she's been advised by a NYC book editor (Mary Steenbergen) to write about something that bothers her. When her good friend Hilly Holbrook (Bryce Dallas Howard) decides to start the "Home Help Sanitation Initiative" (a fancy term for making separate but equal bathrooms in private homes that aren't particularly separate and are definitely unequal), Skeeter has had enough. She wants to write about what's it's like to be "The Help" and enlists the assistance of another friend's maid, Aibileen Clark (Viola Davis). Aibileen has been raising white children and cleaning for white families her whole life. But after her son dies, she's had enough of holding back, and agrees to help Skeeter. They enlist the help of Minny Jackson (Octavia Spencer, who deserves whatever awards she might get, but I'm sure this movie will be ignored) a smart-ass maid who has been fired by Hilly and can't get work anywhere, except with a crazy hillbilly woman outside of town, Celia Foote (Jessica Chastain).
Skeeter, Aibileen, and Minny begin to record their stories. They are aware of the total danger of what they're doing - it's illegal in Mississippi to engage in this kind of behavior, or at the very least incredibly dangerous. This is brought home, quite literally to within a few blocks of Aibileen and Minny's homes when Medgar Evers is shot on his doorstep. The movie focuses on both the social difficulties in what they're doing and their need to do it - to tell another side of the story. Skeeter has never been a beauty - just ask her mother (Allison Janney) - but she's been willing to play along with the expectations of her to find a husband and be part of the Junior League and have a family. But now she wants this too. The novel does a better job showing how hard Skeeter has to work to get everything done and what a social pariah she becomes after she finds out what her friends are like to their maids and can't keep her thoughts to herself anymore. However, Hilly is the President of the Junior League and a prominent member of Jackson society and the bossiest bitch you've ever met.
I don't want to spoil the major twist (but Sissy Spacek is really really funny) but know that not everything ends particularly well. When I read the book, I kept waiting for some sort of extreme violence to happen if they got caught, and I will spoil it and say the violence you might expect, thankfully, does not come. It doesn't end in a perfect bow, but there's definitely the triumph of the human spirit that you're hoping for by the end.
The acting throughout is spectacular. Viola Davis is a perfect blend of joy - she really adores the babies she's raising - and beaten down. I was nervous she wouldn't be able to play as old as the character in the book seems, but she carries the weight of the world on her shoulders and the movie shows it pretty well. Octavia Spencer has the perfect wise-cracking attitude and knowing eyebrows to stare down just about anyone who gets in her way, though she carries the fear of helplessness around with her everywhere. Emma Stone's role is more of the uniting character, but the movie does a better job than the book in making her character seem real. Emma Stone is beautiful - so making Skeeter seem much less attractive than her friends is not an easy task, but they did it particularly well but showing how difficult she finds it to conform, from her insanely curly hair to keeping her mouth shut with men. My only complaint with her performance is the dropping of her accent from time to time. She can't be a New England/California smart-ass when her character's never left Mississippi. But it's infrequent enough not to be distracting. The rest of the supporting cast, particularly Allison Janney and Cicely Tyson (as the maid who raised Skeeter) are terrific. The men in the movie are mostly superfluous, but Chris Lowell (I recognized him from "Private Practice" ) does a good job as the guy going after Skeeter.
Overall, the movie is a perfect summer movie (it's hot in Mississippi evidently) with some stand-out performances and will leave you feeling better about the world we live in today, but perhaps a bit reminded of where we come from and how far we have to go. I thoroughly enjoyed myself. 5 of 5 stars/lambs
Based on the Kathryn Stockett novel, The Help is the story of two sets of Southern women in Jackson, Mississippi in 1963-1964. One is the black women who work as maids for the other set of white women. Eugenia "Skeeter" Phelan (Emma Stone) wants to be a writer and she's been advised by a NYC book editor (Mary Steenbergen) to write about something that bothers her. When her good friend Hilly Holbrook (Bryce Dallas Howard) decides to start the "Home Help Sanitation Initiative" (a fancy term for making separate but equal bathrooms in private homes that aren't particularly separate and are definitely unequal), Skeeter has had enough. She wants to write about what's it's like to be "The Help" and enlists the assistance of another friend's maid, Aibileen Clark (Viola Davis). Aibileen has been raising white children and cleaning for white families her whole life. But after her son dies, she's had enough of holding back, and agrees to help Skeeter. They enlist the help of Minny Jackson (Octavia Spencer, who deserves whatever awards she might get, but I'm sure this movie will be ignored) a smart-ass maid who has been fired by Hilly and can't get work anywhere, except with a crazy hillbilly woman outside of town, Celia Foote (Jessica Chastain).
Skeeter, Aibileen, and Minny begin to record their stories. They are aware of the total danger of what they're doing - it's illegal in Mississippi to engage in this kind of behavior, or at the very least incredibly dangerous. This is brought home, quite literally to within a few blocks of Aibileen and Minny's homes when Medgar Evers is shot on his doorstep. The movie focuses on both the social difficulties in what they're doing and their need to do it - to tell another side of the story. Skeeter has never been a beauty - just ask her mother (Allison Janney) - but she's been willing to play along with the expectations of her to find a husband and be part of the Junior League and have a family. But now she wants this too. The novel does a better job showing how hard Skeeter has to work to get everything done and what a social pariah she becomes after she finds out what her friends are like to their maids and can't keep her thoughts to herself anymore. However, Hilly is the President of the Junior League and a prominent member of Jackson society and the bossiest bitch you've ever met.
I don't want to spoil the major twist (but Sissy Spacek is really really funny) but know that not everything ends particularly well. When I read the book, I kept waiting for some sort of extreme violence to happen if they got caught, and I will spoil it and say the violence you might expect, thankfully, does not come. It doesn't end in a perfect bow, but there's definitely the triumph of the human spirit that you're hoping for by the end.
The acting throughout is spectacular. Viola Davis is a perfect blend of joy - she really adores the babies she's raising - and beaten down. I was nervous she wouldn't be able to play as old as the character in the book seems, but she carries the weight of the world on her shoulders and the movie shows it pretty well. Octavia Spencer has the perfect wise-cracking attitude and knowing eyebrows to stare down just about anyone who gets in her way, though she carries the fear of helplessness around with her everywhere. Emma Stone's role is more of the uniting character, but the movie does a better job than the book in making her character seem real. Emma Stone is beautiful - so making Skeeter seem much less attractive than her friends is not an easy task, but they did it particularly well but showing how difficult she finds it to conform, from her insanely curly hair to keeping her mouth shut with men. My only complaint with her performance is the dropping of her accent from time to time. She can't be a New England/California smart-ass when her character's never left Mississippi. But it's infrequent enough not to be distracting. The rest of the supporting cast, particularly Allison Janney and Cicely Tyson (as the maid who raised Skeeter) are terrific. The men in the movie are mostly superfluous, but Chris Lowell (I recognized him from "Private Practice" ) does a good job as the guy going after Skeeter.
Overall, the movie is a perfect summer movie (it's hot in Mississippi evidently) with some stand-out performances and will leave you feeling better about the world we live in today, but perhaps a bit reminded of where we come from and how far we have to go. I thoroughly enjoyed myself. 5 of 5 stars/lambs
Thursday, July 28, 2011
New Release: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2
We talked about this on the podcast last week with Rachel's mom, but I'm trying to remember to also post my reviews, so here goes.
First of all, this movie is really only for those who have either read the books or seen most of the movies, particularly the first part of the Deathly Hallows. This movie jumps right in with just a short, short refresher of how we got Harry, Ron and Hermione to Shell Cottage and them burying Dobby and rescuing Mr. Olivander and Griphook. This opening scene does a pretty good job of setting us back into the story, and then it's full speed ahead for the next 2 hours starting with the theft at Gringotts (I didn't think dragon would be an albino, but I guess it made sense) and moving on to the Battle of Hogwarts. While the books definitely take more time getting you from place to place, the movie skims over the slowest parts and for the most part gets you right to the action without making it impossible for someone who hadn't read the books to follow along.
All of the main elements that had to be part of this movie lived up to my expectations, particularly Dumbledore's dream/heaven sequence and the way they made the whole Battle come through and feel well paced. They used a very consistent Hogwarts from the other versions to stage the battle - blowing up the bridge was awesome (in part because I never liked that there was a bridge and mostly Neville's acting). And the loss of various cast members was really emotionally well done. I cried when I saw Harry walking through all the carnage and when Ron lost his brother. I think it was helped by the very short scene between Fred and George when the battle is getting started that we lose one of them later.
And since people are whining about it, I'll add my dislike for how the epilogue worked - Harry's makeup wasn't good, Ginny had great "mom hair", but Ron and Hermione barely looked aged. Overall, I think Rachel and Whitney (separately I believe) had the best idea - put the epilogue after the credits so it's not the last taste left in our mouths. Still will give the movie a 5/5 lambs. Great finish to the series.
First of all, this movie is really only for those who have either read the books or seen most of the movies, particularly the first part of the Deathly Hallows. This movie jumps right in with just a short, short refresher of how we got Harry, Ron and Hermione to Shell Cottage and them burying Dobby and rescuing Mr. Olivander and Griphook. This opening scene does a pretty good job of setting us back into the story, and then it's full speed ahead for the next 2 hours starting with the theft at Gringotts (I didn't think dragon would be an albino, but I guess it made sense) and moving on to the Battle of Hogwarts. While the books definitely take more time getting you from place to place, the movie skims over the slowest parts and for the most part gets you right to the action without making it impossible for someone who hadn't read the books to follow along.
All of the main elements that had to be part of this movie lived up to my expectations, particularly Dumbledore's dream/heaven sequence and the way they made the whole Battle come through and feel well paced. They used a very consistent Hogwarts from the other versions to stage the battle - blowing up the bridge was awesome (in part because I never liked that there was a bridge and mostly Neville's acting). And the loss of various cast members was really emotionally well done. I cried when I saw Harry walking through all the carnage and when Ron lost his brother. I think it was helped by the very short scene between Fred and George when the battle is getting started that we lose one of them later.
And since people are whining about it, I'll add my dislike for how the epilogue worked - Harry's makeup wasn't good, Ginny had great "mom hair", but Ron and Hermione barely looked aged. Overall, I think Rachel and Whitney (separately I believe) had the best idea - put the epilogue after the credits so it's not the last taste left in our mouths. Still will give the movie a 5/5 lambs. Great finish to the series.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
New Releases: Horrible Bosses and Bad Teacher
This was a surprisingly apt double-feature, with lots of bad people doing bad things (killing your boss, smoking pot in the middle school parking lot, etc.) and lots of good people trying to get them to change their ways (by killing them or getting them arrested or falling in love with them). Yeah, so one was kind of a romantic comedy and the others a bit more of a traditional comedy, they still had a lot in common. 
Horrible Bosses is a take-off on the Strangers on a Train concept where two unrelated people kill someone to help the other, thus removing the ties of motive. It doesn't work quite as well in Horrible Bosses because the guys in it, Jason Bateman, Charlie Day and Jason Sudeikis, are all friends from high school. So I had trouble overcoming the idea that they would ultimately be caught if they actually tried to kill each others bosses. However, this is where the movie becomes a comedy, and Strangers was made by Hitchcock - you don't need to believe they'll get away with anything because of course they will. There were quite a few moments I laughed out loud, and for originality alone, I'd give this movie praise.
Kevin Spacey is Bateman's horrible, selfish boss who takes Bateman's promotion for himself. He plays a shmuck really well and is easy to hate. Colin Farrell is the coke-head son of Sudeikis' boss Donald Sutherland. When Sutherland dies, Farrell is in charge and wants to fire all the fat people. The movie does a good job showing that Jennifer Aniston's serious sexual harassment of Day isn't in fact funny and what all men secretly want, but she's still probably the funniest (and most bizarre) of the horrible bosses. They eventually find solutions to all their problems, but in pretty creative and funny ways. Listen to the Jason Batemen episode of Reel Insight to hear more about Bateman's character in particular. 3.5 of 5 stars/lambs
Bad Teacher, however, doesn't attempt to be quite as original, ironically since it's not based on another movie. However, it's still a funny movie. Cameron Diaz is a middle school teacher who intends to marry rich and quit after one year. The marriage falls through (he figures out what her real motives are) and she has to return to teaching. She has no actual interest in educating the middle school class and shows movies for weeks. A new teacher, Justin Timberlake, shows up and she knows he must come from money (though other than an expensive watch they don't explore his wealth at all) and thus she wants to pursue him. His old girlfriend had big tits so Diaz (in the infinite wisdom of this odd character) decides she too must get big tits. She saves up for it, and when she finds out the teacher whose students test the best gets extra money she decides she can start teaching and win the bonus. Since she's basically immoral, she steals the questions (though we don't know if she actually uses them). Meanwhile, the gym teacher, Jason Segel, has been getting to know her better (but he's poor so she's not interested) and of course has more chemistry with her than Timberlake. Since this is a romantic comedy, they eventually end up together.
The longer its been since I've seen this, the less I actually like it, but I remember really enjoying watching it. Watching Diaz torture her fellow teacher, Amy Squirrel (Lucy Punch - Hattie from Ella Enchanted) is worth the price of admission. And Phyllis Smith (Phyllis from "The Office") is terrific as another teacher who is actually interested in being Diaz' friend, but doesn't want to be a bad teacher. Watching her waffle when Diaz proposes skipping meetings is hysterical. Overall, it's a fun movie, but I guess Diaz' character is just irredeemable and doesn't have a great arc, but the movie does. 3 of 5 star/lambs
Thursday, May 26, 2011
DVD Mini Roundup: Gnomeo and Juliet
But the really charming thing that draws you into the movie and reinvents the familiar story is the fact that they are garden gnomes. They seem to obey the Toy Story rules where they must act like solid unmoving creatures when people are watching, but in their absence have drag races on lawn mowers and have to obey many laws of lawn ornaments, decay, polishing, chips, and ultimately the possibility of breaking = death.
There were a few times my attention waned, but in general it makes the most of its 84 minute run-time. If you have kids, I'm sure you'll be watching this sooner than later. Make them be that kid in 9th grade that says "this is just like Gnomeo & Juliet" when their teacher introduces the original. 4 of 5 stars/lambs
Thursday, May 5, 2011
New Release: Source Code
I know it's been ages since I've actually posted something besides the podcast or Wednesdays mashup. But I seem to have exorcised most of the things keeping me from writing (formatting page numbers in WORD is my new thing to hate). So hopefully I'll have a few new posts a week as I catch up on a few things.
First, Source Code seemed like a movie that would be right up my alley - sci-fi element, repeated viewing of a single scene, mind-screwing. And happily it definitely was. Jake Gyllenhaal plays Colter Stevens, a soldier on a mission - from a capsule with computers and a voice and image telling him what to do. Vera Farmiga plays his commanding officer, Colleen Goodwin, and Jeffrey Wright plays her boss, Dr. Rutledge. Rutledge has figured out how to reprogram someone's brain to allow another person to experience the last 7 minutes of someone's life (the sci-fi physics explanation has something to do with electrical signals and such, and being a similar height and build). Colter has been sent back to the last 7 minutes before a train in Chicago blows up. He inhabits a teacher talking to a colleague, Christina (Michelle Monaghan) on the train and has been tasked with figuring out who planted the bomb. It takes a few runs through for his brain to remember things from going in and out. He has flashes of memory of things he doesn't understand, but come back eventually to mean something. The process screws with his brain more often than not.
I won't tell you much more about the story since trying to make it all make sense will only spoil it - or drive me crazy trying to make linear sense of it all. There's definitely an element of space and time being a curved object but that's for someone else to puzzle out. What I can tell you is that Jake Gyllenhaal plays an excellent soldier - trying to figure out all of the parameters of his mission, while attempting to find out what happened to his unit and whether he can speak with his father. Eventually we figure out that all is not what he thinks it is, but that doesn't make him any less of a soldier. Vera Farmiga is terrific trying to get him to stay on mission, and Jeffrey Wright is terrific as always as the jerk-off civilian scientist trying to prove his brain-child is a prodigy.
Overall, the pacing and direction of the movie were terrific - showing the same (or nearly so) dialogue over and making each way of showing the scene just a bit different gets us into the mind of Colter seeing it all again, but knowing it's different somehow. The acting is pretty great for all involved, and the screwiness of the story keeps you interested throughout. And the finale is one for the history books. 4 of 5 stars/lambs
First, Source Code seemed like a movie that would be right up my alley - sci-fi element, repeated viewing of a single scene, mind-screwing. And happily it definitely was. Jake Gyllenhaal plays Colter Stevens, a soldier on a mission - from a capsule with computers and a voice and image telling him what to do. Vera Farmiga plays his commanding officer, Colleen Goodwin, and Jeffrey Wright plays her boss, Dr. Rutledge. Rutledge has figured out how to reprogram someone's brain to allow another person to experience the last 7 minutes of someone's life (the sci-fi physics explanation has something to do with electrical signals and such, and being a similar height and build). Colter has been sent back to the last 7 minutes before a train in Chicago blows up. He inhabits a teacher talking to a colleague, Christina (Michelle Monaghan) on the train and has been tasked with figuring out who planted the bomb. It takes a few runs through for his brain to remember things from going in and out. He has flashes of memory of things he doesn't understand, but come back eventually to mean something. The process screws with his brain more often than not.
I won't tell you much more about the story since trying to make it all make sense will only spoil it - or drive me crazy trying to make linear sense of it all. There's definitely an element of space and time being a curved object but that's for someone else to puzzle out. What I can tell you is that Jake Gyllenhaal plays an excellent soldier - trying to figure out all of the parameters of his mission, while attempting to find out what happened to his unit and whether he can speak with his father. Eventually we figure out that all is not what he thinks it is, but that doesn't make him any less of a soldier. Vera Farmiga is terrific trying to get him to stay on mission, and Jeffrey Wright is terrific as always as the jerk-off civilian scientist trying to prove his brain-child is a prodigy.
Overall, the pacing and direction of the movie were terrific - showing the same (or nearly so) dialogue over and making each way of showing the scene just a bit different gets us into the mind of Colter seeing it all again, but knowing it's different somehow. The acting is pretty great for all involved, and the screwiness of the story keeps you interested throughout. And the finale is one for the history books. 4 of 5 stars/lambs
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
New Release: Beastly
Enter Vanessa Hudgens, student body treasurer and daughter of a drug addict whose dealer promises to kill his daughter if he doesn't get paid. Kyle always had a secret crush on her and offers his banished home to keep her safe until the drug dealer is caught. Yadda, yadda, yadda, you know what happens. Overall, I kept wanting more scenes with NPH and surprisingly Mary-Kate Olson - both much deeper and more interesting characters. Pettyfer and Hudgens were barely characters - particularly Hudgens, and seemed more like a decent TV movie, while the rest of the production did a good to try to put a new spin on an old tale. Maybe if I was in high school I would have enjoyed this more, but I doubt it. Overall nothing more than I expected, it wasn't awful, but it wasn't great either. 2 of 5 stars/lambs
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)