I didn't know what to expect going into this film. The trailers looked promising; but the premise was a huge unknown. What unfolded on the theater screen was something altogether unexpected.
Starring Dwayne Johnson, Carla Gugino, Billy Bob Thornton and Oliver Jackson-Cohen, Faster is a fast-paced thrill ride that is long on action, short on dialogue. Once it starts, there is no let up until the final scene.
Director George Tillman, Jr. (Notorious, Soul Food, Men of Honor) takes you on a ride of discovery throughout the film. He refuses to spoon feed the audience any of the plot. As the film progresses, so does our understanding of the motivations of 'Driver,' and the back story that precipitates all of the subsequent events we see unfold on screen.
It is well acted by Johnson and Gugino (one of my favorite actresses), with terrific support from Thornton and Jackson-Cohen. All actors seem comfortable in their roles, and come off as quite believable.
Now, any time I don't guess the ending less that one third of the way into the film, then the director and screenwriter have done a terrific job. With Faster, I didn't even see the end of the story until I had viewed about three fourths of the movie. To have that happen was quite satisfying. Like I stated early in this review, the ending was quite unexpected.
This movie is rated R for explicit violence, drug use and language. As far as I can recall, there was no nudity or even excessive swearing.
Faster is a far better film than I expected. I'm glad I went to see it.
Will I see it again? Probably not--but only because of the other films coming out. I'll most likely buy this one on DVD when it's released, though.
Go see it. You won't be disappointed.
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Review: Skyline
When I first saw the internet advertising for Skyline, I was excited! Though the storyline would be suspect, the visuals looked incredible. So, going into the film, I knew the movie would be visually stunning, but doubted the film as a whole.
Skyline turned out to be much different than I anticipated. Yes, the visuals really were unbelievable. The Brothers Strauss, who lent visual compositing their talents to such film as AVP; Requiem, 2012 and Avatar, really let their vision come out as we see dazzling effects throughout the film. But it was the outcome of the story that I didn't anticipate at all. I won't give anything away; let's just say that the ending will surprise you.
The actors in this film are entirely B-list, headed by Eric Balfour (Haven, 24), Scottie Thompson (TV Guest roles), Donald Faison (Scrubs, Remember the Titans) and David Zayas (The Expendables, Dexter). No great acting to be sure; but they certainly carry their parts well. Considering this film's total budget hovered somewhere around the $11M mark, I think the producers got the best actors they could for whatever monies were available.
While Skyline may not be a cinematic masterpiece by any stretch of the imagination, it does make for a decent theater-going experience. Plus, the ending leaves a rather large opening for a sequel--which I'm sure would be entirely dependent on consumer acceptance (aka $$$) of Skyline itself.
Would I see this again? I don't know. The visuals would be worth it, if nothing else. I'll probably end up buying this on DVD...who knows...maybe Skyline will end up being my next great guilty pleasure movie.
Skyline turned out to be much different than I anticipated. Yes, the visuals really were unbelievable. The Brothers Strauss, who lent visual compositing their talents to such film as AVP; Requiem, 2012 and Avatar, really let their vision come out as we see dazzling effects throughout the film. But it was the outcome of the story that I didn't anticipate at all. I won't give anything away; let's just say that the ending will surprise you.
The actors in this film are entirely B-list, headed by Eric Balfour (Haven, 24), Scottie Thompson (TV Guest roles), Donald Faison (Scrubs, Remember the Titans) and David Zayas (The Expendables, Dexter). No great acting to be sure; but they certainly carry their parts well. Considering this film's total budget hovered somewhere around the $11M mark, I think the producers got the best actors they could for whatever monies were available.
While Skyline may not be a cinematic masterpiece by any stretch of the imagination, it does make for a decent theater-going experience. Plus, the ending leaves a rather large opening for a sequel--which I'm sure would be entirely dependent on consumer acceptance (aka $$$) of Skyline itself.
Would I see this again? I don't know. The visuals would be worth it, if nothing else. I'll probably end up buying this on DVD...who knows...maybe Skyline will end up being my next great guilty pleasure movie.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Review: Hereafter
*(Yes, I actually got out to see a movie. Unbelievable; I know.) :o)
Clint Eastwood is simply one of the greatest directors of the last thirty years. His latest offering, Hereafter, is a phenomenal piece of art.
Eastwood fascinatingly weaves three story lines into a single, satisfying conclusion. Along the way he involves the audience emotionally with at least two, if not all three, of the main characters. Doing that is not an easy thing to accomplish.
Unlike many of Eastwood's films, this one does not have a bittersweet ending. It remains however, a story of loss, journey and resolution--typical earmarks of Eastwood directed projects. Yet, in spite of the formulaic approach, you come away having had an incredibly satisfying movie-going experience.
I highly recommend that everyone see this film. This one will leave you thinking for a long time after walking away from the theater. This movie deserves an Oscar--it's that good!
This film will definitely be a part of my home movie library as soon as it comes out on video!
Clint Eastwood is simply one of the greatest directors of the last thirty years. His latest offering, Hereafter, is a phenomenal piece of art.
Eastwood fascinatingly weaves three story lines into a single, satisfying conclusion. Along the way he involves the audience emotionally with at least two, if not all three, of the main characters. Doing that is not an easy thing to accomplish.
Unlike many of Eastwood's films, this one does not have a bittersweet ending. It remains however, a story of loss, journey and resolution--typical earmarks of Eastwood directed projects. Yet, in spite of the formulaic approach, you come away having had an incredibly satisfying movie-going experience.
I highly recommend that everyone see this film. This one will leave you thinking for a long time after walking away from the theater. This movie deserves an Oscar--it's that good!
This film will definitely be a part of my home movie library as soon as it comes out on video!
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Review: Resident Evil: Afterlife
Filmed for 3D, Resident Evil: Afterlife delivers wonderful effects, great action and a few surprises.
While I admit that a few of the CGI effects were a bit amateurish, the overall look and feel of the film was right on. Not intending to be top-notch cinema, Director Paul W.S. Anderson keeps the film flowing nicely. Not once did I feel a let down in the pacing of the film.
The franchise star, Milla Jovovich, loves her role [as Alice--or Project Alice], and it shows. She is stunning to look at, and equally stunning in her stunt work. In my opinion the film would be far less impressive if Jovovich was not doing the bulk of her characters' stunts as edits would definitely take away from the action.
The supporting cast of Ali Larter, Kim Coates, Wentworth Miller, Boris Kodjoe, and Spencer Locke are all great in their roles. They helped make the film not only good, but fun as well. Shawn Roberts replaced Jason O'Mara as Chairman Wesker. While he did a good Job, I would have preferred O'Mara in the role simply because he's a better actor and because he was the actor who introduced film audiences to the character of Albert Wesker.
Of course, being based on a video game series, the movie sets up the next chapter by introducing yet another character at the very end of the film; as well as a wonderful visual of numerous attack planes approaching Alice.
For fans of the film franchise, Resident Evil: Afterlife will not disappoint. It was fun to watch from the opening scene to the last; and it leaves you wanting more! Go see this film! You won't be disappointed.
I'll definitely see this one again, and yes, I'll buy it on DVD!
While I admit that a few of the CGI effects were a bit amateurish, the overall look and feel of the film was right on. Not intending to be top-notch cinema, Director Paul W.S. Anderson keeps the film flowing nicely. Not once did I feel a let down in the pacing of the film.
The franchise star, Milla Jovovich, loves her role [as Alice--or Project Alice], and it shows. She is stunning to look at, and equally stunning in her stunt work. In my opinion the film would be far less impressive if Jovovich was not doing the bulk of her characters' stunts as edits would definitely take away from the action.
The supporting cast of Ali Larter, Kim Coates, Wentworth Miller, Boris Kodjoe, and Spencer Locke are all great in their roles. They helped make the film not only good, but fun as well. Shawn Roberts replaced Jason O'Mara as Chairman Wesker. While he did a good Job, I would have preferred O'Mara in the role simply because he's a better actor and because he was the actor who introduced film audiences to the character of Albert Wesker.
Of course, being based on a video game series, the movie sets up the next chapter by introducing yet another character at the very end of the film; as well as a wonderful visual of numerous attack planes approaching Alice.
For fans of the film franchise, Resident Evil: Afterlife will not disappoint. It was fun to watch from the opening scene to the last; and it leaves you wanting more! Go see this film! You won't be disappointed.
I'll definitely see this one again, and yes, I'll buy it on DVD!
Monday, September 6, 2010
Summer Movie Wrap-Up
The follow excerpts are a 2010 Summer Box Office wrap-up covering receipts, trends, etc. The story that these excerpts were taken from was published in the NY Times. The reporter is Brooks Barnes.
--Hollywood’s summer may have been tepid — movie theater attendance was the lowest in over a decade — but the big-budget, big-risk stretch delivered an unusually robust array of tea leaves for studios to read as they make decisions for the seasons ahead.
--First, the numbers. Attendance from the first weekend in May through Labor Day is projected to total about 552 million, the lowest tally since 1997, when 540 million people turned up in the same period, according to Hollywood.com, which compiles box office data. Revenue for the period — which typically accounts for 40 percent of the industry’s annual ticket sales — totaled $4.35 billion, a 2 percent increase from last year.
--Sharply higher prices for tickets across the board, but especially for 3-D presentations, drove the increase. The worry, as seen in poor results for recent 3-D releases like “Cats & Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore,” is that theater chains and studios have overreached on pricing. “We suspect some consumers are choosing 2-D movies solely to reduce the cost of their movie-going experience,” wrote Richard Greenfield, an analyst at the financial services company BTIG, in an Aug. 23 research note.
--So studios are starting to think more carefully about which titles make sense to release in 3-D and which do not. Part of the challenge in a post-“Avatar” Hollywood, however, is that presenting a film in 3-D is one way to build a release into a must-see event — a crucial part of movie marketing in the age of 50-inch flat-screen televisions.
Some studios were burned over the summer by pushing too hard to “eventize” movies. Walt Disney Studios, for instance, trumpeted May 28 in enormous red lettering on virtually every piece of advertising for “Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time.” The goal was to blast the film’s opening date into the minds of consumers, but instead the tactic drove expectations so high that “Prince” was quickly branded a bomb despite selling $330 million in tickets at the global box office.
--“You can hype up a movie like crazy, but consumers are smart and can smell a con job,” said Phil Contrino, editor of BoxOffice.com. “It has to be substance over style.”
--No one would accuse Mr. Nolan of soft-pedaling substance. His “Inception,” backed by Warner Brothers and Legendary Pictures, was the breakout blockbuster of the summer, racking up about $660 million in ticket sales. “Everybody looked at us and said, ‘Why are you releasing a movie this smart in the middle of July?’ ” said Dan Fellman, Warner’s president for distribution. “Guess what? The summer isn’t just for dopes.”
--Stars received a sharply mixed reception, which has been the case lately. It was certainly a good summer for Leonardo DiCaprio, who starred in “Inception” as an invader of people’s dreams. Also faring well were Angelina Jolie, who turned an old-fashioned spy caper (“Salt”) into a hit, and Adam Sandler, who powered an ensemble comedy (“Grown Ups”) into the stratosphere.
--Flopping this summer were Nicolas Cage, whose “Sorcerer’s Apprentice” died on arrival, and Michael Cera, whose quirky “Scott Pilgrim vs. the World” won positive reviews but failed to draw a mainstream audience. Mr. Cera badly needed a hit: “Pilgrim” was his fifth big-screen dud in a row. Also disappointing were Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz, who fizzled in the action comedy “Knight and Day,” and Zac Efron, whose weepy “Charlie St. Cloud” landed with a thud.
--The No. 1 movie of the summer had no stars, at least on screen: “Toy Story 3” topped the North American box office with over $405 million and had a global total of over $1 billion. “Iron Man 2” was second, with $312 million ($622 million total), and “The Twilight Saga: Eclipse” was third, with $298 million ($655 million total).
It was a quiet summer for specialty films, with no picture managing to cross over to a mainstream audience. “The Kids Are All Right” came the closest with about $19 million. (The threshold for a crossover hit is typically in the vicinity of $30 million.)
--[It was] an uncharacteristically soft summer for Warner [Brothers]. The success of “Inception” was counterbalanced by a disastrous result for “Jonah Hex,”which sold just $10.5 million in tickets and cooled off Megan Fox’s career. The critically reviled “Sex and the City 2” was also a substantial disappointment; ticket sales lagged behind the first installment by 30 percent.
--[Universal's] “Despicable Me” was a runaway hit, selling over $237 million in tickets ; but “Get Him to the Greek” and “Robin Hood” both misfired.
--Of the major studios Fox had the worst summer. None of its titles cracked the Top 10, as “The A-Team,” “Marmaduke” and “Knight and Day” all went down in flames.
--Paramount Pictures was the most successful by volume; for the summer its releases racked up over $770 million at the domestic box office. “The Last Airbender” and “Dinner for Schmucks” and “Shrek Forever After,” [led the way for the studio].
--Sony’s modestly budgeted remake of “The Karate Kid” was one of the summer’s biggest surprises, rocketing to $176 million in North America. Although “Eat Pray Love” was soft, the studio also scored with “Grown Ups,” “Salt” and “The Other Guys.” (By Brooks Barnes, NY Times 05 Sept. 2010)
*So, not a stellar summer for 2010. I personally believe that Hollywood's trend of remaking films to "updated" versions is beginning to backfire. This is likely most true amongst the over 35 year old theater goers who are just getting tired of remakes that generally end up being worse than the classic original. Looking ahead, the movie landscape looks fairly bleak through the end of the year.
Aside from the next Chronicles of Narnia installment, Clint Eastwood's "Hereafter," "Mega-Mind," the little known SciFi flick "Skyline," the next (oh, Kill me now!) book of "Harry Potter," the much hyped "Tron: Legacy," and the inexplicable remake of "True Grit," the box office does not look to be kind to Hollywood. Let's all hope that 2011 brings better, original material; and tosses aside the lazy screenwriters who are too untalented to draft new, fresh storylines.
--Hollywood’s summer may have been tepid — movie theater attendance was the lowest in over a decade — but the big-budget, big-risk stretch delivered an unusually robust array of tea leaves for studios to read as they make decisions for the seasons ahead.
--First, the numbers. Attendance from the first weekend in May through Labor Day is projected to total about 552 million, the lowest tally since 1997, when 540 million people turned up in the same period, according to Hollywood.com, which compiles box office data. Revenue for the period — which typically accounts for 40 percent of the industry’s annual ticket sales — totaled $4.35 billion, a 2 percent increase from last year.
--Sharply higher prices for tickets across the board, but especially for 3-D presentations, drove the increase. The worry, as seen in poor results for recent 3-D releases like “Cats & Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore,” is that theater chains and studios have overreached on pricing. “We suspect some consumers are choosing 2-D movies solely to reduce the cost of their movie-going experience,” wrote Richard Greenfield, an analyst at the financial services company BTIG, in an Aug. 23 research note.
--So studios are starting to think more carefully about which titles make sense to release in 3-D and which do not. Part of the challenge in a post-“Avatar” Hollywood, however, is that presenting a film in 3-D is one way to build a release into a must-see event — a crucial part of movie marketing in the age of 50-inch flat-screen televisions.
Some studios were burned over the summer by pushing too hard to “eventize” movies. Walt Disney Studios, for instance, trumpeted May 28 in enormous red lettering on virtually every piece of advertising for “Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time.” The goal was to blast the film’s opening date into the minds of consumers, but instead the tactic drove expectations so high that “Prince” was quickly branded a bomb despite selling $330 million in tickets at the global box office.
--“You can hype up a movie like crazy, but consumers are smart and can smell a con job,” said Phil Contrino, editor of BoxOffice.com. “It has to be substance over style.”
--No one would accuse Mr. Nolan of soft-pedaling substance. His “Inception,” backed by Warner Brothers and Legendary Pictures, was the breakout blockbuster of the summer, racking up about $660 million in ticket sales. “Everybody looked at us and said, ‘Why are you releasing a movie this smart in the middle of July?’ ” said Dan Fellman, Warner’s president for distribution. “Guess what? The summer isn’t just for dopes.”
--Stars received a sharply mixed reception, which has been the case lately. It was certainly a good summer for Leonardo DiCaprio, who starred in “Inception” as an invader of people’s dreams. Also faring well were Angelina Jolie, who turned an old-fashioned spy caper (“Salt”) into a hit, and Adam Sandler, who powered an ensemble comedy (“Grown Ups”) into the stratosphere.
--Flopping this summer were Nicolas Cage, whose “Sorcerer’s Apprentice” died on arrival, and Michael Cera, whose quirky “Scott Pilgrim vs. the World” won positive reviews but failed to draw a mainstream audience. Mr. Cera badly needed a hit: “Pilgrim” was his fifth big-screen dud in a row. Also disappointing were Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz, who fizzled in the action comedy “Knight and Day,” and Zac Efron, whose weepy “Charlie St. Cloud” landed with a thud.
--The No. 1 movie of the summer had no stars, at least on screen: “Toy Story 3” topped the North American box office with over $405 million and had a global total of over $1 billion. “Iron Man 2” was second, with $312 million ($622 million total), and “The Twilight Saga: Eclipse” was third, with $298 million ($655 million total).
It was a quiet summer for specialty films, with no picture managing to cross over to a mainstream audience. “The Kids Are All Right” came the closest with about $19 million. (The threshold for a crossover hit is typically in the vicinity of $30 million.)
--[It was] an uncharacteristically soft summer for Warner [Brothers]. The success of “Inception” was counterbalanced by a disastrous result for “Jonah Hex,”which sold just $10.5 million in tickets and cooled off Megan Fox’s career. The critically reviled “Sex and the City 2” was also a substantial disappointment; ticket sales lagged behind the first installment by 30 percent.
--[Universal's] “Despicable Me” was a runaway hit, selling over $237 million in tickets ; but “Get Him to the Greek” and “Robin Hood” both misfired.
--Of the major studios Fox had the worst summer. None of its titles cracked the Top 10, as “The A-Team,” “Marmaduke” and “Knight and Day” all went down in flames.
--Paramount Pictures was the most successful by volume; for the summer its releases racked up over $770 million at the domestic box office. “The Last Airbender” and “Dinner for Schmucks” and “Shrek Forever After,” [led the way for the studio].
--Sony’s modestly budgeted remake of “The Karate Kid” was one of the summer’s biggest surprises, rocketing to $176 million in North America. Although “Eat Pray Love” was soft, the studio also scored with “Grown Ups,” “Salt” and “The Other Guys.” (By Brooks Barnes, NY Times 05 Sept. 2010)
*So, not a stellar summer for 2010. I personally believe that Hollywood's trend of remaking films to "updated" versions is beginning to backfire. This is likely most true amongst the over 35 year old theater goers who are just getting tired of remakes that generally end up being worse than the classic original. Looking ahead, the movie landscape looks fairly bleak through the end of the year.
Aside from the next Chronicles of Narnia installment, Clint Eastwood's "Hereafter," "Mega-Mind," the little known SciFi flick "Skyline," the next (oh, Kill me now!) book of "Harry Potter," the much hyped "Tron: Legacy," and the inexplicable remake of "True Grit," the box office does not look to be kind to Hollywood. Let's all hope that 2011 brings better, original material; and tosses aside the lazy screenwriters who are too untalented to draft new, fresh storylines.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Review: The Expendables
My review of Sylvester Stallone's action flick The Expendables, will be another short one because there really isn't much to say about this campy, fun and bloody movie.
I didn't go see this film because it was going to be a cinematic masterpiece. No, I saw The Expendables because it promised to be a fun ride; and I wasn't disappointed.
The script constantly pokes fun at the action genre, as well as at the films and careers of the stars themselves. The one-liners are hilarious, and the subtle jokes are perfect. The dry, wry humor utilized throughout only made the humor better than anything forced would have done.
Stallone did a good job with this high-powered film. The stunts are nearly full-time, and the carnage is so over the top that it starts being funny.
The cast was great! Stallone, Jason Statham, Jet Li, Dolph Lundgren, Randy Cotoure and Terry Crews were all having a ball. Backed up by Eric Roberts, David Zayas, Mickey Rourke, Steve Austin, Charisma Carpenter and Giselle Itie; along with brief cameos by Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarznegger, the entire cast played along with this truly self-skewering portait of action films coming out of Hollywood over the last twenty five years.
You don't go see this film because of its socially redeeming qualities, or because its a serious movie. You go see this because you just want to have fun, and enjoy the inside jokes that any true action-phile will surely understand.
I may or may not see this again; and I will probably include The Expendables on my very short list of Guilty Pleasure films. Will I buy it? Yeah. But only because it was just too damned fun!
I didn't go see this film because it was going to be a cinematic masterpiece. No, I saw The Expendables because it promised to be a fun ride; and I wasn't disappointed.
The script constantly pokes fun at the action genre, as well as at the films and careers of the stars themselves. The one-liners are hilarious, and the subtle jokes are perfect. The dry, wry humor utilized throughout only made the humor better than anything forced would have done.
Stallone did a good job with this high-powered film. The stunts are nearly full-time, and the carnage is so over the top that it starts being funny.
The cast was great! Stallone, Jason Statham, Jet Li, Dolph Lundgren, Randy Cotoure and Terry Crews were all having a ball. Backed up by Eric Roberts, David Zayas, Mickey Rourke, Steve Austin, Charisma Carpenter and Giselle Itie; along with brief cameos by Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarznegger, the entire cast played along with this truly self-skewering portait of action films coming out of Hollywood over the last twenty five years.
You don't go see this film because of its socially redeeming qualities, or because its a serious movie. You go see this because you just want to have fun, and enjoy the inside jokes that any true action-phile will surely understand.
I may or may not see this again; and I will probably include The Expendables on my very short list of Guilty Pleasure films. Will I buy it? Yeah. But only because it was just too damned fun!
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Review: Salt
Salt is not a great movie by any standards.
It is a formula movie in just about every sense of the word. You know that the title character will win; you know that all the bad guys will die; and you know that it will be a fun, mindless ride all the way.
Directed by Phillip Noyce, the man behind films such as The Bone Collector, The Saint, Clear and Present Danger, and Patriot Games, is obviously comfortable with the action genre. The movie is a fast moving, high octane ride that definitely stretches credibility; but you are glued to your seat nonetheless.
Angelina Jolie is great as the titular character. She was well-trained for this physically demanding role, and she looks very comfortable and at ease throughout. Being an action film, there wasn't a whole lot of acting to do; but the dramatic parts Jolie had were done quite well.
The main supporting cast of Liev Schreiber and Chiwetel Ejiofor were both convincing in their respective roles.
The conclusion undoubtedly leaves the door open for sequels. I'd definitely go see them, assuming the cast and production crews were the same.
Again, Salt is by no means a great movie, but it is absolutely worth seeing at least once.
I'll go see this again, and will probably end up buying it when it is released.
It is a formula movie in just about every sense of the word. You know that the title character will win; you know that all the bad guys will die; and you know that it will be a fun, mindless ride all the way.
Directed by Phillip Noyce, the man behind films such as The Bone Collector, The Saint, Clear and Present Danger, and Patriot Games, is obviously comfortable with the action genre. The movie is a fast moving, high octane ride that definitely stretches credibility; but you are glued to your seat nonetheless.
Angelina Jolie is great as the titular character. She was well-trained for this physically demanding role, and she looks very comfortable and at ease throughout. Being an action film, there wasn't a whole lot of acting to do; but the dramatic parts Jolie had were done quite well.
The main supporting cast of Liev Schreiber and Chiwetel Ejiofor were both convincing in their respective roles.
The conclusion undoubtedly leaves the door open for sequels. I'd definitely go see them, assuming the cast and production crews were the same.
Again, Salt is by no means a great movie, but it is absolutely worth seeing at least once.
I'll go see this again, and will probably end up buying it when it is released.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Review: Inception
Baffling. Mind-bending. Complex.
These three words pretty much sum up the experience of watching Inception.
Without giving anything away, let me just say that as you're watching this film, you'll be saying to yourself, "What the...?" only to be answered sometime later in the film.
The main cast of Leonardo DiCaprio, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ellen Page, Tom Hardy, Ken Watanabe, Cillian Murphy and Tom Berenger are all outstanding in their respective roles. Christopher Nolan directs this seemingly impossible-to-make film with precision. His working with DiCaprio helped to eliminate the usual 'that's just Leo doing his usual acting;' instead replaced by an older, better Leonardo on the screen.
My praise to the script supervisor and the editors for maintaining the look, feel and movement of such a complicated production.
While not a great movie, it is good. The story will keep you in your seat, while the special effects will have you gasping at the complexity involved. I heard a LOT of 'Wows!' in the theater throughout the film.
I don't really know what else to say. This movie has to be viewed at least once. After that, it will chew on your mind, and drive you crazy thinking about it. There's definitely something to be said for an average film if it does that to the viewers who have witnessed Inception.
I may or may not see Inception again. I have to think about it more.
These three words pretty much sum up the experience of watching Inception.
Without giving anything away, let me just say that as you're watching this film, you'll be saying to yourself, "What the...?" only to be answered sometime later in the film.
The main cast of Leonardo DiCaprio, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ellen Page, Tom Hardy, Ken Watanabe, Cillian Murphy and Tom Berenger are all outstanding in their respective roles. Christopher Nolan directs this seemingly impossible-to-make film with precision. His working with DiCaprio helped to eliminate the usual 'that's just Leo doing his usual acting;' instead replaced by an older, better Leonardo on the screen.
My praise to the script supervisor and the editors for maintaining the look, feel and movement of such a complicated production.
While not a great movie, it is good. The story will keep you in your seat, while the special effects will have you gasping at the complexity involved. I heard a LOT of 'Wows!' in the theater throughout the film.
I don't really know what else to say. This movie has to be viewed at least once. After that, it will chew on your mind, and drive you crazy thinking about it. There's definitely something to be said for an average film if it does that to the viewers who have witnessed Inception.
I may or may not see Inception again. I have to think about it more.
Review: Despicable Me
There is a viable reason Despicable Me has made a lot of money.
That would be simply that this film is as fun as advertised! From beginning to end, young and old alike will be smiling and laughing right through most of the credits.
Steve Carell and the rest of the cast keep their lines fresh, entertaining, engaging and fun. The animation is wonderful, the storyline completely ludicrous (as it should be!), the music was perfect for the film, and the little yellow minions are as adorable as they are fun!
Go see this movie, and have a fun time!
Despicable Me is absolutely a buyer when it's released on DVD.
That would be simply that this film is as fun as advertised! From beginning to end, young and old alike will be smiling and laughing right through most of the credits.
Steve Carell and the rest of the cast keep their lines fresh, entertaining, engaging and fun. The animation is wonderful, the storyline completely ludicrous (as it should be!), the music was perfect for the film, and the little yellow minions are as adorable as they are fun!
Go see this movie, and have a fun time!
Despicable Me is absolutely a buyer when it's released on DVD.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Review: The Last Airbender
Ever since first seeing the teaser trailer [last Fall] showing a horizon full of ships firing on a temple, I've been looking forward to seeing The Last Airbender.
The latest (and non-original) work by M. Night Shyamalan is not a great movie, but it is a fun, satisfying and visually appealing film. About the only thing holding this movie back from being great is some bad acting, as well as a few moments of awkward emotions that are never really explained.
Having never read the series, or seen any anime of this storyline, I take the movie for what it is; on its own merits. The movie is a first chapter of a series, and is clearly the introductory, or set-up, of the remaining films. As such, there is a lot of backstory fill-in, but it is done deftly as it is nicely interwoven with the developing story. I was never lost as to what was happening, or where things were going.
Shyamalan's directing was a terrific as ever. He not only directs The Last Airbender, but he also produced and wrote the screenplay. Being that heavily involved certainly showed as scenes flowed easily, logically, and with little stumbling.
The young actors are mostly good. Noah Ringer as Aang, the Last Airbender, is a bit stilted, but his overall performance really carries the film. He obviously trained hard for the martial arts required; and his skill and grace in his execution of the arts was outstanding. Nicola Peltz, Jackson Rathbone, Seychelle Gabriel, Dev Patel, Shaun Toub and Aasif Mandvi comprise the most prominent of the supporting cast. Overall, they are all good in their roles; though Peltz suffers the most from her obvious inexperience in her craft.
The Special Effects, by Industrial Light and Magic, are phenomenal. Not much else to say about it. The Music, by James Newton Howard, is a wonderful match to the films. It is both rousing and delicate, as the moments require. The rest of the production was exactly what we have come to expect from an M. Night Shyamalan film.
As to those critics and viewers who are saying what a terrible film this is--don't believe them. Remember, critics hate just about everything; and viewers who rip a good movie are usually doing so because it fails to live up to their personal expectations or mental images that they think it should follow.
Go see The Last Airbender expecting a fun, visually appealing and satisfying film. Again, while it's not a great film, it is certainly worth the price of admission. I really enjoyed the movie...and so will you. In fact, I look forward to the next chapter in the series. In the mean time, I'll see this again, and will buy The Last Airbender when it is released on DVD.
The latest (and non-original) work by M. Night Shyamalan is not a great movie, but it is a fun, satisfying and visually appealing film. About the only thing holding this movie back from being great is some bad acting, as well as a few moments of awkward emotions that are never really explained.
Having never read the series, or seen any anime of this storyline, I take the movie for what it is; on its own merits. The movie is a first chapter of a series, and is clearly the introductory, or set-up, of the remaining films. As such, there is a lot of backstory fill-in, but it is done deftly as it is nicely interwoven with the developing story. I was never lost as to what was happening, or where things were going.
Shyamalan's directing was a terrific as ever. He not only directs The Last Airbender, but he also produced and wrote the screenplay. Being that heavily involved certainly showed as scenes flowed easily, logically, and with little stumbling.
The young actors are mostly good. Noah Ringer as Aang, the Last Airbender, is a bit stilted, but his overall performance really carries the film. He obviously trained hard for the martial arts required; and his skill and grace in his execution of the arts was outstanding. Nicola Peltz, Jackson Rathbone, Seychelle Gabriel, Dev Patel, Shaun Toub and Aasif Mandvi comprise the most prominent of the supporting cast. Overall, they are all good in their roles; though Peltz suffers the most from her obvious inexperience in her craft.
The Special Effects, by Industrial Light and Magic, are phenomenal. Not much else to say about it. The Music, by James Newton Howard, is a wonderful match to the films. It is both rousing and delicate, as the moments require. The rest of the production was exactly what we have come to expect from an M. Night Shyamalan film.
As to those critics and viewers who are saying what a terrible film this is--don't believe them. Remember, critics hate just about everything; and viewers who rip a good movie are usually doing so because it fails to live up to their personal expectations or mental images that they think it should follow.
Go see The Last Airbender expecting a fun, visually appealing and satisfying film. Again, while it's not a great film, it is certainly worth the price of admission. I really enjoyed the movie...and so will you. In fact, I look forward to the next chapter in the series. In the mean time, I'll see this again, and will buy The Last Airbender when it is released on DVD.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Review: Twilight Saga--Eclipse
Today's review is not from me, but from my wife and daughter, as well as a family friend. (I don't watch the Twilight films. No need to explain...) They all went to see the movie last Friday, and came back yapping almost non-stop.
Basically, here are their comments:
-Wonderful scenery! (Filmed in the Vancouver BC area now, instead of Western Washington.)
-Great at following the storyline!
-The fight scenes were awesome!
-There is some wonderful humor!
-The acting was as good as ever!
That's all I know about the film. (And really all I want to know about it.)
If you're looking for a better, longer review, you won't get it here. I watched the first Twilight movie on DVD, and was thoroughly bored with it. The second I have seen only sections of it on DVD...and really don't want to see any more.
I'm assuming Eclipse must be decent because it made a boatload of money on opening weekend. Either that, or the theaters were packed with crazed Edward, Bella or Jacob fans.
In any event, that's my review.
Now. on to the next film...
Basically, here are their comments:
-Wonderful scenery! (Filmed in the Vancouver BC area now, instead of Western Washington.)
-Great at following the storyline!
-The fight scenes were awesome!
-There is some wonderful humor!
-The acting was as good as ever!
That's all I know about the film. (And really all I want to know about it.)
If you're looking for a better, longer review, you won't get it here. I watched the first Twilight movie on DVD, and was thoroughly bored with it. The second I have seen only sections of it on DVD...and really don't want to see any more.
I'm assuming Eclipse must be decent because it made a boatload of money on opening weekend. Either that, or the theaters were packed with crazed Edward, Bella or Jacob fans.
In any event, that's my review.
Now. on to the next film...
Saturday, June 26, 2010
My Second List of the Ten Worst Films
After I finished my list of ten worst (major release) films, I've had others, equally bad which certainly deserve to be on that list. So, I've created "My Second List of the Ten Worst Films."
*Battlefield Earth: This stinker was the first film (I believe) to sweep the Razzies. It almost single-handedly destroyed the careers of Forrest Whittaker and Barry Pepper. There is literally nothing redeemable about this horrid attempt at filmmaking. Every copy in existence should be destroyed...immediately....I'm serious!
*The Adventures of Pluto Nash: I got to see this for free--and I still walked out after just ten minutes! I couldn't take it anymore! IQ-wise, I think this film equaled a rock...and a dumb one at that! As much as I hate to say it, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy was Oscar worthy compared to Eddie Murphy's train wreck of a film. Don't believe me? Go rent it. You'll be demanding your money back before the popcorn is done in the microwave.
*Conan the Destroyer: The original Conan was awesome! The follow-up was terrible! The writing was ridiculously bad, and having Wilt Chamberlin and Grace Jones in the cast was a monumentally unforgivable mistake! Arnold and Olivia D'Abo were good, but everything else was a travesty.
*Red Sonja: This supposed addition to the Conan franchise was so awful that even an appearance by Arnold couldn't hope to legitimize this waste of perfectly good film stock. Brigitte Neilson was just plan terrible in the title role, and the film was merely a reason to show her in as little clothing as possible, while supposedly wrapping a storyline in there...somewhere.
*Fluke: What's wrong with the following premise: A man dies tragically in a car accident. He awakens in the body of a dog, and goes about finding his (now) former wife so he can watch over his family. Need I say more? (I actually fell asleep in this dog (pun completely intended!) of a movie.)
*James and the Giant Peach: I realize this movie was made from a kids book, and was targeted for kids, too; but this film was T-E-R-R-I-B-L-E! The stop-motion animation was anything but pleasing to the eye; the script was beyond even kid audience preposterous, and the film was so boring I fell asleep for about half of it. At least I got a good nap for my cost of admission!
*Dudley Do-Right: I will very rarely diss on anything Brendan Fraser acts in. His skills in front of the camera are generally exceptional. However, Dudley Do-Right, one of those films Fraser picks for reasons only he can explain, is a stinker from the opening credits to the closing credits. Between Fraser and Alfred Molina, you'd think this film had some value. Alas, the script was vomitous, to put it nicely; and so was the film!
*Traffic: I don't care what kinds of awards this film took in--It was a convoluted, tedious, confusing and all together ridiculous film. I never saw this in the theater (Thank Goodness!); but on DVD instead. After about thirty tiring minutes, I'd had enough. The movie was turned off, and I refused to watch any more. The acting was terrible by just about everyone--especially Benicio Del Toro (and he won an Oscar for that role...What a waste of a perfectly good award!), the directing seemed lost, and the whole storyline was far too ludicrous to be even remotely viable. I HATED this utterly AWFUL film!
*Talladega Nights: The Legend of Ricky Bobby: I still cannot comprehend why audiences flocked en masse to this Will Ferrell offering. I usually like his material, so I was looking forward to seeing this movie. The film however, was so gut-wrenchingly bad that I don't remember laughing even once. It was like a nightmarishly long skit from SNL that gets placed at the end of the show because all of the funny stuff was on earlier in the broadcast. Because of this film, I have not seen another Will Farrell movie in the years since.
*Rocky Horror Picture Show: I know I'm treading on hallowed ground for a number of people; but this film is so insanely stupid that I can't even fathom the reasons for its cult status. I saw this in its 1970's heyday at the Guild 45th in Seattle at a typical midnight showing. All the usual costumes, antics and sing alongs were in full swing. However, in spite of literally everyone around me dancing, singing, mimicking lines, etc, I waited for it to get as good as everyone had excitedly told me it was. Unfortunately, the film ended before that could happen...or, maybe the theater lights coming on was the good part.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Review: Toy Story 3
I'd been hearing that Pixar Animation Studios' latest effort, Toy Story 3 was fresh and funny--much like the original. To tell you the truth though, I haven't laughed that much in a long time!
True to all the hype, Toy Story 3 is as fun (and funny!) as the original Toy Story. The opening sequence is waaay over-the-top fun, and the movie then settles in to the series ending storyline that will leave kids (and most adults, too!) with a wonderfully fun, satisfyingly appropriate end to the Toy Story franchise.
As usual, the entire cast was perfect in the delivery of their lines, and the introduction of new characters provided new laughs, new enemies, and a refreshing introduction to the eventual ending.
This is a wonderful movie, folks! Both kids and adults will laugh nearly all of the way through this flick!
I will see this again; And, I'll definitely buy this on DVD!
True to all the hype, Toy Story 3 is as fun (and funny!) as the original Toy Story. The opening sequence is waaay over-the-top fun, and the movie then settles in to the series ending storyline that will leave kids (and most adults, too!) with a wonderfully fun, satisfyingly appropriate end to the Toy Story franchise.
As usual, the entire cast was perfect in the delivery of their lines, and the introduction of new characters provided new laughs, new enemies, and a refreshing introduction to the eventual ending.
This is a wonderful movie, folks! Both kids and adults will laugh nearly all of the way through this flick!
Take the family and get ready to laugh!
I will see this again; And, I'll definitely buy this on DVD!
Monday, June 14, 2010
Review: The 'A' Team
Like the movie itself, I'm going to keep this review very simple.
This movie is nothing but unbelievable, over-the-top, and completely outrageous FUN!
There is absolutely nothing in this movie that is to be taken seriously. From top to bottom, beginning to end, the film's premise and subsequent action sequences are there simply to entertain. Beyond those things, there really isn't much to say about The 'A' Team. It provided exactly the schlock that the original was so adept at.
The best of the cast were Liam Neeson (always exceptional!), Bradley Cooper (who was obviously enjoying his role as Face Man), and the always lovely Jessica Biel (whom I am a big fan of). The rest of the cast was only so-so; but you could tell that even the making of The 'A' Team was one long fun time by everyone.
That's it, that's my whole review.
Was it worth the price of admission? I don't know. It probably shouldn't be; but there was something about it that was so ridiculous that I was just glued to my seat.
I would NEVER buy this movie, or even see it again. But a one-time screening was definitely worth it.
This movie is nothing but unbelievable, over-the-top, and completely outrageous FUN!
There is absolutely nothing in this movie that is to be taken seriously. From top to bottom, beginning to end, the film's premise and subsequent action sequences are there simply to entertain. Beyond those things, there really isn't much to say about The 'A' Team. It provided exactly the schlock that the original was so adept at.
The best of the cast were Liam Neeson (always exceptional!), Bradley Cooper (who was obviously enjoying his role as Face Man), and the always lovely Jessica Biel (whom I am a big fan of). The rest of the cast was only so-so; but you could tell that even the making of The 'A' Team was one long fun time by everyone.
That's it, that's my whole review.
Was it worth the price of admission? I don't know. It probably shouldn't be; but there was something about it that was so ridiculous that I was just glued to my seat.
I would NEVER buy this movie, or even see it again. But a one-time screening was definitely worth it.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Review: Prince of Persia (The Sands of Time)
Based on the previews, The Prince of Persia looked like a fun movie, and it certainly lived up to my expectations!
It is a fun, rousing, and completely unbelievable adventure that will satisfy just about every popcorn movie cinephile out there. The action sequences are well done, the CGI is top notch, and the storyline (not overly complex by any stretch) is easy to follow.
For the most part, Jake Gyllenhaal has tackled a character unlike any role he has yet done. He comes across very believably as the hero Dastan. Gyllenhaal pulls off the vocal aspect of this part quite convincingly. Physically, he looked as if he had been doing action movies over the entire breadth of his career. The only time Gyllenhaal looked like the goofy-faced kid from October Sky or Bubble Boy, was right at the end of the film. Otherwise, you know it's Jake Gyllenhaal as you watch the film, but he is not the same actor you are used to seeing.
The other star of this film, Gemma Arterton, is not only beautiful, but she also appears extremely comfortable. Arterton has a natural, relaxed screen presence that just comes across as genuine. This is her second sword and sandal project of the Spring. In April we saw Arterton play the role of Io in Clash of the Titans. Here in Prince of Persia, she plays Tamina, the entrusted keeper of the Sands of Time. I thought her acting was great, and her onscreen chemistry with Gyllenhaal was done with ease and grace.
The supporting cast is composed of mostly unknown (to American audiences, at least) British actors. Aside from Sir Ben Kingsley and Alfred Molina, I was unfamiliar with the supporting cast; though they all did a wonderful job.
Directed by Mike Newell (Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, Mona Lisa Smile, Donnie Brasco, Four Weddings and a Funeral), Prince of Persia flows easily and logically throughout. Newell is obviously adept at directing this type of movie, and his experience really shows.
The Costuming, Set Design and Construction, Cinematography, and music were all superbly carried out. The crew hired for this movie was great from top to bottom.
Prince of Persia isn't a great movie by any standard, but it IS fun! You don't take it seriously because you aren't meant to! Go see this movie with the idea that it is just a fun, entertaining film, and you will walk away having had an enjoyable time at the movies. I will probably go see this at least one more time, then buy it when it is released on DVD/Blue ray.
It is a fun, rousing, and completely unbelievable adventure that will satisfy just about every popcorn movie cinephile out there. The action sequences are well done, the CGI is top notch, and the storyline (not overly complex by any stretch) is easy to follow.
For the most part, Jake Gyllenhaal has tackled a character unlike any role he has yet done. He comes across very believably as the hero Dastan. Gyllenhaal pulls off the vocal aspect of this part quite convincingly. Physically, he looked as if he had been doing action movies over the entire breadth of his career. The only time Gyllenhaal looked like the goofy-faced kid from October Sky or Bubble Boy, was right at the end of the film. Otherwise, you know it's Jake Gyllenhaal as you watch the film, but he is not the same actor you are used to seeing.
The other star of this film, Gemma Arterton, is not only beautiful, but she also appears extremely comfortable. Arterton has a natural, relaxed screen presence that just comes across as genuine. This is her second sword and sandal project of the Spring. In April we saw Arterton play the role of Io in Clash of the Titans. Here in Prince of Persia, she plays Tamina, the entrusted keeper of the Sands of Time. I thought her acting was great, and her onscreen chemistry with Gyllenhaal was done with ease and grace.
The supporting cast is composed of mostly unknown (to American audiences, at least) British actors. Aside from Sir Ben Kingsley and Alfred Molina, I was unfamiliar with the supporting cast; though they all did a wonderful job.
Directed by Mike Newell (Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, Mona Lisa Smile, Donnie Brasco, Four Weddings and a Funeral), Prince of Persia flows easily and logically throughout. Newell is obviously adept at directing this type of movie, and his experience really shows.
The Costuming, Set Design and Construction, Cinematography, and music were all superbly carried out. The crew hired for this movie was great from top to bottom.
Prince of Persia isn't a great movie by any standard, but it IS fun! You don't take it seriously because you aren't meant to! Go see this movie with the idea that it is just a fun, entertaining film, and you will walk away having had an enjoyable time at the movies. I will probably go see this at least one more time, then buy it when it is released on DVD/Blue ray.
Friday, June 4, 2010
Things in Films that Drive Me Crazy
I think we all have things in films that drive us nuts. Whether it is a pet peeve that annoys us, or blatant product inclusion, at one time or another, we come across content that just isn't necessary!
Of course, I have my own list of these pet peeves--call them 'Things I wish weren't in a film.' Here's my list:
1) Excessive Swearing. I'm certainly no prude; but doesn't the swearing in films just get tiring? I can understand having a little bit--but when a film has seemingly non-stop vulgar language, I'd rather not be watching the film at all. Personally, I think it is just laziness on the part of the screen writer to include a never-ending stream of crass, vulgar, offensive dialogue.
2) Unnecessary Nudity. I'm not talking the occasional artistic inclusion, such as in Titanic. I'm talking, showing boobs and butts simply for the sake of showing them. Whether to titillate teenage boys, to just be vulgar, or for pure shock value, showing nudity for non-artistic reasoning is pushing things too far. For example, when The Watchmen came out in the Spring of 09 I was excited to see it. However, the only lasting image from that movie was the good Doctor's gigantic blue penis that was onscreen way, way, way too much. We got the image the first and only time it should have been seen.
3) Love Scenes. Again, I'm no prude--but it seems like filmmakers are pushing this envelope further and further each year. Personally, I don't think 13 year-olds should not be seeing the graphic displays so prevalent these days in the so-called "safe rating." What we are seeing today as PG-13 sex scenes were an R rating just ten years ago. Does a graphic sex scene further the storyline? Or is it there simply to show sex? Personally I really enjoy when a film actually fades to black, time passes, and the encounter is insinuated--not, "In your face."
4) Product Placement. I realize that product placement is a necessary evil in the TV and film industry. Placements help pay for a film. Corporations want some return in exchange for [basically] advertising space, however brief. Product placements are literally everywhere in a film. They range from cars to candy bars, from books to beer. You can always tell what car company is a major cash partner. Their cars are all over the place throughout a film. My gripe here is that sometimes, too much blatant product placement occurs and you feel like you're watching a long series of commercials between which is the actual movie.
5) The Audience Are Idiots. (I'll only touch on this briefly because I'll do a blog later on screenplays.)
Are you an idiot? So stupid that you have to be spoon-fed all the relevant story lines and information? This is called "Exposition," and it drives me crazy. There are filmmakers (directors, screen writers, etc) who feel that no one in the movie-going audience has any intelligence. So, they 'exposit' the information via tiring, obvious dialogue. (Think, Wing Commander, or tv's CSI New York as wonderful examples). It is incredibly refreshing when a movie has almost zero exposition. The Book of Eli is a fantastic example of this. Barely any foreshadowing, and very little exposition. By the time the end was viewed, the twist suddenly hits you and everything you may have not understood, suddenly makes all the sense in the world.
These are my main gripes regarding unnecessary things included in film making. I think these are all quite unnecessary in a film. Do you have anything to add? I've love to hear your feedback! If I get enough comments I'll include them in a follow-up blog.
Of course, I have my own list of these pet peeves--call them 'Things I wish weren't in a film.' Here's my list:
1) Excessive Swearing. I'm certainly no prude; but doesn't the swearing in films just get tiring? I can understand having a little bit--but when a film has seemingly non-stop vulgar language, I'd rather not be watching the film at all. Personally, I think it is just laziness on the part of the screen writer to include a never-ending stream of crass, vulgar, offensive dialogue.
2) Unnecessary Nudity. I'm not talking the occasional artistic inclusion, such as in Titanic. I'm talking, showing boobs and butts simply for the sake of showing them. Whether to titillate teenage boys, to just be vulgar, or for pure shock value, showing nudity for non-artistic reasoning is pushing things too far. For example, when The Watchmen came out in the Spring of 09 I was excited to see it. However, the only lasting image from that movie was the good Doctor's gigantic blue penis that was onscreen way, way, way too much. We got the image the first and only time it should have been seen.
3) Love Scenes. Again, I'm no prude--but it seems like filmmakers are pushing this envelope further and further each year. Personally, I don't think 13 year-olds should not be seeing the graphic displays so prevalent these days in the so-called "safe rating." What we are seeing today as PG-13 sex scenes were an R rating just ten years ago. Does a graphic sex scene further the storyline? Or is it there simply to show sex? Personally I really enjoy when a film actually fades to black, time passes, and the encounter is insinuated--not, "In your face."
4) Product Placement. I realize that product placement is a necessary evil in the TV and film industry. Placements help pay for a film. Corporations want some return in exchange for [basically] advertising space, however brief. Product placements are literally everywhere in a film. They range from cars to candy bars, from books to beer. You can always tell what car company is a major cash partner. Their cars are all over the place throughout a film. My gripe here is that sometimes, too much blatant product placement occurs and you feel like you're watching a long series of commercials between which is the actual movie.
5) The Audience Are Idiots. (I'll only touch on this briefly because I'll do a blog later on screenplays.)
Are you an idiot? So stupid that you have to be spoon-fed all the relevant story lines and information? This is called "Exposition," and it drives me crazy. There are filmmakers (directors, screen writers, etc) who feel that no one in the movie-going audience has any intelligence. So, they 'exposit' the information via tiring, obvious dialogue. (Think, Wing Commander, or tv's CSI New York as wonderful examples). It is incredibly refreshing when a movie has almost zero exposition. The Book of Eli is a fantastic example of this. Barely any foreshadowing, and very little exposition. By the time the end was viewed, the twist suddenly hits you and everything you may have not understood, suddenly makes all the sense in the world.
These are my main gripes regarding unnecessary things included in film making. I think these are all quite unnecessary in a film. Do you have anything to add? I've love to hear your feedback! If I get enough comments I'll include them in a follow-up blog.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Review: Shrek Forever After
I'll just come right out and say it...BORING!
The first Shrek movie was wonderful. It was original, laugh-til-your-face-hurt funny, and had a number of fun takes on pop culture. I was excited for the second, but wound up disappointed as it replayed the same jokes, offered nothing new, and resembled little plot-wise to the first. When the third movie came out I went to see it and hated it. At least I got to see it for free!
So, we finally come to the [supposed] end of this franchise. I've read a number of articles which all stated that this Shrek was fresher, more like the original. So, I had high hopes going into the theater. The first few jokes were fun; but they soon wandered into too-familiar comedy territory. The "It's a Wonderful Life" twist was just OK; but the storyline grew so cliched that I was getting bored just fifteen minutes into the film. The rest of the movie never relieved me of my boredom. A few chuckles ensued, but certainly no laughter. However, the audience around me was laughing regularly throughout. (???)
Most of the regular cast was as good as ever--too bad the material they had was so bland. I grew really tired of Eddie Murphy. All of his jokes either sounded vaguely familiar, or were delivered in the same irritating way--line after line. Whatever it was, any time Donkey was onscreen I just wished his lines would end.
I will say that this movie is great for kids! Much like the kids in my showing, they'll love it. They won't realize what a yawn-fest this turned out to be. Oh well, at least this tired run is finished...or is it?
And by the way, in case you think I haven't made myself clear already...There is no way I'd see this one again!
The first Shrek movie was wonderful. It was original, laugh-til-your-face-hurt funny, and had a number of fun takes on pop culture. I was excited for the second, but wound up disappointed as it replayed the same jokes, offered nothing new, and resembled little plot-wise to the first. When the third movie came out I went to see it and hated it. At least I got to see it for free!
So, we finally come to the [supposed] end of this franchise. I've read a number of articles which all stated that this Shrek was fresher, more like the original. So, I had high hopes going into the theater. The first few jokes were fun; but they soon wandered into too-familiar comedy territory. The "It's a Wonderful Life" twist was just OK; but the storyline grew so cliched that I was getting bored just fifteen minutes into the film. The rest of the movie never relieved me of my boredom. A few chuckles ensued, but certainly no laughter. However, the audience around me was laughing regularly throughout. (???)
Most of the regular cast was as good as ever--too bad the material they had was so bland. I grew really tired of Eddie Murphy. All of his jokes either sounded vaguely familiar, or were delivered in the same irritating way--line after line. Whatever it was, any time Donkey was onscreen I just wished his lines would end.
I will say that this movie is great for kids! Much like the kids in my showing, they'll love it. They won't realize what a yawn-fest this turned out to be. Oh well, at least this tired run is finished...or is it?
And by the way, in case you think I haven't made myself clear already...There is no way I'd see this one again!
Monday, May 24, 2010
Movie Remakes...Right, or Wrong?
It seems like Hollywood is on a remake bender the last few years.
Nothing seems to be off limits to the screen hacks employed by the studios these days. I recently read that a classic, Oscar winning movie is slated for the rehash bin.
While I will be the first to admit that some films have turned out far better than the originals ( Robin Hood, Clash of the Titans, 3:10 To Yuma, The 300, Dune mini-series, Alice in Wonderland, etc), the majority are just a way for lazy screen writers to "update" films with gratuitous violence, filthy language and nudity/sex.
It reminds me of today's hip-hop artists who remake classic songs, and the end product is just garbage. Do you know what I mean? For instance, "Killing Me Softly" is a slow, mournful ballad; not a fast-paced, rap oriented, obnoxious noise-fest as was presented a few years ago! What a travesty of artistic interpretation! I wish that version could be unmade. So it is with some of these "re-do's" that have been popping up. Some of the real dogs that have reared their ugly heads are War of the Worlds, Starsky & Hutch, The Taking of Pelham 123, S.W.A.T., The Fog, Death Race, etc.
Now I'm reading that over the next few years, Hollywood studios will be filming upwards of 125 "re-imaginings" of previously released movies. Among the probable list, Conan the Barbarian, Highlander, Metropolis, Rocky Horror Picture Show, Westworld and The Warriors. Add to the list now, Academy Award winner, True Grit. What? Remake a classic, award winning film?....and John Wayne no less? Seriously?!!!
Yeah...somebody is going there!
That list is also exclusive of this years' remaining "do-overs" that include The Karate Kid, Red Dawn, The A Team, The Sorcerer's Apprentice, Tales From Earthsea, Tangled, and Gulliver's Travels.
Notice a trend here?
No wonder Hollywood is wondering why, though gate receipts are up (mostly due to price increases), theater attendance is on the decline. Maybe they ought to look at all the remakes that are being pumped out ad nauseum. Instead of these "re-treads", maybe studio execs should be looking at screenplays that actually have originality in them. I for one am getting tired of seeing movies "recycled" every 15 years or so. With all the literature, all the current events, and all of human history as a rich source of material, why are we seeing "rehash" after rehash of tired, overdone films? Or of movies that should never be touched because the original is the best?
Notice all the terms I've been highlighting? Re-do's, Re-Imagining, Do-Over's, Re-Treads, Recycled, Re-Hash. These are all terms I have seen used by marketers to distract the movie-going public from the fact that so many movies are nothing more than updated remakes of previous products. A remake is a remake; no matter the term used to describe it.
So, tell me what you think about this trend. Is it here to stay? Are the screen writers in Hollywood so creatively dead that they can't write new material? What would you like to see coming out of the studios? Tell me what you think; I'll be doing a follow-up with reader comments in the near future.
Nothing seems to be off limits to the screen hacks employed by the studios these days. I recently read that a classic, Oscar winning movie is slated for the rehash bin.
While I will be the first to admit that some films have turned out far better than the originals ( Robin Hood, Clash of the Titans, 3:10 To Yuma, The 300, Dune mini-series, Alice in Wonderland, etc), the majority are just a way for lazy screen writers to "update" films with gratuitous violence, filthy language and nudity/sex.
It reminds me of today's hip-hop artists who remake classic songs, and the end product is just garbage. Do you know what I mean? For instance, "Killing Me Softly" is a slow, mournful ballad; not a fast-paced, rap oriented, obnoxious noise-fest as was presented a few years ago! What a travesty of artistic interpretation! I wish that version could be unmade. So it is with some of these "re-do's" that have been popping up. Some of the real dogs that have reared their ugly heads are War of the Worlds, Starsky & Hutch, The Taking of Pelham 123, S.W.A.T., The Fog, Death Race, etc.
Now I'm reading that over the next few years, Hollywood studios will be filming upwards of 125 "re-imaginings" of previously released movies. Among the probable list, Conan the Barbarian, Highlander, Metropolis, Rocky Horror Picture Show, Westworld and The Warriors. Add to the list now, Academy Award winner, True Grit. What? Remake a classic, award winning film?....and John Wayne no less? Seriously?!!!
Yeah...somebody is going there!
That list is also exclusive of this years' remaining "do-overs" that include The Karate Kid, Red Dawn, The A Team, The Sorcerer's Apprentice, Tales From Earthsea, Tangled, and Gulliver's Travels.
Notice a trend here?
No wonder Hollywood is wondering why, though gate receipts are up (mostly due to price increases), theater attendance is on the decline. Maybe they ought to look at all the remakes that are being pumped out ad nauseum. Instead of these "re-treads", maybe studio execs should be looking at screenplays that actually have originality in them. I for one am getting tired of seeing movies "recycled" every 15 years or so. With all the literature, all the current events, and all of human history as a rich source of material, why are we seeing "rehash" after rehash of tired, overdone films? Or of movies that should never be touched because the original is the best?
Notice all the terms I've been highlighting? Re-do's, Re-Imagining, Do-Over's, Re-Treads, Recycled, Re-Hash. These are all terms I have seen used by marketers to distract the movie-going public from the fact that so many movies are nothing more than updated remakes of previous products. A remake is a remake; no matter the term used to describe it.
So, tell me what you think about this trend. Is it here to stay? Are the screen writers in Hollywood so creatively dead that they can't write new material? What would you like to see coming out of the studios? Tell me what you think; I'll be doing a follow-up with reader comments in the near future.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Review: Robin Hood
Ridley Scott is a thorough, entertaining and detailed director. This is highly evident as you watch his latest film, Robin Hood.
I had high hopes for a great movie-viewing experience...and I wasn't disappointed. Robin Hood is, so far, the best movie of the season. It is the typical spectacle-type production we have come to expect from Scott. He delivers a gritty, realistic world of medieval England that is not found elsewhere.
Russell Crowe is fabulous as Robin. He brings realism and humanity to a figure of folklore that dwells historically in rumors, innuendo, and myth. He is very comfortable in the role, and his dialogue with Cate Blanchett's Lady Marian is relaxed and natural. Crowe obviously enjoys working with Ridley Scott...and why not? The movies they create are usually phenomenal, and Robin Hood is no exception.
Cate Blanchett brings her cool demeanor and utmost effort to an un-regal Marian Loxley. Her screen presence alone is worth the cost of admission. In this role, Blanchett has a character unlike any other I have seen her play; and she handles herself well in portraying Marian as both confident and unsure. She brings a refreshing dichotomy to a typically subservient character role; and it is a joy to watch.
The supporting cast is wonderful from top to bottom. Notably, Mark Strong as Godfrey, Kevin Durand as Little John, William Hurt as Marshall, Oscar Isaac as Prince John, Scott Grimes as Will Scarlet, Alan Doyle as Allan A'Dayle, Matthew Macfadyen as a disgusting Sheriff of Nottingham, and the always phenomenal Max von Sydow as Sir Walter Loxley.
The editing was top notch as scenes flowed effortlessly from one to another. The cinematography was exactly what you expect from Ridley Scott with sweeping panoramas, colorful landscapes and delicate close-ups. Production design, sound design, battle choreography, costuming and set construction were all seamless. The entire production from top to bottom was just fantastic. Add in the stirring soundtrack from Marc Streitenfeld, and you have a beautiful, fun, robust and thoroughly enjoyable movie-going experience.
If you must miss one of this years' big movies, make sure that is ISN'T this one.
I will end up buying this on DVD. In the mean time, I think I'll go see this at least two or three more times!
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Pivitol Movies In Film History
Every once in a while a film comes along that shakes up the film industry.
These watershed moments are rare; but when they happen the entire industry perks their collective ears and does their best to catch up to a new standard. Once a bar has been raised studios either follow suit, or they drift off the radar and struggle until they eventually die.
So let's get started.
Birth of A Nation: This was the first [acknowledged] full-length feature film. DW Griffiths' ambitious project was popular in its day; but looking back, it was nothing more than a hate-filled propaganda piece meant to espouse the goodness and benevolence of the Ku Klux Klan. However, it led to the downfall of the nickelodeons and established a standard of actual storytelling in the medium.
The Jazz Singer: This movie was the first 'talkie' to show in movie houses. Up until this time, actual dialogue was limited to filmed placards inserted in scenes and local piano or organ players supplied the dramatic music that accompanied most films.
Citizen Kane: Whether you enjoy this movie or not, Orson Welles' directorial effort brought about a revolution in scene staging, dialogue interaction, set design and photographic techniques.
Bullitt: This 1968 crime drama starring Steve McQueen established a new standard in film making. It basically re-wrote the book on car chase scenes. This movie is the standard by which car chase scenes are filmed to this day.
Star Wars: Prior to this film, SciFi flicks were generally dialogue oriented with relatively few action shots, and had completely unbelievable mock-ups for sets, ship designs and exterior shots. Star Wars revolutionized the genre with camera wizardry, location shoots, and an introduction to early CGI. There was a reason this film had fan lines going literally around the block as they waited sometimes days to see it.
Toy Story: This movie set a very high standard in the emerging CGI arena. It did things that no one had done up to that point. It was dazzling, fresh, believable, and filled with humor for parents and kids. Even watching it 18 years later, you cannot help but be struck by the artistry involved in its production.
Lord of The Rings: The WETA Digital Studios raised the CGI bar even higher through their creation and use of computer programs that looked like, and mimicked, real-life characters; whether individually, or in masses. Particularly, in the character Gollum. Actor Andy Serkis, dressed in a special suit, was filmed alongside other actors in order to create realism. Then in post production, the final look of Gollum was added thereby making him appear as real as you and I.
Avatar: Avatar was a technical, and a technological masterpiece. New cameras were developed for this shoot, and CGI was pushed even further. Plus, the integration of live action with CGI was nothing short of spectacular.
*I realize that some films you might have chosen for this list were not included. My focus is technical developments/innovations. If you have other possible watershed movies, please leave me your comments.
These watershed moments are rare; but when they happen the entire industry perks their collective ears and does their best to catch up to a new standard. Once a bar has been raised studios either follow suit, or they drift off the radar and struggle until they eventually die.
So let's get started.
Birth of A Nation: This was the first [acknowledged] full-length feature film. DW Griffiths' ambitious project was popular in its day; but looking back, it was nothing more than a hate-filled propaganda piece meant to espouse the goodness and benevolence of the Ku Klux Klan. However, it led to the downfall of the nickelodeons and established a standard of actual storytelling in the medium.
The Jazz Singer: This movie was the first 'talkie' to show in movie houses. Up until this time, actual dialogue was limited to filmed placards inserted in scenes and local piano or organ players supplied the dramatic music that accompanied most films.
Citizen Kane: Whether you enjoy this movie or not, Orson Welles' directorial effort brought about a revolution in scene staging, dialogue interaction, set design and photographic techniques.
Bullitt: This 1968 crime drama starring Steve McQueen established a new standard in film making. It basically re-wrote the book on car chase scenes. This movie is the standard by which car chase scenes are filmed to this day.
Star Wars: Prior to this film, SciFi flicks were generally dialogue oriented with relatively few action shots, and had completely unbelievable mock-ups for sets, ship designs and exterior shots. Star Wars revolutionized the genre with camera wizardry, location shoots, and an introduction to early CGI. There was a reason this film had fan lines going literally around the block as they waited sometimes days to see it.
Toy Story: This movie set a very high standard in the emerging CGI arena. It did things that no one had done up to that point. It was dazzling, fresh, believable, and filled with humor for parents and kids. Even watching it 18 years later, you cannot help but be struck by the artistry involved in its production.
Lord of The Rings: The WETA Digital Studios raised the CGI bar even higher through their creation and use of computer programs that looked like, and mimicked, real-life characters; whether individually, or in masses. Particularly, in the character Gollum. Actor Andy Serkis, dressed in a special suit, was filmed alongside other actors in order to create realism. Then in post production, the final look of Gollum was added thereby making him appear as real as you and I.
Avatar: Avatar was a technical, and a technological masterpiece. New cameras were developed for this shoot, and CGI was pushed even further. Plus, the integration of live action with CGI was nothing short of spectacular.
*I realize that some films you might have chosen for this list were not included. My focus is technical developments/innovations. If you have other possible watershed movies, please leave me your comments.
Saturday, May 15, 2010
DVD Review: "The Lovely Bones"
I didn't get the chance to see The Lovely Bones when it was in theaters.
A few night ago I finally got the opportunity to see the latest directorial effort of Academy Award winner Peter Jackson; and I am glad I did!
I have never read the book that this movie is based on, so I had no literary comparison to draw on as the story unfolded. Instead I saw the movie for what it was; and I loved what I saw!
The two real stars of this movie, Saoirse Ronan and Stanley Tucci were magnificent in their roles (Ronan as murdered Susie, Tucci as the murderer). For me, they completely held my attention whenever either was onscreen. Mark Wahlberg and Rachel Weis were superb as Susie's parents. Supporting actors Susan Sarandon, Michael Imperioli and Rose McIver added even more depth that might not have been there had lesser actors tackled their respective roles.
The cinematography was on par with Jackson's expectations. In other words, flawless and stunning. There's really not much more to say about the camera work; it was that good!
The CGI of the film did not disappoint me at all. It was clearly the work of WETA Digital, regarded by some as the best in the business. But Jackson balanced the CGI extremely well as it never overshadowed the actors, setting or story. It was simply a part of the story telling process; and it was phenomenal.
Peter Jackson's directing was detailed, tight, purposeful and magnificent. The pacing was great; the weaving of various story lines seemed completely natural; and he seemed to get the very best out of each actor.
If you haven't seen The Lovely Bones, I suggest you do so. I wasn't expecting it to be as good as it turned out to be. If a movie surprises me like that, then it will almost certainly be as enjoyable for you.
A few night ago I finally got the opportunity to see the latest directorial effort of Academy Award winner Peter Jackson; and I am glad I did!
I have never read the book that this movie is based on, so I had no literary comparison to draw on as the story unfolded. Instead I saw the movie for what it was; and I loved what I saw!
The two real stars of this movie, Saoirse Ronan and Stanley Tucci were magnificent in their roles (Ronan as murdered Susie, Tucci as the murderer). For me, they completely held my attention whenever either was onscreen. Mark Wahlberg and Rachel Weis were superb as Susie's parents. Supporting actors Susan Sarandon, Michael Imperioli and Rose McIver added even more depth that might not have been there had lesser actors tackled their respective roles.
The cinematography was on par with Jackson's expectations. In other words, flawless and stunning. There's really not much more to say about the camera work; it was that good!
The CGI of the film did not disappoint me at all. It was clearly the work of WETA Digital, regarded by some as the best in the business. But Jackson balanced the CGI extremely well as it never overshadowed the actors, setting or story. It was simply a part of the story telling process; and it was phenomenal.
Peter Jackson's directing was detailed, tight, purposeful and magnificent. The pacing was great; the weaving of various story lines seemed completely natural; and he seemed to get the very best out of each actor.
If you haven't seen The Lovely Bones, I suggest you do so. I wasn't expecting it to be as good as it turned out to be. If a movie surprises me like that, then it will almost certainly be as enjoyable for you.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Movies I Deplore
Everybody has a "favorites" movie list.
We all sit around at one time or another and discuss (or argue...at times) what we think are the best movies ever made. We quickly note our lists, then have the perfect justifications as to why we feel the way we do about each film. It's a fun bit of one-upmanship.
How many of the same people arguing "favorites" lists could actually name the ones they hate the most? I'm talking stinkers, on every level; so bad that you walk out of the theater. Yeah...the films you wish could be unmade so their legacy will have never been.
My list is full of these clunkers. Let's see if you agree with any of my selections:
(These are in no order...not that I need to classify any of these above the others!)
*Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. I saw this piece of flotsam for free; but I have to wonder if I can get those lost 100 minutes (or so) of my life back. I think I actually felt brain cells being sucked right out of my head!
*The Third Man. This snooze-fest of a cloak and dagger attempt was so lousy that Orson Welles' 10 screen minutes are more memorable than the rest of this flick. Even Welles' best effort couldn't take the pain away of watching this...thing.
*Cape Fear. (The Scorsese remake) Before I saw this movie, I kept reading what an great movie this was. I was told I'd love it. Well, the whole time I was viewing it, I remember asking myself repeatedly, "When is this going to get good?" Unfortunately, it never did. (I have since learned that all Scorsese flicks evoke the same sort of response from me. But I still see them, ever hoping that one of these days, I'll see one that doesn't stink.)
*Gone With The Wind. I can hear a few gasps already! This movie may be a beloved work, but I was utterly, thoroughly, and unequivocally bored and stupefied with this so-called "classic." Awful, awful, awful!!! The Carol Burnett parody was FAR more entertaining that this film.
*10. This supposed romantic comedy was anything but... It was neither romantic, nor was it comedic in any way. The hype for this flick was literally based on Bo Derek's slo-mo run down the beach; a scene that lasted all of about 30 seconds. Whoopeee.......zzzzzz.
*Americas' Sweethearts. Another so called Romantic Comedy, this movie was actually nothing more than a verbal raunch-fest that was in no way funny--just tiring. I walked out of this dog and got my money back.
*Elizabethtown. A critical "winner," this plodding, over-wrought film did nothing but leave me wondering if I was seeing the same film that the critics were praising. Everything about this screen 'gem' screamed in agony. I walked out of this pile of wasted celluloid after just 20 minutes.
*Sin City. Carla Guigino, at her smokey, sultry best, couldn't hope to save this load of poo called a film. What critics praised, I found to be obscure, redundant and just over-indulgent. As with Cape Fear I kept waiting for this dog and pony show to get good. My hopes were wasted as my senses were dulled to mush by the time it ended.
*The Deep. This underwater cloak and dagger story was as riveting and intense as a curling match. There were exactly two good things about this ponderous flick--1) a 30-something Jacqueline Bissett in a wet-suit; 2) the End credits. That's it. No kidding.
*Memoirs of a Geisha. I'll be the first to admit that this Oscar nominated film is beautifully photographed. The images are sumptuous, dazzling and rich. However, the story arc, the characters and directing were all deplorable--to put it nicely. I had high expectations going into this one, but left devastatingly disappointed by the reality the film presented.
There are many more on my "Worst" film list; but these ten really stand out head and shoulders above the rest.
So what are your most hated films? I'd love to hear your thoughts.
We all sit around at one time or another and discuss (or argue...at times) what we think are the best movies ever made. We quickly note our lists, then have the perfect justifications as to why we feel the way we do about each film. It's a fun bit of one-upmanship.
How many of the same people arguing "favorites" lists could actually name the ones they hate the most? I'm talking stinkers, on every level; so bad that you walk out of the theater. Yeah...the films you wish could be unmade so their legacy will have never been.
My list is full of these clunkers. Let's see if you agree with any of my selections:
(These are in no order...not that I need to classify any of these above the others!)
*Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. I saw this piece of flotsam for free; but I have to wonder if I can get those lost 100 minutes (or so) of my life back. I think I actually felt brain cells being sucked right out of my head!
*The Third Man. This snooze-fest of a cloak and dagger attempt was so lousy that Orson Welles' 10 screen minutes are more memorable than the rest of this flick. Even Welles' best effort couldn't take the pain away of watching this...thing.
*Cape Fear. (The Scorsese remake) Before I saw this movie, I kept reading what an great movie this was. I was told I'd love it. Well, the whole time I was viewing it, I remember asking myself repeatedly, "When is this going to get good?" Unfortunately, it never did. (I have since learned that all Scorsese flicks evoke the same sort of response from me. But I still see them, ever hoping that one of these days, I'll see one that doesn't stink.)
*Gone With The Wind. I can hear a few gasps already! This movie may be a beloved work, but I was utterly, thoroughly, and unequivocally bored and stupefied with this so-called "classic." Awful, awful, awful!!! The Carol Burnett parody was FAR more entertaining that this film.
*10. This supposed romantic comedy was anything but... It was neither romantic, nor was it comedic in any way. The hype for this flick was literally based on Bo Derek's slo-mo run down the beach; a scene that lasted all of about 30 seconds. Whoopeee.......zzzzzz.
*Americas' Sweethearts. Another so called Romantic Comedy, this movie was actually nothing more than a verbal raunch-fest that was in no way funny--just tiring. I walked out of this dog and got my money back.
*Elizabethtown. A critical "winner," this plodding, over-wrought film did nothing but leave me wondering if I was seeing the same film that the critics were praising. Everything about this screen 'gem' screamed in agony. I walked out of this pile of wasted celluloid after just 20 minutes.
*Sin City. Carla Guigino, at her smokey, sultry best, couldn't hope to save this load of poo called a film. What critics praised, I found to be obscure, redundant and just over-indulgent. As with Cape Fear I kept waiting for this dog and pony show to get good. My hopes were wasted as my senses were dulled to mush by the time it ended.
*The Deep. This underwater cloak and dagger story was as riveting and intense as a curling match. There were exactly two good things about this ponderous flick--1) a 30-something Jacqueline Bissett in a wet-suit; 2) the End credits. That's it. No kidding.
*Memoirs of a Geisha. I'll be the first to admit that this Oscar nominated film is beautifully photographed. The images are sumptuous, dazzling and rich. However, the story arc, the characters and directing were all deplorable--to put it nicely. I had high expectations going into this one, but left devastatingly disappointed by the reality the film presented.
There are many more on my "Worst" film list; but these ten really stand out head and shoulders above the rest.
So what are your most hated films? I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Review: Iron Man
Like its predecessor, Iron Man 2 is a fun, exhilarating ride of a movie. Unlike its predecessor however, I would definitely go see this a second time.
It was fun, engaging, has multiple storylines that add depth to the film, and is fast-paced. Not only does the film portray the latest crisis for Tony Stark, it also introduces the SHIELD agency, and tantalizes the audience with the future Avengers movie.
Robert Downey, Jr and Gwenyth Paltrow work great together. Their scenes are almost worth the price of admission all by themselves. Don Cheadle, in replacing Terrence Howard, was, I feel, not nearly as effective in the role as Rhodes. Jon Favreau, pretty much fabulous in anything he does, was at his best. Scarlett Johannsen was magnificent as Natalia Romanoff/Natalie Rushman. Johannsen kicking butt just makes her all the more appealing!
Jon Favreau's directing was smart, tight and intelligent. This movie is what it is because of his vision for how this should unfold in both story and look for the audience. He doesn't assume the fans need to be spoon-fed the story; and I think that his approach makes for a better film.
The camera work was sharp, uncluttered, and easy for the eye to follow.
The only real drawback to this film was Mickey Rourke. He comes across as a guy trying to act like a badguy. He just wasn't convincing enough to help me suspend my belief anytime he was onscreen.
So, not a great movie, but good, and fun. I didn't leave the theater feeling like my eight bucks was wasted.
*Also, when you see it, be sure you stay until the very end of the credits. You'll understand.*
It was fun, engaging, has multiple storylines that add depth to the film, and is fast-paced. Not only does the film portray the latest crisis for Tony Stark, it also introduces the SHIELD agency, and tantalizes the audience with the future Avengers movie.
Robert Downey, Jr and Gwenyth Paltrow work great together. Their scenes are almost worth the price of admission all by themselves. Don Cheadle, in replacing Terrence Howard, was, I feel, not nearly as effective in the role as Rhodes. Jon Favreau, pretty much fabulous in anything he does, was at his best. Scarlett Johannsen was magnificent as Natalia Romanoff/Natalie Rushman. Johannsen kicking butt just makes her all the more appealing!
Jon Favreau's directing was smart, tight and intelligent. This movie is what it is because of his vision for how this should unfold in both story and look for the audience. He doesn't assume the fans need to be spoon-fed the story; and I think that his approach makes for a better film.
The camera work was sharp, uncluttered, and easy for the eye to follow.
The only real drawback to this film was Mickey Rourke. He comes across as a guy trying to act like a badguy. He just wasn't convincing enough to help me suspend my belief anytime he was onscreen.
So, not a great movie, but good, and fun. I didn't leave the theater feeling like my eight bucks was wasted.
*Also, when you see it, be sure you stay until the very end of the credits. You'll understand.*
Thursday, May 6, 2010
An Intro To My Movie Likes & Dislikes
As my first review draws near, I thought I'd let you know a little about my movie preferences.
As with any movie-going fan, I have developed personal likes and dislikes over various genres of film. There are directors I hate to watch, and other films I will see simply because of who directed it. I will elect to see a movie if a select few stars are in it, yet avoid other films for the exact same reason.
When I see any movie I analyze everything I see and hear from the moment it starts. I guess you could say I observe the film more than watch it; from direction to music, cinematography to screenplay, etc. I can often guess the plot outcome around 1/3 of the way through the film. The experience for me then becomes the journey or path of the film itself...how it goes from point A to point B.
When I've really enjoyed a film, I will often see it a second or even third time because the analyzing is [mostly] over, and I can enjoy the film even more. For me, this enhances the enjoyment I get from a film making it far more memorable.
I will go to see pretty much any movie, aside from a few genres. The no-go list includes Horror (stupid!), Musicals (just because I've never liked them.), T & A flicks (I'd like to keep my intelligence intact, thank you), and most [but not all] Comedy (I just don't find most comedies to be funny--aside from a few chuckles). Everything else is pretty much worth a shot.
Directors I love to watch: Ron Howard; Peter Jackson; Steven Spielberg; Jon Favreau; Peter Berg; Ridley Scott; Quentin Tarentino; Kevin Costner; Antoine Fuqua; Lasse Halstrom; Clint Eastwood and Richard Donner.
Directors I just don't enjoy: Martin Scorsese, and an assortment of others who pop up once in a while. (I know, I know...I can hear all the Scorsese fans already as they yell to defend his films. Honestly though, I have not yet seen a Scorsese film that I enjoyed even a little. I just don't like his style, emphasis, etc.)
I have been watching films for over 40 years. The first movies I can remember watching were at a Drive-In outside of Seattle. The films were Snow White and The Seven Dwarves, and Bambi.
Over the years, I have an always growing list of favorites--some are good, some bad, and some are great.
A few of my favorite movies: Ordinary People; Philadelphia; Rocky; The Wild Bunch; Bullitt; Citizen Kane; Father Goose; Duel; Titanic; Gladiator; Unforgiven; Starship Troopers (my guilty pleasure!); Tears of the Sun; Open Range; New York Doll; Scared Straight; Turner and Hooch; That Thing You Do!; Dick; etc, etc, etc.
Remember, like any regular movie viewer, I will not go see a film simply because it is there. It has to capture my interest. So, you may want a review of a film I have no interest in seeing. If that is the case, I recommend the Internet Movie Data Base (imdb.com). They carry trailers, reviews, upcoming release dates, etc. It's a great site.
Lastly, I'll list a few of the films I'm interested in seeing this summer. As always, the list is a mix of genres, and I look forward to seeing them. These include: Iron Man 2; Robin Hood; Jonah Hex; The Last Air Bender; Shrek Forever After; Knight and Day; Predators; Salt; Get Low; Prince of Persia; The Expendables; and a few others.
Let's have a great summer.
As with any movie-going fan, I have developed personal likes and dislikes over various genres of film. There are directors I hate to watch, and other films I will see simply because of who directed it. I will elect to see a movie if a select few stars are in it, yet avoid other films for the exact same reason.
When I see any movie I analyze everything I see and hear from the moment it starts. I guess you could say I observe the film more than watch it; from direction to music, cinematography to screenplay, etc. I can often guess the plot outcome around 1/3 of the way through the film. The experience for me then becomes the journey or path of the film itself...how it goes from point A to point B.
When I've really enjoyed a film, I will often see it a second or even third time because the analyzing is [mostly] over, and I can enjoy the film even more. For me, this enhances the enjoyment I get from a film making it far more memorable.
I will go to see pretty much any movie, aside from a few genres. The no-go list includes Horror (stupid!), Musicals (just because I've never liked them.), T & A flicks (I'd like to keep my intelligence intact, thank you), and most [but not all] Comedy (I just don't find most comedies to be funny--aside from a few chuckles). Everything else is pretty much worth a shot.
Directors I love to watch: Ron Howard; Peter Jackson; Steven Spielberg; Jon Favreau; Peter Berg; Ridley Scott; Quentin Tarentino; Kevin Costner; Antoine Fuqua; Lasse Halstrom; Clint Eastwood and Richard Donner.
Directors I just don't enjoy: Martin Scorsese, and an assortment of others who pop up once in a while. (I know, I know...I can hear all the Scorsese fans already as they yell to defend his films. Honestly though, I have not yet seen a Scorsese film that I enjoyed even a little. I just don't like his style, emphasis, etc.)
I have been watching films for over 40 years. The first movies I can remember watching were at a Drive-In outside of Seattle. The films were Snow White and The Seven Dwarves, and Bambi.
Over the years, I have an always growing list of favorites--some are good, some bad, and some are great.
A few of my favorite movies: Ordinary People; Philadelphia; Rocky; The Wild Bunch; Bullitt; Citizen Kane; Father Goose; Duel; Titanic; Gladiator; Unforgiven; Starship Troopers (my guilty pleasure!); Tears of the Sun; Open Range; New York Doll; Scared Straight; Turner and Hooch; That Thing You Do!; Dick; etc, etc, etc.
Remember, like any regular movie viewer, I will not go see a film simply because it is there. It has to capture my interest. So, you may want a review of a film I have no interest in seeing. If that is the case, I recommend the Internet Movie Data Base (imdb.com). They carry trailers, reviews, upcoming release dates, etc. It's a great site.
Lastly, I'll list a few of the films I'm interested in seeing this summer. As always, the list is a mix of genres, and I look forward to seeing them. These include: Iron Man 2; Robin Hood; Jonah Hex; The Last Air Bender; Shrek Forever After; Knight and Day; Predators; Salt; Get Low; Prince of Persia; The Expendables; and a few others.
Let's have a great summer.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
An Introduction
Thank you for visiting my blog of movie reviews.
I started this blog because I am tired of reviewers who are more interested in showing everyone how educated and cutthroat they are by dissing everything ever made, rather than just telling us about their movie viewing experience. I hate those those guys. More often than not, they are just plain wrong.
I decided a long time ago to go see a movie if it interested me, and ignore the so-called critics. They base their reviews on some stolid, upper-crust maxim that few regular viewers even understand. These men and women feel that because they know by rote the whole history of film art, they they know better than anyone what makes a good movie.
I say rubbish!
A film doesn't have to be the greatest piece of art in order to be great or even good. The viewer is who ultimately decides the success, or failure of any film. My job here is to tell you how I enjoyed a movie, what I liked and disliked about it, and whether or not I would see it again. That's it. After that, you folks will decide if you want to see it at all.
Thank you for joining me. Now, let's go to the movies!
I started this blog because I am tired of reviewers who are more interested in showing everyone how educated and cutthroat they are by dissing everything ever made, rather than just telling us about their movie viewing experience. I hate those those guys. More often than not, they are just plain wrong.
I decided a long time ago to go see a movie if it interested me, and ignore the so-called critics. They base their reviews on some stolid, upper-crust maxim that few regular viewers even understand. These men and women feel that because they know by rote the whole history of film art, they they know better than anyone what makes a good movie.
I say rubbish!
A film doesn't have to be the greatest piece of art in order to be great or even good. The viewer is who ultimately decides the success, or failure of any film. My job here is to tell you how I enjoyed a movie, what I liked and disliked about it, and whether or not I would see it again. That's it. After that, you folks will decide if you want to see it at all.
Thank you for joining me. Now, let's go to the movies!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
