Firstly, this is NOT your children's Harry Potter. The first-part of the seventh installment of the Harry Potter franchise is definitely aimed at the reader's who grew up reading the novels. The film is dark and gritty from beginning to finish and definitely doesn't hold the same light-hearted charm as it's predecessor's. It's very hard to be critical of such an acclaimed franchise, especially one which may just be the most succesful movie franchise in the world. To view this film and understand it's content one needs to have seen 6 other movies and it is probably beneficial to have already read the seventh novel, as many already have. The movie picks up where it left off - the wizarding world is in jeopardy since Dumbledore's death and everyone knows that Voldemort's rise to power is near complete. The very opening sequence sets the very dark and sombre mood for this film. The great thing about the seventh-installment of the Harry Potter franchise is that it breaks from the formula of the first sixth. Hogwarts is the farthest thing from Harry Potter's mind as he finds himself, Ron and Hermoine hunting for a way to destroy Voldemort. The quest leads the trio to finding out about the mysterious Deathly Hallows, powerful gifts granted to three brothers by death, which used if inappropriately would lead to an early grave. The only problem is that Voldemort is looking for the very items himself and it would be thought that the first to uncover all three hallows would definitely have the upper hand in the final showdown.
The movie was well directed, produced and acted. I found myself thoroughly entertained for the most part, but I can't find myself on one extreme or the other. I didn't hate it, but I can't say that I loved it. I found a few faults that could have easily been fixed to make this film as great as its predecessor. The first flaw is the length. Part 1 nearly 2 and a half hours. The reason that the film was split into 2 was so that fanboys wouldn't have anything to complain about as all the little details of the book could be fit in... this however proves to be a tedious task, at times I felt like I was watching the super-extended version of Lord of the Rings which highlights an extra 60 minutes of walking. There was a lot of filler, and not all of it necessary to the plot... most of it leading the person next to me to a) almost fall asleep and b) the jag-offs behind me to talk through parts of the film. The second big flaw in the film is found in the character of Dobby the house-elf. While loveable in the novels Dobby comes off as an obnoxious little twat that needs to be kicked in the face. His character is so much like Jar Jar Binks from Star Wars Episode 1 that I just wanted him dead. They could have saved a lot of time by cutting out a lot of Dobby and saving me a huge head-ache.
Fanboys are going to love it or hate it... but in all honesty - I'm not a big fan of fanboys... for anything. They're just so annoying; as they proved to be once again at this film. Imagine this. I was at a screening 4 nights prior to the release with a theatre of nearly 500, jampacked. There were even people sitting on the stairs. Half of the theatre was dressed up in Harry Potter'esque costume... and just wouldn't shut up during the film, clapping and cheering and whistling and hooting and hollering at the most mundane things. At one moment Harry Potter takes off his shirt to jump into ice cold water and the guy behind me starts cheering. At another moment where Harry and Hermoine share a semi-nude kiss people started shouting at the screen. Seriously, can't fanboys shut up and just an enjoy a film?
Anyways - I'm done my rant about fanboys... the film? A solid performance by Daniel Radcliffe and cast... hopefully Part 2 takes it over the edge.
3.5 wands out of 5.
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Thursday, August 26, 2010
The Last Exorcism: Movie Review
"If you believe in God you must also believe in the Devil" is the tag line to producer Eli Roth's The Last Exorcism. Daniel Stamm helms the director chair of this Blair Witch'esque film. The plot revolves around Reverend Marcus Cotton (Patrick Fabian) who has performed dozens of exorcism-shams over his lifetime as a preacher. When Reverend Cotton hears of an exorcism gone wrong with a child is killed he starts to question his belief in God and decides to quit his life as a preacher and exorcist. On a final exit note he decides to make a documentary exposing exorcism for what it is, a sham. He picks a 'help me' letter which sends him into Idlewood, Louisiana to exorcise the demon Abalom out of a young girl, Nell Sweetzer (Ashley Bell). While Reverend Cotton believes the supernatural aspects surrounding Nell aren't really her actions he performs a mock-exorcism (which he's used to doing) and leaves only to find that nothing changes, in fact everything escalates bringing forth her actual demons.
This movie is everything wrong with horror films. It is supposed to be a supernatural thriller, with no thrills. We've seen the fake documentary horror films before with The Blair Witch Project and even to some extent Paranormal Activity. This film is so boring, nothing happens. Every time you think somethings about to happen... nothing happens. We hear thumping coming from Nell's locked room. The documentary crew storm in... no one is there... oh wait, Nell is sitting on top of her dresser. Everyone goes back to doing nothing. We hear shrieks coming from a non-existent child only to find Nell drowning a doll in a bath tub. The thrilling moments are held together by the intensity of wondering what could happen, only to become anti-climatic with absolutely nothing coming out of the intensity.
The ending is also seen a million miles away. First off, and sorry if I ruin this for you, the film is lost footage. Unless you live under a rock and have never seen or heard anything about this film you will know that as the marketing strategies all talk about this lost footage being found. So obviously it's not a favourable outcome. And not even thirty minutes into the movie the director point blankly literally points to a picture and says: this is how everyone dies. AND THEN the characters talk about it for 5 minutes which just assures us as an audience that that's how the main characters will eventually be destroyed. Also - I don't feel bad for saying any of that as horror movies are 99% tragic. They are the exception to being able to have a tragic ending. And while The Last Exorcism is so much more boring than scary the tragic ending is the only trait that keeps in style with horror films. Writers Huck Botko and Andrew Gurland have never written a successful horror film in their lives, their resume is filled with raunchy-teenage 'comedies'. And I think they should stick to ruining that genre as the horror genre has been ruined by many others countless times over.
As for the acting, well Patrick Fabian wasn't a bad actor, he held this pitiful piece of shit together... as for Ashley Bell (the other lead) I couldn't get past the fact that she looks like Michael Cera with a wig, and therefore was waiting for her to start to hit on a hotter girl that is obviously out of her league.
This movie is a waste of 80 minutes. Over hearing comments as I left the film everyone else hated the film too. I tried so hard to like this film, and it had so much potential - yet nothing of substance happened. Nothing scary happened. Nothing worth making this film watchable happened. You keep getting sucked into the intensity of the film only to be let down with all the anti-climatic plot turns. The final 10 minutes is also the most ridiculous moments I have ever seen in a movie. They reminded me of Nicolas Cage's remake of The Wicker Man. So all I can say is: don't bother with this movie.
1 out of 5 stars.
This movie is everything wrong with horror films. It is supposed to be a supernatural thriller, with no thrills. We've seen the fake documentary horror films before with The Blair Witch Project and even to some extent Paranormal Activity. This film is so boring, nothing happens. Every time you think somethings about to happen... nothing happens. We hear thumping coming from Nell's locked room. The documentary crew storm in... no one is there... oh wait, Nell is sitting on top of her dresser. Everyone goes back to doing nothing. We hear shrieks coming from a non-existent child only to find Nell drowning a doll in a bath tub. The thrilling moments are held together by the intensity of wondering what could happen, only to become anti-climatic with absolutely nothing coming out of the intensity.
The ending is also seen a million miles away. First off, and sorry if I ruin this for you, the film is lost footage. Unless you live under a rock and have never seen or heard anything about this film you will know that as the marketing strategies all talk about this lost footage being found. So obviously it's not a favourable outcome. And not even thirty minutes into the movie the director point blankly literally points to a picture and says: this is how everyone dies. AND THEN the characters talk about it for 5 minutes which just assures us as an audience that that's how the main characters will eventually be destroyed. Also - I don't feel bad for saying any of that as horror movies are 99% tragic. They are the exception to being able to have a tragic ending. And while The Last Exorcism is so much more boring than scary the tragic ending is the only trait that keeps in style with horror films. Writers Huck Botko and Andrew Gurland have never written a successful horror film in their lives, their resume is filled with raunchy-teenage 'comedies'. And I think they should stick to ruining that genre as the horror genre has been ruined by many others countless times over.
As for the acting, well Patrick Fabian wasn't a bad actor, he held this pitiful piece of shit together... as for Ashley Bell (the other lead) I couldn't get past the fact that she looks like Michael Cera with a wig, and therefore was waiting for her to start to hit on a hotter girl that is obviously out of her league.
This movie is a waste of 80 minutes. Over hearing comments as I left the film everyone else hated the film too. I tried so hard to like this film, and it had so much potential - yet nothing of substance happened. Nothing scary happened. Nothing worth making this film watchable happened. You keep getting sucked into the intensity of the film only to be let down with all the anti-climatic plot turns. The final 10 minutes is also the most ridiculous moments I have ever seen in a movie. They reminded me of Nicolas Cage's remake of The Wicker Man. So all I can say is: don't bother with this movie.
1 out of 5 stars.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
The Best & Worst Movies of 2010 (Thus far)
The summer season is drawing to a close which means that after the Toronto International Film Festival studios are gonna start pumping out their fall films. So let's recap a bit on what's happened thus far in what may be one of the worst years for feature films so far. There has only been one movie so far this year that has seemed to garnish only praise from critics and it's not Inception. It's Toy Story 3. The animated films are ruling the year by far. So far top picks of 2010 are:
Honourable Mention: Defendor - Woody Harrelson plays an autistic man who believes that he is a Superhero in this comic tragedy. Also starring Sandra Oh, Kat Dennings and Elias Koteas. 4 out of 5 stars.
5.) Harry Brown - Michael Caine kicks you in the face with some bad ass awesomeness in this epic crime thriller. Caine plays Harry Brown, an older man who wishes to avenge his friends death and take out the trash by killing off members of an English street-gang. Also starring Emily Mortimor. 4 out of 5 stars.
4.) How to Train Your Dragon - DreamWorks Animations shows that it is a threat to Pixar's golden standards of animation with Jay Baruchel heading an all-star cast of dragon training Vikings in How To Train Your Dragon. The 3D was pretty epic as well. 4.5 out of 5 stars.
3.) The Trotsky - Another Jay Baruchel movie. This time set in Montreal, Quebec with a teenage boy who thinks he is the reincarnation of Leon Trotsky. His attempts to unionize the students at his public school provide many hilarious moments in this great Canadian film. 4.5 out of 5 stars.
2.) Despicable Me - I would almost say that this is better than Toy Story 3 on the concept of originality alone but you can't mess with perfection and Pixar pulled it off. Universal's attempt at 3D animation was clever and a lot of fun with Steve Carell stealing the moon with his funny little minions. 4.5 out of 5 stars.
1.) Toy Story 3 - Pixar Animation. The golden standard of Animation. Toy Story 3 proves it once again with Woody, Buzz and the gang all back for another thrill ride that's appealing to young and old alike. 4.5 out of 5 stars.
And now the 5 worst movies of 2010 (that people paid money to see) thus far.
5.) Alice in Wonderland - Boring. Rehashed. Unnecessary. Uninspired 3D. What was with that last dance by Johnny Depp?
4.) Clash of the Titans - Can I repeat everything I said about Alice in Wonderland only take out that bit about Johnny Depp and say: what was with the performanced by Liam Neeson, Ralph Fiennes and Sam Worthington. Most anti-climatic movie of the year.
3.) Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time - This Disney cash-cow would have been much better as a cartoon... or never made. Jake Gyllenhaal and Ben Kingsley = Hollywood whores? I think so. Going from Oscar-performances to this cinematic drivel... it speaks for itself.
2.) Grown-Ups - This may be the worst Adam Sander movie made. I would rather watch Spanglish and Punch Drunk Love again over this. Adam Sandler needs to learn to grow up. Seriously. Has his time passed? I think so. I can only handle so many fart and dick jokes and Sandler's grew old 10 years ago.
1.) Vampires Suck - If you actually doubt me on this one then I have lost faith in all things cinematic.
Honourable Mention: Defendor - Woody Harrelson plays an autistic man who believes that he is a Superhero in this comic tragedy. Also starring Sandra Oh, Kat Dennings and Elias Koteas. 4 out of 5 stars.
And now the 5 worst movies of 2010 (that people paid money to see) thus far.
5.) Alice in Wonderland - Boring. Rehashed. Unnecessary. Uninspired 3D. What was with that last dance by Johnny Depp?
4.) Clash of the Titans - Can I repeat everything I said about Alice in Wonderland only take out that bit about Johnny Depp and say: what was with the performanced by Liam Neeson, Ralph Fiennes and Sam Worthington. Most anti-climatic movie of the year.
3.) Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time - This Disney cash-cow would have been much better as a cartoon... or never made. Jake Gyllenhaal and Ben Kingsley = Hollywood whores? I think so. Going from Oscar-performances to this cinematic drivel... it speaks for itself.
2.) Grown-Ups - This may be the worst Adam Sander movie made. I would rather watch Spanglish and Punch Drunk Love again over this. Adam Sandler needs to learn to grow up. Seriously. Has his time passed? I think so. I can only handle so many fart and dick jokes and Sandler's grew old 10 years ago.
1.) Vampires Suck - If you actually doubt me on this one then I have lost faith in all things cinematic.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Vampires Suck: Movie Review
The most surprising thing about this film is that I actually made it all the way through the movie without walking out. Vampires Suck reunites Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer as co-writers and directors. The only genre they know is that of the parody-genre who have been working together since Spy Hard, through The Scary Movie series, and every other parody-based genre which includes: Date Movie, Epic Movie, Disaster Movie, and Meet the Spartans. So it`s not a really great track record and it`s one that`s gotten worse with age. God forbid how bad Scary Movie 5 will be. Before I delve too much into this review I just have to say: Ken Jeong has officially become Hollywood's favourite whore; from background work for MadTV, to baring his l'il Jeong in The Hangover, and to the villain in the Brendan Fraser miss Furry Vengeance Ken Jeong is popping up all over the place and he seems to be only hitting his stride as a comedic actor 20% of the time.
Have you seen Twilight? I haven't, BUT with all the Twilight phenomenon I figure it's a simple plot and the exact same plot as Vampires Suck. New girl at school meets outcast boy whose really a vampire. They fall into forbidden love, but because the love is forbidden obstacles keep them apart, enter werewolf who wants girl to fall in love with him. The conflict of the soul. Ultimately vampire is chosen. The end. Sorry if I ruined your movie. Now, I get it - the film is a parody and what this film attempts to do is be more of an Airplane! parody than a Scary Movie parody. Friedberg and Seltzer take one film and try to parody it scene for scene as Airplane! did with Zero Hour! rather than parody a slew of movies. Sure there is one mention of True Blood and by mention I mean a vampire that looks like Bill walks by carrying a bottle of True Blood.
Vampire fiction is huge and it has been since the late 19th century with Stoker`s Dracula, especially in cinema with Nosferatu, Dracula (all bazillion movies made), Blade, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, True Blood amongst hundreds of other films and television shows, all taking a different take on what a vampire really is. When you have a film title such as Vampires Suck you would think that this movie would be an all-encompassing parody of all things vampires... but no... it`s an all-encompassing film that plays more like a tribute to Twilight than a parody film.
This movie was painful to watch. It was so boring. It was pure drivel. The acting was horrendous. Ken Jeong has hit a low-point in his career. The main character, Becca (Jenn Proske), is a complete unknown... and there`s a reason for that. I have seen better acting in grade school musicals. Other than Jeong other actors include comedienne Crista Flanagan, who somehow also gets roped into doing all of these parody films with Friedberg and Seltzer... she hasn't been funny since her first two seasons with MadTV. Other actors include 90210`s Matt Lanter, Gossip Girl`s Chris Riggi, and Disney-owned Anneliese van der Pol. B (and C)-list actors in a D-list film.
Do I think Vampires Suck is going to do well in theatres? Unfortunately yes. Vampire-fiction is the hottest form of fiction now-a-days... more of this fiction is the last thing we need, especially since 75% of it is just garbage. (Yes, Twilight I'm looking at you.) This movie is going to be hated, by critics and by everyone who goes and sees it... but unfortunately these parody-films are a cash-cow (just like the Twilight franchise).
Skip this movie. Seriously. I hated it. Every part of it. I should have saved that 80 minutes of my life and not bothered with this piece of shit.
ZERO out of FIVE stars.
BIG FAT 0!!!!!
Have you seen Twilight? I haven't, BUT with all the Twilight phenomenon I figure it's a simple plot and the exact same plot as Vampires Suck. New girl at school meets outcast boy whose really a vampire. They fall into forbidden love, but because the love is forbidden obstacles keep them apart, enter werewolf who wants girl to fall in love with him. The conflict of the soul. Ultimately vampire is chosen. The end. Sorry if I ruined your movie. Now, I get it - the film is a parody and what this film attempts to do is be more of an Airplane! parody than a Scary Movie parody. Friedberg and Seltzer take one film and try to parody it scene for scene as Airplane! did with Zero Hour! rather than parody a slew of movies. Sure there is one mention of True Blood and by mention I mean a vampire that looks like Bill walks by carrying a bottle of True Blood.
Vampire fiction is huge and it has been since the late 19th century with Stoker`s Dracula, especially in cinema with Nosferatu, Dracula (all bazillion movies made), Blade, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, True Blood amongst hundreds of other films and television shows, all taking a different take on what a vampire really is. When you have a film title such as Vampires Suck you would think that this movie would be an all-encompassing parody of all things vampires... but no... it`s an all-encompassing film that plays more like a tribute to Twilight than a parody film.
This movie was painful to watch. It was so boring. It was pure drivel. The acting was horrendous. Ken Jeong has hit a low-point in his career. The main character, Becca (Jenn Proske), is a complete unknown... and there`s a reason for that. I have seen better acting in grade school musicals. Other than Jeong other actors include comedienne Crista Flanagan, who somehow also gets roped into doing all of these parody films with Friedberg and Seltzer... she hasn't been funny since her first two seasons with MadTV. Other actors include 90210`s Matt Lanter, Gossip Girl`s Chris Riggi, and Disney-owned Anneliese van der Pol. B (and C)-list actors in a D-list film.
Do I think Vampires Suck is going to do well in theatres? Unfortunately yes. Vampire-fiction is the hottest form of fiction now-a-days... more of this fiction is the last thing we need, especially since 75% of it is just garbage. (Yes, Twilight I'm looking at you.) This movie is going to be hated, by critics and by everyone who goes and sees it... but unfortunately these parody-films are a cash-cow (just like the Twilight franchise).
Skip this movie. Seriously. I hated it. Every part of it. I should have saved that 80 minutes of my life and not bothered with this piece of shit.
ZERO out of FIVE stars.
BIG FAT 0!!!!!
Thursday, August 12, 2010
The Expendables: Movie Review
The Expendables kicks you in the face with pure adrenaline and awesomeness right from the very first minute. Barney Ross (Sylvester Stallone) leads a rag-tag gang of mercenaries who don't ask questions when it comes to taking a job. Their jobs fall on the side of being hired by governmental agencies or corporations to do what needs to be done when they can't do it themselves. After a job where one of their group, Gunner Jenson (Dolph Lundgren), goes rogue the group of mercenaries decide to take a job offered by the CIA (enter Bruce Willis & Arnold Schwarzenegger) which takes them to the small island of Vilena in South America. Their mission is to kill dictator General Garza (David Zayas); a battle unevenly matched as Barney's five man team must face a small army to get close to completing the task.
Stallone knows action and he delivers. Bringing together some of the world's best action stars to front this film Stallone just nailed it. Jet Li, Jason Statham, Terry Crews, Randy Couture, Dolph Lundgren, Steve Austin, and of course Sylvester Stallone rock the audience with an hour and a half of pure action. Oh yeah, Mickey Rourke is in it too - but his character does jackshit. As for a film in general: sure, there are plot holes... the script has moments of weakness... the love interest is boring... but who cares, we get to see a guy shoot a shotgun machine gun that launches 250 rounds per minute tearing holes through people. We get to see heads being blown off and body limbs torn off. There is an action scene where Jet Li karate kicks a guy in the neck breaking it so badly that it hangs loosely BACKWARDS. Sure, the violence is so extreme that it borders on hilarious - but it's so bad that it's amazing.
This is the movie that twenty years from now my children will be watching and loving the way I can sit down and watch Rambo or Rocky and love it. Stallone isn't new to the writing and directing chair either with a resume of great films behind him. All I can say is that Sylvester Stallone is the Clint Eastwood of extremely violent action films and I hope he never changes.
If you like violent action films than this is the films for you. Fuck Inception! This is the movie of the summer!
I may just have to go and see it again!
4.5 out of 5 stars!
Stallone knows action and he delivers. Bringing together some of the world's best action stars to front this film Stallone just nailed it. Jet Li, Jason Statham, Terry Crews, Randy Couture, Dolph Lundgren, Steve Austin, and of course Sylvester Stallone rock the audience with an hour and a half of pure action. Oh yeah, Mickey Rourke is in it too - but his character does jackshit. As for a film in general: sure, there are plot holes... the script has moments of weakness... the love interest is boring... but who cares, we get to see a guy shoot a shotgun machine gun that launches 250 rounds per minute tearing holes through people. We get to see heads being blown off and body limbs torn off. There is an action scene where Jet Li karate kicks a guy in the neck breaking it so badly that it hangs loosely BACKWARDS. Sure, the violence is so extreme that it borders on hilarious - but it's so bad that it's amazing.
This is the movie that twenty years from now my children will be watching and loving the way I can sit down and watch Rambo or Rocky and love it. Stallone isn't new to the writing and directing chair either with a resume of great films behind him. All I can say is that Sylvester Stallone is the Clint Eastwood of extremely violent action films and I hope he never changes.
If you like violent action films than this is the films for you. Fuck Inception! This is the movie of the summer!
I may just have to go and see it again!
4.5 out of 5 stars!
Scott Pilgrim vs The World: Movie Review
Scott Pilgrim (Michael Cera) is an ass. A complete and total ass. Having been dumped by the 'girl of his dreams' approximately a year before he hops from girl to girl rebounding and ultimately breaking their heart in the process. Oh yeah, he plays in a band. They suck, or at least that's what they keep telling us, so the fact that they win little competitions throughout the movie is kinda surprising. I digress... he meets Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) an only attractive in a kinda cute way unique individual that he immediately falls in love with. Her disinterest in him only makes him pursue her even more until she randomly changes her mind, likes him, and invites him over for sex and tea... but in a Michael Cera'esque fashion the sex never happens. Immediately Scott Pilgrim is plagued by Ramona's 7 evil-exes who have formed together as a legion to destroy anyone who dates Ramona. The entire premise, as illogical as it is, is either augmented (or diminished, pending how you look at it) by video game like animations.
The film runs close to 2 hours but the novelty wears off within the first 20 minutes. By evil-ex 3 I felt like I had checked out and all I wanted to do was go home and watch something more entertaining like C-PAC or just count the bumps on my ceiling... there has to be tens of thousands up there. But no, I stayed... until the end... still trying to figure out the pointlessness of the final 20 minutes. While director Edgar Wright has had some major hits in his past (Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz) I would daresay that Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is being catered to a certain niche and people are either going to love it or hate it.
Now to contradict what I just said I can't say that I hated it... there were moments that I smiled... the first twenty minutes were kind of cool... unfortunately like I already said the novelty wore off and jokes about peeing on people and Scott Pilgrim having to share a mattress on a floor with his gay roommate and his boyfriends got old very quickly. It was also nice to see a movie filmed AND set in Canada, because while everyone comes here to shoot their films no one really sets anything here. So it was nice to see a movie set in Toronto... however now that I say that I didn't hate it... I far from loved it. Like on a scale between love and hate I am closer to the hate level of the scale. What didn't I like besides what I've already talked about?
The performances were sub par. Anna Kendrick went from almost being a gorgeous Oscar-winner to being 3-hairs away from a uni-brow and a whiny bitchy sister character that is almost completely unnecessary. Don't even get me started on the performances by the ex's. And of course Michael Cera plays, once again, a boy who tries so hard to get with a girl that is so far out of his league... and managing to do so. The movie in itself was also way too long for a movie of this genre. Don't get me wrong I don't dislike this film for the absurdity of it, because sometimes the absurdity makes things generally enjoyable... this time it just got boring and fast. Maybe it was the acting, maybe it was the rehashed fight scenes every few minutes, maybe it was the overuse of video game animation... whatever it was - I got bored, quickly... and once I'm bored I stop enjoying the film.
Is this movie worth paying to see? No. Is it worth seeing? Maybe only if you have absolutely nothing better to do with your time. And yet, despite the fact that I disliked the film I believe that a lot of people will like it... a lot of people who don't go to movies so often will find it different and those that do go to a lot of movies will find it refreshing because of the absurdity. I however also believe that a lot of people will get bored, really easily with this film and that it really won't be as big of a hit as everyones guessing it will be. Everyone who has really had a desire to see this film has already seen it in pre-release with Universal Studios doing premieres throughout the country over the past month and a half, giving die-hards many chances to get into see it.
1.5 out of 5 Stars
Oh... Sorry... Those are the bumps on my ceiling... time to get counting...
The film runs close to 2 hours but the novelty wears off within the first 20 minutes. By evil-ex 3 I felt like I had checked out and all I wanted to do was go home and watch something more entertaining like C-PAC or just count the bumps on my ceiling... there has to be tens of thousands up there. But no, I stayed... until the end... still trying to figure out the pointlessness of the final 20 minutes. While director Edgar Wright has had some major hits in his past (Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz) I would daresay that Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is being catered to a certain niche and people are either going to love it or hate it.
Now to contradict what I just said I can't say that I hated it... there were moments that I smiled... the first twenty minutes were kind of cool... unfortunately like I already said the novelty wore off and jokes about peeing on people and Scott Pilgrim having to share a mattress on a floor with his gay roommate and his boyfriends got old very quickly. It was also nice to see a movie filmed AND set in Canada, because while everyone comes here to shoot their films no one really sets anything here. So it was nice to see a movie set in Toronto... however now that I say that I didn't hate it... I far from loved it. Like on a scale between love and hate I am closer to the hate level of the scale. What didn't I like besides what I've already talked about?
The performances were sub par. Anna Kendrick went from almost being a gorgeous Oscar-winner to being 3-hairs away from a uni-brow and a whiny bitchy sister character that is almost completely unnecessary. Don't even get me started on the performances by the ex's. And of course Michael Cera plays, once again, a boy who tries so hard to get with a girl that is so far out of his league... and managing to do so. The movie in itself was also way too long for a movie of this genre. Don't get me wrong I don't dislike this film for the absurdity of it, because sometimes the absurdity makes things generally enjoyable... this time it just got boring and fast. Maybe it was the acting, maybe it was the rehashed fight scenes every few minutes, maybe it was the overuse of video game animation... whatever it was - I got bored, quickly... and once I'm bored I stop enjoying the film.
Is this movie worth paying to see? No. Is it worth seeing? Maybe only if you have absolutely nothing better to do with your time. And yet, despite the fact that I disliked the film I believe that a lot of people will like it... a lot of people who don't go to movies so often will find it different and those that do go to a lot of movies will find it refreshing because of the absurdity. I however also believe that a lot of people will get bored, really easily with this film and that it really won't be as big of a hit as everyones guessing it will be. Everyone who has really had a desire to see this film has already seen it in pre-release with Universal Studios doing premieres throughout the country over the past month and a half, giving die-hards many chances to get into see it.
1.5 out of 5 Stars
Oh... Sorry... Those are the bumps on my ceiling... time to get counting...
Friday, August 6, 2010
The Other Guys: Movie Review
Will Ferrell has a handful of funny movies. Anchorman, Old School, and his years on Saturday Night Live.Other than that Will Ferrell stays just funny enough to maintain a prolific career as a funnyman. The jokes are, a lot of the time, the same as is the cast and characters he portrays. The Other Guys is no different. Will Ferrell plays Detective Allen Gamble, a loser-of-sorts forensic detective who has a split personally as Gator the pimp. He is teamed up with adrenaline pumping Detective Terry Hoitz (Mark Wahlberg) who just wants to kick-ass. When the cities most famous (and dumbest) detective duo Highsmith (Sam Jackson) & Danson (Dwayne Johnson) kill themselves jumping 20 stories after some diamond thieves the rest of the NYPD try to become the new duo. Meanwhile in his own little world Gamble starts to find irregularities in businessman David Ershon's (Steve Coogan) dealings. This leads to a cover up of massive proportions that only Gamble and Hoitz can uncover.
Adam McKay writer and director of The Other Guys provides the audience with another lacklustre 'comedy' that can be placed in the ranks of Talladega Nights, Step Brothers, and most of the crap he throws at us on Funny or Die Presents. In my honest opinion McKay and Ferrell realized they had a hit with Anchorman and then figured they could do no wrong. Unfortunately The Other Guys proves that they can do so much wrong. The opening segments with Samuel Jackson and Dwayne Johnson are nowhere near as funny as they are meant to be; in fact I found them to be painfully embarrassing. The main gag for them is that they cause 200 million dollars worth of damage to arrest a group of guys who are carrying a bag of pot. This segment is proceeded with the 'witty line' "Woah. Did someone call 9-1-Holy shit?" The movie continues with segments of moronic humour sandwiched between nonsensical, but serious, plot developments.
In all honesty, I'm tired of Will Ferrell. He's nowhere near as funny as people give him credit for. While sure there are some funny moments there are more unfunny moments than funny. One of the few funny moments is when Ferrell's character is given a wooden gun to replace his sidearm, and when his car is hijacked the hijackers take his wooden gun. However this gag is repeated over and over and over again, as are most gags. Ferrell's characters car gets jacked and homeless men have an orgy in it, which made me chuckle at the absurdity of it, however when the gag is repeated 3 times I started to groan. Another moment is when Ferrell is taking his partner Wahlberg home to meet his wife and he makes his wife sound like an ugly old hag and out steps the beautiful Eva Mendes. However, Ferrell's abuse of her goes from funny to embarrassing as his antics border on domestic abuse. This movie in an entirety proves its comedic value (as not having much) with its anti climatic arrest line at the end of the movie: "I hope you like prison food... and penis."
Sometimes I forget that Adam McKay and Will Ferrell are grown men as their comedy routine fits more with that of a high school student. The plot of The Other Guys is more boring than anything. The movie has many laugh moments, but none of them really worth a damn. Markie Mark spends the entire movie running around yelling and proves to be less than entertaining alongside the under-performing cast. On a last note - Rob Riggle. I hate him. The guy is not funny. No matter what you say. I can run around like an idiot yelling random shit like: IN THE FACE! too - it doesn't make me funny - it makes me annoying. He should have stayed in the Marines and out of movies.
This movie, while a million light years better than Grown Ups is still far from a good comedy. I would suggest you skip it... but if you feel the need for a mindless comedy filled with fart and dick jokes save your money and check it out on a cheap Tuesday or rent it on DVD when it comes out.
1.5 out of 5 stars
Adam McKay writer and director of The Other Guys provides the audience with another lacklustre 'comedy' that can be placed in the ranks of Talladega Nights, Step Brothers, and most of the crap he throws at us on Funny or Die Presents. In my honest opinion McKay and Ferrell realized they had a hit with Anchorman and then figured they could do no wrong. Unfortunately The Other Guys proves that they can do so much wrong. The opening segments with Samuel Jackson and Dwayne Johnson are nowhere near as funny as they are meant to be; in fact I found them to be painfully embarrassing. The main gag for them is that they cause 200 million dollars worth of damage to arrest a group of guys who are carrying a bag of pot. This segment is proceeded with the 'witty line' "Woah. Did someone call 9-1-Holy shit?" The movie continues with segments of moronic humour sandwiched between nonsensical, but serious, plot developments.
In all honesty, I'm tired of Will Ferrell. He's nowhere near as funny as people give him credit for. While sure there are some funny moments there are more unfunny moments than funny. One of the few funny moments is when Ferrell's character is given a wooden gun to replace his sidearm, and when his car is hijacked the hijackers take his wooden gun. However this gag is repeated over and over and over again, as are most gags. Ferrell's characters car gets jacked and homeless men have an orgy in it, which made me chuckle at the absurdity of it, however when the gag is repeated 3 times I started to groan. Another moment is when Ferrell is taking his partner Wahlberg home to meet his wife and he makes his wife sound like an ugly old hag and out steps the beautiful Eva Mendes. However, Ferrell's abuse of her goes from funny to embarrassing as his antics border on domestic abuse. This movie in an entirety proves its comedic value (as not having much) with its anti climatic arrest line at the end of the movie: "I hope you like prison food... and penis."
Sometimes I forget that Adam McKay and Will Ferrell are grown men as their comedy routine fits more with that of a high school student. The plot of The Other Guys is more boring than anything. The movie has many laugh moments, but none of them really worth a damn. Markie Mark spends the entire movie running around yelling and proves to be less than entertaining alongside the under-performing cast. On a last note - Rob Riggle. I hate him. The guy is not funny. No matter what you say. I can run around like an idiot yelling random shit like: IN THE FACE! too - it doesn't make me funny - it makes me annoying. He should have stayed in the Marines and out of movies.
This movie, while a million light years better than Grown Ups is still far from a good comedy. I would suggest you skip it... but if you feel the need for a mindless comedy filled with fart and dick jokes save your money and check it out on a cheap Tuesday or rent it on DVD when it comes out.
1.5 out of 5 stars
Friday, July 30, 2010
Waiting for Superman: Update
Paramount Pictures is currently working on the documentary film WAITING FOR “SUPERMAN” that will open in theatres this Fall and is from the same team that brought us AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH.
It examines the crisis of public education in the United States through multiple interlocking stories and is designed to start a national conversation on both sides of the border.
The great news is, that if we get enough pledges in our Canadian cities, First Book Canada has agreed to donate 25,000 new books to schools and programs in low-income communities across CANADA!
Please go on this site and pledge now. And pass along to your friends and families too.
Each city only needs 50 pledges to show up on the leaderboard, so let's get this thing going!
Dinner for Schmucks: Movie Review
Steve Carell plays Barry, a lonely and quirky man who enjoys re-creating the greatest scenes throughout history with dead, stuffed mice, in Jay Roach's newest comedy Dinner for Schmucks. This remake of 1998 French film Le Diner de Cons pits straight-laced and uptight Tim (Paul Rudd) against himself. While attempting to receive a very important promotion at his business Tim finds himself invited to a dinner, with a twist. Each invitee brings along their own 'special' guest, or for lack of a better term, an idiot for the rest of the dinner guests to make fun of. The employee who brings the biggest idiot wins and Tim is under the impression that if he can bring the best idiot he will receive his promotion. Enter Barry, a man who Tim accidentally hits with his car; however immediately Barry stands out with his quirkiness as he was trying to save a dead mouse from being run over and also feared that Tim would try to sue Barry for hitting him. An unlikely friendship is formed as both Tim and Barry learn about themselves and about each other in this feel-good buddy comedy.
Jay Roach is the director behind the Austin Powers trilogy as well as Meet the Parents and Meet the Fockers. I definitely have to say that this film follows in the tradition of Jay Roach and juvenile humour; but it doesn't necessarily come off as bad. The film is very absurd, so unrealistically over the top, yet at the same time I didn't seem to mind as I found myself laughing hysterically moment to moment. Yes, the humour is juvenile but it still has a very witty feel to it. One of my favourite lines in the movie is the epitome of this. Barry is talking to a group of people: "My wife left me because I lost her clitoris. I couldn't find it. I looked everywhere, but I just couldn't find it. Once I thought I found it under the couch, but it was only a chewed up piece of gum." Jermaine Clement of Flight of the Conchords fame also has a quirky cameo as Kieran the absurd artist who tells a story about how when he feels that his art has become 'bullshit' he rubs actual bull excrement all over the painting to make it truly art. Each character has their own quirks and absurdities that, if indeed they were all put together in a room together chaos would ensue, all characters except for Tim (Paul Rudd.) Unfortunately Paul Rudd is the weak link in this film as he manages to only get cast as the straight-laced uptight character, but after seeing Anchorman we all know that he can play over the top zany and be funny as well.
I'm surprised at how well the script was written by David Guion and Michael Handelman's whose only other credits to date is the Zach Braff and Jason Bateman bummer The Ex. They really bring their A-game in this film, and although the gag starts to get old after awhile, especially as it's a fairly long film for a comedy (almost two hours) the two writers continue to throw out good one-lined zingers which bring the audience back to knee slapping and clapping moments. A personal example is the day of the dinner, where Tim and Barry are going to Kieran's ranch to find Tim's girlfriend Julie (Stephanie Szostak). The action and the laughs are starting to fade when suddenly Barry bursts out in an hilarious rant about how one can catch gonorrhea from riding the bus. Instantly any boredom that I was starting to feel was evaporated by the hilarity of the moment. Another great example is at a fairly boring lunch meeting with a Swiss businessman Barry shows up and starts talking about Switzerland and than goes off saying: 'I even know some of your language' before continuing off mumbling like the Swedish Chef from The Muppets.
This movie is honestly laugh-out-loud funny and despite mixed reviews on crowds leaving the theatre I will say that I personally liked it. It kept me laughing and entertained and Steve Carell is just purely hilarious. It's unfortunate that he'll be leaving The Office at the end of this season but I really hope he continues to make films like this.
3.5 out of 5 stars.
Jay Roach is the director behind the Austin Powers trilogy as well as Meet the Parents and Meet the Fockers. I definitely have to say that this film follows in the tradition of Jay Roach and juvenile humour; but it doesn't necessarily come off as bad. The film is very absurd, so unrealistically over the top, yet at the same time I didn't seem to mind as I found myself laughing hysterically moment to moment. Yes, the humour is juvenile but it still has a very witty feel to it. One of my favourite lines in the movie is the epitome of this. Barry is talking to a group of people: "My wife left me because I lost her clitoris. I couldn't find it. I looked everywhere, but I just couldn't find it. Once I thought I found it under the couch, but it was only a chewed up piece of gum." Jermaine Clement of Flight of the Conchords fame also has a quirky cameo as Kieran the absurd artist who tells a story about how when he feels that his art has become 'bullshit' he rubs actual bull excrement all over the painting to make it truly art. Each character has their own quirks and absurdities that, if indeed they were all put together in a room together chaos would ensue, all characters except for Tim (Paul Rudd.) Unfortunately Paul Rudd is the weak link in this film as he manages to only get cast as the straight-laced uptight character, but after seeing Anchorman we all know that he can play over the top zany and be funny as well.
I'm surprised at how well the script was written by David Guion and Michael Handelman's whose only other credits to date is the Zach Braff and Jason Bateman bummer The Ex. They really bring their A-game in this film, and although the gag starts to get old after awhile, especially as it's a fairly long film for a comedy (almost two hours) the two writers continue to throw out good one-lined zingers which bring the audience back to knee slapping and clapping moments. A personal example is the day of the dinner, where Tim and Barry are going to Kieran's ranch to find Tim's girlfriend Julie (Stephanie Szostak). The action and the laughs are starting to fade when suddenly Barry bursts out in an hilarious rant about how one can catch gonorrhea from riding the bus. Instantly any boredom that I was starting to feel was evaporated by the hilarity of the moment. Another great example is at a fairly boring lunch meeting with a Swiss businessman Barry shows up and starts talking about Switzerland and than goes off saying: 'I even know some of your language' before continuing off mumbling like the Swedish Chef from The Muppets.
This movie is honestly laugh-out-loud funny and despite mixed reviews on crowds leaving the theatre I will say that I personally liked it. It kept me laughing and entertained and Steve Carell is just purely hilarious. It's unfortunate that he'll be leaving The Office at the end of this season but I really hope he continues to make films like this.
3.5 out of 5 stars.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Salt: Movie Review
Evelyn Salt is a very mysterious lady. As a field agent in the C.I.A. Evelyn finds herself constantly fighting for her life abroad; however after a botched mission in North Korea Evelyn finds herself back in Washington D.C. leading a domesticated life, married, and pushing paper. On her wedding anniversary a Russian defector shows up at the C.I.A. headquarters with a great story of sleeper assassin cells being planted into the American government. The name he's naming? Evelyn Salt. Finding her loyalties questioned Evelyn goes on the run either a) trying to prove her innocence or b) complete the mission set out for her from the Russian government.
Angelina Jolie plays the title-character Evelyn Salt, and plays it better than anyone else I can think of. The film was originally written for Tom Cruise, but he backed out, and I must admit I'm glad he did because I really don't think that that this movie would have been nearly as good as it was with anyone else. Don't get me wrong, this movie wasn't amazing - but it really wasn't that bad. I went into this film wanting to hate it so much, however, found myself actually enjoying it. The cast were fun to watch and I was thoroughly impressed with director, Phillip Noyce's, portrayal of the film. I wasn't sure how the film would look because Noyce is a hit and miss director; although his niche definitely rests in the spy genre as he is the mind behind many Tom Clancy film adaptations. I believe that Noyce's performance as a director was only accented by veteran-writer Kurt Wimmer, who also penned other crime films like Law Abiding Citizen, Street Kings, and the film adaptation of The Thomas Crown Affair.
The plot is filled with gaping holes, but that's what makes it fun. For the first 30 minutes the main question: if Evelyn Salt is truly innocent - why the hell is she running instead of just staying and facing the music? The answer to that question comes about within the first 30 - 40 minutes of the film, and then the movie becomes fairly predictable. But predictable isn't actually bad in this movie. You see what's coming 100 miles away, yet it still captivates because of the absurdity of it all. There is a scene where Salt jumps from transport truck to transport truck on a highway, or climbs around an apartment building ledge no thicker than my thumb many stories off the ground. The action, the stunts, half of the movie is so absurdly unrealistic that you can just sit back and enjoy it. This movie is actually pure mind-numbing fun; much like in my honest opinion The A-Team. This movie isn't trying to be something it isn't. It's not trying to be too sophisticated or pretentious and it doesn't play itself out as that. One can easily go into this film, turn off their mind and watch a great cat and mouse chase film.
I know that there were mixed reactions at the screening about the film and I know I can be fairly harsh on movies in general, but in all honesty no matter how hard I wanted to hate this film I found myself enjoying myself at every turn.
I definitely recommend this film. Just go on in, turn off your mind, just don't expect to have your mind blown or anything - just ready to enjoy a thrill ride of a movie.
4 out of 5
Angelina Jolie plays the title-character Evelyn Salt, and plays it better than anyone else I can think of. The film was originally written for Tom Cruise, but he backed out, and I must admit I'm glad he did because I really don't think that that this movie would have been nearly as good as it was with anyone else. Don't get me wrong, this movie wasn't amazing - but it really wasn't that bad. I went into this film wanting to hate it so much, however, found myself actually enjoying it. The cast were fun to watch and I was thoroughly impressed with director, Phillip Noyce's, portrayal of the film. I wasn't sure how the film would look because Noyce is a hit and miss director; although his niche definitely rests in the spy genre as he is the mind behind many Tom Clancy film adaptations. I believe that Noyce's performance as a director was only accented by veteran-writer Kurt Wimmer, who also penned other crime films like Law Abiding Citizen, Street Kings, and the film adaptation of The Thomas Crown Affair.
The plot is filled with gaping holes, but that's what makes it fun. For the first 30 minutes the main question: if Evelyn Salt is truly innocent - why the hell is she running instead of just staying and facing the music? The answer to that question comes about within the first 30 - 40 minutes of the film, and then the movie becomes fairly predictable. But predictable isn't actually bad in this movie. You see what's coming 100 miles away, yet it still captivates because of the absurdity of it all. There is a scene where Salt jumps from transport truck to transport truck on a highway, or climbs around an apartment building ledge no thicker than my thumb many stories off the ground. The action, the stunts, half of the movie is so absurdly unrealistic that you can just sit back and enjoy it. This movie is actually pure mind-numbing fun; much like in my honest opinion The A-Team. This movie isn't trying to be something it isn't. It's not trying to be too sophisticated or pretentious and it doesn't play itself out as that. One can easily go into this film, turn off their mind and watch a great cat and mouse chase film.
I know that there were mixed reactions at the screening about the film and I know I can be fairly harsh on movies in general, but in all honesty no matter how hard I wanted to hate this film I found myself enjoying myself at every turn.
I definitely recommend this film. Just go on in, turn off your mind, just don't expect to have your mind blown or anything - just ready to enjoy a thrill ride of a movie.
4 out of 5
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Inception: Movie Review
Inception. The idea is to plant an idea in someone’s subconscious and allow it grow and fester until the person believes this idea to be the monumental truth, whatever the situation. To do this Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) and a team of the world’s greatest ‘extractors’ team up and invade Robert Fischer’s (Cillian Murphy) dreams and plant an idea that would destroy his father’s legacy. They dally around in his dreams, creating layer after layer, transcending each layer to plant a single idea in Fischer’s mind and then attempt to escape his dreams unscathed. Got it? No? A little confusing? Very confusing? Indeed. This film is 2 and half hours and continues to get more and more complicated with each passing minute. The story itself is an interesting premise but the way it’s played out is full of holes and continuity errors. I don’t want to give away any spoilers but I’ll give a few examples of little holes; there is a scene where Cobb needs to drug Fischer to put him to sleep and so he palms a sedative and drops it into a glass of water in front of Fischer. In my mind, that’s a very risky move. Although the person who poured the water (off scene) was in on the drugging plot it would have been much easier and less risky for the entire plot of the movie for that person to have drugged the water. Another example is there is a guy who is driving a pick-up van and being chased by a slew of men with guns who shoot at the van repeatedly over a 40 minute period (things happen in between). His front side driver’s window explodes in fragments like 8 times! These are little plot holes/continuity errors, but the film is made up of these! Another huge issue that needs to be brought up is that there is no bad guy; or at least not clearly portrayed as a bad guy, the person displayed as the 'bad guy' is truly more of a victim than anything in this film. You can't have a film of such 'grandeur' without a bad guy. It made the weak ending even weaker.
The movie is so long, and a lot of the film is rehashed over again through extraneous dialogue; its imagery is pretentious and the movie is horribly predictable. By 30 minutes in I was ready for it to be over. By the time it finally ended, 2 hours later my head was just pounding. I know I seem to be hitting this movie a little harshly, but I didn’t hate it, per se. I didn’t like it… but it was far from fantastic. Christopher Nolan is a fantastic director and he brought this story to life in a way I don’t believe any other director could, the problem, in my opinion rests in the script. For example for such a complex film the ending was too simple. And by ending I truly mean the finale; the final 15 – 20 minutes. I’ve already gone through other holes in the story and there are a lot more, I’d just rather not give away the story for those who plan on going to see it. The entirety of the film felt too much like a Matrix wanna-be minus the cool kung fu.
The acting was half decent though. Leonardo DiCaprio is a very strong actor and I enjoy seeing him in films. I can’t remember the last film I’ve seen him in that was under 2 hours though. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is another very interesting actor whose career has been very up and down, but more recently he has found his own niche and is blossoming into a fantastic actor. Ellen Page, albeit given the most boring character of the bunch, played her with enthusiasm and managed to make what could have been a very dreadful lead character slightly interesting. I was hoping for more from Michael Caine; however his role just turned into a two scene cameo. But altogether, the acting was decent, the directing was superb… the problem with this movie rests in the underwhelming story.
If you truly want to check out this film, try it on a cheap Tuesday.
2 out of 5
The movie is so long, and a lot of the film is rehashed over again through extraneous dialogue; its imagery is pretentious and the movie is horribly predictable. By 30 minutes in I was ready for it to be over. By the time it finally ended, 2 hours later my head was just pounding. I know I seem to be hitting this movie a little harshly, but I didn’t hate it, per se. I didn’t like it… but it was far from fantastic. Christopher Nolan is a fantastic director and he brought this story to life in a way I don’t believe any other director could, the problem, in my opinion rests in the script. For example for such a complex film the ending was too simple. And by ending I truly mean the finale; the final 15 – 20 minutes. I’ve already gone through other holes in the story and there are a lot more, I’d just rather not give away the story for those who plan on going to see it. The entirety of the film felt too much like a Matrix wanna-be minus the cool kung fu.
The acting was half decent though. Leonardo DiCaprio is a very strong actor and I enjoy seeing him in films. I can’t remember the last film I’ve seen him in that was under 2 hours though. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is another very interesting actor whose career has been very up and down, but more recently he has found his own niche and is blossoming into a fantastic actor. Ellen Page, albeit given the most boring character of the bunch, played her with enthusiasm and managed to make what could have been a very dreadful lead character slightly interesting. I was hoping for more from Michael Caine; however his role just turned into a two scene cameo. But altogether, the acting was decent, the directing was superb… the problem with this movie rests in the underwhelming story.
If you truly want to check out this film, try it on a cheap Tuesday.
2 out of 5
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
The Sorcerer's Apprentice: Movie Review
The Sorcerer’s Apprentice reunites Jerry Bruckheimer with Nicolas Cage for the gazillionth time and I can’t say that it gets better with age. Set in present day New York, Balthazar (Nicolas Cage), a millennium old magician who apprenticed under Merlin, continues to seek out a future apprentice who will be able to defeat Merlin’s greatest threat, an evil witch named Morgana. When it appears that Balthazar has found his future apprentice in an everyday normal guy, Dave (Jay Baruchel), all hell breaks loose in the ultimate battle for good or evil all the while using New York as a backdrop for destruction. While Dave comes to terms with his new life and battling evil he must also learn how to deal in the art of love and be able to juggle both without destroying the other.
Walt Disney Pictures has a hard-on for making PG live action films which frankly suck. Don’t believe me? I’ll list a few: Pirates of the Caribbean 3, G-Force, Beverly Hills Chihuahua, Alice in Wonderland, Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, Race to Witch Mountain, I could go on… but you get the picture… the problem is: Walt Disney Pictures makes movies based on a formula that contain very little action, ‘witty’ dialogue which comes off as being more pretentious than actually witty, and worst of all the movies are more boring than anything. They get a slew of big name actors to walk through the film with their eyes closed and earn a big pay check just for showing up. I know a lot of people hate on Nicolas Cage a lot but I honestly like the guy; sure he’s done some crappy movies, this being one of them; but overall he’s a decent actor. Jay Baruchel has had a huge year with all the movies he’s been pumping out, and while I believe him to be a very talented actor he let his fans down with this collaboration.
Director Jon Turtelaub has worked with Nic Cage and Jerry Bruckheimer before with National Treasure 1 and 2. Both National Treasures can be considered masterpieces in comparison to The Sorcerer’s Apprentice, because at least their puzzle elements kept audiences engaged in comparison to what The Sorcerer’s Apprentice will do. I was really excited to see what Turtelaub would produce after his excellent, but under-appreciated mini-series Harper’s Island, and unfortunately it was this. The Sorcerer’s Apprentice: the cinematic version of literary drivel.
The writing was horrendous as well. Each and every choreographed movement spelled out through dialogue as well, yes Nicolas Cage we see you walking down the stairs you don’t need to tell us that you’re walking down the stairs while you do it. It’s really hard to figure out who to blame for the writing though as there were 3 screen story writers and 3 screenplay writers. I guess it’s a lie to say if you put enough monkeys in a room you can get them to write Shakespeare. Regardless these 5 (as one crossed between being a screen story writer and a screenplay writer) wrote a 100 minute snooze fest based on a single sketch from the late Disney musical film Fantasia. You know the scene I’m talking about, the one where Mickey plays with the mops and ends up flooding his master’s room? Yeah, it happens in this film too… I’d suggest you just leave it to the scene in Fantasia and skip this film.
1.5 out of 5
Walt Disney Pictures has a hard-on for making PG live action films which frankly suck. Don’t believe me? I’ll list a few: Pirates of the Caribbean 3, G-Force, Beverly Hills Chihuahua, Alice in Wonderland, Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, Race to Witch Mountain, I could go on… but you get the picture… the problem is: Walt Disney Pictures makes movies based on a formula that contain very little action, ‘witty’ dialogue which comes off as being more pretentious than actually witty, and worst of all the movies are more boring than anything. They get a slew of big name actors to walk through the film with their eyes closed and earn a big pay check just for showing up. I know a lot of people hate on Nicolas Cage a lot but I honestly like the guy; sure he’s done some crappy movies, this being one of them; but overall he’s a decent actor. Jay Baruchel has had a huge year with all the movies he’s been pumping out, and while I believe him to be a very talented actor he let his fans down with this collaboration.
Director Jon Turtelaub has worked with Nic Cage and Jerry Bruckheimer before with National Treasure 1 and 2. Both National Treasures can be considered masterpieces in comparison to The Sorcerer’s Apprentice, because at least their puzzle elements kept audiences engaged in comparison to what The Sorcerer’s Apprentice will do. I was really excited to see what Turtelaub would produce after his excellent, but under-appreciated mini-series Harper’s Island, and unfortunately it was this. The Sorcerer’s Apprentice: the cinematic version of literary drivel.
The writing was horrendous as well. Each and every choreographed movement spelled out through dialogue as well, yes Nicolas Cage we see you walking down the stairs you don’t need to tell us that you’re walking down the stairs while you do it. It’s really hard to figure out who to blame for the writing though as there were 3 screen story writers and 3 screenplay writers. I guess it’s a lie to say if you put enough monkeys in a room you can get them to write Shakespeare. Regardless these 5 (as one crossed between being a screen story writer and a screenplay writer) wrote a 100 minute snooze fest based on a single sketch from the late Disney musical film Fantasia. You know the scene I’m talking about, the one where Mickey plays with the mops and ends up flooding his master’s room? Yeah, it happens in this film too… I’d suggest you just leave it to the scene in Fantasia and skip this film.
1.5 out of 5
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Despicable Me: Movie Review
Despicable Me is far from despicable. Universal Pictures newest animated adventure brings a slew of great voice actors to a great script and two break-out directors. Steve Carrell (of The Office) fame voices the lead, Gru, a supervillian who wants nothing more than to be respected for what he does. When a younger supervillian by the name of Vector (voiced by How I Met Your Mother’s Jason Segal) who has managed to steal the great pyramid of Gaza. In response Gru sets out to steal the Moon! Gru’s only problem, Vector, his arch nemesis, possesses the shrink ray required to shrink the moon to a small enough size to actually steal. Gru hatches a master plan of adopting 3 sisters who regularly sell cookies to Vector to sneak into his place so he can get the shrink ray. What happens next changes Gru from being “Superbad” to “Superdad.”
The story is heart-warming and touching and the animation is phenomenal. The script is definitely at the top of the game for veteran screenwriting team Ken Daurio and Cinco Paul who have teamed together before to bring half-assed pieces of work to screen such as Bubble Boy, The Santa Claus 2, Horton Hears a Who! & College Road Trip. So in comparison to their previous scripts Despicable Me is by far a great and hilarious masterpiece.
Directed by fairly novice directors Pierre Coffin and Chris Renaud the animation and the flow of the story just blew me away. Not only did they provide 95 minutes of pure hilarity but did it in such a touching way that was engaging to young and old. The story was also very original which is nice to see in children’s movies as most animated movies that come out are a dime a dozen. I personally loved Toy Story 3 but after seeing Despicable Me I almost think its better, not necessarily content wise per se but because of the originality aspect that Despicable Me had over Toy Story 3.
If you read my reviews regularly you will notice that I hate 3D so much. To me it’s a gimmick and not worth the extra money. That is not the case in Despicable Me. This is the first 3D movie, next to How To Train Your Dragon that I can say is worth the extra few bucks. The 3D was phenomenal and actually added to the film rather than detract from it. The ending, during the credits, was also hilarious, while slightly gimmicky it was still a lot of fun.
This movie is a great family flick. Everyone at the Premiere loved it. I loved it. The strangers next to my buddy Richard loved it. The children and parents behind and in front of me loved it. It’s a great family film and I definitely recommend it for all.
I also love the fact that Gru kinda looks like Alfred Hitchcock!
4.5 out of 5.
The story is heart-warming and touching and the animation is phenomenal. The script is definitely at the top of the game for veteran screenwriting team Ken Daurio and Cinco Paul who have teamed together before to bring half-assed pieces of work to screen such as Bubble Boy, The Santa Claus 2, Horton Hears a Who! & College Road Trip. So in comparison to their previous scripts Despicable Me is by far a great and hilarious masterpiece.
Directed by fairly novice directors Pierre Coffin and Chris Renaud the animation and the flow of the story just blew me away. Not only did they provide 95 minutes of pure hilarity but did it in such a touching way that was engaging to young and old. The story was also very original which is nice to see in children’s movies as most animated movies that come out are a dime a dozen. I personally loved Toy Story 3 but after seeing Despicable Me I almost think its better, not necessarily content wise per se but because of the originality aspect that Despicable Me had over Toy Story 3.
If you read my reviews regularly you will notice that I hate 3D so much. To me it’s a gimmick and not worth the extra money. That is not the case in Despicable Me. This is the first 3D movie, next to How To Train Your Dragon that I can say is worth the extra few bucks. The 3D was phenomenal and actually added to the film rather than detract from it. The ending, during the credits, was also hilarious, while slightly gimmicky it was still a lot of fun.
This movie is a great family flick. Everyone at the Premiere loved it. I loved it. The strangers next to my buddy Richard loved it. The children and parents behind and in front of me loved it. It’s a great family film and I definitely recommend it for all.
I also love the fact that Gru kinda looks like Alfred Hitchcock!
4.5 out of 5.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Grown Ups: Movie Review
"Nothing happened. And I love that" is a line said by Roxanne Chase-Feder (played by Salma Hayek). She has it half right. Nothing happened. But boy did I hate it. This film, written by Adam Sandler & Fred Wolf is a movie about nothing where nothing happens. Now you might smile and think about the Seinfeld episode where the idea of a show about nothing was pitched; well it differs from that on the fact that the poorly written and directed Grown Ups carries absolutely none of the charm that Seinfeld did. The Dennis Dugan directed film reunites a slew of funny men who mostly got to know each other through their work on Saturday Night Live. Adam Sandler, David Spade, Chris Rock, and Rob Schneider are joined by the only reason I wanted to see this film, Kevin James to try and provide a laugh a minute comedy; however, this movie ends up being a laugh an hour comedy, and it's only an hour and twenty minutes long.
The five main characters played basketball in elementary school and each have gone on to live separate and completely different lives. Reunited by the death of their basketball coach the group get together with their families for the Fourth of July weekend at a cottage where the funeral is held. That is the end of the plot, and we're only 10 minutes into the film. The remaining 70 minutes is obviously a lot of fun for the cast and crew who got to goof around with each other but tediously boring for the audience as the 'educated' humour that Adam Sandler is pitching our way is mainly filled with fart jokes, pie-in-the-face jokes and midget jokes. All of which tire after the first one... unfortunately the audience is in for 50 of each. While the film is only 80 minutes in length it feels closer to 120 because of how slow it is and because nothing is actually happening.
Now don't get me wrong, if you like watching people get hit in the nuts, or if you like calling short people midgets, or if you like jokes about old ladies having sex with younger men than this movie is for you. If you like fart jokes, and watching men slap other men, and like making fun of older men who pee a lot than this movie is for you. BUT if you like actual intelligent humour, if you hate hack humour, if you want a plot when you watch a movie than for the love of God skip this film.
Adam Sandler hasn't been good in a film since Happy Gilmore and Rob Schneider's claim to fame is as Deuce Bigelow. I can't even think of a film where David Spade was a lead. Chris Rock has a lot of hits and Kevin James is always funny in my opinion, but even those two fail us throughout the span of Grown Ups. I was hoping for something great from Dennis Dugan who has brought us many of Sandler's films including Happy Gilmore, I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry and You Don't Mess With the Zohan but I think he was having just as much fun as the cast was and didn't really care about making a film.
I highly recommend that you skip this film. Not only was it not funny but it was dreadfully boring. Just when you think it can't get worse, it gets worse... I couldn't watch this movie without groaning at every hack of a joke and sighing every time a joke within the film is re-hashed.
1 out of 5 stars.
The five main characters played basketball in elementary school and each have gone on to live separate and completely different lives. Reunited by the death of their basketball coach the group get together with their families for the Fourth of July weekend at a cottage where the funeral is held. That is the end of the plot, and we're only 10 minutes into the film. The remaining 70 minutes is obviously a lot of fun for the cast and crew who got to goof around with each other but tediously boring for the audience as the 'educated' humour that Adam Sandler is pitching our way is mainly filled with fart jokes, pie-in-the-face jokes and midget jokes. All of which tire after the first one... unfortunately the audience is in for 50 of each. While the film is only 80 minutes in length it feels closer to 120 because of how slow it is and because nothing is actually happening.
Now don't get me wrong, if you like watching people get hit in the nuts, or if you like calling short people midgets, or if you like jokes about old ladies having sex with younger men than this movie is for you. If you like fart jokes, and watching men slap other men, and like making fun of older men who pee a lot than this movie is for you. BUT if you like actual intelligent humour, if you hate hack humour, if you want a plot when you watch a movie than for the love of God skip this film.
Adam Sandler hasn't been good in a film since Happy Gilmore and Rob Schneider's claim to fame is as Deuce Bigelow. I can't even think of a film where David Spade was a lead. Chris Rock has a lot of hits and Kevin James is always funny in my opinion, but even those two fail us throughout the span of Grown Ups. I was hoping for something great from Dennis Dugan who has brought us many of Sandler's films including Happy Gilmore, I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry and You Don't Mess With the Zohan but I think he was having just as much fun as the cast was and didn't really care about making a film.
I highly recommend that you skip this film. Not only was it not funny but it was dreadfully boring. Just when you think it can't get worse, it gets worse... I couldn't watch this movie without groaning at every hack of a joke and sighing every time a joke within the film is re-hashed.
1 out of 5 stars.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Toy Story 3: Movie Review
Toy Story 3 is the last installment in the Toy Story franchise brought to you by Disney Pixar. The first Toy Story film that hit theatres 15 years ago in 1995 took the world by storm; as it was the first full-length computer generated animated feature film; and ever since then the world of animation has never been the same. Toy Story 3 stays with the same excellent animation quality that Pixar has been providing us for the past 15 years and it kicks ass. This is the most engaging Pixar film since Monsters Inc. I constantly find myself sceptical of Pixar films and honestly don't like many of them. Regardless, this film blew me away and kept me engaged from start to finish.
Toy Story 3 picks up many years after Toy Story 2 ends; Andy is now 17 and just about to head off to college. Andy has to make the decision of what to do with all of his old toys; which includes Woody, Buzz and the rest of the gang. There is a mix-up as he puts them in a bag to take up to the attic and the toys end up headed for the trash. After a quick maneuvering scheme the toys end up being donated to a daycare. Without giving too much of the plot away the toys face many adversities as they realize that the daycare is really not for them; however their escape is thwarted by other toys that aren't as cute and friendly as they appear.
Toy Story 3 is hilarious from beginning to end; but also deals with the subject of loss, much like Up! only without death. The gang, Woody, Buzz, Slinky, The Potato Heads, etc... are joined by Barbie, Ken, and a slew of rejected toys to create a laugh-out-loud tour de force of over 100 minutes. Michael Keaton voices Ken and is hysterical from start to finish. The other voice actors are amazing as well with Tom Hanks, Tim Allen, Don Rickles, Joan Cusack, Wallace Shawn, John Ratzenberger, and Estelle Harris coming alongside newbies Michael Keaton, Jodi Benson, and Ned Beatty to provide the masterpiece that is Toy Story 3.
This is director Lee Unkrich's first time solo directing, although he has been a co-director behind many other Pixar films including Toy Story 2, Monsters Inc. and Finding Nemo. However, behind a great director, behind great voice-talents, behind great animation there needs to be a great idea. That idea and it's execution can be attributed to writers: Lee Unkrich, Michael Arndt, John Lasseter and Andrew Stanton. Lasseter and Stanton have worked together many times before, dating back to the very first Toy Story film. The script was nearly flawless, each character given the perfect amount of time to shine.
This movie is funny and touching from start to end and a great family film that kids and parents will enjoy alike. Once again, I warn against the gimmicks of 3D. See the film in 2D; save the money; you're not missing out on anything by seeing it in 2D over 3D. The good films always garnish smaller reviews.
4.5 out of 5 stars.
Toy Story 3 picks up many years after Toy Story 2 ends; Andy is now 17 and just about to head off to college. Andy has to make the decision of what to do with all of his old toys; which includes Woody, Buzz and the rest of the gang. There is a mix-up as he puts them in a bag to take up to the attic and the toys end up headed for the trash. After a quick maneuvering scheme the toys end up being donated to a daycare. Without giving too much of the plot away the toys face many adversities as they realize that the daycare is really not for them; however their escape is thwarted by other toys that aren't as cute and friendly as they appear.
Toy Story 3 is hilarious from beginning to end; but also deals with the subject of loss, much like Up! only without death. The gang, Woody, Buzz, Slinky, The Potato Heads, etc... are joined by Barbie, Ken, and a slew of rejected toys to create a laugh-out-loud tour de force of over 100 minutes. Michael Keaton voices Ken and is hysterical from start to finish. The other voice actors are amazing as well with Tom Hanks, Tim Allen, Don Rickles, Joan Cusack, Wallace Shawn, John Ratzenberger, and Estelle Harris coming alongside newbies Michael Keaton, Jodi Benson, and Ned Beatty to provide the masterpiece that is Toy Story 3.
This is director Lee Unkrich's first time solo directing, although he has been a co-director behind many other Pixar films including Toy Story 2, Monsters Inc. and Finding Nemo. However, behind a great director, behind great voice-talents, behind great animation there needs to be a great idea. That idea and it's execution can be attributed to writers: Lee Unkrich, Michael Arndt, John Lasseter and Andrew Stanton. Lasseter and Stanton have worked together many times before, dating back to the very first Toy Story film. The script was nearly flawless, each character given the perfect amount of time to shine.
This movie is funny and touching from start to end and a great family film that kids and parents will enjoy alike. Once again, I warn against the gimmicks of 3D. See the film in 2D; save the money; you're not missing out on anything by seeing it in 2D over 3D. The good films always garnish smaller reviews.
4.5 out of 5 stars.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
The A-Team: Movie Review
I seem to be going into film's these days without expecting to be impressed. I go in with such low expectations of films yet I've continued to come out surprisingly impressed. The A-Team is no different. I went in, despite bad reviews, thinking that this is probably an interpretation of a classic show that doesn't need to be made; however I was sorely wrong. Throw all aspects of cinematic integrity out of the window and this movie is surprisingly a hit.
Four Army Rangers fighting in Iraq have been framed for a crime they didn't commit. Under the heading of Hannibal (Liam Neeson) the remaining members of the A-Team, Face (Bradley Cooper), B.A. Baracus (Quinton Rampage Jackson), & Murdock (Sharlto Copley) break out of federal prison and continue on their way to prove their innocence. The ending, of course, sets it up for a sequel; and one that I think would actually work if done properly.
Joe Carnahan directed and co-wrote this production which is far better than some of his past efforts that included Narc and Smoking Aces. I'll be honest, there are moments in this movie where I went: what the hell just happened? I don't understand how this relates to anything... Yet the amount of fun that everyone in the theatre was having takes away all negative feelings to moments in this film. The acting had it's ups and downs, mainly ups; especially from the ever-talented Sharlto Copley as Murdoch who was really funny and kept the audience laughing. This movie works excellently as an action-comedy; the few moments where Carnahan tried to get serious and add drama the acting talent started to drop and the audience started to get distracted... however those moments were few and far between.
This movie kicked ass and I highly recommend it; just for a guilty pleasure... it was really enjoyable!
3.5 out of 5 stars
Four Army Rangers fighting in Iraq have been framed for a crime they didn't commit. Under the heading of Hannibal (Liam Neeson) the remaining members of the A-Team, Face (Bradley Cooper), B.A. Baracus (Quinton Rampage Jackson), & Murdock (Sharlto Copley) break out of federal prison and continue on their way to prove their innocence. The ending, of course, sets it up for a sequel; and one that I think would actually work if done properly.
Joe Carnahan directed and co-wrote this production which is far better than some of his past efforts that included Narc and Smoking Aces. I'll be honest, there are moments in this movie where I went: what the hell just happened? I don't understand how this relates to anything... Yet the amount of fun that everyone in the theatre was having takes away all negative feelings to moments in this film. The acting had it's ups and downs, mainly ups; especially from the ever-talented Sharlto Copley as Murdoch who was really funny and kept the audience laughing. This movie works excellently as an action-comedy; the few moments where Carnahan tried to get serious and add drama the acting talent started to drop and the audience started to get distracted... however those moments were few and far between.
This movie kicked ass and I highly recommend it; just for a guilty pleasure... it was really enjoyable!
3.5 out of 5 stars
Friday, June 11, 2010
The Karate Kid: Movie Review
A lot of people are criticizing the 'remake' of The Karate Kid, unjustly so, before they get a chance to see it. Albeit the martial arts shown in the film is of a very different nature than karate, centering around Kung Fu; but why wouldn't you market this film as a remake and bring in the audience and money? It works and it works well. Despite people fighting over how this film shouldn't even be called The Karate Kid it's actually a half decent movie. I have a grave confession to make. I never watched the original Karate Kid. So I went into this movie sans biases and prejudices and I was pleasantly surprised. The plot is simple to follow, for young and old; the action is superb yet never too graphically violent for younger kids to watch; the acting - well we'll talk about that in a few moments, but all in all the film was a success.
Dre Parker (Jaden Smith) and his mother move from Detroit to Bejing, China to start a new life when his mother gets transferred. While in China Dre tries almost too hard to fit in and instead alienates himself further prompting him to become a punching bag for the local bullies at his school. When Dre attempts to fight back he is aided by Mr. Han (Jackie Chan), the maintenance man turned kung fu hero, and in an attempt to gain respect from the bullies he is entered into an open kung fu tournament with very little time to train. The majority of the story is that of Mr. Han training Dre to prepare his tournament and teaching him that when you get knocked down you should always get back up. The film than obviously concludes with Dre at the tournament.
I'll start with my praises before I get into what I didn't like about this film. The first praise of this film is Jackie Chan's performance as Mr. Han. Chan, for me, has been hit-and-miss in his films but he really pulls through in this one and holds the film together. The directing was phenomenal as well which was a surprise to me. Harald Zwart managed to capture the great beauty of China as well as create a great movie for the family to enjoy. Zwart was the dead-ended brains behind such misses as The Pink Panther 2, Agent Cody Banks and a slew of Dutch misses; so when this film turned out to be thoroughly entertaining and enjoyable I was very surprised at how Zwart seems to be turning his game around. This is also the first official screenplay turned into film by writer Christopher Murphey; and at times you can tell that a novice writer is penning this script as some of the dialogue is god-awful, yet it manages to stand on it's own two-feet for the most part.
Jaden Smith holds his own throughout the film, although I constantly find him to be very egotistical and at the beginning of the movie I sure wanted to beat him up as much as the bullies at the school did. His character really isn't a likable character until he starts to learn respect by mid-end film... but it's almost too long. I almost gave up hope on liking his character, but eventually by the end I was won over when Dre learned a touch of humility.
Now for what I didn't like; and while it may seem like a lot it really doesn't affect the outcome of the movie too much. There are characters that are absolutely unnecessary. The 'white kid' that Dre befriends immediately in China is a useless companion and his acting skills are as great as a brick. I know that Luke Carberry (the white kid) is only a young actor and I shouldn't rag too hard on the guy; but if you're making a multi-million dollar blockbuster of a film and you have a child actor that sucks, you should have the balls just to fire him rather than cut him out from 90% of the plot making his character useless. The same goes for another kid actor at the beginning of the film who in Detroit gives Dre his skateboard. The dialogue there made me want to puke. Regardless of the few minor character glitches the movie was also about 20 minutes too long. My ass fell asleep at about an hour and forty-five minutes and I was ready for a wrap-up but found out I had another 30 minutes to go.
It doesn't mean that the movie was bad, far from it. It was quite enjoyable. It could have been better though and when you're trying to remake a classic you need to make sure that you're film is going to be solid and a respectable remake. For the most part The Karate Kid pulled that off.
It's a great family film. Young and old will enjoy it.
Check it out!
3.5 out of 5 stars
Dre Parker (Jaden Smith) and his mother move from Detroit to Bejing, China to start a new life when his mother gets transferred. While in China Dre tries almost too hard to fit in and instead alienates himself further prompting him to become a punching bag for the local bullies at his school. When Dre attempts to fight back he is aided by Mr. Han (Jackie Chan), the maintenance man turned kung fu hero, and in an attempt to gain respect from the bullies he is entered into an open kung fu tournament with very little time to train. The majority of the story is that of Mr. Han training Dre to prepare his tournament and teaching him that when you get knocked down you should always get back up. The film than obviously concludes with Dre at the tournament.
I'll start with my praises before I get into what I didn't like about this film. The first praise of this film is Jackie Chan's performance as Mr. Han. Chan, for me, has been hit-and-miss in his films but he really pulls through in this one and holds the film together. The directing was phenomenal as well which was a surprise to me. Harald Zwart managed to capture the great beauty of China as well as create a great movie for the family to enjoy. Zwart was the dead-ended brains behind such misses as The Pink Panther 2, Agent Cody Banks and a slew of Dutch misses; so when this film turned out to be thoroughly entertaining and enjoyable I was very surprised at how Zwart seems to be turning his game around. This is also the first official screenplay turned into film by writer Christopher Murphey; and at times you can tell that a novice writer is penning this script as some of the dialogue is god-awful, yet it manages to stand on it's own two-feet for the most part.
Jaden Smith holds his own throughout the film, although I constantly find him to be very egotistical and at the beginning of the movie I sure wanted to beat him up as much as the bullies at the school did. His character really isn't a likable character until he starts to learn respect by mid-end film... but it's almost too long. I almost gave up hope on liking his character, but eventually by the end I was won over when Dre learned a touch of humility.
Now for what I didn't like; and while it may seem like a lot it really doesn't affect the outcome of the movie too much. There are characters that are absolutely unnecessary. The 'white kid' that Dre befriends immediately in China is a useless companion and his acting skills are as great as a brick. I know that Luke Carberry (the white kid) is only a young actor and I shouldn't rag too hard on the guy; but if you're making a multi-million dollar blockbuster of a film and you have a child actor that sucks, you should have the balls just to fire him rather than cut him out from 90% of the plot making his character useless. The same goes for another kid actor at the beginning of the film who in Detroit gives Dre his skateboard. The dialogue there made me want to puke. Regardless of the few minor character glitches the movie was also about 20 minutes too long. My ass fell asleep at about an hour and forty-five minutes and I was ready for a wrap-up but found out I had another 30 minutes to go.
It doesn't mean that the movie was bad, far from it. It was quite enjoyable. It could have been better though and when you're trying to remake a classic you need to make sure that you're film is going to be solid and a respectable remake. For the most part The Karate Kid pulled that off.
It's a great family film. Young and old will enjoy it.
Check it out!
3.5 out of 5 stars
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Movies in Brief - June 09, 2010
Upcoming films this week:
The Karate Kid - good family fun that's about 20 minutes too long. (Full review to come on Friday).
The A-Team - Bradley Cooper, Jessica Biel, and a Fake Mr. T? I think I'll pass.
What's out now:
Shrek Forever After: good family film - skip the 3D. 3/5
Get Him to the Greek: more boring than funny - we've seen it all before. 2.5/5
Killers: Unfortunately this actually became a film. 1.5/5
Prince of Persia: Sands of Time: half an hour too long with enough nothing happening to bore the modern man to sleep. 1/5
Sex and the City 2: More like Sucks in the City! No rating.
Marmaduke: A big spoiled-talking dog? The kids might like it. No rating.
Iron Man 2: Still going strong. Fun action flick that's a good sequel to the first. 3.5/5
Splice: I'm super excited to see this, haven't had a chance yet. Only heard good things. No rating.
Robin Hood: 45 minutes too long and at times like watching paint dry. No rating.
Letters to Juliet: Your everday typical, cliched rom-com. 1.5/5
The Karate Kid - good family fun that's about 20 minutes too long. (Full review to come on Friday).
The A-Team - Bradley Cooper, Jessica Biel, and a Fake Mr. T? I think I'll pass.
What's out now:
Shrek Forever After: good family film - skip the 3D. 3/5
Get Him to the Greek: more boring than funny - we've seen it all before. 2.5/5
Killers: Unfortunately this actually became a film. 1.5/5
Prince of Persia: Sands of Time: half an hour too long with enough nothing happening to bore the modern man to sleep. 1/5
Sex and the City 2: More like Sucks in the City! No rating.
Marmaduke: A big spoiled-talking dog? The kids might like it. No rating.
Iron Man 2: Still going strong. Fun action flick that's a good sequel to the first. 3.5/5
Splice: I'm super excited to see this, haven't had a chance yet. Only heard good things. No rating.
Robin Hood: 45 minutes too long and at times like watching paint dry. No rating.
Letters to Juliet: Your everday typical, cliched rom-com. 1.5/5
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Killers: Movie Review
Alrighty - let's start this beast off. I went into Killers with very low expectations. When movies are not screened for critics they are generally awful, look at GI Joe: Rise of the Cobra, The Bounty Hunter or any of the last few Saw films as good examples of that philosophy. SO when the film actually started off good I was pleasantly surprised.
The plot isn't much to write home about, but it holds itself solidly for the first hour Spencer (Ashton Kutcher) is a spy/assassin for the CIA; but when he meets Jen (Katherine Heigl) who is on vacation with her parents The Kornfeldts (Tom Selleck & Catherine O'Hara) in Nice, France, Spencer decides to give up his spy life after one last mission and be with Jen. Jump to three years later where Spencer and Jen are married and living the suburban dream and suddenly Spencer is called back into the game by his handler. When Spencer hesitates about being called back in he finds that his friends, co-workers and neighbours are suddenly all trying to kill him for a 20 million dollar bounty. Spencer must juggle trying to keep himself and Jen alive, finding out who set the bounty as well as handling the erratic Jen who had no idea about his past life.
Like I said, the first hour was actually half decent; it was a good action flick with witty moments and Tom Selleck was fantastic... what a mustache. The only other memorable acting moment in this film was a stellar performance by Rob Riggle; which was surprising because normally I hate Rob Riggle. I don't think he's funny one bit; but he managed to pull off a character that was slightly different for him and was entertaining. Kutcher and Heigl were nothing to write home about, their 'shining' moments were more dull and boring than actually exciting. Heigl is actually not funny at all - and she plays herself off as a rich-snob, which is what I imagine her being in real life. We all know her Grey's Anatomy drama off-set and her unrealistic financial demands show her true colours as an actor, one who isn't it for the art but purely the money. It was the supporting cast that made the actual characters plausible and less painful to watch.
Director Robert Luketic's niche is rom-com's like his previous films Legally Blond, Monster-in-Law, Win a Date with Ted Hamilton! & The Ugly Truth. I would personally suggest that his best film to date is 21 but he has definitely become a hit-and-miss director with Killers falling in the miss category. The script, written by Ted Griffen and Bob DeRosa, wasn't half bad until the end, it was obvious though that the end was the product of novice screenwriter Bob DeRosa whose claim to fame include films like: Taco! & King Pathetic Creep.
I'm gonna get down to brass tax about why I did not like this film and it really comes down to the ending. First off, you see the twist within the first 25 minutes of the film. You know what's coming, when it's coming and how it's going to play out. However, it's how the writers tried to make a twist on the twist at the end that royally pissed me off. The following contains spoilers and will be written in black type, so highlight over the dark spaces to read the rest if you don't care about spoilers:
The story has no real resolution and ends up being a groan fest for the last half an hour, a decent flick is ruined in its ending and I quickly realized why critics were not allowed to review this film for release day. I have a fear that people are going to forgive this film for its ending because it does hold you captive for 2/3rds of the film; but the cliched, anti-climatic, boring and unrealistic ending made me HATE this film. As the film progressed I was thinking to myself; this is a solid 3.5 out of 5 stars... however, I must warn you - skip this film... the ending really ruined it that much for me. I am only giving it:
1.5 out of 5 stars.
The plot isn't much to write home about, but it holds itself solidly for the first hour Spencer (Ashton Kutcher) is a spy/assassin for the CIA; but when he meets Jen (Katherine Heigl) who is on vacation with her parents The Kornfeldts (Tom Selleck & Catherine O'Hara) in Nice, France, Spencer decides to give up his spy life after one last mission and be with Jen. Jump to three years later where Spencer and Jen are married and living the suburban dream and suddenly Spencer is called back into the game by his handler. When Spencer hesitates about being called back in he finds that his friends, co-workers and neighbours are suddenly all trying to kill him for a 20 million dollar bounty. Spencer must juggle trying to keep himself and Jen alive, finding out who set the bounty as well as handling the erratic Jen who had no idea about his past life.
Like I said, the first hour was actually half decent; it was a good action flick with witty moments and Tom Selleck was fantastic... what a mustache. The only other memorable acting moment in this film was a stellar performance by Rob Riggle; which was surprising because normally I hate Rob Riggle. I don't think he's funny one bit; but he managed to pull off a character that was slightly different for him and was entertaining. Kutcher and Heigl were nothing to write home about, their 'shining' moments were more dull and boring than actually exciting. Heigl is actually not funny at all - and she plays herself off as a rich-snob, which is what I imagine her being in real life. We all know her Grey's Anatomy drama off-set and her unrealistic financial demands show her true colours as an actor, one who isn't it for the art but purely the money. It was the supporting cast that made the actual characters plausible and less painful to watch.
Director Robert Luketic's niche is rom-com's like his previous films Legally Blond, Monster-in-Law, Win a Date with Ted Hamilton! & The Ugly Truth. I would personally suggest that his best film to date is 21 but he has definitely become a hit-and-miss director with Killers falling in the miss category. The script, written by Ted Griffen and Bob DeRosa, wasn't half bad until the end, it was obvious though that the end was the product of novice screenwriter Bob DeRosa whose claim to fame include films like: Taco! & King Pathetic Creep.
I'm gonna get down to brass tax about why I did not like this film and it really comes down to the ending. First off, you see the twist within the first 25 minutes of the film. You know what's coming, when it's coming and how it's going to play out. However, it's how the writers tried to make a twist on the twist at the end that royally pissed me off. The following contains spoilers and will be written in black type, so highlight over the dark spaces to read the rest if you don't care about spoilers:
In the end, it's Jen's father who places the 20 million dollar bounty on Spencer's head. It's placed because Spencer's last mission was to kill him, but he failed. So, Jen's father placed a group of hit men around Spencer and had them become his co-workers, neighbours, and friends and then when he gave the word they were to kill him. When this story comes out and Spencer and Jen find out suddenly everything just becomes hunky-dory. There is no reasoning given for why Spencer was supposed to assassinate Jen's father or why after he finds out about it suddenly all is forgiven and the family is able to sit down for a 'trust circle' and tell each other all their deep and dark secrets. The two 'killers' are suddenly complacent with each other and just let everything go.
The story has no real resolution and ends up being a groan fest for the last half an hour, a decent flick is ruined in its ending and I quickly realized why critics were not allowed to review this film for release day. I have a fear that people are going to forgive this film for its ending because it does hold you captive for 2/3rds of the film; but the cliched, anti-climatic, boring and unrealistic ending made me HATE this film. As the film progressed I was thinking to myself; this is a solid 3.5 out of 5 stars... however, I must warn you - skip this film... the ending really ruined it that much for me. I am only giving it:
1.5 out of 5 stars.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time - Movie Review
Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time is a film about a dagger that holds the 'sands of the gods' and can turn back time. By thirty minutes in I wish I had my own magical dagger that could have turned back time so I wouldn't be sitting through this film. The plot is simple, so simple that it's dreadfully boring. The Persian Army invades the mystical city of Alamut in which a dagger that can turn back time resides. Street urchin, Dastan (Jaky Gyllenhaal), who was adopted by the King of Persia when he was a young boy, becomes the holder of the dagger and also the key suspect when his father is murdered. On the run from his brothers and uncle Nizam (Ben Kingsley), Dastan and the beautiful princess Tamina (Gemma Arterton) find out that the entire attack on Alamut and assassination of the King was all a conspiracy set up by Nizam. Nizam wished to obtain the dagger, turn back time and have his brother killed so that he would become King and rule over the Kingdom of Persia instead. The movie's originality died within the first 30 seconds as it's opening sequence was almost mirrored to Disney's Aladdin, the rest of the film played off like Hamlet. And then, of course, there is the screaming parallels to George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq.
The film is 2 hours long; yet the plot is so simple and predictable that the two hours stretch and feel like forever. The action sequences were cool, at first, but very quickly became very repetitive and were filled with slow-motion and stop-action camera shots that even bastardized the sell-point of the film. The scenes are over the top and ridiculous to the point where I actually found myself moaning out loud as every cliche in the book was played out. In one scene a character has had 5 metal spikes stabbed through his chest; when the camera pans over him, he is obviously dead as blood bubbles out of his mouth. Five minutes later when Dastan is in a fight that he cannot win this 'dead man' suddenly has the strength to grab a giant spike and stab it all the way through the man fighting Dastan. In another scene Nizam is about to commit an act that could destroy the world and instead of rushing and stopping him Dastan and Princess Tamina decide to share the kiss that they kept trying to throughout the entire film. Don't get me started on the last 15 minutes as the end was the biggest cop-out I have ever seen in a film. By principal I cannot like a film that ends the same way that this film did... making everything that we have watched over the last two hours pointless... it almost made me as mad as the TV series Lost has made me.
This script was painful; as was its execution. I thought only John Cusack walked through movies without giving a damn; but now it seems as if it's the in thing to do. Yes, the action was well choreographed, the acting was obviously left on the back-burner until it was too late. Prince of Persia was written by three veteran screenwriters; including Boaz Yakin's whose claims to fame include From Dusk til Dawn 2 and Dirty Dancing 2. I'm sure it must have been his contributions to the script that made Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time feel like a horrible sequel. The other two screenwriters have worked together before writing sub-par films like The Great Raid and The Uninvited. They are also the minds behind the upcoming Disney flick The Sorcerer's Apprentice, which after this film makes me lose faith in how that film will turn out on release.
But, for the lack of writing talent one can hope that amazing director Mike Newell could still save this film; he has, in fact, been behind the camera for film greats including: Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, Donnie Brasco, Four Weddings and a Funeral, Mona Lisa Smile, and has 76 directing credits to his name over the past 46 years. And while I can honestly say the film was well shot and had great moments of cinematography Newell's mind was obviously more focused on getting great fight shots and working on capturing a great set than on creating a movie with a decent plot that was actually able to captivate it's audience. People were walking out of this film before the credits even started rolling.
Let's talk about the credits for a second. I know that this isn't going to be the case across the world; but at the Premiere - no credits were rolled. I don't know if that's the fault of the studio or the theatre; but when the film ended - no credits rolled. And I know it has nothing to do with the film; but there were hundreds of people who devoted so much time and effort to this film that even though not a lot of people stay for the credits their names still deserve the right to scroll across the big screen. I sat patiently waiting to see if they would start; after five minutes nothing had yet to roll and I slowly left the theatre. At least the credits would have been more entertaining than the actual film.
This film was dreadfully boring. It's plot nearly drifted me to sleep many times and it's acting was atrocious. Disney's live action films have been a let-down over the past few years... I can only hope that they manage a rebound with their upcoming Sorcerer's Apprentice and if not that, with Tron Legacy.
This film is definitely a skipper. Don't waste your money; go watch Shrek Forever After again or instead wait a week until something that looks like it has more promise to it like Splice or Get Him to the Greek or maybe even Killers.
1 out of 5 stars
The film is 2 hours long; yet the plot is so simple and predictable that the two hours stretch and feel like forever. The action sequences were cool, at first, but very quickly became very repetitive and were filled with slow-motion and stop-action camera shots that even bastardized the sell-point of the film. The scenes are over the top and ridiculous to the point where I actually found myself moaning out loud as every cliche in the book was played out. In one scene a character has had 5 metal spikes stabbed through his chest; when the camera pans over him, he is obviously dead as blood bubbles out of his mouth. Five minutes later when Dastan is in a fight that he cannot win this 'dead man' suddenly has the strength to grab a giant spike and stab it all the way through the man fighting Dastan. In another scene Nizam is about to commit an act that could destroy the world and instead of rushing and stopping him Dastan and Princess Tamina decide to share the kiss that they kept trying to throughout the entire film. Don't get me started on the last 15 minutes as the end was the biggest cop-out I have ever seen in a film. By principal I cannot like a film that ends the same way that this film did... making everything that we have watched over the last two hours pointless... it almost made me as mad as the TV series Lost has made me.
This script was painful; as was its execution. I thought only John Cusack walked through movies without giving a damn; but now it seems as if it's the in thing to do. Yes, the action was well choreographed, the acting was obviously left on the back-burner until it was too late. Prince of Persia was written by three veteran screenwriters; including Boaz Yakin's whose claims to fame include From Dusk til Dawn 2 and Dirty Dancing 2. I'm sure it must have been his contributions to the script that made Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time feel like a horrible sequel. The other two screenwriters have worked together before writing sub-par films like The Great Raid and The Uninvited. They are also the minds behind the upcoming Disney flick The Sorcerer's Apprentice, which after this film makes me lose faith in how that film will turn out on release.
But, for the lack of writing talent one can hope that amazing director Mike Newell could still save this film; he has, in fact, been behind the camera for film greats including: Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, Donnie Brasco, Four Weddings and a Funeral, Mona Lisa Smile, and has 76 directing credits to his name over the past 46 years. And while I can honestly say the film was well shot and had great moments of cinematography Newell's mind was obviously more focused on getting great fight shots and working on capturing a great set than on creating a movie with a decent plot that was actually able to captivate it's audience. People were walking out of this film before the credits even started rolling.
Let's talk about the credits for a second. I know that this isn't going to be the case across the world; but at the Premiere - no credits were rolled. I don't know if that's the fault of the studio or the theatre; but when the film ended - no credits rolled. And I know it has nothing to do with the film; but there were hundreds of people who devoted so much time and effort to this film that even though not a lot of people stay for the credits their names still deserve the right to scroll across the big screen. I sat patiently waiting to see if they would start; after five minutes nothing had yet to roll and I slowly left the theatre. At least the credits would have been more entertaining than the actual film.
This film was dreadfully boring. It's plot nearly drifted me to sleep many times and it's acting was atrocious. Disney's live action films have been a let-down over the past few years... I can only hope that they manage a rebound with their upcoming Sorcerer's Apprentice and if not that, with Tron Legacy.
This film is definitely a skipper. Don't waste your money; go watch Shrek Forever After again or instead wait a week until something that looks like it has more promise to it like Splice or Get Him to the Greek or maybe even Killers.
1 out of 5 stars
Friday, May 21, 2010
Shrek Forever After: Movie Review
Shrek Forever After is the fourth and final installment of the Shrek series brought forth by the ever creative DreamWorks Animations. Once again Shrek, Fiona, Donkey and Puss in Boots are intertwined in another adventure of a lifetime. However, this time only Shrek knows it. When domesticated life gets a little dull for Shrek he makes a deal with the tricky Rumplestiltskin just to be a scary ogre again for one day; but to get a day he must give a day. Without thinking of the consequences Shrek signs away a day from his childhood; which Rumplestiltskin takes to prevent Shrek from being born. This of course means that Princess Fiona is never born and the Kingdom of Far Far Away is in peril. When Shrek comes to on his day he finds himself in a drastically altered Far Far Away where no one knows him, including Donkey, Puss in Boots and Fiona. So before days end, to save himself and his loved ones he must make Fiona fall in love with him all over again while defeating the evil Rumplestiltskin.
The plot, for a Shrek film, is actually quite complex yet it plays out well. Once again voice actors Mike Myers, Cameron Diaz, Antonio Banderas, and Eddie Murphy are back voicing their respective roles. Mike Mitchell helmed the wheels as director. Although being a vetern director Mitchell hasn't done any decent work since his work on the very short-run but hysterical television show Greg the Bunny. Shrek Forever After was written by Josh Klausner (writer of Shrek the Third) and Darren Lemke (who hasn't written anything worthwhile in his entire life). As for a script it was alright; nothing to write home about. My only concerns with the script were the excessive references to the very first Shrek and the fact that it was super dark, content wise. Not a film I would take young children to.
The film as a Shrek film was much better than the atrocity that was Shrek the Third. I'm in the minority of people who have never been a big Shrek fan from the beginning. I didn't like the first one and I hated the third one; although I really, really liked the second one. I can't really compare Shrek Forever After to any of the other Shrek films since the storyline is very unique (other than the references) from the other Shrek films.
The film itself was, as I mentioned before, quite dark; yet despite being the least funny of the Shrek films the few laughs it had were good ones. I didn't think I was going to like fat Puss-in-Boots either; but he ended up being one of the highlights. However, while I wouldn't take very young children to the film it is a good family movie.
As for the 3D - to be honest; I didn't really notice it. The glasses were more of a hassle than anything - but than again I'm not a big fan of 3D. I would suggest you just do the 2D route because the movie is enjoyable regardless of 3D or 2D.
Yes the content is dark; but it has it's moments and the story is actually enjoyable. If Shrek the Third scared you off of Shrek films you should still give this one a chance.
Oh - and as a last minute aside - the character of Rumplestiltskin was introduced very briefly in Shrek the Third in a bar scene; where he appears as a tall and lanky character not a short angry character. Just thought it was interesting to point that out; especially since the third and fourth Shrek were written by the same writer.
3 out of 5 stars.
The plot, for a Shrek film, is actually quite complex yet it plays out well. Once again voice actors Mike Myers, Cameron Diaz, Antonio Banderas, and Eddie Murphy are back voicing their respective roles. Mike Mitchell helmed the wheels as director. Although being a vetern director Mitchell hasn't done any decent work since his work on the very short-run but hysterical television show Greg the Bunny. Shrek Forever After was written by Josh Klausner (writer of Shrek the Third) and Darren Lemke (who hasn't written anything worthwhile in his entire life). As for a script it was alright; nothing to write home about. My only concerns with the script were the excessive references to the very first Shrek and the fact that it was super dark, content wise. Not a film I would take young children to.
The film as a Shrek film was much better than the atrocity that was Shrek the Third. I'm in the minority of people who have never been a big Shrek fan from the beginning. I didn't like the first one and I hated the third one; although I really, really liked the second one. I can't really compare Shrek Forever After to any of the other Shrek films since the storyline is very unique (other than the references) from the other Shrek films.
The film itself was, as I mentioned before, quite dark; yet despite being the least funny of the Shrek films the few laughs it had were good ones. I didn't think I was going to like fat Puss-in-Boots either; but he ended up being one of the highlights. However, while I wouldn't take very young children to the film it is a good family movie.
As for the 3D - to be honest; I didn't really notice it. The glasses were more of a hassle than anything - but than again I'm not a big fan of 3D. I would suggest you just do the 2D route because the movie is enjoyable regardless of 3D or 2D.
Yes the content is dark; but it has it's moments and the story is actually enjoyable. If Shrek the Third scared you off of Shrek films you should still give this one a chance.
Oh - and as a last minute aside - the character of Rumplestiltskin was introduced very briefly in Shrek the Third in a bar scene; where he appears as a tall and lanky character not a short angry character. Just thought it was interesting to point that out; especially since the third and fourth Shrek were written by the same writer.
3 out of 5 stars.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
The Trotsky: Movie Review
Jay Baruchel has had a busy year. The Trotsky is the fourth film that he has been in the past 12 months with another one on the docket to come out in July. Despite growing up and living in Montreal it's a true honour to say that Baruchel hails from Ottawa where a lot of great talent is managing to find its way to Hollywood's doorsteps. Jay Baruchel is joined by the ever talented Colm Feore, Anne-Marie Cadieux, Emily Hampshire, Saul Rubinek and Michael Murphy to provide a knee-slapping Canadian comedy that pulls no punches yet remains intellectually stimulating from start to end.
Leon Bronstein (played by Jay Baruchel) believes he is the reincarnation of the late Leon Trotsky; and therefore feels destined to bring social justice to whomever he meets and wherever he works. After staging a failed hunger strike to unionize his father's packaging/shipping company he finds his funds cut off and he is headed to public school for the first time. At the public school Leon realizes that those in power, mostly the principal, Principal Berkhoff (played by Colm Feore) are abusing their power; so Leon decides to unionize the school; which leads not only to a strike but also other antics which provide two hours of hilarity.
First off, Canadian movies, unless made by Paul Gross, get a bad rep and are treated too much like foreign films. Films like Lucid, Niagra Motel, Mouth-to-Mouth, The Cabin Movie, and one of my favourites Bon Cop, Bad Cop are completely ignored by film fans, and even critics at time, despite the fact that not only do they represent great moments in Canadian culture but they are also some of the best works of art out there. The Trotsky as great it is will likely end up on the same slate. Release date is May 14, 2010 yet it is only being released in one Ottawa-theatre. It's a travesty that we manage to neglect Canadian film so easily; especially when it's so good.
The plot of The Trotsky is simple, yet intellectually stimulating and manages to capture Canadian comedy at it's best. It was written and directed by Jacob Tierney who is also writer and director for another upcoming Jay Baruchel film Notre Dame de Grace. Tierney has more experience in front of the camera than behind it; but despite The Trotsky only being his third film as a writer and director he has really nailed it as an art form. He has managed to take something as simple as one-loan Montreal high school and make it seem like the most important thing in the world; or at least the starting point for something great. No one could have captured this story in the same way that Tierney did.
The acting was phenomenal. Jay Baruchel is at the top of his game and has been ever since he really broke out onto the scene in Judd Apatow's Undeclared. I can't wait to see what else he is able to pull off as each performance he pulls off I think to myself; he can't get better - yet manages to prove me wrong every time. The supporting cast, Canadian as well, were breathtaking to watch and everyone, down to the involved background performers, gave their heart out for this performance to make one of the best Canadian films, let me rephrase that, one of the best films, I have ever seen. Going through the cast list on imdb and seeing the list of actors and actresses it's neat to see how many have actually filmed here in Ottawa, including projects I have worked on. Colm Feore, while not his best performance, is still amazing. Colm Feore is one of my favourite actors and he doesn't disappoint. This is the same man who has performed many live shows on Stratford while managing to film over one hundred movies or television shows including his ultimate performance as Pierre Elliott Trudeau on the captivating miniseries: Trudeau. I'm very excited to see how he does on the upcoming Paramount film Thor.
There isn't really anything wrong with this movie. It wasn't 100% perfect but in hindsight I can't think of anything that I would change about it and this film is definitely the best film I have seen since last summer's The Hurt Locker.
I recommend this film. I highly recommend it! Not only as a Canadian film but as a great film in general. Go out and support Canadian film so that way the next Canadian release is more than just a one-theatre run!
4.5 out of 5 stars
Leon Bronstein (played by Jay Baruchel) believes he is the reincarnation of the late Leon Trotsky; and therefore feels destined to bring social justice to whomever he meets and wherever he works. After staging a failed hunger strike to unionize his father's packaging/shipping company he finds his funds cut off and he is headed to public school for the first time. At the public school Leon realizes that those in power, mostly the principal, Principal Berkhoff (played by Colm Feore) are abusing their power; so Leon decides to unionize the school; which leads not only to a strike but also other antics which provide two hours of hilarity.
First off, Canadian movies, unless made by Paul Gross, get a bad rep and are treated too much like foreign films. Films like Lucid, Niagra Motel, Mouth-to-Mouth, The Cabin Movie, and one of my favourites Bon Cop, Bad Cop are completely ignored by film fans, and even critics at time, despite the fact that not only do they represent great moments in Canadian culture but they are also some of the best works of art out there. The Trotsky as great it is will likely end up on the same slate. Release date is May 14, 2010 yet it is only being released in one Ottawa-theatre. It's a travesty that we manage to neglect Canadian film so easily; especially when it's so good.
The plot of The Trotsky is simple, yet intellectually stimulating and manages to capture Canadian comedy at it's best. It was written and directed by Jacob Tierney who is also writer and director for another upcoming Jay Baruchel film Notre Dame de Grace. Tierney has more experience in front of the camera than behind it; but despite The Trotsky only being his third film as a writer and director he has really nailed it as an art form. He has managed to take something as simple as one-loan Montreal high school and make it seem like the most important thing in the world; or at least the starting point for something great. No one could have captured this story in the same way that Tierney did.
The acting was phenomenal. Jay Baruchel is at the top of his game and has been ever since he really broke out onto the scene in Judd Apatow's Undeclared. I can't wait to see what else he is able to pull off as each performance he pulls off I think to myself; he can't get better - yet manages to prove me wrong every time. The supporting cast, Canadian as well, were breathtaking to watch and everyone, down to the involved background performers, gave their heart out for this performance to make one of the best Canadian films, let me rephrase that, one of the best films, I have ever seen. Going through the cast list on imdb and seeing the list of actors and actresses it's neat to see how many have actually filmed here in Ottawa, including projects I have worked on. Colm Feore, while not his best performance, is still amazing. Colm Feore is one of my favourite actors and he doesn't disappoint. This is the same man who has performed many live shows on Stratford while managing to film over one hundred movies or television shows including his ultimate performance as Pierre Elliott Trudeau on the captivating miniseries: Trudeau. I'm very excited to see how he does on the upcoming Paramount film Thor.
There isn't really anything wrong with this movie. It wasn't 100% perfect but in hindsight I can't think of anything that I would change about it and this film is definitely the best film I have seen since last summer's The Hurt Locker.
I recommend this film. I highly recommend it! Not only as a Canadian film but as a great film in general. Go out and support Canadian film so that way the next Canadian release is more than just a one-theatre run!
4.5 out of 5 stars
Letters to Juliet: Movie Review
I'll be honest, seeing Letters to Juliet was really the last thing on my mind. I had no real interest in sitting through another rom-com and seeing the exact same plot developments we've all seen a hundred times before. However, when I realized that Jose Rivera was one of the co-writers of this flick I knew I had to give it a shot. Rivera has written for Diffr'ent Strokes and Family Matters as well as the film The Motorcycle Diaries and one of my personal favourites: Trade. Tim Sullivan, the other co-writer is fairly new to me; and so I didn't know what to expect. However, I decided to give it a try; I really didn't want to see other movies like Valentine's Day or Everybody's Fine yet found myself thoroughly enjoying both of those flicks... maybe Letters to Juliet would buck the trend of the regular rom-com and provide me with some decent laughs and some unexpected plot twists. I was sorely disappointed.
Letters to Juliet follows Sophie (played by Amanda Seyfried - who has a surprising amount of arm hair) who goes on a 'pre' honeymoon with her fiance, Victor (played by Gael Garcia Bernal) to Verona. While in Verona she and her fiance slowly drift apart while he tries to find suppliers for his New York Italian restaurant and she starts to help out the secretaries of Juliet. An organization of women who respond to love/help letters that are left by women who come all the way from around the world to leave a letter at the wall of Juliet Capulet. Sophie finds a letter in the wall that has been hidden in a hole for fifty years; she responds and to her surprise the author of the letter, Claire (played by the ever-talented Vanessa Redgrave) and her grandson Charlie (Christopher Egan) show up in Verona to follow the advice of the letter and find Claire's long lost love. Meanwhile everyone, Victor excluded, learns more about who they are and how they want to live their lives regardless of the consequences.
The movie is, to be frank, boring. The plot, as simple as it is, feels almost insignificant in the long run and the audience gets confused over what the main plot truly is. The movie has many subplots but no real singular plot. Sophie wants to become a writer for The New Yorker leads to Sophie finding a story and becoming a writer for The New Yorker. Sophie is engaged to an inattentive fiance who cares more for his restaurant than her leads to Sophie realizing she needs to take control of her life and find someone who is willing to change for her - which to me is a horrible message. The fact that even the man she finds in this plot to 'love her' and she finds herself 'falling in love' with requires change and he even makes a comment that is along the lines of how he would change who he was for her... can't she find someone compatible to her own needs without requiring a drastic change? Finally there's the plot where Claire comes to Verona to find her old lover; all intertwined through the shit-disturbing Sophie. Three plots; which even intertwined to formulate one plot feel scattered, drawn out much longer than need be and also dreadfully boring.
The movie is your typical rom-com made in the likeness of Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet; two lovers whose families are so different yet they find themselves being pulled closer together despite what the consequences may be; however it's also dreadfully boring and the only likable character is Claire; but that could just be because Vanessa Redgrave was the only talented actor in the film. Gary Winick has been a director of many misses; including 13 Going on 30 and Bride Wars; it is not surprising that Letters to Juliet is a mere follow-up.
Amanda Seyfried seems to be getting a lot of attention ever since she shared a kiss with Megan Fox in Jennifer's Body, yet no one seems to remember that flick and it's not even a year old. Despite the fact that she is on the hit HBO show Big Love much attention is from her more risque roles with Boogie Woogie and Chloe. In many ways she reminds me of Anne Hathaway; a decent actress who went wild in a few movies and just hasn't been the same since her Disney days. Has Seyfried's time already come and pass? Her acting in this film would certainly suggest so. Don't even get me started on Gael Garcia Bernal - I don't even know what the hell he was trying to do. His character's behaviour was so erratic; that I'm not sure if his character came off as a two-dimensional character because of his lack of talent or the lack of writing skills involved in this film. Finally; the best for last; Christopher Egan who fluctuates from being a total douche bag to a love-struck puppy and back again. His acting was almost more two-dimensional than that of Bernal's.
Ultimately this movie fails on many levels; a poor script and dull acting are just the first two and they are enough for me to warn you to skip this film. I understand that it's got that romantic nature that many people out there like; but I guarantee you before; if romantic-comedies are your genre you've seen this film before; many times.
1.5 out of 5 stars
Letters to Juliet follows Sophie (played by Amanda Seyfried - who has a surprising amount of arm hair) who goes on a 'pre' honeymoon with her fiance, Victor (played by Gael Garcia Bernal) to Verona. While in Verona she and her fiance slowly drift apart while he tries to find suppliers for his New York Italian restaurant and she starts to help out the secretaries of Juliet. An organization of women who respond to love/help letters that are left by women who come all the way from around the world to leave a letter at the wall of Juliet Capulet. Sophie finds a letter in the wall that has been hidden in a hole for fifty years; she responds and to her surprise the author of the letter, Claire (played by the ever-talented Vanessa Redgrave) and her grandson Charlie (Christopher Egan) show up in Verona to follow the advice of the letter and find Claire's long lost love. Meanwhile everyone, Victor excluded, learns more about who they are and how they want to live their lives regardless of the consequences.
The movie is, to be frank, boring. The plot, as simple as it is, feels almost insignificant in the long run and the audience gets confused over what the main plot truly is. The movie has many subplots but no real singular plot. Sophie wants to become a writer for The New Yorker leads to Sophie finding a story and becoming a writer for The New Yorker. Sophie is engaged to an inattentive fiance who cares more for his restaurant than her leads to Sophie realizing she needs to take control of her life and find someone who is willing to change for her - which to me is a horrible message. The fact that even the man she finds in this plot to 'love her' and she finds herself 'falling in love' with requires change and he even makes a comment that is along the lines of how he would change who he was for her... can't she find someone compatible to her own needs without requiring a drastic change? Finally there's the plot where Claire comes to Verona to find her old lover; all intertwined through the shit-disturbing Sophie. Three plots; which even intertwined to formulate one plot feel scattered, drawn out much longer than need be and also dreadfully boring.
The movie is your typical rom-com made in the likeness of Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet; two lovers whose families are so different yet they find themselves being pulled closer together despite what the consequences may be; however it's also dreadfully boring and the only likable character is Claire; but that could just be because Vanessa Redgrave was the only talented actor in the film. Gary Winick has been a director of many misses; including 13 Going on 30 and Bride Wars; it is not surprising that Letters to Juliet is a mere follow-up.
Amanda Seyfried seems to be getting a lot of attention ever since she shared a kiss with Megan Fox in Jennifer's Body, yet no one seems to remember that flick and it's not even a year old. Despite the fact that she is on the hit HBO show Big Love much attention is from her more risque roles with Boogie Woogie and Chloe. In many ways she reminds me of Anne Hathaway; a decent actress who went wild in a few movies and just hasn't been the same since her Disney days. Has Seyfried's time already come and pass? Her acting in this film would certainly suggest so. Don't even get me started on Gael Garcia Bernal - I don't even know what the hell he was trying to do. His character's behaviour was so erratic; that I'm not sure if his character came off as a two-dimensional character because of his lack of talent or the lack of writing skills involved in this film. Finally; the best for last; Christopher Egan who fluctuates from being a total douche bag to a love-struck puppy and back again. His acting was almost more two-dimensional than that of Bernal's.
Ultimately this movie fails on many levels; a poor script and dull acting are just the first two and they are enough for me to warn you to skip this film. I understand that it's got that romantic nature that many people out there like; but I guarantee you before; if romantic-comedies are your genre you've seen this film before; many times.
1.5 out of 5 stars
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)