If you think Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” showed the danger of polluting the planet, you haven’t seen anything yet.
“The Day the Earth Stood Still,” the big-budget remake of the 1951 sci-fi classic, replaces the fear of nuclear apocalypse with the consequences of our effect on the environment.
The cheesy charm of the old version has been replaces with the typical nuances of a blockbuster: computer animation and product placements aplenty. Appropriately enough, the fate of humanity is decided under the golden arches.
The iconic Klaatu is played by (gulp) Keanu Reeves, who actually seems to be at home playing a creature that isn’t quite sure how to be human.
Jennifer Connelly plays Dr. Helen Benson, who for some reason is more qualified than anyone to deal with the incoming aliens. Perpetually glassy-eyed, she always looks on the edge of breaking down completely.
Jaden Smith, son of actor Will Smith, plays Connelly’s stepson, and the two are still dealing with the loss of Smith’s father. The trio of Reeves, Connelly and Smith form a Terminator-Sarah Connor-John Connor kind of relationship, where destruction and salvation walk hand in hand.
The first hour of the movie is a masterful exercise in building suspense. The viewer is a character in the movie, as we follow Connelly from a late night trip into a government headquarters, where we learn about an imminent threat to the earth.
The special effects are very well done. When a mysterious orb appears in Central Park, the audience is standing right next to the confused New Yorkers witnessing something that humankind has never experienced.
The supporting cast is star-studded, included Kathy Bates as the Secretary of Defense and John Cleese as an eccentric astrophysicist. While the movie is essentially a three-person show, the other actors hold up their part nicely.
The movie’s failing is that is digs itself too deep in the suspense, and doesn’t know quite how to get itself out. When it hits its peak after the first hour, it doesn’t know where to go, so it tries to back out with computer-generated effects.
The movie is almost worth seeing in the theater, because a large screen and digital sound heighten the atmosphere at the beginning of the film. But whether or not $10 is worth an hour or so of good special effects is up to you.
Rating - $6.00
Friday, December 19, 2008
Friday, November 7, 2008
Role Models
While Judd Apatow’s modus operandi of late is to bookend the summer with movies that gross over $100 million, that doesn’t stop his troupe of actors from acting in their own films. Paul Rudd (“The 40 Year Old Virgin”) and Seann William Scott (“American Pie”) are two of those actors, and they perform the typical roles in “Role Models.”
Rudd plays the typical sensitive guy who is so devastated by the end of his relationship that he loses control. Scott plays a typical hard partying, womanizing guy that he has cashed so many checks as. Rudd is clean shaven and wears collared shirts, while Scott is stubbled and wears MMA shirts.
While the casting offers nothing new for either actor, there is a reason that they continue to play these roles. They are very good at them. Maybe even more importantly, they have the timing down with each other that they can constantly produce laughs.
Add in the usual cast, such as Jane Lynch (“Best in Show”) and Christopher Mintz-Plasse (“Superbad”) and it’s hard not to chuckle as they riff off of each other.
The plot isn’t anything fancy, and it doesn’t have to be. Rudd, distraught over his break-up decides to play tug of war with his company’s vehicle and a tow truck, while a police officer looks on. This lands the duo in a predicament: go to jail for 30 days, or spend 150 hours mentoring troubled youth.
Rudd is assigned to Mintz-Plasse, who brings back his McLovin persona in all its awkward glory. Scott is assigned a rowdy child with a filthy mouth played by cinematic newcomer Bobb’e J. Thompson.
The story gets very trite from here on out, with both men initially dreading their service, before coming to enjoy their assigned punishment. There is the obligatory moment where it all comes crashing down (with a high-voiced, acoustic guitar playing singer singing a mournful tune on the background of course), and then the rest of the movie is spent rebuilding.
What keeps it fresh is the interaction between the characters. Whether it is a camping trip, or a weekend spent participating in a medieval role-playing game, the characters always find time to exchange snide remarks.
Basically the whole movie plays out like an Apatow-inspired remake of “Problem Child” which is an intriguing possibility. The movie is much funnier than the few cheap laughs played in the trailer, and while it won’t be making a dent this awards season, it is a great way to spend two hours.
Whether it is worth your ten dollars, well, that depends on your sense of humor.
Rating - $8.50
Rudd plays the typical sensitive guy who is so devastated by the end of his relationship that he loses control. Scott plays a typical hard partying, womanizing guy that he has cashed so many checks as. Rudd is clean shaven and wears collared shirts, while Scott is stubbled and wears MMA shirts.
While the casting offers nothing new for either actor, there is a reason that they continue to play these roles. They are very good at them. Maybe even more importantly, they have the timing down with each other that they can constantly produce laughs.
Add in the usual cast, such as Jane Lynch (“Best in Show”) and Christopher Mintz-Plasse (“Superbad”) and it’s hard not to chuckle as they riff off of each other.
The plot isn’t anything fancy, and it doesn’t have to be. Rudd, distraught over his break-up decides to play tug of war with his company’s vehicle and a tow truck, while a police officer looks on. This lands the duo in a predicament: go to jail for 30 days, or spend 150 hours mentoring troubled youth.
Rudd is assigned to Mintz-Plasse, who brings back his McLovin persona in all its awkward glory. Scott is assigned a rowdy child with a filthy mouth played by cinematic newcomer Bobb’e J. Thompson.
The story gets very trite from here on out, with both men initially dreading their service, before coming to enjoy their assigned punishment. There is the obligatory moment where it all comes crashing down (with a high-voiced, acoustic guitar playing singer singing a mournful tune on the background of course), and then the rest of the movie is spent rebuilding.
What keeps it fresh is the interaction between the characters. Whether it is a camping trip, or a weekend spent participating in a medieval role-playing game, the characters always find time to exchange snide remarks.
Basically the whole movie plays out like an Apatow-inspired remake of “Problem Child” which is an intriguing possibility. The movie is much funnier than the few cheap laughs played in the trailer, and while it won’t be making a dent this awards season, it is a great way to spend two hours.
Whether it is worth your ten dollars, well, that depends on your sense of humor.
Rating - $8.50
Friday, September 26, 2008
Ghost Town
Most Americans are unfamiliar with the name Ricky Gervais. Maybe you’ve seen his name as a producer under NBC’s “The Office,” even though he created the original version. Maybe you’ve seen the Simpsons where Marge and Homer swap spouses on a reality show, which was written by Gervais.
Now he is thrust into his first leading role in a film, and the result is a movie that doesn’t quote know what to do with him.
Weapons in Gervais’ arsenal include the best comic timing on the planet, as well as the ability to be both irritating yet charming. He plays Bertram Pincus, a dentist who cares little for people and less for their trivial natures.
After a colonoscopy that leads to seven minutes of death, Pincus finds himself with ability to see and hear the ghosts that populate lower Manhattan.
The film operates under the “Casper Rules” of ghosts, that is they are ghosts because they have unfinished business. When they look to the one person who can actually hear them, Pincus becomes inundated with requests from these ghosts to help them.
The pushiest of these specters is played by Greg Kinnear, an adulterer in life who is damned to do nothing but play Tetris on his ghostly BlackBerry and watch as the wife he cheated on plans to get remarried.
He offers Pincus an offer he can’t refuse, respite from the other ghosts, and the plot is set in motion. The plot works well because Gervais is at his best when trying to extract himself from awkward situations, often of his own making. Imagine a man carrying on conversations with people only he can see, and you’ll appreciate the situations he finds himself in.
Gervais could hold a dialogue with a brick wall and make it funny, so when he’s bouncing his zingers off of people like Kinnear, SNL’s Kristen Wiig and others, the conversation crackles.
The film starts out looking like a new spin on the standard romantic comedy, but as the plot progresses, it quickly falls back into the standard mold.
In the process of breaking up her marriage, Pincus falls for Kinnear’s wife, played by Tea Leoni. As the independent, yet feminine woman, she is quickly able to penetrate Pincus’ shell, and he begins to fall for her.
As their relationship progresses, the movie becomes more and more formulaic, which slowly strips it of its charm. Gervais’ jokes are tossed under the rug, the rug being the standard story about the guy falling for girl, the guy has a secret, the girl gets upset when he reveals it.
Just before the movie falls completely into generic oblivion, the ending twists in a way that brings back its originality. Aside from the 20 minutes of schlock, it maintains its freshness.
There are quite a few moments that set the film apart from the standard romantic comedy. No spoilers here, but to watch a ghost try to encourage the man who is giving his recently deceased body CPR is a funny moment at what could be an awkward scene.
Overall, the movie is well worth seeing. If you appreciate the subtle nuances of awkward comedy, Gervais is your man. While the movie flirts with a cookie-cutter comedy, it is Gervais and his co-stars that are able to return it from the brink.
Rating - $9.00
Now he is thrust into his first leading role in a film, and the result is a movie that doesn’t quote know what to do with him.
Weapons in Gervais’ arsenal include the best comic timing on the planet, as well as the ability to be both irritating yet charming. He plays Bertram Pincus, a dentist who cares little for people and less for their trivial natures.
After a colonoscopy that leads to seven minutes of death, Pincus finds himself with ability to see and hear the ghosts that populate lower Manhattan.
The film operates under the “Casper Rules” of ghosts, that is they are ghosts because they have unfinished business. When they look to the one person who can actually hear them, Pincus becomes inundated with requests from these ghosts to help them.
The pushiest of these specters is played by Greg Kinnear, an adulterer in life who is damned to do nothing but play Tetris on his ghostly BlackBerry and watch as the wife he cheated on plans to get remarried.
He offers Pincus an offer he can’t refuse, respite from the other ghosts, and the plot is set in motion. The plot works well because Gervais is at his best when trying to extract himself from awkward situations, often of his own making. Imagine a man carrying on conversations with people only he can see, and you’ll appreciate the situations he finds himself in.
Gervais could hold a dialogue with a brick wall and make it funny, so when he’s bouncing his zingers off of people like Kinnear, SNL’s Kristen Wiig and others, the conversation crackles.
The film starts out looking like a new spin on the standard romantic comedy, but as the plot progresses, it quickly falls back into the standard mold.
In the process of breaking up her marriage, Pincus falls for Kinnear’s wife, played by Tea Leoni. As the independent, yet feminine woman, she is quickly able to penetrate Pincus’ shell, and he begins to fall for her.
As their relationship progresses, the movie becomes more and more formulaic, which slowly strips it of its charm. Gervais’ jokes are tossed under the rug, the rug being the standard story about the guy falling for girl, the guy has a secret, the girl gets upset when he reveals it.
Just before the movie falls completely into generic oblivion, the ending twists in a way that brings back its originality. Aside from the 20 minutes of schlock, it maintains its freshness.
There are quite a few moments that set the film apart from the standard romantic comedy. No spoilers here, but to watch a ghost try to encourage the man who is giving his recently deceased body CPR is a funny moment at what could be an awkward scene.
Overall, the movie is well worth seeing. If you appreciate the subtle nuances of awkward comedy, Gervais is your man. While the movie flirts with a cookie-cutter comedy, it is Gervais and his co-stars that are able to return it from the brink.
Rating - $9.00
Friday, August 8, 2008
Pineapple Express
If this summer has taught us anything (besides the fact that comic-book movies are back for good), it’s that the name Judd Apatow practically guarantees a blockbuster.
“Pineapple Express” is no exception. Effortlessly combining the stoner genre with an action-packed thriller, the film manages to pay tribute to both while staying original.
The plot, while it won’t be putting Tarantino out of business any time soon, does what it needs to. That is, put Apatow’s usual cast of cronies is as many improv-inducing situations as possible.
Whether it is Seth Rogen and James Franco waxing about their newfound friendship, or Gary Cole and Rosie Perez alternating their desires for each other with murderous impulses, the film has enough give-and-take to make anyone crack up.
As a twenty-something process server with an 18-year-old girlfriend, Rogen requires massive amounts of cannabis to get through his day.
His dealer (Franco) is the closest thing he has to a friend, which is the reason Rogen hides at his place after witnessing a murder.
The addition of action allows Seth Rogen to flex his acting muscles, and he does a passable job of being furious, scared to death or overcome by emotion.
The comedy is also much more phycisal than previous Apatow films. There is plenty of witty back-and-forth, but there are slapstick scenes that are done with such reality that it makes the viewer laugh and cringe at the same time.
It seems that every Apatow move brings another potential comic superstar to the forefront. Last year it was McLovin, this year is Red. Played by the previously unknown Danny McBride, the invincible Red steals almost every scene he’s in.
When you consider he’s trading lines with as many established actors as there are in the film, his performance is even more impressive.
Almost every bit player in a Christopher Guest, Adam McKay or Apatow flick is given their zingers, and the result is a comedy that feels very familiar, but new at the same time.
There is plenty of gore, plenty of violence and more than enough f-words, but the film shows just how easy it is to make a funny movie when you cast funny people. The sense of comic timing between all the cast members is excellent, and the lines that are in the cutting room floor must be just as good.
It even resists the temptation to become a straight spoof of the action genre. It uses a few clichés, but only in carefully measured doses.
Quite simply, if you want to see a funny, obscene movie featuring funny, obscene people, then this movie hits the spot.
Rating - $10.00
“Pineapple Express” is no exception. Effortlessly combining the stoner genre with an action-packed thriller, the film manages to pay tribute to both while staying original.
The plot, while it won’t be putting Tarantino out of business any time soon, does what it needs to. That is, put Apatow’s usual cast of cronies is as many improv-inducing situations as possible.
Whether it is Seth Rogen and James Franco waxing about their newfound friendship, or Gary Cole and Rosie Perez alternating their desires for each other with murderous impulses, the film has enough give-and-take to make anyone crack up.
As a twenty-something process server with an 18-year-old girlfriend, Rogen requires massive amounts of cannabis to get through his day.
His dealer (Franco) is the closest thing he has to a friend, which is the reason Rogen hides at his place after witnessing a murder.
The addition of action allows Seth Rogen to flex his acting muscles, and he does a passable job of being furious, scared to death or overcome by emotion.
The comedy is also much more phycisal than previous Apatow films. There is plenty of witty back-and-forth, but there are slapstick scenes that are done with such reality that it makes the viewer laugh and cringe at the same time.
It seems that every Apatow move brings another potential comic superstar to the forefront. Last year it was McLovin, this year is Red. Played by the previously unknown Danny McBride, the invincible Red steals almost every scene he’s in.
When you consider he’s trading lines with as many established actors as there are in the film, his performance is even more impressive.
Almost every bit player in a Christopher Guest, Adam McKay or Apatow flick is given their zingers, and the result is a comedy that feels very familiar, but new at the same time.
There is plenty of gore, plenty of violence and more than enough f-words, but the film shows just how easy it is to make a funny movie when you cast funny people. The sense of comic timing between all the cast members is excellent, and the lines that are in the cutting room floor must be just as good.
It even resists the temptation to become a straight spoof of the action genre. It uses a few clichés, but only in carefully measured doses.
Quite simply, if you want to see a funny, obscene movie featuring funny, obscene people, then this movie hits the spot.
Rating - $10.00
Friday, August 1, 2008
X-Files: I Want to Believe
“The X-Files” remains one of the staples of ‘90s television. It was ahead of its time, existing in the decade before shows like “Arrested Development,” “Heroes” and “The Wire” were meant to be released on DVD, so crucial plot points wouldn’t be missed.
The show combined the police drama of “CSI,” the occult parts of “Lost” and the back and forth banter of “Bones” before such things even existed.
“The X-Files: I Want to Believe” brings Special Agents Fox Mulder and Dana Scully into the world of BlackBerrys and Google.
Six years after the series ended, we find the two agents have taken their lives in different directions, directions that don’t involve the FBI or the X-Files themselves.
Sure, Mulder is a little more jowly and Scully’s hair is blonder than the signature auburn bob that she wore during the show’s nine-year run. But the signature give-and-take between the two hasn’t lost a step, and the familiar roles of Mulder as the believer and Scully the skeptic return pretty quickly.
As soon as the five signature notes of the theme song are played and the familiar type crawls across the bottom-left corner of the screen, it won’t fail to bring nostalgia to any fan of the show.
The alien conspiracy is the 900-pound gorilla in the room, and it is dismissed quickly in the movie, allowing it to be a “monster-of-the-week” plot which can stand alone from the show.
In this day of trailers that show the ten best lines in the film, director Chris Carter kept the plot completely under wraps. This allows the viewer to go into the movie not knowing what to expect, which is a rarity in today’s cinema.
Fans of the suspense genre will enjoy the film, even if some references to the show will go unnoticed. The main plot moves along fairly quickly, but it is a little bogged down by a subplot involving Scully and her medical profession.
Gillian Anderson reprises her role very well, she is able to portray Scully’s delicate emotional state with a minimum of words, allowing her face to give a window to her mind.
David Duchovny, despite his wish to leave the series before it ended, seems like he is glad to be back to his signature role. He hasn’t lost a bit of the wry humor of Fox Mulder, and his dedication to his work that consumed him in the show comes back with a vengeance.
The supporting cast, which includes rapper Alvin “Xzibit” Joiner, Billy Connelly (“The Last Samurai”) and Amanda Peet (“Syriana”), lets Mudler and Scully take control, but they add to the film’s depth. Each one has at least one scene where they steal the focus, and this helps the film get beyond just a simple television remake.
Unfortunately, fans curious about the status of Mulder and Scully’s relationship won’t get any concrete resolution, as the film raises more questions than it answers on the subject.
At 105 minutes, the movie isn’t too long, but if the reintroductions and subplot were taken out, it would fill a normal episode of the show.
The big question with any silver screen adaptation of the television show is how it will play to both the show’s fans and the casual moviegoer.
Fans of the show should not miss the movie, even if they got tired of the alien conspiracy that dominated the later seasons. The prospect of Mulder and Scully working together on a case that defies explanation is too good to pass up.
Rating - $7.50
The show combined the police drama of “CSI,” the occult parts of “Lost” and the back and forth banter of “Bones” before such things even existed.
“The X-Files: I Want to Believe” brings Special Agents Fox Mulder and Dana Scully into the world of BlackBerrys and Google.
Six years after the series ended, we find the two agents have taken their lives in different directions, directions that don’t involve the FBI or the X-Files themselves.
Sure, Mulder is a little more jowly and Scully’s hair is blonder than the signature auburn bob that she wore during the show’s nine-year run. But the signature give-and-take between the two hasn’t lost a step, and the familiar roles of Mulder as the believer and Scully the skeptic return pretty quickly.
As soon as the five signature notes of the theme song are played and the familiar type crawls across the bottom-left corner of the screen, it won’t fail to bring nostalgia to any fan of the show.
The alien conspiracy is the 900-pound gorilla in the room, and it is dismissed quickly in the movie, allowing it to be a “monster-of-the-week” plot which can stand alone from the show.
In this day of trailers that show the ten best lines in the film, director Chris Carter kept the plot completely under wraps. This allows the viewer to go into the movie not knowing what to expect, which is a rarity in today’s cinema.
Fans of the suspense genre will enjoy the film, even if some references to the show will go unnoticed. The main plot moves along fairly quickly, but it is a little bogged down by a subplot involving Scully and her medical profession.
Gillian Anderson reprises her role very well, she is able to portray Scully’s delicate emotional state with a minimum of words, allowing her face to give a window to her mind.
David Duchovny, despite his wish to leave the series before it ended, seems like he is glad to be back to his signature role. He hasn’t lost a bit of the wry humor of Fox Mulder, and his dedication to his work that consumed him in the show comes back with a vengeance.
The supporting cast, which includes rapper Alvin “Xzibit” Joiner, Billy Connelly (“The Last Samurai”) and Amanda Peet (“Syriana”), lets Mudler and Scully take control, but they add to the film’s depth. Each one has at least one scene where they steal the focus, and this helps the film get beyond just a simple television remake.
Unfortunately, fans curious about the status of Mulder and Scully’s relationship won’t get any concrete resolution, as the film raises more questions than it answers on the subject.
At 105 minutes, the movie isn’t too long, but if the reintroductions and subplot were taken out, it would fill a normal episode of the show.
The big question with any silver screen adaptation of the television show is how it will play to both the show’s fans and the casual moviegoer.
Fans of the show should not miss the movie, even if they got tired of the alien conspiracy that dominated the later seasons. The prospect of Mulder and Scully working together on a case that defies explanation is too good to pass up.
Rating - $7.50
Friday, July 25, 2008
Step Brothers
With the hype vacuum created by the release of “The Dark Knight”, Will Ferrell’s latest has slipped somewhat under the radar.
By the time award season rolls around, critics and audiences alike should have recognized the brilliance of this story of two grown men experiencing life, love and happiness while trying to be loved by a world that isn’t ready for them.
Okay, maybe that’s going a little too far. Rather, “Step Brothers” is a comedy in the vein of Ferrell’s other movies such as “Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy” and “Old School.”
His co-pilot on this magic carpet ride is John C. Reilly (“Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story,” “Chicago”), making this the duo’s second pairing after “Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby.”
Both of them are six-year-old children (although ones that wear Pablo Cruise and “Star Wars” t-shirts) trapped in grown-up bodies.
Unlike “Talladega Nights,” this movie doesn’t operate under the guise of a family flick, it earns its ‘R’ rating. Any time the plot threatens to get serious on us, something ridiculous or obscene happens, which keeps the laughs coming.
The script was penned by Ferrell and Adam McKay, who teamed up for “Anchorman” and “Talladega Nights.” McKay also directed.
Ferrell and Reilly play two 40-year-old men (virgins?) who still live with their mother and father respectively. When the two parents get married, the bliss of their childish worlds suddenly changes.
Mary Steenburgen (“What’s Eating Gilbert Grape”) plays Ferrell’s mother, and Richard Jenkins (“Six Feet Under”) plays Reilly’s father. They create good screen chemistry with each other as well as Ferrell and Reilly.
Though the fact that they both have sons still living at home initially attracts them to one another, it soon becomes apparent that the arrangement won’t work.
The movie takes on the feel of an extended “Saturday Night Live” skit, which isn’t a bad thing. There is a reason why Ferrell was its highest paid cast member.
There are entire scenes which consist of nothing but traded insults between Reilly and Ferrell. It is clear that everyone involved in the movie had a great time filming it, and it becomes contagious.
Yes, it features Ferrell going to another level with his signature nudity. It also contains arguably the most awkward first kiss and brotherly hug in film history. Viewers will never be able to take the Guns ‘N’ Roses tune “Sweet Child o’ Mine” seriously again either.
It’s not ground-breaking, it’s not a cinematic tour-de-force, but it is a raunchy, funny movie, and it doesn’t try to be anything more than that.
If there is any lasting lesson to be taken, it’s that no matter how tough things get, there are always crossbows and Chewbacca masks to make it all better.
Rating - $10.00
By the time award season rolls around, critics and audiences alike should have recognized the brilliance of this story of two grown men experiencing life, love and happiness while trying to be loved by a world that isn’t ready for them.
Okay, maybe that’s going a little too far. Rather, “Step Brothers” is a comedy in the vein of Ferrell’s other movies such as “Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy” and “Old School.”
His co-pilot on this magic carpet ride is John C. Reilly (“Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story,” “Chicago”), making this the duo’s second pairing after “Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby.”
Both of them are six-year-old children (although ones that wear Pablo Cruise and “Star Wars” t-shirts) trapped in grown-up bodies.
Unlike “Talladega Nights,” this movie doesn’t operate under the guise of a family flick, it earns its ‘R’ rating. Any time the plot threatens to get serious on us, something ridiculous or obscene happens, which keeps the laughs coming.
The script was penned by Ferrell and Adam McKay, who teamed up for “Anchorman” and “Talladega Nights.” McKay also directed.
Ferrell and Reilly play two 40-year-old men (virgins?) who still live with their mother and father respectively. When the two parents get married, the bliss of their childish worlds suddenly changes.
Mary Steenburgen (“What’s Eating Gilbert Grape”) plays Ferrell’s mother, and Richard Jenkins (“Six Feet Under”) plays Reilly’s father. They create good screen chemistry with each other as well as Ferrell and Reilly.
Though the fact that they both have sons still living at home initially attracts them to one another, it soon becomes apparent that the arrangement won’t work.
The movie takes on the feel of an extended “Saturday Night Live” skit, which isn’t a bad thing. There is a reason why Ferrell was its highest paid cast member.
There are entire scenes which consist of nothing but traded insults between Reilly and Ferrell. It is clear that everyone involved in the movie had a great time filming it, and it becomes contagious.
Yes, it features Ferrell going to another level with his signature nudity. It also contains arguably the most awkward first kiss and brotherly hug in film history. Viewers will never be able to take the Guns ‘N’ Roses tune “Sweet Child o’ Mine” seriously again either.
It’s not ground-breaking, it’s not a cinematic tour-de-force, but it is a raunchy, funny movie, and it doesn’t try to be anything more than that.
If there is any lasting lesson to be taken, it’s that no matter how tough things get, there are always crossbows and Chewbacca masks to make it all better.
Rating - $10.00
Friday, June 13, 2008
The Incredible Hulk
The first thing prospective viewers of “The Incredible Hulk” will be asking themselves is what the film’s relation is to Ang Lee’s disaster, 2003’s “Hulk.”
Fortunately, the first film is never mentioned, and the Hulk’s origin is explained in the three-minute opening credit sequence. The events are not the same as in the first movie, indicating that this film is an entirely new reboot for the green-skinned hero.
Screenwriter Zak Penn (“PCU,” X-Men 2,” “X-Men: The Last Stand”), no stranger to the comic book movie, penned the script with help from Edward Norton. The result is a script that is closer to the comics and original television show than the previous film.
Norton fills the title role this time, and his acting chops lend a little more depth to Dr. Bruce Banner. Banner lives his life trying to control his heart rate, because anything over 200 beats per minute will unleash his monstrous alter ego.
Playing his love interest Betty Ross, is Liv Tyler. Best known for her glassy eyed stare and quivering lower lip, she was tailor made to play the torn, wounded love interest of Banner.
The film opens to find Banner working in a soda bottling plant in a third-world country, taking anger management in order to manage his ‘incidents.’
When he is eventually tracked down, the story uses the patented “Cloverfield” method of showing glimpses of the monster, in order to build the tension (previously known as the “Jaws” method).
In addition to “Cloverfield,” the film’s opening chase scene strongly resembles one from the blockbuster, “The Bourne Ultimatum.” While there is nothing wrong with films paying tribute to one another, when the references are to smash hits that have come out less than a year ago, it tends to make one cynical.
Many elements of nostalgia from the television show are present, including the famous piano theme from the closing credits, and a brief appearance by Lou Ferrigno.
The film also makes it clear that it is part of the Marvel comics universe. There are several references to Tonty Stark, the main character from “Iron Man.”
The bread and butter of superhero movies, the fight scenes, are incredible. While the Hulk fighting his human pursuers is somewhat entertaining, it’s the fight with The Abomination at the end
Despite its cast improvement over its predecessor, the movie seems unsure of its own worth. Three of the biggest movies in the last nine months are referenced, and the result is a movie that seems unsure of itself.
The film’s strength lies in its narrative. Since the first half of the movie isn’t wasted with an origin story, a full story can develop. As successful as superhero movies become, the first half of the first movie in series can be taken up by the origin, and it strains the narrative when the stories must be juggled.
The film’s conclusion just seems to taper off into nothing, and while ground is laid for the sequel; the viewer is left unsure of the fate of several key characters.
While not quote the savior to the genre that “Iron Man” was (and maybe it’s unfair to compare the two, but Marvel chose to release them within a month of each other), the film is another step in the right direction.
It takes another step towards creating The Avengers, a superhero group that consists of the Hulk and Iron Man, as well as Captain America, Thor and others. But rather than phone in the film in anticipation of an epic Avengers film, “The Incredible Hulk” lays a good foundation for both sequels and crossovers.
Rating - $8.00
Fortunately, the first film is never mentioned, and the Hulk’s origin is explained in the three-minute opening credit sequence. The events are not the same as in the first movie, indicating that this film is an entirely new reboot for the green-skinned hero.
Screenwriter Zak Penn (“PCU,” X-Men 2,” “X-Men: The Last Stand”), no stranger to the comic book movie, penned the script with help from Edward Norton. The result is a script that is closer to the comics and original television show than the previous film.
Norton fills the title role this time, and his acting chops lend a little more depth to Dr. Bruce Banner. Banner lives his life trying to control his heart rate, because anything over 200 beats per minute will unleash his monstrous alter ego.
Playing his love interest Betty Ross, is Liv Tyler. Best known for her glassy eyed stare and quivering lower lip, she was tailor made to play the torn, wounded love interest of Banner.
The film opens to find Banner working in a soda bottling plant in a third-world country, taking anger management in order to manage his ‘incidents.’
When he is eventually tracked down, the story uses the patented “Cloverfield” method of showing glimpses of the monster, in order to build the tension (previously known as the “Jaws” method).
In addition to “Cloverfield,” the film’s opening chase scene strongly resembles one from the blockbuster, “The Bourne Ultimatum.” While there is nothing wrong with films paying tribute to one another, when the references are to smash hits that have come out less than a year ago, it tends to make one cynical.
Many elements of nostalgia from the television show are present, including the famous piano theme from the closing credits, and a brief appearance by Lou Ferrigno.
The film also makes it clear that it is part of the Marvel comics universe. There are several references to Tonty Stark, the main character from “Iron Man.”
The bread and butter of superhero movies, the fight scenes, are incredible. While the Hulk fighting his human pursuers is somewhat entertaining, it’s the fight with The Abomination at the end
Despite its cast improvement over its predecessor, the movie seems unsure of its own worth. Three of the biggest movies in the last nine months are referenced, and the result is a movie that seems unsure of itself.
The film’s strength lies in its narrative. Since the first half of the movie isn’t wasted with an origin story, a full story can develop. As successful as superhero movies become, the first half of the first movie in series can be taken up by the origin, and it strains the narrative when the stories must be juggled.
The film’s conclusion just seems to taper off into nothing, and while ground is laid for the sequel; the viewer is left unsure of the fate of several key characters.
While not quote the savior to the genre that “Iron Man” was (and maybe it’s unfair to compare the two, but Marvel chose to release them within a month of each other), the film is another step in the right direction.
It takes another step towards creating The Avengers, a superhero group that consists of the Hulk and Iron Man, as well as Captain America, Thor and others. But rather than phone in the film in anticipation of an epic Avengers film, “The Incredible Hulk” lays a good foundation for both sequels and crossovers.
Rating - $8.00
Friday, May 23, 2008
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
When word came out that a fourth installment of Indiana Jones was on its’ way, people were understandably skeptical. After all, the last trilogy George Lucas updated didn’t turn out so well.
The fact that Steven Spielberg is at the helm of this picture offers some reassurance.
Harrison Ford, 65, reprises one of his iconic roles as Indiana Jones, professor of Archaeology by day, international adventurer by night. Ford trades in his watch and pension for his trademark fedora and bullwhip.
In “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull,” nineteen years have passed since the last movie. The film immediately thrusts the viewer into the world of the 1950’s, courtesy of Elvis Aaron Presley’s “Hound Dog,” which was at the top of the charts around the time of the movie.
Gone are the Nazi scientists searching for the power to conquer the world. Replacing them are the Cold War-era Russians searching for the power to conquer the world.
Cate Blanchett (“The Aviator”) plays a Russian colonel who is obsessed with the possibilities offered by psychic warfare. While her accent falters at times, she does very well playing the evil-yet-seductive women that Indy seems to always come in contact with.
Shia LeBeouf (“Transformers,” “Disturbia”) plays a James Dean-style greaser, complete with leather jacket and motorcycle. He nervously combs his hair, doesn’t back down from anything, and does all the other things that round out the characters from “Grease” and “West Side Story” among others.
The character of George “Mac” McHale, played by Ray Winstone (“The Departed,” “Beowulf”) seems to be a last minute addition, a double-, triple- and quadruple- agent who is a shadow, passing in and out of the narrative without leaving any sort of lasting impression. Winstone plays his part well, but the writing for his character just isn’t up to snuff.
The movie continuously beats you over the head with the fact that it takes place in the fifties. The presence of Nazis in the previous films made it clear when the previous films were taking place, they didn’t go out of their way to reinforce the fact that it takes place in the forties.
All the varsity jackets, pleated skirts, Everly Brothers’ tunes and milkshakes with multiple straws in them serve to make this film a nostalgia piece, which doesn’t jive with the spirit of the original movies.
Indiana Jones was based on the adventurers from the early part of the 20th century who existed in pulp magazines with serialized stories that played out from week to week.
The movie’s main weakness is that the film seems content in simply bringing back the nostalgia of the previous films, without adding anything new.
Ford looks very fit for his age, and the script doesn’t take it easy on him in terms of stunts. If it weren’t for LeBeouf calling him ‘gramps’ constantly, his age wouldn’t even be relevant.
The movie wants to emphasize the obvious age distance between LeBeouf and Ford, even to its’ own detriment. While the serial adventurers that Indy is based on were always timeless, this film seems determined to make him a dinosaur.
While it might save us another two movies, making a second trilogy (like Star Wars), this ageism really takes away from what could have been just another classic Indiana Jones adventure. Lucas and Co. seems resigned to the fact that Indy is past his prime and the movie is going to appeal to fans of the franchise.
Maybe it was the universal panning of his new Star Wars trilogy that made Lucas and his team so gun-shy, or maybe he just doesn’t have the energy to throw himself into a new epic.
Either way, the film is entertaining. It’s too bad the producers didn’t go for a home run, they seemed content with hitting a single, albeit a single that will net hundreds of millions of dollars.
The vibe is there, but the insistence on reminding the viewer that Dr. Jones is the old man and LeBoeuf is the young turk just gets old, pardon the pun.
Anyone who liked any of the previous films will undoubtedly want to see it, and maybe will even enjoy the film. It’s just a little sad to see the bar set so low.
Rating - $7.00
The fact that Steven Spielberg is at the helm of this picture offers some reassurance.
Harrison Ford, 65, reprises one of his iconic roles as Indiana Jones, professor of Archaeology by day, international adventurer by night. Ford trades in his watch and pension for his trademark fedora and bullwhip.
In “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull,” nineteen years have passed since the last movie. The film immediately thrusts the viewer into the world of the 1950’s, courtesy of Elvis Aaron Presley’s “Hound Dog,” which was at the top of the charts around the time of the movie.
Gone are the Nazi scientists searching for the power to conquer the world. Replacing them are the Cold War-era Russians searching for the power to conquer the world.
Cate Blanchett (“The Aviator”) plays a Russian colonel who is obsessed with the possibilities offered by psychic warfare. While her accent falters at times, she does very well playing the evil-yet-seductive women that Indy seems to always come in contact with.
Shia LeBeouf (“Transformers,” “Disturbia”) plays a James Dean-style greaser, complete with leather jacket and motorcycle. He nervously combs his hair, doesn’t back down from anything, and does all the other things that round out the characters from “Grease” and “West Side Story” among others.
The character of George “Mac” McHale, played by Ray Winstone (“The Departed,” “Beowulf”) seems to be a last minute addition, a double-, triple- and quadruple- agent who is a shadow, passing in and out of the narrative without leaving any sort of lasting impression. Winstone plays his part well, but the writing for his character just isn’t up to snuff.
The movie continuously beats you over the head with the fact that it takes place in the fifties. The presence of Nazis in the previous films made it clear when the previous films were taking place, they didn’t go out of their way to reinforce the fact that it takes place in the forties.
All the varsity jackets, pleated skirts, Everly Brothers’ tunes and milkshakes with multiple straws in them serve to make this film a nostalgia piece, which doesn’t jive with the spirit of the original movies.
Indiana Jones was based on the adventurers from the early part of the 20th century who existed in pulp magazines with serialized stories that played out from week to week.
The movie’s main weakness is that the film seems content in simply bringing back the nostalgia of the previous films, without adding anything new.
Ford looks very fit for his age, and the script doesn’t take it easy on him in terms of stunts. If it weren’t for LeBeouf calling him ‘gramps’ constantly, his age wouldn’t even be relevant.
The movie wants to emphasize the obvious age distance between LeBeouf and Ford, even to its’ own detriment. While the serial adventurers that Indy is based on were always timeless, this film seems determined to make him a dinosaur.
While it might save us another two movies, making a second trilogy (like Star Wars), this ageism really takes away from what could have been just another classic Indiana Jones adventure. Lucas and Co. seems resigned to the fact that Indy is past his prime and the movie is going to appeal to fans of the franchise.
Maybe it was the universal panning of his new Star Wars trilogy that made Lucas and his team so gun-shy, or maybe he just doesn’t have the energy to throw himself into a new epic.
Either way, the film is entertaining. It’s too bad the producers didn’t go for a home run, they seemed content with hitting a single, albeit a single that will net hundreds of millions of dollars.
The vibe is there, but the insistence on reminding the viewer that Dr. Jones is the old man and LeBoeuf is the young turk just gets old, pardon the pun.
Anyone who liked any of the previous films will undoubtedly want to see it, and maybe will even enjoy the film. It’s just a little sad to see the bar set so low.
Rating - $7.00
Friday, May 16, 2008
Narnia: Prince Caspian
“Prince Caspian” begins with Peter, Edmund, Susan and Lucy (Pevensie is their surname, by the way) struggling with the real world after having been kings and queens of Narnia.
It has been a year since they came back through the wardrobe to the real world. As suddenly as they left Narnia, they are returned, as an Underground station quickly turns into a beach on the shores of Narnia.
While a year has passed for the Pevensie siblings, 1300 years have passed in Narnia. Imagine the changes that our world has undergone in 1300 years, and you can imagine the unfamiliar territory Narnia has become.
Gone is the Golden Age of Narnia that followed the demise of the White Witch in “The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.” A race called the Telmarines has destroyed almost all of what made Narnia a magical place.
The Telmarines are based on the Spanish Conquistadors that imposed their will over much of North America. Like their Earth counterparts, the Telmarines have killed off most Narnians, relegating the survivors to an underground existence in the forest.
The title character finds himself in a Hamlet-like predicament, his father is recently deceased, and his uncle Miraz now sits on the throne. When Miraz’s wife gives birth to a son, Caspian suddenly becomes expendable.
Only the sudden intervention of Caspian’s tutor Cornelius allows him to escape into the woods, where he encounters the banished Narnians.
Miraz is played with a certain swarthy charm by Italian actor Sergio Castellitto. Castellitto does a fantastic job of playing a Cortez-style conquistador who is willing to do anything to keep the crown. He is a fearsome villain that brings all the savagery of “300’s” King Leonidas to the film.
The Pevensie children are played by the same actors and actresses from the previous film. As Edmund, Skandar Keynes pushes his character to the front of almost every scene. While Edmund was a major character in the first film, he takes a back seat to the other siblings for this one.
It is a credit to Keynes’ screen presence that he is able to draw attention even in a reduced role. His dry British wit steals every scene it’s in, and his mix of courage and dourness make Edmund a character worth observing.
Harry Gregson-Williams (“Team America,” Kingdom of Heaven”) composed a transcendent score for the movie. He is able to provide accompaniment to a chase through the woods or a sneak attack on a castle that conveys the tension of the moments in many different ways.
The score is so effective that the few moments of silence seem to be the loudest, most intense of the film.
Due to the epic nature of the C.S. Lewis book on which the movie is based, there is no shortage of battles and confrontations. The Christian theology that is so omnipresent in the novels is very much a part of this film.
The struggle between differing ideologies, whether it be between Caspian and Peter or the Narnians and Telmarines, is shown in a way that the audience is clear on who is right and who is wrong.
The movie’s gravity and epic feel is slowly undone by its reliance on slapstick humor. With so many talking animals populating Narnia, the filmmakers cannot resist the “Alvin and the
Chipmunks” humor that seems to fill most family films.
While this can be excused at the beginning, when things remain light, the shtick laid in ever thicker as the movie progresses. Almost every significant moment towards the end is tainted by a cheap throwaway attempt at a laugh.
In addition to robbing the film of its epic nature, the jokes slowly eat away at some great acting performances. The hour and a half spent making Miraz a dangerous character is nullified by five minutes of lame jokes right before what should be an epic battle between him and Peter.
Lewis’ saga is supposed to be one of the great mythologies of Western literature. The books succeeded in putting Christian themes in an epic fantasy narrative that stands up with or without the religious context.
If the movies continue to make talking animals make cheap jokes, not only does this take away from Narnia’s legacy, it does a disservice to all fans of the novels who want to see Lewis’ vision brought to the silver screen.
Rating - $5.50
It has been a year since they came back through the wardrobe to the real world. As suddenly as they left Narnia, they are returned, as an Underground station quickly turns into a beach on the shores of Narnia.
While a year has passed for the Pevensie siblings, 1300 years have passed in Narnia. Imagine the changes that our world has undergone in 1300 years, and you can imagine the unfamiliar territory Narnia has become.
Gone is the Golden Age of Narnia that followed the demise of the White Witch in “The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.” A race called the Telmarines has destroyed almost all of what made Narnia a magical place.
The Telmarines are based on the Spanish Conquistadors that imposed their will over much of North America. Like their Earth counterparts, the Telmarines have killed off most Narnians, relegating the survivors to an underground existence in the forest.
The title character finds himself in a Hamlet-like predicament, his father is recently deceased, and his uncle Miraz now sits on the throne. When Miraz’s wife gives birth to a son, Caspian suddenly becomes expendable.
Only the sudden intervention of Caspian’s tutor Cornelius allows him to escape into the woods, where he encounters the banished Narnians.
Miraz is played with a certain swarthy charm by Italian actor Sergio Castellitto. Castellitto does a fantastic job of playing a Cortez-style conquistador who is willing to do anything to keep the crown. He is a fearsome villain that brings all the savagery of “300’s” King Leonidas to the film.
The Pevensie children are played by the same actors and actresses from the previous film. As Edmund, Skandar Keynes pushes his character to the front of almost every scene. While Edmund was a major character in the first film, he takes a back seat to the other siblings for this one.
It is a credit to Keynes’ screen presence that he is able to draw attention even in a reduced role. His dry British wit steals every scene it’s in, and his mix of courage and dourness make Edmund a character worth observing.
Harry Gregson-Williams (“Team America,” Kingdom of Heaven”) composed a transcendent score for the movie. He is able to provide accompaniment to a chase through the woods or a sneak attack on a castle that conveys the tension of the moments in many different ways.
The score is so effective that the few moments of silence seem to be the loudest, most intense of the film.
Due to the epic nature of the C.S. Lewis book on which the movie is based, there is no shortage of battles and confrontations. The Christian theology that is so omnipresent in the novels is very much a part of this film.
The struggle between differing ideologies, whether it be between Caspian and Peter or the Narnians and Telmarines, is shown in a way that the audience is clear on who is right and who is wrong.
The movie’s gravity and epic feel is slowly undone by its reliance on slapstick humor. With so many talking animals populating Narnia, the filmmakers cannot resist the “Alvin and the
Chipmunks” humor that seems to fill most family films.
While this can be excused at the beginning, when things remain light, the shtick laid in ever thicker as the movie progresses. Almost every significant moment towards the end is tainted by a cheap throwaway attempt at a laugh.
In addition to robbing the film of its epic nature, the jokes slowly eat away at some great acting performances. The hour and a half spent making Miraz a dangerous character is nullified by five minutes of lame jokes right before what should be an epic battle between him and Peter.
Lewis’ saga is supposed to be one of the great mythologies of Western literature. The books succeeded in putting Christian themes in an epic fantasy narrative that stands up with or without the religious context.
If the movies continue to make talking animals make cheap jokes, not only does this take away from Narnia’s legacy, it does a disservice to all fans of the novels who want to see Lewis’ vision brought to the silver screen.
Rating - $5.50
Friday, May 9, 2008
Iron Man
It has become just another Hollywood contrivance. Make a superhero movie and spend money on special effects, not the script. The movie then pulls in $100 million based on the built in fans of the comic.
Everything the “Spider-Man” and “X-Men” movies accomplished for the superhero genre were soon undone by the “Fantastic Four,” “Hulk,” “Daredevil,” “Ghost Rider” and “Elektra” movies that tried to CGI their way past their narrative shortcomings. If you’re wondering when the term CGI became a verb, it was
“Iron Man” is a return to glory for the superhero franchise. While not as much as a household name as Spiderman, Iron Man is still one of the marquee characters in the Marvel universe. He has also never been represented on film, save for a straight-to-DVD cartoon adventure.
The film is the first of Marvel’s movies to be financed by Marvel Studios, and it gives hope that they are paying closer attention to the product that carries their name.
One of Iron Man’s fundamental appeals is the fact that he has no “super powers.” There was no exposure to radiation, nor was he born with any special abilities. All of his powers come from his own mind, from the suit of armor that he has designed for himself.
Most superhero movies cast actors on their way up. Tobey Maguire, Eric Bana and most of the ‘X-Men’ cast used their roles to transition from working actor to superstar. This is what makes Robert Downey Jr. an interesting choice for Iron Man and his alter ego, Tony Stark.
Stark is a work-hard, play-hard weapons contractor who has no sleepless nights due to the nature of his business. It helps that he is often accompanied to bed by a beautiful woman and expensive whiskey.
Sooner or later we all have to pay the piper, and Tony Stark is no exception. His convoy is attacked in the Middle East and he is captured by terrorists intent on having him design their next superweapon. Instead of a missile, Stark develops a prototype of his iron suit.
Stark’s captivity teaches him a lesson about what exactly his weapons do, and he vows to change the effect he has on the world.
It is a testament to Downey’s acting chops that he is able to pull off the transition from a witty yet unlikable weapons contractor to a genuine superhero. Unlike many superhero movies, the story actually shows the changes in Stark, rather than just tells you that he has changed.
Gwyneth Paltrow plays his secretary Pepper Potts. She plays the part well, she is attractive but not gorgeous, and she has just a hint of the neurotic, insecure woman character that she is so well known for.
A bald Jeff Bridges plays the film’s villain, Obadiah Stane. Besides having a great name, Stane is a good villain, ruthless in the boardroom and on the battlefield. One of the things that kept Iron Man from seeping into the general comic book landscape was the lack of notable villains. Bridges does a good job of bringing a credible threat to Iron Man.
The Fantastic Four had Dr. Doom, the X-Men had Magneto, Superman had Lex Luthor. It could be argued that the most famous superheroes (Spider-Man, Batman, Superman, X-Men) were so successful because of the myriad of memorable villains they had to face.
Second-tier superheroes like Iron Man, Captain America and Daredevil do not face quite the same caliber of villains. Since there are already two more “Iron Man” sequels in the works, the producers would do well to put time and effort into creating notable villains.
A major strength of this film is it leaves the viewer wanting more. There is not much CGI, which allows the film to rely on the narrative and the dialogue. There are only a few scenes with Iron Man in his armor, which whets the audience’s appetite for possible sequels.
The major weakness of the film is that almost half of its 126 minutes is taken up with Iron Man’s origin. While this makes a strong foundation for future movies, it doesn’t help when “Iron Man 2” is still at least two years away.
If you do see this movie in the theatre, make sure you stay until the credits run out. There is a short teaser that features an expected but welcome cameo.
The movie is well worth seeing, and there are enough subtle nuances to invite repeated viewings. Stan Lee makes his best cameo in a Marvel film yet. Hopefully this is a sign that studios will no longer be content with churning out mindless superhero movies, but rather will take the time and effort required to bring these print heroes to life.
Rating - $10.00
Everything the “Spider-Man” and “X-Men” movies accomplished for the superhero genre were soon undone by the “Fantastic Four,” “Hulk,” “Daredevil,” “Ghost Rider” and “Elektra” movies that tried to CGI their way past their narrative shortcomings. If you’re wondering when the term CGI became a verb, it was
“Iron Man” is a return to glory for the superhero franchise. While not as much as a household name as Spiderman, Iron Man is still one of the marquee characters in the Marvel universe. He has also never been represented on film, save for a straight-to-DVD cartoon adventure.
The film is the first of Marvel’s movies to be financed by Marvel Studios, and it gives hope that they are paying closer attention to the product that carries their name.
One of Iron Man’s fundamental appeals is the fact that he has no “super powers.” There was no exposure to radiation, nor was he born with any special abilities. All of his powers come from his own mind, from the suit of armor that he has designed for himself.
Most superhero movies cast actors on their way up. Tobey Maguire, Eric Bana and most of the ‘X-Men’ cast used their roles to transition from working actor to superstar. This is what makes Robert Downey Jr. an interesting choice for Iron Man and his alter ego, Tony Stark.
Stark is a work-hard, play-hard weapons contractor who has no sleepless nights due to the nature of his business. It helps that he is often accompanied to bed by a beautiful woman and expensive whiskey.
Sooner or later we all have to pay the piper, and Tony Stark is no exception. His convoy is attacked in the Middle East and he is captured by terrorists intent on having him design their next superweapon. Instead of a missile, Stark develops a prototype of his iron suit.
Stark’s captivity teaches him a lesson about what exactly his weapons do, and he vows to change the effect he has on the world.
It is a testament to Downey’s acting chops that he is able to pull off the transition from a witty yet unlikable weapons contractor to a genuine superhero. Unlike many superhero movies, the story actually shows the changes in Stark, rather than just tells you that he has changed.
Gwyneth Paltrow plays his secretary Pepper Potts. She plays the part well, she is attractive but not gorgeous, and she has just a hint of the neurotic, insecure woman character that she is so well known for.
A bald Jeff Bridges plays the film’s villain, Obadiah Stane. Besides having a great name, Stane is a good villain, ruthless in the boardroom and on the battlefield. One of the things that kept Iron Man from seeping into the general comic book landscape was the lack of notable villains. Bridges does a good job of bringing a credible threat to Iron Man.
The Fantastic Four had Dr. Doom, the X-Men had Magneto, Superman had Lex Luthor. It could be argued that the most famous superheroes (Spider-Man, Batman, Superman, X-Men) were so successful because of the myriad of memorable villains they had to face.
Second-tier superheroes like Iron Man, Captain America and Daredevil do not face quite the same caliber of villains. Since there are already two more “Iron Man” sequels in the works, the producers would do well to put time and effort into creating notable villains.
A major strength of this film is it leaves the viewer wanting more. There is not much CGI, which allows the film to rely on the narrative and the dialogue. There are only a few scenes with Iron Man in his armor, which whets the audience’s appetite for possible sequels.
The major weakness of the film is that almost half of its 126 minutes is taken up with Iron Man’s origin. While this makes a strong foundation for future movies, it doesn’t help when “Iron Man 2” is still at least two years away.
If you do see this movie in the theatre, make sure you stay until the credits run out. There is a short teaser that features an expected but welcome cameo.
The movie is well worth seeing, and there are enough subtle nuances to invite repeated viewings. Stan Lee makes his best cameo in a Marvel film yet. Hopefully this is a sign that studios will no longer be content with churning out mindless superhero movies, but rather will take the time and effort required to bring these print heroes to life.
Rating - $10.00
Friday, May 2, 2008
Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay
The movie "Harold and Kumar go to White Castle" promised in its final moments a sequel in which the pair head to their nirvana, Amsterdam. Since this movie is called “Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay,” we are left to wonder what went wrong.
The film opens to find the drug-addled duo, hunger satisfied, planning their next move. After a quick shower from Harold and a trip to the bathroom from Kumar (at the same time in the same bathroom, they are nothing if not efficient), they are ready to board an international flight.
Amsterdam is the destination, besides the legal drugs, there is a hot neighbor for Harold to track down. Even the best laid plans can run afoul, as a battery powered piece of drug paraphernalia leads to the two being arrested as terrorists.
It becomes apparent in the first few minutes that the film is raising the bar on the crude humor its predecessor was based on. Human and animal defecation provides the punch line to several early jokes.
Enter Daily Show alumnus Rob Corddry as a bigoted government bureaucrat with questionable personal hygiene. While he is a caricature of any sort of real person, in the farcical world of Harold and Kumar he is a funny and formidable foe.
Alliteration (and assonance) aside, the movie provides a deeper look into Harold and Kumar. The first film showed Harold’s insecurities while painting Kumar as an underachiever concerned only with his next bong hit.
This film delves a little deeper into who both characters are, including a scene of what the dyad were like pre-cannabis. A love interest for Kumar is also introduced, making him a slightly more dynamic character.
While the movie isn't in any danger of being an Oscar sleeper, it does have a coherent plot structure. Besides the conflict between the twosome and Corddry, tension build throughout the film between the two
A believable conflict between Harold and Kumar, as well as between them and the government guides the movie through its various funny scenes.
Of course, no Harold and Kumar movie would be complete without the obligatory Neil Patrick Harris appearance. Harris’ scene in the first film has shaped his legacy to anyone born after “Doogie Howser, M.D.” NPH's perversions in this film manage to climb to another level, including a memorable farewell.
Between drug humor and full frontal nudity the movie does have a message about the inaccuracy of stereotypes and the dangers of racism. The pair encounters a tobacco-chewin’ redneck who happens to live in a modern ranch house with a beautiful wife. Of course, for comedic purposes all isn’t as it seems, but the point gets across.
Anyone looking for a poetic and epic story of man’s redemption over circumstances that threaten to destroy him should probably search elsewhere. Anyone looking for 102 minutes of a crude buddy comedy that isn’t too taxing on the noggin, will find this movie very enjoyable.
Rating - $10.00
The film opens to find the drug-addled duo, hunger satisfied, planning their next move. After a quick shower from Harold and a trip to the bathroom from Kumar (at the same time in the same bathroom, they are nothing if not efficient), they are ready to board an international flight.
Amsterdam is the destination, besides the legal drugs, there is a hot neighbor for Harold to track down. Even the best laid plans can run afoul, as a battery powered piece of drug paraphernalia leads to the two being arrested as terrorists.
It becomes apparent in the first few minutes that the film is raising the bar on the crude humor its predecessor was based on. Human and animal defecation provides the punch line to several early jokes.
Enter Daily Show alumnus Rob Corddry as a bigoted government bureaucrat with questionable personal hygiene. While he is a caricature of any sort of real person, in the farcical world of Harold and Kumar he is a funny and formidable foe.
Alliteration (and assonance) aside, the movie provides a deeper look into Harold and Kumar. The first film showed Harold’s insecurities while painting Kumar as an underachiever concerned only with his next bong hit.
This film delves a little deeper into who both characters are, including a scene of what the dyad were like pre-cannabis. A love interest for Kumar is also introduced, making him a slightly more dynamic character.
While the movie isn't in any danger of being an Oscar sleeper, it does have a coherent plot structure. Besides the conflict between the twosome and Corddry, tension build throughout the film between the two
A believable conflict between Harold and Kumar, as well as between them and the government guides the movie through its various funny scenes.
Of course, no Harold and Kumar movie would be complete without the obligatory Neil Patrick Harris appearance. Harris’ scene in the first film has shaped his legacy to anyone born after “Doogie Howser, M.D.” NPH's perversions in this film manage to climb to another level, including a memorable farewell.
Between drug humor and full frontal nudity the movie does have a message about the inaccuracy of stereotypes and the dangers of racism. The pair encounters a tobacco-chewin’ redneck who happens to live in a modern ranch house with a beautiful wife. Of course, for comedic purposes all isn’t as it seems, but the point gets across.
Anyone looking for a poetic and epic story of man’s redemption over circumstances that threaten to destroy him should probably search elsewhere. Anyone looking for 102 minutes of a crude buddy comedy that isn’t too taxing on the noggin, will find this movie very enjoyable.
Rating - $10.00
Friday, April 11, 2008
Where in the World is Osama bin Laden?
With the birth of his first child approaching, Morgan Spurlock (of “Super Size Me” fame) is concerned about the world in which the child will come into. The culprit for the trying times we face? The FBI’s Top Ten Most Wanted mainstay Osama bin Laden.
Spurlock decides that its up to him to find bin Laden. Armed with only questions, his journey takes him across Egypt, Morocco, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, the Gaza Strip and Pakistan.
The fact that Spurlock is leaving his wife alone for the final months of her pregnancy is the film’s main weak point. They speak on the phone and Spurlock says he wishes he could be there with her, and the viewer is left to wonder why he isn’t.
Despite his claim that he is hunting bin Laden to make the world safe for his son, there is no real reason he should be abandoning his wife when she needs her husband the most.
Desertions aside, the film takes a lighthearted approach to a serious subject. A constant, up-tempo soundtrack gives the film a rhythm not found in most documentaries.
Add that to the fact that major terrorists are animated into baseball cards, and we can see that the film does not take itself too seriously.
There is also a level of cinematography present that defies the standard documentary style. Several interesting shots of cities and people add depth to the film.
The journey itself is much more interesting than the end could ever be. Spurlock meets with professors, journalists, priests, businessmen and families across the Middle East. This allows him to get a grasp on the world bin Laden comes from.
Some devout Muslims discuss how bin Laden has perverted their religion and tainted it in the eyes of the world. Others describe how someone like bin Laden is a true savior of Islam.
The film’s strength is the people Spurlock interviews. He focuses on the common man. No generals or politicians, just the people who live every day in the chaotic Middle East.
It is interesting to see the similarities between the ghettos of the United States and the Middle East. In both, poverty is rampant and parents wish for better lives for their children.
Where people in America’s ghetto must fight against the easy riches and danger that drugs offer, Middle Eastern children must avoid the temptation of paradise and riches that Al Qaeda offers.
Many people tell Spurlock that they hold both America and bin Laden in equal contempt because they are the two factions responsible for the fighting. The only thing that people in the film have in common is their hatred of violence and those who cause it.
Spurlock’s visit to the Gaza Strip is especially interesting. He stands on the spot of land that is responsible for so much bloodshed. A poignant moment occurs when he sits in the rocket-blasted shell of an elementary school, wondering what it would be like to live in a world where this is the norm.
Anyone who is interested in the lives of people who have been involved in this conflict will enjoy the portrait painted by Spurlock. It provides a level of coverage that is untapped by the CNNs and BBCs of the world.
In the end, the film is more about the journey itself than the result. The fact that people are so similar, yet involved in such destructive conflict with each other is disheartening, yet offers hope that peace is possible.
The message of the film is universal. No one wants to bring a child into a world of violence and hatred. Despite the film’s nonchalant attitude towards the subject, there is an underlying mix of cynicism and idealism. The cynical view that people will never change is juxtaposed with a hope that one day people will get sick of fighting and simply coexist.
Rating - $9.50
Spurlock decides that its up to him to find bin Laden. Armed with only questions, his journey takes him across Egypt, Morocco, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, the Gaza Strip and Pakistan.
The fact that Spurlock is leaving his wife alone for the final months of her pregnancy is the film’s main weak point. They speak on the phone and Spurlock says he wishes he could be there with her, and the viewer is left to wonder why he isn’t.
Despite his claim that he is hunting bin Laden to make the world safe for his son, there is no real reason he should be abandoning his wife when she needs her husband the most.
Desertions aside, the film takes a lighthearted approach to a serious subject. A constant, up-tempo soundtrack gives the film a rhythm not found in most documentaries.
Add that to the fact that major terrorists are animated into baseball cards, and we can see that the film does not take itself too seriously.
There is also a level of cinematography present that defies the standard documentary style. Several interesting shots of cities and people add depth to the film.
The journey itself is much more interesting than the end could ever be. Spurlock meets with professors, journalists, priests, businessmen and families across the Middle East. This allows him to get a grasp on the world bin Laden comes from.
Some devout Muslims discuss how bin Laden has perverted their religion and tainted it in the eyes of the world. Others describe how someone like bin Laden is a true savior of Islam.
The film’s strength is the people Spurlock interviews. He focuses on the common man. No generals or politicians, just the people who live every day in the chaotic Middle East.
It is interesting to see the similarities between the ghettos of the United States and the Middle East. In both, poverty is rampant and parents wish for better lives for their children.
Where people in America’s ghetto must fight against the easy riches and danger that drugs offer, Middle Eastern children must avoid the temptation of paradise and riches that Al Qaeda offers.
Many people tell Spurlock that they hold both America and bin Laden in equal contempt because they are the two factions responsible for the fighting. The only thing that people in the film have in common is their hatred of violence and those who cause it.
Spurlock’s visit to the Gaza Strip is especially interesting. He stands on the spot of land that is responsible for so much bloodshed. A poignant moment occurs when he sits in the rocket-blasted shell of an elementary school, wondering what it would be like to live in a world where this is the norm.
Anyone who is interested in the lives of people who have been involved in this conflict will enjoy the portrait painted by Spurlock. It provides a level of coverage that is untapped by the CNNs and BBCs of the world.
In the end, the film is more about the journey itself than the result. The fact that people are so similar, yet involved in such destructive conflict with each other is disheartening, yet offers hope that peace is possible.
The message of the film is universal. No one wants to bring a child into a world of violence and hatred. Despite the film’s nonchalant attitude towards the subject, there is an underlying mix of cynicism and idealism. The cynical view that people will never change is juxtaposed with a hope that one day people will get sick of fighting and simply coexist.
Rating - $9.50
Friday, March 28, 2008
Stop Loss
The armed forces Stop Loss policy has been a source of controversy since the first Persian Gulf War. It is also the topic of Kimberly Peirce’s sophomore effort “Stop-Loss.” It comes almost nine years after “Boys Don’t Cry” a film that put Peirce and many of the film’s actors on the map.
In the beginning, the movie seems to accurately portray life as a soldier in Iraq. Sgt. Brandon King (Ryan Philippe) and his men are manning a checkpoint, where boredom alternates with fear, and danger waits in each approaching vehicle.
His troops consist of the testosterone charged Channing Tatum (“Coach Carter”), and Joseph Gordon-Levitt (“3rd Rock From the Sun) in his first appearance with facial hair.
After a brief firefight, the movie fast forwards to a welcome home parade, in Sgt. King’s hometown, a cliché small Texas town. The returning soldiers are glad to be home, but carry the memories of the horror they have witnessed.
As the welcome home party begins, “Stop-Loss” seems to be emerging as a gritty portrait of the reality faced by veterans when they come home. Characters get drunk and reveal the flaws that will eventually undo them. With every wild night, comes the inevitable hangover the next morning. The remaining 78 minutes is the hangover.
When the phrase “You’ve been stop-lost” is uttered, the movie begins its downward spiral. Philippe pulls a Richard Kimble, his one-armed man being a local senator who will help him avoid jail. Soon he is off on some cross-country journey where the movie completely loses itself. It’s as if the writers were unclear on what to do with Philippe’s screen time, so they cast him into various heroic molds, none of them quite sticking.
The film doesn’t exactly glorify going AWOL, but it comes pretty close to it. Especially since the movie will not let the audience like Tatum’s character, despite (and because of) the fact that he is the only one that considers making the Army part of his future. When he decides to re-enlist, he becomes the closest thing to a bad guy that exists in the film.
Its place in the political spectrum can be gleaned from the fact that Philippe utters the phrase “f@%! the President” and later quotes Sen. John Kerry, calling stop-loss a “backdoor draft.”
The characters follow the story arc of a Shakespearean tragedy, with each character undone by his flaws.
But instead of the Bard’s immortal prose, there are laughable Texas accents and an overabundance of the word ‘ain’t.’ Instead of admirable but flawed characters, there are superficial caricatures of real people.
“Stop-Loss” is blunt enough in its presentation that the audience knows what it’s supposed to feel, but it doesn’t work hard enough to make a deeper impression. It does an admirable job of trying to tackle the complexity of the issue. Ninety-eight minutes is a short amount of time to fit an analysis and verdict on the stop loss policy with deep and dynamic characters. There simply isn’t enough time to create anything more than a passing glance at who these people are.
Rating - $4.00
In the beginning, the movie seems to accurately portray life as a soldier in Iraq. Sgt. Brandon King (Ryan Philippe) and his men are manning a checkpoint, where boredom alternates with fear, and danger waits in each approaching vehicle.
His troops consist of the testosterone charged Channing Tatum (“Coach Carter”), and Joseph Gordon-Levitt (“3rd Rock From the Sun) in his first appearance with facial hair.
After a brief firefight, the movie fast forwards to a welcome home parade, in Sgt. King’s hometown, a cliché small Texas town. The returning soldiers are glad to be home, but carry the memories of the horror they have witnessed.
As the welcome home party begins, “Stop-Loss” seems to be emerging as a gritty portrait of the reality faced by veterans when they come home. Characters get drunk and reveal the flaws that will eventually undo them. With every wild night, comes the inevitable hangover the next morning. The remaining 78 minutes is the hangover.
When the phrase “You’ve been stop-lost” is uttered, the movie begins its downward spiral. Philippe pulls a Richard Kimble, his one-armed man being a local senator who will help him avoid jail. Soon he is off on some cross-country journey where the movie completely loses itself. It’s as if the writers were unclear on what to do with Philippe’s screen time, so they cast him into various heroic molds, none of them quite sticking.
The film doesn’t exactly glorify going AWOL, but it comes pretty close to it. Especially since the movie will not let the audience like Tatum’s character, despite (and because of) the fact that he is the only one that considers making the Army part of his future. When he decides to re-enlist, he becomes the closest thing to a bad guy that exists in the film.
Its place in the political spectrum can be gleaned from the fact that Philippe utters the phrase “f@%! the President” and later quotes Sen. John Kerry, calling stop-loss a “backdoor draft.”
The characters follow the story arc of a Shakespearean tragedy, with each character undone by his flaws.
But instead of the Bard’s immortal prose, there are laughable Texas accents and an overabundance of the word ‘ain’t.’ Instead of admirable but flawed characters, there are superficial caricatures of real people.
“Stop-Loss” is blunt enough in its presentation that the audience knows what it’s supposed to feel, but it doesn’t work hard enough to make a deeper impression. It does an admirable job of trying to tackle the complexity of the issue. Ninety-eight minutes is a short amount of time to fit an analysis and verdict on the stop loss policy with deep and dynamic characters. There simply isn’t enough time to create anything more than a passing glance at who these people are.
Rating - $4.00
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)