Posts Tagged ‘critique’

My review of Fantastic Mr. Fox (spoiler free)

Sunday, December 6th, 2009

fantastic-mr-fox

Who knew that two of my favorite movies from 2009 would be purportedly created for children by auteur directors? Spike Jonze's "Where The Wild Things Are" and Wes Anderson's "Fantastic Mr. Fox" are based on children's books but have appeal to all audiences and maybe are even better suited for older children and adults than the youngest set.

A quirky, funny, bittersweet look at the lives of a fox family, replete with father/son issues, husband/wife issues, and quasi-sibling rivalry, this film will make you laugh, gasp, and feel sad. The animation is beautiful and painstakingly created, and it's directed wonderfully with all of the feel of a comic heist movie, yet in a heartfelt way.

It might be a little too dark for kids under 6 or so, but anyone else with a soul should appreciate this touching adaptation of a classic book. It expands on the story and even departs considerably from the Roald Dahl feel and rhythm, but that wasn't a distraction or a negative feeling. It just felt like its own story, or maybe the real story upon which Dahl's short tale was based.

I give it five out of five cussin' stars.

My Review of Surrogates

Saturday, September 26th, 2009

surrogates-movie-posterSurrogates is a movie that takes place in a not-too-distant future where all interaction between humans is done through surrogate robots. From the safety of your home, you control a body that sees, hears, smells, tastes, and feels for you, allowing you to do all of the things you wanted to do in life without the fear of being injured or killed. You can have a surrogate that is a different sex, race, age, or even something that's brand new and unique. It's painted as an utopian future.

And, of course, in any utopian future, there is the faction of people who are unhappy with it. In this instance, the people who refuse to use machines to interact with other humans but who relish the human experience. And then there's the murder of a surrogate's user through the destruction of a surrogate, something that's supposed to be impossible. And Bruce Willis plays the FBI agent who investigates it all.

The movie had some really interesting concepts and in the hands of a better writer, or even as a movie longer than 88 minutes (or maybe a television series), it could have touched on some of the more fascinating aspects of this society. Have restaurants and hair salons gone out of business? Have surrogates gone to different planets and under the ocean? Could you make surrogates that are giant sized or microscopic? How do people keep from having their muscles atrophy?

Unfortunately, this movie just skimmed along and barely broke the surface of the ocean of possibilities. It was rather predictable, especially if you saw the previews that ruined the entire ending, and while everyone did a decent job acting, it was too heavy handed while being simultaneously shallow to really work well.

I'd give it a C.

Movie Reviews (Spoiler Free): GI Joe and Julie & Julia

Saturday, August 8th, 2009

Friday, I saw two movies. In the morning, I took all of my employees out to the theater like I do almost every Friday. We saw "G.I. Joe – The Rise of Cobra". In the evening, Amy and I ventured downtown to a new theater called the Plaza Cinema Cafe where we sat at one of the indoor bars, ordered food and drinks, and then watched "Julie and Julia". It's 10 PM on Friday night as I write this, and I'm fucking movied out.

Review #1: G.I. Joe – The Rise of Cobra

Did you ever play with action figures and make them smash into each other while saying "PEW PEW PEW KRRSHHBOOM" and come up with ludicrous scenarios that involved your couch being an arctic base and under the couch being the ocean and there were subs and planes and shooting and explosions and faulty logic but it was oh so much fun because you were in the moment? That's what this movie is. And let me tell you, I fucking hate director and writer Stephen Sommers. Almost every movie he's directed (Van Helsing, The Mummy, & The Mummy Returns) has been a huge stinking pile of shit. He's taken concepts that could have been so amazing and managed to turdify them until they're unrecognizable fecal failures. For some reason, though, it finally works here. Maybe the writers are better, although there's plenty of horrible dialogue, unnecessary exposition, and throwaway lines. Maybe he's matured as a director, although his use of the flashback fade is about as amateurish as Mic Night at the local coffee house. I think he just found a property that even he couldn't fuck up. It was cheesy and it was stupid as all hell, but it was fun, and I enjoyed watching it.

Review #2: Julie & Julia

Have I ever mentioned that I hate Meryl Streep? She's hideous to me, and I want her to die in a horrible car wreck that also claims the lives of Kyra Sedgwick and Glenn Close. Well, she's in this movie, but she manages to assume the role of Julia Child so well that I was able to keep my gorge from rising too much. The movie is based on a biography of Julia Child and a book by Julie Powell, which was in turn based on her blog. I've never heard of the book or her blog, and from what I saw in the movie, I wouldn't have had any interest in it, either. The movie was mildly entertaining, but dragged a bit too long and didn't really seem to have much of a point. I can see why people will enjoy it, but it's not exactly to my taste. See what I did there? It's a movie about cooking and I said taste! Ha!

Next Movie Friday is "District 9" and I'm not quite sure what to expect. On the negative side, it's produced by Peter Jackson, and he is an abominable hack with some of the worst taste I've ever seen (not to mention none of his movies have been any good since Frighteners). Also on the negative side, the director and writer, Neill Blomkamp, has absolutely no real credits to his name, so this is his first real endeavor. On the positive side, the previews do look cool. And everyone knows the previews never lie.

My review of Bruno (spoiler-free)

Tuesday, July 14th, 2009

bruno-movie-poster

Do you think people suck? Do you already have a pessimistic outlook on how low humanity has sunk? Do you know that there are people in the world who have no morals and should probably just be buried in a ditch?

If your answer is yes to any or all of these questions, Bruno is the movie for you. It puts multiple faces on the ugliness of humanity, exposed by Sacha Baron Cohen's flamboyantly stereotyped Bruno, and it's hilarious.

If, however, you still have hope in your heart that people are inherently good, this movie may make you question your outlook on life. It may make you sad and cry. It will also make you laugh, but there will be moments where you will literally recoil in horror at the things that real people do and say.

Bruno was hysterically funny for me and improved upon the concept of the quite-funny Borat. It's irreverent, it's shocking, it's gross, and it's very very real. With no filter on what humanity can be like when exposed to the light of day, Bruno moves from uncomfortable laughter at prejudice, child endangerment, and hate to side-splitting laughter at pushing the envelope, shock humor, and penises. I will definitely be buying it on Blu Ray to see what bits, interviews, and horrors were left on the cutting room floor.

My review of Drag Me To Hell (Spoiler Free)

Sunday, May 31st, 2009

Justin Long or a chameleon?

Justin Long or a chameleon?

A long time ago in a B-movie world far, far away, a man named Sam Raimi made a trilogy of movies: Evil Dead, Evil Dead 2, and Army of Darkness. They got increasingly funnier and they were cheesy, cornball horror fun. Some cheap scares, poor effects, and a sense of fun made this a great series of movies that have infinite rewatchability.

His latest foray into the cornball horror genre hit theaters Friday with "Drag Me To Hell", starring Alison Lohman and Justin Long (or a chameleon. I really can't tell the difference. He is an ugly, ugly man with eyeballs that are way too far apart.). In a tale reminiscent of Stephen King's "Thinner", a gypsy curse results in dire consequences for Alison Lohman's loan officer. The few twists are predictable, but it's not the destination that matters with this movie. It's how you get there.

With a penchant for gross-out scenes that alternate between cheesy and hilarious, this film is light summer fare and fun for the whole cornball horror genre lovin' family. There are a few surprising scares and some great atmosphere. And if you walk in expecting a scare-your-pants-off horror movie like The Ring or Exorcist or torture-porn like Hostel, you'll be sorely disappointed. It's like when you think you're eating mayo and it turns out to be bleu cheese dressing. If you expect cheese, it's okay, but if you're thinking delicious mayo, you'll be fucking pissed.

I give it a B.

My review of Terminator: Salvation (Spoiler Free)

Saturday, May 23rd, 2009

terminator_salvation_robot

If only previews were representative of the actual movie for which it's advertising, I would be one ecstatic movie watcher. So many movies would be hilariously funny with awesome action scenes, great emotional gravitas, and amazing soundtracks. Alas, this is not the case. In most situations, the previews are created as part of a slick marketing machine, designed to pull together the elements of a film that has been determined to be the most attractive, slap on some appropriate music that won't appear anywhere during the two-hour air time, and spread that preview all over TV and the Internet. The movie itself may be excellent or may be dreadful with one or two shining moments, already exhibited ad nauseam in the previews. Terminator: Salvation is somewhere in between those two extremes.

Unlike Wolverine, which was a shitfest of mediocrity, T:S has glimpses of brilliance showing through the plotholes, ham-fisted dialogue, and random screaming. These few shining moments are a direct result of the cast, despite the director and screenwriters. Christian Bale does his best to inject John Connor with emotional weight even as he is handed overwrought line after line. Sam Worthington has some of the best scenes in T:S, punctuated by some of the cheesiest scenes. I can almost imagine fuckin' McG telling him, "Sammy (because you know a douche like McG would call him Sammy), I want you to throw your arms out to the world and scream. Yeah, I know you've already done that fourteen times already, but trust me, it'll be rad! Oh, and we'll take that scream in post production and make it sound so generic that it could be used for any number of situations." Common does a decent job as John Connor's #2, ranking somewhere between Dwight Yoakam and Ice Cube on the scale of "Musicians who become actors". And Anton Yelchin (did you know that he's actually from the former USSR?) once again demonstrates why he should be in more movies by stealing the show as a young Kyle Reese. Bryce Dallas Howard and Helena Bonham Carter are both particularly useless in T:S, especially since they are written as one-dimensional stereotypes.

What should have been an outstanding movie about the war against the machines and the rise of John Connor as the leader of the Resistance was instead a mediocre effort that contained all of the trite elements that must be listed in the movie-making checklist that McG and his ilk use:

  • Cute kid who has some disability but still manages to come through in the end and be resourceful even though everyone knows that kid would have died instantly? Check.
  • Completely unnecessary scene where a woman almost gets raped just so you can see a male character save her? Check.
  • Repetitive slap-you-in-the-face dialogue and plot points to ensure that the absolute stupidest person in the room gets it, with no sense of subtlety? Check.
  • Complete and utter disregard of the danger of ever-present, never-sleeping killer machines when it suits the situation? Check.
  • A world where everyone is perpetually dirty and unwashed, yet they all have white shiny perfect teeth? Check.
  • Building crescendo of music to indicate a dramatic moment because the dialogue is not sufficient? Check.

The dialogue is so clunky that it's like it was written by a 15-year old who saw the first two Terminators, drank four Red Bulls, and then watched Top Gun. Here is my version of some of John Connor's dialogue in this movie:

"This is John Connor. We are at war. War is bad and dark. But we must remain human. Or else we are no better than the machines. This is John Connor."

"My name is John Connor. You are The Resistance. Here are some weaknesses for the machines that will seem like foreshadowing but won't really matter in any way. Each of you listening to me – you are The Resistance. I am John Connor."

"This is John Connor. Please pass the potatoes. You are The Resistance. I am John "Mashed Potatoes" Connor."

This is not a movie that will get better with time. This is not a movie that built on the backs of the superior films that preceded it (even Terminator 3). This is brainless, irrational, shiny junk that could have been so much more. It's obvious that McG, the douchiest douched that ever douche, had aspirations of greatness, and it's equally apparent that his aspirations fell far short. Maybe you should have aimed a bit lower. Learned how to make movies instead of music videos. Given the reins to someone who could have done the film some justice, instead of squandering it all for this forgettable brain fart of a movie.

I give it a C-.

My review of Star Trek

Friday, April 24th, 2009

startrek

Before I start my review, let me offer congratulations to Sarcastica, who just gave birth to a baby boy named Nolan last night. Even though you didn't name him Adam, which is an awesome name, or Avitable, which is an even awesomer name, I wish you the best of luck with your new family!

Now, let's talk about Star Trek. It doesn't enter theaters until May 8th, two weeks from today, but I was able to snag a ticket to a sneak preview screening of it (thanks Jess!). I got to the theater about an hour and a half before showtime and waited at the front of a line full of some of the geekiest geeks that ever geeked. I mean, talk about stereotypical. The people behind me were actually telling Klingon jokes, I shit you fucking not. And before you talk about the pot calling the kettle black, I fully accept that I'm a geek. I am not, however, a fan of Star Trek. I've never seen a full episode of any of the four thousand series that existed. I've never seen Star Trek I or II or III. I saw the one where they go back in time to save the blue whale from extinction. It was funny. And I think I've seen a few of the movies that didn't include the original cast, but they were completely forgettable. The amount of knowledge I have about the world of Star Trek is extremely limited.

As a result, I walked into this movie without the baggage that most of the Trekkies attending had. I like JJ Abrams, I enjoy intelligent action films, and I'm a fan of some scifi. Even if this didn't have the "Star Trek" name, I would have probably gone to see it. Unless it was called "Radioactive Hamsters" or something.

For those of you who want to see this movie, I will keep the review completely spoiler-free. Rather than discuss the details of the plot, I thought I'd focus on the good elements and bad elements of the film.

THE GOOD

The Action: This movie did not slow down for me at all. I never felt compelled to look at the time or even look away from the screen. The story is very tight, and things move at an excellent pace.

The Dialogue: Everything felt genuine. It wasn't a bunch of hokey futuristic talk that just sounds goofy. It felt grounded and even felt like it could be our future.

The Actors: Replacing the dynamic personality of William Shatner with someone else could have been catastrophic. It wasn't. Chris Pine did an outstanding job of making the character of James T. Kirk his very own, without in any way mimicking the affectations known as Shatner's acting style. Zachary Quinto was seamless in his role as Spock, and Simon Pegg made a great Scotty. The two big surprises for me were Zoe Saldana, who played Uhura, and Karl Urban, who played Bones McCoy. Saldana was compelling and one of my favorite characters from the movie. Urban somehow became a young DeForest Kelley. and with the exception of a few forced lines that took me out of the movie, was quite a chameleon. Eric Bana's villain, Nero, had gravitas and felt like he had justice on his side. The best villains are the ones who believe they're noble, and this was no exception.

The Plot: It was simple, straightforward, and managed to simultaneously tell a fresh story while eliminating any complaints from Trekkies about continuity. That's right – they managed to tell a great origin story without in any way compromising the integrity of the decades of continuity and canon. And they set the stage for more stories that will have the freedom to explore any avenue they desire.

The Visuals: In one word: outstanding. Everything worked, everything felt real, and I didn't see anything that jumped out to me as being obvious CG.

THE BAD

The Action: During a few of the fight scenes, they opted for a technique similar to a cross between the Bourne movies and Batman Begins. Namely, very close in, action moving too fast to track, and occasionally confusing shots where you couldn't discern who was doing what. They also pulled out for some scenes, which I felt worked better. I prefer Zack Snyder's technique of slowing down action scenes to show the choreography to the naked eye, but that's just me.

The Dialogue: Some of the lines were very forced and were obviously stuck in there to pander to fans. Of special note would be McCoy's trademark "Dammit, I'm a doctor not a physicist/circus monkey/garbage man/etc./etc/." and Chekov's inability to say the letter "V". These lines were minimal, though, and didn't really interfere with my ability to enjoy the movie as a whole.

The Actors: I like Anton Yelchin, but his Chekov was grating. Using a foreign accent as comic relief seemed to be the weakest part of the one Star Trek movie I've seen (nuclear wessel), and it weakened the movie here, too. I would have much preferred his character to have a slight accent, if any. For me, though, and I'm prepared to be crucified for this, the worst actor by far was Leonard Nimoy. It felt like his every line was him winking at the audience, breaking the fourth wall, especially the voiceover towards the end. I understand why they brought in a legacy character, but it was just indulgent, unnecessary, and annoying.

The Plot: The only complaint that I have about the plot is that it felt a bit anti-climactic. Without spoiling anything, I can only say that I was surprised that the end of the conflict was the end and there wasn't anything additional about to happen.

The Visuals: Other than the too-close, blurry action scenes, I have no complaints about the visuals.

THE UGLY

Winona Ryder's old age makeup. She was excellent in the role, and it was nice to see her acting again, because she's one of my favorite actresses, but her old age makeup was just as bad as it was in Edward Scissorhands, which was almost 20 years ago. Why they couldn't take some of those excellent visual effects and just apply them to her face ala Cate Blanchett in Benjamin Button, I don't know.

CONCLUSION

It's a very strong reboot to a faltering franchise. Star Trek is fun, exciting, and accessible to diehard Trekkies, casual fans, and newbies. It's not going to win any Academy Awards (well, maybe for technical shit), and it has a few missteps, but overall it was a very good film.

I give it a B+.