Starring: Jason Statham, Robert De Niro, Clive Owen, Dominic Purcell, Yvonne Strahovski
Directed By: Gary McKendry
Run Time: 1 hour 40 minutes
Killer Elite is about a team of professional killers who have to reassemble when one of their team (Robert De Niro) is kidnapped by a sheikh and won't be released until the job he had been hired to do is done. Even though Danny (played by Statham) has sworn off killing, he comes out of retirement to help his abducted friend. Spike (played by Owen), a British ex-SAS, seeks to stop Danny from killing former British agents who killed the sheikh's sons.
Once you get a handle on the plot (and trust me, it takes awhile), the movie doesn't seem quite as interesting or action-packed. I don't think I ever would have imagined that Jason Statham would be in a movie with Robert De Niro. I'm sure neither actor thought the same thing. I was hoping that De Niro would up the ante. Any movie with Clive Owen and Robert De Niro can't be that bad... except for Clive Owen's hideous mustache. While the acting was respectable, the movie wasn't the gem I was hoping it would be. The action was befitting. The movie was just lacking the extra zip. Overall, it's a decent movie. Not great. Not terrible. Not painful, but not fully enjoyable. De Niro probably had the best lines and he handled the patriarch tone well.
Two things I thought about a little too much after the movie (which means they didn't bother me during the movie but enough upon reflection... and technically after an action movie, my thoughts should be filled with some kick-ass take-down scenes, not plot points): How old were they suggesting Jason Statham is in this movie? Yvonne Strahovski, who plays Danny's (played by Statham) girlfriend Anne, is 15 years younger and yet somehow they were in the same grade school class... And I know Dominic Purcell (who plays Davies), who was in the TV series Prison Break, is really from the UK, however, his accent kept jumping from what my ears think is a Cockney accent to an Australian accent to just a soft British accent. But perhaps that truly is his accent and I'm just ignorant of all the different British accents.
So... not a hideous movie but not as wonderful as it should have been. It's based on a true story but since most of the events are in secret files, it's more likely a Hollywood telling (and therefore no real facts remain other than the overlying subject - a sheikh's sons were killed by the British.
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
October Movie #2: Moneyball
Starring: Brad Pitt, Jonah Hill
Directed By: Bennett Miller
Run Time: 2 hours 6 minutes
Moneyball is about the 2002 Oakland A's quest to find good ball players on their very limited payroll. Moneyball refers to the tactic of using stats, specifically on-base percentages, to find undervalued players to fill a roster rather than rely on the intuition of scouts. GM Billy Beane (played by Pitt) enlists the aid of Pete Brand (played by Hill), a recent Yale graduate with an economics major and an eye for stats.
I liked this movie. It was a little long and a little slow in parts but overall it had a nice tone. It was funnier than I thought it would be. There was a lot of plot, good angst feel. Jeff liked the sound of the movie. During some pivotal baseball scenes, instead of playing looming background music or crescendoing, the sound goes completely silent. Completely. It was an effective use of building drama. You could hear your own heartbeat. But as the sound mixing was stellar, some of the cinematic moments were a bit odd, like the weird nighttime driving scenes oddly shot from the passenger's seat looking over at Billy Beane driving with the night sky as the backdrop. Those scenes were hard on the eyes, hard to see what was really going on or seeing Billy's expression. I get the point of them but they were just odd.
Although this movie is a baseball movie, it's heavily geared towards stats. You don't need to understand baseball or even remember the season, And even if you do remember the season, remember that this is a movie so there's a bit of poetic license in retelling the tale. After all, technically this is a movie about office workers, what goes on in the front office of baseball. Office life can be a bit boring (ask anyone who does it) so there's going to be a few stretches in the truth in order to make the movie interesting, more dramatic. Numbers aren't always dramatic.
Brad Pitt is starting to look spookily like Robert Redford. He always seems to be eating in his movies (watch Ocean's Eleven to really see what I'm talking about). And if he wasn't eating, he was chewing tobacco, which turned my stomach. The chew was disgusting. I don't think they needed to add that bit to his character, especially since there really wasn't character development. Ooh, one side note: The song that the daughter sings is an anachronism. The movie takes place in 2002; the song wasn't released until 2008. It's a fitting song. She sings it well.
Overall, I liked it. Jeff liked it, too. It's a good movie that's well told. It's well filmed. It also has a lot of really funny lines. Good movie.
Directed By: Bennett Miller
Run Time: 2 hours 6 minutes
Moneyball is about the 2002 Oakland A's quest to find good ball players on their very limited payroll. Moneyball refers to the tactic of using stats, specifically on-base percentages, to find undervalued players to fill a roster rather than rely on the intuition of scouts. GM Billy Beane (played by Pitt) enlists the aid of Pete Brand (played by Hill), a recent Yale graduate with an economics major and an eye for stats.
I liked this movie. It was a little long and a little slow in parts but overall it had a nice tone. It was funnier than I thought it would be. There was a lot of plot, good angst feel. Jeff liked the sound of the movie. During some pivotal baseball scenes, instead of playing looming background music or crescendoing, the sound goes completely silent. Completely. It was an effective use of building drama. You could hear your own heartbeat. But as the sound mixing was stellar, some of the cinematic moments were a bit odd, like the weird nighttime driving scenes oddly shot from the passenger's seat looking over at Billy Beane driving with the night sky as the backdrop. Those scenes were hard on the eyes, hard to see what was really going on or seeing Billy's expression. I get the point of them but they were just odd.
Although this movie is a baseball movie, it's heavily geared towards stats. You don't need to understand baseball or even remember the season, And even if you do remember the season, remember that this is a movie so there's a bit of poetic license in retelling the tale. After all, technically this is a movie about office workers, what goes on in the front office of baseball. Office life can be a bit boring (ask anyone who does it) so there's going to be a few stretches in the truth in order to make the movie interesting, more dramatic. Numbers aren't always dramatic.
Brad Pitt is starting to look spookily like Robert Redford. He always seems to be eating in his movies (watch Ocean's Eleven to really see what I'm talking about). And if he wasn't eating, he was chewing tobacco, which turned my stomach. The chew was disgusting. I don't think they needed to add that bit to his character, especially since there really wasn't character development. Ooh, one side note: The song that the daughter sings is an anachronism. The movie takes place in 2002; the song wasn't released until 2008. It's a fitting song. She sings it well.
Overall, I liked it. Jeff liked it, too. It's a good movie that's well told. It's well filmed. It also has a lot of really funny lines. Good movie.
Saturday, October 1, 2011
October Movie #1: What's Your Number?
Starring: Anna Faris, Chris Evans, Ari Graynor, Blythe Danner
Directed By: Mark Mylod
Run Time: 1 hour 46 minutes
What's Your Number? is about Ally (played by Faris), a young woman who has just broken up with her boyfriend, lost her job, and is in the throes of the planning process of her sister's wedding. She reads an article in a magazine about the average number of men women sleep with - 10.5. The article goes on to say that a woman's chances of getting married dramatically drop to virtually nil if she's slept with 20 or more people. Ally counts up her exes and discovers she's at 19. All of her friends have considerably fewer totals. Ally then decides to go through the list of her exes and see which one has gotten better over time and could possibly be the "one." She enlists the aid of her next door neighbor Colin (played by Evans), a man whose own numbers are considerably higher.
I know I've said this before but I am not a chick flick fan. And yet I go to them (not all of them, mind you). This one seemed more like a fun comedy than a sappy chick flick. For the most part, it's just plain fun. There are some sappy moments (queue the wedding toast and the second to last scene) but it's mostly just sweet and funny. Interestingly enough, there are a lot of snippets in the previews for this movie that are not in the movie at all (queue the puppet scene with Andy Samberg). In a way, that was fine because I'm not a fan of seeing too many previews for a movie because if you piece them all together, you normally get the entire movie.
I liked this movie. That surprises me. I didn't think it was going to be bad (hence why I saw it) but I really didn't expect to like it as much as I did. Yes, it's a tad predictable but I'm (surprisingly) okay with that. I actually had some tears well up in my eyes, the happy sappy verklempt kind (not the sad kind). I loved the vows at the wedding. I loved wedding toast. I loved the "you had me at hello" scene (which, of course, isn't really in the movie but if I told you any more about that scene, you'd figure out the end of the movie). If a movie can get this jaded, hard-edged ol' broad to see the sentimental stars, then it's got a lot going for it.
One small disappointment with this movie: Not getting to know Colin more. What makes him tick? Why is he such a nice guy, especially since he's a bit of a sleaze? He was a fun, jolly, jovial, nice character. One thing that I did like about this movie is that there was no mean moment. Everyone, even though the two sisters were a bit at odds with their controlling mother, was nice and played nice together. I like that.
So... quite a sweet movie. Funny. I laughed short, small, enthusiastic quips over many lines and moments. I wasn't rolling on the floor, clutching my sides, but there was an amiable even keel to the entire movie. It won't change the world, but it certainly doesn't try. It will make you happy for close to two hours. You will leave the theater with a smile on your face (particularly after the closing scene). Sweet. I rather liked it.
Directed By: Mark Mylod
Run Time: 1 hour 46 minutes
What's Your Number? is about Ally (played by Faris), a young woman who has just broken up with her boyfriend, lost her job, and is in the throes of the planning process of her sister's wedding. She reads an article in a magazine about the average number of men women sleep with - 10.5. The article goes on to say that a woman's chances of getting married dramatically drop to virtually nil if she's slept with 20 or more people. Ally counts up her exes and discovers she's at 19. All of her friends have considerably fewer totals. Ally then decides to go through the list of her exes and see which one has gotten better over time and could possibly be the "one." She enlists the aid of her next door neighbor Colin (played by Evans), a man whose own numbers are considerably higher.
I know I've said this before but I am not a chick flick fan. And yet I go to them (not all of them, mind you). This one seemed more like a fun comedy than a sappy chick flick. For the most part, it's just plain fun. There are some sappy moments (queue the wedding toast and the second to last scene) but it's mostly just sweet and funny. Interestingly enough, there are a lot of snippets in the previews for this movie that are not in the movie at all (queue the puppet scene with Andy Samberg). In a way, that was fine because I'm not a fan of seeing too many previews for a movie because if you piece them all together, you normally get the entire movie.
I liked this movie. That surprises me. I didn't think it was going to be bad (hence why I saw it) but I really didn't expect to like it as much as I did. Yes, it's a tad predictable but I'm (surprisingly) okay with that. I actually had some tears well up in my eyes, the happy sappy verklempt kind (not the sad kind). I loved the vows at the wedding. I loved wedding toast. I loved the "you had me at hello" scene (which, of course, isn't really in the movie but if I told you any more about that scene, you'd figure out the end of the movie). If a movie can get this jaded, hard-edged ol' broad to see the sentimental stars, then it's got a lot going for it.
One small disappointment with this movie: Not getting to know Colin more. What makes him tick? Why is he such a nice guy, especially since he's a bit of a sleaze? He was a fun, jolly, jovial, nice character. One thing that I did like about this movie is that there was no mean moment. Everyone, even though the two sisters were a bit at odds with their controlling mother, was nice and played nice together. I like that.
So... quite a sweet movie. Funny. I laughed short, small, enthusiastic quips over many lines and moments. I wasn't rolling on the floor, clutching my sides, but there was an amiable even keel to the entire movie. It won't change the world, but it certainly doesn't try. It will make you happy for close to two hours. You will leave the theater with a smile on your face (particularly after the closing scene). Sweet. I rather liked it.
Friday, September 30, 2011
September Movie #1: Drive
Starring: Ryan Gosling, Carey Mulligan, Albert Brooks, Bryan Cranston, Ron Perlman
Directed By: Nicholas Winding Refn
Run Time: 1 hour 40 minutes
Drive is about... huh. I can tell you what this movie is not about. It's not about driving. There's very little of it. It's not about action. There's very little of it. It's not about dialog. There's very little of it. It's not about plot. There's very little of it. It's not about character development. There's very little of it. And it's not about pace. It's a bit slow. They probably should have named this movie Nothing. Technically it's about Driver (played by Gosling) who is a stuntman/mechanic by day and wheelman for hire. He falls in love with his neighbor Irene (played by Mulligan) and decides to help her husband with a heist. That heist pits him up against the mob and destroys his quiet, fly-under-the-radar life.
Yes, you're reading it right. September is over and I only saw one movie. That's probably because I waited through easily 20 previews before this movie started (I started watched it on the 1st and was finally able to leave the theater on the 30th). So many previews! I think every movie being released in the next six months had a preview before this movie. By I digress.
Although I cannot find anything on imdb.com, this seems to be an 80s remake. It has to be. That would make the 80s style pink script font credits and cheesy soundtrack and bad silk scorpion jacket understandable. If it's not a remake... weird. Perhaps the director is stuck in the 80s. Or born in the 80s. Or just thinks the 80s were cool. When you see the neon credits and hear the hokey music of the soundtrack, it definitely tells you that the 80s were not cool.
I couldn't help but think the opening scene was a direct rip-off of the Transporter. Everything about it - the shots, the style, the tone, the premise - screamed rip-off. I started to wonder if this movie was going to be just a remake of the Transporter. And considering Ryan Gosling is a wonderful actor, I was wondering if I would like his character better than Jason Statham's in the Transporter (and I was feeling quite guilty about the possibility of liking Gosling more than Statham). My conscience was quickly soothed. The opening drive/heist scene is action-packed and smartly done. But the rest of the movie is absolutely, positively nothing like the Transporter. Nothing. There are really no more driving scenes. And really no more action.
It was hard to get a grasp on Driver's character. By night, he's a driver for hire for heists. Then by day, he's a stunt driver in Hollywood. No, wait, that's part time. He's also a mechanic. He doesn't say much. He doesn't even have a name (although it was interesting how there were several moments where he should have been introduced by name to people and it never comes up. That's actually well-done - the side-stepping of his lack of name). He just likes cars.
With what little they had, Ryan Gosling did a wonderful job acting with his face, his eyes. Carey was sweet. Simple.
The lack of dialog at times seems very odd but at other times helps to build a sense of mystery. Who is Driver? Where does he come from? What makes him tick? Does Irene really want to be with her husband or Driver? There were times were the actors' faces helped move the scene along and there were times where the quiet was awkward. But mostly, the lack of dialog frustrated me because there's so much plot and character development that's released through dialog. There's more talking in 127 Hours (and that mostly has one actor on screen).
I can handle a movie called Drive that has virtually no driving in it. I can handle a movie with very little dialog. What I can't handle is that movie has Albert Brooks playing a tough guy mobster. Albert Brooks? Is he not getting any better movie offers? Or did he just want to play thug? Horrible!!
So... lack of driving, lack of action, lack of plot, lack of characters, lack of dialog. That all equals love! Ha! Just kidding. It's actually not a horrible movie (Ryan and Carey save it). It's an odd movie. And not in a good way. I definitely do not need to see it again. Ever.
Directed By: Nicholas Winding Refn
Run Time: 1 hour 40 minutes
Drive is about... huh. I can tell you what this movie is not about. It's not about driving. There's very little of it. It's not about action. There's very little of it. It's not about dialog. There's very little of it. It's not about plot. There's very little of it. It's not about character development. There's very little of it. And it's not about pace. It's a bit slow. They probably should have named this movie Nothing. Technically it's about Driver (played by Gosling) who is a stuntman/mechanic by day and wheelman for hire. He falls in love with his neighbor Irene (played by Mulligan) and decides to help her husband with a heist. That heist pits him up against the mob and destroys his quiet, fly-under-the-radar life.
Yes, you're reading it right. September is over and I only saw one movie. That's probably because I waited through easily 20 previews before this movie started (I started watched it on the 1st and was finally able to leave the theater on the 30th). So many previews! I think every movie being released in the next six months had a preview before this movie. By I digress.
Although I cannot find anything on imdb.com, this seems to be an 80s remake. It has to be. That would make the 80s style pink script font credits and cheesy soundtrack and bad silk scorpion jacket understandable. If it's not a remake... weird. Perhaps the director is stuck in the 80s. Or born in the 80s. Or just thinks the 80s were cool. When you see the neon credits and hear the hokey music of the soundtrack, it definitely tells you that the 80s were not cool.
I couldn't help but think the opening scene was a direct rip-off of the Transporter. Everything about it - the shots, the style, the tone, the premise - screamed rip-off. I started to wonder if this movie was going to be just a remake of the Transporter. And considering Ryan Gosling is a wonderful actor, I was wondering if I would like his character better than Jason Statham's in the Transporter (and I was feeling quite guilty about the possibility of liking Gosling more than Statham). My conscience was quickly soothed. The opening drive/heist scene is action-packed and smartly done. But the rest of the movie is absolutely, positively nothing like the Transporter. Nothing. There are really no more driving scenes. And really no more action.
It was hard to get a grasp on Driver's character. By night, he's a driver for hire for heists. Then by day, he's a stunt driver in Hollywood. No, wait, that's part time. He's also a mechanic. He doesn't say much. He doesn't even have a name (although it was interesting how there were several moments where he should have been introduced by name to people and it never comes up. That's actually well-done - the side-stepping of his lack of name). He just likes cars.
With what little they had, Ryan Gosling did a wonderful job acting with his face, his eyes. Carey was sweet. Simple.
The lack of dialog at times seems very odd but at other times helps to build a sense of mystery. Who is Driver? Where does he come from? What makes him tick? Does Irene really want to be with her husband or Driver? There were times were the actors' faces helped move the scene along and there were times where the quiet was awkward. But mostly, the lack of dialog frustrated me because there's so much plot and character development that's released through dialog. There's more talking in 127 Hours (and that mostly has one actor on screen).
I can handle a movie called Drive that has virtually no driving in it. I can handle a movie with very little dialog. What I can't handle is that movie has Albert Brooks playing a tough guy mobster. Albert Brooks? Is he not getting any better movie offers? Or did he just want to play thug? Horrible!!
So... lack of driving, lack of action, lack of plot, lack of characters, lack of dialog. That all equals love! Ha! Just kidding. It's actually not a horrible movie (Ryan and Carey save it). It's an odd movie. And not in a good way. I definitely do not need to see it again. Ever.
August Movie #4: Winnie the Pooh
Starring the voices of: John Cleese, Jim Cummings, Bud Luckey, Craig Ferguson
Directed By: Stephen J. Anderson, Don Hall
Run Time: 1 hour 3 minutes
Winnie the Pooh is about Winnie's quest to get some honey. And Eeyore needs a new tail.
The nice thing about this movie is that the theater understood its audience. They did not show any previews. There is a short cartoon before the movie and then bam - movie. And this movie is just a little over an hour, perfect for little ones.
The movie opens on a phenomenally sweet note - a sweet song sung by Zooey Deschanel. And it only gets better from there. What was not to love? Winnie the Pooh sings a duet - with his TUMMY! Eeyore has some wonderfully melancholy, classically deadpan lines. I love Eeyore. And Piglet does not say "Oh, I can't do that because I'm too small." I am not a Piglet fan... and this movie made even Piglet tolerable. I dare say I even liked Piglet. Excellent character development. We got to know and love each character. Pooh is such a mellow, sweet guy.
If you can't tell, I absolutely loved this movie. It was such a simply plot. It was a sweet story. I am so glad saw it on the big screen. Big, bright, beautiful Tigger, Winnie, Eeyore, Owl, Kanga, Roo, and Rabbit (and Piglet). The honey hallucinating scene was quite splendid. I loved Christopher Robin's room during the credits with toys reenacting scenes from the movie.
I am definitely going to buy this one. So good!
Directed By: Stephen J. Anderson, Don Hall
Run Time: 1 hour 3 minutes
Winnie the Pooh is about Winnie's quest to get some honey. And Eeyore needs a new tail.
The nice thing about this movie is that the theater understood its audience. They did not show any previews. There is a short cartoon before the movie and then bam - movie. And this movie is just a little over an hour, perfect for little ones.
The movie opens on a phenomenally sweet note - a sweet song sung by Zooey Deschanel. And it only gets better from there. What was not to love? Winnie the Pooh sings a duet - with his TUMMY! Eeyore has some wonderfully melancholy, classically deadpan lines. I love Eeyore. And Piglet does not say "Oh, I can't do that because I'm too small." I am not a Piglet fan... and this movie made even Piglet tolerable. I dare say I even liked Piglet. Excellent character development. We got to know and love each character. Pooh is such a mellow, sweet guy.
If you can't tell, I absolutely loved this movie. It was such a simply plot. It was a sweet story. I am so glad saw it on the big screen. Big, bright, beautiful Tigger, Winnie, Eeyore, Owl, Kanga, Roo, and Rabbit (and Piglet). The honey hallucinating scene was quite splendid. I loved Christopher Robin's room during the credits with toys reenacting scenes from the movie.
I am definitely going to buy this one. So good!
Thursday, September 29, 2011
August Movie #3: Fright Night
Starring: Anton Yelchin, Colin Farrell, Toni Collette, David Tennant, Imogen Poots
Directed By: Craig Gillespie
Run Time: 2 hours
I watched the original Fright Night as a youngster. I loved it. When I heard there was going to be a remake, I was skeptical (just like I am about the Dirty Dancing remake). I was on the fence about seeing the remake but the reviews indicated that it was pretty good. I love horror movies.
Fright Night is about a teenage boy named Charley (played by Yelchin) who suspects that his new neighbor Jerry (played by Farrell) is a vampire. He tries to protect his girlfriend Amy (played by Poots), his mother (played by Collette), and his best friend from the vampire but the vampire is hell-bent on sucking their blood. Charley enlists the aid of a well-known vampire expert Peter Vincent (played by Tennant) but it seems as though he is more of a Las Vegas showman than expert.
The previews before this movie were all for horror movies. I wasn't happy about being scared before the movie even started! The opening scene of the actual movie borders on quite scary and a little hokey because the the split second images of the vampire is very laughable monster-ish looking.
My one disappointment with this movie is that it leaps right into the premise. Within the first five minutes of the movie, Charley's friend announces that Charley's new neighbor Jerry is a vampire. He's done a little research, gathered some evidence. Bang. Plot exposed. And even though the movie opens with the main premise already revealed, the opening few scenes drag. They're slow. We're waiting for something to happen. The movie opens full throttle, backs off to a snail's pace, and then launches full throttle again. The movie really picks up once Jerry wages war on Charley.
At first, I was not nuts about Colin Farrell's Jerry. He didn't have that allure, that charm, that draw. He was supposed to be drawing Charley's mother in, drawing the audience in, but it seemed a little stilted. There's wasn't an oozing suaveness to his character, although I could see that he was trying. When we saw Jerry in full vampire force, I sensed the vampire charm. He won me over more with his bad-boy tactics. In the original, I rooted for the vampire because he had charisma that just sucked (ha!) me in.
I absolutely loved David Tennant's embodiment of his character Peter Vincent. At first, I kept thinking, "He's no Roddy McDowell" but I grew to enjoy his version. There was a simple beauty to his character and his behind-the-scenes persona. I loved the charlatan reveal (removing his costume). Beautiful. I loved how each second more was fraud was revealed. I actually thought the actor playing Peter was Russell Brand until he removed his costume. And I cheered towards the end when he decided to own up to his character.
The special effects for the vampire transformation were incredibly bad. I don't understand why Jerry had to morph into some monstrous CGI-laden abnormality. Give us some fangs and be done with it. We get that he's an evil vampire. No need to beef it up.
One absolute moment of pure genius - Chris Saradon, who played Jerry the vampire in the original, had a delicious cameo in the remake. I hooted loudly out loud when he graced the screen. There were three other people in the theater. I'm hoping at least one of them saw the beauty of this scene. I think they just wondered why the only chick was cheering just because some old guy got out of a car.
Normally, I prefer the original to the remake (The Mechanic is the exception to liking the remake more). This one is a tie. I'm still wavering between the original and the remake. Loved, loved, loved the remake, especially the ending where Charley took Peter's advice on how to battle the vampire and made it work. I also loved the original. It had a sweetness to it, a simple charm. The remake had a lot more action, had some great characters, and a fabulous ending. You can't go wrong with either. If you like horror, see this movie. If you like vampire movies, see this one. If you like David Tennant, this is a good one for you.
Directed By: Craig Gillespie
Run Time: 2 hours
I watched the original Fright Night as a youngster. I loved it. When I heard there was going to be a remake, I was skeptical (just like I am about the Dirty Dancing remake). I was on the fence about seeing the remake but the reviews indicated that it was pretty good. I love horror movies.
Fright Night is about a teenage boy named Charley (played by Yelchin) who suspects that his new neighbor Jerry (played by Farrell) is a vampire. He tries to protect his girlfriend Amy (played by Poots), his mother (played by Collette), and his best friend from the vampire but the vampire is hell-bent on sucking their blood. Charley enlists the aid of a well-known vampire expert Peter Vincent (played by Tennant) but it seems as though he is more of a Las Vegas showman than expert.
The previews before this movie were all for horror movies. I wasn't happy about being scared before the movie even started! The opening scene of the actual movie borders on quite scary and a little hokey because the the split second images of the vampire is very laughable monster-ish looking.
My one disappointment with this movie is that it leaps right into the premise. Within the first five minutes of the movie, Charley's friend announces that Charley's new neighbor Jerry is a vampire. He's done a little research, gathered some evidence. Bang. Plot exposed. And even though the movie opens with the main premise already revealed, the opening few scenes drag. They're slow. We're waiting for something to happen. The movie opens full throttle, backs off to a snail's pace, and then launches full throttle again. The movie really picks up once Jerry wages war on Charley.
At first, I was not nuts about Colin Farrell's Jerry. He didn't have that allure, that charm, that draw. He was supposed to be drawing Charley's mother in, drawing the audience in, but it seemed a little stilted. There's wasn't an oozing suaveness to his character, although I could see that he was trying. When we saw Jerry in full vampire force, I sensed the vampire charm. He won me over more with his bad-boy tactics. In the original, I rooted for the vampire because he had charisma that just sucked (ha!) me in.
I absolutely loved David Tennant's embodiment of his character Peter Vincent. At first, I kept thinking, "He's no Roddy McDowell" but I grew to enjoy his version. There was a simple beauty to his character and his behind-the-scenes persona. I loved the charlatan reveal (removing his costume). Beautiful. I loved how each second more was fraud was revealed. I actually thought the actor playing Peter was Russell Brand until he removed his costume. And I cheered towards the end when he decided to own up to his character.
The special effects for the vampire transformation were incredibly bad. I don't understand why Jerry had to morph into some monstrous CGI-laden abnormality. Give us some fangs and be done with it. We get that he's an evil vampire. No need to beef it up.
One absolute moment of pure genius - Chris Saradon, who played Jerry the vampire in the original, had a delicious cameo in the remake. I hooted loudly out loud when he graced the screen. There were three other people in the theater. I'm hoping at least one of them saw the beauty of this scene. I think they just wondered why the only chick was cheering just because some old guy got out of a car.
Normally, I prefer the original to the remake (The Mechanic is the exception to liking the remake more). This one is a tie. I'm still wavering between the original and the remake. Loved, loved, loved the remake, especially the ending where Charley took Peter's advice on how to battle the vampire and made it work. I also loved the original. It had a sweetness to it, a simple charm. The remake had a lot more action, had some great characters, and a fabulous ending. You can't go wrong with either. If you like horror, see this movie. If you like vampire movies, see this one. If you like David Tennant, this is a good one for you.
August Movie #2: Crazy, Stupid, Love
Starring: Steve Carell, Ryan Gosling, Julianne Moore, Emma Stone, Analeigh Tipton, Jonah Bobo, Marisa Tomei, Kevin Bacon
Directed By: John Requa & Glenn Ficarra
Run Time: 1 hour 47 minutes
Crazy, Stupid, Love is about Cal Weaver (played by Carell) who has to adjust to life without his wife of 25 years after she announces suddenly one night that she wants a divorce. After moping away in a bar, he meets Jacob (played by Gosling), a sharp dressed ladies man. Jacob takes him under his wing by helping Cal dress better and be able to pick up women.
I really liked this movie. It's kind of a chick flick from the guy's point of view.
There's a great twist towards the end. I didn't see it coming, which means it really is a twist and that it was well done. I was conflicted about how everyone was behaving in the twist, trying to decide if it was in keeping with their character but in the end, I decided it was great.
One side note about the movie: Steve Carell's real life wife has a bit part in this movie. She plays the wife of a friend of Cal's (as well as the mother of the babysitter). I loved that she decided to be friends with Emily (played by Moore) and abandon Cal. She made her (movie) husband stop being friends with Cal. I loved that. Well, not the fact that she made her husband stop being friends with Cal (come on, is this high school where we have to take sides?) but the fact that it must have been fun for the actress to be snippy to her real life husband.
Steve Carell has the greatest wounded dog expression as well as the greatest fawning expression. His eyes are very expressive. Those looks make him very charming.
This movie had a lot of interesting characters. I loved how Cal and Emily fed off each other's sense of humor. It's such a trait that made it painful for me to see them be separated. I liked Robbie (Cal and Emily's son) and his notion of soul mates and true love. I think the best scene was the scene with Hannah (played by Stone) and Jacob getting to know one another. It was fun. They played off each other well.
I liked how everything wrapped up nicely. Part of the story is very sad and painful, part sad and sweet, part funny, and parts were very charming. It's a good movie. Don't expect it to be side-splittingly funny just because Steve Carell is in it. It has humor but it is a movie about the trials and tribulations of relationships. Very good. Well done. I really liked it.
Directed By: John Requa & Glenn Ficarra
Run Time: 1 hour 47 minutes
Crazy, Stupid, Love is about Cal Weaver (played by Carell) who has to adjust to life without his wife of 25 years after she announces suddenly one night that she wants a divorce. After moping away in a bar, he meets Jacob (played by Gosling), a sharp dressed ladies man. Jacob takes him under his wing by helping Cal dress better and be able to pick up women.
I really liked this movie. It's kind of a chick flick from the guy's point of view.
There's a great twist towards the end. I didn't see it coming, which means it really is a twist and that it was well done. I was conflicted about how everyone was behaving in the twist, trying to decide if it was in keeping with their character but in the end, I decided it was great.
One side note about the movie: Steve Carell's real life wife has a bit part in this movie. She plays the wife of a friend of Cal's (as well as the mother of the babysitter). I loved that she decided to be friends with Emily (played by Moore) and abandon Cal. She made her (movie) husband stop being friends with Cal. I loved that. Well, not the fact that she made her husband stop being friends with Cal (come on, is this high school where we have to take sides?) but the fact that it must have been fun for the actress to be snippy to her real life husband.
Steve Carell has the greatest wounded dog expression as well as the greatest fawning expression. His eyes are very expressive. Those looks make him very charming.
This movie had a lot of interesting characters. I loved how Cal and Emily fed off each other's sense of humor. It's such a trait that made it painful for me to see them be separated. I liked Robbie (Cal and Emily's son) and his notion of soul mates and true love. I think the best scene was the scene with Hannah (played by Stone) and Jacob getting to know one another. It was fun. They played off each other well.
I liked how everything wrapped up nicely. Part of the story is very sad and painful, part sad and sweet, part funny, and parts were very charming. It's a good movie. Don't expect it to be side-splittingly funny just because Steve Carell is in it. It has humor but it is a movie about the trials and tribulations of relationships. Very good. Well done. I really liked it.
August Movie #1: Captain America: The First Avenger
Starring: Chris Evans, Hayley Atwell, Sebastian Stan, Tommy Lee Jones, Hugo Weaving, Stanley Tucci
Directed By: Joe Johnston
Run Time: 2 hours 5 minutes
Captain America is another comic book brought to the silver screen. Steve Rogers (played by Evans) is a skinny, sickly young man just itching to serve his country. He enlists five different times and gets rejected five times. Still, he keeps trying. He doesn't back down from any sort of fight. He's a good guy. After Dr. Erskine, a military scientist, observes that Steve is the type of solider he's looking for, Steve finally gets his dream and is allowed to join the Army. There Steve is subjected to a scientific experiment that turns him into a superhero - he grows a foot, gains 50 pounds of muscle, and has super speed and strength. He is Captain America!
I did not see this one in 3D because apparently I got the posted times all confused. There were so many moments where I was sad that what I was seeing was 2D. I wanted my version of the Rosie Huntington-Whiteley butt shot in Transformers 3 (which would have been the moment scrawny Steve emerges from the cocoon as brawny Steve). Darnit. I'm sure those pecks would have looked so much nicer with an extra dimension. Sigh. I'll never know.
I heard so many good things about this movie that I think it killed some of my enjoyment. I heard that it's one of the best comic book movies out there. I will say that it's leaps and bounds better than The Green Lantern and Thor. It's not quite as good as the first Iron Man, though. That movie was intense, fun, very well done, and a great ride. I think the acerbic wit of Tony Stark pushed that one over the top.
This movie had amazing character development, which is a pleasant surprise for both an action movie and a comic book. There was an amazing amount of backstory to Steve Rogers (aka Captain America). We truly get a sense of who he is, what kind of person he is, and what makes him so special. He was sweet. He was incredibly likable. He was unbelievably good-natured and good-hearted (whereas Tony Stark is kind of a pompous jerk). He was smart. He was patriotic. He was brave. He just didn't have the body to back up his gusto. He was so humble. He was a wallflower with a brilliant spirit. As a scrawny person myself, I was rooting for him. He was a great character and Chris Evans did a great job with him. It was well acted. I think we even get a good sense of who the Red Skull (played by Weaving) is through Dr. Erskine's eyes.
I did think this movie was a tish too long. After one encounter with the Red Skull, I assumed the follow-up scene was the ending. It felt short but was a good stopping point with an opening to a sequel. But there was at least forty-five minutes to an hour left in the movie. Since I thought the movie was wrapping up, the next few minutes were tough to get back into the movie. It does pick up momentum and the second to final scene is wonderful, if not poignant and sad. You definitely get a sense of who Steve Rogers is.
The final scene made me even sadder when you realize what really became of Steve Rogers. "I had a date."
The initial two opening scenes did not suck me in. The opening scene confused me. The scene scene bored me. And then third scene, with scrawny Steve Rogers, sucked me in. It took a bit to get into this movie but once I was in, I rather liked it. I just kept marveling at how awesome Steve Rogers was. Such a great guy.
I rather liked this movie. Didn't absolutely love it (like I did Iron Man) but it was good. Great story. Great characters. Nicely acted. I think the battles between Captain America and Red Skull were too nice. They seemed like two gentlemen in a slap fight. They played nicely, even while they were hurling each other around the room and trying to kill each other. It all seemed so chivalrous. I think there were so many moments where Red Skull easily could have killed Captain America but for some reason didn't pull the trigger. I do understand why he walked away after the initial encounter but even right before then, I thought there was a moment where he had Captain America. Just a bad guy with heart, I guess.
There were some tiny points here and there that I didn't much care for about the movie. I guess that when you become a superhero, you gain the ability to fly an airplane. Huh. And I'm not quite certain how the Red Skull storm trooper-esque army guys didn't incinerate their opponents with the blue Odin's cube weapons. Some of them did (toward the end). Why didn't they all? And what was with the vagabond group of merry men misfits that Captain America saved and then later made his team? They weren't military (that beard on Dum Dum Dugan was not regulation). Did I miss why they were in Red Skull's prison?
But little quips aside, I did like this movie, mainly for the good-hearted Captain America.
Ooh - stay until after all of the credits. I mean all of the credits. They're quite lengthy. So many people worked on this movie. There's a preview of the Avengers movie, which brings together Tony Stark, Thor, and a whole slew of other superheroes.
Directed By: Joe Johnston
Run Time: 2 hours 5 minutes
Captain America is another comic book brought to the silver screen. Steve Rogers (played by Evans) is a skinny, sickly young man just itching to serve his country. He enlists five different times and gets rejected five times. Still, he keeps trying. He doesn't back down from any sort of fight. He's a good guy. After Dr. Erskine, a military scientist, observes that Steve is the type of solider he's looking for, Steve finally gets his dream and is allowed to join the Army. There Steve is subjected to a scientific experiment that turns him into a superhero - he grows a foot, gains 50 pounds of muscle, and has super speed and strength. He is Captain America!
I did not see this one in 3D because apparently I got the posted times all confused. There were so many moments where I was sad that what I was seeing was 2D. I wanted my version of the Rosie Huntington-Whiteley butt shot in Transformers 3 (which would have been the moment scrawny Steve emerges from the cocoon as brawny Steve). Darnit. I'm sure those pecks would have looked so much nicer with an extra dimension. Sigh. I'll never know.
I heard so many good things about this movie that I think it killed some of my enjoyment. I heard that it's one of the best comic book movies out there. I will say that it's leaps and bounds better than The Green Lantern and Thor. It's not quite as good as the first Iron Man, though. That movie was intense, fun, very well done, and a great ride. I think the acerbic wit of Tony Stark pushed that one over the top.
This movie had amazing character development, which is a pleasant surprise for both an action movie and a comic book. There was an amazing amount of backstory to Steve Rogers (aka Captain America). We truly get a sense of who he is, what kind of person he is, and what makes him so special. He was sweet. He was incredibly likable. He was unbelievably good-natured and good-hearted (whereas Tony Stark is kind of a pompous jerk). He was smart. He was patriotic. He was brave. He just didn't have the body to back up his gusto. He was so humble. He was a wallflower with a brilliant spirit. As a scrawny person myself, I was rooting for him. He was a great character and Chris Evans did a great job with him. It was well acted. I think we even get a good sense of who the Red Skull (played by Weaving) is through Dr. Erskine's eyes.
I did think this movie was a tish too long. After one encounter with the Red Skull, I assumed the follow-up scene was the ending. It felt short but was a good stopping point with an opening to a sequel. But there was at least forty-five minutes to an hour left in the movie. Since I thought the movie was wrapping up, the next few minutes were tough to get back into the movie. It does pick up momentum and the second to final scene is wonderful, if not poignant and sad. You definitely get a sense of who Steve Rogers is.
The final scene made me even sadder when you realize what really became of Steve Rogers. "I had a date."
The initial two opening scenes did not suck me in. The opening scene confused me. The scene scene bored me. And then third scene, with scrawny Steve Rogers, sucked me in. It took a bit to get into this movie but once I was in, I rather liked it. I just kept marveling at how awesome Steve Rogers was. Such a great guy.
I rather liked this movie. Didn't absolutely love it (like I did Iron Man) but it was good. Great story. Great characters. Nicely acted. I think the battles between Captain America and Red Skull were too nice. They seemed like two gentlemen in a slap fight. They played nicely, even while they were hurling each other around the room and trying to kill each other. It all seemed so chivalrous. I think there were so many moments where Red Skull easily could have killed Captain America but for some reason didn't pull the trigger. I do understand why he walked away after the initial encounter but even right before then, I thought there was a moment where he had Captain America. Just a bad guy with heart, I guess.
There were some tiny points here and there that I didn't much care for about the movie. I guess that when you become a superhero, you gain the ability to fly an airplane. Huh. And I'm not quite certain how the Red Skull storm trooper-esque army guys didn't incinerate their opponents with the blue Odin's cube weapons. Some of them did (toward the end). Why didn't they all? And what was with the vagabond group of merry men misfits that Captain America saved and then later made his team? They weren't military (that beard on Dum Dum Dugan was not regulation). Did I miss why they were in Red Skull's prison?
But little quips aside, I did like this movie, mainly for the good-hearted Captain America.
Ooh - stay until after all of the credits. I mean all of the credits. They're quite lengthy. So many people worked on this movie. There's a preview of the Avengers movie, which brings together Tony Stark, Thor, and a whole slew of other superheroes.
July Movie #5: Cowboys and Aliens
Starring: Daniel Craig, Harrison Ford, Olivia Wilde, Sam Rockwell, Paul Dano
Directed By: Jon Favreau
Run Time: 1 hour 58 minutes
Cowboys and Aliens combines two genres - the western and sci-fi. Jake Lonergan (played by Craig) wakes up in the middle of the desert with no memory of who he is or what happened to him. He knows it was something bad and strange because he's wearing a big, bulky metal bracelet. He wanders into a nearby town and quickly thereafter is recognized as a wanted man. He has a nasty run-in with Percy Dolarhyde (played by Dano), who is the son of Col. Woodrow Dolarhyde (played by Ford), the man who runs the town. Just as Dolarhyde and Lonergan are taken into custody, the town is attacked by aliens. Lonergan is able to shoot down one of the spaceships using his mysterious shackle. The townspeople band together to find their loved ones that the aliens captured.
I thought both genres - the western and sci-fi - were done well, but the western was much more enjoyable and better done. Unfortunately, this movie is a victim of the alien syndrome - where the aliens are much scarier and intriguing when you don't get a full view of them. Once you see the alien, you can't help but laugh and think to yourself, "That's not what an alien looks like!" They always seem to get the alien wrong.
The western portion of the movie - guys in cowboy hats riding horses - was full of intrigue. What was that thing on Jake's arm? How did it get there? How did he escape? Was he part of some plan the aliens concocted? Will they find the abducted townspeople?
What I found most interesting was the clash of the two genres - how do people who have never experienced technology battle technologically advanced foes? When I put myself in their place, I could quite imagine the scene where the lights from the alien spaceships floated into town could have been quite scary and confusing. They've never seen LED lights like that before. They've never heard things beep before, like Jake's bracelet did. And to see a spacecraft hover like that must have been unbelievable scary and foreign.
In addition to the lame looking aliens, the reason the aliens were on earth - and attacking - was half-baked. Lame. I did not see why their reason for being on earth would make them want to kill. I suppose they're just angry creatures. Maybe the sequel will address that issue, put an alien into therapy.
I thought Daniel Craig was superb, as always. He truly embodied the grizzled outlaw. If Jeff had seen this movie (I went with my brother-in-law Joel opening day, first showing), I'm sure he'd say this was just another opportunity for Daniel Craig to be brooding and pouty (his take on Quantum of Solace). I thought he was fabulous. Harrison Ford seems, in his old age, to be playing the curmudgeon quite a lot. Don't get me wrong - he plays cranky well. It just seems to be his go-to character lately.
I thought this movie was well done. The western genre is wonderful; the sci-fi part was a little hokey (queue the aliens and their reason for being on the planet) but the action sequences between the posse and the aliens was quite well done. All in all, this is quite a good movie. There's one little twist that's interesting (especially for the fellas in the audience). Well acted. Interesting story. Well done. Slight hokey. I will definitely watch it again.
Directed By: Jon Favreau
Run Time: 1 hour 58 minutes
Cowboys and Aliens combines two genres - the western and sci-fi. Jake Lonergan (played by Craig) wakes up in the middle of the desert with no memory of who he is or what happened to him. He knows it was something bad and strange because he's wearing a big, bulky metal bracelet. He wanders into a nearby town and quickly thereafter is recognized as a wanted man. He has a nasty run-in with Percy Dolarhyde (played by Dano), who is the son of Col. Woodrow Dolarhyde (played by Ford), the man who runs the town. Just as Dolarhyde and Lonergan are taken into custody, the town is attacked by aliens. Lonergan is able to shoot down one of the spaceships using his mysterious shackle. The townspeople band together to find their loved ones that the aliens captured.
I thought both genres - the western and sci-fi - were done well, but the western was much more enjoyable and better done. Unfortunately, this movie is a victim of the alien syndrome - where the aliens are much scarier and intriguing when you don't get a full view of them. Once you see the alien, you can't help but laugh and think to yourself, "That's not what an alien looks like!" They always seem to get the alien wrong.
The western portion of the movie - guys in cowboy hats riding horses - was full of intrigue. What was that thing on Jake's arm? How did it get there? How did he escape? Was he part of some plan the aliens concocted? Will they find the abducted townspeople?
What I found most interesting was the clash of the two genres - how do people who have never experienced technology battle technologically advanced foes? When I put myself in their place, I could quite imagine the scene where the lights from the alien spaceships floated into town could have been quite scary and confusing. They've never seen LED lights like that before. They've never heard things beep before, like Jake's bracelet did. And to see a spacecraft hover like that must have been unbelievable scary and foreign.
In addition to the lame looking aliens, the reason the aliens were on earth - and attacking - was half-baked. Lame. I did not see why their reason for being on earth would make them want to kill. I suppose they're just angry creatures. Maybe the sequel will address that issue, put an alien into therapy.
I thought Daniel Craig was superb, as always. He truly embodied the grizzled outlaw. If Jeff had seen this movie (I went with my brother-in-law Joel opening day, first showing), I'm sure he'd say this was just another opportunity for Daniel Craig to be brooding and pouty (his take on Quantum of Solace). I thought he was fabulous. Harrison Ford seems, in his old age, to be playing the curmudgeon quite a lot. Don't get me wrong - he plays cranky well. It just seems to be his go-to character lately.
I thought this movie was well done. The western genre is wonderful; the sci-fi part was a little hokey (queue the aliens and their reason for being on the planet) but the action sequences between the posse and the aliens was quite well done. All in all, this is quite a good movie. There's one little twist that's interesting (especially for the fellas in the audience). Well acted. Interesting story. Well done. Slight hokey. I will definitely watch it again.
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
July Movie #4: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2
Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Ralph Fiennes, Alan Rickman, Maggie Smith, Robbie Coltrane, Bonnie Wright, Matt Lewis
Directed By: David Yates
Run Time: 2 hours 10 minutes
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 is the final installment of JK Rowling's Harry Potter series. Harry (played by Radcliffe) and the gang finally come head to head with Lord Voldemort (played by Fiennes). Good battles dark magic.
Dawn, Joel, Jeff, and I saw this one up at "the lake." We went to a small town, out of the way theater. Oddly enough, this little theater was the only one in the area showing the movie in 3D, which is yet another reason we chose this venue. Shortly after arriving (with ample time), we were informed that summer camp had bought out the theater. We were stunned. It was a beautiful night and the campers were coming inside to see a movie? And at this hole in the wall? On our night? We quickly high-tailed it across several towns (a good half hour drive) to another theater. We had to see it in 2D. While there were the usual gimmicky stuff comin' at you moments (swords, wands, snakes, etc), I don't think we got robbed. 2D, as it turns out, was just fine.
When we saw part one of the Deathly Hallows last year, I remember being rather bored by the movie. Nothing but wandering around the woods looking for horcruxes but instead encountering teenage angst consumed that movie. This movie, thankfully, was not like the first half. The first hour of this movie is incredibly intense. Harry, Ron (played by Grint), and Hermione (played by Watson) are desperately trying to track down the last of the horcruxes (the objects that contain parts of Lord Voldemort's soul) and trying to stay one step ahead of the Death Eaters that are pursuing them. You can feel the tension and their desperation. It's a fast paced ride. I did feel that a half hour of the movie towards the end dragged. Perhaps all the excitement had drained my energy. I just wanted someone to kill the snake (not that I root for violence against animals but killing the snake was the way to get to Voldemort... not to ruin any plot points for those who haven't read the book or have forgotten key elements of the book). I clenched my fists and internally cheered for the end to come.
For those who do remember how the book ends, Jeff was hoping they wouldn't show the aged versions of the characters we've come to know and love. He always thought that ending was too nicely wrapped up, sort of a sell-out moment for the author (giving it a happy Hollywood ending). They do show the aged ending. And it was very well done (although I was disappointed that Ginny grows up to have soccer mom hair). After all the years of battling evil, it was nice to see Harry happy. I liked the sweet ending.
Of course, it has been awhile since I read the book so there are a lot of plot points that I had forgotten. I had forgotten who dies. It always makes me sad to think about the wonderful characters that didn't get that aged ending. I do have to wonder if those characters pissed off Rowling so she killed them off as a warning to future characters she might create. :-) At some point, I'll have to re-re-read the books... and then maybe have a major movie marathon.
This is a good movie. A nice wrap-up to all the others. Very well done, even if we didn't see it in 3D. Good-bye characters. It's been great watching you grow up!
Directed By: David Yates
Run Time: 2 hours 10 minutes
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 is the final installment of JK Rowling's Harry Potter series. Harry (played by Radcliffe) and the gang finally come head to head with Lord Voldemort (played by Fiennes). Good battles dark magic.
Dawn, Joel, Jeff, and I saw this one up at "the lake." We went to a small town, out of the way theater. Oddly enough, this little theater was the only one in the area showing the movie in 3D, which is yet another reason we chose this venue. Shortly after arriving (with ample time), we were informed that summer camp had bought out the theater. We were stunned. It was a beautiful night and the campers were coming inside to see a movie? And at this hole in the wall? On our night? We quickly high-tailed it across several towns (a good half hour drive) to another theater. We had to see it in 2D. While there were the usual gimmicky stuff comin' at you moments (swords, wands, snakes, etc), I don't think we got robbed. 2D, as it turns out, was just fine.
When we saw part one of the Deathly Hallows last year, I remember being rather bored by the movie. Nothing but wandering around the woods looking for horcruxes but instead encountering teenage angst consumed that movie. This movie, thankfully, was not like the first half. The first hour of this movie is incredibly intense. Harry, Ron (played by Grint), and Hermione (played by Watson) are desperately trying to track down the last of the horcruxes (the objects that contain parts of Lord Voldemort's soul) and trying to stay one step ahead of the Death Eaters that are pursuing them. You can feel the tension and their desperation. It's a fast paced ride. I did feel that a half hour of the movie towards the end dragged. Perhaps all the excitement had drained my energy. I just wanted someone to kill the snake (not that I root for violence against animals but killing the snake was the way to get to Voldemort... not to ruin any plot points for those who haven't read the book or have forgotten key elements of the book). I clenched my fists and internally cheered for the end to come.
For those who do remember how the book ends, Jeff was hoping they wouldn't show the aged versions of the characters we've come to know and love. He always thought that ending was too nicely wrapped up, sort of a sell-out moment for the author (giving it a happy Hollywood ending). They do show the aged ending. And it was very well done (although I was disappointed that Ginny grows up to have soccer mom hair). After all the years of battling evil, it was nice to see Harry happy. I liked the sweet ending.
Of course, it has been awhile since I read the book so there are a lot of plot points that I had forgotten. I had forgotten who dies. It always makes me sad to think about the wonderful characters that didn't get that aged ending. I do have to wonder if those characters pissed off Rowling so she killed them off as a warning to future characters she might create. :-) At some point, I'll have to re-re-read the books... and then maybe have a major movie marathon.
This is a good movie. A nice wrap-up to all the others. Very well done, even if we didn't see it in 3D. Good-bye characters. It's been great watching you grow up!
July Movie #3: Zookeeper
Starring: Kevin James, Rosario Dawson, Leslie Bibb, Nick Nolte (voice), Adam Sandler (voice), Sylvester Stallone (voice), Cher (voice), Jon Favreau (voice)
Directed By: Frank Coraci
Run Time: 1 hour 44 minutes
Zookeeper is about a zookeeper named Griffin (played by James) who takes advice on how to win back the love of his life Stephanie (played by Bibb) from the animals at the zoo... who can all talk.
I took my nine year old niece Rachael to this movie because I thought it would be funny, cute, and appeal to an older child (but yet still a child). She said after the movie that she did like it and her mother told me that she probably did like it... but since she didn't laugh once and she looked incredibly bored throughout, I have a feeling she really didn't like it. I myself barely laughed... and that's saying something!
The previews were funnier than this movie. My sister absolutely loves the moment where the gorilla and the zookeeper pull up to TGI Fridays and the gorilla turns to the zookeeper and says, "Shut up!" because he's so excited about going to his favorite restaurant. But since I had seen that preview a million times, the actual moment in the movie wasn't funny. It was cute. But it had lost its charm. And that is true of a lot of the scenes. They had no charm in the movie.
Part of the reason I didn't particularly like this movie is because it spent far too much time out of the zoo, away from the talking animals. Outside of the zoo, Griffin is just a man, not a zookeeper interacting with animals that can talk. A man trying to woo an incredibly shallow and annoying person. The scenes with her are annoying. And not funny. There were just too many scenes outside of the zoo.
Back at the zoo, I did laugh a few times. A few short, soft, slight laughs. I think the problem there was that I didn't really like the animals. Sure, they were magnificent and cute and cuddly like animals are but there were few distinct personalities to make me love the animals. And me not loving an animal speaks volumes about where this movie went wrong. I did root for sad Bernie. I wanted to know more about his backstory, why he was so sad. I am really glad that they did let us know why he was sad. It was an interesting commentary about zoos in general. Very subtle. I did love little Donald the monkey. I liked his zinger about thumbs. And his advice about throwing poo. Which leads me to the other animals' advice. Another reason why this movie didn't gel - the animals' advice sucked. Of course, one could argue it's because they're animals that their advice was so sucky, both by nature of being a "dumb" animal and the fact that animal nature does not work in the real world. But I think it could have opened a whole can of funny if their advice conflicted more... and yet one does have to wonder why a human would think it was a good idea to growl at another human (although that scene was funny).
So... skip it. Yes, I am telling you to skip a movie about talking animals. Me. That's sucky and non-funny this movie is. It's not even a rainy day or sick in bed type of movie. It didn't have charm, talking monkey and all.
July Movie #2: Midnight in Paris
Starring: Owen Wilson, Rachel McAdams, Marion Cotillard, Kathy Bates, and Michael Sheen
Directed By: Woody Allen
Run Time: 1 hour 28 minutes
Midnight in Paris is about an American writer Gil (played by Wilson) who longs for the good ol' days of Paris in the 20s. He travels back in time to the 20s and meets Hemingway, Gertrude Stein (played by Bates), F.Scott Fitzgerald and Zelda, Pablo Picasso, and many others. Gertrude Stein also reads his manuscript and offers feedback.
I've read a few books by Fitzgerald and Hemingway. I know they all hung out in Paris in the 20s. But that's about all I know about their lives. I know they knew each other, that their lives intertwined. This movie suggested that they were always together, always at a bar or someone's house or had a common girlfriend. Their lives didn't just intertwine, they were fused together. This movie made me realize how much "history" I just don't remember. Perhaps I should correct that...
This is the first Woody Allen movie that I've actually liked. Didn't love it, but I did like it. I liked its message. I liked the story. And I actually liked the time travel portal. It's not fully explained how Gil travels back in time - and keeps doing it - but the lack of explanation suits this movie. Often, the details are too hokey to believe. Time travel is glossed over. It just happens. Deal with it. Perhaps it's just Gil's imagination (which doesn't explain the diary he finds at a flea market with his name in it) or perhaps it's just to fill a void in his life or perhaps it's only available during desperation.Whatever. It doesn't matter. It's well done regardless.
I did not like the character Inez (played by McAdams). She was pretty much totally unlikable. I don't like it when writers do that, make someone totally horrible. There are few people who are that cut and dry. Most people have a bit of likability to them. A bit. Inez didn't appear to have any. Although I do have to admit that I do know a few people like Paul (played by Sheen) who are arrogant, insufferable know-it-alls. I did love the portrayal of Hemingway, always trying to be manly and starting a fight. It was funny.
I liked this movie, which did surprise me (considering it was a Woody Allen flick). I liked the romance of Paris. I liked the struggling writer who doubted his talent. I liked the time travel, back to an era that seemed perfect and grand (and the time travel within time travel, which really sealed together the movie). It's an interesting story well told. Not an own-able movie but one I'd see again, perhaps on a plane... but after I've read a bit of the classics.
Directed By: Woody Allen
Run Time: 1 hour 28 minutes
Midnight in Paris is about an American writer Gil (played by Wilson) who longs for the good ol' days of Paris in the 20s. He travels back in time to the 20s and meets Hemingway, Gertrude Stein (played by Bates), F.Scott Fitzgerald and Zelda, Pablo Picasso, and many others. Gertrude Stein also reads his manuscript and offers feedback.
I've read a few books by Fitzgerald and Hemingway. I know they all hung out in Paris in the 20s. But that's about all I know about their lives. I know they knew each other, that their lives intertwined. This movie suggested that they were always together, always at a bar or someone's house or had a common girlfriend. Their lives didn't just intertwine, they were fused together. This movie made me realize how much "history" I just don't remember. Perhaps I should correct that...
This is the first Woody Allen movie that I've actually liked. Didn't love it, but I did like it. I liked its message. I liked the story. And I actually liked the time travel portal. It's not fully explained how Gil travels back in time - and keeps doing it - but the lack of explanation suits this movie. Often, the details are too hokey to believe. Time travel is glossed over. It just happens. Deal with it. Perhaps it's just Gil's imagination (which doesn't explain the diary he finds at a flea market with his name in it) or perhaps it's just to fill a void in his life or perhaps it's only available during desperation.Whatever. It doesn't matter. It's well done regardless.
I did not like the character Inez (played by McAdams). She was pretty much totally unlikable. I don't like it when writers do that, make someone totally horrible. There are few people who are that cut and dry. Most people have a bit of likability to them. A bit. Inez didn't appear to have any. Although I do have to admit that I do know a few people like Paul (played by Sheen) who are arrogant, insufferable know-it-alls. I did love the portrayal of Hemingway, always trying to be manly and starting a fight. It was funny.
I liked this movie, which did surprise me (considering it was a Woody Allen flick). I liked the romance of Paris. I liked the struggling writer who doubted his talent. I liked the time travel, back to an era that seemed perfect and grand (and the time travel within time travel, which really sealed together the movie). It's an interesting story well told. Not an own-able movie but one I'd see again, perhaps on a plane... but after I've read a bit of the classics.
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
July Movie #1: Transformers 3: Dark of the Moon
Starring: Shia LaBeouf, Frances McDormand, Josh Duhamel, Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, Patrick Dempsey, John Turturro, Alan Tudyk, Leonard Nimoy, Peter Cullen, Hugo Weaving
Directed By: Michael Bay
Run time: 2 hours 34 minutes
Transformers 3 is about the continuing battle between the Autobots (the good robots) and the Decepticons (the bad robots). Turns out, the original moon landing was to find - and cover up - an alien spaceship crash landing. Fast forward to present day. Sam (played by LaBeouf) figures out that the US government did not bring back everything from the crashed spaceship. The leader of the Autobots - Sentinel Prime (voiced by Nimoy) - is still trapped in the spaceship. Optimus Prime (voiced by Cullen) brings Sentinel back to earth and brings him back to life. The battle between the good and bad resurrects as a result.
I read a headline (but did not read the article lest I spoil the movie for myself) that newcomer Rosie Huntington-Whiteley was horrible. I think I remember that the headline alluded that Megan Fox was better. Um, did that reviewer watch the same movie I did (plus the other two)? I did not think Rosie was so bad. Actually, she was quite decent. Much, much, much better than Megan Fox. Much. She had a lot of depth, which is saying a lot for a female character in a Michael Bay movie. Of course, leave it to Michael Bay to remind us who the audience of his movies really is with the up-butt shot of Rosie walking into the room. Um, yeah. But if that's all we see of her, I guess that's okay. There were some really challenging scenes (cue when she's stuck in the car and about to get skewered) that she was quite convincing in. Aside from the initial up-close butt shot, I rather liked Rosie and her character. I'll take her over Megan Fox any day. I'm sure there are a lot of guys out there who would agree.
Speaking of Michael Bay, let me just cut to the chase and be done with my whole Michael Bay observations (there are plenty). I think my review of Transformers 2 had a lot of "Michael Bay" references in it. I guess it's because you can't watch a Michael Bay movie without thinking, "I'm watching a Michael Bay movie." He makes himself known with the things he does. Heavy soundtrack. Quick edits. Explosions. A mastiff cameo. The soundtrack reminded me a lot of The Rock, another Michael Bay movie. I do love that he puts his own dog in every movie. Kind of an Alfred Hitchcock homage. I read another article that mentioned that his ego was really crushed (or perhaps just bruised) from the reviews of Transformers 2 because that movie just sucked. He really, really worked hard on Transformers 3's script. And it showed. I guess I'm glad that Transformers 2 sucked because if it made Michael Bay put more effort into making Transformers 3 not suck, than it was worth sitting through a sucky movie to get a good one. This one was good.
I really don't like John Turtorro. I don't know what it is. Maybe it's his teeth. I just get all heebie-jeebie when he enters the screen. What on earth has happened to John Malcovich? Seriously. Loved, loved, loved Alan Tudyk! He stole the show. I cheered when he walked onto the screen. For those non-sci-fi/Joss Whedon fans, Alan Tudyk is a phenomenal character actor who played Wash in Firefly (and the movie Serenity). So happy to see him in another movie. His character was a riot. I loved the Russian bar scene. "I'm so confused!" Classic. He seemed like he was having fun with his role. I liked that.
Enough about the director and actors. On to the actual movie. I really liked this one. Perhaps not as good as the first, definitely kicks #2's ass, and all around likable. Of course, there was a point when Optimus and Sentinel are reunited on Earth and I think to myself, "We've already been here for over an hour." Over an hour and we're still not to the battle scenes (and you know there's going to be a battle scene or two or three). There is write a lengthy backstory/set up to this movie. Speaking of backstory, the opening scene was unbelievably boring! It did not grab my attention at all, which is why I felt perfectly okay to leave the theater to get new 3D glasses (they gave me the IMAX version which was absolutely not working for the smaller screen). I never want to leave the movie and if the opening hadn't bored me, I would have actually sat through the movie with blurry vision (due to the wrong glasses).
Speaking of 3D.... I think either format (3D or 2D) would be fine. Normally I tell you that you don't need to see a movie in 3D if that extra dimension doesn't enhance the movie. This one... had some good scenes that 3D helped suck you in, make you feel apart of the action. The scene where Sam and Carly and the rest of the crew are inside a building that is breaking in half and everyone is sliding across the floor was definitely worth the 3D. I felt as though I was sliding with them. It was like a roller coaster ride. Even the Rosie butt shot was designed to make you feel as though you were in the room with her, walking right behind her... butt. I could almost hear the 14 year old boy in Michael Bay exclaiming, "Excellent!" as he filmed that scene. Sigh. The opening moon landing scene, though, did not need to be in 3D. Boring with or without the extra dimension.
Why do I hate to see bad things happen to Bumblebee? Darn it for making me care about a robot! And I never see what's going on during the robot fight scenes. I had issues with it in #2 and the same issues again in this one. Why was the "blood" that the robots oozed red? Shouldn't it be black for oil?
Okay, questions and rants aside, this movie was quite good. The first one was definitely the best but this one was a close second. See it in 3D. Be prepared for a long ride, but a long ride that's worth it.
Directed By: Michael Bay
Run time: 2 hours 34 minutes
Transformers 3 is about the continuing battle between the Autobots (the good robots) and the Decepticons (the bad robots). Turns out, the original moon landing was to find - and cover up - an alien spaceship crash landing. Fast forward to present day. Sam (played by LaBeouf) figures out that the US government did not bring back everything from the crashed spaceship. The leader of the Autobots - Sentinel Prime (voiced by Nimoy) - is still trapped in the spaceship. Optimus Prime (voiced by Cullen) brings Sentinel back to earth and brings him back to life. The battle between the good and bad resurrects as a result.
I read a headline (but did not read the article lest I spoil the movie for myself) that newcomer Rosie Huntington-Whiteley was horrible. I think I remember that the headline alluded that Megan Fox was better. Um, did that reviewer watch the same movie I did (plus the other two)? I did not think Rosie was so bad. Actually, she was quite decent. Much, much, much better than Megan Fox. Much. She had a lot of depth, which is saying a lot for a female character in a Michael Bay movie. Of course, leave it to Michael Bay to remind us who the audience of his movies really is with the up-butt shot of Rosie walking into the room. Um, yeah. But if that's all we see of her, I guess that's okay. There were some really challenging scenes (cue when she's stuck in the car and about to get skewered) that she was quite convincing in. Aside from the initial up-close butt shot, I rather liked Rosie and her character. I'll take her over Megan Fox any day. I'm sure there are a lot of guys out there who would agree.
Speaking of Michael Bay, let me just cut to the chase and be done with my whole Michael Bay observations (there are plenty). I think my review of Transformers 2 had a lot of "Michael Bay" references in it. I guess it's because you can't watch a Michael Bay movie without thinking, "I'm watching a Michael Bay movie." He makes himself known with the things he does. Heavy soundtrack. Quick edits. Explosions. A mastiff cameo. The soundtrack reminded me a lot of The Rock, another Michael Bay movie. I do love that he puts his own dog in every movie. Kind of an Alfred Hitchcock homage. I read another article that mentioned that his ego was really crushed (or perhaps just bruised) from the reviews of Transformers 2 because that movie just sucked. He really, really worked hard on Transformers 3's script. And it showed. I guess I'm glad that Transformers 2 sucked because if it made Michael Bay put more effort into making Transformers 3 not suck, than it was worth sitting through a sucky movie to get a good one. This one was good.
I really don't like John Turtorro. I don't know what it is. Maybe it's his teeth. I just get all heebie-jeebie when he enters the screen. What on earth has happened to John Malcovich? Seriously. Loved, loved, loved Alan Tudyk! He stole the show. I cheered when he walked onto the screen. For those non-sci-fi/Joss Whedon fans, Alan Tudyk is a phenomenal character actor who played Wash in Firefly (and the movie Serenity). So happy to see him in another movie. His character was a riot. I loved the Russian bar scene. "I'm so confused!" Classic. He seemed like he was having fun with his role. I liked that.
Enough about the director and actors. On to the actual movie. I really liked this one. Perhaps not as good as the first, definitely kicks #2's ass, and all around likable. Of course, there was a point when Optimus and Sentinel are reunited on Earth and I think to myself, "We've already been here for over an hour." Over an hour and we're still not to the battle scenes (and you know there's going to be a battle scene or two or three). There is write a lengthy backstory/set up to this movie. Speaking of backstory, the opening scene was unbelievably boring! It did not grab my attention at all, which is why I felt perfectly okay to leave the theater to get new 3D glasses (they gave me the IMAX version which was absolutely not working for the smaller screen). I never want to leave the movie and if the opening hadn't bored me, I would have actually sat through the movie with blurry vision (due to the wrong glasses).
Speaking of 3D.... I think either format (3D or 2D) would be fine. Normally I tell you that you don't need to see a movie in 3D if that extra dimension doesn't enhance the movie. This one... had some good scenes that 3D helped suck you in, make you feel apart of the action. The scene where Sam and Carly and the rest of the crew are inside a building that is breaking in half and everyone is sliding across the floor was definitely worth the 3D. I felt as though I was sliding with them. It was like a roller coaster ride. Even the Rosie butt shot was designed to make you feel as though you were in the room with her, walking right behind her... butt. I could almost hear the 14 year old boy in Michael Bay exclaiming, "Excellent!" as he filmed that scene. Sigh. The opening moon landing scene, though, did not need to be in 3D. Boring with or without the extra dimension.
Why do I hate to see bad things happen to Bumblebee? Darn it for making me care about a robot! And I never see what's going on during the robot fight scenes. I had issues with it in #2 and the same issues again in this one. Why was the "blood" that the robots oozed red? Shouldn't it be black for oil?
Okay, questions and rants aside, this movie was quite good. The first one was definitely the best but this one was a close second. See it in 3D. Be prepared for a long ride, but a long ride that's worth it.
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
June Movie #7: Bad Teacher
Starring: Cameron Diaz, Lucy Punch, Jason Segel, Justin Timberlake, Phyllis Smith
Directed By: Jake Kasdan
Run Time: 1 hour 29 minutes
Bad Teacher is about a bad teacher Elizabeth Halsey (played by Diaz) who doesn't want to be a teacher. She wants to find a husband, a rich husband, and never work again. Enter substitute teacher Scott Delacorte who has family money. Elizabeth sets her sights on wooing him. When she thinks that Scott only likes big busted women, she starts saving up for a boob job. When she hears that the teacher whose class scores the highest on the state test, she puts her ambition into forcing the kids to learn.
This was actually my birthday day movie (Cars 2 was the day before my birthday but was part of the celebration). Turns out I've seen everything else so I had to see this one.
I thought this movie was going to be funnier. I didn't laugh very much and when I did laugh, it was a small haw. I mean, Jason Segel is in it. He's incredibly funny. But since he has very little screen time, the funny quotient went down as a result. He had a great character (the school gym teacher). I did find it interesting that his character seemed a lot like Elizabeth. They had the same view on things but where she was mean and bitchy, he was funny with a bit of heart. But since he wasn't in it much, the good part of the movie was minimal.
I'm not quite sure what to say about this movie. It didn't bore me. I guess that's a good thing. It wasn't bad. I can't say that it was good but it definitely wasn't bad. That much I can say. It held my attention. There were some things about it that were quite different. There were some lines and one scene in particular that made my jaw drop. But there were a lot of things about it that were incredibly predictable. The bad teacher idea was interesting and a bit funny. Most bad teachers (cue Summer School, starring Mark Harmon) have a lot of heart. They can't teach but they have heart. This one did not. She had brains and if she had any ambition to be a good teacher, she probably would have been an excellent teacher.
I will say that this movie had a lot of interesting characters. Elizabeth (aka bad teacher) was very interesting. How one person could be that crass was amazing. I saw a bit of her in me (the attitude part). Russell (played by Segal) had spunk. Too bad he wasn't in it very much. I would have liked to have learned more about Lynn (played by Smith from TV's The Office). I think Justin Timberlake had a lot of fun playing a dork. And what a dork! But interesting characters do not make for a good movie. A non bad one, perhaps. But not good.
Hmmm... so, it wasn't bad. It wasn't funny. It just was a bit memorable. I guess that's a good thing. It certainly wasn't the worst movie I've seen. That's also a good thing. I did like the ending. It worked. This would probably be a good movie to watch when trapped on a plane for eight hours. Or if you have nothing better to do.
Directed By: Jake Kasdan
Run Time: 1 hour 29 minutes
Bad Teacher is about a bad teacher Elizabeth Halsey (played by Diaz) who doesn't want to be a teacher. She wants to find a husband, a rich husband, and never work again. Enter substitute teacher Scott Delacorte who has family money. Elizabeth sets her sights on wooing him. When she thinks that Scott only likes big busted women, she starts saving up for a boob job. When she hears that the teacher whose class scores the highest on the state test, she puts her ambition into forcing the kids to learn.
This was actually my birthday day movie (Cars 2 was the day before my birthday but was part of the celebration). Turns out I've seen everything else so I had to see this one.
I thought this movie was going to be funnier. I didn't laugh very much and when I did laugh, it was a small haw. I mean, Jason Segel is in it. He's incredibly funny. But since he has very little screen time, the funny quotient went down as a result. He had a great character (the school gym teacher). I did find it interesting that his character seemed a lot like Elizabeth. They had the same view on things but where she was mean and bitchy, he was funny with a bit of heart. But since he wasn't in it much, the good part of the movie was minimal.
I'm not quite sure what to say about this movie. It didn't bore me. I guess that's a good thing. It wasn't bad. I can't say that it was good but it definitely wasn't bad. That much I can say. It held my attention. There were some things about it that were quite different. There were some lines and one scene in particular that made my jaw drop. But there were a lot of things about it that were incredibly predictable. The bad teacher idea was interesting and a bit funny. Most bad teachers (cue Summer School, starring Mark Harmon) have a lot of heart. They can't teach but they have heart. This one did not. She had brains and if she had any ambition to be a good teacher, she probably would have been an excellent teacher.
I will say that this movie had a lot of interesting characters. Elizabeth (aka bad teacher) was very interesting. How one person could be that crass was amazing. I saw a bit of her in me (the attitude part). Russell (played by Segal) had spunk. Too bad he wasn't in it very much. I would have liked to have learned more about Lynn (played by Smith from TV's The Office). I think Justin Timberlake had a lot of fun playing a dork. And what a dork! But interesting characters do not make for a good movie. A non bad one, perhaps. But not good.
Hmmm... so, it wasn't bad. It wasn't funny. It just was a bit memorable. I guess that's a good thing. It certainly wasn't the worst movie I've seen. That's also a good thing. I did like the ending. It worked. This would probably be a good movie to watch when trapped on a plane for eight hours. Or if you have nothing better to do.
June Movie #6: Cars 2
Starring: Larry the Cable Guy, Owen Wilson, Michael Caine, Emily Mortimer
Directed By: John Lasseter, Brad Lewis
Run Time: 1 hour 53 minutes
Cars 2 is about race car Lightening McQueen (voiced by Wilson) who signs up to compete in an international race and brings along his best friend rusty tow truck Mater (voiced by Larry the Cable Guy). During the pre-race festivities, Mater gets mistaken for a spy. He becomes engulfed in espionage with two British spies Finn McMissile (voiced by Caine) and Holly Shiftwell (voiced by Mortimer).
This was my birthday movie! I was joined by Dawn, Joel, Benjamin, AND Jeff (his second movie of the year, if you can believe it; Benjamin has seen more with me!). I think everyone liked it. The reviews were not kind to this sequel but I thought it was better than the first. At first, I had issues with the plot, the plot that was divulged in the previews. I mean, I get that the cars go international for a race but why would they bring a rusty tow truck with them? Of course, after watching it, I do get the reasoning. It all came together. I rather enjoyed it! Benjamin stayed for a lot of it. That's saying something. We saw it in 2D. I could see how the race scenes would be enhanced by the extra dimension, with the cars whipping around the winding track and coming at you.
At first, I wasn't that into cars acting like people. I can suspend reality and believe that cars can talk but when the spy car (Axelrod, I believe, who was voiced by Eddie Izzard) clung to the side of a ship and then drove at a 90 degree angle up the side of the ship, I was annoyed. Cars can't do that! Either I relaxed a little or the annoying antics ceased because the rest of the movie was enjoyable. They did a wonderful job intertwining the spy tactics into this children's movie. It definitely rivaled James Bond! And the scene in Japan was wonderful. They put a lot of realism into it.
This movie is incredibly well done. It's very funny. We all laughed A LOT! Even Jeff laughed. I still absolutely love the two Italian cars Luigi and Guido. They steal the show every time. I detest Larry the Cable Guy so you have to realize how funny this movie is if I was able to overlook his annoying voice.
I was not a huge fan of the first installment of this movie. I do not own it, which must tell you how much I didn't like the first (because I think it's the only Pixar movie I don't own). I am happy to say that the sequel was much better. It moved well, so fast paced (ha!). It was funny. It was well done. Smart. Different. I loved how the plot lines merged together. The moral was sweet. It was just plain good. It will probably get added to my collection.
Oooh, one thing to watch for: There's an advertisement along the wall of one of the races that reads: Lasse Tyre (as in Lasseter, John Lasseter, the director). It made me cheer when I spotted it!
Directed By: John Lasseter, Brad Lewis
Run Time: 1 hour 53 minutes
Cars 2 is about race car Lightening McQueen (voiced by Wilson) who signs up to compete in an international race and brings along his best friend rusty tow truck Mater (voiced by Larry the Cable Guy). During the pre-race festivities, Mater gets mistaken for a spy. He becomes engulfed in espionage with two British spies Finn McMissile (voiced by Caine) and Holly Shiftwell (voiced by Mortimer).
This was my birthday movie! I was joined by Dawn, Joel, Benjamin, AND Jeff (his second movie of the year, if you can believe it; Benjamin has seen more with me!). I think everyone liked it. The reviews were not kind to this sequel but I thought it was better than the first. At first, I had issues with the plot, the plot that was divulged in the previews. I mean, I get that the cars go international for a race but why would they bring a rusty tow truck with them? Of course, after watching it, I do get the reasoning. It all came together. I rather enjoyed it! Benjamin stayed for a lot of it. That's saying something. We saw it in 2D. I could see how the race scenes would be enhanced by the extra dimension, with the cars whipping around the winding track and coming at you.
At first, I wasn't that into cars acting like people. I can suspend reality and believe that cars can talk but when the spy car (Axelrod, I believe, who was voiced by Eddie Izzard) clung to the side of a ship and then drove at a 90 degree angle up the side of the ship, I was annoyed. Cars can't do that! Either I relaxed a little or the annoying antics ceased because the rest of the movie was enjoyable. They did a wonderful job intertwining the spy tactics into this children's movie. It definitely rivaled James Bond! And the scene in Japan was wonderful. They put a lot of realism into it.
This movie is incredibly well done. It's very funny. We all laughed A LOT! Even Jeff laughed. I still absolutely love the two Italian cars Luigi and Guido. They steal the show every time. I detest Larry the Cable Guy so you have to realize how funny this movie is if I was able to overlook his annoying voice.
I was not a huge fan of the first installment of this movie. I do not own it, which must tell you how much I didn't like the first (because I think it's the only Pixar movie I don't own). I am happy to say that the sequel was much better. It moved well, so fast paced (ha!). It was funny. It was well done. Smart. Different. I loved how the plot lines merged together. The moral was sweet. It was just plain good. It will probably get added to my collection.
Oooh, one thing to watch for: There's an advertisement along the wall of one of the races that reads: Lasse Tyre (as in Lasseter, John Lasseter, the director). It made me cheer when I spotted it!
June Movie #5: Mr. Popper's Penguins
Starring: Jim Carrey, Carla Gugino, Angela Lansbury, Ophelia Lovibond, Madeline Carroll
Directed By: Mark Waters
Run Time: 1 hour 35 minutes
Mr. Popper's Penguins is about a slick career driven divorced real estate agent named Tom Popper (played by Carrey) whose explorer father sends him a penguin as a memento from his last trip. Popper thinks he's sending the penguin back but instead orders five more. He calls every agency in New York to pick up the penguins but before one does, his children fall in love with the birds. Popper then realizes that the penguins are the key to getting his family to like him. Popper's life turns upside down.
Think of this movie as a kind of a toned-down Ace Ventura meets Liar, Liar (the family dynamics thing). If you liked one or both of these movies, you'll like this one.
There are a couple of different levels to this movie. First, there are the family dynamics. Popper has family issues because his father, the great explorer, was never home. Popper felt abandoned and the free spirit in him was erased. He tries extra hard to be cool and there for his children, who in turn pull away from him... until the penguins arrive. Next we have the penguins themselves, which lend themselves to seven year old boy humor (a farting penguin, for one). And then there's the magical whimsy that the Tavern on the Green experience created. There's a bit of a fairy tale to it.
I rather liked this movie. I absolutely loved seeing Angela Lansbury back on screen. I hadn't seen any previews with her in it so it was a nice surprise. She looked wonderful. I also loved the character Pippi... She talked only in Ps. Quite lovely tongue twisters. So which came first, the title of the movie (which is a tongue twister) or the character who talks in tongue twisters with Ps? I'd like to think the title came first and they built a character to poke fun at the title. And I loved the full circle when Quint was introduced. Pippi was fun.
This movie had some cute lines. "That's not my penguin" made me laugh many times. I was a little disappointed with the penguins. I thought they'd be cuter. For the most part, it was obvious that they were animatron penguins (because I don't think penguins fart on command and despite the fact that there now have been two movies that insinuate that penguins like to dance, I don't think they can learn intricate choreography) but there were times where I kept thinking, "Hey, wait. Now it looks real." They did use real penguins for some scenes.
There were some things that bothered me about the movie. How easy is it to clean up snow from an apartment? For that matter, how easy is it to keep an apartment cold enough to keep snow? And then there were the eggs. Don't penguin eggs need heat? Isn't that what March of the Penguins taught us? If the males don't keep the eggs under them and warm, they won't hatch? Of course, those few things bothered me. I totally bought that five penguins can fit and live in a crate shipped from Antarctica to New York City... and pass Customs (I mean, what could someone besides a penguin ship from Antarctica?). And that the penguins could live in an apartment. And navigate NYC streets.
This is a very sweet movie. I rather enjoyed it. It was predictable and a little campy but still quite entertaining. It could have been funnier. I didn't laugh as much as I wanted. I mean, penguins! Jim Carrey. Penguins! Perhaps the writers put too much into the tongue twisters and not enough thought about the penguins. I mean, even their names were mundane. But I liked it. A great movie for a little one. They'll love the farting penguin. Love it. Even I was slightly amused.
Directed By: Mark Waters
Run Time: 1 hour 35 minutes
Mr. Popper's Penguins is about a slick career driven divorced real estate agent named Tom Popper (played by Carrey) whose explorer father sends him a penguin as a memento from his last trip. Popper thinks he's sending the penguin back but instead orders five more. He calls every agency in New York to pick up the penguins but before one does, his children fall in love with the birds. Popper then realizes that the penguins are the key to getting his family to like him. Popper's life turns upside down.
Think of this movie as a kind of a toned-down Ace Ventura meets Liar, Liar (the family dynamics thing). If you liked one or both of these movies, you'll like this one.
There are a couple of different levels to this movie. First, there are the family dynamics. Popper has family issues because his father, the great explorer, was never home. Popper felt abandoned and the free spirit in him was erased. He tries extra hard to be cool and there for his children, who in turn pull away from him... until the penguins arrive. Next we have the penguins themselves, which lend themselves to seven year old boy humor (a farting penguin, for one). And then there's the magical whimsy that the Tavern on the Green experience created. There's a bit of a fairy tale to it.
I rather liked this movie. I absolutely loved seeing Angela Lansbury back on screen. I hadn't seen any previews with her in it so it was a nice surprise. She looked wonderful. I also loved the character Pippi... She talked only in Ps. Quite lovely tongue twisters. So which came first, the title of the movie (which is a tongue twister) or the character who talks in tongue twisters with Ps? I'd like to think the title came first and they built a character to poke fun at the title. And I loved the full circle when Quint was introduced. Pippi was fun.
This movie had some cute lines. "That's not my penguin" made me laugh many times. I was a little disappointed with the penguins. I thought they'd be cuter. For the most part, it was obvious that they were animatron penguins (because I don't think penguins fart on command and despite the fact that there now have been two movies that insinuate that penguins like to dance, I don't think they can learn intricate choreography) but there were times where I kept thinking, "Hey, wait. Now it looks real." They did use real penguins for some scenes.
There were some things that bothered me about the movie. How easy is it to clean up snow from an apartment? For that matter, how easy is it to keep an apartment cold enough to keep snow? And then there were the eggs. Don't penguin eggs need heat? Isn't that what March of the Penguins taught us? If the males don't keep the eggs under them and warm, they won't hatch? Of course, those few things bothered me. I totally bought that five penguins can fit and live in a crate shipped from Antarctica to New York City... and pass Customs (I mean, what could someone besides a penguin ship from Antarctica?). And that the penguins could live in an apartment. And navigate NYC streets.
This is a very sweet movie. I rather enjoyed it. It was predictable and a little campy but still quite entertaining. It could have been funnier. I didn't laugh as much as I wanted. I mean, penguins! Jim Carrey. Penguins! Perhaps the writers put too much into the tongue twisters and not enough thought about the penguins. I mean, even their names were mundane. But I liked it. A great movie for a little one. They'll love the farting penguin. Love it. Even I was slightly amused.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
June Movie #4: Green Lantern
Starring: Ryan Reynolds, Blake Lively, Mark Strong, Peter Sarsgaard, Tim Robbins
Directed By: Martin Campbell
Run Time: 1 hour 45 minutes
Green Lantern is about an test pilot named Hal (played by Reynolds) who stumbles upon a dying alien who bequeaths him with super powers in the form of a green ring and a green lantern. When an autopsy performed on the dead alien infects Dr. Hector Hammond (played by Sarsgaard) with the evil yellow fear blood of Parallax, the evil force that killed the alien, the alien battle comes to Earth. Now Hal must learn how to use his new super powers to save Carol (played by Lively) by battling Hector - and ultimately Parallax - to save Earth.
I thought that this movie had a lot of aliens for the sake of aliens. Let's make them purple skinned with funny ears... and make others with big heads. And let's have an ultra tall and skinny one. Purple aliens with green uniforms? I didn't like it. I really don't think aliens with purple skin are going to put themselves in green uniforms. That just doesn't go well. They certainly wouldn't win any alien fashion contests. I thought the inter-alien tribunal was incredibly hokey (cue the big headed aliens). If those aliens were the smartest of the bunch, why couldn't they create a more comfortable conference area? I am, of course, joking... but only because those scenes made me realize that these were actors in costumes and not cool aliens in a big budget much anticipated movie.
Hokey aliens aside, I guess I had issues with the whole Green Lantern super power ability. First, if there were thousands of Green Lanterns, why did the dying Green Lantern have to pass along his ring? It made me think he was the last of his kind, that he had to seek out a successor in order to save the universe. Second, what was with having to create stuff to fight with? Hal only had to think of a weapon and his powers would create it so that he could fight with it. Um, how about just think your opponent dead then? Or think of placing a poison or explosive inside your opponent and have the fight be over in two seconds? Why go through all those different weapons when your power is your imagination? Jeff would say that if I wrote movies, they'd be over with in ten minutes... and would be boring. "Here's the hero. And now he saves the day. It's not that hard." I guess I had a hard time getting into the swing of the movie and the battle scenes because there was a very big part of me that knew Hal had to succeed. He couldn't die. When you know the star isn't going to die, you know the outcome of the movie.
Since the underlying basic plot of the movie didn't suck me in, my mind was free to think. That's never a good thing. So many questions! For starters, why was Hal a pilot but not in the military, particularly if his father was? Do non-military pilots really get to fly planes that expensive and regularly mock dog fight? I assumed he was in the military but when I found out he wasn't, it bothered me. The opening dog fight reminded me a lot of Top Gun. Speaking of Top Gun, is Tim Robbins (who had a small role in Top Gun, hence the "speaking of") really old enough to be Hector's father? Peter Sarsgaard looked to be 40-ish, a full 10 years at least older than Hal. While that was fine, it bothered me that part of the plot seemed to hint that Hector, Hal, and Carol grew up together. With the age difference, I couldn't see that.
This movie left me feeling disappointed. It just didn't gel together. Perhaps it was because most people who become superheroes don't go running to tell their friends. It's their secret. Granted, every superhero does tend to have one that knows his secret (Lois Lane, Alfred) but Green Lantern/Hal seemed to have a lot of inside people. Of course, I did like that a mask didn't really "mask" his identity. Finally a movie that addresses that! Perhaps I wasn't lured in because the plucky sidekick (the computer programmer, natch) wasn't plucky enough. The programmer did start off with some spunk (rooting for Hal during the test flight) but his much needed quirkiness and humor failed him during later scenes. Perhaps the quirky sidekick was outshone by the quirky superhero. No one can deadpan like Ryan Reynolds! Perhaps this movie disappointed me because there were so many other "green lanterns." It didn't seem like a big deal. I mean, why did Hal have to save Earth? There were hundreds of other Lanterns that could/should have! Maybe because Hal's super powers were a little hokey (see two paragraphs above). I liked the idea that he had to learn to fight, had to learn to his powers but although he didn't seem to do very well with his ten minutes of training, he still went to battle the biggest, scariest villain that even the other Green Lanterns wouldn't fight. He couldn't even take down scrawny little Hector who only had an ounce of the bad juice in him. Carol gave one helluva pep talk but I don't think it gave him the power - the will - to take on the baddest of bad.
Okay. So I've said a lot about what I didn't like about this movie. I should mention the things I liked. I liked Blake Lively. I don't watch Gossip Girl so I've seen little of her before this movie. She had a smart, strong, tough, and determined character. She wasn't a helpless damsel but she wasn't bitchy, either (which, sadly, a lot of the tougher female characters tend to be which always bothers me). I really liked her with brown hair. Very pretty. I loved Ryan Reynolds. Seriously, no one deadpans like he does. Such sarcasm... wrapped prettily up with charisma. I just wish he had an ounce of more oomph. It all just seemed too easy for him. He was supposed to be a flawed character but his charm made that hard to see. I did like the movie's message - that will is mightier than fear. Fear is an awesome weapon but will conquers all. I also liked that fear gets replaced with courage.
One tip: Stay to the middle of the credits for a "suggestion" that there will be a sequel.
So, in sum, disappointing movie. I was really thinking this movie was going to be fun and well, good. It's not horrible. It's just missing that extra zest that could have made it really good. Maybe the aliens weighed it down. Ah, purple aliens in green uniforms. So sucky. Like I said, it's not a horrible movie. But it's not great, either. It was fun. But nothing more.
Directed By: Martin Campbell
Run Time: 1 hour 45 minutes
Green Lantern is about an test pilot named Hal (played by Reynolds) who stumbles upon a dying alien who bequeaths him with super powers in the form of a green ring and a green lantern. When an autopsy performed on the dead alien infects Dr. Hector Hammond (played by Sarsgaard) with the evil yellow fear blood of Parallax, the evil force that killed the alien, the alien battle comes to Earth. Now Hal must learn how to use his new super powers to save Carol (played by Lively) by battling Hector - and ultimately Parallax - to save Earth.
I thought that this movie had a lot of aliens for the sake of aliens. Let's make them purple skinned with funny ears... and make others with big heads. And let's have an ultra tall and skinny one. Purple aliens with green uniforms? I didn't like it. I really don't think aliens with purple skin are going to put themselves in green uniforms. That just doesn't go well. They certainly wouldn't win any alien fashion contests. I thought the inter-alien tribunal was incredibly hokey (cue the big headed aliens). If those aliens were the smartest of the bunch, why couldn't they create a more comfortable conference area? I am, of course, joking... but only because those scenes made me realize that these were actors in costumes and not cool aliens in a big budget much anticipated movie.
Hokey aliens aside, I guess I had issues with the whole Green Lantern super power ability. First, if there were thousands of Green Lanterns, why did the dying Green Lantern have to pass along his ring? It made me think he was the last of his kind, that he had to seek out a successor in order to save the universe. Second, what was with having to create stuff to fight with? Hal only had to think of a weapon and his powers would create it so that he could fight with it. Um, how about just think your opponent dead then? Or think of placing a poison or explosive inside your opponent and have the fight be over in two seconds? Why go through all those different weapons when your power is your imagination? Jeff would say that if I wrote movies, they'd be over with in ten minutes... and would be boring. "Here's the hero. And now he saves the day. It's not that hard." I guess I had a hard time getting into the swing of the movie and the battle scenes because there was a very big part of me that knew Hal had to succeed. He couldn't die. When you know the star isn't going to die, you know the outcome of the movie.
Since the underlying basic plot of the movie didn't suck me in, my mind was free to think. That's never a good thing. So many questions! For starters, why was Hal a pilot but not in the military, particularly if his father was? Do non-military pilots really get to fly planes that expensive and regularly mock dog fight? I assumed he was in the military but when I found out he wasn't, it bothered me. The opening dog fight reminded me a lot of Top Gun. Speaking of Top Gun, is Tim Robbins (who had a small role in Top Gun, hence the "speaking of") really old enough to be Hector's father? Peter Sarsgaard looked to be 40-ish, a full 10 years at least older than Hal. While that was fine, it bothered me that part of the plot seemed to hint that Hector, Hal, and Carol grew up together. With the age difference, I couldn't see that.
This movie left me feeling disappointed. It just didn't gel together. Perhaps it was because most people who become superheroes don't go running to tell their friends. It's their secret. Granted, every superhero does tend to have one that knows his secret (Lois Lane, Alfred) but Green Lantern/Hal seemed to have a lot of inside people. Of course, I did like that a mask didn't really "mask" his identity. Finally a movie that addresses that! Perhaps I wasn't lured in because the plucky sidekick (the computer programmer, natch) wasn't plucky enough. The programmer did start off with some spunk (rooting for Hal during the test flight) but his much needed quirkiness and humor failed him during later scenes. Perhaps the quirky sidekick was outshone by the quirky superhero. No one can deadpan like Ryan Reynolds! Perhaps this movie disappointed me because there were so many other "green lanterns." It didn't seem like a big deal. I mean, why did Hal have to save Earth? There were hundreds of other Lanterns that could/should have! Maybe because Hal's super powers were a little hokey (see two paragraphs above). I liked the idea that he had to learn to fight, had to learn to his powers but although he didn't seem to do very well with his ten minutes of training, he still went to battle the biggest, scariest villain that even the other Green Lanterns wouldn't fight. He couldn't even take down scrawny little Hector who only had an ounce of the bad juice in him. Carol gave one helluva pep talk but I don't think it gave him the power - the will - to take on the baddest of bad.
Okay. So I've said a lot about what I didn't like about this movie. I should mention the things I liked. I liked Blake Lively. I don't watch Gossip Girl so I've seen little of her before this movie. She had a smart, strong, tough, and determined character. She wasn't a helpless damsel but she wasn't bitchy, either (which, sadly, a lot of the tougher female characters tend to be which always bothers me). I really liked her with brown hair. Very pretty. I loved Ryan Reynolds. Seriously, no one deadpans like he does. Such sarcasm... wrapped prettily up with charisma. I just wish he had an ounce of more oomph. It all just seemed too easy for him. He was supposed to be a flawed character but his charm made that hard to see. I did like the movie's message - that will is mightier than fear. Fear is an awesome weapon but will conquers all. I also liked that fear gets replaced with courage.
One tip: Stay to the middle of the credits for a "suggestion" that there will be a sequel.
So, in sum, disappointing movie. I was really thinking this movie was going to be fun and well, good. It's not horrible. It's just missing that extra zest that could have made it really good. Maybe the aliens weighed it down. Ah, purple aliens in green uniforms. So sucky. Like I said, it's not a horrible movie. But it's not great, either. It was fun. But nothing more.
Friday, June 17, 2011
June Movie #3: X-Men: First Class
Starring: James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Jennifer Lawrence, January Jones, Kevin Bacon
Directed By: Matthew Vaughn
Run Time: 2 hours 11 minutes
X-Men: First Class takes a few steps back in time, back before the X-Men were the X-Men. It shows the "mutants" from the beginning, how they came together and why. It also shows how Professor X and Magneto were friends in the beginning and what caused them to become on opposite sides.
The only X-Men movie I've seen is Wolverine and that was more for the actor than for the story. I had little interest in the other X-Men movies. I know little about them. Every time I saw the preview for this movie, I kept getting confused as to which actor (McAvoy or Fassbender) was portraying whom (Professor X and Magneto) and which one was the bad guy in the future. I think part of my confusion stems from the height difference between the old versions and the young versions. My confusion between who was who made the story I saw in the previews much different. Now that I've seen the movie, I am no longer confused about whom is who.
For never having seen any of the other X-Men movies, I was able to enjoy this movie, probably more than those who have seen the others because I have no idea what happens to any of them in the future. Who lives, who dies? I didn't know. I was able to just enjoy what happened. And I must say, I rather liked it.
This movie has fabulous character development. I was absolutely engrossed with Magneto (played by Fassbender). You completely understand with just the one scene they showed why he was bent on revenge, bent on killing Shaw (played by Bacon). And then to find out their relationship goes further... it's really a no wonder why he wanted him dead. And I also loved how honest Magneto was with Mystique (played by Lawrence) about her true identity, about being a mutant.
There were several lines dispersed throughout the movie that I found absolutely hilarious. Unfortunately, I was the only one in the theater laughing. This movie had some wit to it and I found that refreshing. I liked that it had a lot of heart and wasn't just a comic book with action.
If this movie was lacking, it was lacking in full team development. Aside from the one scene where the mutants meet one another and reveal the things that make them unique to determine their superhero names, I really didn't see the gang doing things to make themselves a team. They did all have one on one time with Professor X (played by McAvoy) which helped solidify him as the leader or "teacher" but there weren't many moments with other mutants with other mutants.
One of the reasons I liked this movie (other than the character development, funny bits with charm, and general cohesive storyline) was the acting. Michael Fassbender was superb as Magneto. I truly saw him embracing his mutant abilities as well as fully understood his pain and his struggle. Kevin Bacon as evil Shaw was despicable. I truly rooted for Magneto to exact his revenge on Shaw. He was used car salesman swarmy... but with ruthless appetite for killing. The way he killed the first mutant was so sad. I kept thinking that the role must have been fun for him. I am on the fence about January Jones' Emma Frost. She was very robotic, so robotic that she was evil. That was good. But then there were too many moments where I wondered if I was mistaking her robotic performance for intended evilness or if she's just robotic and wooden in every performance (see my review of the Unknown). I absolutely loved Jennifer Lawrence in Winter's Bone but I thought her take on Mystique was a bit stilted. I understand why she gravitated towards Magneto (because he helped her deal with being a mutant) but I just wasn't seeing her struggle.
Speaking of Mystique, there is one scene where she morphs into another image that made me howl. I loved the cameo (of whom she morphed into). Such a nice touch. And this is coming from someone who has never seen the other X-Men movies.
I was painfully aware of the use of CGI in several key dramatic moments in this movie. I'm pretty sure no submarine was ever harmed in the production of this movie. There was probably never even a submarine in this movie. So CGI. The blatant use of CGI kept pulling me out of the movie.
One small aside: I was so happy to see Michael Ironside! Watch for him towards the end.
I really liked this movie. I wasn't expecting to like it so much, particularly since I've never seen the other X-Men movies (have I mentioned I haven't seen the others?). It was very well done. The acting, the history, the characters, the story. I didn't even feel that the run time is over two hours. And after it was all done, I will never confuse which one is the bad guy. Ah, Michael Fassbender. I want to see him be full evil. I hope there's an X-Men: 202. And if I'm rooting for a sequel, you have to know that this movie was pretty darned good.
Directed By: Matthew Vaughn
Run Time: 2 hours 11 minutes
X-Men: First Class takes a few steps back in time, back before the X-Men were the X-Men. It shows the "mutants" from the beginning, how they came together and why. It also shows how Professor X and Magneto were friends in the beginning and what caused them to become on opposite sides.
The only X-Men movie I've seen is Wolverine and that was more for the actor than for the story. I had little interest in the other X-Men movies. I know little about them. Every time I saw the preview for this movie, I kept getting confused as to which actor (McAvoy or Fassbender) was portraying whom (Professor X and Magneto) and which one was the bad guy in the future. I think part of my confusion stems from the height difference between the old versions and the young versions. My confusion between who was who made the story I saw in the previews much different. Now that I've seen the movie, I am no longer confused about whom is who.
For never having seen any of the other X-Men movies, I was able to enjoy this movie, probably more than those who have seen the others because I have no idea what happens to any of them in the future. Who lives, who dies? I didn't know. I was able to just enjoy what happened. And I must say, I rather liked it.
This movie has fabulous character development. I was absolutely engrossed with Magneto (played by Fassbender). You completely understand with just the one scene they showed why he was bent on revenge, bent on killing Shaw (played by Bacon). And then to find out their relationship goes further... it's really a no wonder why he wanted him dead. And I also loved how honest Magneto was with Mystique (played by Lawrence) about her true identity, about being a mutant.
There were several lines dispersed throughout the movie that I found absolutely hilarious. Unfortunately, I was the only one in the theater laughing. This movie had some wit to it and I found that refreshing. I liked that it had a lot of heart and wasn't just a comic book with action.
If this movie was lacking, it was lacking in full team development. Aside from the one scene where the mutants meet one another and reveal the things that make them unique to determine their superhero names, I really didn't see the gang doing things to make themselves a team. They did all have one on one time with Professor X (played by McAvoy) which helped solidify him as the leader or "teacher" but there weren't many moments with other mutants with other mutants.
One of the reasons I liked this movie (other than the character development, funny bits with charm, and general cohesive storyline) was the acting. Michael Fassbender was superb as Magneto. I truly saw him embracing his mutant abilities as well as fully understood his pain and his struggle. Kevin Bacon as evil Shaw was despicable. I truly rooted for Magneto to exact his revenge on Shaw. He was used car salesman swarmy... but with ruthless appetite for killing. The way he killed the first mutant was so sad. I kept thinking that the role must have been fun for him. I am on the fence about January Jones' Emma Frost. She was very robotic, so robotic that she was evil. That was good. But then there were too many moments where I wondered if I was mistaking her robotic performance for intended evilness or if she's just robotic and wooden in every performance (see my review of the Unknown). I absolutely loved Jennifer Lawrence in Winter's Bone but I thought her take on Mystique was a bit stilted. I understand why she gravitated towards Magneto (because he helped her deal with being a mutant) but I just wasn't seeing her struggle.
Speaking of Mystique, there is one scene where she morphs into another image that made me howl. I loved the cameo (of whom she morphed into). Such a nice touch. And this is coming from someone who has never seen the other X-Men movies.
I was painfully aware of the use of CGI in several key dramatic moments in this movie. I'm pretty sure no submarine was ever harmed in the production of this movie. There was probably never even a submarine in this movie. So CGI. The blatant use of CGI kept pulling me out of the movie.
One small aside: I was so happy to see Michael Ironside! Watch for him towards the end.
I really liked this movie. I wasn't expecting to like it so much, particularly since I've never seen the other X-Men movies (have I mentioned I haven't seen the others?). It was very well done. The acting, the history, the characters, the story. I didn't even feel that the run time is over two hours. And after it was all done, I will never confuse which one is the bad guy. Ah, Michael Fassbender. I want to see him be full evil. I hope there's an X-Men: 202. And if I'm rooting for a sequel, you have to know that this movie was pretty darned good.
June Movie #2: Kung Fu Panda 2
Starring the voices of: Jack Black, Angelina Jolie, Dustin Hoffman, Jackie Chan, Seth Rogen, Lucy Liu, David Cross, Gary Oldman, Michelle Yeoh
Directed By: Jennifer Yuh Nelson
Run Time: 1 hour 31 minutes
Kung Fu Panda 2 is about Po the panda, who is now the Dragon Warrior, trying to protect the Valley of Peace with the Furious Five (Viper, Crane, Tigress, Mantis, and Monkey) from Lord Shen (voiced by Oldman) and his new weapon that could end kung fu.
I saw this movie with Dawn, Joel, and of course, Benjamin, who is shaping up to be my new movie watching buddy. He lasted the entire movie although he wasn't as engrossed as I hoped he'd be. I mean, it's about a panda... who does kung fu. What's not to love? Benjamin would have probably have liked it to be more panda. Wait. Maybe that was just me.
This movie starts off a bit slow. I gotta say that I wasn't as sucked in as I was the first one. And a lot of the funny bits that were great in the previews just didn't have that zing to the funny bone in the actual movie. They were edited faster in the previews, closer together. That quick cut made things sharper, funnier. But the movie is pleasant. There are some great funny moments. But the first one was funnier.
This movie has a sweetness to it. And a great sadness to it. There were parts that were too hard too watch, too emotionally frightening. Po's memory of his biological parents was sad... and even more sad was what happened to them. This movie is much darker than the first one. Actually, I don't think the first one had any darkness to it. And this one has a lot more violence in it. I was glad that they didn't show a lot of it, particularly when the weapon was discharged.
The best part of the movie was Tigress. If you remember from the first one, she was the last to approve of Po. She was tough. She was disciplined. She was a master. And she's all that in this movie, too. Po and the rest make a point of telling her that. But there's a small twist... and I loved it. It was incredibly sweet. Don't count Tigress out.
The visuals are gorgeous. The colors are amazing. Lord Shen is absolutely beautiful. I liked how the most gruesome backstory is told with "drawings" and the violence is alluded to, not shown. It was like a child's picture book. It was a nice way to tell the dark part of the story. The sweetest part of the story is about 30 seconds before the credits roll. It was quite touching. And a relief. It also leads it open for KuFuPa 3 (Kung Fu Panda 3)..
So, this movie is sweet and scary and sad and violent and touching. Who doesn't love a big, fat panda? Benjamin lasted through the whole thing, which has to say something. I liked it. I know Dawn and Joel did, too. Three thumbs and one baby thumbs up. One to see over and over again.
Directed By: Jennifer Yuh Nelson
Run Time: 1 hour 31 minutes
Kung Fu Panda 2 is about Po the panda, who is now the Dragon Warrior, trying to protect the Valley of Peace with the Furious Five (Viper, Crane, Tigress, Mantis, and Monkey) from Lord Shen (voiced by Oldman) and his new weapon that could end kung fu.
I saw this movie with Dawn, Joel, and of course, Benjamin, who is shaping up to be my new movie watching buddy. He lasted the entire movie although he wasn't as engrossed as I hoped he'd be. I mean, it's about a panda... who does kung fu. What's not to love? Benjamin would have probably have liked it to be more panda. Wait. Maybe that was just me.
This movie starts off a bit slow. I gotta say that I wasn't as sucked in as I was the first one. And a lot of the funny bits that were great in the previews just didn't have that zing to the funny bone in the actual movie. They were edited faster in the previews, closer together. That quick cut made things sharper, funnier. But the movie is pleasant. There are some great funny moments. But the first one was funnier.
This movie has a sweetness to it. And a great sadness to it. There were parts that were too hard too watch, too emotionally frightening. Po's memory of his biological parents was sad... and even more sad was what happened to them. This movie is much darker than the first one. Actually, I don't think the first one had any darkness to it. And this one has a lot more violence in it. I was glad that they didn't show a lot of it, particularly when the weapon was discharged.
The best part of the movie was Tigress. If you remember from the first one, she was the last to approve of Po. She was tough. She was disciplined. She was a master. And she's all that in this movie, too. Po and the rest make a point of telling her that. But there's a small twist... and I loved it. It was incredibly sweet. Don't count Tigress out.
The visuals are gorgeous. The colors are amazing. Lord Shen is absolutely beautiful. I liked how the most gruesome backstory is told with "drawings" and the violence is alluded to, not shown. It was like a child's picture book. It was a nice way to tell the dark part of the story. The sweetest part of the story is about 30 seconds before the credits roll. It was quite touching. And a relief. It also leads it open for KuFuPa 3 (Kung Fu Panda 3)..
So, this movie is sweet and scary and sad and violent and touching. Who doesn't love a big, fat panda? Benjamin lasted through the whole thing, which has to say something. I liked it. I know Dawn and Joel did, too. Three thumbs and one baby thumbs up. One to see over and over again.
June Movie #1: Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides
Starring: Johnny Depp, Penelope Cruz, Geoffrey Rush, Ian McShane, Astrid Berges-Frisbey
Directed By: Rob Marshall
Run Time: 2 hours 17 minutes
The fourth installment of Pirates of the Caribbean starts off with Jack Sparrow (played by Depp) busting out of jail only to find himself in another sticky situation. The King of England tries to convince Jack to go an expedition to find the Fountain of Youth (since it is rumored that he knows the way) before the Spanish find it. When he refuses (and escapes), the task falls upon Jack's rival Captain Barbosa (played by Rush). Jack wants to beat Barbosa and finds another ship to take him. This ship's first mate happens to be an old flame Angelica (played by Cruz). Now three ships (the Spaniards, Barbosa, and Jack/Angelica) are heading towards the same treasure. Someone has to get there first... with a mermaid's fresh tear.
I try to avoid reading too much about a movie before I go to it and I hate seeing too many previews for it. The first couple normally are great teasers but rest of them start to reveal too much about the movie and before you know it, you've seen the movie just from seeing the previews. I knew I was going to see this movie just because I've invested so much time watching the other three (and truly the first was the best). I didn't need to see or read anything about this movie as a result. I'm really glad I didn't know anything about this movie. There was a small plot point that had I known anything at all about this movie, it would have given away something that neither Jack nor I knew. I liked the surprise.
This movie is in 3D. I did not want to give the Pirates franchise any more of my money so I opted to see it in 2D. You do not need to see this movie in 3D. There are several annoying swords coming at you that are probably supposed to be thrilling in 3D but come across as just plain superfluous. I can't imagine any other part of the movie that would be enhanced with another dimension. Stick to the cheaper 2D.
Um, yeah. I was bored. That pretty much sums up how I felt about this movie. Bored. Jack is normally such a fun character - goofy, quirky, funny, unpredictable. Just plain fun. He's the reason I see these movies. That and the adventures. Jack was lacking. He didn't entertain me. I found him only mildly appealing. And the adventure - a voyage to the Fountain of Youth - was also boring. There were no unexpected obstacles, twists, turns, or battles. It certainly was not an adventure. All three ships knew exactly how to get to the Fountain. No one really seemed to have an issue capturing a mermaid, despite the fact that the mermaid legend would have you believe it to be impossible.
I don't understand the supernatural aspect of the Fountain, particularly the last few steps to actually get to it. What's wrong with the notion of drinking water that makes you young? The cup aspect - drinking from the proper cup with the mermaid tear - seemed to take too much from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. It's been done before... and better.
I did like the mermaid Syrena (played by Berges-Frisbey). She was an interesting character. I did actually like something about this movie! And I did like Angelica. I wasn't sure when I saw the previews if I would like Penelope Cruz in this but she adapt well. She was tough but likable. She had the charm that Jack did not. I did like the two of them together, perhaps because she had the upper hand.
One final tip: Stay until after the credits finish rolling. That will give you first and only laugh of the movie.
Directed By: Rob Marshall
Run Time: 2 hours 17 minutes
The fourth installment of Pirates of the Caribbean starts off with Jack Sparrow (played by Depp) busting out of jail only to find himself in another sticky situation. The King of England tries to convince Jack to go an expedition to find the Fountain of Youth (since it is rumored that he knows the way) before the Spanish find it. When he refuses (and escapes), the task falls upon Jack's rival Captain Barbosa (played by Rush). Jack wants to beat Barbosa and finds another ship to take him. This ship's first mate happens to be an old flame Angelica (played by Cruz). Now three ships (the Spaniards, Barbosa, and Jack/Angelica) are heading towards the same treasure. Someone has to get there first... with a mermaid's fresh tear.
I try to avoid reading too much about a movie before I go to it and I hate seeing too many previews for it. The first couple normally are great teasers but rest of them start to reveal too much about the movie and before you know it, you've seen the movie just from seeing the previews. I knew I was going to see this movie just because I've invested so much time watching the other three (and truly the first was the best). I didn't need to see or read anything about this movie as a result. I'm really glad I didn't know anything about this movie. There was a small plot point that had I known anything at all about this movie, it would have given away something that neither Jack nor I knew. I liked the surprise.
This movie is in 3D. I did not want to give the Pirates franchise any more of my money so I opted to see it in 2D. You do not need to see this movie in 3D. There are several annoying swords coming at you that are probably supposed to be thrilling in 3D but come across as just plain superfluous. I can't imagine any other part of the movie that would be enhanced with another dimension. Stick to the cheaper 2D.
Um, yeah. I was bored. That pretty much sums up how I felt about this movie. Bored. Jack is normally such a fun character - goofy, quirky, funny, unpredictable. Just plain fun. He's the reason I see these movies. That and the adventures. Jack was lacking. He didn't entertain me. I found him only mildly appealing. And the adventure - a voyage to the Fountain of Youth - was also boring. There were no unexpected obstacles, twists, turns, or battles. It certainly was not an adventure. All three ships knew exactly how to get to the Fountain. No one really seemed to have an issue capturing a mermaid, despite the fact that the mermaid legend would have you believe it to be impossible.
I don't understand the supernatural aspect of the Fountain, particularly the last few steps to actually get to it. What's wrong with the notion of drinking water that makes you young? The cup aspect - drinking from the proper cup with the mermaid tear - seemed to take too much from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. It's been done before... and better.
I did like the mermaid Syrena (played by Berges-Frisbey). She was an interesting character. I did actually like something about this movie! And I did like Angelica. I wasn't sure when I saw the previews if I would like Penelope Cruz in this but she adapt well. She was tough but likable. She had the charm that Jack did not. I did like the two of them together, perhaps because she had the upper hand.
One final tip: Stay until after the credits finish rolling. That will give you first and only laugh of the movie.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
May Movie #5: Bridesmaids
Starring: Kristen Wiig, Maya Rudolph, Ellie Kemper, Melissa McCarthy, Rose Byrne, Chris O'Dowd
Directed By: Paul Feig
Run Time: 2 hours 5 minutes
Bridesmaids is about Lillian (played by Rudolph) who is getting married and asks her best friend Annie (played by Wiig) to be her Maid of Honor. Trouble ensues when Annie is introduced to Lillian's new friend Helen (played by Byrne) who is perfect - pretty, rich, and can plan a party like no one's business. Annie gets jealous because she's single, her bakery failed, she got fired from her temp job, and her roommate has kicked her out so she now lives with her mother.
I heard that this movie was fabulous, hilarious. Even Jeff really wanted to see it (but since he's on a business trip and he has a other movies he wants to see, I went without him). As I walked out of the theater (after it was over - don't think that it was so bad that I walked out before it was over because I certainly stayed to the end), I walked behind a group of elderly ladies who each thought this was the worst movie they had ever seen. So... was it the best or the worst? Eh. I thought it was okay. I did laugh... but not as much or as often or as hard as I hoped I would. I did find it entertaining but the underlying story - Annie putting herself and her own personal woes ahead of her friend's moment - put a sad jolt to the movie. Do friends really do that? I get that she was jealous of Helen. Helen was truly annoying and deserved to be punched (I am surprised that didn't happen at some point) but I would think most friends would put aside their petty squabbles, suck it up, plaster on a big smile, and trudge ahead. After all, it is your best friend's wedding. You can't screw that up.
Characters. This movie was filled with interesting characters, which was a really good part of the movie. I liked the side story with Officer Rhodes (played by O'Dowd) and how it connected back to Annie's bakery. It made Annie seem more human and not so vindictive and petty. Rhodes was a fun character. I giggled more when he was on screen than any other moment. He was probably the most real character in the movie. And although I didn't care for the character Megan (played by McCarthy), I did like how the actress played against her normal bubbly type cast. I liked how Megan's character was allowed to be more than just comic relief, where her real purpose finally came to light. I also liked how Helen's character gained another dimension as we get a glimpse into why she's the way she is - overly perfect. I think I probably connected with Annie, the failed baker who laments that her life isn't going the way she planned (and as a result doesn't get joy from baking any more).
Speaking of real characters: come on, ladies. Who among us doesn't know a Ted (played by Jon Hamm), particularly in the scene where he picks Annie up after her car breaks down (cue the steering wheel)? Um, yeah.
So... this movie is good. Not side-splitting hilarious but definitely not the worst movie I've seen. I giggled a lot. I think this movie crosses over the line of "chick flick" into just straight comedy. Guys should like it, too, particularly for the food poisoning scene and the post-credits "bear sandwich" scene. And possibly all scenes with Ted (and I'm sure many guys won't see anything wrong with Ted). There are a couple of risqué (without the nudity) scenes that are funny just because of the topics of conversation are not ones you normally hear in a movie. Funny. Different. Sweet. Fun.
Directed By: Paul Feig
Run Time: 2 hours 5 minutes
Bridesmaids is about Lillian (played by Rudolph) who is getting married and asks her best friend Annie (played by Wiig) to be her Maid of Honor. Trouble ensues when Annie is introduced to Lillian's new friend Helen (played by Byrne) who is perfect - pretty, rich, and can plan a party like no one's business. Annie gets jealous because she's single, her bakery failed, she got fired from her temp job, and her roommate has kicked her out so she now lives with her mother.
I heard that this movie was fabulous, hilarious. Even Jeff really wanted to see it (but since he's on a business trip and he has a other movies he wants to see, I went without him). As I walked out of the theater (after it was over - don't think that it was so bad that I walked out before it was over because I certainly stayed to the end), I walked behind a group of elderly ladies who each thought this was the worst movie they had ever seen. So... was it the best or the worst? Eh. I thought it was okay. I did laugh... but not as much or as often or as hard as I hoped I would. I did find it entertaining but the underlying story - Annie putting herself and her own personal woes ahead of her friend's moment - put a sad jolt to the movie. Do friends really do that? I get that she was jealous of Helen. Helen was truly annoying and deserved to be punched (I am surprised that didn't happen at some point) but I would think most friends would put aside their petty squabbles, suck it up, plaster on a big smile, and trudge ahead. After all, it is your best friend's wedding. You can't screw that up.
Characters. This movie was filled with interesting characters, which was a really good part of the movie. I liked the side story with Officer Rhodes (played by O'Dowd) and how it connected back to Annie's bakery. It made Annie seem more human and not so vindictive and petty. Rhodes was a fun character. I giggled more when he was on screen than any other moment. He was probably the most real character in the movie. And although I didn't care for the character Megan (played by McCarthy), I did like how the actress played against her normal bubbly type cast. I liked how Megan's character was allowed to be more than just comic relief, where her real purpose finally came to light. I also liked how Helen's character gained another dimension as we get a glimpse into why she's the way she is - overly perfect. I think I probably connected with Annie, the failed baker who laments that her life isn't going the way she planned (and as a result doesn't get joy from baking any more).
Speaking of real characters: come on, ladies. Who among us doesn't know a Ted (played by Jon Hamm), particularly in the scene where he picks Annie up after her car breaks down (cue the steering wheel)? Um, yeah.
So... this movie is good. Not side-splitting hilarious but definitely not the worst movie I've seen. I giggled a lot. I think this movie crosses over the line of "chick flick" into just straight comedy. Guys should like it, too, particularly for the food poisoning scene and the post-credits "bear sandwich" scene. And possibly all scenes with Ted (and I'm sure many guys won't see anything wrong with Ted). There are a couple of risqué (without the nudity) scenes that are funny just because of the topics of conversation are not ones you normally hear in a movie. Funny. Different. Sweet. Fun.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
May Movie #5: Thor
Starring: Chris Hemsworth, Natalie Portman, Tom Hiddleston, Anthony Hopkins, Stellan Skarsgard, Kat Dennings, Clark Gregg
Directed By: Kenneth Branagh
Run Time: 2 hours 10 minutes
Thor, a powerful but arrogant warrior, is sent down to Earth as punishment for reigniting a reckless war. But after a dangerous villain from his world sends the darkest forces of Asgard to invade Earth, the hammer-wielding Thor will learn what it takes to be a true hero in order to save mankind.
I was actually quite bored with Thor. The opening didn't grab me the way I think it was intended to. I thought I'd also be more intrigued in the Norse mythology background (second opening scene) but that, too, bored me. I mean, it was well done and an interesting story, it just didn't suck me in. The middle also bored me. The ending, however, was excellent. The Earth ending was touching and the Asgard ending was poignant.
I think a big reason the movie seemed fairly boring to me is that a lot of the main characters were boring. For as smart as Natalie Portman is in real life, you'd think she'd make acting like a scientist look natural. Somehow, I just didn't get her as a scientist. Perhaps there wasn't enough technical talk to make her seem like her character was really a dedicated scientist or perhaps she was a little too chipper considering her life's work had been locked away by the government. Or perhaps it was because Jane (her character) just kept getting into stupid situations. I loved Darcy (played by Dennings) but most of her best lines were shown in the previews. So while she was plucky and interesting, the interesting level dips down a bit because I'd heard all of her pluckiness before the movie even started. I did not understand Dr. Selvig's role (played by Skarsgard) in the whole movie. He did little to advance or enhance the story other than to show Jane a book of children's tales of Norse mythology. Thor (played by Hemsworth), on the other hand, was an interesting character. You clearly get a sense of his ego and you clearly see how he changes - and why.
I saw this movie in 2D, which is worth mentioning because I don't think Branagh (the director) anticipated people actually watching this in 2D. There are some shots obviously geared for 3D - and they're not the typical stuff-coming-at-you 3D worthy shots. They're aerial scenery shots of Asgard. I think the style is intended to make you feel as though you're in Asgard, surrounded by the buildings, with people walking and riding horses towards you, but in 2D they're just blurry, dizzying, and disorienting. In 2D you do not get a sense of the magical majestic world. It's the opposite of awe-inspiring; it's more of "huh?-what-was-that-supposed-to-be" inducing. I think that's poor planning on the director's part.
I heard some comic book buffs talking about this movie (well, perhaps the comic book) with great gusto and enthusiasm They mentioned how it ties into Iron Man and some other recently released comic book hero movies (I forget which). This movie, unlike most of those other comic book superhero movies, is not as easily transferable. I think non-comic book geeks can like those other ones without having to have spent years developing a rapport with the characters. You can jump right in and love it, too. Iron Man was particularly easy to like, easy to understand, easy to enjoy. Thor, on the other hand, did not adapt well for the masses. Perhaps it was the hokey Thor-cyclone or his cheesy and oddly coiffed compadres or the uninspired looking Frost warriors, but it just didn't pull me in (and I am very easy to be pulled in).
That being said, unless this was already a movie on your must see list or you're an avid comic book fan or Norse mythology buff, it might be best to wait for this one to come out on DVD. Perfect for a rainy day where you're stuck inside. Make yourself a grilled cheese, a bowl of chicken with stars soup, and tie a cape around your neck to help you channel the superhero dreams you had as a child. That environment might help to enjoy this movie more.
Directed By: Kenneth Branagh
Run Time: 2 hours 10 minutes
Thor, a powerful but arrogant warrior, is sent down to Earth as punishment for reigniting a reckless war. But after a dangerous villain from his world sends the darkest forces of Asgard to invade Earth, the hammer-wielding Thor will learn what it takes to be a true hero in order to save mankind.
I was actually quite bored with Thor. The opening didn't grab me the way I think it was intended to. I thought I'd also be more intrigued in the Norse mythology background (second opening scene) but that, too, bored me. I mean, it was well done and an interesting story, it just didn't suck me in. The middle also bored me. The ending, however, was excellent. The Earth ending was touching and the Asgard ending was poignant.
I think a big reason the movie seemed fairly boring to me is that a lot of the main characters were boring. For as smart as Natalie Portman is in real life, you'd think she'd make acting like a scientist look natural. Somehow, I just didn't get her as a scientist. Perhaps there wasn't enough technical talk to make her seem like her character was really a dedicated scientist or perhaps she was a little too chipper considering her life's work had been locked away by the government. Or perhaps it was because Jane (her character) just kept getting into stupid situations. I loved Darcy (played by Dennings) but most of her best lines were shown in the previews. So while she was plucky and interesting, the interesting level dips down a bit because I'd heard all of her pluckiness before the movie even started. I did not understand Dr. Selvig's role (played by Skarsgard) in the whole movie. He did little to advance or enhance the story other than to show Jane a book of children's tales of Norse mythology. Thor (played by Hemsworth), on the other hand, was an interesting character. You clearly get a sense of his ego and you clearly see how he changes - and why.
I saw this movie in 2D, which is worth mentioning because I don't think Branagh (the director) anticipated people actually watching this in 2D. There are some shots obviously geared for 3D - and they're not the typical stuff-coming-at-you 3D worthy shots. They're aerial scenery shots of Asgard. I think the style is intended to make you feel as though you're in Asgard, surrounded by the buildings, with people walking and riding horses towards you, but in 2D they're just blurry, dizzying, and disorienting. In 2D you do not get a sense of the magical majestic world. It's the opposite of awe-inspiring; it's more of "huh?-what-was-that-supposed-to-be" inducing. I think that's poor planning on the director's part.
I heard some comic book buffs talking about this movie (well, perhaps the comic book) with great gusto and enthusiasm They mentioned how it ties into Iron Man and some other recently released comic book hero movies (I forget which). This movie, unlike most of those other comic book superhero movies, is not as easily transferable. I think non-comic book geeks can like those other ones without having to have spent years developing a rapport with the characters. You can jump right in and love it, too. Iron Man was particularly easy to like, easy to understand, easy to enjoy. Thor, on the other hand, did not adapt well for the masses. Perhaps it was the hokey Thor-cyclone or his cheesy and oddly coiffed compadres or the uninspired looking Frost warriors, but it just didn't pull me in (and I am very easy to be pulled in).
That being said, unless this was already a movie on your must see list or you're an avid comic book fan or Norse mythology buff, it might be best to wait for this one to come out on DVD. Perfect for a rainy day where you're stuck inside. Make yourself a grilled cheese, a bowl of chicken with stars soup, and tie a cape around your neck to help you channel the superhero dreams you had as a child. That environment might help to enjoy this movie more.
May Movie #4: Rio
Starring: Jesse Eisenberg, Anne Hathaway, George Lopez, Tracy Morgan, Jemaine Clement, Rodrigo Santoro, Will I Am, Leslie Mann
Directed By: Carlos Saldanha
Run Time: 1 hour 36 minutes
Rio starts off magestically with a wonderful burst of color, song, and dance as the birds of the jungle celebrate their joy of living the good life in such a beautiful place. And then it very quickly turns scary, horrifying, and sad as the birds get captured, including the baby Blu (voiced by Eisenberg). Life for him gets even scarier and sadder when his cage falls out of a truck in the middle of snowy Minnesota. He's cold. He's alone. He's scared. He's sad. And he's just a baby. Enter Linda (voiced by Mann), who rescues Blu. The two become inseparable best friends. Cut to 15 years later, Tulio (voiced by Santoro) enters their life. Tulio is an avian specialist from Brazil. He instantly recognizes Blu as a blue Macaw, one of the last few of his kind. He convinces Linda that she needs to fly with Blu to Rio so that Blu can meet Jewel (voiced by Hathaway), a female blue Macaw with hopes that the two can keep the line going. Not long after they arrive, Blu and Jewel are bird napped. They must find a way to escape and return to their comfy lives, with Blu at home in Minnesota and Jewel enjoying the freedom of the jungle in Brazil.
As you might have guessed, the opening scene scared and saddened me (ala Finding Nemo when his mother dies). I was actually shocked at how frightening and depressing it was. It was even more shocking to think that the subtle references to illegal animal trade (and capture) would go unnoticed by most and having that idea in my head made me more somber. There's also an interesting commentary on how wild animals shouldn't be domesticated (because birds who should fly never learn... which then means they're not being themselves... which also means they're not free). While one can argue that Blu, a highly domesticated animal, seems happy (albeit ignorant) in his pampered environment, one can't help but ignore what that same environment did to Nigel (voiced by Clement). Perhaps if he wasn't so domesticated, he wouldn't have been so evil.
Politics aside, this is a very cute movie... once you get passed the scenes depicting illegal animal trade (and there are a ton of them). The characters are fun.
This is the second movie I've watched this month that takes place in Rio. I point this out because, as a traveler, locale is of an interest to me. There seems to be a force trying to get me to Brazil.
On one hand, I liked the colors, and singing and dancing, and the quirky friends (and enemies). Who doesn't love a monkey wearing a gold watch as a belt? The colorful depiction of Carnivale was mesmerizing. On the other hand, it just didn't draw me in. It wasn't as cute and funny and quirky as it could have been. And that is really saying something because there was a bird versus monkey fight. I loved that. The imagery is hilarious. Bird on monkey fight. And there's also something side-splitting about a bulldog in gold Daisy Dukes. Don't get me wrong. Those scenes and lines gave me great delight. But the middle portion of the movie (once I got over being horrified and depressed) was a bit flat. And lest you think I'm just being a grumpy adult, perhaps the rightfully intended audience's (a child) assessment can sway you: Benjamin was so bored by this movie that he had to be escorted from the theater. If bright, dazzling colors and zinging songs with vibrant dances couldn't keep him from screaming, it can't be that enticing.
The ending was incredibly sweet. It had action. It had humor. It was quirky. It was inspirational. And it was redeeming. I really enjoyed the ending.
It's not a horrible movie. It's cute. It has its charm. It's fun. It is a little scary (illegal animal trade aside, Nigel the cockatiel is downright nightmare inducing). The colors are bold and beautiful. But it's just missing that extra oomph. Even Benjamin agrees with a very frustrated Hulk-style grunt.
Directed By: Carlos Saldanha
Run Time: 1 hour 36 minutes
Rio starts off magestically with a wonderful burst of color, song, and dance as the birds of the jungle celebrate their joy of living the good life in such a beautiful place. And then it very quickly turns scary, horrifying, and sad as the birds get captured, including the baby Blu (voiced by Eisenberg). Life for him gets even scarier and sadder when his cage falls out of a truck in the middle of snowy Minnesota. He's cold. He's alone. He's scared. He's sad. And he's just a baby. Enter Linda (voiced by Mann), who rescues Blu. The two become inseparable best friends. Cut to 15 years later, Tulio (voiced by Santoro) enters their life. Tulio is an avian specialist from Brazil. He instantly recognizes Blu as a blue Macaw, one of the last few of his kind. He convinces Linda that she needs to fly with Blu to Rio so that Blu can meet Jewel (voiced by Hathaway), a female blue Macaw with hopes that the two can keep the line going. Not long after they arrive, Blu and Jewel are bird napped. They must find a way to escape and return to their comfy lives, with Blu at home in Minnesota and Jewel enjoying the freedom of the jungle in Brazil.
As you might have guessed, the opening scene scared and saddened me (ala Finding Nemo when his mother dies). I was actually shocked at how frightening and depressing it was. It was even more shocking to think that the subtle references to illegal animal trade (and capture) would go unnoticed by most and having that idea in my head made me more somber. There's also an interesting commentary on how wild animals shouldn't be domesticated (because birds who should fly never learn... which then means they're not being themselves... which also means they're not free). While one can argue that Blu, a highly domesticated animal, seems happy (albeit ignorant) in his pampered environment, one can't help but ignore what that same environment did to Nigel (voiced by Clement). Perhaps if he wasn't so domesticated, he wouldn't have been so evil.
Politics aside, this is a very cute movie... once you get passed the scenes depicting illegal animal trade (and there are a ton of them). The characters are fun.
This is the second movie I've watched this month that takes place in Rio. I point this out because, as a traveler, locale is of an interest to me. There seems to be a force trying to get me to Brazil.
On one hand, I liked the colors, and singing and dancing, and the quirky friends (and enemies). Who doesn't love a monkey wearing a gold watch as a belt? The colorful depiction of Carnivale was mesmerizing. On the other hand, it just didn't draw me in. It wasn't as cute and funny and quirky as it could have been. And that is really saying something because there was a bird versus monkey fight. I loved that. The imagery is hilarious. Bird on monkey fight. And there's also something side-splitting about a bulldog in gold Daisy Dukes. Don't get me wrong. Those scenes and lines gave me great delight. But the middle portion of the movie (once I got over being horrified and depressed) was a bit flat. And lest you think I'm just being a grumpy adult, perhaps the rightfully intended audience's (a child) assessment can sway you: Benjamin was so bored by this movie that he had to be escorted from the theater. If bright, dazzling colors and zinging songs with vibrant dances couldn't keep him from screaming, it can't be that enticing.
The ending was incredibly sweet. It had action. It had humor. It was quirky. It was inspirational. And it was redeeming. I really enjoyed the ending.
It's not a horrible movie. It's cute. It has its charm. It's fun. It is a little scary (illegal animal trade aside, Nigel the cockatiel is downright nightmare inducing). The colors are bold and beautiful. But it's just missing that extra oomph. Even Benjamin agrees with a very frustrated Hulk-style grunt.
May Movie #3: Hanna
Starring: Saoirse Ronan, Cate Blanchett, and Eric Banna
Directed By: Joe Wright
Run Time: 1 hour 51 minutes
Hanna (played by Ronan) has spent her whole life being raised in the snowy wilderness - and remoteness - of Finland by her father (played by Banna). Her sole purpose in life is to assassinate Marissa Weigler (played by Blanchett). Her father has given her the skills to hunt and kill, a trained little warrior. When Hanna feels she is ready to perform her quest, she and her father part ways, with the instructions to meet up in Berlin. She leaves a trail of dead bodies in an attempt to fulfill her quest.
So many movies take place in Berlin! I'm glad I've toured Berlin. It makes me feel like I'm connected to the movie somehow. Of course, I'm pretty sure Hanna's Berlin and my Berlin were not one in the same. I went to touristy places that indulged my comfort level; the street vagrants in her Berlin probably reflected her comfort level - able to defend herself from anything.
The opening of this movie did not grab me, mainly because most of it was shown in the previews. I knew she was alone in the arctic; I knew she was a skilled hunter; I knew her father would sneak up on her and they would battle. I knew she had a well rounded arsenal of survival skills. But the question of why was she had been brought up in this world was very intriguing. It was interesting to see just how much of a machine she was - filled with book knowledge as well as combat knowledge. And it was also very interesting to see just how much of a teenager she was. She could bring down an elk with a bow and arrow and then gut it and clean its carcass like a grizzly seasoned hunter but then she was also prone to emotion (furious with
her father for forcing her to drag the elk back by herself as punishment for her failure to best him in their battle).
For all her warrior training, her father failed to teach her how to blend in naturally, how to assimilate. That extra training would have helped her accomplish her quest more easily. Perhaps the severity of living off the grid in the harshness of the remoteness was her downfall. If she grew up near civilization, she may have able to adapt to it better. Having never seen another person other than her father, never seen a computer, never seen a road or a car, never seen a TV were tremendous obstacles for her.
Mark my words: one day Saoirse Ronan will win an Oscar. She is an amazing actress. She gives an amazing performance as a little assassin. Cate Blanchett, who is an Oscar winning actress, was not as wonderful in this. First, her Southern accent was annoying. Second, she had an essence of diabolicalness but it wasn't fully materialized.
I was intrigued by this little girl. Who was she? Why was she there? And what was her quest? I was in awe of her, too. Such amazing agility and skill she possessed to navigate through the containment facility. I knew she was a trained assassin and those skills were also enticing. She was an amazing specimen. But again, who was
she? What was her backstory? What is her obession with Marissa Weigler? For that matter, what is her father's obsession with Marissa Weigler? He obviously wants her killed, but why?
I was captivated by the questions, the mystery, the unknown for most of the movie. But when the backstory was revealed, I was more than disappointed. I was disgusted. Anything would have been better than that! I'm tempted to reveal the reason why Marissa Weigler is trying to find Erik Heller and Hanna (and because she's trying to find them, they're trying to kill her) so that you will not waste your time seeing this movie. It is a great action movie up until then. I was riveted up until then. I was fascinated with the intrigue up until then. And then I didn't care to be watching the movie anymore. I didn't even care to see the ending.
Oh, the ending. Sigh. The implausbility is a let down. Hanna is such a skilled warrior that the implausibility is a slap in the face. The writer took the easy way out the way the scene was set up. This was a chance to redeem itself with a killer, high-octaned final chase scene and it fell flat.
I liked this movie up until a half hour before it ended. It was an intense ride with many turns and jolts. And then the ride ended abruptly, not because we were having so much fun that we failed to noticed we had actually come to the end but because the ride operator just decided to take a break... which made us walk down the tracks to the ride's end instead of coming to a screeching halt of scary fun. More than a let down. So you can certainly watch this movie to see such an amazing actress (Saoirse Ronan) but you should probably turn it off and walk away once her father enters her mother's old apartment in Berlin. Don't be tempted to find out who she is. Your imagination can keep the mystery alive.
Directed By: Joe Wright
Run Time: 1 hour 51 minutes
Hanna (played by Ronan) has spent her whole life being raised in the snowy wilderness - and remoteness - of Finland by her father (played by Banna). Her sole purpose in life is to assassinate Marissa Weigler (played by Blanchett). Her father has given her the skills to hunt and kill, a trained little warrior. When Hanna feels she is ready to perform her quest, she and her father part ways, with the instructions to meet up in Berlin. She leaves a trail of dead bodies in an attempt to fulfill her quest.
So many movies take place in Berlin! I'm glad I've toured Berlin. It makes me feel like I'm connected to the movie somehow. Of course, I'm pretty sure Hanna's Berlin and my Berlin were not one in the same. I went to touristy places that indulged my comfort level; the street vagrants in her Berlin probably reflected her comfort level - able to defend herself from anything.
The opening of this movie did not grab me, mainly because most of it was shown in the previews. I knew she was alone in the arctic; I knew she was a skilled hunter; I knew her father would sneak up on her and they would battle. I knew she had a well rounded arsenal of survival skills. But the question of why was she had been brought up in this world was very intriguing. It was interesting to see just how much of a machine she was - filled with book knowledge as well as combat knowledge. And it was also very interesting to see just how much of a teenager she was. She could bring down an elk with a bow and arrow and then gut it and clean its carcass like a grizzly seasoned hunter but then she was also prone to emotion (furious with
her father for forcing her to drag the elk back by herself as punishment for her failure to best him in their battle).
For all her warrior training, her father failed to teach her how to blend in naturally, how to assimilate. That extra training would have helped her accomplish her quest more easily. Perhaps the severity of living off the grid in the harshness of the remoteness was her downfall. If she grew up near civilization, she may have able to adapt to it better. Having never seen another person other than her father, never seen a computer, never seen a road or a car, never seen a TV were tremendous obstacles for her.
Mark my words: one day Saoirse Ronan will win an Oscar. She is an amazing actress. She gives an amazing performance as a little assassin. Cate Blanchett, who is an Oscar winning actress, was not as wonderful in this. First, her Southern accent was annoying. Second, she had an essence of diabolicalness but it wasn't fully materialized.
I was intrigued by this little girl. Who was she? Why was she there? And what was her quest? I was in awe of her, too. Such amazing agility and skill she possessed to navigate through the containment facility. I knew she was a trained assassin and those skills were also enticing. She was an amazing specimen. But again, who was
she? What was her backstory? What is her obession with Marissa Weigler? For that matter, what is her father's obsession with Marissa Weigler? He obviously wants her killed, but why?
I was captivated by the questions, the mystery, the unknown for most of the movie. But when the backstory was revealed, I was more than disappointed. I was disgusted. Anything would have been better than that! I'm tempted to reveal the reason why Marissa Weigler is trying to find Erik Heller and Hanna (and because she's trying to find them, they're trying to kill her) so that you will not waste your time seeing this movie. It is a great action movie up until then. I was riveted up until then. I was fascinated with the intrigue up until then. And then I didn't care to be watching the movie anymore. I didn't even care to see the ending.
Oh, the ending. Sigh. The implausbility is a let down. Hanna is such a skilled warrior that the implausibility is a slap in the face. The writer took the easy way out the way the scene was set up. This was a chance to redeem itself with a killer, high-octaned final chase scene and it fell flat.
I liked this movie up until a half hour before it ended. It was an intense ride with many turns and jolts. And then the ride ended abruptly, not because we were having so much fun that we failed to noticed we had actually come to the end but because the ride operator just decided to take a break... which made us walk down the tracks to the ride's end instead of coming to a screeching halt of scary fun. More than a let down. So you can certainly watch this movie to see such an amazing actress (Saoirse Ronan) but you should probably turn it off and walk away once her father enters her mother's old apartment in Berlin. Don't be tempted to find out who she is. Your imagination can keep the mystery alive.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
May Movie #2: Source Code
Starring: Jake Gyllenhaal, Michelle Monaghan, Vera Farmiga, Jeffrey Wright
Directed By: Duncan Jones
Run Time: 1 hour 34 minutes
Source Code is about a government experiment that enables a solider to relive the last eight minutes of one man's life over and over again, trying to find clues to the identity of the person who bombed the train in order to prevent a second, larger scale attack perpetuated by the same bomber.
I will give this movie credit for being original... if you consider that its predecessor Groundhog Day wasn't sci-fi/thriller/action slanted. This movie was a good mystery. I was incredibly engrossed with why Colter, the solider who leaps into the identity of a man on the doomed train (played by Gyllenhaal), doesn't remember how he got roped into this mission in the first place. But I quickly became highly annoyed that a trained soldier would seek to make the mission about finding himself, his own identity, what had happened to him and why he was on this mission, instead of the true task of the mission - stopping the bomber. He's supposed to be disciplined, trained to follow orders. He certainly wasn't following orders. And the fact that he was being selfish and caring about only himself was very unsoldier-like. It didn't make me like him as a character. I did feel bad for Michelle Monaghan, who had to keep repeating the same lines over and over again as Gyllenhaal's character was being forced to leap back into the same scenario over and over again because he wasn't getting the job done.
The opening scene floating through the skyline of downtown Chicago was absolutely beautiful. It definitely gives you a sense of serenity and naivety, that the people of Chicago have no idea that in a few short minutes their town will be ravaged by a maniac with a bomb. For the first ten minutes of this movie, as I tried to figure out what's going on, I liked it. But then Colter's actions and the fact that he had to keep reliving the same moment over and over and over again without learning anything put me off. I kept thinking in my head that someone would shout, "Groundhog Day!" It didn't happen.
The true nature of the Source Code (the government program) was upsetting and cruel. I didn't like that part. And I didn't understand why it had to be so. And I really didn't like the ending. Strike that. I liked what I thought was the ending - the freeze-frame glimpse at all the people on the train, happy in their final second, thinking that was how they were going to spend eternity. And I kinda liked what I thought was the ending again a few minutes later - [perhaps a glimpse of the characters in their version of heaven. But the final ending, how things changed, bothered the holy heck out of me. Talk about violating the space-time-continuum! So highly unlikely. Why, oh why, did they have to go that route? To teach the Dr. Rutledge (played by Wright) a lesson that you can't mess with the unconscious world? That you can't violate time travel by playing God with people's lives (or deaths)? That ending landed this movie squarely in my "do not like and will never watch again" category. Had me until then. Had me by a string until then. You seriously can't do that ending. Ugh.
Oooh, ooh! Just a bonus note: As Colter was speaking with his father on the phone, I kept thinking to myself, "That voice sounds familiar. I should know that voice!" It belongs to Scott Bakula. I find it very amusing since he played a character who leaped into the identities of others, setting right things which once went wrong. Hee hee hee. That I liked.
Directed By: Duncan Jones
Run Time: 1 hour 34 minutes
Source Code is about a government experiment that enables a solider to relive the last eight minutes of one man's life over and over again, trying to find clues to the identity of the person who bombed the train in order to prevent a second, larger scale attack perpetuated by the same bomber.
I will give this movie credit for being original... if you consider that its predecessor Groundhog Day wasn't sci-fi/thriller/action slanted. This movie was a good mystery. I was incredibly engrossed with why Colter, the solider who leaps into the identity of a man on the doomed train (played by Gyllenhaal), doesn't remember how he got roped into this mission in the first place. But I quickly became highly annoyed that a trained soldier would seek to make the mission about finding himself, his own identity, what had happened to him and why he was on this mission, instead of the true task of the mission - stopping the bomber. He's supposed to be disciplined, trained to follow orders. He certainly wasn't following orders. And the fact that he was being selfish and caring about only himself was very unsoldier-like. It didn't make me like him as a character. I did feel bad for Michelle Monaghan, who had to keep repeating the same lines over and over again as Gyllenhaal's character was being forced to leap back into the same scenario over and over again because he wasn't getting the job done.
The opening scene floating through the skyline of downtown Chicago was absolutely beautiful. It definitely gives you a sense of serenity and naivety, that the people of Chicago have no idea that in a few short minutes their town will be ravaged by a maniac with a bomb. For the first ten minutes of this movie, as I tried to figure out what's going on, I liked it. But then Colter's actions and the fact that he had to keep reliving the same moment over and over and over again without learning anything put me off. I kept thinking in my head that someone would shout, "Groundhog Day!" It didn't happen.
The true nature of the Source Code (the government program) was upsetting and cruel. I didn't like that part. And I didn't understand why it had to be so. And I really didn't like the ending. Strike that. I liked what I thought was the ending - the freeze-frame glimpse at all the people on the train, happy in their final second, thinking that was how they were going to spend eternity. And I kinda liked what I thought was the ending again a few minutes later - [perhaps a glimpse of the characters in their version of heaven. But the final ending, how things changed, bothered the holy heck out of me. Talk about violating the space-time-continuum! So highly unlikely. Why, oh why, did they have to go that route? To teach the Dr. Rutledge (played by Wright) a lesson that you can't mess with the unconscious world? That you can't violate time travel by playing God with people's lives (or deaths)? That ending landed this movie squarely in my "do not like and will never watch again" category. Had me until then. Had me by a string until then. You seriously can't do that ending. Ugh.
Oooh, ooh! Just a bonus note: As Colter was speaking with his father on the phone, I kept thinking to myself, "That voice sounds familiar. I should know that voice!" It belongs to Scott Bakula. I find it very amusing since he played a character who leaped into the identities of others, setting right things which once went wrong. Hee hee hee. That I liked.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)