Starring: George Clooney, Ryan Gosling, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Paul Giamatti, Evan Rachel Wood, Marisa Tomei
Directed By: George Clooney
Run Time: 1 hr 41 mins
Ides of March is about how virtue gets corrupted by one's career, particularly if it's one in politics.
This is the movie that George Clooney should have been nominated for Best Actor, not The Descendants. Here he plays against type cast, as someone that you eventually come to loathe (or at least not think he's so charming). Ryan Gosling also should have been nominated because he does a wonderful job playing an eager and earnest guy who quickly learns that in order to succeed, you can't always be the nice guy.
Monday, May 14, 2012
October Movie #4: Dolphin Tail
Starring: Nathan Gamble, Cozi Zuehlsdorff, Harry Connick Jr., Ashley Judd, Morgan Freeman
Directed By: Charles Martin Smith
Run Time: 1 hour 53 mins
This movie is based on the true life events of a boy who befriends a dolphin who has her tail amputated.
I loved that Winter the dolphin played herself. And I really loved that she got an opening credit.
Stay for the credits because they show the actual footage of Winter's rescue and recovery. She was teeny tiny when she was found! She was much bigger in the movie (because she was playing herself). When you see the actual footage, you see some differences between reality and the movie, which then made me wonder how much of the movie was made up.
Directed By: Charles Martin Smith
Run Time: 1 hour 53 mins
This movie is based on the true life events of a boy who befriends a dolphin who has her tail amputated.
I loved that Winter the dolphin played herself. And I really loved that she got an opening credit.
Stay for the credits because they show the actual footage of Winter's rescue and recovery. She was teeny tiny when she was found! She was much bigger in the movie (because she was playing herself). When you see the actual footage, you see some differences between reality and the movie, which then made me wonder how much of the movie was made up.
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
October Movie #3: Killer Elite
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)