I'll give a lot of leeway for movies about subjects I really enjoy. Comic books, action movies, teen dramas, and certain types of sports movies. The problem with the latter is that they usually suck, especially when the "inspired by a real story" gets the Hollywood treatment and the facts are adjusted to fit a conventional story arc. Most of the time, I end up wishing that I should have just watched a documentary and read some websites.
After our summer of going to the horse races, Ashley and I just had to watch Secretariat. Sadly, we were misled as the title of the film should have been, "Secretariat's Owner: The Story of Penny Chenery." The majority of the film focused on Diane Lane's struggle to keep her farm from financial ruin.
What I wanted from this film was insight into the training and characteristics that made Secretariat such an outstanding racehorse. Instead I got a poorly executed human drama. Neigh. The horse scenes were well shot though, and whatever horse they used to play Secretariat was absolutely beautiful. Next time around, just give me more horse stuff please.
Secretariat captured the Triple Crown by winning the 1973 Belmot Stakes in record fashion. Critics doubted that he could race longer distances but Big Red blasted the competition by thirty one lengths. Apparently this is the most watched horse race in history, so you should probably watch it too.
There have only been eleven Triple Crown winners, the last one being Affirmed in 1978. Now you know.
Taking the crown opening weekend over Eat Love Pray and Scott Pilgrim, The Expendables was the summer movie every action fan wanted to see. The testosterone heavy cast boasts a ton of big names (where was Wesley Snipes?) and it should have been a gimme. Have the guys show up, have them blow things up, the end.
Instead, The Expendables reminds me of how I'm really much more excited for Red, which seems like a similar movie, at least on the surface. The main difference I can tell is that Red features some ex-assassins back for another mission while Expendables featured a lot of ex-action stars gathered together for a money grab. What tanks Expendables is that we're in 2010 now, not the Eighties, and the film serves to remind us of how far guns and explosions have come since Commando and Rambo. Any of Jason Statham's movies -- as preposterous and thin as they are -- are better than Expendables from an entertainment standpoint.
We're way too familiar with the tropes of the classic action movie and we're able to connect "the girl" with "future love interest" and "motivation to do some killing" without having to waste twenty minutes watching Stallone emote. Just fire up the plane, load up the ammo and go! There is absolutely nothing surprising in any scene of The Expendables and even worse, the dialogue is horrific. There was one good line from the movie amidst a sea of horrible cheese and that one line might even fly over the heads of some teens.
I wish Expendables had been more clever, or had the intelligence to realize that the audience isn't awed by big guns and bigger CGI explosions anymore. If this had a better plot, an actual sense of humor, or some hint of tongue in cheekness, Expendables could have been awesome. Instead, it sucked.
Then again, having said all that, if Stallone and Kurt Russell get together for Tango & Cash 2, I'm so there.
I'm not a MMA fan but one of the co-stars of The Expendables, Randy Couture, absolutely wrecked a former boxing champ the other night in just a few minutes. James Toney didn't even land a punch. Wowza.
A remake of the French film "Le Diner de Cons," Dinner for Schmucks had all the signs of being a terrible movie. I assumed it was another in the long line of Apatow, Meet the Fockers, Ben Stiller, etc. sorta comedy that I absolutely detest. The good news is that there was no Stiller, Ferrell, or Sandler in sight. The better news is that the movie stars Steve Carell and Paul Rudd, who are both winsome actors. Of course, this doesn't change the fact that this movie was horrible. I know now that director Jay Roach (Austin Powers, Meet the Parents films) makes movies that I never want to see. If I see "Jay Roach" displayed anywhere, I should just walk out.
But wait, I will restrain myself and try to talk about this movie's good parts. If I were to really study it objectively, Dinner for Schmucks is a good film. The plot moves fast, the gags are way out there, there's quite a few good lines, and at no point are you not entertained. While Carell is a bit too Ben Stiller-ish, he has a lot of built up audience karma with me through The Office. I guess if you like crazy, slapsticky, makes no sense comedy, then this movie is for you. Me, I'll laugh along and just keep reaching for the popcorn.
Normally I'm all about 3D summer movies. I get sucked in by the trailers, set my expectations low, and walk out feeling satisfied after munching on a few pounds of popcorn. Well, I'd heard from every party that Clash of the Titans was absolutely the pits. But my good friend was celebrating a very important birthday and wanted to watch it because the original Clash was his favorite movie as a kid. I didn't mind because I'll watch anything with Greek mythology.
I'll save you the time and say that yes, the new Clash of the Titans is pretty terrible. Is it the worst movie I've seen so far this year? Probably not. Compared to Percy Jackson, to which I assigned the grade of "D," Clash is probably about comparable. There was no suspense or good action. If anything, there was anti-suspense. I found myself chuckling most of the way through and cheering only for Pegasus sightings. I like flying horses, don't you? Compared to the original the only aspect that was improved upon in this version was the visuals. The plot is weak, the acting is pathetic, and some of the lines are just terrible.
Yes, that is Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes, not just Liam Neeson playing both Zeus and Hades. The receding hairline on poor Ralph is horrific by the way. I had a hard time taking the Lord of the Underworld seriously with that hair. I doubt you will be able to either.
Degradingly referred to as "The next Harry Potter," Percy Jackson deserves to be judged based on its own merits. Throwing Greek gods into a teenage setting is genius and there are a lot of neat ideas flowing throughout the backstory and world building. I'm about halfway through the first book and it's been entertaining. Everyone loves Olympian gods so the combination of myths and modern stuff is appealing.
The problem was the adaptation of the book into the movie. From what I've heard, they changed quite a few things. More important than that, the pace of the movie is just terrible. The script is sullen, the dialogue isn't horrible but will be dated in about six months, and everything seems slightly less than epic.
Pieces were in place for a decent action movie. I mean, the cast was selected well, especially based on looks (Brandon T. Jackson makes a perfect goat/satyr. Sorry dude, just saying). Logan Lerman is maybe a little too good looking to be Percy but he works for the teen hot throb role. Alexandra Daddario is cute but also believably strong and a good choice for a daughter of Athena. On top of that, the special effects were good, especially the various mythical creatures, so it wasn't a budget issue.
The biggest problem in my estimation was hiring Chris Columbus to direct. "Let's hire the guy who made the first two sub-par Potter flicks!" Not a good idea. I completely blame him for this movie's failure and Columbus should have stopped directing movies after Adventures in Babysitting and Home Alone. So if you want to spend two hours wishing you could be struck down by Zeus' lightning bolt, hurry to the theater for this one.
In a flood of vampire movies and culture, it's nice to find something that really captured my attention with an interesting concept. The year is the near future and most of humanity has turned into vampires. Well, vampires need human blood to stay in their prime so humans quickly become a hot commodity. We're rounded up and farmed like in the Matrix. Fun setup right? There's potential here for all sorts of allegories and twisted expectations, and I was excited to explore some of those themes.
Well, after the initial set up of the environment (and me wondering, "wait, why do vampires need to trudge along to work?"), the movie gets lost in tepid action adventureness, terrible acting, and thin characterization. Basically the writers of the film had two or three good ideas and then filled in the rest with generic-ness. Too bad because this could be such an interesting movie if done right. Ethan Hawke has been quoted as saying that this Daybreakers is "low art" and "completely unpretentious and silly." Way to promote buddy. Hawke makes a good vampire though...
Luckily my friend told me pre-movie that this was a gore fest. Thanks for the warning! I expected the random spurts of blood and just calmly continued munching on popcorn. Extra butter, extra salt. Delicious.
I only read some of the book because something about the ubiquitousness of the light blue cover turned me off. Well now I know exactly what it's about and I feel the need to read it. A girl is murdered and the hunt is on to figure out who did it. Of course, the movie turns down a lot of the pathos from the book and the whole thing becomes a sort of spiritual whodunit. I've decided Peter Jackson is not a good director. I watched Heavenly Creatures, I watched King Kong and the Lords, and now this effort which left me very upset about the pacing. Peter Jackson, I'm boycotting you (and I hope the Halo movie doesn't happen under your direction).
Everything about this movie was off. I didn't like Saoirse Ronan as the lead (possibly tainted by my memory of her awful lying ways as Briony in Atonement), I didn't like Mark Wahlberg or the usually very likable Rachel Weisz, and I hated Nikki SooHoo's faked accent. Can't she just speak regular old English? Hewwo? We need to find SooHoo a better role. So really I liked Stanley Tucci the best, as the sociopathic killer. That's probably not a good thing. And really, if having bad hair, bad clothes, and bad style was enough to qualify you as a murder suspect, the movie sure got the 70s absolutely right.
Not normally a movie I'd pay to watch, since I don't like 40 Year Old Virgin, Knocked Up, and other Apatow-esque guy movies. If you want to read a positive review of this movie, click here.
"But what I appreciated most was the way that the film captured the modern American male condition with thought and humor. On the whole, when men get married, study after study has demonstrated that they are more likely to depend more on their spouses for emotional support than they do on others, as opposed to females, who are typically able to maintain a more extensive social network. As a result, widowed men experience higher rates of depression and shorter periods until remarriage."
-Slashfilm review-
I don't think the movie captured much of anything but it is a great concept and can be the launching pad for fun conversations about bromances. The conceit of the movie is that Paul Rudd is about to get married (to Rashida Jones) but he has no guy friends, which indicates he's flawed in some way. Awkward moments, dumb jokes, and a few laughs ensue. Yawn.
The only thing that did strike home was how the movie highlighted the difficulties males can face in trying to meet other males. It's something that could be a problem, I guess, but really, males bond over lots of things, especially hobbies. So just go find an activity you sort of enjoy, do it on a regular basis, and you'll make a guy friend or two. Maybe not one you'll say "I love you" to but that's okay, isn't it?
Words I'd use to describe this movie: cloying, long, lifeless, pointless, and disappointing. I didn't necessarily head into this film with high expectations but most everyone who watched it said they liked it, just "not as much as Forrest Gump." I could do with a B-rate Forrest Gump. Instead what I got was a three hour meandering mess that sort of had the worst parts of Titanic, Forrest Gump, and (as Irene pointed out) The Notebook all mashed together. At the end of it I was hoping I'd be the one struck by lightning seven times.
I can't believe David Fincher (Se7en, The Game, Fight Club, Panic Room, Zodiac) directed this. Aside from the tone and content, I just can't believe that he would have let this thing drag on so long -- he's usually tight with his running times. I love the idea of a character aging in reverse and the story had so much potential but it was all unrealized. I got quickly bored with the tired tropes, wished old Daisy would just hurry up and die, yawned at the pathetic attempts at greater symbolism, and got annoyed that there was no emotional pay offs. It also seemed like there were parts when Fincher forgot he was supposed to inject some universal life proclamations and so stuck them in with a quick voice over. Way to summarize buddy, try cutting the movie next time.
The whole thing made me appreciate Forrest Gump so much more as it was done with a hundred times the humor, charm, and originality of Benji Button. I used to love the word "button" but now it's been seriously tainted. For the record, I don't think Cate Blanchett is a great actress, not at all. Don't see it. Not here, not there, not anywhere.
The Coen brothers are responsible for some highly acclaimed movies over the years. They've won multiple Oscars, they've made cult classics and mainstream classics, they've pretty much done whatever they've wanted. While I admire their career and their penchant for creating wacky characters and movies, I've decided I don't like them. The only movie of theirs that I'd say I truly enjoyed watching the whole way through was Fargo. Everything else just kind of left me feeling lost or disappointed.
Burn After Reading made me feel even worse. It was the second part of a movie hop and now I wish I could have seen Righteous Kill, Traitor, Babylon AD, Disaster Movie, basically anything else. I mean, sure, it's fun to see Brad Pitt play another off-beat character and Frances McDormand is always a delight, but the whole plot of the movie was just senseless and ridiculous. The ending just about killed me too. It was one of those classic "No way it's ending here, is it?" "It is!?" Skip this movie, seriously.
Jet Li and Jackie Chan together at last. It's the equivalent of an Arnold and Sly pairing in the 80s. Sadly, this film was more like Schwarzenegger and Stallone making a movie together now.
Why watch a semi-drunken style Jackie Chan when you can go rent the real thing? Why bother watching Jet Li in this when he's superior in almost every other (Chinese) movie he's made? The title is misleading too. There's nothing forbidden about the kingdom at all.
The main character, played by Michael Angarano of Sky High fame (who I swore was Shia LaBeouf for a second), seems to waltz quite easily into this fantasy land as well as the enemy's fortress at the end of the movie. Seriously, nobody stopped him at all. It's similar to the packaging on the back of Fiji Water bottles. Look, it's impermeable! Wait a second...
Along the same lines, this movie is almost unwatchable but hey, I had to hop it anyway because it's Jet Li and Jackie Chan. Gotta show some support.
When you movie hop, sometimes you just wander into anything that sounds remotely interesting. Vantage Point had a decent premise and promised to be entertaining right? Well, if you're watching for free, it's hard to complain right? As James quipped to me halfway through, this movie should have been called "29 Minutes."
While the differing viewpoints are Roshomon-like, it adds nothing to the exposition and in fact, there were so many "let's rewind to the beginning" sequences that the audience was audibly groaning and hooting by the fifth or sixth one. There was really no reason for multiple perspectives except to provide a catchy hook on which to hang a typical action thriller.
Well, based on that standard, the action is unbelievable and over the top, Forest Whitaker is hilariously overacting, plot twists are easily telegraphed, and the Americans win. What else do you need to know?
Hey kids, interested in gratuitious nudity and violence? Have I got the double feature for you! Before the Devil Knows You're Dead (2007) and Rambo (2008) both have problems galore and neither are going to be worth your time -- unless you like gratuitiousness I guess.
Before the Devil's synopsis sounded like it would be good and with Ethan Hawke and Philip Seymour Hoffman around, how could it be horrible? I forgot to account for the fact that 83-year old Sidney Lumet (12 Angry Men, Serpico, Dog Day Afternoon) would be trying to "mix things up" by showing events out of order and with strange cuts. The movie lacks rhythm, sense, and after you figure out what's going on -- which isn't hard to do -- all tension is gone from the film.
Albert Finney's slightly open mouthed gape bothers the heck out of me, I'm sorry. The only real reason to watch the film is Marisa Tomei. I can't believe she chose to bare it all for this piddling role.
Rambo actually suffers from the same problem. I was hoping for a greatest hits of John Rambo, kind of like how Stallone re-did Rocky. Give me the headband tying, give me the knife in the sheath, give me crazy. Instead, we get a watered down Rambo who does very little actual killing. Of course, the movie has tons of way over the top killing (by the villains) in order to make up for it. If you're waiting for that one big chill moment when you can cheer like the good old days, rent Rambo 2 instead.
Into the Wild
Christopher McCandless graduated from college, gave away his savings, and set off to traipse around the United States in an attempt to escape consumerism and become one with nature. Inspired by Henry David Thoreau and Jack London, he also subsequently joined them as RIP two years after he disappeared.
You could look at the whole thing as a touching tale of a young man finding himself or as a spoiled kid who died because of his arrogance. I lean toward the latter despite the movie heavily promoting the inspiring version. While the film has been getting all sorts of great reviews, I felt it was a bit dry and hardly revelationary -- or insightful. Good cinematography though.
The Golden Compass
Fine, I only watched the back half of the movie (the better half so I'm told) but if the entire thing is anything like what I experienced, it's no great adventure flick. In fact, the entire film seems stilted and aside from the very cool snow bears, there wasn't much we hadn't seen before in either Lord of the Rings or Chronicles of Narnia -- neither of which I was in love with in the first place. While this first movie will undoubtedly extend into a franchise, I can't see it measuring up as a classic.
I'm halfway through the book too (and have been for months) but I can't seem to commit to that magic either, although the series is always touted as a classic. I guess I'll give the book another go when I can. The movie? I'll pass.
Enchanted
Would you believe that out of all these movies, Enchanted was the best one? I mocked somebody at work for printing out preview passes to watch this; turns out he was just ahead of the curve. Walking out after the magic of "The End," I just felt happy inside. Happily ever after as it were. The film mocks Disney's classic stories but in a really funny way. The mix of animation and live action is done really well and it's refreshing to see the Disney princess tale given a new spin. Seriously, it's good.
Check out this NY Times story, "The Line Between Homage and Parody," for an interesting behind the scenes.
This movie's a classic, or so I'm told. I thought watching it in 3-D would be a life altering experience. Final verdict? Not so much. The novelty of 3-D was cool but afterwards I was told that most of it wasn't in 3-D anyway. I kept on hoping for more things to happen. And the songs need some help. Get Tim Rice on the phone. Still, the production design was awesome and I can see how this was pretty mind blowing in 1993. I prefer Wallace & Gromit.
I heard from semi-reputable sources that Ratatouille was surprisingly good. After I watched it the only surprise I got was how mediocre it was. Sure it's a Pixar film but Pixar films written/directed by Brad Bird need to come with a caveat: they suck. Incredibles was pretty bad (with some good moments) and Ratatouille is worse than that. Put it this way: We sat directly behind an obnoxious lady laugher but after the film trailers she didn't laugh once. That's how un-entertaining this film was. 'Nuff said.
Usually romantic comedy movies like this have the problem of the actors being way too old for their roles. Adam Brody has the opposite problem; he looks like he blends in with the high schoolers around him and it's tough to picture him as a 26-year old (even if he actually is).
The movie also compounds the problem by not giving us enough motivation behind anything Brody's character does. The movie has a few "nice/interesting/cute" moments but mainly, like the family of blondes across the street (who do admittedly carry the show), the film suffers from a lack of depth.
-Ripe Tomatoes-
