“The Hangover” was one of those rare comedies that was both a really interesting and well executed idea that made for an astoundingly good movie, as well as being a good bet for big box office with raunchy jokes and the fan base of “Daily Show” and “The Office” regular Ed Helms, as well as cult stand up comedian Zach Galifianakis. Its premise of three guys that had a crazy night in Vegas that they couldn’t remember is just a great concept and I really enjoyed it. That said, it really didn’t lend itself to a sequel, and that really shows in the one we got.
I’m not really going to say much here. There really is nothing to say about this movie other than it’s a slightly less funny version of the first one set in Bangkok, Thailand instead of Las Vegas, and instead of looking for their friend Doug, they’re looking for Ed Helm’s future brother in law. All the returning cast is just as good as they were last time and the new additions are for the most part barely in the movie. The jokes are pretty much either clones of the first movie’s jokes or just the guys talking about the first movie’s events. I mean it was nice to see how these characters have all dealt with it after the fact, but it just really made me wish I was watching the first movie because this movie is just a big retread of all the major plot point of the first one. It is a competent comedy but the first one was much better and director Todd Phillip’s last movie “Due Date” was far far funnier than this. If you really really want to see these three twits stumble their way through another retrace our steps type mystery comedy, that’s fine, but do yourself a favor and save the $11 dollars for a theater ticket and just wait for DVD.
“The Hangover part 2” gets
2 next day surprises out of 5.
So since there really isn’t that much to say about “The Hangover part 2”, and I don’t want to leave you with just half of a review, let’s talk Direct to DVD! In the realm of superheroes, both Marvel and DC are starting to do more and more with major feature films involving their stables of heroes. Marvel I’ve already talked about, but DC has been another story entirely. In recent film history the only big movie success they’ve had has been the Christopher Nolan helmed “Batman Begins” and “The Dark Knight”, and the “Watchmen” adaptation that Zack Snyder did. However, aside from Snyder’s film they’ve had a little bit more trouble with their non-Batman main heroes. “Superman Returns” was a huge let down and was pretty much a weak rehash of the plot to the first movie, and all attempts to make a Wonder Woman movie have failed resulting in a compromise TV show premiering this fall. They seem to be headed in the right direction this summer with the first live action Green Lantern movie, but the proof will be in the pudding there, though I’m remaining optimistic.
Where DC is having much better success, is in the direct to video animated films, such as “The Death Of Superman” and “Green Lantern: First Flight”. These movies are made more for the fans of the comics and thus don’t really have to over explain origins or the like so they have a little more breathing room since they know the audience is going to be people that know the basics anyway. They’ve been all pretty entertaining for the most part with really good animation and voice acting, not to mention some of the most kick ass action I’ve seen in anything animated not originally from Japan. Thus we come to their latest release “All Star Superman” based on the comic series of the same name written by Grant Morrison and drawn by Frank Quitely.
Now, I’m going to say something here, my all time favorite super hero movie is Richard Donner’s “Superman The Movie”. I saw it at a very young age and it’s a movie that I always know can cheer me up. It has amazing visuals that I honestly say still hold up today, not to mention the performances were all really really good and it really made Superman an interesting and well rounded character. The irony is that if there is one comic book character I don’t really like reading, it’s Superman. That’s just a general preference, but to me, a lot of the times I find his books a little boring because he’s so powerful that it just gets absurd or boring because you know he’ll win some way, some how thanks to his powers, resulting in lack of tension. There are however, two exceptions so far that I have really enjoyed reading, “Superman for all seasons” in which his early life and career as the man of steel is told, where he feels like a real human character. The other being “All Star Superman” which I only finished reading recently.
The premise, more or less done here in the movie, is that Superman rescues the first manned mission to the Sun and in the process is over exposed to the solar radiation that give him his power. This results in him being stronger than he has ever been before, but he’s also slowly dying. What follows are some of the most amazing feats Superman has ever performed, as well as some very nice pay off to his romance with Lois Lane and getting to see this character, that’s been called a god among men and other things of the like, deal with his inevitable death. Without spoiling anything the comic is really really worth a look if you enjoy the medium and the movie is most definitely worth a watch.
The animation recreates Quitely’s art from the comics flawlessly, and the action scenes are really well done. All the voice actors sound really believable in the parts and the script is a very faithful adaptation of Morrison’s story.
All that said, there are some hiccups here and there. My favorite part of the story, involving superman saving the Earth from the Bizarro home world and then having to escape is not here, it’s a shame though not a total deal breaker. Also, since the story was released as what is essentially a mini series, the issues were all for the most part episodic with the running theme of Superman accomplishing his most amazing feats connecting them together. It works fine in a serialized comic, but not quite as a 90 minute movie. It isn’t a real bad thing but it doesn’t really feel like a solid narrative structure.
So if you’re a fan of Superman, or a fan of animation, I say check it out. Just keep an open mind and don’t let the somewhat choppy nature of the story line deter you.
I give “All Star Superman”
4 Moments of Awesome out of 5
Friday, June 3, 2011
Friday, May 27, 2011
Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides
Yes, they’ve made 4 of them now, and chances are you’ve probably already decided if you want to go see it or not. WE all like these movies in some shape or form. We all have our favorites and have our reasons for liking them. Personally, my favorite is the second one, because I liked the complex villain and I felt it had all the best action, not to mention the best Captain Jack Sparrow moments. However, with popularity this big, it means there’s only one thing for me to really do in this review, tell you whether it’s good or not. The answer to that is a little complicated though.
At a glance “On Stranger Tides” seems like it should be a pretty solid flick. It’s got Johnny Depp and Geoffrey Rush back as Jack and Barbossa, Keira Knightly and Orlando Bloom aren’t in it, Jack has a love interest in the form of Penelope Cruz, and it has more mythical sea creatures, mermaids this time around. That’s all well and good, but this movie suffers the same thing most movies that make it this far in sequels tend to suffer from, predictability. Come on, you all know it, there have been three of these movies and they all basically had the same plot: Go here, action scene, find magical MacGuffin, action scene, go there, fight the bad guy (BIG ACTION SCENE!), dénouement where Johnny Depp does something funny or crazy. There you go.
The big prize this time is the fountain of youth, the villain dug up from pirate lore this time is Blackbeard played by the crazy good Ian McShane, and the quest is to collect four items (MacGuffins) to make the fountain actually work. Barbossa is in hot pursuit of Blackbeard who has Jack for a guide, and some how the Spanish are involved but the movie seems to keep forgetting they’re part of it, and then it suddenly remembers and finds a way to crowbar them back in. I’d even go so far as to suggest that the Spanish are only in this movie because of Ponce De Leone having gone to find the fountain in real life.
I digress, the plot isn’t really what the pirate movies have been about anyway, it’s the characters mixed with vaguely pirate folk lore sounding things that have kept it going. Yes, Captain Jack is still very funny, and yes Barbossa is still really cool as a grey area kind of guy, and Blackbeard steals the whole show by being self knowingly evil. That being said the movie does have a couple characters that are pretty interesting in theory, but end up basically getting pushed aside. Cruz’s Angelica is one such instance, being both a former lover of Jack’s and Blackbeard’s daughter is interesting, but they never really do much with it until the end. And then there is the priest character that, for some reason isn’t just killed by Blackbeard, despite refusing to kill anything and constantly talking about how the pirates are evil and that they can still be saved in God’s eyes if they just repent. He is pretty much completely useless and only exists to craft a stupid, not to mention COMPLETELY USELESS, romance plot with him and a mermaid.
On top of this, the action scenes that are supposed to keep most people interested are all boring. There aren’t nearly as many as in the second, third, or even the first one, and the ones we get really aren’t that good. Director Rob Marshall is most famous for directing “Chicago”, and lesser know for movies like “Memoirs of a Geisha” and “Nine” (NOT the animated movie about the living sock puppets.), and his lack of action experience really shows in these scenes. Most of them are either dull or anticlimactic, and when that’s not the case they’re just rehashing things from the previous movies. But what actually angers me most thinking back, is that the movie has NO ship battles. No broad sides of cannon fire, no ship tactics that turn the tide of battle, no man the guns, nothing. That was always what I liked about these movies! Sword fights? I can see that anywhere. Crazy stunts? That’s why God gave us Jackie Chan movies. But this movie just doesn’t do it. Hell, even in the last movie, which most people acknowledge wasn’t all that good, had several of those and it made the movie actually feel like a pirate movie. This just feels more like a bad Indiana Jones knock off than a pirate movie. In fact, most everything from the original movies is gone, most notably the Black Pearl. They could have called it anything and it would have made just as much sense.
When all is said and done, I really didn’t care for this movie. That said, if all you want from the movie is to have Jack Sparrow have more screen time than he has in the other movies, or you really just want to see all of the “Pirates” movies in theaters, then you probably won’t be disappointed. I however, was thoroughly disappointed by this movie, it was dull, long and I really just wanted it to end. It didn’t win any points with me other than having Jack in it, something we know they wouldn’t be stupid enough not to do anyway. I’d say skip it.
I give Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides
1 magical MacGuffin out of 5
At a glance “On Stranger Tides” seems like it should be a pretty solid flick. It’s got Johnny Depp and Geoffrey Rush back as Jack and Barbossa, Keira Knightly and Orlando Bloom aren’t in it, Jack has a love interest in the form of Penelope Cruz, and it has more mythical sea creatures, mermaids this time around. That’s all well and good, but this movie suffers the same thing most movies that make it this far in sequels tend to suffer from, predictability. Come on, you all know it, there have been three of these movies and they all basically had the same plot: Go here, action scene, find magical MacGuffin, action scene, go there, fight the bad guy (BIG ACTION SCENE!), dénouement where Johnny Depp does something funny or crazy. There you go.
The big prize this time is the fountain of youth, the villain dug up from pirate lore this time is Blackbeard played by the crazy good Ian McShane, and the quest is to collect four items (MacGuffins) to make the fountain actually work. Barbossa is in hot pursuit of Blackbeard who has Jack for a guide, and some how the Spanish are involved but the movie seems to keep forgetting they’re part of it, and then it suddenly remembers and finds a way to crowbar them back in. I’d even go so far as to suggest that the Spanish are only in this movie because of Ponce De Leone having gone to find the fountain in real life.
I digress, the plot isn’t really what the pirate movies have been about anyway, it’s the characters mixed with vaguely pirate folk lore sounding things that have kept it going. Yes, Captain Jack is still very funny, and yes Barbossa is still really cool as a grey area kind of guy, and Blackbeard steals the whole show by being self knowingly evil. That being said the movie does have a couple characters that are pretty interesting in theory, but end up basically getting pushed aside. Cruz’s Angelica is one such instance, being both a former lover of Jack’s and Blackbeard’s daughter is interesting, but they never really do much with it until the end. And then there is the priest character that, for some reason isn’t just killed by Blackbeard, despite refusing to kill anything and constantly talking about how the pirates are evil and that they can still be saved in God’s eyes if they just repent. He is pretty much completely useless and only exists to craft a stupid, not to mention COMPLETELY USELESS, romance plot with him and a mermaid.
On top of this, the action scenes that are supposed to keep most people interested are all boring. There aren’t nearly as many as in the second, third, or even the first one, and the ones we get really aren’t that good. Director Rob Marshall is most famous for directing “Chicago”, and lesser know for movies like “Memoirs of a Geisha” and “Nine” (NOT the animated movie about the living sock puppets.), and his lack of action experience really shows in these scenes. Most of them are either dull or anticlimactic, and when that’s not the case they’re just rehashing things from the previous movies. But what actually angers me most thinking back, is that the movie has NO ship battles. No broad sides of cannon fire, no ship tactics that turn the tide of battle, no man the guns, nothing. That was always what I liked about these movies! Sword fights? I can see that anywhere. Crazy stunts? That’s why God gave us Jackie Chan movies. But this movie just doesn’t do it. Hell, even in the last movie, which most people acknowledge wasn’t all that good, had several of those and it made the movie actually feel like a pirate movie. This just feels more like a bad Indiana Jones knock off than a pirate movie. In fact, most everything from the original movies is gone, most notably the Black Pearl. They could have called it anything and it would have made just as much sense.
When all is said and done, I really didn’t care for this movie. That said, if all you want from the movie is to have Jack Sparrow have more screen time than he has in the other movies, or you really just want to see all of the “Pirates” movies in theaters, then you probably won’t be disappointed. I however, was thoroughly disappointed by this movie, it was dull, long and I really just wanted it to end. It didn’t win any points with me other than having Jack in it, something we know they wouldn’t be stupid enough not to do anyway. I’d say skip it.
I give Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides
1 magical MacGuffin out of 5
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Thor
Anyone that hasn’t already figured it out, Marvel Studios has been making a big push getting all the big Marvel comic book heroes into movie franchises; however in what is a huge first in the film industry, these movies like their comic book counter parts are part of a shared universe, the point of which is to make one big set up for the team up movie “The Avengers”. This has been going on since “Iron Man” and “The Incredible Hulk” with each movie having more and more hints or reveals to keep fans of the comics drooling over the inevitable conclusion in a way that would put Pavlov’s dogs to shame.
“Thor”, the latest in this series, serves as both an origin story for the titular character, works on adding more to the universe as a whole and sets up even more buzz for the avengers. The premise is pretty simple, Norse mythology is actually real and the god of thunder, Thor, disobeys his father Odin by breaking a truce with a race of beings known as the frost giants. This results in Thor being stripped of his power and banished to Earth to learn humility before he will be allowed to return. All the while S.H.E.I.L.D., the homeland security agency in these movies, is investigating his sudden appearance and have possession of Mjolnir, Thor’s hammer and source of his power.
Whenever people ask me what I like in a good summer blockbuster movie, I have always been able to point at things like “Iron Man” or “Hellboy 2” because they are solidly constructed movies, with cool action set pieces, interesting characters and the sense that it has a good, if not completely original or deep story. “Thor” is one of those kinds of movies. It has a great central character in the form of a living god, who gets to fight giant ice men and metal suits of death with a giant hammer that he uses to fly and do all sorts of other awesome things with.
But unlike many movies of this ilk, a lot of focus is put on characters in “Thor” and it shows in the performances, all the actors really giving their all even to small comic relief parts like Kat Dennings as the sarcastic intern Dacy. Chris Hemsworth deserves particular praise for his portrayal as Thor, being great at conveying his massive arrogance in the film’s beginning and also being very good at showing his growth by film’s end in a way that is both believable and endearing. Anthony Hopkins steals the screen every time he appears as Odin, and Idris Alba who’s casting as Heimdall stirred up some controversy, is mesmerizing as the guardian of the gates to Asgard. Natalie Portman is nicely worked in as Thor’s love interest and Tom Hiddleston equips himself with just the right amount of slime and brooding to play god of mischief Loki.
That said, the movie’s pretty reliant on its visual style and there are two MVP’s to praise in the department are clearly production designer Bo Welch, who makes Asgard look both real and other worldly at the same time, and of course the film’s director Kenneth Branagh. It was a bit of a surprise to hear that Branagh, who is most known for his work adapting Shakespeare plays to the big screen, was directing a comic book movie. However, it becomes readily apparent that Branagh was the perfect choice for THIS comic book movie because the themes, characters and ideas are all larger than life and it’s clear that he can happily find himself at home working with the material, for which he clearly has great admiration, or at least respect. He handles the action scenes greatly, making big sweeping shots and giving them a visual pop that really enhances the visual effects, giving much more urgency and weight to them than most movies of this ilk have been able to pull off in a long time.
That said, “Thor” is not without its flaws. A lot of the time the movie feels like it wants to be much more about Thor, but that it has to keep working in the ties to the Avengers movie, including a cameo from Jeremy Renner, who is clearly fellow Avenger Hawkeye. It was nice, but in the context of the scene that he’s in, it’s pretty pointless. But at this point I’m just nit picking.
To sum up, “Thor” is great fun and a great time at the movies. It has fun characters cool action set pieces and a story that you actually want to see through to the end. If you haven’t seen it already do yourself the favor and see this in theaters, it really is one of those you can’t really get the same experience with a rental.
I give “Thor”
4 Magic Hammers out of 5
“Thor”, the latest in this series, serves as both an origin story for the titular character, works on adding more to the universe as a whole and sets up even more buzz for the avengers. The premise is pretty simple, Norse mythology is actually real and the god of thunder, Thor, disobeys his father Odin by breaking a truce with a race of beings known as the frost giants. This results in Thor being stripped of his power and banished to Earth to learn humility before he will be allowed to return. All the while S.H.E.I.L.D., the homeland security agency in these movies, is investigating his sudden appearance and have possession of Mjolnir, Thor’s hammer and source of his power.
Whenever people ask me what I like in a good summer blockbuster movie, I have always been able to point at things like “Iron Man” or “Hellboy 2” because they are solidly constructed movies, with cool action set pieces, interesting characters and the sense that it has a good, if not completely original or deep story. “Thor” is one of those kinds of movies. It has a great central character in the form of a living god, who gets to fight giant ice men and metal suits of death with a giant hammer that he uses to fly and do all sorts of other awesome things with.
But unlike many movies of this ilk, a lot of focus is put on characters in “Thor” and it shows in the performances, all the actors really giving their all even to small comic relief parts like Kat Dennings as the sarcastic intern Dacy. Chris Hemsworth deserves particular praise for his portrayal as Thor, being great at conveying his massive arrogance in the film’s beginning and also being very good at showing his growth by film’s end in a way that is both believable and endearing. Anthony Hopkins steals the screen every time he appears as Odin, and Idris Alba who’s casting as Heimdall stirred up some controversy, is mesmerizing as the guardian of the gates to Asgard. Natalie Portman is nicely worked in as Thor’s love interest and Tom Hiddleston equips himself with just the right amount of slime and brooding to play god of mischief Loki.
That said, the movie’s pretty reliant on its visual style and there are two MVP’s to praise in the department are clearly production designer Bo Welch, who makes Asgard look both real and other worldly at the same time, and of course the film’s director Kenneth Branagh. It was a bit of a surprise to hear that Branagh, who is most known for his work adapting Shakespeare plays to the big screen, was directing a comic book movie. However, it becomes readily apparent that Branagh was the perfect choice for THIS comic book movie because the themes, characters and ideas are all larger than life and it’s clear that he can happily find himself at home working with the material, for which he clearly has great admiration, or at least respect. He handles the action scenes greatly, making big sweeping shots and giving them a visual pop that really enhances the visual effects, giving much more urgency and weight to them than most movies of this ilk have been able to pull off in a long time.
That said, “Thor” is not without its flaws. A lot of the time the movie feels like it wants to be much more about Thor, but that it has to keep working in the ties to the Avengers movie, including a cameo from Jeremy Renner, who is clearly fellow Avenger Hawkeye. It was nice, but in the context of the scene that he’s in, it’s pretty pointless. But at this point I’m just nit picking.
To sum up, “Thor” is great fun and a great time at the movies. It has fun characters cool action set pieces and a story that you actually want to see through to the end. If you haven’t seen it already do yourself the favor and see this in theaters, it really is one of those you can’t really get the same experience with a rental.
I give “Thor”
4 Magic Hammers out of 5
Friday, May 13, 2011
The Green Hornet
If Hollywood is in love with anything more than remakes right now, it’s superheroes. Over the last few years, there has always been at least one movie about superheroes coming out every year. As a result of this we’re starting to see more of the obscure characters of the medium getting films of their own, and to put it bluntly, The Green Hornet is about as obscure as you can get. Created as a spiritual successor to cowboy hero The Lone Ranger, The Green Hornet is about Britt Reed, a news paper mogul that fights crime in a mask with his butt kicking sidekick Kato and their advanced super car that would make James Bond blush. The hornet originally appeared as a radio show, then in pulp magazines and comics, but most notably as a cheesy TV show in the vain of the live action “Batman” series that was on at the same time. It only lasted one season, but was of note for being the vehicle which introduced the epicly awesome Bruce Lee to American audiences. The production of this film has been in and out of development since the release and massive success of films like “Spider Man” and “Batman Begins”. At one point it seemed about to be done under the helming of indie icon Kevin Smith, but that didn’t work out and instead was picked up by Columbia pictures with Seth Rogen starring as well as co-writing the screenplay, which was finally made and released.
The film’s plot is pretty basic fair, Britt Reed is a notable party hound living off his wealthy news paper tycoon father’s allowances before being thrown into the real world when his father dies and he inherits the news paper. After meeting Kato, who reveals that his father was feeling paranoid in his final days casting a haze of suspicion over his death, they decide to go fight crime, creating Reed’s identity as the Green Hornet. No really, that’s how it goes down, they both get drunk and during a drunken escapade they stop a mugging and decide that they must fight crime because it feels right. I actually really like this idea, it’s not as deeply explored as say “Kick-Ass” but honestly it was nice to see a hero that rose from something other than an utter tragedy that defined their rise to becoming a crime fighter.
Though, it must be said that this movie works better if you view it as more of a buddy cop comedy than a super hero action movie. Rogen’s Britt Reed is goofball and funny in that way most of the parts he’s played have always been. Added to that he plays well off Jay Chou’s Kato, whose fights in the movie are some of the biggest attractions, as well as the films villain played by one of my new favorites, Chirstophe Waltz of “Inglorious Basterds”. It has some nice character bit parts by Eward James Olmos as Reed's chief editor and a rather fun cameo from James Franco in the film’s first scenes.
Speaking of Chou’s fights, the movie has some really nice action scenes with exciting car chases and is shot very nicely. This both does and doesn’t surprise me as the movie is helmed by Michel Gondry, an indie favorite notable for the likes of “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind” and “Be Kind Rewind”. It was odd to hear that he was chosen for this kind of movie, but it looks like he was up for a challenge, and I feel he did very well. The camera work is nicely done, not needing to be filmed by someone that’s been hit a caffeine over dose, and since you get to see everything it’s fun to watch and really exciting. As well as having a very stylized take on how Kato fights though at times it feels like it was created primarily to pander to the 3D conversion, but I still thinks makes for an interesting idea and adds to his character. Not to mention the movie’s final chase is just awesome wrapped in bacon being both exciting and silly in a way that made me recall some of my favorite scenes from the Roger Moore era Bond movies.
Unfortunately, it feels as if the movie’s troubled back stage life spilled into the finished product. At times you can feel that the movie may have been a bit of a rushed production,mostly in the second act, which drags almost to the point of ruining the delightfully silly and interesting first act and is saved only by the rousingly bombastic third. It’s that typical part where the two buddies get into a fight over something and it starts to drive a wedge between them, in this case it’s love interest Cameron Diaz. Her character isn’t bad, but feels kind of crowbarred in, basically existing to be a plot mover and causing her to feel rather less important than she’s supposed to be. Actually, that can be said about a lot of the movie, it seems like Columbia is hoping to make a franchise out of the hornet and leaves enough interesting things unanswered that I felt more and more this was really just the first part and only existed to set up the pieces so that they could have more fun with them in the sequel, kind of like "Iron Man" and to a certain extent "Batman Begins".
Don't read too much into that, those are both far better movies. But that being said, I did still enjoy "The Green Hornet". It was a silly, fun action comedy with nice action scenes, funny jokes and car that fires missiles. It can drag a little but the slog is worth it for those last 20 or so minutes at the end.
3 super cars out of 5
The film’s plot is pretty basic fair, Britt Reed is a notable party hound living off his wealthy news paper tycoon father’s allowances before being thrown into the real world when his father dies and he inherits the news paper. After meeting Kato, who reveals that his father was feeling paranoid in his final days casting a haze of suspicion over his death, they decide to go fight crime, creating Reed’s identity as the Green Hornet. No really, that’s how it goes down, they both get drunk and during a drunken escapade they stop a mugging and decide that they must fight crime because it feels right. I actually really like this idea, it’s not as deeply explored as say “Kick-Ass” but honestly it was nice to see a hero that rose from something other than an utter tragedy that defined their rise to becoming a crime fighter.
Though, it must be said that this movie works better if you view it as more of a buddy cop comedy than a super hero action movie. Rogen’s Britt Reed is goofball and funny in that way most of the parts he’s played have always been. Added to that he plays well off Jay Chou’s Kato, whose fights in the movie are some of the biggest attractions, as well as the films villain played by one of my new favorites, Chirstophe Waltz of “Inglorious Basterds”. It has some nice character bit parts by Eward James Olmos as Reed's chief editor and a rather fun cameo from James Franco in the film’s first scenes.
Speaking of Chou’s fights, the movie has some really nice action scenes with exciting car chases and is shot very nicely. This both does and doesn’t surprise me as the movie is helmed by Michel Gondry, an indie favorite notable for the likes of “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind” and “Be Kind Rewind”. It was odd to hear that he was chosen for this kind of movie, but it looks like he was up for a challenge, and I feel he did very well. The camera work is nicely done, not needing to be filmed by someone that’s been hit a caffeine over dose, and since you get to see everything it’s fun to watch and really exciting. As well as having a very stylized take on how Kato fights though at times it feels like it was created primarily to pander to the 3D conversion, but I still thinks makes for an interesting idea and adds to his character. Not to mention the movie’s final chase is just awesome wrapped in bacon being both exciting and silly in a way that made me recall some of my favorite scenes from the Roger Moore era Bond movies.
Unfortunately, it feels as if the movie’s troubled back stage life spilled into the finished product. At times you can feel that the movie may have been a bit of a rushed production,mostly in the second act, which drags almost to the point of ruining the delightfully silly and interesting first act and is saved only by the rousingly bombastic third. It’s that typical part where the two buddies get into a fight over something and it starts to drive a wedge between them, in this case it’s love interest Cameron Diaz. Her character isn’t bad, but feels kind of crowbarred in, basically existing to be a plot mover and causing her to feel rather less important than she’s supposed to be. Actually, that can be said about a lot of the movie, it seems like Columbia is hoping to make a franchise out of the hornet and leaves enough interesting things unanswered that I felt more and more this was really just the first part and only existed to set up the pieces so that they could have more fun with them in the sequel, kind of like "Iron Man" and to a certain extent "Batman Begins".
Don't read too much into that, those are both far better movies. But that being said, I did still enjoy "The Green Hornet". It was a silly, fun action comedy with nice action scenes, funny jokes and car that fires missiles. It can drag a little but the slog is worth it for those last 20 or so minutes at the end.
3 super cars out of 5
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Skyline
You know, since I started writing these review people have said a lot of things about me. I’m too critical (that’s my favorite), That I can’t simply enjoy something (…Battlefield Earth or Commando anyone?), That I just like to make fun of and hate on stuff (… your point?), most interestingly of all, I’m a masochist. That last one is mostly in response to the fact that I actually watch a lot of the movie that I really don’t have an interest in, and the fact that I called that attempted excursion into chick flicks masochism month didn’t help. Here’s the thing, if I just posted reviews for things that I watched and really really liked, it’d be 2 things 1: boring and one note. And 2: Self indulgent. Now, this already kind of is self indulgent being a blog of my opinion, but if I just review “Scott Pilgrim” every time, I’d not have any credibility if I have any already. The thing is, while I’m not paid to do this I do like to treat it like another job, and so it just feels more professional to actually do something insane like say pay money to go see “Nightmare on Elm Street” (2010). All that said, yeah, sometimes I actually do go see things specifically to marvel at incompetent filmmaking or make fun of something. Thus we come to “Skyline”, yet another movie to add to the very long history of alien invasion movies.
Those that don’t follow film criticism all that much, “Skyline” has been almost universally bashed on by pretty much everyone. It’s been called total shit, the worst movie ever, and so on. So I rented it, with a coupon, for free, because I really wanted to rip into something truly terrible after the snooze fest that was “Scream 4”. The result? I don’t understand, why is this supposed to be so terrible? I mean, don’t read too much into that, this is by no means good, but why is it supposed to be so terrible?
It’s your basic alien invader movie. It does all the same things done in movies like “Independence Day”, “War of The Worlds”, “Earth vs. The Flying Saucers” you get the idea. It’s centered around a bunch of people in a high rise apartment, hence the title, trying to survive as aliens invade and start abducting people en masse.
The performances are kind of meh, they aren’t really awful, not really stand out. Most of the characters are one note clichés from the other movies I listed and yeah, they can get annoying, but honestly I have seen WAY worse in other movies. The problem is that you don’t really care what happens to them no matter what, and the fact the that movie doesn’t get this means that when we end up spending too much time on the human characters. In theory this is fine and see the above list again for examples where this works, but really, with characters that are stock like this, it’s just a tad on the boring side.
You might say that makes for a bad movie, a lot of the time when I really dislike a movie I tend to find it just uninteresting and that’s why. But, “Skyline” is a different kind of monster, it’s boring, but it’s punctuated with some pretty ok special effects and really it kept my interest because I wanted to see what thing they wanted to do next. The editing was always tight and the photography was passable. The directors on this flick were the Strause Brothers, better known for being the guys that made the 2nd “Alien VS Predator” movie, and honestly, that one sucked but the action was better and the story at least a million times more interesting than the first one (remember though, one million times zero is still not a good number). These guys may not be the best story tellers, or the best directors for anything really, but they know how to use effects and that’s probably from they’re background as effect technicians and supervisors.
Basically, “Skyline”, like “Scream 4” is just kind of there. It’s not really worth your time, but it’s not going to give you a head ache or anything. It’s a movie with a premise that’s been done much better elsewhere and doesn’t really add anything to a genre that’s already more bloated than Jabba the Hutt. It’s bland, plain and simple. Skip it.
1.5… Aliens, I guess… out of 5
Those that don’t follow film criticism all that much, “Skyline” has been almost universally bashed on by pretty much everyone. It’s been called total shit, the worst movie ever, and so on. So I rented it, with a coupon, for free, because I really wanted to rip into something truly terrible after the snooze fest that was “Scream 4”. The result? I don’t understand, why is this supposed to be so terrible? I mean, don’t read too much into that, this is by no means good, but why is it supposed to be so terrible?
It’s your basic alien invader movie. It does all the same things done in movies like “Independence Day”, “War of The Worlds”, “Earth vs. The Flying Saucers” you get the idea. It’s centered around a bunch of people in a high rise apartment, hence the title, trying to survive as aliens invade and start abducting people en masse.
The performances are kind of meh, they aren’t really awful, not really stand out. Most of the characters are one note clichés from the other movies I listed and yeah, they can get annoying, but honestly I have seen WAY worse in other movies. The problem is that you don’t really care what happens to them no matter what, and the fact the that movie doesn’t get this means that when we end up spending too much time on the human characters. In theory this is fine and see the above list again for examples where this works, but really, with characters that are stock like this, it’s just a tad on the boring side.
You might say that makes for a bad movie, a lot of the time when I really dislike a movie I tend to find it just uninteresting and that’s why. But, “Skyline” is a different kind of monster, it’s boring, but it’s punctuated with some pretty ok special effects and really it kept my interest because I wanted to see what thing they wanted to do next. The editing was always tight and the photography was passable. The directors on this flick were the Strause Brothers, better known for being the guys that made the 2nd “Alien VS Predator” movie, and honestly, that one sucked but the action was better and the story at least a million times more interesting than the first one (remember though, one million times zero is still not a good number). These guys may not be the best story tellers, or the best directors for anything really, but they know how to use effects and that’s probably from they’re background as effect technicians and supervisors.
Basically, “Skyline”, like “Scream 4” is just kind of there. It’s not really worth your time, but it’s not going to give you a head ache or anything. It’s a movie with a premise that’s been done much better elsewhere and doesn’t really add anything to a genre that’s already more bloated than Jabba the Hutt. It’s bland, plain and simple. Skip it.
1.5… Aliens, I guess… out of 5
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Scream 4… or is it Scre4m?
So… Wes Craven is back already… That’s kind of a surprise. Those not in the know, back in 1996, Craven along with screen writer and man guilty of “Dawson’s Creek” Kevin Williamson made a little horror flick called “Scream”. What made “Scream” stand out was that it had a killer that would call his victims with questions about horror movies before trying to kill them, at the same time poking a little fun at the clichés and troupes that typified horror movies at the time, while kinda, sorta doing the exact same things. It was a cute little gimmick and otherwise, “Scream” was pretty solid as a movie if you ask me. It turned into a big hit and so almost immediately it got a sequel, which basically did the same thing, only this time pointing the self awareness on sequel clichés… again, basically while doing the same thing, and yeah, I still enjoyed it. The point I’m trying to make, is that “Scream” really only has one thing going for it, a cutesy kind of gimmick done with reasonable competent film making.
And so, the franchise has now made it to the fourth movie, and it’s gimmick’s charm has long since worn off. That aside, “Scream 4”(Scre4m?) does get a fairly easy ride as it has to be compared to “Scream 3”, which ranks just under slicing my finger with a table saw on the list of things I’d never like to experience again. It was stupid, boring, and oh so pointless with a crappy twist at the end and completely forgettable scare scenes. It was just crap, plain and simple.
But how is “Scream 4” (Scre4m?)? It’s… It exists. That’s really all I can say. This movie really doesn’t do much. The premise is that the main character of the series Sydney Prescott, played by Neve Campbell, has returned to her hometown of Woodsboro to promote her self-help book based on her experiences with the killers. However, surprise surprise, the murders start to happen again. This time, the gimmick’s theme is that of the Horror movie remakes that are all the rage, and so it’s assumed that the killers are remaking the first “movie” and it’s centered more around Campbell’s cousin and her circle of friends. The remake idea is nice in theory, but all it does is serve to pretty much dissolve most of the movie's tension because we basically know what's coming next and it's really more of a matter of who's going to die next.
The one thing I can always say for the “Scream” series, the acting is always pretty good to decent, and that is the case here. The cast all do the job, and most of the flaws or nit picks that I have with the performances come mostly from the blah at best dialogue. Most notable is oddly enough Anthony Anderson of “Transformers” and “Agent Cody Banks 2” fame, as well as Marley Shelton of “Grindhouse” and “Sin City”, as two of the cops in town. They’re quirky and fun and I honestly was more concerned about them while watching the movie.
The real problem with this movie is it has no staying power. I honestly walked out of the theater and basically forgot most of it. Don’t get me wrong, it’s not super short or anything, but none of the kills leave much of an impact, the twist at the end is silly and it really just seems to be in a hurry to try and finish. It feels rushed and I feel that if they had more time, maybe, they could have hammered out something a little more presentable. As it is, the movie barely makes it known that it existed. I mostly blame the script, Kevin Williamson has really just been rehashing the original movie since it came out, and aside from that silly show he created, nothing else has ever reached the same amount of popularity. Here it just feels like creative auto pilot and that if he has all the character talk a lot of movie trivia and non sense people will mistake it for characterization. Not to mention the reveal at the end just feels like it comes out of nowhere. I mean, yeah I found it shocking, but I honestly figured out half of it about 35 minutes into the movie and then the other half feels really really forced, even though they try and try to make it seem like it wasn't. Actually, the only thing that was memorable is a scene where the killer asking a question about a horror movie remake and a character lists of ALL of the horror remakes that have come out recently, and it takes up a full minute of screen time. Making the horror fan in me cry a little at the reminder.
Really, I’m just going to sum up like this, better than “Scream 3”, but not by much. It’s lame, forgettable and working with a gimmick that’s already long since gone past it’s expiration date.
1.5 stabbings out of 5.
And so, the franchise has now made it to the fourth movie, and it’s gimmick’s charm has long since worn off. That aside, “Scream 4”(Scre4m?) does get a fairly easy ride as it has to be compared to “Scream 3”, which ranks just under slicing my finger with a table saw on the list of things I’d never like to experience again. It was stupid, boring, and oh so pointless with a crappy twist at the end and completely forgettable scare scenes. It was just crap, plain and simple.
But how is “Scream 4” (Scre4m?)? It’s… It exists. That’s really all I can say. This movie really doesn’t do much. The premise is that the main character of the series Sydney Prescott, played by Neve Campbell, has returned to her hometown of Woodsboro to promote her self-help book based on her experiences with the killers. However, surprise surprise, the murders start to happen again. This time, the gimmick’s theme is that of the Horror movie remakes that are all the rage, and so it’s assumed that the killers are remaking the first “movie” and it’s centered more around Campbell’s cousin and her circle of friends. The remake idea is nice in theory, but all it does is serve to pretty much dissolve most of the movie's tension because we basically know what's coming next and it's really more of a matter of who's going to die next.
The one thing I can always say for the “Scream” series, the acting is always pretty good to decent, and that is the case here. The cast all do the job, and most of the flaws or nit picks that I have with the performances come mostly from the blah at best dialogue. Most notable is oddly enough Anthony Anderson of “Transformers” and “Agent Cody Banks 2” fame, as well as Marley Shelton of “Grindhouse” and “Sin City”, as two of the cops in town. They’re quirky and fun and I honestly was more concerned about them while watching the movie.
The real problem with this movie is it has no staying power. I honestly walked out of the theater and basically forgot most of it. Don’t get me wrong, it’s not super short or anything, but none of the kills leave much of an impact, the twist at the end is silly and it really just seems to be in a hurry to try and finish. It feels rushed and I feel that if they had more time, maybe, they could have hammered out something a little more presentable. As it is, the movie barely makes it known that it existed. I mostly blame the script, Kevin Williamson has really just been rehashing the original movie since it came out, and aside from that silly show he created, nothing else has ever reached the same amount of popularity. Here it just feels like creative auto pilot and that if he has all the character talk a lot of movie trivia and non sense people will mistake it for characterization. Not to mention the reveal at the end just feels like it comes out of nowhere. I mean, yeah I found it shocking, but I honestly figured out half of it about 35 minutes into the movie and then the other half feels really really forced, even though they try and try to make it seem like it wasn't. Actually, the only thing that was memorable is a scene where the killer asking a question about a horror movie remake and a character lists of ALL of the horror remakes that have come out recently, and it takes up a full minute of screen time. Making the horror fan in me cry a little at the reminder.
Really, I’m just going to sum up like this, better than “Scream 3”, but not by much. It’s lame, forgettable and working with a gimmick that’s already long since gone past it’s expiration date.
1.5 stabbings out of 5.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
TRON Legacy
*SIGH* You know, as much as I love writing these reviews, there are sometimes where I just don’t want to. Example; the “Twilight” movies are the most aggravating movies out there to review. First of all, the movies have all sucked, but any reviewer that’s worth their salt knows that pointing out the flaws and problems with the films is hugely pointless because, well, the movies are going to make crap loads of money from the tween girls that make up the series’ fan base. Honestly, writing a review for something like that just feels like you’re the internet equivalent of that homeless guy that wears a sign saying the end is near. It’s a feeling I just couldn’t shake as I write this review, I know whatever my opinion may be, the people that were excited for “TRON Legacy” and love the movie already, won’t care what I have to say anyway. So if that’s the case I’m going to do what I always do and be brutally honest.
“TRON”, for those who don’t know, was a movie released by Disney back in 1982, it was one many films that year, like “Blade Runner” and John Carpenter’s remake of “The Thing” that didn’t really make a ton of money, but on video has had a very good life as a cult favorite. The premise is that a video game designer, Jeff Bridges, is zapped into a digital world called The Grid, and must take down a despotic program called master control. It had impressive visual effects for the time and, well, that’s really it.
First of all, I only saw the original “TRON” recently. I… I just don’t get it. I don’t see what’s so special about “TRON” outside the at the time amazing visuals, but the movie’s story is boring, the characters are all kind of lame and all in all I think it’s not really bad, but it’s really forgettable for me. And it’s not that I’m jaded by modern visual effects, I mean, one of my favorite movies is “Jason and the Argonauts”, who’s visuals almost more dated than “TRON”. The difference is that I liked all the characters, and the story, while really nothing special held my interest from beginning to end, and it’s basically the same story as “TRON” anyway, only “TRON” replaced the fantasy/mythology tropes with computer and video game jargon. I don’t know, maybe it has more to do with the movie coming out on the cusp on the video game age and it appeals to the fanasty of being warped into a video game, but part of me feels like that’s reading way too much into it.
The point is, due to its cult popularity and Hollywood being desperate for any franchise it hasn’t already remade, re-booted or re-imaged, “TRON Legacy” was born. A sequel set in modern times about Bridges’ character having disappeared several years after the events of the first movie. His son Sam, played by Garrett Hedlund, gets a strange message and winds up inside The Grid to find his father and avoid the program CLU, who has gone rogue and turned into a fascist dictator. So, what is my opinion? I mean, the original got by on at the time amazing visuals, and this movie is cutting edge, plus they’ve had nearly 30 years, that means they’ve taken time and actually thought of ways to deal with the issues that the original movie had, right?
Well, “TRON Legacy” does actually have a lot going for it. I can’t avoid it, I simply must say it, this movie has some of the sweetest eye candy ever. The visual style of the original is both homaged and updated and I feel it looks just awesome. Added to that, the action sequences are quite impressive and really ramp the excitement to 11 when they happen. Jeff Bridges reprises his role of Kevin Flynn, though I basically should say it’s more like he reprised his role as The Dude, if he had a computer sciences degree, which is great. Michael Sheen also has a great bit part where I swear he’s purely there to see if he could devour more scenery in a single scene than Al Pacnio has in his entire career.
But the real show stealer it has to be acknowledged, is the music. I’m going to just say it, Daft Punk got screwed by Oscar. This is, no contest, one of the most ambitious, impressive scores in recent history adding so much passion and excitement to the action scenes, as well as permeating the whole movie with a great atmosphere. Seriously, this soundtrack is awesome, buy it now if you haven’t already.
So, by all this logic this movie must be amazing, like I enjoyed it right? Well, yes and no. I liked the music and the action, it had a few characters that I liked. But oh my god, oh sweet Christmas this story is a total mess! If you try and follow this movies plot you will be left in the dust because the movie really didn’t care. It’s plot has more holes than swiss cheese, after a firing squad, not going to spoil them, but they all mostly boil down to the fact that this grid was designed by Flynn… and that’s all I’m going to say. On top of all the plot holes, there are some scenes early on where it feels like serious plot elements are being introduced, but they are never mentioned again. Part of me feels like this movie is being used to set up a franchise and those elements will be further explored in sequels, but that’s always a problem. Really what this movie boils down to is a retread of the first movie’s set pieces with a bigger budget and some additional characters and the workings for continuity among at least one more movie, and that causes the moments in between the action scenes to be really really dull, and really really stupid on top of it. I’ve been told I shouldn’t take something like this too seriously, but the movie really keeps trying to cling to this story. I can forgive movies that have lack story in favor of visuals, but there is a line and it gets crossed when the movie just seems to THINK it has a story when it barely exists. The problem gets to compound when pretty much all the characters other than the two I’ve already mentioned are enormously bland and clichéd. Early on those action scenes? Awesome, super cool, after awhile though, I got pretty bored. By the final chase I was just unimpressed because I frankly didn’t care who was going to win.
Overall, eh, I’m indifferent to “TRON Legacy”. I don’t hate it, but I really didn’t care for. It had some impressive visuals, awesome music and that’s really it. To me, that’s not quite enough to forgive an ungodly stupid plot and bland characters, but for some it is, and there’s nothing wrong with that.
2.5/5 digital gladiators
“TRON”, for those who don’t know, was a movie released by Disney back in 1982, it was one many films that year, like “Blade Runner” and John Carpenter’s remake of “The Thing” that didn’t really make a ton of money, but on video has had a very good life as a cult favorite. The premise is that a video game designer, Jeff Bridges, is zapped into a digital world called The Grid, and must take down a despotic program called master control. It had impressive visual effects for the time and, well, that’s really it.
First of all, I only saw the original “TRON” recently. I… I just don’t get it. I don’t see what’s so special about “TRON” outside the at the time amazing visuals, but the movie’s story is boring, the characters are all kind of lame and all in all I think it’s not really bad, but it’s really forgettable for me. And it’s not that I’m jaded by modern visual effects, I mean, one of my favorite movies is “Jason and the Argonauts”, who’s visuals almost more dated than “TRON”. The difference is that I liked all the characters, and the story, while really nothing special held my interest from beginning to end, and it’s basically the same story as “TRON” anyway, only “TRON” replaced the fantasy/mythology tropes with computer and video game jargon. I don’t know, maybe it has more to do with the movie coming out on the cusp on the video game age and it appeals to the fanasty of being warped into a video game, but part of me feels like that’s reading way too much into it.
The point is, due to its cult popularity and Hollywood being desperate for any franchise it hasn’t already remade, re-booted or re-imaged, “TRON Legacy” was born. A sequel set in modern times about Bridges’ character having disappeared several years after the events of the first movie. His son Sam, played by Garrett Hedlund, gets a strange message and winds up inside The Grid to find his father and avoid the program CLU, who has gone rogue and turned into a fascist dictator. So, what is my opinion? I mean, the original got by on at the time amazing visuals, and this movie is cutting edge, plus they’ve had nearly 30 years, that means they’ve taken time and actually thought of ways to deal with the issues that the original movie had, right?
Well, “TRON Legacy” does actually have a lot going for it. I can’t avoid it, I simply must say it, this movie has some of the sweetest eye candy ever. The visual style of the original is both homaged and updated and I feel it looks just awesome. Added to that, the action sequences are quite impressive and really ramp the excitement to 11 when they happen. Jeff Bridges reprises his role of Kevin Flynn, though I basically should say it’s more like he reprised his role as The Dude, if he had a computer sciences degree, which is great. Michael Sheen also has a great bit part where I swear he’s purely there to see if he could devour more scenery in a single scene than Al Pacnio has in his entire career.
But the real show stealer it has to be acknowledged, is the music. I’m going to just say it, Daft Punk got screwed by Oscar. This is, no contest, one of the most ambitious, impressive scores in recent history adding so much passion and excitement to the action scenes, as well as permeating the whole movie with a great atmosphere. Seriously, this soundtrack is awesome, buy it now if you haven’t already.
So, by all this logic this movie must be amazing, like I enjoyed it right? Well, yes and no. I liked the music and the action, it had a few characters that I liked. But oh my god, oh sweet Christmas this story is a total mess! If you try and follow this movies plot you will be left in the dust because the movie really didn’t care. It’s plot has more holes than swiss cheese, after a firing squad, not going to spoil them, but they all mostly boil down to the fact that this grid was designed by Flynn… and that’s all I’m going to say. On top of all the plot holes, there are some scenes early on where it feels like serious plot elements are being introduced, but they are never mentioned again. Part of me feels like this movie is being used to set up a franchise and those elements will be further explored in sequels, but that’s always a problem. Really what this movie boils down to is a retread of the first movie’s set pieces with a bigger budget and some additional characters and the workings for continuity among at least one more movie, and that causes the moments in between the action scenes to be really really dull, and really really stupid on top of it. I’ve been told I shouldn’t take something like this too seriously, but the movie really keeps trying to cling to this story. I can forgive movies that have lack story in favor of visuals, but there is a line and it gets crossed when the movie just seems to THINK it has a story when it barely exists. The problem gets to compound when pretty much all the characters other than the two I’ve already mentioned are enormously bland and clichéd. Early on those action scenes? Awesome, super cool, after awhile though, I got pretty bored. By the final chase I was just unimpressed because I frankly didn’t care who was going to win.
Overall, eh, I’m indifferent to “TRON Legacy”. I don’t hate it, but I really didn’t care for. It had some impressive visuals, awesome music and that’s really it. To me, that’s not quite enough to forgive an ungodly stupid plot and bland characters, but for some it is, and there’s nothing wrong with that.
2.5/5 digital gladiators
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)