Overall rating from 1 to 100: 69
O Masterpiece (100)
O Excellent (75-99)
X Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / November 19, 2007
The first thing you should know about “Beowulf” is that its MPAA rating is inappropriate, in every sense of the word. If you avoid R-rated movies, and are careful to not see R-rated movies parading as PG-13 movies, then you’ll want to avoid “Beowulf” altogether. Despite its PG-13 rating, it’s an R film, plain and simple. I can’t tell you which it has the most of: violence, gore, nudity or blatant sexual innuendo.
Even so, despite my personal sensitivities, I realize that not every filmgoer minds these things in a PG-13 film. My chief complaint is that parents depend on the MPAA to help them select appropriate films for their kids. The MPAA’s rating of movies like “Beowulf” represents a betrayal of parents’ trust, if that still exists. Whereas, an R rating gives us fair warning that anything short of explicit, hard-core pornography could be found in such a film, including violence, torture, gore and wall-to-wall profanity. Come on, MPAA, let’s call ‘em like we see ‘em.
Enough of that rant ... on to others. Setting its rating aside, “Beowulf” tells a neat story. And it is precisely for those who enjoy fantasy films, such as “Clash of the Titans” (1981) and “The Beastmaster” (1982), that I have still given “Beowulf” a decent rating of 69, which means it’s rental-worthy. In fact, because “Beowulf” has the best dragon-fighting scene I’ve ever seen on film, it’s worth renting solely for that battle.
And for the record, and you can quote me on this, the absolute worst dragon-slaying scene I’ve ever seen on film was the lame, wimp-out, sell-out, off-camera, so-called “battle” in “Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire” (2005). There’s even better dragon action in “Reign of Fire” (2002) and “Dragonheart” (1996). Heck, there’s even better dragon action in “Shrek” (2001) and “Pete’s Dragon” (1977).
The setting is Denmark, A.D. 507. King Hrothgar (Anthony Hopkins) is afflicted by an ignominious curse: When his subjects gather in his grand Meat Hall to eat, drink and be with Mary, a grotesque demon with ultra-sensitive hearing named Grendel (Crispin Glover) crashes the king’s party by unleashing lethal rampages.
Fearful, angry and troubled, the king puts a price on the demon’s head. The handsome offer attracts a legendary, overseas monster-killer named Beowulf (Ray Winstone). And we get to watch the warrior challenge Grendel and his temptress, water-demon mother (Angelina Jolie).
Director Robert Zemeckis employs the same, eerie “performance capture” technique that he used for “The Polar Express” (2004). Performance capture is a new format that Zemeckis developed, according to a press kit, in which the filmmakers use digital sensors attached to the actors’ faces and bodies (using a form-fitting Lycra suit) to input the data from their performance into computers, rendering a life-like, CGI re-creation for the big screen. So, even though the film is computer-animated, it often looks real.
Richard Barsam’s book, “Looking at Movies” (2007), mentions that some viewers and critics respond negatively to this weird, life-like animation. This negative response is attributed, according to Barsam, to something called “uncanny valley,” which is a theory used to explain why we “react negatively to robotic designs that mimic human appearance and mannerisms too faithfully.”
This all-CGI approach allows the filmmakers to incorporate monsters, super-human abilities and gore seamlessly into the rest of the movie; but in truth, this can already be done with live-action films. So, I guess it’s novel, but I still prefer live-action for portraying verisimilitude.
Alas, perhaps a mom like Angelina Jolie wouldn’t have otherwise been willing, at this point in her career, to be a gold-leafed nude demon that resembles an Oscar statue with more curves and a tail. According to the Internet Movie Database’s trivia page for “Beowulf,” Angelina Jolie revealed in an interview that she was “shocked to see how nude she really was, to the point that she said she was reluctant to allow Brad Pitt and her children to see the movie.”
But hey, Angelina, it’s OK to let kids as young as 13 attend ... just ask the MPAA.
Directed by Robert Zemeckis
Anthony Hopkins / Angelina Jolie / John Malkovich
113 min. Fantasy / Action
MPPA: PG-13 (for intense sequences of violence including disturbing images, some sexual material and nudity)
U.S. release date: November 16, 2007
Copyright 2007. 218
Monday, November 19, 2007
Friday, November 16, 2007
30 Days of Night (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 74
O Masterpiece (100)
O Excellent (75-99)
X Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / November 16, 2007
Each winter in Barrow, Alaska, the town faces an annual inconvenience when it is buried beneath a blanket of darkness for 30 days. An island unto itself, Barrow is surrounded by 80 miles of wilderness that has no roads to speak of. Travelers fly in and out of the town through its small, private airport. And each year at about this time, most of Barrow’s inhabitants flee from the sunless month, which shrinks its population from about 563 down to 152 people.
The 30-day nighttime fast approaches. And when a mysterious saboteur wreaks havoc upon the city’s various means of communication and transportation, we have the perfect setup for stranded townspeople to be terrorized, much like Stephen King’s “Storm of the Century” (1999). Indeed, “30 Days of Night” owes a lot to that film, as well as “28 Days (and Weeks) Later” (2002 and 2007). Basically, that’s the simple beauty of the plot: A small town’s residents are hunted down by a pack of vampires who have free reign during a month’s worth of ‘round-the-clock darkness.
The Good: “30 Days of Night” does a lot of things right. First of all, its nerve-racking suspense is quite engaging. The vampires speak in some kind of bizarre tongue, a veritable vampire language, so subtitles accompany their dialogue.
There are several shots of huge patches of bloodstained snow, including the movie’s money shot where the camera travels overhead looking down upon the carnage of the attack in progress. (Some will call this blasphemy, but this shot, though much simpler, begins to approach the excellence of the beginning of Orson Welles’ 1958 film noir, “Touch of Evil.”)
The movie’s jumpy, “Gotcha!” scares are inventive, and therefore, refreshing. The vampires themselves are fast, vigorous, messy maulers, much like the zombies of “28 Days Later.” They have creepy fingernails and even creepier facial structures. And, of course, actor Ben Foster (“3:10 to Yuma”) may end up being the new Klaus Kinski; he is unmistakably menacing, and he’s not even a vampire.
The Bad: Why, oh why, must horror films try to fit in a love story in need of repair? Lame. The “leader” of vamps is a terrific casting blunder: He looks like a stockbroker, not a monster mentor.
We watch the 30 days tick away, leaving long periods of time where those in hiding are unmolested and the vampires are inexplicably not breaking down doors to retrieve them. Also, the humans keep making deadly moves from hideout to hideout, taking truly unnecessary, unbelievable risks.
And even though the vampires speak in an eerie language, the subtitled translation totally deflates its novelty, with lines like “There is no escape,” and snappy little limericks (not really limericks, I just wanted to use that word) that want so badly to be wise and profound but fail. And speaking of dialogue, why is it that anytime there’s a child monster, it has to say stupid kiddy lines, like, “I’m done playing with him, now”? Ugh.
The Ugly: We see gruesome violence done to a child; and no, it doesn’t make it OK that she’s a little vampiress. I simply think we should choose to refrain (in almost every circumstance) from depicting violence toward children. And in similarly related tastelessness, the vamps stand in a circle and beat a young girl, a scene that literally made me angry with the filmmakers. Needless and very ugly, indeed.
Incidental, spoiler-free side note: Many have complained over this movie’s ending, but I was satisfied. It ends the way it has to. There is no other way. (Don’t worry, you will not guess how it ends from this side note.)
The Verdict: “30 Days of Night” is an effective thriller and a decent horror flick. It’s definitely more suspenseful than it is scary; but even so, this is a good rental choice if you’re in the mood for monsters and you aren’t too squeamish.
Directed by David Slade
Josh Hartnett / Melissa George / Ben Foster
113 min. Horror / Thriller
MPPA: R (for strong horror violence and language)
Copyright 2007. 217
O Masterpiece (100)
O Excellent (75-99)
X Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / November 16, 2007
Each winter in Barrow, Alaska, the town faces an annual inconvenience when it is buried beneath a blanket of darkness for 30 days. An island unto itself, Barrow is surrounded by 80 miles of wilderness that has no roads to speak of. Travelers fly in and out of the town through its small, private airport. And each year at about this time, most of Barrow’s inhabitants flee from the sunless month, which shrinks its population from about 563 down to 152 people.
The 30-day nighttime fast approaches. And when a mysterious saboteur wreaks havoc upon the city’s various means of communication and transportation, we have the perfect setup for stranded townspeople to be terrorized, much like Stephen King’s “Storm of the Century” (1999). Indeed, “30 Days of Night” owes a lot to that film, as well as “28 Days (and Weeks) Later” (2002 and 2007). Basically, that’s the simple beauty of the plot: A small town’s residents are hunted down by a pack of vampires who have free reign during a month’s worth of ‘round-the-clock darkness.
The Good: “30 Days of Night” does a lot of things right. First of all, its nerve-racking suspense is quite engaging. The vampires speak in some kind of bizarre tongue, a veritable vampire language, so subtitles accompany their dialogue.
There are several shots of huge patches of bloodstained snow, including the movie’s money shot where the camera travels overhead looking down upon the carnage of the attack in progress. (Some will call this blasphemy, but this shot, though much simpler, begins to approach the excellence of the beginning of Orson Welles’ 1958 film noir, “Touch of Evil.”)
The movie’s jumpy, “Gotcha!” scares are inventive, and therefore, refreshing. The vampires themselves are fast, vigorous, messy maulers, much like the zombies of “28 Days Later.” They have creepy fingernails and even creepier facial structures. And, of course, actor Ben Foster (“3:10 to Yuma”) may end up being the new Klaus Kinski; he is unmistakably menacing, and he’s not even a vampire.
The Bad: Why, oh why, must horror films try to fit in a love story in need of repair? Lame. The “leader” of vamps is a terrific casting blunder: He looks like a stockbroker, not a monster mentor.
We watch the 30 days tick away, leaving long periods of time where those in hiding are unmolested and the vampires are inexplicably not breaking down doors to retrieve them. Also, the humans keep making deadly moves from hideout to hideout, taking truly unnecessary, unbelievable risks.
And even though the vampires speak in an eerie language, the subtitled translation totally deflates its novelty, with lines like “There is no escape,” and snappy little limericks (not really limericks, I just wanted to use that word) that want so badly to be wise and profound but fail. And speaking of dialogue, why is it that anytime there’s a child monster, it has to say stupid kiddy lines, like, “I’m done playing with him, now”? Ugh.
The Ugly: We see gruesome violence done to a child; and no, it doesn’t make it OK that she’s a little vampiress. I simply think we should choose to refrain (in almost every circumstance) from depicting violence toward children. And in similarly related tastelessness, the vamps stand in a circle and beat a young girl, a scene that literally made me angry with the filmmakers. Needless and very ugly, indeed.
Incidental, spoiler-free side note: Many have complained over this movie’s ending, but I was satisfied. It ends the way it has to. There is no other way. (Don’t worry, you will not guess how it ends from this side note.)
The Verdict: “30 Days of Night” is an effective thriller and a decent horror flick. It’s definitely more suspenseful than it is scary; but even so, this is a good rental choice if you’re in the mood for monsters and you aren’t too squeamish.
Directed by David Slade
Josh Hartnett / Melissa George / Ben Foster
113 min. Horror / Thriller
MPPA: R (for strong horror violence and language)
Copyright 2007. 217
Control (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 54
O Masterpiece (100)
O Excellent (75-99)
O Rental (60-74)
X OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / November 16, 2007
“Control” recounts the tragic life and untimely death of Ian Curtis (Sam Riley), the lead singer of an English rock band of the ‘70s called Joy Division (a band whose residual members later assembled New Order). Filmed in black and white, “Control” attempts to tell his simple story, straight through, beginning to end.
Curtis’ wife, Deborah (Samantha Morton) and their baby daughter, are depicted even more pitifully and more sympathetically than the tortured-artist whom the film is about. But this bias is easily understood when we realize that the movie is based on Deborah Curtis’ autobiographical book, “Touching From a Distance.” And, not to mention, she also co-produced the film.
But that’s not to say that she’s unfair to her late husband. The impression given is that she just wanted Ian’s story to be told. And so it is ... and it’s a sad one.
“Control” opens in 1973 in Macclesfield, England. Here we witness the selfish character of Ian, a brooding writer and daydreamer. We worry as we witness his impetuous decisions to marry young and have a baby. We see the rise of his band, Joy Division, including several performances, which are enjoyable. And we also see Ian’s struggle with epilepsy, fame, family, and love, which all eventually lead to his downfall (a traditional rock star’s saga, for the most part).
“Control” is a film that is unforgiving in its downward spiral. In much the same way that a depressed person’s sorrow is tangibly felt by those nearby, the film remarkably bestows its melancholy and dread upon us, the audience.
“Control” has appreciable artistic elements, such as an alarming, uncomfortable close-up of one of Ian’s epileptic “fits.” Another moment shows us Ian singing about isolation, while he is literally isolated in a recording studio’s isolation booth, added to his apparent emotional isolation. Not bad.
But let’s be honest: Unless you particularly love Ian Curtis, Joy Division or a slow-moving injection of depression, “Control” probably isn’t worth seeing. As unfortunate and tragic as it all is, subjecting ourselves to this singer’s selfishness and inexplicable, tormented despair is unneeded and unnecessary, at least for most of us, but evidently not for his widow.
Directed by Anton Corbijn
Sam Riley / Samantha Morton / Alexandra Maria Lara
121 min. Drama / Biography
MPPA: R (for language and brief sexuality)
Copyright 2007. 216
O Masterpiece (100)
O Excellent (75-99)
O Rental (60-74)
X OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / November 16, 2007
“Control” recounts the tragic life and untimely death of Ian Curtis (Sam Riley), the lead singer of an English rock band of the ‘70s called Joy Division (a band whose residual members later assembled New Order). Filmed in black and white, “Control” attempts to tell his simple story, straight through, beginning to end.
Curtis’ wife, Deborah (Samantha Morton) and their baby daughter, are depicted even more pitifully and more sympathetically than the tortured-artist whom the film is about. But this bias is easily understood when we realize that the movie is based on Deborah Curtis’ autobiographical book, “Touching From a Distance.” And, not to mention, she also co-produced the film.
But that’s not to say that she’s unfair to her late husband. The impression given is that she just wanted Ian’s story to be told. And so it is ... and it’s a sad one.
“Control” opens in 1973 in Macclesfield, England. Here we witness the selfish character of Ian, a brooding writer and daydreamer. We worry as we witness his impetuous decisions to marry young and have a baby. We see the rise of his band, Joy Division, including several performances, which are enjoyable. And we also see Ian’s struggle with epilepsy, fame, family, and love, which all eventually lead to his downfall (a traditional rock star’s saga, for the most part).
“Control” is a film that is unforgiving in its downward spiral. In much the same way that a depressed person’s sorrow is tangibly felt by those nearby, the film remarkably bestows its melancholy and dread upon us, the audience.
“Control” has appreciable artistic elements, such as an alarming, uncomfortable close-up of one of Ian’s epileptic “fits.” Another moment shows us Ian singing about isolation, while he is literally isolated in a recording studio’s isolation booth, added to his apparent emotional isolation. Not bad.
But let’s be honest: Unless you particularly love Ian Curtis, Joy Division or a slow-moving injection of depression, “Control” probably isn’t worth seeing. As unfortunate and tragic as it all is, subjecting ourselves to this singer’s selfishness and inexplicable, tormented despair is unneeded and unnecessary, at least for most of us, but evidently not for his widow.
Directed by Anton Corbijn
Sam Riley / Samantha Morton / Alexandra Maria Lara
121 min. Drama / Biography
MPPA: R (for language and brief sexuality)
Copyright 2007. 216
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Fred Claus (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 65
O Masterpiece (100)
O Excellent (75-99)
X Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / November 15, 2007
Now, when I rate “Fred Claus” as a rental, that’s taking into consideration that “Elf” (2003) is already checked out. But even so, “Fred Claus” is funny, especially if you like Vince Vaughn.
Most critics are panning “Fred Claus,” but let’s be fair: Here we have a movie about Santa Claus’s jealous older brother ... um, what were we expecting, Othello? So, it’s not exceptional, but it’s good enough for light-hearted holiday fare.
You know, it’s difficult to live in the shadow of a saint who’s loved by all the world’s children, as well as all those who were once children. And such is the existence of Fred Claus (Vince Vaughn). Unlike his brother, Santa (Paul Giamatti), Fred is a polar opposite ... get it? Polar? Santa delivers the goods, while Fred is a repo man. Funny, right?
But when Fred gets in a significant financial bind, he has to call his jolly brother for the money. Old Saint Nick agrees to front the cash if Fred comes to the North Pole and helps prepare for the Christmas rush by overseeing the Naughty-Nice Department. But the plot thickens: An “efficiency expert” named Clyde Northcutt (Kevin Spacey) looms over Santa’s operation with a stringent three-strike audit. A failing inspection could shut down the North Pole forever, and that makes it an especially bad time for a sibling rivalry.
Vince Vaughn is excellent in this film, except for the times he’s made to resort to slapstick, which are always low points. Otherwise, his fast-talking, cynical, smart mouth is hilarious. Best of all, and this praise can also be said of Kevin Spacey, Vaughn plays the movie very seriously, like its characters are absolutely real. And Spacey has such conviction in his performance, you’d think he was aiming for an Oscar.
Paul Giamatti is an actor of many talents; however, he should not have been cast as Santa Claus. I’m not sure why, but he doesn’t pull it off. And Elizabeth Banks, who plays “Santa’s Little Helper,” Charlene, could pass for Naomi Watts’ twin sister any time of year. Banks reminds me that this movie isn’t completely innocent: It has some mild profanity and noticeable innuendo.
Does Fred end up having to save Christmas? I won’t tell. But would this be a Christmas movie if he didn’t? It doesn’t seem to matter; one way or another, Christmas must be in jeopardy or it isn’t an authentic Christmas movie. Above all, “Fred Claus” joins the ranks of those holiday films that make for good ambiance, a festive backdrop for your family parties.
Directed by David Dobkin
Vince Vaughn / Paul Giamatti / Kevin Spacey
116 min. Holiday / Comedy
MPPA: PG (for mild language and some rude humor)
Copyright 2007. 214
O Masterpiece (100)
O Excellent (75-99)
X Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / November 15, 2007
Now, when I rate “Fred Claus” as a rental, that’s taking into consideration that “Elf” (2003) is already checked out. But even so, “Fred Claus” is funny, especially if you like Vince Vaughn.
Most critics are panning “Fred Claus,” but let’s be fair: Here we have a movie about Santa Claus’s jealous older brother ... um, what were we expecting, Othello? So, it’s not exceptional, but it’s good enough for light-hearted holiday fare.
You know, it’s difficult to live in the shadow of a saint who’s loved by all the world’s children, as well as all those who were once children. And such is the existence of Fred Claus (Vince Vaughn). Unlike his brother, Santa (Paul Giamatti), Fred is a polar opposite ... get it? Polar? Santa delivers the goods, while Fred is a repo man. Funny, right?
But when Fred gets in a significant financial bind, he has to call his jolly brother for the money. Old Saint Nick agrees to front the cash if Fred comes to the North Pole and helps prepare for the Christmas rush by overseeing the Naughty-Nice Department. But the plot thickens: An “efficiency expert” named Clyde Northcutt (Kevin Spacey) looms over Santa’s operation with a stringent three-strike audit. A failing inspection could shut down the North Pole forever, and that makes it an especially bad time for a sibling rivalry.
Vince Vaughn is excellent in this film, except for the times he’s made to resort to slapstick, which are always low points. Otherwise, his fast-talking, cynical, smart mouth is hilarious. Best of all, and this praise can also be said of Kevin Spacey, Vaughn plays the movie very seriously, like its characters are absolutely real. And Spacey has such conviction in his performance, you’d think he was aiming for an Oscar.
Paul Giamatti is an actor of many talents; however, he should not have been cast as Santa Claus. I’m not sure why, but he doesn’t pull it off. And Elizabeth Banks, who plays “Santa’s Little Helper,” Charlene, could pass for Naomi Watts’ twin sister any time of year. Banks reminds me that this movie isn’t completely innocent: It has some mild profanity and noticeable innuendo.
Does Fred end up having to save Christmas? I won’t tell. But would this be a Christmas movie if he didn’t? It doesn’t seem to matter; one way or another, Christmas must be in jeopardy or it isn’t an authentic Christmas movie. Above all, “Fred Claus” joins the ranks of those holiday films that make for good ambiance, a festive backdrop for your family parties.
Directed by David Dobkin
Vince Vaughn / Paul Giamatti / Kevin Spacey
116 min. Holiday / Comedy
MPPA: PG (for mild language and some rude humor)
Copyright 2007. 214
P2 (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 49
O Masterpiece (100)
O Excellent (75-99)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
X Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / November 15, 2007
Presumably, people like horror movies because it’s fun to be scared, especially while they are, in actuality, safe in the theater. OK, I get that. But how can we explain (or excuse) today’s jaded spectators and filmmakers who enjoy this troubling trend of explicitly grisly and graphic movies? No, these films aren’t new, but they’re gaining momentum.
To be fair, “P2” is not so tasteless. I wouldn’t classify it by the new term, “torture porn,” which doesn’t refer to gruesome violence and sexually explicit images. This unpleasant phrase refers to grisly violence graphically depicted, just as pornography typically refers to sexually explicit depictions. At any rate, I see absolutely no merit whatsoever in dragging the dregs of these heinous images from the worst possible scenarios of society’s imagination.
It’s not that I’m claiming that raw sewage like “Hostel” (2005), “Chaos” (2005) or “Wolf Creek” (2005) should be forbidden by law, they simply should have never been made in the first place. If you make torture-porn, toxic-sludge movies like those, there’s something wrong with you.
Anyway, this tangential rant used too many words to make a simple statement: “P2” isn’t as reprehensible as a lot of the other present-day horror flicks, though it does have horrendous moments, so be warned.
It’s Christmas Eve in New York City, and Angela (Rachel Nichols) is late for a family Christmas party. She is unaware of an obsessed admirer (Wes Bentley) who has other holiday plans for her. Basically, she is trapped in an underground parking garage, and terrorized by this psychopath and his dog. That’s the plot.
Wes Bentley plays a good nutcase as Thomas; he’s even funny at times. And his dialogue is often humorously ironic. Rachel Nichols does fine with her character, but I couldn’t help but think she was trying too hard to be Jodie Foster (whose latest movie, “The Brave One,” is excellent, by the way).
“P2” has an interesting element: Since it’s Christmas Eve, there are lots of Christmas carols playing throughout the film. This has an interesting effect on us, the viewers. Christmas carols are typically associated with peace and happiness; so, to have them playing during horror-movie moments leaves us to struggle with oxymoronic emotions.
“P2” also has problems: The parking garage is unusually dim, even before the horrors begin. The screenplay requires Rachel Nichols to talk to herself quite a bit (so we’ll know what she’s thinking and feeling), but it doesn’t really work. There is an absolutely unnecessary scene involving a fingernail. The film’s elevators are water tight in the bottom but not at the top. And, of course, it uses this genre’s typical cheap-shot, “Gotcha!” scare-tactic, which is to be expected, but how many times is reasonable for a barking dog to do this?
But overall, “P2” effectively makes us wonder, “What ever would I do if I were in this situation?” The movie creates respectable suspense and empathy for its protagonist. And, of course, there are painful moments to make us wince and squirm and be thankful that we’re sitting safely in a theater.
Directed by Franck Khalfoun
Wes Bentley / Rachel Nichols / Simon Reynolds
98 min. Horror / Thriller
MPPA: R (for strong violence/gore, terror and language)
Copyright 2007. 215
O Masterpiece (100)
O Excellent (75-99)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
X Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / November 15, 2007
Presumably, people like horror movies because it’s fun to be scared, especially while they are, in actuality, safe in the theater. OK, I get that. But how can we explain (or excuse) today’s jaded spectators and filmmakers who enjoy this troubling trend of explicitly grisly and graphic movies? No, these films aren’t new, but they’re gaining momentum.
To be fair, “P2” is not so tasteless. I wouldn’t classify it by the new term, “torture porn,” which doesn’t refer to gruesome violence and sexually explicit images. This unpleasant phrase refers to grisly violence graphically depicted, just as pornography typically refers to sexually explicit depictions. At any rate, I see absolutely no merit whatsoever in dragging the dregs of these heinous images from the worst possible scenarios of society’s imagination.
It’s not that I’m claiming that raw sewage like “Hostel” (2005), “Chaos” (2005) or “Wolf Creek” (2005) should be forbidden by law, they simply should have never been made in the first place. If you make torture-porn, toxic-sludge movies like those, there’s something wrong with you.
Anyway, this tangential rant used too many words to make a simple statement: “P2” isn’t as reprehensible as a lot of the other present-day horror flicks, though it does have horrendous moments, so be warned.
It’s Christmas Eve in New York City, and Angela (Rachel Nichols) is late for a family Christmas party. She is unaware of an obsessed admirer (Wes Bentley) who has other holiday plans for her. Basically, she is trapped in an underground parking garage, and terrorized by this psychopath and his dog. That’s the plot.
Wes Bentley plays a good nutcase as Thomas; he’s even funny at times. And his dialogue is often humorously ironic. Rachel Nichols does fine with her character, but I couldn’t help but think she was trying too hard to be Jodie Foster (whose latest movie, “The Brave One,” is excellent, by the way).
“P2” has an interesting element: Since it’s Christmas Eve, there are lots of Christmas carols playing throughout the film. This has an interesting effect on us, the viewers. Christmas carols are typically associated with peace and happiness; so, to have them playing during horror-movie moments leaves us to struggle with oxymoronic emotions.
“P2” also has problems: The parking garage is unusually dim, even before the horrors begin. The screenplay requires Rachel Nichols to talk to herself quite a bit (so we’ll know what she’s thinking and feeling), but it doesn’t really work. There is an absolutely unnecessary scene involving a fingernail. The film’s elevators are water tight in the bottom but not at the top. And, of course, it uses this genre’s typical cheap-shot, “Gotcha!” scare-tactic, which is to be expected, but how many times is reasonable for a barking dog to do this?
But overall, “P2” effectively makes us wonder, “What ever would I do if I were in this situation?” The movie creates respectable suspense and empathy for its protagonist. And, of course, there are painful moments to make us wince and squirm and be thankful that we’re sitting safely in a theater.
Directed by Franck Khalfoun
Wes Bentley / Rachel Nichols / Simon Reynolds
98 min. Horror / Thriller
MPPA: R (for strong violence/gore, terror and language)
Copyright 2007. 215
Into the Wild (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 91
O Masterpiece (100)
X Excellent (75-99)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / November 15, 2007
Yes, this film is an adaptation of the sobering Jon Krakauer book of the same name. Yes, said book (and therefore, the movie) is based on a real person’s real life. Yes, “Into the Wild” was directed by Sean Penn, who also wrote the screenplay. And yes, “Into the Wild” ranks among the 10 best films of the year. Oh, and yes, you should see it.
Set in 1992, “Into the Wild” depicts brief segments from a several-week period in the life of Christopher McCandless (Emile Hirsch), while flashing back to catch us up on his back story. Chris is a well-read, idealistic, passionate college graduate. Chris deeply resents capitalistic society, materialism, “the American dream,” and especially his parents.
An avid reader and student of Jack London, Thoreau and Tolstoy, just to name a few, Chris seeks to find Truth by renouncing the typical, loathsome, American lifestyle and launching himself into a journey of self-discovery and rebirth, and perhaps most importantly, returning to nature.
So, through these flashbacks, we watch the young wanderer’s sojourns and acquaintances whom he meets during his adventures. Each encounter is carefully recorded in his traveler’s diary, which is revealed to us primarily through the visual images and some voice-over narration. And the goal of his journey is to live freely and uninhibited deep in the unpopulated Alaskan wilderness, which is where the “present-moment” storyline between the flashbacks comes from.
Because “Into the Wild” is biographical, it doesn’t follow the usual formula for Hollywood story arcs. Indeed, truth is stranger than fiction, and such is the case here. And because the film’s protagonist seeks to be enveloped by nature, we get many beautiful scenes of the actual shooting locations in Alaska, Oregon, California, Nevada, Arizona, Washington, South Dakota and Mexico. The film’s wildlife photography is also stunning.
While witnessing this communion with nature and its struggles, we are reminded of “Cast Away” (2000), except Emile Hirsch’s character chooses his solitude, and Tom Hanks’s character doesn’t.
“Into the Wild” has some interesting touches, such as original songs by Pearl Jam’s Eddie Vedder. And in one curious moment, actor Emile Hirsch “breaks the fourth wall” by looking into the camera (which isn’t supposed to be there) and makes a silly face at us. There is also an instance where the screen divides into thirds, somewhat reminiscent of Abel Gance’s “Polyvision” work in “Napoleon” (1927).
In one subtle but effective scene, we see Chris walking on the rocks at the top of a waterfall. But because the camera only shows us from his knees up, we are very uneasy about his footing and where he’s stepping. And for yet another exceptional filmmaking moment, watch for the payphone/quarter scene ... amazing.
“Into the Wild” is a beautiful film, not just aesthetically, but also idealistically. It should appeal to and inspire any soul-searcher or dream-chaser. What an incredible story.
Directed by Sean Penn
Emile Hirsch / William Hurt / Vince Vaughn
140 min. Drama / Biography
MPPA: R (for language and some nudity)
Copyright 2007. 213
O Masterpiece (100)
X Excellent (75-99)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / November 15, 2007
Yes, this film is an adaptation of the sobering Jon Krakauer book of the same name. Yes, said book (and therefore, the movie) is based on a real person’s real life. Yes, “Into the Wild” was directed by Sean Penn, who also wrote the screenplay. And yes, “Into the Wild” ranks among the 10 best films of the year. Oh, and yes, you should see it.
Set in 1992, “Into the Wild” depicts brief segments from a several-week period in the life of Christopher McCandless (Emile Hirsch), while flashing back to catch us up on his back story. Chris is a well-read, idealistic, passionate college graduate. Chris deeply resents capitalistic society, materialism, “the American dream,” and especially his parents.
An avid reader and student of Jack London, Thoreau and Tolstoy, just to name a few, Chris seeks to find Truth by renouncing the typical, loathsome, American lifestyle and launching himself into a journey of self-discovery and rebirth, and perhaps most importantly, returning to nature.
So, through these flashbacks, we watch the young wanderer’s sojourns and acquaintances whom he meets during his adventures. Each encounter is carefully recorded in his traveler’s diary, which is revealed to us primarily through the visual images and some voice-over narration. And the goal of his journey is to live freely and uninhibited deep in the unpopulated Alaskan wilderness, which is where the “present-moment” storyline between the flashbacks comes from.
Because “Into the Wild” is biographical, it doesn’t follow the usual formula for Hollywood story arcs. Indeed, truth is stranger than fiction, and such is the case here. And because the film’s protagonist seeks to be enveloped by nature, we get many beautiful scenes of the actual shooting locations in Alaska, Oregon, California, Nevada, Arizona, Washington, South Dakota and Mexico. The film’s wildlife photography is also stunning.
While witnessing this communion with nature and its struggles, we are reminded of “Cast Away” (2000), except Emile Hirsch’s character chooses his solitude, and Tom Hanks’s character doesn’t.
“Into the Wild” has some interesting touches, such as original songs by Pearl Jam’s Eddie Vedder. And in one curious moment, actor Emile Hirsch “breaks the fourth wall” by looking into the camera (which isn’t supposed to be there) and makes a silly face at us. There is also an instance where the screen divides into thirds, somewhat reminiscent of Abel Gance’s “Polyvision” work in “Napoleon” (1927).
In one subtle but effective scene, we see Chris walking on the rocks at the top of a waterfall. But because the camera only shows us from his knees up, we are very uneasy about his footing and where he’s stepping. And for yet another exceptional filmmaking moment, watch for the payphone/quarter scene ... amazing.
“Into the Wild” is a beautiful film, not just aesthetically, but also idealistically. It should appeal to and inspire any soul-searcher or dream-chaser. What an incredible story.
Directed by Sean Penn
Emile Hirsch / William Hurt / Vince Vaughn
140 min. Drama / Biography
MPPA: R (for language and some nudity)
Copyright 2007. 213
Once (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 85
O Masterpiece (100)
X Excellent (75-99)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / November 15, 2007
It has been said that one of the greatest gifts you can give someone is the recommendation of an excellent film. Well, Barrett Hilton and Craig Tovey, thank you for the gift: “Once” is wonderful. And while I’m shamelessly namedropping, I’d like to call out Bill Barnes, Dave Eaton, and Cory Mon, specifically, and offer them this same gift. Music lovers will appreciate it; but musicians will revel in it.
And oddly, nothing much really happens in “Once.” Basically, two musicians meet and play music together. The “guy” (Glen Hansard), so called in the credits because we never learn his name, works in his dad’s vacuum repair store (a veritable “sweeper” shop) by day, and is a streetlife serenader by night. The “guy” needs no orchestration (for much of the film), probably because the melody comes easy: incontrovertible Billy Joel logic.
The “girl” (Marketa Irglova) is a bashful singer and pianist, but they hit it off, begin playing music together and even record a CD. Um, let’s see ... what else ... yeah, that’s about it. But it’s quite entertaining, somehow. In fact, the opening sequence that precedes the film’s title could easily be a successful, stand-alone short film.
Is “Once” a musical? Yes, but it doesn’t feel anything like “Singin’ In the Rain” (1952) or “The Sound of Music” (1965). Is it a music video? It could possibly be considered a collection of music videos strung together and interwoven with waves of dialogue (but most people simply call that a musical).
Is “Once” a documentary? No, not in a strict sense, but the film has a traditional documentary feel to it, minus intermittent talking heads. The dialogue seems unscripted but is equally as entertaining as walking around listening to your friends’ unremarkable banter. The only malady that afflicts the dialogue’s wellness is the ruthlessly recurring phrase, “I have to go now,” which is used plenty.
But the music makes this movie. I’d attempt to describe its flavor, but I’m not as eclectic as I should be, so it might be hard for me to make accurate comparisons. (Anyone can feel free to do so by adding comments.) But I’ll put it this way: If I only buy one soundtrack each year, which is probably true, then “Once” would be that soundtrack. When I first heard the song “Falling Slowly,” which is initially performed in a music store, it gave me chills and evoked tears.
Being a singer/songwriter myself, the depiction “Once” gives of such an existence (which is one that Dave Eaton describes as always “swooning and brooding”) is pitch-perfect. For example, we glimpse the wrestle of songwriting sessions, the awkward discord of working with a recording engineer, and that coy game of pseudo-bashfulness and false modesty that every songwriter plays when asked to perform a song. That’s just what it’s like to be a musician, I guess. And “Once” fully understands that. I have to go now.
Directed by John Carney
Glen Hansard / Marketa Irglova / Bill Hodnett
85 min. Drama / Musical
MPPA: R (for language)
Copyright 2007. 212
O Masterpiece (100)
X Excellent (75-99)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / November 15, 2007
It has been said that one of the greatest gifts you can give someone is the recommendation of an excellent film. Well, Barrett Hilton and Craig Tovey, thank you for the gift: “Once” is wonderful. And while I’m shamelessly namedropping, I’d like to call out Bill Barnes, Dave Eaton, and Cory Mon, specifically, and offer them this same gift. Music lovers will appreciate it; but musicians will revel in it.
And oddly, nothing much really happens in “Once.” Basically, two musicians meet and play music together. The “guy” (Glen Hansard), so called in the credits because we never learn his name, works in his dad’s vacuum repair store (a veritable “sweeper” shop) by day, and is a streetlife serenader by night. The “guy” needs no orchestration (for much of the film), probably because the melody comes easy: incontrovertible Billy Joel logic.
The “girl” (Marketa Irglova) is a bashful singer and pianist, but they hit it off, begin playing music together and even record a CD. Um, let’s see ... what else ... yeah, that’s about it. But it’s quite entertaining, somehow. In fact, the opening sequence that precedes the film’s title could easily be a successful, stand-alone short film.
Is “Once” a musical? Yes, but it doesn’t feel anything like “Singin’ In the Rain” (1952) or “The Sound of Music” (1965). Is it a music video? It could possibly be considered a collection of music videos strung together and interwoven with waves of dialogue (but most people simply call that a musical).
Is “Once” a documentary? No, not in a strict sense, but the film has a traditional documentary feel to it, minus intermittent talking heads. The dialogue seems unscripted but is equally as entertaining as walking around listening to your friends’ unremarkable banter. The only malady that afflicts the dialogue’s wellness is the ruthlessly recurring phrase, “I have to go now,” which is used plenty.
But the music makes this movie. I’d attempt to describe its flavor, but I’m not as eclectic as I should be, so it might be hard for me to make accurate comparisons. (Anyone can feel free to do so by adding comments.) But I’ll put it this way: If I only buy one soundtrack each year, which is probably true, then “Once” would be that soundtrack. When I first heard the song “Falling Slowly,” which is initially performed in a music store, it gave me chills and evoked tears.
Being a singer/songwriter myself, the depiction “Once” gives of such an existence (which is one that Dave Eaton describes as always “swooning and brooding”) is pitch-perfect. For example, we glimpse the wrestle of songwriting sessions, the awkward discord of working with a recording engineer, and that coy game of pseudo-bashfulness and false modesty that every songwriter plays when asked to perform a song. That’s just what it’s like to be a musician, I guess. And “Once” fully understands that. I have to go now.
Directed by John Carney
Glen Hansard / Marketa Irglova / Bill Hodnett
85 min. Drama / Musical
MPPA: R (for language)
Copyright 2007. 212
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Lions for Lambs (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 76
O Masterpiece (100)
X Excellent (75-99)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / November 10, 2007
Motion pictures can provide effective historical commentary, if we realize that the nature of commentary is inherently and unavoidably subjective. Indeed, even documentarists whose pure desire is to simply capture events as they unfold helplessly taint their subject matter with their placement of the camera.
This being stated, we now live in an era comparable to the ‘70s (or any wartime era of the last 100 years) when we have a variety of forthcoming films about the current war. Among the Iraq War films, “Lions for Lambs” is worth consideration, as is “In the Valley of Elah.”
Of course it has an agenda, and of course it’s a political film. And yes, this film will probably provoke an emotional response from you. In fact, a guy who sat a couple seats down from me couldn’t stop himself from yelling at the screen from time to time.
And though it leans a little to the Left, “Lions for Lambs” largely gives fair time, within reason, to the viewpoints. But the movie also delivers a couple of calculated blows, here and there.
I admired it not as much from a political standpoint but from its narrative structure. We cut between three storylines happening simultaneously. Tom Cruise plays a senator who has given Meryl Streep, a reporter, an exclusive interview to break a story about a new military offensive in Afghanistan.
This is crosscut with the launching of the offensive, where we watch two soldiers, in particular, deal with a precarious predicament that becomes a tense waiting game. And the third story shows us Robert Redford playing a professor who’s trying to counteract one of his brighter student’s newfound apathy.
So, what we have with this film is a critique on the media, politicians and the apathy of Americans, especially the younger generation. The film regards individual military personnel with honor but mostly sympathy. And while we watch people discuss the issues “back home,” we see the issues themselves unfold on the battlefield. … Like I said, a little to the Left.
I was particularly impressed that the film keeps us engaged when two-thirds of it is conversational debate, staged in offices. The military scenes provide a little action and even more suspense with an impending timeline that symbolizes a grander representation of the timeline for troop withdrawal.
Overall, “Lions for Lambs” is an engaging film that has enough power to inspire conversations, discussions, arguments and even screaming at the screen.
Directed by Robert Redford
Robert Redford / Meryl Streep / Tom Cruise
88 min. Drama
MPPA: R (for some war violence and language)
Copyright 2007. 211
O Masterpiece (100)
X Excellent (75-99)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / November 10, 2007
Motion pictures can provide effective historical commentary, if we realize that the nature of commentary is inherently and unavoidably subjective. Indeed, even documentarists whose pure desire is to simply capture events as they unfold helplessly taint their subject matter with their placement of the camera.
This being stated, we now live in an era comparable to the ‘70s (or any wartime era of the last 100 years) when we have a variety of forthcoming films about the current war. Among the Iraq War films, “Lions for Lambs” is worth consideration, as is “In the Valley of Elah.”
Of course it has an agenda, and of course it’s a political film. And yes, this film will probably provoke an emotional response from you. In fact, a guy who sat a couple seats down from me couldn’t stop himself from yelling at the screen from time to time.
And though it leans a little to the Left, “Lions for Lambs” largely gives fair time, within reason, to the viewpoints. But the movie also delivers a couple of calculated blows, here and there.
I admired it not as much from a political standpoint but from its narrative structure. We cut between three storylines happening simultaneously. Tom Cruise plays a senator who has given Meryl Streep, a reporter, an exclusive interview to break a story about a new military offensive in Afghanistan.
This is crosscut with the launching of the offensive, where we watch two soldiers, in particular, deal with a precarious predicament that becomes a tense waiting game. And the third story shows us Robert Redford playing a professor who’s trying to counteract one of his brighter student’s newfound apathy.
So, what we have with this film is a critique on the media, politicians and the apathy of Americans, especially the younger generation. The film regards individual military personnel with honor but mostly sympathy. And while we watch people discuss the issues “back home,” we see the issues themselves unfold on the battlefield. … Like I said, a little to the Left.
I was particularly impressed that the film keeps us engaged when two-thirds of it is conversational debate, staged in offices. The military scenes provide a little action and even more suspense with an impending timeline that symbolizes a grander representation of the timeline for troop withdrawal.
Overall, “Lions for Lambs” is an engaging film that has enough power to inspire conversations, discussions, arguments and even screaming at the screen.
Directed by Robert Redford
Robert Redford / Meryl Streep / Tom Cruise
88 min. Drama
MPPA: R (for some war violence and language)
Copyright 2007. 211
American Gangster (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 74
O Masterpiece (100)
O Excellent (75-99)
X Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Mini Review by Jason Pyles / November 10, 2007
Don't expect “The Departed” (2006) or “Goodfellas” (1990) ... because Martin Scorsese Ridley Scott ain't. Even so, “American Gangster” is admirable, as is Ridley Scott.
Much like “The Mexican” (2001), this film's two headliners, Denzel Washington and Russell Crowe, spend most of the movie apart, which is unfortunate.
Also, Ridley Scott has no qualms with taking his time (not always a bad thing). See “Alien” (1979). For this reason, this based-on-a-true-story gangster film builds more like a smoldering drama than an action thriller.
But “American Gangster” convincingly evokes Harlem in the late '60s and '70s, telling the involving story of fearsome Frank Lucas' illicit "business" empire.
Directed by Ridley Scott
Denzel Washington / Russell Crowe / Josh Brolin
157 min. Crime / Drama
MPPA: R (for violence, pervasive drug content and language, nudity and sexuality)
Copyright 2007. 208
O Masterpiece (100)
O Excellent (75-99)
X Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Mini Review by Jason Pyles / November 10, 2007
Don't expect “The Departed” (2006) or “Goodfellas” (1990) ... because Martin Scorsese Ridley Scott ain't. Even so, “American Gangster” is admirable, as is Ridley Scott.
Much like “The Mexican” (2001), this film's two headliners, Denzel Washington and Russell Crowe, spend most of the movie apart, which is unfortunate.
Also, Ridley Scott has no qualms with taking his time (not always a bad thing). See “Alien” (1979). For this reason, this based-on-a-true-story gangster film builds more like a smoldering drama than an action thriller.
But “American Gangster” convincingly evokes Harlem in the late '60s and '70s, telling the involving story of fearsome Frank Lucas' illicit "business" empire.
Directed by Ridley Scott
Denzel Washington / Russell Crowe / Josh Brolin
157 min. Crime / Drama
MPPA: R (for violence, pervasive drug content and language, nudity and sexuality)
Copyright 2007. 208
Bee Movie (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 68
O Masterpiece (100)
O Excellent (75-99)
X Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Mini Review by Jason Pyles / November 10, 2007
As strange as this seems, “Bee Movie” is actually scarier than “An Inconvenient Truth” (2006). Relax. Its frightfulness will buzz right over the kids' heads.
While Al Gore's documentary warns about global warming, “Bee Movie” has a plot that plays out some of the ramifications of "Colony Collapse Disorder," the name given to the alarming phenomenon where honey bees are inexplicably dying.
”Bee Movie” is spectacularly colorful; and when the bees soar through the air, the sweeping cinematography makes us feel like we're along for the ride.
But Jerry Seinfeld's "acting" is still deplorable, making performances in the “Star Wars” series look like a production by the Royal Shakespeare Company.
And despite several laugh-out-loud one-liners and an excellent homage to “The Graduate” (1967), the disappointing “Bee Movie” seems like the writers' strike began 20 minutes into the film: A courtroom drama within a cartoon is always an ominous sign.
Directed by Steve Hickner and Simon J. Smith
Jerry Seinfeld / Renee Zellweger / John Goodman
90 min. Animation / Family
MPPA: PG (for mild suggestive humor and a brief depiction of smoking)
Copyright 2007. 209
O Masterpiece (100)
O Excellent (75-99)
X Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Mini Review by Jason Pyles / November 10, 2007
As strange as this seems, “Bee Movie” is actually scarier than “An Inconvenient Truth” (2006). Relax. Its frightfulness will buzz right over the kids' heads.
While Al Gore's documentary warns about global warming, “Bee Movie” has a plot that plays out some of the ramifications of "Colony Collapse Disorder," the name given to the alarming phenomenon where honey bees are inexplicably dying.
”Bee Movie” is spectacularly colorful; and when the bees soar through the air, the sweeping cinematography makes us feel like we're along for the ride.
But Jerry Seinfeld's "acting" is still deplorable, making performances in the “Star Wars” series look like a production by the Royal Shakespeare Company.
And despite several laugh-out-loud one-liners and an excellent homage to “The Graduate” (1967), the disappointing “Bee Movie” seems like the writers' strike began 20 minutes into the film: A courtroom drama within a cartoon is always an ominous sign.
Directed by Steve Hickner and Simon J. Smith
Jerry Seinfeld / Renee Zellweger / John Goodman
90 min. Animation / Family
MPPA: PG (for mild suggestive humor and a brief depiction of smoking)
Copyright 2007. 209
Martian Child (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 73
O Masterpiece (100)
O Excellent (75-99)
X Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Mini Review by Jason Pyles / November 10, 2007
Remember the movie “K-PAX” (2001)? It's that one where Kevin Spacey's character eats bananas, peeling and all, and claims to be from another planet. The strength of “K-PAX” is how it makes us wonder whether he's an alien.
”Martian Child” gently raises the same question about an orphaned boy named Dennis (Bobby Coleman). But the point of “Martian Child” isn't whether the kid is from Mars. This movie's magic comes from its successful illustration of the difference a loving parent can make in the life of a child.
John Cusack's performance is stellar, even touching, at times. The same cannot be said, however, for his sister, Joan.
Directed by Menno Meyjes
John Cusack / Amanda Peet / Bobby Coleman
108 min. Drama / Family
MPPA: PG (for thematic elements and mild language)
Copyright 2007. 210
O Masterpiece (100)
O Excellent (75-99)
X Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Mini Review by Jason Pyles / November 10, 2007
Remember the movie “K-PAX” (2001)? It's that one where Kevin Spacey's character eats bananas, peeling and all, and claims to be from another planet. The strength of “K-PAX” is how it makes us wonder whether he's an alien.
”Martian Child” gently raises the same question about an orphaned boy named Dennis (Bobby Coleman). But the point of “Martian Child” isn't whether the kid is from Mars. This movie's magic comes from its successful illustration of the difference a loving parent can make in the life of a child.
John Cusack's performance is stellar, even touching, at times. The same cannot be said, however, for his sister, Joan.
Directed by Menno Meyjes
John Cusack / Amanda Peet / Bobby Coleman
108 min. Drama / Family
MPPA: PG (for thematic elements and mild language)
Copyright 2007. 210
The Darjeeling Limited (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 71
O Masterpiece (100)
X Excellent (75-99)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Mini Review by Jason Pyles / November 10, 2007
“The Darjeeling Limited” consists of two parts: Part 1 is a short film called “Hotel Chavelier.” It is only marginally relevant but mostly unnecessary to its following Part 2, which is the whole feature film itself. You’ve probably already heard, the most noteworthy thing about this otherwise unmemorable prelude is we are shown a different side of Natalie Portman, namely her backside, which I’ve heard from “reliable Irish sources” she reportedly now regrets. (My concern from the scene was primarily anorexia.)
But don’t see “The Darjeeling Limited” for Natalie Portman. If you’re a fan of hers and want to see her true acting prowess, watch the opening of “Free Zone” (2005), a film where the camera holds a close-up of her face while she weeps heavily for eight minutes. That may be the most difficult acting feat I’ve ever seen executed on film.
I digress. “The Darjeeling Limited” is an atypical (albeit recognizable) Wes Anderson film that leans more upon the serious than the silly (which is not to say that there isn’t silliness). Three brothers played by Owen Wilson, Adrien Brody and Jason Schwartzman meet on a train in India to embark on “a spiritual journey.”
This arty film is interesting to watch, easy to look at, creative and whimsical but not overly engaging. There are a couple of humorous moments, and even some poignant moments, but the sum loses something that the individual parts have on their own.
Certainly, “The Darjeeling Limited” is a must-see for any Wes Anderson fan, and probably even required viewing for any lover of film; but if you want to be solely entertained in the escapist’s sense, see something else.
Directed by Wes Anderson
Owen Wilson / Adrien Brody / Jason Schwartzman
91 min. Comedy / Adventure
MPPA: R (for language)
Copyright 2007. 207
O Masterpiece (100)
X Excellent (75-99)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Mini Review by Jason Pyles / November 10, 2007
“The Darjeeling Limited” consists of two parts: Part 1 is a short film called “Hotel Chavelier.” It is only marginally relevant but mostly unnecessary to its following Part 2, which is the whole feature film itself. You’ve probably already heard, the most noteworthy thing about this otherwise unmemorable prelude is we are shown a different side of Natalie Portman, namely her backside, which I’ve heard from “reliable Irish sources” she reportedly now regrets. (My concern from the scene was primarily anorexia.)
But don’t see “The Darjeeling Limited” for Natalie Portman. If you’re a fan of hers and want to see her true acting prowess, watch the opening of “Free Zone” (2005), a film where the camera holds a close-up of her face while she weeps heavily for eight minutes. That may be the most difficult acting feat I’ve ever seen executed on film.
I digress. “The Darjeeling Limited” is an atypical (albeit recognizable) Wes Anderson film that leans more upon the serious than the silly (which is not to say that there isn’t silliness). Three brothers played by Owen Wilson, Adrien Brody and Jason Schwartzman meet on a train in India to embark on “a spiritual journey.”
This arty film is interesting to watch, easy to look at, creative and whimsical but not overly engaging. There are a couple of humorous moments, and even some poignant moments, but the sum loses something that the individual parts have on their own.
Certainly, “The Darjeeling Limited” is a must-see for any Wes Anderson fan, and probably even required viewing for any lover of film; but if you want to be solely entertained in the escapist’s sense, see something else.
Directed by Wes Anderson
Owen Wilson / Adrien Brody / Jason Schwartzman
91 min. Comedy / Adventure
MPPA: R (for language)
Copyright 2007. 207
Lars and the Real Girl (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 94
O Masterpiece (100)
X Excellent (75-99)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Mini Review by Jason Pyles / November 10, 2007
"Lars and the Real Girl" is the sweetest movie of the year, no doubt about it. But more importantly, this film illustrates Christ-like principles more than any other movie of recent years, and it does this without being overtly religious. “Lars and the Real Girl” simply exudes purity and goodness.
You wouldn’t think it, though, considering that Lars (Ryan Gosling) orders a sex doll that he seems to think is a real person. But this movie isn’t about sex dolls, despite an occasional mild joke about it sprinkled here and there.
I walked into the theater, and much to my surprise, I didn’t really feel like seeing a movie. But Ryan Gosling’s Lars character obtains our undivided attention and curiosity almost immediately. Lars’ caring sister-in-law seems obsessed with figuring him out, and we can relate. But his oddity rises to a whole new level when he begins introducing “Bianca” to everyone.
“Lars and the Real Girl” is one of those movies where, if you had to leave the theater and miss the ending for some reason, you’d probably lose your mind. It intrigues us to ask questions that we must have answered. And thankfully, “Lars and the Real Girl” gives us all we need to know.
Directed by Craig Gillespie
Ryan Gosling / Emily Mortimer / Paul Schneider
106 min. Drama
MPPA: PG-13 (for some sex-related content)
Copyright 2007. 206
O Masterpiece (100)
X Excellent (75-99)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Mini Review by Jason Pyles / November 10, 2007
"Lars and the Real Girl" is the sweetest movie of the year, no doubt about it. But more importantly, this film illustrates Christ-like principles more than any other movie of recent years, and it does this without being overtly religious. “Lars and the Real Girl” simply exudes purity and goodness.
You wouldn’t think it, though, considering that Lars (Ryan Gosling) orders a sex doll that he seems to think is a real person. But this movie isn’t about sex dolls, despite an occasional mild joke about it sprinkled here and there.
I walked into the theater, and much to my surprise, I didn’t really feel like seeing a movie. But Ryan Gosling’s Lars character obtains our undivided attention and curiosity almost immediately. Lars’ caring sister-in-law seems obsessed with figuring him out, and we can relate. But his oddity rises to a whole new level when he begins introducing “Bianca” to everyone.
“Lars and the Real Girl” is one of those movies where, if you had to leave the theater and miss the ending for some reason, you’d probably lose your mind. It intrigues us to ask questions that we must have answered. And thankfully, “Lars and the Real Girl” gives us all we need to know.
Directed by Craig Gillespie
Ryan Gosling / Emily Mortimer / Paul Schneider
106 min. Drama
MPPA: PG-13 (for some sex-related content)
Copyright 2007. 206
Michael Clayton (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 86
O Masterpiece (100)
X Excellent (75-99)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Mini Review by Jason Pyles / November 10, 2007
A good story can go a long way. Exhibit A: “Michael Clayton.” Often, filmmakers mistakenly assume that special effects can compensate for a poor story. Heresy. Exhibit B: “D-War.”
“Michael Clayton” has few noticeable special effects and is still exceptional entertainment thanks to its story’s quality.
If it’s not evident by the aforementioned exhibits, “Michael Clayton” is a thriller involving high-powered attorneys, corporate litigation and an exhibitionist.
Thankfully, this movie spares us the overused courtroom-drama sequences for more exciting, behind-the-scenes finagling, giving it inherent intrigue, despite its unconvincing, unappealing trailer. Exhibit C: “Do I look like I’m negotiating?”
Notably, notwithstanding Exhibit C, the film is worth seeing for George Clooney’s title-role performance. Watch him closely during scenes with his character’s son; or, when he holds his composure during a very long close-up of his face.
So, what is the overall verdict on whether to watch this movie? See Exhibit A.
Directed by Tony Gilroy
George Clooney / Tom Wilkinson / Tilda Swinton
119 min. Drama / Crime
MPPA: R (for language including some sexual dialogue)
Copyright 2007. 199
O Masterpiece (100)
X Excellent (75-99)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Mini Review by Jason Pyles / November 10, 2007
A good story can go a long way. Exhibit A: “Michael Clayton.” Often, filmmakers mistakenly assume that special effects can compensate for a poor story. Heresy. Exhibit B: “D-War.”
“Michael Clayton” has few noticeable special effects and is still exceptional entertainment thanks to its story’s quality.
If it’s not evident by the aforementioned exhibits, “Michael Clayton” is a thriller involving high-powered attorneys, corporate litigation and an exhibitionist.
Thankfully, this movie spares us the overused courtroom-drama sequences for more exciting, behind-the-scenes finagling, giving it inherent intrigue, despite its unconvincing, unappealing trailer. Exhibit C: “Do I look like I’m negotiating?”
Notably, notwithstanding Exhibit C, the film is worth seeing for George Clooney’s title-role performance. Watch him closely during scenes with his character’s son; or, when he holds his composure during a very long close-up of his face.
So, what is the overall verdict on whether to watch this movie? See Exhibit A.
Directed by Tony Gilroy
George Clooney / Tom Wilkinson / Tilda Swinton
119 min. Drama / Crime
MPPA: R (for language including some sexual dialogue)
Copyright 2007. 199
We Own the Night (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 73
O Masterpiece (100)
O Excellent (75-99)
X Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Mini Review by Jason Pyles / November 10, 2007
The time is 1988. The place is Brooklyn, N.Y. Robert Duvall plays an NYPD police chief and the father of two sons, Bobby (Joaquin Phoenix) and Joseph (Mark Wahlberg).
Joseph is the good son and an exceptional, decorated police officer; while Bobby is the black sheep who manages a popular nightclub where he associates with shady people of the underworld, natural enemies of his brother and father.
The movie’s primary conflict revolves around Bobby’s having to choose between his friends and his family (a choice that’s tougher than it sounds), and then trying to live with that choice.
“We Own the Night” is unmistakably contrived, but at the same time it takes some unconventional turns that pleasantly surprise us and defy our expectations of the genre. It’s not a perfect movie, but it’s definitely worth checking out.
Directed by James Gray
Joaquin Phoenix / Mark Wahlberg / Robert Duvall
117 min. Action / Crime
MPPA: R (for strong violence, drug material, language, some sexual content and brief nudity)
Copyright 2007. 200
O Masterpiece (100)
O Excellent (75-99)
X Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Mini Review by Jason Pyles / November 10, 2007
The time is 1988. The place is Brooklyn, N.Y. Robert Duvall plays an NYPD police chief and the father of two sons, Bobby (Joaquin Phoenix) and Joseph (Mark Wahlberg).
Joseph is the good son and an exceptional, decorated police officer; while Bobby is the black sheep who manages a popular nightclub where he associates with shady people of the underworld, natural enemies of his brother and father.
The movie’s primary conflict revolves around Bobby’s having to choose between his friends and his family (a choice that’s tougher than it sounds), and then trying to live with that choice.
“We Own the Night” is unmistakably contrived, but at the same time it takes some unconventional turns that pleasantly surprise us and defy our expectations of the genre. It’s not a perfect movie, but it’s definitely worth checking out.
Directed by James Gray
Joaquin Phoenix / Mark Wahlberg / Robert Duvall
117 min. Action / Crime
MPPA: R (for strong violence, drug material, language, some sexual content and brief nudity)
Copyright 2007. 200
The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 71
O Masterpiece (100)
O Excellent (75-99)
X Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Mini Review by Jason Pyles / November 10, 2007
Adapted from a Ron Hansen novel, “Jesse James” defies the shoot-‘em-up western genre to deliver a biographical drama starring Brad Pitt and Casey Affleck.
Those who seek the gun fighting of a rootin’, tootin’ western will be happier seeing this year’s “3:10 to Yuma.”
An oddly quiet and poetic film, “Jesse James” depicts the downtime between events, and usually not the events themselves, which are occasionally shown later. Uncommonly yet admirably, action is incidental.
Complaints abound accusing “Jesse James” of dragging, but the film’s lackadaisical pacing isn’t the problem: A movie this slow shouldn’t run this long (or vice versa). Indeed, the only thing that exceeds the 160-minute runtime of “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford” is the movie’s title.
All in all, the film is well made and memorable, with lines like “Poetry don’t work on whores,” which could also be said of westerns.
Directed by Andrew Dominik
Brad Pitt / Casey Affleck / Paul Schneider
160 min. Drama / Western
MPPA: R (for some strong violence and brief sexual references)
Copyright 2007. 198
O Masterpiece (100)
O Excellent (75-99)
X Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Mini Review by Jason Pyles / November 10, 2007
Adapted from a Ron Hansen novel, “Jesse James” defies the shoot-‘em-up western genre to deliver a biographical drama starring Brad Pitt and Casey Affleck.
Those who seek the gun fighting of a rootin’, tootin’ western will be happier seeing this year’s “3:10 to Yuma.”
An oddly quiet and poetic film, “Jesse James” depicts the downtime between events, and usually not the events themselves, which are occasionally shown later. Uncommonly yet admirably, action is incidental.
Complaints abound accusing “Jesse James” of dragging, but the film’s lackadaisical pacing isn’t the problem: A movie this slow shouldn’t run this long (or vice versa). Indeed, the only thing that exceeds the 160-minute runtime of “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford” is the movie’s title.
All in all, the film is well made and memorable, with lines like “Poetry don’t work on whores,” which could also be said of westerns.
Directed by Andrew Dominik
Brad Pitt / Casey Affleck / Paul Schneider
160 min. Drama / Western
MPPA: R (for some strong violence and brief sexual references)
Copyright 2007. 198
In the Valley of Elah (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 95
O Masterpiece (100)
X Excellent (75-99)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Mini Review by Jason Pyles / November 10, 2007
"In the Valley of Elah" is a mystery, specifically a police procedural, whose commentary on the Iraq War is stirring and memorable, regardless of your political position. But above all, this is an exceptional film, and without question, one of the year's best.
"Inspired by actual events," the film begins in 2004 when Hank Deerfield (Tommy Lee Jones) receives a phone call from the U.S. Army, informing him that his son who recently returned from the war in Iraq is AWOL, and presumably somewhere in New Mexico. This inciting incident initiates the retired military-police sergeant’s search for his missing son.
Sadly, a mini review doesn’t permit me the space to adequately emphasize the excellence of this film. But to name one example, many scenes are shot with Jones behind glass, usually a truck window. Thanks to his MP experience, Deerfield can see things the investigative detectives cannot. But because he’s just a civilian, the sergeant isn’t permitted to act directly (hence the recurring image of seeing clearly from behind glass). Watch what happens, however, during the scene where the window is rolled halfway down.
The viewer who pays close attention to the film’s subtle set-ups, will reap rich rewards from its pay-offs.
Directed by Paul Haggis
Tommy Lee Jones / Charlize Theron / Susan Sarandon
124 min. Mystery / Drama
MPAA: R (for violent and disturbing content, language and some sexuality/nudity)
Copyright 2007. 197
O Masterpiece (100)
X Excellent (75-99)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Mini Review by Jason Pyles / November 10, 2007
"In the Valley of Elah" is a mystery, specifically a police procedural, whose commentary on the Iraq War is stirring and memorable, regardless of your political position. But above all, this is an exceptional film, and without question, one of the year's best.
"Inspired by actual events," the film begins in 2004 when Hank Deerfield (Tommy Lee Jones) receives a phone call from the U.S. Army, informing him that his son who recently returned from the war in Iraq is AWOL, and presumably somewhere in New Mexico. This inciting incident initiates the retired military-police sergeant’s search for his missing son.
Sadly, a mini review doesn’t permit me the space to adequately emphasize the excellence of this film. But to name one example, many scenes are shot with Jones behind glass, usually a truck window. Thanks to his MP experience, Deerfield can see things the investigative detectives cannot. But because he’s just a civilian, the sergeant isn’t permitted to act directly (hence the recurring image of seeing clearly from behind glass). Watch what happens, however, during the scene where the window is rolled halfway down.
The viewer who pays close attention to the film’s subtle set-ups, will reap rich rewards from its pay-offs.
Directed by Paul Haggis
Tommy Lee Jones / Charlize Theron / Susan Sarandon
124 min. Mystery / Drama
MPAA: R (for violent and disturbing content, language and some sexuality/nudity)
Copyright 2007. 197
3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 94
O Masterpiece (100)
X Excellent (75-99)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Mini Review by Jason Pyles / November 10, 2007
If “3:10 to Yuma” can’t revive the western genre, nothing can. Another noteworthy attempt at resuscitation was made back in 1992 with Clint Eastwood’s “Unforgiven,” also an exceptional film that won Best Picture. But honestly, I don’t know that I could tell you the better film between the two, unless we had them duel.
This film is actually a remake of an earlier film by the same name (unseen by me), so I couldn’t really tell you how closely this movie follows its predecessor. But if the first film was about “doin’ the right thing” and “cowboying up,” then I’d say it holds true where it counts.
Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) is a bad, bad man, an outlaw and a killer who’s notoriously ruthless and profoundly deadly. (Yes, “profoundly” is the right word. You’ll see.)
When Wade is captured and needs to be on the 3:10 train to Yuma for his court date, the short-handed law men agree to pay poor Dan Evans (Christian Bale) to help transport the prisoner, keeping him from being sprung by his fellow bandits.
“3:10 to Yuma” has excellent dialogue. In fact, it has the best line I’ve ever heard in a western, though I won’t recite it here in case you’re one of the lucky ones who haven’t heard it from the trailers. But I will tell you this: “3:10 to Yuma” proudly ranks among the top five films of 2007.
Directed by James Mangold
Russell Crowe / Christian Bale / Peter Fonda
117 min. Western
MPPA: R (for violence and some language)
Copyright 2007. 187
O Masterpiece (100)
X Excellent (75-99)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Mini Review by Jason Pyles / November 10, 2007
If “3:10 to Yuma” can’t revive the western genre, nothing can. Another noteworthy attempt at resuscitation was made back in 1992 with Clint Eastwood’s “Unforgiven,” also an exceptional film that won Best Picture. But honestly, I don’t know that I could tell you the better film between the two, unless we had them duel.
This film is actually a remake of an earlier film by the same name (unseen by me), so I couldn’t really tell you how closely this movie follows its predecessor. But if the first film was about “doin’ the right thing” and “cowboying up,” then I’d say it holds true where it counts.
Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) is a bad, bad man, an outlaw and a killer who’s notoriously ruthless and profoundly deadly. (Yes, “profoundly” is the right word. You’ll see.)
When Wade is captured and needs to be on the 3:10 train to Yuma for his court date, the short-handed law men agree to pay poor Dan Evans (Christian Bale) to help transport the prisoner, keeping him from being sprung by his fellow bandits.
“3:10 to Yuma” has excellent dialogue. In fact, it has the best line I’ve ever heard in a western, though I won’t recite it here in case you’re one of the lucky ones who haven’t heard it from the trailers. But I will tell you this: “3:10 to Yuma” proudly ranks among the top five films of 2007.
Directed by James Mangold
Russell Crowe / Christian Bale / Peter Fonda
117 min. Western
MPPA: R (for violence and some language)
Copyright 2007. 187
Resurrecting the Champ (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 86
O Masterpiece (100)
X Excellent (75-99)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Mini Review by Jason Pyles / November 10, 2007
Sometimes movies that were “inspired by a true story,” such as “Catch a Fire” (2006), tell a story that’s not really worth telling. Other films like “Resurrecting the Champ” have a narrative worthy of our attention.
Unfortunately, “Resurrecting the Champ” is going to go down as one of those underrated, underappreciated, unknown films, ironically enough. But trust me: You should check out this movie.
As cryptic as this may sound, “Resurrecting the Champ” is about being what you wanted to be, regardless of not getting to be what you wanted to be. I know, maddening. But that is the greatness that is the concept of this movie. “Resurrecting the Champ” will also be of interest to sports fans, journalists, fathers and sons.
Erik Kernan (Josh Hartnett) is a sports writer who is struggling to live up to the journalistic greatness of his father. But when he discovers a former boxing champion (Samuel L. Jackson) who is now a homeless person, the young writer has the boxer’s incredible story to tell.
And that’s all I can tell you. The less you know about the film, the better. But be prepared for Samuel L. Jackson’s character’s voice: You’ll either love it, or you’ll hate it; but either way, you should appreciate his ability to maintain such a high pitch.
Directed by Rod Lurie
Samuel L. Jackson / Josh Hartnett / Alan Alda
111 min. Drama
MPPA: PG-13 (for some violence and brief language)
Copyright 2007. 185
O Masterpiece (100)
X Excellent (75-99)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Mini Review by Jason Pyles / November 10, 2007
Sometimes movies that were “inspired by a true story,” such as “Catch a Fire” (2006), tell a story that’s not really worth telling. Other films like “Resurrecting the Champ” have a narrative worthy of our attention.
Unfortunately, “Resurrecting the Champ” is going to go down as one of those underrated, underappreciated, unknown films, ironically enough. But trust me: You should check out this movie.
As cryptic as this may sound, “Resurrecting the Champ” is about being what you wanted to be, regardless of not getting to be what you wanted to be. I know, maddening. But that is the greatness that is the concept of this movie. “Resurrecting the Champ” will also be of interest to sports fans, journalists, fathers and sons.
Erik Kernan (Josh Hartnett) is a sports writer who is struggling to live up to the journalistic greatness of his father. But when he discovers a former boxing champion (Samuel L. Jackson) who is now a homeless person, the young writer has the boxer’s incredible story to tell.
And that’s all I can tell you. The less you know about the film, the better. But be prepared for Samuel L. Jackson’s character’s voice: You’ll either love it, or you’ll hate it; but either way, you should appreciate his ability to maintain such a high pitch.
Directed by Rod Lurie
Samuel L. Jackson / Josh Hartnett / Alan Alda
111 min. Drama
MPPA: PG-13 (for some violence and brief language)
Copyright 2007. 185
The Last Legion (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 53
O Masterpiece (100)
O Excellent (75-99)
O Rental (60-74)
X OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Mini Review by Jason Pyles / November 10, 2007
My good friend and esteemed fellow movie critic, Luke Hickman, told me he walked into the theater during this film, stayed for 15 minutes, and laughed the whole time. So why did I see it? Because the film I was planning to see wasn’t playing (for some reason), and this was my only option. Poor movie critic me, I know. Tough job.
Let’s take a moment to notice that my rating scale doesn’t go down to zero, the lowest it gets is 1. That’s because, it seems to me, that the wonder of the motion picture, no matter how detestable its images, should at least register on the scale.
“The Last Legion” isn’t hideously horrible; in fact, it clocks in at a 53, which is better than half and translates to “OK.” But the worst movie of 2007 is easily “Delta Farce,” which received an 8. Avoid that puppy at all costs.
I mention all of this to simply say that I’d watch “The Last Legion” 100 times in a row before subjecting myself, once again, to the likes of “D-War” or “Daddy Day Camp” or “Delta Farce.” My laughing friend, Luke, obviously has yet to experience the pains of those “D” movies, if he’s so amused by “The Last Legion.” Which reminds me ... in my college cafeteria once, I saw “all-purpose meat” boxes which read, “Grade D but edible.” The same cannot be said of those films.
Truly, it is a testament to the talents of Colin Firth and Ben Kingsley (who carry this entire film) that they are able to carry this entire film. Yes, I know I wrote that twice. Young Thomas Sangster, who plays the last Caesar, also does a fair job with his performance.
But what harms this sword-in-the-stone/Camelot rendition is its low-budget look. The lead actors are fine, the story is tried and true (obviously, since it’s been retold 41 million times), but it all falls apart because we cannot take “The Last Legion” seriously.
But, alas, any eight- to 10-year-old boys would probably love it. My buddy, Luke, sure got a kick out of it.
Directed by Doug Lefler
Colin Firth / Ben Kingsley / Thomas Sangster
110 min. Action / Adventure
MPPA: PG-13 (for sequences of intense action violence)
Copyright 2007. 184
O Masterpiece (100)
O Excellent (75-99)
O Rental (60-74)
X OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Mini Review by Jason Pyles / November 10, 2007
My good friend and esteemed fellow movie critic, Luke Hickman, told me he walked into the theater during this film, stayed for 15 minutes, and laughed the whole time. So why did I see it? Because the film I was planning to see wasn’t playing (for some reason), and this was my only option. Poor movie critic me, I know. Tough job.
Let’s take a moment to notice that my rating scale doesn’t go down to zero, the lowest it gets is 1. That’s because, it seems to me, that the wonder of the motion picture, no matter how detestable its images, should at least register on the scale.
“The Last Legion” isn’t hideously horrible; in fact, it clocks in at a 53, which is better than half and translates to “OK.” But the worst movie of 2007 is easily “Delta Farce,” which received an 8. Avoid that puppy at all costs.
I mention all of this to simply say that I’d watch “The Last Legion” 100 times in a row before subjecting myself, once again, to the likes of “D-War” or “Daddy Day Camp” or “Delta Farce.” My laughing friend, Luke, obviously has yet to experience the pains of those “D” movies, if he’s so amused by “The Last Legion.” Which reminds me ... in my college cafeteria once, I saw “all-purpose meat” boxes which read, “Grade D but edible.” The same cannot be said of those films.
Truly, it is a testament to the talents of Colin Firth and Ben Kingsley (who carry this entire film) that they are able to carry this entire film. Yes, I know I wrote that twice. Young Thomas Sangster, who plays the last Caesar, also does a fair job with his performance.
But what harms this sword-in-the-stone/Camelot rendition is its low-budget look. The lead actors are fine, the story is tried and true (obviously, since it’s been retold 41 million times), but it all falls apart because we cannot take “The Last Legion” seriously.
But, alas, any eight- to 10-year-old boys would probably love it. My buddy, Luke, sure got a kick out of it.
Directed by Doug Lefler
Colin Firth / Ben Kingsley / Thomas Sangster
110 min. Action / Adventure
MPPA: PG-13 (for sequences of intense action violence)
Copyright 2007. 184
Friday, November 2, 2007
Dan in Real Life (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 85
O Masterpiece (100)
X Excellent (75-99)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / November 2, 2007
Since “Lars and the Real Girl” is the sweetest movie of the year, “Dan in Real Life” can safely be called the happiest, feel-good movie of 2007.
Remember how the end of “Little Miss Sunshine” (2006) and “Hitch” (2005) brought feelings of self-consciousness, for fear of potential Amelies in the theater looking back at us to see our gleeful, smiling faces? “Dan in Real Life” has similar good vibrations.
Dan Burns (Steve Carell) is a newspaper advice columnist, an author, a widower, father of three girls and a good man. Annually, Dan's extended family gathers at a cabin in Rhode Island. While visiting the New England town, the lonely bachelor meets Annie (Juliette Binoche), the perfect woman. But it turns out that Dan's brother, Mitch (Dane Cook), is already dating Dan's new dream girl.
“Dan in Real Life” is fun because Dan and Annie's affinity for each other is a secret. And Dan is torn between being a loyal brother and pursuing such an evident "keeper."
What makes this comedy particularly enjoyable is that we are genuinely intrigued by not knowing how this mess could ever be untangled. We have suspicions, sure, but resolution seems impossible.
The dynamics and exchanges among the family members are humorous, making “Dan in Real Life” reminiscent of “The Family Stone” (2005), which is another "bring the new gal to meet the whole fam" farce.
There's something about this film's quality and substance that places it higher than a typical, hollow, romantic comedy. It almost feels like a tame Wes Anderson project or a Sundance indie film.
“Dan in Real Life” has some pitch-perfect moments of playful revenge, genuine humor and touching sincerity. There's even a brief spell where Steve Carell gets to evoke the obnoxiousness of his “Office” persona, Michael Scott.
“Dan in Real Life” is delightful, quaint and a great option for a date movie.
Directed by Peter Hedges
Steve Carell / Dane Cook / Juliette Binoche
95 min. Comedy / Romance
MPPA: PG-13 (for some innuendo)
Copyright 2007. 205
O Masterpiece (100)
X Excellent (75-99)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / November 2, 2007
Since “Lars and the Real Girl” is the sweetest movie of the year, “Dan in Real Life” can safely be called the happiest, feel-good movie of 2007.
Remember how the end of “Little Miss Sunshine” (2006) and “Hitch” (2005) brought feelings of self-consciousness, for fear of potential Amelies in the theater looking back at us to see our gleeful, smiling faces? “Dan in Real Life” has similar good vibrations.
Dan Burns (Steve Carell) is a newspaper advice columnist, an author, a widower, father of three girls and a good man. Annually, Dan's extended family gathers at a cabin in Rhode Island. While visiting the New England town, the lonely bachelor meets Annie (Juliette Binoche), the perfect woman. But it turns out that Dan's brother, Mitch (Dane Cook), is already dating Dan's new dream girl.
“Dan in Real Life” is fun because Dan and Annie's affinity for each other is a secret. And Dan is torn between being a loyal brother and pursuing such an evident "keeper."
What makes this comedy particularly enjoyable is that we are genuinely intrigued by not knowing how this mess could ever be untangled. We have suspicions, sure, but resolution seems impossible.
The dynamics and exchanges among the family members are humorous, making “Dan in Real Life” reminiscent of “The Family Stone” (2005), which is another "bring the new gal to meet the whole fam" farce.
There's something about this film's quality and substance that places it higher than a typical, hollow, romantic comedy. It almost feels like a tame Wes Anderson project or a Sundance indie film.
“Dan in Real Life” has some pitch-perfect moments of playful revenge, genuine humor and touching sincerity. There's even a brief spell where Steve Carell gets to evoke the obnoxiousness of his “Office” persona, Michael Scott.
“Dan in Real Life” is delightful, quaint and a great option for a date movie.
Directed by Peter Hedges
Steve Carell / Dane Cook / Juliette Binoche
95 min. Comedy / Romance
MPPA: PG-13 (for some innuendo)
Copyright 2007. 205
Friday, October 26, 2007
Things We Lost in the Fire (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 75
O Masterpiece (100)
X Excellent (75-99)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / October 26, 2007
Jerry: Your dad was my best friend.
Harper: When?
Jerry: When I was your age ... and last week.
Such is the mostly pitch-perfect dialogue in “Things We Lost in the Fire,” a story about characters who try to overcome the most difficult challenges of their lives, one day at a time.
In modern-day Seattle, Brian (David Duchovny) and Audrey Burke (Halle Berry) have a blissful marriage and two kids, Harper (Alexis Llewellyn) who’s 10 and Dory (Micah Berry) who’s six. Their idyllic life together is permanently altered when Brian heroically tries to intervene during a domestic dispute and is murdered. (That was not a spoiler but common knowledge regarding the film’s premise.)
Brian’s lifelong friend and recovering heroine addict, Jerry (Benicio Del Toro), comes to the funeral and is asked to help the grieving family, which, of course, is mutually beneficial to him.
“Things We Lost in the Fire” could have been a masterpiece, perhaps a perfect 100, had it not tried so hard to “swing for the fence.” There are moments (unmistakably saccharine, bittersweet moments) when we can sense the film trying to manipulate us to tears (much like the scads of country songs whose last verse takes place in heaven). I will refrain from citing specific examples from the movie, in case you’re a sucker for such moments. Why spoil them for you, too?
But the film’s biggest problem and evidence of overextending an arty appeal to “Oscar” is the two parents’ abundant use of the “F-word.” Sure, many adults say that word – often, in fact. But “good,” intelligent parents, such as those depicted here, who have two sets of small, impressionable ears always listening, do not use such language with such fervor and frequency.
To the film’s credit, it attempts to travel unforeseen roads, surprising us by not becoming what we think it will inevitably become; but the plot’s alternate course is, at times, tiresome. Specifically, Audrey’s reaction to Jerry’s helpfulness seems improbable.
Though the movie is about love, friendship and the death of the family’s father, it is equally about Jerry’s attempt to overcome his heroine addiction. Berry’s acting is commendable, even excellent at times, but Del Toro’s nuanced performance is nothing less than Oscar-worthy. His screen presence alone is worth the price of admission.
Despite some exceptions, “Things We Lost in the Fire” shines with credibility, offering moments that feel exactly right: Reminiscent conversations around a table about the departed enable us to see that Jerry truly was Brian’s best friend. And we get to see other little details like the endearing sensitivities of a tender wife and child in response to an animal activist group’s commercial. These are inclusions of careful filmmakers.
But the movie’s most novel filmmaking technique is the subjective soundtrack that we hear while Jerry is listening to his blaring headphones. We hear them as he does – loudly. Then, when he removes them from his ears, his tunes reduce to small background noise, playing faintly from their source. There are also lots of close-ups of sad eyes, which are probably relevant in this narrative, albeit overdone.
At one point, the widowed Audrey asks another woman who also lost her true love, “Does it get better?” The answer: “It gets different,” which is also an accurate description of this film.
Directed by Susanne Bier
Halle Berry / Benicio Del Toro / David Duchovny
119 min. Drama
MPPA: R (for drug content and language)
Copyright 2007. 204
O Masterpiece (100)
X Excellent (75-99)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / October 26, 2007
Jerry: Your dad was my best friend.
Harper: When?
Jerry: When I was your age ... and last week.
Such is the mostly pitch-perfect dialogue in “Things We Lost in the Fire,” a story about characters who try to overcome the most difficult challenges of their lives, one day at a time.
In modern-day Seattle, Brian (David Duchovny) and Audrey Burke (Halle Berry) have a blissful marriage and two kids, Harper (Alexis Llewellyn) who’s 10 and Dory (Micah Berry) who’s six. Their idyllic life together is permanently altered when Brian heroically tries to intervene during a domestic dispute and is murdered. (That was not a spoiler but common knowledge regarding the film’s premise.)
Brian’s lifelong friend and recovering heroine addict, Jerry (Benicio Del Toro), comes to the funeral and is asked to help the grieving family, which, of course, is mutually beneficial to him.
“Things We Lost in the Fire” could have been a masterpiece, perhaps a perfect 100, had it not tried so hard to “swing for the fence.” There are moments (unmistakably saccharine, bittersweet moments) when we can sense the film trying to manipulate us to tears (much like the scads of country songs whose last verse takes place in heaven). I will refrain from citing specific examples from the movie, in case you’re a sucker for such moments. Why spoil them for you, too?
But the film’s biggest problem and evidence of overextending an arty appeal to “Oscar” is the two parents’ abundant use of the “F-word.” Sure, many adults say that word – often, in fact. But “good,” intelligent parents, such as those depicted here, who have two sets of small, impressionable ears always listening, do not use such language with such fervor and frequency.
To the film’s credit, it attempts to travel unforeseen roads, surprising us by not becoming what we think it will inevitably become; but the plot’s alternate course is, at times, tiresome. Specifically, Audrey’s reaction to Jerry’s helpfulness seems improbable.
Though the movie is about love, friendship and the death of the family’s father, it is equally about Jerry’s attempt to overcome his heroine addiction. Berry’s acting is commendable, even excellent at times, but Del Toro’s nuanced performance is nothing less than Oscar-worthy. His screen presence alone is worth the price of admission.
Despite some exceptions, “Things We Lost in the Fire” shines with credibility, offering moments that feel exactly right: Reminiscent conversations around a table about the departed enable us to see that Jerry truly was Brian’s best friend. And we get to see other little details like the endearing sensitivities of a tender wife and child in response to an animal activist group’s commercial. These are inclusions of careful filmmakers.
But the movie’s most novel filmmaking technique is the subjective soundtrack that we hear while Jerry is listening to his blaring headphones. We hear them as he does – loudly. Then, when he removes them from his ears, his tunes reduce to small background noise, playing faintly from their source. There are also lots of close-ups of sad eyes, which are probably relevant in this narrative, albeit overdone.
At one point, the widowed Audrey asks another woman who also lost her true love, “Does it get better?” The answer: “It gets different,” which is also an accurate description of this film.
Directed by Susanne Bier
Halle Berry / Benicio Del Toro / David Duchovny
119 min. Drama
MPPA: R (for drug content and language)
Copyright 2007. 204
Rendition (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 73
O Masterpiece (100)
O Excellent (75-99)
X Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / October 26, 2007
By now most of the escapist-entertainment fare of summer has gone with the leaves, and with the chill of autumn comes an even chillier cinema. Heavy, emotional and brooding, the Oscar gunners this year are pointed, political, and sociological dramas, such as “In the Valley of Elah,” “The Kingdom” and “Gone Baby Gone.”
“Rendition” boldly stands among these, posing rhetorical questions for our consideration, the foremost of which is “To what extremes are we justified going to in order to protect ourselves from terrorist extremists?” Or, in other words, does the means of torture justify the end ... and by the way, what is that end?
As you can see, much like “Gone Baby Gone,” “Rendition” isn’t really a movie you’d watch to be entertained. It is unpleasant and uncomfortable. It will likely anger you, while simultaneously making you feel paranoid and fearful. Art is often created in hopes of agitating its partakers toward action. And sometimes, its implications simply evoke despair.
Anwar El-Ilbrahimi (Omar Metwally) lives in Chicago with his very pregnant wife, Isabella (Reese Witherspoon), and their little son, Jeremy (Aramis Knight). Anwar travels to Cape Town, South Africa to give a presentation at a conference for his fellow chemical engineers.
But on his way back to the states, Anwar is intercepted and abducted by the CIA, because he is under suspicion of having terrorist ties with an Egyptian national whose terrorist group is claiming responsibility for increasingly potent bombing attacks in North Africa.
The CIA seems convinced that Anwar is affiliated with the terrorist group. Isabella, his wife, is convinced of his absolute innocence. Both sides have compelling evidence, insomuch that we are unsure ourselves, which is worrisome. But in the meantime, brutal methods of interrogation are used at a foreign prison in an attempt to ascertain the truth. (Though unpleasant, watching these scenes is not like watching the “Saw” movies, thankfully.)
Whether Anwar truly is a terrorist, is innocent or even survives the abusive imprisonment, I dare not reveal. The bulk of “Rendition” is designed to be ambiguous, that we, the viewer, may become engaged in mulling over the issues, while identifying with the various characters’ points of view.
And while we automatically empathize with this apparent family man who’s being tortured, the filmmakers successfully instill within us the alarming nature of the terrorist extremists, which is conducive to feelings of desperate urgency toward finding an effective solution for investigating such suspects. This film also demonstrates various pitfalls (such as politicians’ fears of public perception) that lull a nation into turning its head and fooling itself about the necessity of resorting to unthinkable measures for extracting information.
Though it may seem like I have been overly generous in my elaborations, “Rendition” is much richer than this discussion represents. Truly, it is a film whose viewing will yield a personal, emotional experience, much like “A Mighty Heart.” The more films I see like these, the louder the final moments of “In the Valley of Elah” ring true to me. I guess that’s why it’s just easier to look the other way and watch popcorn movies like “Transformers.”
Directed by Gavin Hood
Meryl Streep / Reese Witherspoon / Jake Gyllenhaal
120 min. Drama / Crime
MPPA: R (for torture/violence and language)
Copyright 2007. 203
O Masterpiece (100)
O Excellent (75-99)
X Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / October 26, 2007
By now most of the escapist-entertainment fare of summer has gone with the leaves, and with the chill of autumn comes an even chillier cinema. Heavy, emotional and brooding, the Oscar gunners this year are pointed, political, and sociological dramas, such as “In the Valley of Elah,” “The Kingdom” and “Gone Baby Gone.”
“Rendition” boldly stands among these, posing rhetorical questions for our consideration, the foremost of which is “To what extremes are we justified going to in order to protect ourselves from terrorist extremists?” Or, in other words, does the means of torture justify the end ... and by the way, what is that end?
As you can see, much like “Gone Baby Gone,” “Rendition” isn’t really a movie you’d watch to be entertained. It is unpleasant and uncomfortable. It will likely anger you, while simultaneously making you feel paranoid and fearful. Art is often created in hopes of agitating its partakers toward action. And sometimes, its implications simply evoke despair.
Anwar El-Ilbrahimi (Omar Metwally) lives in Chicago with his very pregnant wife, Isabella (Reese Witherspoon), and their little son, Jeremy (Aramis Knight). Anwar travels to Cape Town, South Africa to give a presentation at a conference for his fellow chemical engineers.
But on his way back to the states, Anwar is intercepted and abducted by the CIA, because he is under suspicion of having terrorist ties with an Egyptian national whose terrorist group is claiming responsibility for increasingly potent bombing attacks in North Africa.
The CIA seems convinced that Anwar is affiliated with the terrorist group. Isabella, his wife, is convinced of his absolute innocence. Both sides have compelling evidence, insomuch that we are unsure ourselves, which is worrisome. But in the meantime, brutal methods of interrogation are used at a foreign prison in an attempt to ascertain the truth. (Though unpleasant, watching these scenes is not like watching the “Saw” movies, thankfully.)
Whether Anwar truly is a terrorist, is innocent or even survives the abusive imprisonment, I dare not reveal. The bulk of “Rendition” is designed to be ambiguous, that we, the viewer, may become engaged in mulling over the issues, while identifying with the various characters’ points of view.
And while we automatically empathize with this apparent family man who’s being tortured, the filmmakers successfully instill within us the alarming nature of the terrorist extremists, which is conducive to feelings of desperate urgency toward finding an effective solution for investigating such suspects. This film also demonstrates various pitfalls (such as politicians’ fears of public perception) that lull a nation into turning its head and fooling itself about the necessity of resorting to unthinkable measures for extracting information.
Though it may seem like I have been overly generous in my elaborations, “Rendition” is much richer than this discussion represents. Truly, it is a film whose viewing will yield a personal, emotional experience, much like “A Mighty Heart.” The more films I see like these, the louder the final moments of “In the Valley of Elah” ring true to me. I guess that’s why it’s just easier to look the other way and watch popcorn movies like “Transformers.”
Directed by Gavin Hood
Meryl Streep / Reese Witherspoon / Jake Gyllenhaal
120 min. Drama / Crime
MPPA: R (for torture/violence and language)
Copyright 2007. 203
Monday, October 22, 2007
Gone Baby Gone (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 94
O Masterpiece (100)
X Excellent (75-99)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / October 22, 2007
“Gone Baby Gone” is a good, hard punch in the face. Calling it entertainment seems inappropriate, but calling this movie excellent is right on the money. Few movies have left me frozen in the theater seat after the credits began to roll, but this one did.
More than disturbing, “Gone Baby Gone” is unsettling. If you think I’ve revealed the ending, or anything significant about the movie by writing that, you’re wrong. This review contains no spoilers. Consider all of the above mere warnings. Besides, you couldn’t possibly guess the film’s final shot and its penetrating reality.
A child has been abducted in Boston. An adorable, little four-year-old girl named Amanda McCready (Madeline O’Brien) has vanished. Seventy-six hours have passed. Maybe the unthinkable has happened (or is happening).
The little girl’s aunt and uncle hire Patrick Kenzie (Casey Affleck) and Angie Gennaro (Michelle Monaghan, the cool gal from “The Heartbreak Kid”) as private detectives to help with the search. Despite the Boston police’s not being thrilled about their new “partners,” the investigators all work together on their common goal.
We follow the police and the detectives during this investigation into a grotesque menagerie of seedy characters, and the vilest of all may be the missing girl’s drug-addict “mother,” a word that’s only true in the biological sense. That is all I will write regarding what the movie is about. The following describes how it is about it.
“Gone Baby Gone” is dreadfully sad and difficult to watch, but not for the reasons you’d think. If you’re human, while watching you’ll have tears, anger and anxiety close to the surface. And if you’re sensitive, some of those will spill over.
But it’s important to note that “Gone Baby Gone” is not cheaply manipulative. A horrifying look into a pedophile’s dwelling shows us unpleasant things, but not the all-too-common graphic, ghastly exploitation trend of the modern horror genre.
The movie notably raises questions about “justice” for pedophiles, child neglecters, abusers and killers.
“Gone Baby Gone” has many strengths, but its casting by Nadia Aleyd and Donna Morong is unrivaled all the way back to “The Godfather” (1972). Let me be more emphatic: If there were a casting Oscar, those two would get it, probably for the next two years. The people selected to inhabit the characters for these roles are picture perfect, as well as fine actors.
Speaking of fine acting, Casey Affleck (Ben’s little brother) has established himself as a dramatic force to be reckoned with. This performance and his role in “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford” are both stellar. And if you haven’t seen his experimental film that he starred in with Matt Damon called “Gerry” (2002), it would be a good choice for expanding your cinematic-viewing horizons.
Veteran actor Morgan Freeman delivers a shattering monologue that is unbearable to hear. It’s not that it’s graphic; it’s just potent. Ed Harris is nothing less than ferocious, and his goatee adds to his ferocity.
“Gone Baby Gone” is rated R for violence (which is considerable), drug content (which is significant) and “pervasive language” (which is an understatement). Pervasive, indeed.
This film isn’t perfect, though. At one point the movie becomes purposely confusing. Don’t worry: Even the most careful viewer will be lost, for that is what is intended. The twists and turns pile up a little too high, however, detracting from the realism of the film’s themes. This movie is too heavy to go out on a limb that far. But two primary episodic narratives told as a mini story sandwiched within a larger one makes up for some of the deficit.
Oh, and I can’t forget to compliment a momentary, stylistic use of silence that hearkens back to “Cop Land” (1997).
Ben Affleck has made a fine film, a movie about doing the right thing (and whether that’s always the best thing). Life-changing movies, if they exist at all, may only be fleeting and temporary. And that’s too bad, because films like “Gone Baby Gone” need to stick ... permanently.
Directed by Ben Affleck
Casey Affleck / Morgan Freeman / Ed Harris
114 min. Drama / Mystery
MPPA: R (for violence, drug content and pervasive language)
Copyright 2007. 202
O Masterpiece (100)
X Excellent (75-99)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / October 22, 2007
“Gone Baby Gone” is a good, hard punch in the face. Calling it entertainment seems inappropriate, but calling this movie excellent is right on the money. Few movies have left me frozen in the theater seat after the credits began to roll, but this one did.
More than disturbing, “Gone Baby Gone” is unsettling. If you think I’ve revealed the ending, or anything significant about the movie by writing that, you’re wrong. This review contains no spoilers. Consider all of the above mere warnings. Besides, you couldn’t possibly guess the film’s final shot and its penetrating reality.
A child has been abducted in Boston. An adorable, little four-year-old girl named Amanda McCready (Madeline O’Brien) has vanished. Seventy-six hours have passed. Maybe the unthinkable has happened (or is happening).
The little girl’s aunt and uncle hire Patrick Kenzie (Casey Affleck) and Angie Gennaro (Michelle Monaghan, the cool gal from “The Heartbreak Kid”) as private detectives to help with the search. Despite the Boston police’s not being thrilled about their new “partners,” the investigators all work together on their common goal.
We follow the police and the detectives during this investigation into a grotesque menagerie of seedy characters, and the vilest of all may be the missing girl’s drug-addict “mother,” a word that’s only true in the biological sense. That is all I will write regarding what the movie is about. The following describes how it is about it.
“Gone Baby Gone” is dreadfully sad and difficult to watch, but not for the reasons you’d think. If you’re human, while watching you’ll have tears, anger and anxiety close to the surface. And if you’re sensitive, some of those will spill over.
But it’s important to note that “Gone Baby Gone” is not cheaply manipulative. A horrifying look into a pedophile’s dwelling shows us unpleasant things, but not the all-too-common graphic, ghastly exploitation trend of the modern horror genre.
The movie notably raises questions about “justice” for pedophiles, child neglecters, abusers and killers.
“Gone Baby Gone” has many strengths, but its casting by Nadia Aleyd and Donna Morong is unrivaled all the way back to “The Godfather” (1972). Let me be more emphatic: If there were a casting Oscar, those two would get it, probably for the next two years. The people selected to inhabit the characters for these roles are picture perfect, as well as fine actors.
Speaking of fine acting, Casey Affleck (Ben’s little brother) has established himself as a dramatic force to be reckoned with. This performance and his role in “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford” are both stellar. And if you haven’t seen his experimental film that he starred in with Matt Damon called “Gerry” (2002), it would be a good choice for expanding your cinematic-viewing horizons.
Veteran actor Morgan Freeman delivers a shattering monologue that is unbearable to hear. It’s not that it’s graphic; it’s just potent. Ed Harris is nothing less than ferocious, and his goatee adds to his ferocity.
“Gone Baby Gone” is rated R for violence (which is considerable), drug content (which is significant) and “pervasive language” (which is an understatement). Pervasive, indeed.
This film isn’t perfect, though. At one point the movie becomes purposely confusing. Don’t worry: Even the most careful viewer will be lost, for that is what is intended. The twists and turns pile up a little too high, however, detracting from the realism of the film’s themes. This movie is too heavy to go out on a limb that far. But two primary episodic narratives told as a mini story sandwiched within a larger one makes up for some of the deficit.
Oh, and I can’t forget to compliment a momentary, stylistic use of silence that hearkens back to “Cop Land” (1997).
Ben Affleck has made a fine film, a movie about doing the right thing (and whether that’s always the best thing). Life-changing movies, if they exist at all, may only be fleeting and temporary. And that’s too bad, because films like “Gone Baby Gone” need to stick ... permanently.
Directed by Ben Affleck
Casey Affleck / Morgan Freeman / Ed Harris
114 min. Drama / Mystery
MPPA: R (for violence, drug content and pervasive language)
Copyright 2007. 202
Elizabeth: The Golden Age (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 71
O Masterpiece (100)
O Excellent (75-99)
X Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / October 22, 2007
In 1998, Shekhar Kapur directed “Elizabeth,” a film that depicts the so-called “Virgin Queen,” Elizabeth I’s (Cate Blanchett) turbulent inheritance of the throne of England, and her necessarily rapid learning curve.
During the course of the movie, which covers the first five years of her reign, we see an idealistic, young woman who is transformed into a mighty monarch.
Nearly a decade later, Kapur reassembles Blanchett and Geoffrey Rush again for “Elizabeth: The Golden Age”; and despite its continuation of superb performances and spectacular sets and costumes, alas, this new film falls prey to the sequel curse, which simply means “it’s not as good as the first one.”
This is why: In the first film, suspense and intrigue prevail because Elizabeth’s deadly enemies surrounded the unseasoned queen within her perilous palace. But in “The Golden Age,” the experienced monarch’s most fearsome threat, King Philip II of Spain, and his looming naval warfare, all seem afar off and less threatening ... probably because he is far off and therefore, less threatening.
Instead, this film is concerned with paying close attention to Elizabeth’s loneliness, and her fascination with the rugged adventurer-explorer Walter Raleigh (Clive Owen). While the first film held true to its artistic merit, “The Golden Age” gives us the old reliable: a love story and battle scenes.
“The Golden Age” also succumbs to other common conventions that are beneath a movie of its quality. For example, each time King Philip is shown in his castle, or Mary Stuart, the sets are dark and gloomy, and the music ominous and unsettling. Meanwhile, Elizabeth’s castle is bathed in sunbeams, moon dreams, dancing beans and a charismatic Clive Owen (which is funny considering that a movie about King Philip would place Elizabeth I in villainous environs).
As for the rating, PG-13 is a little gracious because the blood, violence, and torture scenes rapidly approach the subjective “R” status, especially when joined with mild sexuality and brief nudity.
In the end, the movie is worth seeing solely on the merits of Cate Blanchett’s performance. She is the foremost actress of her generation, the queen, indeed. None can rival her. Her stormy delivery of the “I have a hurricane in me ... “ line, shown in the trailer, literally floods me with chills each time I experience it.
And if you want to know just how talented Cate Blanchett is, look at her range by watching “The Golden Age,” then “The Aviator” (2004) and “Bandits” (2001). Wow. She does Katharine Hepburn better than Katharine Hepburn did Katharine Hepburn. A rose is a rose is a rose, but Cate can be anything she wants.
Directed by Shekhar Kapur
Cate Blanchett / Geoffrey Rush / Clive Owen
114 min. Drama / History
MPPA: PG-13 (for violence, some sexuality and nudity)
Copyright 2007. 201
O Masterpiece (100)
O Excellent (75-99)
X Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / October 22, 2007
In 1998, Shekhar Kapur directed “Elizabeth,” a film that depicts the so-called “Virgin Queen,” Elizabeth I’s (Cate Blanchett) turbulent inheritance of the throne of England, and her necessarily rapid learning curve.
During the course of the movie, which covers the first five years of her reign, we see an idealistic, young woman who is transformed into a mighty monarch.
Nearly a decade later, Kapur reassembles Blanchett and Geoffrey Rush again for “Elizabeth: The Golden Age”; and despite its continuation of superb performances and spectacular sets and costumes, alas, this new film falls prey to the sequel curse, which simply means “it’s not as good as the first one.”
This is why: In the first film, suspense and intrigue prevail because Elizabeth’s deadly enemies surrounded the unseasoned queen within her perilous palace. But in “The Golden Age,” the experienced monarch’s most fearsome threat, King Philip II of Spain, and his looming naval warfare, all seem afar off and less threatening ... probably because he is far off and therefore, less threatening.
Instead, this film is concerned with paying close attention to Elizabeth’s loneliness, and her fascination with the rugged adventurer-explorer Walter Raleigh (Clive Owen). While the first film held true to its artistic merit, “The Golden Age” gives us the old reliable: a love story and battle scenes.
“The Golden Age” also succumbs to other common conventions that are beneath a movie of its quality. For example, each time King Philip is shown in his castle, or Mary Stuart, the sets are dark and gloomy, and the music ominous and unsettling. Meanwhile, Elizabeth’s castle is bathed in sunbeams, moon dreams, dancing beans and a charismatic Clive Owen (which is funny considering that a movie about King Philip would place Elizabeth I in villainous environs).
As for the rating, PG-13 is a little gracious because the blood, violence, and torture scenes rapidly approach the subjective “R” status, especially when joined with mild sexuality and brief nudity.
In the end, the movie is worth seeing solely on the merits of Cate Blanchett’s performance. She is the foremost actress of her generation, the queen, indeed. None can rival her. Her stormy delivery of the “I have a hurricane in me ... “ line, shown in the trailer, literally floods me with chills each time I experience it.
And if you want to know just how talented Cate Blanchett is, look at her range by watching “The Golden Age,” then “The Aviator” (2004) and “Bandits” (2001). Wow. She does Katharine Hepburn better than Katharine Hepburn did Katharine Hepburn. A rose is a rose is a rose, but Cate can be anything she wants.
Directed by Shekhar Kapur
Cate Blanchett / Geoffrey Rush / Clive Owen
114 min. Drama / History
MPPA: PG-13 (for violence, some sexuality and nudity)
Copyright 2007. 201
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
The Heartbreak Kid (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 30
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
X Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / October 10, 2007
Based on an innocent 1972 film by the same name, the Farrelly brothers’ remake of “The Heartbreak Kid” twists its ideal premise (meeting Miss Right after marrying Miss Wrong) into sordid, romantic comedy squalor.
Something terribly upsetting is happening with so-called romantic comedies these days. They have degenerated, like inbred anteaters, into grotesqueries such as “Knocked Up” and “Good Luck Chuck.” Note to guys: These movies are not what your sweethearts have in mind when they say they want to see a “chick flick.”
For your convenience, the following are good choices for romantic dates: “Becoming Jane,” “The Lake House,” “Waitress” and “No Reservations.”
It’s not that “The Heartbreak Kid” doesn’t have some funny parts, because it does, especially if you enjoy an exasperated Ben Stiller’s “anger humor.” But when a movie’s message seems to be, “Don’t get married; and if you do make that mistake, leave your spouse for someone that you like better whenever the goin’ gets tough,” it quickly becomes disheartening. Can you see why this might not make a good date movie?
Eddie Cantrow (Ben Stiller) is a single man in San Francisco who’s getting older and feeling pressure to settle down. His old flame is getting married. Eddie’s vile father (Jerry Stiller) harasses him with even viler words about his “deficit of nighttime companionship.” And his best friend (whose marriage is horrifying) unconvincingly pushes him to experience the joys of a nuptial union.
At about this time, Eddie meets Lila (Malin Akerman). She seems like the perfect gal. So, after a brief courtship and intense prodding from his cohorts, Eddie marries Lila, a woman he hardly knows. As their honeymoon to Mexico begins, Eddie quickly learns revolting revelations about his new bride. But amid his increasing misery, he discovers Miranda (Michelle Monaghan), the one he should have married.
Aside from its thematic moral offenses that won’t offend everyone, where “The Heartbreak Kid” derails, killing goats, kittens and small children, is when we’re shown not one but two graphic glimpses of Lila’s alarming, aberrant bedroom behavior. These scenes single-handedly ruin the movie, for they are neither comedic nor romantic; they forsake this genre and would be more at home in an explicit horror film or some NC-17 piece of trash.
Were it not for these scenes, “The Heartbreak Kid” would be decent. But even its underlying messages would be unsettling to those who have “traditional, middle-American values.”
Despite this lapse, the Farrelly brothers have a talent for comedy, even romantic comedy. Their movie, “Fever Pitch,” one of the best comedies of 2005, should not be forgotten. Indeed, it can be added to the favorable, heartwarming, humorous date movies listed above, outshining the likes of “The Heartbreak Kid” in its dismal dregs below.
Directed by Bobby and Peter Farrelly
Ben Stiller / Michelle Monaghan / Malin Akerman
115 min. Comedy / Romance
MPAA: R (for strong sexual content, crude humor and language)
Copyright 2007. 196
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
X Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / October 10, 2007
Based on an innocent 1972 film by the same name, the Farrelly brothers’ remake of “The Heartbreak Kid” twists its ideal premise (meeting Miss Right after marrying Miss Wrong) into sordid, romantic comedy squalor.
Something terribly upsetting is happening with so-called romantic comedies these days. They have degenerated, like inbred anteaters, into grotesqueries such as “Knocked Up” and “Good Luck Chuck.” Note to guys: These movies are not what your sweethearts have in mind when they say they want to see a “chick flick.”
For your convenience, the following are good choices for romantic dates: “Becoming Jane,” “The Lake House,” “Waitress” and “No Reservations.”
It’s not that “The Heartbreak Kid” doesn’t have some funny parts, because it does, especially if you enjoy an exasperated Ben Stiller’s “anger humor.” But when a movie’s message seems to be, “Don’t get married; and if you do make that mistake, leave your spouse for someone that you like better whenever the goin’ gets tough,” it quickly becomes disheartening. Can you see why this might not make a good date movie?
Eddie Cantrow (Ben Stiller) is a single man in San Francisco who’s getting older and feeling pressure to settle down. His old flame is getting married. Eddie’s vile father (Jerry Stiller) harasses him with even viler words about his “deficit of nighttime companionship.” And his best friend (whose marriage is horrifying) unconvincingly pushes him to experience the joys of a nuptial union.
At about this time, Eddie meets Lila (Malin Akerman). She seems like the perfect gal. So, after a brief courtship and intense prodding from his cohorts, Eddie marries Lila, a woman he hardly knows. As their honeymoon to Mexico begins, Eddie quickly learns revolting revelations about his new bride. But amid his increasing misery, he discovers Miranda (Michelle Monaghan), the one he should have married.
Aside from its thematic moral offenses that won’t offend everyone, where “The Heartbreak Kid” derails, killing goats, kittens and small children, is when we’re shown not one but two graphic glimpses of Lila’s alarming, aberrant bedroom behavior. These scenes single-handedly ruin the movie, for they are neither comedic nor romantic; they forsake this genre and would be more at home in an explicit horror film or some NC-17 piece of trash.
Were it not for these scenes, “The Heartbreak Kid” would be decent. But even its underlying messages would be unsettling to those who have “traditional, middle-American values.”
Despite this lapse, the Farrelly brothers have a talent for comedy, even romantic comedy. Their movie, “Fever Pitch,” one of the best comedies of 2005, should not be forgotten. Indeed, it can be added to the favorable, heartwarming, humorous date movies listed above, outshining the likes of “The Heartbreak Kid” in its dismal dregs below.
Directed by Bobby and Peter Farrelly
Ben Stiller / Michelle Monaghan / Malin Akerman
115 min. Comedy / Romance
MPAA: R (for strong sexual content, crude humor and language)
Copyright 2007. 196
Resident Evil: Extinction (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 55
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
O Rental (60-74)
X OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / October 10, 2007
“Resident Evil: Extinction” is the third installment of a video game-gone-movie series; and like the first two releases, it’s a zombie movie. If you haven’t seen either of the previous “Resident Evil” flicks, think “Lara Croft: Tomb Raider” meets “Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome” meets “28 Weeks Later” (2007).
Now think about what better movies you can go see, instead.
Are zombie movies fun? Yes. Why? For the same reasons that it’s fun for little kids to spread a blanket on the floor and pretend it’s a raft floating on lava. Or, the same reason why, since the invention of the balloon, people like to play that dumb game where you can’t let the balloon touch the ground. We like the thrill of things that “should not” but eventually, inevitably will. Zombie movies thrill us because they work according to this same principle.
Of course, there are much better options for zombie movies, if that’s your thing. There are those intentionally mingled with comedy: “Shaun of the Dead” (2004). There are those that are actually scary and have little-to-no comedy: “28 Days Later” (2002). Then there are those that are better than the “Resident Evil” series, which nearly covers everything else, including the original and the remake of “Dawn of the Dead” (1978, 2004).
It’s not that “Extinction” is a bad movie. It’s fairly entertaining and funny, though the humor is probably, for the most part, unintentional. But the dialogue and the acting are more or less inexcusable. Some bad dialogue is quotable for its intrinsic mockery value, such as “I don’t like sand. It’s coarse and rough and irritating, and it gets everywhere. Not like here. Here, everything is soft and smooth” (“Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones”). Other bad dialogue is best left unrepeated.
The outbreak continues. The viral infection that left most of the Earth in withered ruins still plagues the barren landscape, which is primarily inhabited by roaming undead who love to feed on “un-undead” (regular humans) flesh. Alice (Milla Jovovich) wanders about in solitude, keeping on the move and scavenging the smaller ghost towns for fuel, just as the other survivors are wont to do.
Meanwhile, a caravan of virus-free, tough customers who have banded together (which include some of Alice’s old peeps), plan to find enough fuel to travel from the deserts of Utah and Nevada to Alaska, a possible place of uninfected refuge. And, of course, the corrupt, international Umbrella Corp. continues its experiments and mad-scientist testing, which makes the fleeing caravan’s ambition more difficult to realize.
Overall, “Resident Evil: Extinction” is more of the same and about what you’d expect: intermittent suspenseful moments, easily anticipated jolts and lots of gory, blood-splattering zombie killings. Ah, the evolution of American entertainment … it just keeps getting better and better.
Directed by Russell Mulcahy
Milla Jovovich / Oded Fehr / Iain Glen
95 min. Thriller / Horror
MPAA: R (for strong horror violence throughout and some nudity)
Copyright 2007. 195
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
O Rental (60-74)
X OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / October 10, 2007
“Resident Evil: Extinction” is the third installment of a video game-gone-movie series; and like the first two releases, it’s a zombie movie. If you haven’t seen either of the previous “Resident Evil” flicks, think “Lara Croft: Tomb Raider” meets “Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome” meets “28 Weeks Later” (2007).
Now think about what better movies you can go see, instead.
Are zombie movies fun? Yes. Why? For the same reasons that it’s fun for little kids to spread a blanket on the floor and pretend it’s a raft floating on lava. Or, the same reason why, since the invention of the balloon, people like to play that dumb game where you can’t let the balloon touch the ground. We like the thrill of things that “should not” but eventually, inevitably will. Zombie movies thrill us because they work according to this same principle.
Of course, there are much better options for zombie movies, if that’s your thing. There are those intentionally mingled with comedy: “Shaun of the Dead” (2004). There are those that are actually scary and have little-to-no comedy: “28 Days Later” (2002). Then there are those that are better than the “Resident Evil” series, which nearly covers everything else, including the original and the remake of “Dawn of the Dead” (1978, 2004).
It’s not that “Extinction” is a bad movie. It’s fairly entertaining and funny, though the humor is probably, for the most part, unintentional. But the dialogue and the acting are more or less inexcusable. Some bad dialogue is quotable for its intrinsic mockery value, such as “I don’t like sand. It’s coarse and rough and irritating, and it gets everywhere. Not like here. Here, everything is soft and smooth” (“Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones”). Other bad dialogue is best left unrepeated.
The outbreak continues. The viral infection that left most of the Earth in withered ruins still plagues the barren landscape, which is primarily inhabited by roaming undead who love to feed on “un-undead” (regular humans) flesh. Alice (Milla Jovovich) wanders about in solitude, keeping on the move and scavenging the smaller ghost towns for fuel, just as the other survivors are wont to do.
Meanwhile, a caravan of virus-free, tough customers who have banded together (which include some of Alice’s old peeps), plan to find enough fuel to travel from the deserts of Utah and Nevada to Alaska, a possible place of uninfected refuge. And, of course, the corrupt, international Umbrella Corp. continues its experiments and mad-scientist testing, which makes the fleeing caravan’s ambition more difficult to realize.
Overall, “Resident Evil: Extinction” is more of the same and about what you’d expect: intermittent suspenseful moments, easily anticipated jolts and lots of gory, blood-splattering zombie killings. Ah, the evolution of American entertainment … it just keeps getting better and better.
Directed by Russell Mulcahy
Milla Jovovich / Oded Fehr / Iain Glen
95 min. Thriller / Horror
MPAA: R (for strong horror violence throughout and some nudity)
Copyright 2007. 195
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Across the Universe (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 75
O Masterpiece (95-100)
X Excellent (75-94)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / October 4, 2007
The following people will cherish the new Beatles-song musical, “Across the Universe”: those who love the Silver Beetles, those who watch for the synchronicity of “The Wizard of Oz” and Pink Floyd's “Dark Side of the Moon,” those who relish “Tommy” (1975) and “The Wall” (1982), those who risk eating Pop Rocks with soda, and those who do drugs.
Don't do drugs.
Not only has this been "The Summer of 'Suck-quels,'" (“Bourne” and “Ocean’s” excluded), but summer 2007 also seems to be the comeback attempt for faded genres, such as the western (“3:10 to Yuma”) and the musical (“Hairspray”).
And though many musicals are like eggnog (a little goes a long way), “Across the Universe” showcases an artistic richness, particularly with its colorful production design, vibrant visual effects and soundtrack ... unlike eggnog.
Indeed, the music alone is worth the admission price, featuring more than 30, well-done Beatles cover tunes that play more like music videos than musical numbers. According to Amazon.com, the CD soundtrack has 16 of the 30-plus songs, which would be money well spent.
By the way, “Across the Universe” is rated PG-13, but conservative viewers will likely disagree with this rating due to more than one instance of "artistically depicted" nudity.
Much like the Broadway musical “Movin’ Out,” which further develops the storylines of characters in Billy Joel songs, “Across the Universe” creates a screenplay that loosely incorporates The Beatles' songs'characters and concepts into the story.
It is the 1960s and the Vietnam War is underway. Jude (Jim Sturgess) travels from Liverpool, England to Princeton, N.J. to meet someone who played a significant, rather enjoyable role in his past. During his visit, Jude encounters Max (Joe Anderson) and his sister, Lucy (Evan Rachel Wood).
The siblings become fast friends with Jude, so they eventually end up living in New York City, meeting other characters with Beatles song names, such as JoJo and Prudence. Max receives an unlucky invitation. Lucy passionately protests the war, supplying unmistakable parallels to present-day arguments against the Iraq War. And Jude wanders amid the colorful mayhem, singing songs, looking sad and being British.
In truth, not very much happens in “Across the Universe,” especially considering its overlong 131-minute runtime. But Beatles freaks, even the purists, will enjoy the buried nuggets that nod to the knowledgeable fans who, like Maxwell, are "silver hammer men" (or women).
Addenda:
Speaking of the Piano Man, Billy Joel himself will be performing at Salt Lake's EnergySolutions Arena Nov. 29. And, you can find out why Pop Rocks pop, the candy's history and other need-to-knowinfo at www.poprockscandy.com
Directed by Julie Taymor
Jim Sturgess / Evan Rachel Wood / Joe Anderson
131 min. Musical / Drama
MPAA: PG-13 (for drug content, nudity, sexuality, violence and language)
Copyright 2007. 194
O Masterpiece (95-100)
X Excellent (75-94)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / October 4, 2007
The following people will cherish the new Beatles-song musical, “Across the Universe”: those who love the Silver Beetles, those who watch for the synchronicity of “The Wizard of Oz” and Pink Floyd's “Dark Side of the Moon,” those who relish “Tommy” (1975) and “The Wall” (1982), those who risk eating Pop Rocks with soda, and those who do drugs.
Don't do drugs.
Not only has this been "The Summer of 'Suck-quels,'" (“Bourne” and “Ocean’s” excluded), but summer 2007 also seems to be the comeback attempt for faded genres, such as the western (“3:10 to Yuma”) and the musical (“Hairspray”).
And though many musicals are like eggnog (a little goes a long way), “Across the Universe” showcases an artistic richness, particularly with its colorful production design, vibrant visual effects and soundtrack ... unlike eggnog.
Indeed, the music alone is worth the admission price, featuring more than 30, well-done Beatles cover tunes that play more like music videos than musical numbers. According to Amazon.com, the CD soundtrack has 16 of the 30-plus songs, which would be money well spent.
By the way, “Across the Universe” is rated PG-13, but conservative viewers will likely disagree with this rating due to more than one instance of "artistically depicted" nudity.
Much like the Broadway musical “Movin’ Out,” which further develops the storylines of characters in Billy Joel songs, “Across the Universe” creates a screenplay that loosely incorporates The Beatles' songs'characters and concepts into the story.
It is the 1960s and the Vietnam War is underway. Jude (Jim Sturgess) travels from Liverpool, England to Princeton, N.J. to meet someone who played a significant, rather enjoyable role in his past. During his visit, Jude encounters Max (Joe Anderson) and his sister, Lucy (Evan Rachel Wood).
The siblings become fast friends with Jude, so they eventually end up living in New York City, meeting other characters with Beatles song names, such as JoJo and Prudence. Max receives an unlucky invitation. Lucy passionately protests the war, supplying unmistakable parallels to present-day arguments against the Iraq War. And Jude wanders amid the colorful mayhem, singing songs, looking sad and being British.
In truth, not very much happens in “Across the Universe,” especially considering its overlong 131-minute runtime. But Beatles freaks, even the purists, will enjoy the buried nuggets that nod to the knowledgeable fans who, like Maxwell, are "silver hammer men" (or women).
Addenda:
Speaking of the Piano Man, Billy Joel himself will be performing at Salt Lake's EnergySolutions Arena Nov. 29. And, you can find out why Pop Rocks pop, the candy's history and other need-to-knowinfo at www.poprockscandy.com
Directed by Julie Taymor
Jim Sturgess / Evan Rachel Wood / Joe Anderson
131 min. Musical / Drama
MPAA: PG-13 (for drug content, nudity, sexuality, violence and language)
Copyright 2007. 194
The Kingdom (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 94
O Masterpiece (95-100)
X Excellent (75-94)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / October 4, 2007
“The Kingdom” may very well end up being the best movie of the year. It achieves many uncommon feats within the context of one film, which means that it is an effective action film, an effective drama and an effective thriller. Also, “The Kingdom” has poignant moments where it resonates with strong, emotional points that are minimally preachy. And, I might add, the acting is excellent, too, which is often uncharacteristic of the action genre.
The movie’s title refers to “the kingdom of Saudi Arabia” (a phrase used in the movie), which is where terrorists attack an idyllic picnic and softball game at an American compound. The victims include men, women and child of all ages. These images of horror, though shocking, are only part of the most horrifying elements in the movie.
Immediately, the FBI desires to visit Saudi Arabia and investigate the crime scene. But, of course, we are subjected to the frustrating moments of red tape, delicate diplomatic considerations and so forth. When a special, four-member, Evidence Response team is dispatched, there is a lengthy portion establishing the extreme differences in culture, including varying investigative practices and attitudes toward women.
Much of the plot is a police procedural, which has been equated with “CSI” (but is, in fact, not quite as extensive). We follow the team’s leader, Ron Fleury (Jamie Foxx), and his crew played by Chris Cooper, Jennifer Garner and Jason Bateman. The four actors work well together, and their camaraderie is credible. Perhaps the best performance, however, comes from the team’s friend and guide, Colonel Al Ghazi (Ashraf Barhom), a family man who doesn’t like profanity.
You’ve probably seen director Peter Berg’s work before: “Friday Night Lights” (2004), “The Rundown” (2003) and “Very Bad Things” (1998). But “The Kingdom” is his best. It seems real, like we’re watching a documentary. And thankfully, unlike other action flicks, there aren’t painful one-liners blurted in the midst of intense action, a sure-fire way to incorporate artificiality at the cost of a laugh.
“The Kingdom” is meant to entertain, but I suspect that this purpose is secondary. I’m guessing that this film is meant to be eye opening. This moment happened for me when we get to see some of the little, unpleasant surprises the terrorists include while building their bombs, namely marbles and nails. Absolutely chilling.
While watching “The Kingdom,” I had the most troublesome feeling: I literally felt dread come over me because I was worried about some radical extremist blowing up the theater. In addition to my tangible uneasiness, this also filled me with sadness. Naturally, experiencing a well-executed movie like “The Kingdom” might make anyone leery; but beyond that, I couldn’t help but feel that after six years, the chill of terrorism has sunk into my bones.
Directed by Peter Berg
Jamie Foxx / Chris Cooper / Jennifer Garner
110 min. Action / Drama
MPAA: R (for intense sequences of graphic brutal violence, and for language)
Copyright 2007. 193
O Masterpiece (95-100)
X Excellent (75-94)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / October 4, 2007
“The Kingdom” may very well end up being the best movie of the year. It achieves many uncommon feats within the context of one film, which means that it is an effective action film, an effective drama and an effective thriller. Also, “The Kingdom” has poignant moments where it resonates with strong, emotional points that are minimally preachy. And, I might add, the acting is excellent, too, which is often uncharacteristic of the action genre.
The movie’s title refers to “the kingdom of Saudi Arabia” (a phrase used in the movie), which is where terrorists attack an idyllic picnic and softball game at an American compound. The victims include men, women and child of all ages. These images of horror, though shocking, are only part of the most horrifying elements in the movie.
Immediately, the FBI desires to visit Saudi Arabia and investigate the crime scene. But, of course, we are subjected to the frustrating moments of red tape, delicate diplomatic considerations and so forth. When a special, four-member, Evidence Response team is dispatched, there is a lengthy portion establishing the extreme differences in culture, including varying investigative practices and attitudes toward women.
Much of the plot is a police procedural, which has been equated with “CSI” (but is, in fact, not quite as extensive). We follow the team’s leader, Ron Fleury (Jamie Foxx), and his crew played by Chris Cooper, Jennifer Garner and Jason Bateman. The four actors work well together, and their camaraderie is credible. Perhaps the best performance, however, comes from the team’s friend and guide, Colonel Al Ghazi (Ashraf Barhom), a family man who doesn’t like profanity.
You’ve probably seen director Peter Berg’s work before: “Friday Night Lights” (2004), “The Rundown” (2003) and “Very Bad Things” (1998). But “The Kingdom” is his best. It seems real, like we’re watching a documentary. And thankfully, unlike other action flicks, there aren’t painful one-liners blurted in the midst of intense action, a sure-fire way to incorporate artificiality at the cost of a laugh.
“The Kingdom” is meant to entertain, but I suspect that this purpose is secondary. I’m guessing that this film is meant to be eye opening. This moment happened for me when we get to see some of the little, unpleasant surprises the terrorists include while building their bombs, namely marbles and nails. Absolutely chilling.
While watching “The Kingdom,” I had the most troublesome feeling: I literally felt dread come over me because I was worried about some radical extremist blowing up the theater. In addition to my tangible uneasiness, this also filled me with sadness. Naturally, experiencing a well-executed movie like “The Kingdom” might make anyone leery; but beyond that, I couldn’t help but feel that after six years, the chill of terrorism has sunk into my bones.
Directed by Peter Berg
Jamie Foxx / Chris Cooper / Jennifer Garner
110 min. Action / Drama
MPAA: R (for intense sequences of graphic brutal violence, and for language)
Copyright 2007. 193
Friday, September 28, 2007
Mr. Woodcock (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 58
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
O Rental (60-74)
X OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / September 28, 2007
If you look on the wrappers of Hershey’s chocolate bars this fall, you’ll see a photo of country music star Brad Paisley. This is a strange sight for me. I grew up in West Virginia and attended John Marshall High School in Glen Dale, which is the same small town where Brad Paisley grew up and the high school he attended.
Though I never knew him, as he is a couple years older than I am, the locals say that he was introverted and quiet. Now he is rich and famous and married to Kimberly Williams, the bride from “Father of the Bride” (1991). Their connection is a remarkable story for another time and another review; faithful readers will encounter it someday.
In April of 2002, Paisley came back to our mutual stomping grounds and played “An Evening Back Home” concert (which was spectacular). I remember, while driving up to the concert, seeing a gigantic stretch limo headed for his parents’ home to pick them up. The capacity crowd in the Wheeling Civic Center roared, cheering for our hometown boy who made it big and become a hero. And he still is.
Similarly, John Farley (Seann William Scott) was a nobody from the small town of Forest Meadow, Nebraska, but he grew up and became the famous, inspirational, self-help book author of “Letting Go: How to Get Past Your Past.”
Apparently, Farley had a lot to let go of. He was traumatized as a middle school kid by an abusively demanding gym teacher, Mr. Woodcock (Billy Bob Thornton), and Farley’s father died leaving him and his widowed mother alone.
Farley is invited to receive the honorable “Corn Cob Key to the City,” so the celebrity writer returns home to a hero’s welcome, much like Braid Paisley. But to his horror, his sweet, single mother (Susan Sarandon) has begun dating the dreaded Mr. Woodcock.
This strain between the positive-thinking, self-help guru and the aggressive, critical Phys. Ed. teacher is the main conflict and supposed source of humor. And, at times, it is somewhat funny. Those times are few.
But as the movie progresses, “Mr. Woodcock” becomes remarkably similar to “Meet the Parents” (2000), especially the Robert DeNiro--Ben Stiller battle. In fact, the big, revelatory blow-up scene from “Meet the Parents” is echoed with precision in “Mr. Woodcock.” That being noted, if you have seen neither movie, “Meet the Parents” is far superior. But in both cases, you have a basically good guy who has everything go wrong for him.
I expected “Mr. Woodcock” to be much worse, as far as lewd content, considering its title and Billy Bob Thornton’s presence (“Bad Santa,” 2003). But surprisingly, it isn’t quite as crude and crass as I had feared, though its PG-13 rating is deserved, every whit.
Overall, “Mr. Woodcock” gains momentum, providing a couple chuckles later in the film, but it’s nothing to write home about. In other words, this movie isn’t going to earn director Craig Gillespie the same kind of warm welcome-home celebration that Brad Paisley receives.
Directed by Craig Gillespie
Billy Bob Thornton / Seann William Scott / Susan Sarandon
87 min. Comedy
MPAA: PG-13 (for crude sexual content, thematic material, language and a mild drug reference)
Copyright 2007. 191
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
O Rental (60-74)
X OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / September 28, 2007
If you look on the wrappers of Hershey’s chocolate bars this fall, you’ll see a photo of country music star Brad Paisley. This is a strange sight for me. I grew up in West Virginia and attended John Marshall High School in Glen Dale, which is the same small town where Brad Paisley grew up and the high school he attended.
Though I never knew him, as he is a couple years older than I am, the locals say that he was introverted and quiet. Now he is rich and famous and married to Kimberly Williams, the bride from “Father of the Bride” (1991). Their connection is a remarkable story for another time and another review; faithful readers will encounter it someday.
In April of 2002, Paisley came back to our mutual stomping grounds and played “An Evening Back Home” concert (which was spectacular). I remember, while driving up to the concert, seeing a gigantic stretch limo headed for his parents’ home to pick them up. The capacity crowd in the Wheeling Civic Center roared, cheering for our hometown boy who made it big and become a hero. And he still is.
Similarly, John Farley (Seann William Scott) was a nobody from the small town of Forest Meadow, Nebraska, but he grew up and became the famous, inspirational, self-help book author of “Letting Go: How to Get Past Your Past.”
Apparently, Farley had a lot to let go of. He was traumatized as a middle school kid by an abusively demanding gym teacher, Mr. Woodcock (Billy Bob Thornton), and Farley’s father died leaving him and his widowed mother alone.
Farley is invited to receive the honorable “Corn Cob Key to the City,” so the celebrity writer returns home to a hero’s welcome, much like Braid Paisley. But to his horror, his sweet, single mother (Susan Sarandon) has begun dating the dreaded Mr. Woodcock.
This strain between the positive-thinking, self-help guru and the aggressive, critical Phys. Ed. teacher is the main conflict and supposed source of humor. And, at times, it is somewhat funny. Those times are few.
But as the movie progresses, “Mr. Woodcock” becomes remarkably similar to “Meet the Parents” (2000), especially the Robert DeNiro--Ben Stiller battle. In fact, the big, revelatory blow-up scene from “Meet the Parents” is echoed with precision in “Mr. Woodcock.” That being noted, if you have seen neither movie, “Meet the Parents” is far superior. But in both cases, you have a basically good guy who has everything go wrong for him.
I expected “Mr. Woodcock” to be much worse, as far as lewd content, considering its title and Billy Bob Thornton’s presence (“Bad Santa,” 2003). But surprisingly, it isn’t quite as crude and crass as I had feared, though its PG-13 rating is deserved, every whit.
Overall, “Mr. Woodcock” gains momentum, providing a couple chuckles later in the film, but it’s nothing to write home about. In other words, this movie isn’t going to earn director Craig Gillespie the same kind of warm welcome-home celebration that Brad Paisley receives.
Directed by Craig Gillespie
Billy Bob Thornton / Seann William Scott / Susan Sarandon
87 min. Comedy
MPAA: PG-13 (for crude sexual content, thematic material, language and a mild drug reference)
Copyright 2007. 191
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Eastern Promises (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 90
O Masterpiece (95-100)
X Excellent (75-94)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / September 27, 2007
“Eastern Promises” is an uncomfortably uneasy film. Watching it is like walking through a minefield. This is the kind of movie where you don’t feel safe, even though you know you’re seated in a cushy theater chair.
But don’t misunderstand me: It’s not that “Eastern Promises” is overly suspenseful; that’s not it. The reason this movie is excellent is its characters are so diabolical, we squirm with anxiety about what they might do next. Indeed, there are several loose cannons rolling around on board this ship.
If you’re a Mafia movie fan, as I am, then you’ll be familiar with Joe Pesci’s explosive roles, such as his Tommy DeVito in “Goodfellas” (1990). But “Eastern Promises” has similar (but less flamboyant) nut-jobs who are sleeping tigers, and Naomi Watts’ character repeatedly kicks them.
Anna (Naomi Watts) works in a hospital in London. One of her less fortunate patients has to deliver her baby early, due to hemorrhaging. The tiny child is orphaned at birth. But Anna finds the mother’s diary, which recounts her dark, dreary days. The journal’s contents, written in Russian, are potentially deadly.
Also inhabiting London are some members of the Vory V Zakone (the Russian Mafia). Semyon (Armin Mueller-Stahl) is a wealthy restaurateur with an emotionally unstable son, Kirill (Vincent Cassel, “Ocean’s 12”). They employ the fearsome Siberian named Nikolai (Viggo Mortensen) who coyly claims that’s he’s “just a driver,” but we know (and fear) that he’s so much more.
In true Mafia fashion, these three are capable of anything — especially any unthinkable thing. And Anna, incapable of apathy, insists on having the dangerous diary translated in hopes of finding out whom the baby should belong to.
Now, if you doubt whether Viggo Mortensen could ever pull off “frightening” and a convincing Russian accent, all at the same time, then you’re dead wrong. His performance, mark my words, is Oscar-nomination worthy.
“Eastern Promises” is an exceptional film. It is also gruesome and graphic. This movie isn’t your grandpa’s Mafia, in the vein of the 1930s gangster pictures. “Eastern Promises” has the same grit as a Scorsese film: atmospheric, moody, horrifying and wonderful.
Directed by David Cronenberg
Naomi Watts / Viggo Mortensen / Vincent Cassel
100 min. Thriller / Crime
MPAA: R (for strong brutal and bloody violence, some graphic sexuality, language and nudity)
Copyright 2007. 189
O Masterpiece (95-100)
X Excellent (75-94)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / September 27, 2007
“Eastern Promises” is an uncomfortably uneasy film. Watching it is like walking through a minefield. This is the kind of movie where you don’t feel safe, even though you know you’re seated in a cushy theater chair.
But don’t misunderstand me: It’s not that “Eastern Promises” is overly suspenseful; that’s not it. The reason this movie is excellent is its characters are so diabolical, we squirm with anxiety about what they might do next. Indeed, there are several loose cannons rolling around on board this ship.
If you’re a Mafia movie fan, as I am, then you’ll be familiar with Joe Pesci’s explosive roles, such as his Tommy DeVito in “Goodfellas” (1990). But “Eastern Promises” has similar (but less flamboyant) nut-jobs who are sleeping tigers, and Naomi Watts’ character repeatedly kicks them.
Anna (Naomi Watts) works in a hospital in London. One of her less fortunate patients has to deliver her baby early, due to hemorrhaging. The tiny child is orphaned at birth. But Anna finds the mother’s diary, which recounts her dark, dreary days. The journal’s contents, written in Russian, are potentially deadly.
Also inhabiting London are some members of the Vory V Zakone (the Russian Mafia). Semyon (Armin Mueller-Stahl) is a wealthy restaurateur with an emotionally unstable son, Kirill (Vincent Cassel, “Ocean’s 12”). They employ the fearsome Siberian named Nikolai (Viggo Mortensen) who coyly claims that’s he’s “just a driver,” but we know (and fear) that he’s so much more.
In true Mafia fashion, these three are capable of anything — especially any unthinkable thing. And Anna, incapable of apathy, insists on having the dangerous diary translated in hopes of finding out whom the baby should belong to.
Now, if you doubt whether Viggo Mortensen could ever pull off “frightening” and a convincing Russian accent, all at the same time, then you’re dead wrong. His performance, mark my words, is Oscar-nomination worthy.
“Eastern Promises” is an exceptional film. It is also gruesome and graphic. This movie isn’t your grandpa’s Mafia, in the vein of the 1930s gangster pictures. “Eastern Promises” has the same grit as a Scorsese film: atmospheric, moody, horrifying and wonderful.
Directed by David Cronenberg
Naomi Watts / Viggo Mortensen / Vincent Cassel
100 min. Thriller / Crime
MPAA: R (for strong brutal and bloody violence, some graphic sexuality, language and nudity)
Copyright 2007. 189
The Brave One (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 75
O Masterpiece (95-100)
X Excellent (75-94)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / September 27, 2007
Not to be confused with the 1957 film called "The Brave One," which is about a Mexican boy and his bull, this brave one essentially refers to a female superhero (minus the super powers), much like Batman, who becomes a vigilante by taking the law into her own hands. And just like many other superhero stories, the villains create their monstrous tormentor.
And though it has been getting mixed reviews, this critic is here to tell you that this flick "delivers the goods," which is to say, it gives us exactly what we want. Without question, "The Brave One" manipulates us with Hollywood conventions and unlikely occurrences, but it's a good time nonetheless.
I noted that Jodie Foster's character, Erica Bain, evokes the same torn feelings within us that Michael Douglas' William Foster makes us feel in "Falling Down" (1993), another vigilante flick where a regular person goes berserk, lashing out at the evil people of the world. At first, we enjoy this to the point of amusement. But as the afflicted one spins out of control, we begin to cringe and grow concerned.
Erica Bain walks the city with a microphone, recording its organic and inorganic, auditory wonders. She uses these recordings as the ambient backdrop for her radio talk show, "Streetwalk." Bain is deeply in love and unofficially engaged to David (Naveen Andrews, "L O S T"). The wedding invitations have already been ordered.
One fateful night, the two inexplicably enjoy a streetwalk through Central park … again, at night. They are attacked and while she is merely brutally beaten, David is killed. Be warned, this scene is terribly unsettling, especially if you're the type of viewers who identifies with the characters.
As she recovers weeks later, still sore with fear, she purchases a gun and learns how to use it. The rest of the movie depicts Bain's bitterness, enjoyment and guilt while she administers swift justice to the scum of New York. One of the film's great strength's is Bain's initial weakness: She isn't automatically a Rambo; instead, she is awkward, unsure and fumbling while mastering her firearm.
"Disturbing" movies used to be my favorite kind of films. But the older I get, the harder they are to take. "The Brave One" is remarkably relentless and fairly graphic, particularly the upsetting attack scene that serves as the inciting incident.
Interestingly, to help us maintain our support of Erica's onslaught, the filmmakers give us repeated, brief flashbacks to that horrid event, so we can stay angry and justify her actions, a theme that's reinforced and carried throughout the film.
Despite the contrivance, "The Brave One" is solid, if some suspension of disbelief is allowed. We see other recurring themes, too, such as dominant female characters, various forms of recording the events of the city and the moral wrestle between doing what's right and doing what needs to be done.
Directed by Neil Jordan
Jodie Foster / Terrence Howard / Naveen Andrews
119 min. Drama / Thriller
MPAA: R (for strong violence, language and some sexuality)
Copyright 2007. 191
O Masterpiece (95-100)
X Excellent (75-94)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / September 27, 2007
Not to be confused with the 1957 film called "The Brave One," which is about a Mexican boy and his bull, this brave one essentially refers to a female superhero (minus the super powers), much like Batman, who becomes a vigilante by taking the law into her own hands. And just like many other superhero stories, the villains create their monstrous tormentor.
And though it has been getting mixed reviews, this critic is here to tell you that this flick "delivers the goods," which is to say, it gives us exactly what we want. Without question, "The Brave One" manipulates us with Hollywood conventions and unlikely occurrences, but it's a good time nonetheless.
I noted that Jodie Foster's character, Erica Bain, evokes the same torn feelings within us that Michael Douglas' William Foster makes us feel in "Falling Down" (1993), another vigilante flick where a regular person goes berserk, lashing out at the evil people of the world. At first, we enjoy this to the point of amusement. But as the afflicted one spins out of control, we begin to cringe and grow concerned.
Erica Bain walks the city with a microphone, recording its organic and inorganic, auditory wonders. She uses these recordings as the ambient backdrop for her radio talk show, "Streetwalk." Bain is deeply in love and unofficially engaged to David (Naveen Andrews, "L O S T"). The wedding invitations have already been ordered.
One fateful night, the two inexplicably enjoy a streetwalk through Central park … again, at night. They are attacked and while she is merely brutally beaten, David is killed. Be warned, this scene is terribly unsettling, especially if you're the type of viewers who identifies with the characters.
As she recovers weeks later, still sore with fear, she purchases a gun and learns how to use it. The rest of the movie depicts Bain's bitterness, enjoyment and guilt while she administers swift justice to the scum of New York. One of the film's great strength's is Bain's initial weakness: She isn't automatically a Rambo; instead, she is awkward, unsure and fumbling while mastering her firearm.
"Disturbing" movies used to be my favorite kind of films. But the older I get, the harder they are to take. "The Brave One" is remarkably relentless and fairly graphic, particularly the upsetting attack scene that serves as the inciting incident.
Interestingly, to help us maintain our support of Erica's onslaught, the filmmakers give us repeated, brief flashbacks to that horrid event, so we can stay angry and justify her actions, a theme that's reinforced and carried throughout the film.
Despite the contrivance, "The Brave One" is solid, if some suspension of disbelief is allowed. We see other recurring themes, too, such as dominant female characters, various forms of recording the events of the city and the moral wrestle between doing what's right and doing what needs to be done.
Directed by Neil Jordan
Jodie Foster / Terrence Howard / Naveen Andrews
119 min. Drama / Thriller
MPAA: R (for strong violence, language and some sexuality)
Copyright 2007. 191
D-War (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 48
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
X Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / September 27, 2007
Back when I played with toys, it was only on rare, brief occasions that I would dump out the entire toy box and mix action figures, battling and blending different worlds. Why were those moments only rare and brief? Because it was just weird, and I knew better.
So I ask, why didn’t Hyung-rae Shim, the writer and director of “D-War,” know better?
“D-War” is a conglomeration of multiple other, much more successful fantasy films, with a comic-book quality plot. Oddly, the story explaining the movie’s events, which is already weak, is weakened further by additional, extensively complicated, uninteresting background elements.
Yes, “D-War” blatantly rips off (and poorly, I might add) so many other movies, I’d rather just plagiarize and copy and paste someone else’s review than revisit it by continuing to tell you about it.
Basically, if you’ve seen the droid-Gungan battle on Naboo in “The Phantom Menace” (1999), then you’ve already seen much of “D-War.” But I’m not talking about mere imitation, I’m speaking of potential copyright infringement. For instance, there are shields in “D-War” that you’ll recognize from “Phantom Menace.” And how about Phantom’s big creatures with big, round things strapped on their backs? “D-War” has those, too.
Do you remember seeing velociraptors in “Jurassic Park” (1993)? Because I remember seeing them in “D-War” (except they had wings). Oh, and remember the red-letter design for the CNN logo? “D-War” has the exact same design for its news station, CGNN. Why not simply use CNN, just as other movies do?
And another thing, let’s decide on a title. Although the IMDb.com lists this movie as “D-War,” the movie’s actual title screen reads: “D-War Dragon Wars.” That’s like writing my name “J-Pyle Jason Pyles”; it’s just redundant and repetitive. ... tee he. (Speaking of repetitive, the trailers make it seem like we will see a variety of beasts, but alas, there are only a few creatures repeatedly shown over and over.)
But, there are lots of martial artists. Yes, we go from a dinosaur-ish movie to a “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” (2000) meets “Shogun” (1980) amalgam. These characters don’t really work, either; nor do they fit.
I’ll do my best with the plot (and I’m not making this up): Every 500 years a woman is born with the power to turn a serpent into a dragon. A good serpent called “Imoogi” must unite with “Yuh Yi Joo,” which is something formed in the golden girl’s body, and then the Imoogi snake can turn into a dragon and ascend into heaven. But, there’s an evil serpent called “Buraki,” who has the same goal as Imoogi, but he’s evil. So, the last time the chance came, it didn’t work out. Now, 500 years later, the time has come for this opportunity again. Meanwhile, while these giant serpents try to find the Yuh Yi Joo possessor, they and their cohorts wreak havoc on civilization. I’m pretty sure I got all of that description correct.
I’m being so hard on “D-War” because I believe it could have been much better. Why not just make a movie where, without any explanation, monsters attack cities? That’s what we want to see from a movie like this, not Ryu Hayabusha’s (Ninja Gaiden) dating woes. This movie’s special effects, at times, are marvelous and occasionally rival any big-budget blockbuster’s CGI. The creatures will look convincingly real in one scene, then very crude in the next.
Yeah, I might like this movie if I were still seven years old. But maybe not. After all, I still kept the action figure sets separate during play, even at that age. I suggest that Hyung-rae Shim put all his toys back in the toy box and just focus on choosing one movie title. After that, he can work on writing a good story and screenplay. And if all goes well, then maybe he can play with his dinosaurs or ninjas, but not both.
Directed by Hyung-rae Shim
Jason Behr / Amanda Brooks / Robert Forster
107 min. Fantasy / Action
MPAA: PG-13 (for intense sequences of violence and creature action)
Copyright 2007. 190
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
X Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / September 27, 2007
Back when I played with toys, it was only on rare, brief occasions that I would dump out the entire toy box and mix action figures, battling and blending different worlds. Why were those moments only rare and brief? Because it was just weird, and I knew better.
So I ask, why didn’t Hyung-rae Shim, the writer and director of “D-War,” know better?
“D-War” is a conglomeration of multiple other, much more successful fantasy films, with a comic-book quality plot. Oddly, the story explaining the movie’s events, which is already weak, is weakened further by additional, extensively complicated, uninteresting background elements.
Yes, “D-War” blatantly rips off (and poorly, I might add) so many other movies, I’d rather just plagiarize and copy and paste someone else’s review than revisit it by continuing to tell you about it.
Basically, if you’ve seen the droid-Gungan battle on Naboo in “The Phantom Menace” (1999), then you’ve already seen much of “D-War.” But I’m not talking about mere imitation, I’m speaking of potential copyright infringement. For instance, there are shields in “D-War” that you’ll recognize from “Phantom Menace.” And how about Phantom’s big creatures with big, round things strapped on their backs? “D-War” has those, too.
Do you remember seeing velociraptors in “Jurassic Park” (1993)? Because I remember seeing them in “D-War” (except they had wings). Oh, and remember the red-letter design for the CNN logo? “D-War” has the exact same design for its news station, CGNN. Why not simply use CNN, just as other movies do?
And another thing, let’s decide on a title. Although the IMDb.com lists this movie as “D-War,” the movie’s actual title screen reads: “D-War Dragon Wars.” That’s like writing my name “J-Pyle Jason Pyles”; it’s just redundant and repetitive. ... tee he. (Speaking of repetitive, the trailers make it seem like we will see a variety of beasts, but alas, there are only a few creatures repeatedly shown over and over.)
But, there are lots of martial artists. Yes, we go from a dinosaur-ish movie to a “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” (2000) meets “Shogun” (1980) amalgam. These characters don’t really work, either; nor do they fit.
I’ll do my best with the plot (and I’m not making this up): Every 500 years a woman is born with the power to turn a serpent into a dragon. A good serpent called “Imoogi” must unite with “Yuh Yi Joo,” which is something formed in the golden girl’s body, and then the Imoogi snake can turn into a dragon and ascend into heaven. But, there’s an evil serpent called “Buraki,” who has the same goal as Imoogi, but he’s evil. So, the last time the chance came, it didn’t work out. Now, 500 years later, the time has come for this opportunity again. Meanwhile, while these giant serpents try to find the Yuh Yi Joo possessor, they and their cohorts wreak havoc on civilization. I’m pretty sure I got all of that description correct.
I’m being so hard on “D-War” because I believe it could have been much better. Why not just make a movie where, without any explanation, monsters attack cities? That’s what we want to see from a movie like this, not Ryu Hayabusha’s (Ninja Gaiden) dating woes. This movie’s special effects, at times, are marvelous and occasionally rival any big-budget blockbuster’s CGI. The creatures will look convincingly real in one scene, then very crude in the next.
Yeah, I might like this movie if I were still seven years old. But maybe not. After all, I still kept the action figure sets separate during play, even at that age. I suggest that Hyung-rae Shim put all his toys back in the toy box and just focus on choosing one movie title. After that, he can work on writing a good story and screenplay. And if all goes well, then maybe he can play with his dinosaurs or ninjas, but not both.
Directed by Hyung-rae Shim
Jason Behr / Amanda Brooks / Robert Forster
107 min. Fantasy / Action
MPAA: PG-13 (for intense sequences of violence and creature action)
Copyright 2007. 190
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
