Overall rating from 1 to 100: 59
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
O Good video rental (60-74)
X Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don't watch (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / May 29, 2007
Note: If you haven’t seen “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest” (2006), then I recommend that you maintain your good fortune. Nevertheless, if you still plan to subject yourself to it, wait until you’ve seen that movie before reading this review.
This so-called “Summer of Sequels” is giving me a complex. I feel like such a critical, crotchety meanie. But “Spider-Man 3” and “Shrek the Third” were truly disappointing. And I must stand fast and hold true because I know what good movies are. Remember “Frequency,” for example?
Hollywood has chosen to reproduce its tried and true lucrative formulas. That’s fine, but let’s keep up the quality. These last two “Pirates” movies couldn’t touch the first one, even if you added them together. Trying to follow “Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End” feels like this: (Read with a pirate voice.)
I’m Skipper Bottson, and this is me matey, Melky Antigone. Years ago the curse of the Delphi yielded 14 of 13 magpies for the takin’. Arrrrgh. If we travel to RoShamBo via skeeter shoals, then we can claim their nettles and kirtlings and free the Santars. Savvy?
Are you ready to quit reading yet? Yeah, that’s what it’s like to watch “At World’s End.” Filming on this third installment reportedly began before the script was written. If this is true (and I believe it is), then that explains a lot. This movie appears to be one of those “let’s make it up as we go along” projects.
And what happened to Johnny Depp’s Captain Jack Sparrow character? To prove to you that even the filmmakers were aware of this deficiency, we are given scenes with multiple Captains Jack Sparrow to try to compensate — but to no avail.
This is my best possible attempt at a plot summary: Captain Jack Sparrow is still “beyond dead” in a mysterious underworld where his body and soul is taken to an eternal punishment. His rescue from there is a priority. Davy Jones (Bill Nighy) is still a menace, along with the Royal Fleet and the unscrupulous Lord Beckett (Tom Hollander). Elizabeth Swan (Keira Knightley) is becoming a much tougher (albeit less credible — not because she’s a woman, but because she never closes her mouth) pirate than Will Turner (Orlando Bloom). Both are estranged.
And basically all of the pirates team up to battle Davy Jones and the Royal Fleet, which gives us double-cross upon double-cross until we don’t care anymore.
But the box office profits already refute my review. Many fans will, too. Sure, it’s flashy, showy and has elements of fun, despite its long runtime. The special effects are impressive, as always, but that only redeems so much.
My wife’s condemning comment about the second movie of this trilogy was that it had “too many crustaceans.” Well, if that’s a scale for assessment then this movie is the worst of the three.
But to me, the only reason to see “At World’s End” (and this is why I consider it marginally better than “Dead Man’s Chest”), is to see more of Geoffrey Rush’s Captain Barbossa. Oh, and maybe “Jack,” the monkey.
The majority of moviegoers will probably like “At World’s End.” But I take comfort in knowing that it was also the majority who thought the world was flat; it’s ironic that this movie seems to believe these falsehoods, too.
Directed by Gore Verbinski
Johnny Depp / Geoffrey Rush / Keira Knightley
168 min. Action / Adventure
MPAA: PG-13 (for intense sequences of action/adventure violence and some frightening images)
Copyright 2007.
JP0119 : 517
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Waitress (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 72
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
X Good video rental (60-73)
O Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don’t watch (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / May 29, 2007
“Waitress” is a serious drama thinly disguised as a romantic comedy. This movie is simultaneously charming, funny and quite sad.
It reminded me of the ‘90s band, Toad the Wet Sprocket. Many of their songs sound upbeat and cheery until you listen closely to their weighty lyrics. “Waitress” serves us the same bittersweet messages in a fascinating, emotionally charged blend of external comedy and internal tragedy.
Jenna (Keri Russell) is a waitress at Joe’s Pie Diner, located in Mississippi. This forlorn waitress has one passion in life: baking pies. Inheriting her mother’s talents, Jenna can bake any kind of pie. Moreover, she creates many of her own culinary masterpieces, giving them peculiar, hyphenated names that pertain to her life’s current crises.
But Jenna has two major problems: She’s trapped in a marriage with an abusive husband whom she despises, and she’s pregnant with his baby. Jeremy Sisto plays her husband, Earl, a reprehensible maniac who fits the description of the doomed man described in the Dixie Chicks’ song, “Goodbye Earl.” Calling Earl “controlling” doesn’t even approach his dysfunction.
But Jenna has a support system, sort of. She has two, quirky waitress pals, an unlikely confidant in grumpy, old Joe (Andy Griffith), customer and owner of the restaurant, and best of all, a handsome obstetrician named Dr. Pomatter (Nathan Fillion). Despite their marital statuses, the doctor and patient toy with taking the relationship to “an unprofessional level.”
While watching, we, the audience, can feel that the couple’s love story and the forthcoming baby is a countdown to something more than just her water breaking. The tension builds, and we cringe and giggle with giddy anticipation. (Well, my wife did that — I don’t giggle or get giddy, let’s be honest.)
As I mentioned, watching “Waitress” is a unique experience. We laugh at these characters while we’re really feeling deep pity. In this way, “Waitress” is something special. It’s genuinely humorous, unusual and endearing. This is a definite date-night rental option, if not a matinee. But let me warn you: You’ll crave pie afterward.
Directed by Adrienne Shelly
Keri Russell / Nathan Fillion / Andy Griffith
107 min. Drama / Romance
MPAA: PG-13 (for sexual content, language and thematic elements)
Copyright 2007.
JP0101 : 341
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
X Good video rental (60-73)
O Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don’t watch (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / May 29, 2007
“Waitress” is a serious drama thinly disguised as a romantic comedy. This movie is simultaneously charming, funny and quite sad.
It reminded me of the ‘90s band, Toad the Wet Sprocket. Many of their songs sound upbeat and cheery until you listen closely to their weighty lyrics. “Waitress” serves us the same bittersweet messages in a fascinating, emotionally charged blend of external comedy and internal tragedy.
Jenna (Keri Russell) is a waitress at Joe’s Pie Diner, located in Mississippi. This forlorn waitress has one passion in life: baking pies. Inheriting her mother’s talents, Jenna can bake any kind of pie. Moreover, she creates many of her own culinary masterpieces, giving them peculiar, hyphenated names that pertain to her life’s current crises.
But Jenna has two major problems: She’s trapped in a marriage with an abusive husband whom she despises, and she’s pregnant with his baby. Jeremy Sisto plays her husband, Earl, a reprehensible maniac who fits the description of the doomed man described in the Dixie Chicks’ song, “Goodbye Earl.” Calling Earl “controlling” doesn’t even approach his dysfunction.
But Jenna has a support system, sort of. She has two, quirky waitress pals, an unlikely confidant in grumpy, old Joe (Andy Griffith), customer and owner of the restaurant, and best of all, a handsome obstetrician named Dr. Pomatter (Nathan Fillion). Despite their marital statuses, the doctor and patient toy with taking the relationship to “an unprofessional level.”
While watching, we, the audience, can feel that the couple’s love story and the forthcoming baby is a countdown to something more than just her water breaking. The tension builds, and we cringe and giggle with giddy anticipation. (Well, my wife did that — I don’t giggle or get giddy, let’s be honest.)
As I mentioned, watching “Waitress” is a unique experience. We laugh at these characters while we’re really feeling deep pity. In this way, “Waitress” is something special. It’s genuinely humorous, unusual and endearing. This is a definite date-night rental option, if not a matinee. But let me warn you: You’ll crave pie afterward.
Directed by Adrienne Shelly
Keri Russell / Nathan Fillion / Andy Griffith
107 min. Drama / Romance
MPAA: PG-13 (for sexual content, language and thematic elements)
Copyright 2007.
JP0101 : 341
Friday, May 18, 2007
Shrek the Third (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 73
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
X Good video rental (60-74)
O Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don’t watch (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / May 18, 2007
OK. That’s probably good. Yeah, that will just about do it, right there. We have three of them now; let’s stop making “Shrek” movies while we’re ahead. But will we? No. Hollywood will make 14 of these babies. I predict that “Shrek” will be the next “The Land Before Time” series. (There are seriously like 13 of those, and the 14th is probably coming out on video tomorrow.)
The true genius behind the “Shrek” trilogy is its celebration of pop culture. That’s why we love these movies. It abuses fairy tales and their characters with its pop references, and we revel in it. As with the first two installments, the jokes are delivered quickly and many of them are glimpsed peripherally, so be watchful.
“Shrek the Third” has a couple of really funny parts. I did laugh out loud. But honestly, “Shrek” is going downhill. This third movie just wasn’t as good as the second one, which wasn’t as good as the first. This movie feels long and it’s only 92 minutes. That’s a bad sign. In fact, the story itself is quite thin. We can tell that the writers were running out of ideas when they had Merlin accidentally make Donkey (Eddie Murphy) and Puss In Boots (Antonio Banderas) switch bodies.
The frog king (Fiona’s father) is on his death bed. He asks Shrek and Fiona to carry the monarchy’s torch as the new king and queen. Shrek only wants to return to his home in the swamp. There is one other possible option, however, for an heir to the throne: Arthur — who prefers to be called “Artie” and is played by Justin Timberlake. (The word “unnecessary” came to mind for that casting choice, but anyway.) Unfortunately, Artie doesn’t want to be king any more than Shrek does.
In addition to the whole kingdom being placed in Shrek’s lap, Fiona (Cameron Diaz) tells him that he’s going to be a daddy, too. Both of these major life changes elevate Shrek’s rating on the stress scale. Also, to make matters worse, that twit, Prince Charming (Rupert Everett), becomes bitter about not getting to be king, so he inspires all of the other fairy tale villain types to wage war against the kingdom of Far Far Away.
The movie is bright, energetic and colorful. Children will enjoy it, but it does have some crudeness and innuendo intended to entertain the adults. (I noted that because some parents have deep contempt for this animated movie trend.)
Should you rush out to the theater to see “Shrek the Third”? No, that won’t be necessary. But if you like the “Shrek” movies, you’ll enjoy this one, too. As with “Spider-Man 3,” it’s fun, but just don’t expect too much.
Directed by Chris Miller and Raman Hui
Mike Myers / Cameron Diaz / Eddie Murphy
92 min. Animation / Comedy
MPAA: PG (for some crude humor, suggestive content and swashbuckling action)
Copyright 2007.
JP0114 : 455
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
X Good video rental (60-74)
O Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don’t watch (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / May 18, 2007
OK. That’s probably good. Yeah, that will just about do it, right there. We have three of them now; let’s stop making “Shrek” movies while we’re ahead. But will we? No. Hollywood will make 14 of these babies. I predict that “Shrek” will be the next “The Land Before Time” series. (There are seriously like 13 of those, and the 14th is probably coming out on video tomorrow.)
The true genius behind the “Shrek” trilogy is its celebration of pop culture. That’s why we love these movies. It abuses fairy tales and their characters with its pop references, and we revel in it. As with the first two installments, the jokes are delivered quickly and many of them are glimpsed peripherally, so be watchful.
“Shrek the Third” has a couple of really funny parts. I did laugh out loud. But honestly, “Shrek” is going downhill. This third movie just wasn’t as good as the second one, which wasn’t as good as the first. This movie feels long and it’s only 92 minutes. That’s a bad sign. In fact, the story itself is quite thin. We can tell that the writers were running out of ideas when they had Merlin accidentally make Donkey (Eddie Murphy) and Puss In Boots (Antonio Banderas) switch bodies.
The frog king (Fiona’s father) is on his death bed. He asks Shrek and Fiona to carry the monarchy’s torch as the new king and queen. Shrek only wants to return to his home in the swamp. There is one other possible option, however, for an heir to the throne: Arthur — who prefers to be called “Artie” and is played by Justin Timberlake. (The word “unnecessary” came to mind for that casting choice, but anyway.) Unfortunately, Artie doesn’t want to be king any more than Shrek does.
In addition to the whole kingdom being placed in Shrek’s lap, Fiona (Cameron Diaz) tells him that he’s going to be a daddy, too. Both of these major life changes elevate Shrek’s rating on the stress scale. Also, to make matters worse, that twit, Prince Charming (Rupert Everett), becomes bitter about not getting to be king, so he inspires all of the other fairy tale villain types to wage war against the kingdom of Far Far Away.
The movie is bright, energetic and colorful. Children will enjoy it, but it does have some crudeness and innuendo intended to entertain the adults. (I noted that because some parents have deep contempt for this animated movie trend.)
Should you rush out to the theater to see “Shrek the Third”? No, that won’t be necessary. But if you like the “Shrek” movies, you’ll enjoy this one, too. As with “Spider-Man 3,” it’s fun, but just don’t expect too much.
Directed by Chris Miller and Raman Hui
Mike Myers / Cameron Diaz / Eddie Murphy
92 min. Animation / Comedy
MPAA: PG (for some crude humor, suggestive content and swashbuckling action)
Copyright 2007.
JP0114 : 455
Georgia Rule (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 73
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
X Good video rental (60-74)
O Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don’t watch (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / May 18, 2007
Even though I’m not a Felicity Huffman fan — and especially not a Lindsay Lohan fan — “Georgia Rule” is an impressive little film.
I can almost guarantee that it’s not what you’re expecting: This is not a comedy, nor is it “a chick flick,” though it has some of those elements. “Georgia Rule” is a drama about heavy issues that is lightened up by its small-town setting. From the moment the movie begins, we can see that this isn’t going to be as playful as we suspected.
Lilly (Felicity Huffman) is delivering her wayward daughter, Rachel (Lindsay Lohan), to her strict grandmother, Georgia (Jane Fonda), for the summer. (To clarify, Georgia is Lilly’s mother and Rachel’s grandmother.) Lilly and Rachel live in San Francisco. So this temporary move up to Hull, Idaho, where Georgia lives, is not a welcomed change — to say the least.
Rachel is a hellion: promiscuous, obnoxious, rude, crude, drug abusing, lying, instigating, troublemaking, etc. (Coincidentally, you may remember hearing that during filming, the CEO of Morgan Creek Productions sent a warning letter to Lohan reprimanding her for being “discourteous, irresponsible and unprofessional.”) Apparently, she’s a method actress, because her art seemed to reflect the reports of her real life, according to the media. I must admit that Lohan’s performance (as well as the other actors’ interactions with her) was convincing. Perhaps it was all genuine.
In the movie, Hull, Idaho is home to a lot of Mormons, and that fact plays a significant role in the movie. Many things about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are discussed. And I must give credit to “Georgia Rule” (which is not an LDS film) for doing a better job with committing Mormonism to film than LDS films, such as “Mobsters and Mormons” (2005). Nevertheless, it’s not a perfect depiction. The virtuous young LDS girls are depicted as judgmental simpletons next to Rachel’s “cool,” bad-girl ways.
In short, it is hoped that over the summer, Georgia, (and her rules) can straighten Rachel out. However, Georgia and her daughter have a perilously rocky relationship, too. Basically, all three women are at odds with one another, and we get to be flies on the wall for their unflinching ferociousness.
The main plotline of the movie deals with a dark secret from Rachel’s past at home in California. But because she’s such a liar and a relentless troublemaker, we, and many of the movie’s characters, don’t know whether to believe her. The movie uses this to jerk us around, back and forth, a few too many times.
I liked “Georgia Rule” for two characters: Jane Fonda’s Georgia is a strong, stoic woman whose tough love is tougher than her hardened posterity. And my favorite character — and definitely one of my favorite characters of all time — is Simon (Dermot Mulroney). He doubles for the town’s veterinarian and “people doctor.” I loved this character because he is a pillar of moral strength, an archetype of real manhood.
“Georgia Rule” is simply a good character drama, and I recommend it.
Directed by Garry Marshall
Jane Fonda / Lindsay Lohan / Felicity Huffman
113 min. Drama
MPAA: R (for sexual content and some language)
Copyright 2007.
JP0111 : 506
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
X Good video rental (60-74)
O Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don’t watch (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / May 18, 2007
Even though I’m not a Felicity Huffman fan — and especially not a Lindsay Lohan fan — “Georgia Rule” is an impressive little film.
I can almost guarantee that it’s not what you’re expecting: This is not a comedy, nor is it “a chick flick,” though it has some of those elements. “Georgia Rule” is a drama about heavy issues that is lightened up by its small-town setting. From the moment the movie begins, we can see that this isn’t going to be as playful as we suspected.
Lilly (Felicity Huffman) is delivering her wayward daughter, Rachel (Lindsay Lohan), to her strict grandmother, Georgia (Jane Fonda), for the summer. (To clarify, Georgia is Lilly’s mother and Rachel’s grandmother.) Lilly and Rachel live in San Francisco. So this temporary move up to Hull, Idaho, where Georgia lives, is not a welcomed change — to say the least.
Rachel is a hellion: promiscuous, obnoxious, rude, crude, drug abusing, lying, instigating, troublemaking, etc. (Coincidentally, you may remember hearing that during filming, the CEO of Morgan Creek Productions sent a warning letter to Lohan reprimanding her for being “discourteous, irresponsible and unprofessional.”) Apparently, she’s a method actress, because her art seemed to reflect the reports of her real life, according to the media. I must admit that Lohan’s performance (as well as the other actors’ interactions with her) was convincing. Perhaps it was all genuine.
In the movie, Hull, Idaho is home to a lot of Mormons, and that fact plays a significant role in the movie. Many things about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are discussed. And I must give credit to “Georgia Rule” (which is not an LDS film) for doing a better job with committing Mormonism to film than LDS films, such as “Mobsters and Mormons” (2005). Nevertheless, it’s not a perfect depiction. The virtuous young LDS girls are depicted as judgmental simpletons next to Rachel’s “cool,” bad-girl ways.
In short, it is hoped that over the summer, Georgia, (and her rules) can straighten Rachel out. However, Georgia and her daughter have a perilously rocky relationship, too. Basically, all three women are at odds with one another, and we get to be flies on the wall for their unflinching ferociousness.
The main plotline of the movie deals with a dark secret from Rachel’s past at home in California. But because she’s such a liar and a relentless troublemaker, we, and many of the movie’s characters, don’t know whether to believe her. The movie uses this to jerk us around, back and forth, a few too many times.
I liked “Georgia Rule” for two characters: Jane Fonda’s Georgia is a strong, stoic woman whose tough love is tougher than her hardened posterity. And my favorite character — and definitely one of my favorite characters of all time — is Simon (Dermot Mulroney). He doubles for the town’s veterinarian and “people doctor.” I loved this character because he is a pillar of moral strength, an archetype of real manhood.
“Georgia Rule” is simply a good character drama, and I recommend it.
Directed by Garry Marshall
Jane Fonda / Lindsay Lohan / Felicity Huffman
113 min. Drama
MPAA: R (for sexual content and some language)
Copyright 2007.
JP0111 : 506
Delta Farce (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 8
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
O Good video rental (60-74)
O Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
X Medusa: don’t watch (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / May 18, 2007
Watching “Delta Farce” is almost as pleasurable as watching a rusty nail slowly pierce your own eyeball, or watching a dog “do its business” on your picnic blanket during lunch, or watching a cat cough up a hairball onto your birthday cake. Yeah, “Delta Farce” is almost that pleasurable — but not quite.
In fact, “Delta Farce” is the worst movie I’ve seen since “Master of Disguise” (2002). I thought I’d peel my own skin off during Dana Carvey’s humorless waste of celluloid. One might point out, “The movie’s title gives you fair warning by using the word ‘farce.’” But this movie isn’t just farce, it’s gravely regrettable.
Larry the Cable Guy (nice name) plays “Larry,” (go figure). He and his two nitwit buddies, Bill (Bill Engvall) and Everett (DJ Qualls), are “weekend warriors” (U.S. Army reservists). Because of a shortage of men for the war on terror in Iraq, these three are activated and put on a plane headed for Fallujah.
However, their plane — which apparently wasn’t “too heavy” when it took off — becomes “too heavy” during a storm, so the pilots drop their military payload of supplies, including a Hum-V which includes the three sleeping stooges.
When they awaken in a desert terrain, the reservists assume they’re in Iraq. But they’re actually in Mexico. So they set off to “liberate the Iraqi people” from insurgents. But these afflicted people are actually Mexicans who have a problem with being robbed by bandits.
Yes, you’re right if you’re thinking, ‘Hey, that sounds a lot like “Three Amigos,” (1986). It’s very much like “Three Amigos” except “Three Amigos” is funny, and you actually like watching Steve Martin, Chevy Chase and Martin Short.
Imagine watching “The Flintstones” (1960) without a laugh track. That’s what “Delta Farce” feels like: It seems as though the actors were told to deliver a joke and wait for the laugh track to kick in. The problem is, there is no laughing on the soundtrack (or in the theater), so these actors deliver a line and wait. Meanwhile, all we hear are crickets. It’s really quite awkward.
I also do not respect the way the filmmakers take both sides on the Iraq War: Most of the movie seems to be a scathing attempt at ridiculing the American occupation in Iraq. Then, inexplicably, the movie turns on its head to give us a “We’re Americans; we have to do the right thing and stay until the job is done” speech. Perhaps the message is that the war in Iraq is a farce, hence the name. Fine, but why send Larry the Cable Guy to deliver that message?
Personally, I don’t want anyone to associate anything about this movie with America. (For some people, there’s Vietnam. For others, it’s Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But for me, our big shame is “Delta Farce.”)
The only thing I can appreciate, to any degree, is this movie’s tidbit tributes to popular war films like “Patton” (1970), “Apocalypse Now” (1979) and others. Those moments reminded me of happier times when I was watching competent movies.
I used to think I had an unconditional love for cinema. But flicks like “Delta Farce” have shown me otherwise. In short, avoid “Delta Farce” like the plague ... or Medusa.
Directed by C.B. Harding
Larry the Cable Guy / DJ Qualls / Bill Engvall
90 min. Comedy
MPAA: PG-13 (for crude and sexual humor)
Copyright 2007.
JP0108 : 540
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
O Good video rental (60-74)
O Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
X Medusa: don’t watch (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / May 18, 2007
Watching “Delta Farce” is almost as pleasurable as watching a rusty nail slowly pierce your own eyeball, or watching a dog “do its business” on your picnic blanket during lunch, or watching a cat cough up a hairball onto your birthday cake. Yeah, “Delta Farce” is almost that pleasurable — but not quite.
In fact, “Delta Farce” is the worst movie I’ve seen since “Master of Disguise” (2002). I thought I’d peel my own skin off during Dana Carvey’s humorless waste of celluloid. One might point out, “The movie’s title gives you fair warning by using the word ‘farce.’” But this movie isn’t just farce, it’s gravely regrettable.
Larry the Cable Guy (nice name) plays “Larry,” (go figure). He and his two nitwit buddies, Bill (Bill Engvall) and Everett (DJ Qualls), are “weekend warriors” (U.S. Army reservists). Because of a shortage of men for the war on terror in Iraq, these three are activated and put on a plane headed for Fallujah.
However, their plane — which apparently wasn’t “too heavy” when it took off — becomes “too heavy” during a storm, so the pilots drop their military payload of supplies, including a Hum-V which includes the three sleeping stooges.
When they awaken in a desert terrain, the reservists assume they’re in Iraq. But they’re actually in Mexico. So they set off to “liberate the Iraqi people” from insurgents. But these afflicted people are actually Mexicans who have a problem with being robbed by bandits.
Yes, you’re right if you’re thinking, ‘Hey, that sounds a lot like “Three Amigos,” (1986). It’s very much like “Three Amigos” except “Three Amigos” is funny, and you actually like watching Steve Martin, Chevy Chase and Martin Short.
Imagine watching “The Flintstones” (1960) without a laugh track. That’s what “Delta Farce” feels like: It seems as though the actors were told to deliver a joke and wait for the laugh track to kick in. The problem is, there is no laughing on the soundtrack (or in the theater), so these actors deliver a line and wait. Meanwhile, all we hear are crickets. It’s really quite awkward.
I also do not respect the way the filmmakers take both sides on the Iraq War: Most of the movie seems to be a scathing attempt at ridiculing the American occupation in Iraq. Then, inexplicably, the movie turns on its head to give us a “We’re Americans; we have to do the right thing and stay until the job is done” speech. Perhaps the message is that the war in Iraq is a farce, hence the name. Fine, but why send Larry the Cable Guy to deliver that message?
Personally, I don’t want anyone to associate anything about this movie with America. (For some people, there’s Vietnam. For others, it’s Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But for me, our big shame is “Delta Farce.”)
The only thing I can appreciate, to any degree, is this movie’s tidbit tributes to popular war films like “Patton” (1970), “Apocalypse Now” (1979) and others. Those moments reminded me of happier times when I was watching competent movies.
I used to think I had an unconditional love for cinema. But flicks like “Delta Farce” have shown me otherwise. In short, avoid “Delta Farce” like the plague ... or Medusa.
Directed by C.B. Harding
Larry the Cable Guy / DJ Qualls / Bill Engvall
90 min. Comedy
MPAA: PG-13 (for crude and sexual humor)
Copyright 2007.
JP0108 : 540
Friday, May 11, 2007
28 Weeks Later (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 81
O Masterpiece (95-100)
X Excellent (75-94)
O Good video rental (60-73)
O Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don’t watch (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / May 11, 2007
The mark of excellence that crowns “28 Days Later” (2002) and its worthy sequel, “28 Weeks Later,” is that both films contain a horror story within a horror story. The zombie infestation is always secondary to the real nightmare; and in this sequel, this occurs in the beginning of the movie.
Does one have to see the first movie to enjoy this second one? One should, but it’s not absolutely necessary. You could also read my review of the first flick. But I’ll summarize it in one sentence: A virus called “Rage” breaks out in London that causes its victims to flip completely out and bite non-infected victims, which infects them and almost immediately transforms the newly bitten into zombie maniacs who bite, too. That sounds kind of funny, but this is no comedy.
“Twenty-eight Weeks Later” begins amid the height of the initial breakout depicted in the first movie. These opening scenes are where a truly unforgettable nightmare occurs. About 28 weeks later, the infected have died of starvation and the United States has a strong military occupation in London. The mission is containment, cleanup and beginning again. Strict measures of quarantine are observed. Nevertheless, a Rage infestation begins anew; and the way in which this occurs approaches brilliance.
I remain vague in this plot summary because part of the movie’s horror comes from the realizations that you experience as it unfolds. I wouldn’t dream of spoiling that for you. I will say that this plot centers around two children and not Cillian Murphy. (For better or for worse, he’s not in this movie. Sorry.) I typically recoil away from serious movies (particularly horror flicks) that center on kids, but “28 Weeks Later” works.
I don’t have a weak stomach, but one scene in this movie literally nauseated me. No, I wouldn’t call this a popcorn movie. I hardly ever get scared watching movies, but I can call “28 Weeks Later” scary and still feel like a man. It has unthinkable scenario after intolerable predicament. I’m so thankful for my “normal” life.
There’s so much more I’d like to describe, such as the franchise’s apparent feelings toward military, but I’ll restrain myself and leave it at this: “28 Weeks Later” has a scene with a helicopter that will go down in movie history. This is an excellent, supremely disgusting horror film, and I recommend it if that’s your thing.
Directed by Juan Carlos Fresnadillo
Mackintosh Muggleton / Imogen Poots / Robert Carlyle
99 min. Horror / Thriller
MPAA: R (for strong violence and gore, language and some sexuality/nudity)
Copyright 2007.
JP0105 : 400
O Masterpiece (95-100)
X Excellent (75-94)
O Good video rental (60-73)
O Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don’t watch (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / May 11, 2007
The mark of excellence that crowns “28 Days Later” (2002) and its worthy sequel, “28 Weeks Later,” is that both films contain a horror story within a horror story. The zombie infestation is always secondary to the real nightmare; and in this sequel, this occurs in the beginning of the movie.
Does one have to see the first movie to enjoy this second one? One should, but it’s not absolutely necessary. You could also read my review of the first flick. But I’ll summarize it in one sentence: A virus called “Rage” breaks out in London that causes its victims to flip completely out and bite non-infected victims, which infects them and almost immediately transforms the newly bitten into zombie maniacs who bite, too. That sounds kind of funny, but this is no comedy.
“Twenty-eight Weeks Later” begins amid the height of the initial breakout depicted in the first movie. These opening scenes are where a truly unforgettable nightmare occurs. About 28 weeks later, the infected have died of starvation and the United States has a strong military occupation in London. The mission is containment, cleanup and beginning again. Strict measures of quarantine are observed. Nevertheless, a Rage infestation begins anew; and the way in which this occurs approaches brilliance.
I remain vague in this plot summary because part of the movie’s horror comes from the realizations that you experience as it unfolds. I wouldn’t dream of spoiling that for you. I will say that this plot centers around two children and not Cillian Murphy. (For better or for worse, he’s not in this movie. Sorry.) I typically recoil away from serious movies (particularly horror flicks) that center on kids, but “28 Weeks Later” works.
I don’t have a weak stomach, but one scene in this movie literally nauseated me. No, I wouldn’t call this a popcorn movie. I hardly ever get scared watching movies, but I can call “28 Weeks Later” scary and still feel like a man. It has unthinkable scenario after intolerable predicament. I’m so thankful for my “normal” life.
There’s so much more I’d like to describe, such as the franchise’s apparent feelings toward military, but I’ll restrain myself and leave it at this: “28 Weeks Later” has a scene with a helicopter that will go down in movie history. This is an excellent, supremely disgusting horror film, and I recommend it if that’s your thing.
Directed by Juan Carlos Fresnadillo
Mackintosh Muggleton / Imogen Poots / Robert Carlyle
99 min. Horror / Thriller
MPAA: R (for strong violence and gore, language and some sexuality/nudity)
Copyright 2007.
JP0105 : 400
Hot Fuzz (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 71
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
X Good video rental (60-73)
O Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don’t watch (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / May 11, 2007
“Hot Fuzz” has the most gruesome, parodied death scene — ever (and there’s a lot of competition out there). If you watch this movie, when you see an unsuspecting man standing beside a church, start wincing, right then.
Even though I’ve listed this as a “Good video rental,” like “Spider-Man 3,” “Hot Fuzz” is worth seeing in the theater. Why? Because it intentionally goes overboard on the violence and destruction sound effects to poke fun at the big action movies’ surround-sound assaults. The soundtrack alone is hilarious.
I’m a tough critic when it comes to comedy. But “Hot Fuzz” made me laugh — hard — and out loud. Nevertheless, it doesn’t have as many laughs as I had hoped for, but there’s a good reason for that: In addition to being a comedy, “Hot Fuzz” is also an action thriller. Remember how the “Police Academy” movies of the ‘80s incorporate real crime fighting? Well, “Hot Fuzz” has a creepy little mystery to accompany its laughs.
Police Constable Nicholas Angel (Simon Pegg) is a super-cop in London. In fact, he’s a little too good. Because he’s making the rest of the department look bad, he is transferred to a quiet, rural village called Sandford, “the community that cares.”
The sleepy little town seems to be plagued with grotesque “accidental” deaths. Sergeant Angel is quick to observe that these deaths may not be accidental at all; he suspects murder.
That is the premise. It seems simple because it is. But the reason the humor works is because of the comedic pace. The actors’ timing is really good. In fact, you have to watch and listen closely to be sure you catch all the laughs. As in all good comedies, reoccurring themes and seemingly random peculiarities are revisited at just the right times.
The key to “Hot Fuzz,” however, is that Simon Pegg plays his character as if he were cast in a dead-serious action flick. He has the intensity and determination of Tom Cruise’s Ethan Hunt from the “Mission: Impossible” movies.
In addition, the apparent objective for “Hot Fuzz” is to parody the “buddy cop” subgenre and “every action movie ever made.” “Hot Fuzz” and its shout-out references will be hilarious to action movie buffs.
Directed by Edgar Wright
Simon Pegg / Nick Frost / Timothy Dalton
121 min. Comedy / Action
MPAA: R (for violent content including some graphic images and language)
Copyright 2007.
JP0104 : 370
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
X Good video rental (60-73)
O Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don’t watch (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / May 11, 2007
“Hot Fuzz” has the most gruesome, parodied death scene — ever (and there’s a lot of competition out there). If you watch this movie, when you see an unsuspecting man standing beside a church, start wincing, right then.
Even though I’ve listed this as a “Good video rental,” like “Spider-Man 3,” “Hot Fuzz” is worth seeing in the theater. Why? Because it intentionally goes overboard on the violence and destruction sound effects to poke fun at the big action movies’ surround-sound assaults. The soundtrack alone is hilarious.
I’m a tough critic when it comes to comedy. But “Hot Fuzz” made me laugh — hard — and out loud. Nevertheless, it doesn’t have as many laughs as I had hoped for, but there’s a good reason for that: In addition to being a comedy, “Hot Fuzz” is also an action thriller. Remember how the “Police Academy” movies of the ‘80s incorporate real crime fighting? Well, “Hot Fuzz” has a creepy little mystery to accompany its laughs.
Police Constable Nicholas Angel (Simon Pegg) is a super-cop in London. In fact, he’s a little too good. Because he’s making the rest of the department look bad, he is transferred to a quiet, rural village called Sandford, “the community that cares.”
The sleepy little town seems to be plagued with grotesque “accidental” deaths. Sergeant Angel is quick to observe that these deaths may not be accidental at all; he suspects murder.
That is the premise. It seems simple because it is. But the reason the humor works is because of the comedic pace. The actors’ timing is really good. In fact, you have to watch and listen closely to be sure you catch all the laughs. As in all good comedies, reoccurring themes and seemingly random peculiarities are revisited at just the right times.
The key to “Hot Fuzz,” however, is that Simon Pegg plays his character as if he were cast in a dead-serious action flick. He has the intensity and determination of Tom Cruise’s Ethan Hunt from the “Mission: Impossible” movies.
In addition, the apparent objective for “Hot Fuzz” is to parody the “buddy cop” subgenre and “every action movie ever made.” “Hot Fuzz” and its shout-out references will be hilarious to action movie buffs.
Directed by Edgar Wright
Simon Pegg / Nick Frost / Timothy Dalton
121 min. Comedy / Action
MPAA: R (for violent content including some graphic images and language)
Copyright 2007.
JP0104 : 370
Lucky You (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 73
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
X Good video rental (60-73)
O Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don’t watch (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / May 11, 2007
Sometimes I wish E.T. (not Entertainment Tonight but the extra terrestrial) had taken Drew Barrymore back “home” with him. “Lucky You” is one of those times.
This movie is quite good. “Lucky You” keeps its head above water, but it has a heavy anchor chained to its ankle, trying to drag it down to drown in the shadowy depths of mediocrity: you guessed it, Drew Barrymore is said anchor. It’s a good thing that Eric Bana and Robert Duvall are such strong swimmers.
Huck Cheever (Eric Bana) is an excellent poker player. He can read just about anybody’s poker face. Huck can sit down at a table in Vegas with $150 in chips and leave with 10 grand. In fact, that’s what he does for a living: Huck is a professional gambler.
But Huck has a problem (in addition to being a compulsive gambler): He’s had a falling out with his father, L.C. Cheever (Robert Duvall), the man from whom he’s learned everything he knows. L.C. is a poker legend in Las Vegas. He’s won the “World Series of Poker” twice, and is going for his third win. Huck hopes to play in the same competition this year.
We follow Huck on his daily routine of recklessness. He pawns something — anything — even if it doesn’t belong to him, to have some money for the tables. Then he wins big and somehow, as gamblers do, loses big. Ironically, Huck’s lifestyle is the very lifestyle that made him resent his father so much.
As he prepares for the big poker tournament, Huck meets Billie Offer (Drew Barrymore), and is wooed by her artificial innocence and strained naivety. Oh, it’s all supposed to be authentic, but the occasionally talented Barrymore doesn’t play it that way — hence the anchor.
Eric Bana, on the other hand, impressed me immensely in “Lucky You.” After 2003’s big, green flop “Hulk,” I had pretty much written him off. I now stand corrected. Bana plays a poker-faced tough guy just as well — if not better — than anyone in “Maverick” (1994), which is a similar poker movie starring Mel Gibson and James Garner. (I recommend renting “Maverick,” too.)
(Note: Both “Lucky You” and “Maverick” can be enjoyed and understood, even if you have no knowledge of how to play poker.)
And Robert Duvall is one of the best actors in show business. From his Tom Hagen in “The Godfather” (1972) to his zealot, Sonny Dewey, in the masterpiece, “The Apostle” (1997), Duvall inhabits his roles and fills the screen, every time he’s cast. He and Bana are the two reasons to eventually see “Lucky You,” especially when they’re onscreen together.
I don’t know that you’d need to pay theater prices to see this movie, but know this: Since many video rentals are a gamble, rest assured, “Lucky You” is a sure bet.
Directed by Curtis Hanson
Eric Bana / Robert Duvall / Drew Barrymore
124 min. Drama / Romance
MPAA: PG-13 (for some language and sexual humor)
Copyright 2007.
JP0100 : 472
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
X Good video rental (60-73)
O Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don’t watch (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / May 11, 2007
Sometimes I wish E.T. (not Entertainment Tonight but the extra terrestrial) had taken Drew Barrymore back “home” with him. “Lucky You” is one of those times.
This movie is quite good. “Lucky You” keeps its head above water, but it has a heavy anchor chained to its ankle, trying to drag it down to drown in the shadowy depths of mediocrity: you guessed it, Drew Barrymore is said anchor. It’s a good thing that Eric Bana and Robert Duvall are such strong swimmers.
Huck Cheever (Eric Bana) is an excellent poker player. He can read just about anybody’s poker face. Huck can sit down at a table in Vegas with $150 in chips and leave with 10 grand. In fact, that’s what he does for a living: Huck is a professional gambler.
But Huck has a problem (in addition to being a compulsive gambler): He’s had a falling out with his father, L.C. Cheever (Robert Duvall), the man from whom he’s learned everything he knows. L.C. is a poker legend in Las Vegas. He’s won the “World Series of Poker” twice, and is going for his third win. Huck hopes to play in the same competition this year.
We follow Huck on his daily routine of recklessness. He pawns something — anything — even if it doesn’t belong to him, to have some money for the tables. Then he wins big and somehow, as gamblers do, loses big. Ironically, Huck’s lifestyle is the very lifestyle that made him resent his father so much.
As he prepares for the big poker tournament, Huck meets Billie Offer (Drew Barrymore), and is wooed by her artificial innocence and strained naivety. Oh, it’s all supposed to be authentic, but the occasionally talented Barrymore doesn’t play it that way — hence the anchor.
Eric Bana, on the other hand, impressed me immensely in “Lucky You.” After 2003’s big, green flop “Hulk,” I had pretty much written him off. I now stand corrected. Bana plays a poker-faced tough guy just as well — if not better — than anyone in “Maverick” (1994), which is a similar poker movie starring Mel Gibson and James Garner. (I recommend renting “Maverick,” too.)
(Note: Both “Lucky You” and “Maverick” can be enjoyed and understood, even if you have no knowledge of how to play poker.)
And Robert Duvall is one of the best actors in show business. From his Tom Hagen in “The Godfather” (1972) to his zealot, Sonny Dewey, in the masterpiece, “The Apostle” (1997), Duvall inhabits his roles and fills the screen, every time he’s cast. He and Bana are the two reasons to eventually see “Lucky You,” especially when they’re onscreen together.
I don’t know that you’d need to pay theater prices to see this movie, but know this: Since many video rentals are a gamble, rest assured, “Lucky You” is a sure bet.
Directed by Curtis Hanson
Eric Bana / Robert Duvall / Drew Barrymore
124 min. Drama / Romance
MPAA: PG-13 (for some language and sexual humor)
Copyright 2007.
JP0100 : 472
Friday, May 4, 2007
Spider-Man 3 (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 74
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
X Good video rental (60-74)
O Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don't watch (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / May 4, 2007
Regardless of what I write, you'll see "Spider-Man 3" anyway. I still did — despite my respected colleague's review that gave the movie a "D+." It’s not that bad, but just don't get your hopes up too high. "Spider-Man 3" is good, not great.
Yes, I'd still recommend seeing it in the theater. This summertime, popcorn blockbuster is at least worth the matinee prices. Though I accurately classified it as a "Good video rental," the dizzying special effects deserve a big-screen debut — despite some shortcomings that I’ll mention momentarily.
Spider-Man returns at the top of his game. All is well. He is loved and appreciated by the people of New York City. And, Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) has big plans for his girlfriend, Mary Jane (Kirsten Dunst).
Parker's best friend, Harry Osborn (James Franco), still harbors bitterness toward Spider-Man. Osborn blames the wall crawler for his father's death and is consumed by an obsession with vengeance.
Also, we meet an escaped convict named Flint Marko (Thomas Haden Church), a man who has unfortunate, intimate ties to the Parker family. Marko's motivation toward evildoing is somewhat understandable and reminiscent of Mr. Freeze's lofty ambitions in the dreaded "Batman & Robin" (1997).
When the fleeing convict falls into a "Particle Physics Test Facility," he obtains the talent to exfoliate through his corpuscles, among other things that pertain to sand. (Actually, the Sandman and a crazy crane scene are the movie's high points.)
Next we have shiny, black, goopy, alien ooze that falls from outer space, finds a host and amplifies its host's traits — especially aggression. The extraterrestrial essence gives Parker and a weasel photographer named Eddie Brock (Topher Grace), many issues with social protocol.
(Note to parents of young Spider-Man fans: Venom might have an adverse effect on little ones — namely scaring them to death.) I had my doubts, but I’m happy to report that Topher Grace makes a good Venom.
Interestingly, "Spider-Man 3" provides inner struggles for each of these main characters. We watch as they wrestle with themselves, one another and a disjointed storyline.
There is a lot of silly comedy in "Spider-Man 3.” Some of it is funny. This was probably included to offset the dark heaviness of the movie, but the jokiness becomes so absurd that we get the sense that the filmmakers became slaphappy during the making of this third installment. There is a tangible carelessness in each aspect of the film: dialogue, plot, acting — even the occasionally "cartoonish" special effects. (These effects are still wonderful to watch, but they seem unfinished.)
Nevertheless, the movie is entertaining. But it's doesn't bode well for this summer’s big action movie when I hear the guy sitting on my right ask how much longer the movie will last, and I see my friend on my left checking his watch. Perhaps the 140-minute runtime should have tingled Sam Raimi's spidey sense; it sure made my butt tingle.
Directed by Sam Raimi
Tobey Maguire / Kirsten Dunst / James Franco
140 min. Action
MPAA: PG-13 (for sequences of intense action violence)
Copyright 2007.
JP0098 : 485
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
X Good video rental (60-74)
O Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don't watch (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / May 4, 2007
Regardless of what I write, you'll see "Spider-Man 3" anyway. I still did — despite my respected colleague's review that gave the movie a "D+." It’s not that bad, but just don't get your hopes up too high. "Spider-Man 3" is good, not great.
Yes, I'd still recommend seeing it in the theater. This summertime, popcorn blockbuster is at least worth the matinee prices. Though I accurately classified it as a "Good video rental," the dizzying special effects deserve a big-screen debut — despite some shortcomings that I’ll mention momentarily.
Spider-Man returns at the top of his game. All is well. He is loved and appreciated by the people of New York City. And, Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) has big plans for his girlfriend, Mary Jane (Kirsten Dunst).
Parker's best friend, Harry Osborn (James Franco), still harbors bitterness toward Spider-Man. Osborn blames the wall crawler for his father's death and is consumed by an obsession with vengeance.
Also, we meet an escaped convict named Flint Marko (Thomas Haden Church), a man who has unfortunate, intimate ties to the Parker family. Marko's motivation toward evildoing is somewhat understandable and reminiscent of Mr. Freeze's lofty ambitions in the dreaded "Batman & Robin" (1997).
When the fleeing convict falls into a "Particle Physics Test Facility," he obtains the talent to exfoliate through his corpuscles, among other things that pertain to sand. (Actually, the Sandman and a crazy crane scene are the movie's high points.)
Next we have shiny, black, goopy, alien ooze that falls from outer space, finds a host and amplifies its host's traits — especially aggression. The extraterrestrial essence gives Parker and a weasel photographer named Eddie Brock (Topher Grace), many issues with social protocol.
(Note to parents of young Spider-Man fans: Venom might have an adverse effect on little ones — namely scaring them to death.) I had my doubts, but I’m happy to report that Topher Grace makes a good Venom.
Interestingly, "Spider-Man 3" provides inner struggles for each of these main characters. We watch as they wrestle with themselves, one another and a disjointed storyline.
There is a lot of silly comedy in "Spider-Man 3.” Some of it is funny. This was probably included to offset the dark heaviness of the movie, but the jokiness becomes so absurd that we get the sense that the filmmakers became slaphappy during the making of this third installment. There is a tangible carelessness in each aspect of the film: dialogue, plot, acting — even the occasionally "cartoonish" special effects. (These effects are still wonderful to watch, but they seem unfinished.)
Nevertheless, the movie is entertaining. But it's doesn't bode well for this summer’s big action movie when I hear the guy sitting on my right ask how much longer the movie will last, and I see my friend on my left checking his watch. Perhaps the 140-minute runtime should have tingled Sam Raimi's spidey sense; it sure made my butt tingle.
Directed by Sam Raimi
Tobey Maguire / Kirsten Dunst / James Franco
140 min. Action
MPAA: PG-13 (for sequences of intense action violence)
Copyright 2007.
JP0098 : 485
Thursday, May 3, 2007
Next (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 74
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
X Good video rental (60-74)
O Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don’t watch (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / May 3, 2007
“Next” has been unfairly scorned. But this conclusion comes from a man who loves “Independence Day” (1996) and “Armageddon” (1998). Every once in a while, I’m willing to deal with dumb dialogue and some weak acting for a compelling premise that’s highlighted by decent special effects.
But “Next” doesn’t really fall in with the aforementioned movies and their noisy, fiery explosions in space. Instead, “Next” is akin to “The Dead Zone” (1983), “Minority Report” (2002), and “Deja Vu” (2006), because it’s also about preventing catastrophes by seeing the future. Essentially, in simplest form, “Next” is about a modest superhero.
Cris Johnson (Nicolas Cage) possesses a gift that is a blessing and a curse: He can see up to two minutes into his own future. Take two minutes to think of the possibilities. “Next” shows us some of those possibilities: For example, Johnson can avoid his own car wreck or capture. He can also “test” his pick-up lines to see which approach won’t get him shot down in flames. It doesn’t take pre-cognitive abilities to see how this could be a fun talent.
But it can also be not fun. As the movie points out, there are no surprises for Johnson. (Luckily, “Next” is selective about which foreseen flashes it reveals to us and which ones it doesn’t; thus, the movie still has surprises.)
The FBI wants Johnson. Why is he wanted? Because Johnson can help the FBI by “seeing” the details surrounding an imminent detonation of a stolen nuclear weapon on U.S. soil. Johnson doesn’t want to help because he’s afraid of being the government’s lab rat for the rest of his days. He’d rather look toward a future with Liz (Jessica Biel).
As I mentioned, it is true that the director and screenplay writers should be slapped around for allowing some of this dialogue and some of these actors’ performances to stay in the movie. (Surely there must have been some pre-screening or test-screening process.)
But the lame dialogue and acting aren’t what really bothers people about this movie: I submit that people are ultimately angry about the way the movie takes its own gimmick to the extreme with its ending: a foregone (yet obvious) conclusion that is apparently disconcerting and unsatisfying for many.
But to me, the ending is bold, unique and new. I like “Next,” and wouldn’t hesitate to recommend it, just as I’d recommend “Independence Day” and “Armageddon,” despite myself (and probably everybody else).
Directed by Lee Tamahori
Nicolas Cage / Jessica Biel / Julianne Moore
96 min. Action / Thriller
MPAA: PG-13 (for intense sequences of violent action, and some language)
Copyright 2007.
JP0096 : 408
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
X Good video rental (60-74)
O Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don’t watch (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / May 3, 2007
“Next” has been unfairly scorned. But this conclusion comes from a man who loves “Independence Day” (1996) and “Armageddon” (1998). Every once in a while, I’m willing to deal with dumb dialogue and some weak acting for a compelling premise that’s highlighted by decent special effects.
But “Next” doesn’t really fall in with the aforementioned movies and their noisy, fiery explosions in space. Instead, “Next” is akin to “The Dead Zone” (1983), “Minority Report” (2002), and “Deja Vu” (2006), because it’s also about preventing catastrophes by seeing the future. Essentially, in simplest form, “Next” is about a modest superhero.
Cris Johnson (Nicolas Cage) possesses a gift that is a blessing and a curse: He can see up to two minutes into his own future. Take two minutes to think of the possibilities. “Next” shows us some of those possibilities: For example, Johnson can avoid his own car wreck or capture. He can also “test” his pick-up lines to see which approach won’t get him shot down in flames. It doesn’t take pre-cognitive abilities to see how this could be a fun talent.
But it can also be not fun. As the movie points out, there are no surprises for Johnson. (Luckily, “Next” is selective about which foreseen flashes it reveals to us and which ones it doesn’t; thus, the movie still has surprises.)
The FBI wants Johnson. Why is he wanted? Because Johnson can help the FBI by “seeing” the details surrounding an imminent detonation of a stolen nuclear weapon on U.S. soil. Johnson doesn’t want to help because he’s afraid of being the government’s lab rat for the rest of his days. He’d rather look toward a future with Liz (Jessica Biel).
As I mentioned, it is true that the director and screenplay writers should be slapped around for allowing some of this dialogue and some of these actors’ performances to stay in the movie. (Surely there must have been some pre-screening or test-screening process.)
But the lame dialogue and acting aren’t what really bothers people about this movie: I submit that people are ultimately angry about the way the movie takes its own gimmick to the extreme with its ending: a foregone (yet obvious) conclusion that is apparently disconcerting and unsatisfying for many.
But to me, the ending is bold, unique and new. I like “Next,” and wouldn’t hesitate to recommend it, just as I’d recommend “Independence Day” and “Armageddon,” despite myself (and probably everybody else).
Directed by Lee Tamahori
Nicolas Cage / Jessica Biel / Julianne Moore
96 min. Action / Thriller
MPAA: PG-13 (for intense sequences of violent action, and some language)
Copyright 2007.
JP0096 : 408
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
28 Days Later (2002)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 81
O Masterpiece (95-100)
X Excellent (75-94)
O Good video rental (60-74)
O Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don’t watch (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / May 2, 2007
When it was released in 2002, “28 Days Later” was deservingly all the rage, pun intended. As far as zombie movies go, it is one of the finest. And since the sequel, “28 Weeks Later,” is being released next Friday, May 11, I thought I’d revisit the original as a refresher review.
Besides having some of the most unpleasant zombies imaginable, what makes “28 Days Later” so excellent is that it’s a horror story within a horror story, similar to the way that “Hostage” (2005) is cleverly a hostage situation within a hostage situation.
The film opens in laboratory that has chimpanzees quarantined in glass cages. Something is seriously wrong with these monkeys. They’ve been infected — and are highly contagious — with a virus called “Rage.”
Rage basically makes its infected victims go berserk and mindlessly attack any uninfected, moving, living thing with an onslaught of biting, scratching, and tearing — but mainly biting. Like AIDS, Rage is contracted through bodily fluids such as blood and saliva. These zombies have two unique characteristics: They move really quickly and they projectile vomit blood.
So, when some animal rights activists bust into the laboratory to release the “torture victims,” the Rage infection is unleashed upon the human population.
The screen goes black and we’re informed that it’s 28 days later. Jim (Cillian Murphy) awakens from a coma in a hospital bed, and he is utterly alone. He wanders outside and the streets of London are empty. No one is to be found. But he soon discovers that being alone is generally preferable.
Luckily, Jim teams up with the few other uninfected individuals. His new friends pick up a broadcast that summons all survivors to a military checkpoint many miles away. The senders of the message claim that they have found “salvation” and “the answer to the infection.” Jim and his friends venture out on the perilous journey and hopefully investigate the transmission.
This film is suspenseful, well made and legitimately scary. The acting is great, too. The zombies are frightening and grotesque, but as disgusting as they are, “28 Days Later” shows us that there can be even more hideous monsters than zombies. I have high hopes for the forthcoming sequel; if it’s anything like this first movie, it will be excellent.
Note: Be sure you don’t confuse “28 Days Later” with Sandra Bullock’s “28 Days” (2000). (The Rage virus has reportedly befallen those who have mistakenly rented the Bullock movie instead.)
Directed by Danny Boyle
Cillian Murphy / Naomie Harris / Brendan Gleeson
113 min. Horror / Thriller
MPAA: R (for strong violence and gore, language and nudity)
Copyright 2007.
JP0094 : 408
O Masterpiece (95-100)
X Excellent (75-94)
O Good video rental (60-74)
O Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don’t watch (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / May 2, 2007
When it was released in 2002, “28 Days Later” was deservingly all the rage, pun intended. As far as zombie movies go, it is one of the finest. And since the sequel, “28 Weeks Later,” is being released next Friday, May 11, I thought I’d revisit the original as a refresher review.
Besides having some of the most unpleasant zombies imaginable, what makes “28 Days Later” so excellent is that it’s a horror story within a horror story, similar to the way that “Hostage” (2005) is cleverly a hostage situation within a hostage situation.
The film opens in laboratory that has chimpanzees quarantined in glass cages. Something is seriously wrong with these monkeys. They’ve been infected — and are highly contagious — with a virus called “Rage.”
Rage basically makes its infected victims go berserk and mindlessly attack any uninfected, moving, living thing with an onslaught of biting, scratching, and tearing — but mainly biting. Like AIDS, Rage is contracted through bodily fluids such as blood and saliva. These zombies have two unique characteristics: They move really quickly and they projectile vomit blood.
So, when some animal rights activists bust into the laboratory to release the “torture victims,” the Rage infection is unleashed upon the human population.
The screen goes black and we’re informed that it’s 28 days later. Jim (Cillian Murphy) awakens from a coma in a hospital bed, and he is utterly alone. He wanders outside and the streets of London are empty. No one is to be found. But he soon discovers that being alone is generally preferable.
Luckily, Jim teams up with the few other uninfected individuals. His new friends pick up a broadcast that summons all survivors to a military checkpoint many miles away. The senders of the message claim that they have found “salvation” and “the answer to the infection.” Jim and his friends venture out on the perilous journey and hopefully investigate the transmission.
This film is suspenseful, well made and legitimately scary. The acting is great, too. The zombies are frightening and grotesque, but as disgusting as they are, “28 Days Later” shows us that there can be even more hideous monsters than zombies. I have high hopes for the forthcoming sequel; if it’s anything like this first movie, it will be excellent.
Note: Be sure you don’t confuse “28 Days Later” with Sandra Bullock’s “28 Days” (2000). (The Rage virus has reportedly befallen those who have mistakenly rented the Bullock movie instead.)
Directed by Danny Boyle
Cillian Murphy / Naomie Harris / Brendan Gleeson
113 min. Horror / Thriller
MPAA: R (for strong violence and gore, language and nudity)
Copyright 2007.
JP0094 : 408
Kickin' It Old Skool (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 62
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
X Good video rental (60-74)
O Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don’t watch (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / May 2, 2007
I can’t begin to tell you how long I’ve been trying to legitimately work “Mekaneck” (the name of a He-Man and the Masters of the Universe action figure) into one of my reviews. Today is the day. “Kickin’ It Old Skool” is nostalgic: Its opening credits show close-ups of lots of ‘80s toys in a boy’s room. One of those toys is Mekaneck. I couldn’t contain my delight.
This movie will mostly appeal to a select group of people: those who were children of the ‘80s. If you know what a Wacky Wall Walker is, then you’ll enjoy this dumb movie’s stroll down memory lane — especially if you’re a male.
Twelve-year-old Justin Schumacher (Alexander Calvert) is a breakdancer and the leader of a dance team called The Funky Fresh Boyz. Justin digs Jen, but he has to compete for her affections against a jerky kid named Kip. (This reminded me of my parallel life during the ‘80s when I had to put up with the likes of one diabolical Bill Barnes for the attention of Jeana Nicely.)
At a talent show dance contest, Justin tries to do “the move,” flips off of the stage, hits his head and goes into a 20-year coma. What we have here is a set-up that’s similar to “Blast From the Past” (1999), the movie where Brendan Fraser’s family needlessly hides out in an underground bomb shelter for 35 years, and when he submerges from underground, his old-fashioned ways are ridiculous to many but endearing to others, particularly the love interest.
“Kickin’ It Old Skool” is a similar fish-out-of-water comedy, which has its strengths in moments where 32-year-old Justin’s friends have to explain modern phenomena such as American Idol in terms of the ‘80s equivalents, such as Star Search.
So, Justin (Jamie Kennedy), who is stuck in the ‘80s, finds himself in present day with exorbitant medical bills and without his boyhood love, Jen (Maria Menounos). She happens to be engaged to Kip (Michael Rosenbaum). What must Justin do? He must reassemble The Funky Fresh Boyz and enter a dance competition, winning the $100,000 prize and the heart of the girl he loves.
Yes, we’ve seen this movie before — many times. Nevertheless, we haven’t been able to enjoy some spectacular breakdancing and ‘80s reminiscing quite like this before. In fact, the breakdancing in “Kickin’ It Old Skool” rivals the modern “Krump” dancing featured in “Stomp the Yard,” from earlier this year.
Mostly the humor is stupid and crass. The scenes where Justin’s friends instruct him on “how to get to second base” are way overboard.
But my biggest criticism lies with Jamie Kennedy: Young Justin was a cool kid. But when older Justin awakens, Kennedy plays him like he’s mentally handicapped. He should still be that same cool kid, just out of touch — like Brendan Fraser’s Adam Webber character in “Blast From the Past.” It’s almost as if Kennedy is trying to pull off some kind of dimmer-witted Jon Heder creation. I wish Heder had played this role. But that’s OK ... at least the movie had Mekaneck.
Directed by Harvey Glazer
Jamie Kennedy / Maria Menounos / Michael Rosenbaum
108 min. Comedy
MPAA: PG-13 (for crude and sexual content and language)
Copyright 2007.
JP0093 : 513
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
X Good video rental (60-74)
O Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don’t watch (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / May 2, 2007
I can’t begin to tell you how long I’ve been trying to legitimately work “Mekaneck” (the name of a He-Man and the Masters of the Universe action figure) into one of my reviews. Today is the day. “Kickin’ It Old Skool” is nostalgic: Its opening credits show close-ups of lots of ‘80s toys in a boy’s room. One of those toys is Mekaneck. I couldn’t contain my delight.
This movie will mostly appeal to a select group of people: those who were children of the ‘80s. If you know what a Wacky Wall Walker is, then you’ll enjoy this dumb movie’s stroll down memory lane — especially if you’re a male.
Twelve-year-old Justin Schumacher (Alexander Calvert) is a breakdancer and the leader of a dance team called The Funky Fresh Boyz. Justin digs Jen, but he has to compete for her affections against a jerky kid named Kip. (This reminded me of my parallel life during the ‘80s when I had to put up with the likes of one diabolical Bill Barnes for the attention of Jeana Nicely.)
At a talent show dance contest, Justin tries to do “the move,” flips off of the stage, hits his head and goes into a 20-year coma. What we have here is a set-up that’s similar to “Blast From the Past” (1999), the movie where Brendan Fraser’s family needlessly hides out in an underground bomb shelter for 35 years, and when he submerges from underground, his old-fashioned ways are ridiculous to many but endearing to others, particularly the love interest.
“Kickin’ It Old Skool” is a similar fish-out-of-water comedy, which has its strengths in moments where 32-year-old Justin’s friends have to explain modern phenomena such as American Idol in terms of the ‘80s equivalents, such as Star Search.
So, Justin (Jamie Kennedy), who is stuck in the ‘80s, finds himself in present day with exorbitant medical bills and without his boyhood love, Jen (Maria Menounos). She happens to be engaged to Kip (Michael Rosenbaum). What must Justin do? He must reassemble The Funky Fresh Boyz and enter a dance competition, winning the $100,000 prize and the heart of the girl he loves.
Yes, we’ve seen this movie before — many times. Nevertheless, we haven’t been able to enjoy some spectacular breakdancing and ‘80s reminiscing quite like this before. In fact, the breakdancing in “Kickin’ It Old Skool” rivals the modern “Krump” dancing featured in “Stomp the Yard,” from earlier this year.
Mostly the humor is stupid and crass. The scenes where Justin’s friends instruct him on “how to get to second base” are way overboard.
But my biggest criticism lies with Jamie Kennedy: Young Justin was a cool kid. But when older Justin awakens, Kennedy plays him like he’s mentally handicapped. He should still be that same cool kid, just out of touch — like Brendan Fraser’s Adam Webber character in “Blast From the Past.” It’s almost as if Kennedy is trying to pull off some kind of dimmer-witted Jon Heder creation. I wish Heder had played this role. But that’s OK ... at least the movie had Mekaneck.
Directed by Harvey Glazer
Jamie Kennedy / Maria Menounos / Michael Rosenbaum
108 min. Comedy
MPAA: PG-13 (for crude and sexual content and language)
Copyright 2007.
JP0093 : 513
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
