Overall rating from 1 to 100: 87
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 / June 30, 2007
Just when I thought I had outgrown action movies, “Live Free or Die Hard” saved the day. I find it surprising — even ironic — that action movies can actually be boring. But it took me about three decades to realize that.
Here’s a story, an optional, barely relevant, personal digression:
Years ago, I used to rent those old, 1970s martial arts movies featuring the buff Bolo Yeung (you’d know him if you saw him because he looks like a Chinese Arnold Schwarzenegger) from a place called Stone Church Video. (That is, until whoever framed Roger Rabbit also got me in trouble for taking a Genuine Risk. … Long story.) But you’ve seen these movies that are 90 minutes of karate action and 30 seconds of broken-English dialogue. And most, if not all, of the lines are overdubbed, of course. Examples: “The Fists, the Kicks and the Evil” (1979), “Black Belt Jones 2” (1978), etc.
Anyway, “Live Free or Die Hard” is the fourth installment of the “Die Hard” franchise, returning after a 12-year hiatus. Apparently, that’s what was needed: The third movie in 1995 wasn’t that great; whereas, this new movie is the best action vehicle I’ve seen since Optimus Prime. And unless “Transformers” is truly exceptional, “Live Free or Die Hard” will probably go down as the best action flick of 2007.
Of course, the movie requires a hefty suspension of disbelief. I mean, it’s no “Last Action Hero” (1993), but we have 52-year-old John McClane (Bruce Willis) vs. a helicopter. Then we have 52-year-old McClane vs. an F-35 fighter jet. Like most action movies, “Die Hard 4” is far-fetched, indeed. But so what.
Here’s the gist: A terrorist group plans a crippling assault on the United States by taking over all of its computer systems. McClane, a New York City police detective, is commissioned to escort (and protect) a brilliant computer-hacker kid, Matt Farrell (Justin Long). Together, the two might just be the U.S.A.’s only hope. Just maybe — but you’ll have to see for yourself.
My wife, Natalie, calls these kinds of movies “Boy Movies.” Well, “Live Free or Die Hard” is a Boy Movie for men, real men who like Bolo Yeung.
Note: This is the first “Die Hard” movie that isn’t rated R; it’s rated PG-13 and has a good bit of profanity.
Another note: “Live Free or Die Hard” is a must-see for action movie lovers.
Directed by Len Wiseman
Bruce Willis / Justin Long / Timothy Olyphant
130 min. Action
MPAA: PG-13 (for intense sequences of violence and action, language and a brief sexual situation)
Copyright 2007.
JP0143 : 400
Saturday, June 30, 2007
1408 (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 55
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 / June 30, 2007
One fateful night after a football game, my friend, Bill Barnes, and I were stuck in traffic, listening to Billy Joel’s “Until the Night.” The revelry of the moment was interrupted by some dumb kid who inexplicably jabbed me in the eye with the knuckle of his thumb. His attack was completely unprovoked, I assure you. And I could not retaliate as he had several cohorts accompanying him.
Well, I vowed that I would never let that happen again. But darn it all, watching the very last 15 seconds of “1408” was a jab of the thumb knuckle into my eye. Again, I could not retaliate. I hate it when that happens.
To be fair, I can’t think of a haunted house movie that is truly good, much less a haunted hotel room movie. But that’s what “1408” is about: a haunted hotel room.
Mike Enslin (John Cusack) is an author who writes books about his overnight stays in haunted mansions and hotels. He is a cynic who doesn’t believe in much, not even God. When Enslin lodges at these supposedly haunted places, he takes his hand-held tape recorder and dictates notes for his next book.
The writer realizes that most of these places have cooked up their tall tales and ghost stories to attract visitors and fill vacancies. Enslin has no problem with the fabrications because they’re just making their living, and that enables him to make his.
But Enslin hears about an infamous room 1408 in the Dolphin Hotel in New York City. Intrigued, he tries to get a room but is met with significant resistance. The hotel’s manager, Mr. Olin (Samuel L. Jackson), tries to prevent Enslin from staying in the room, with overwrought, ominous warnings of evil, doom and death. Many people died in said room, most of them suicides. Despite the excessive warnings, Enslin stays in room 1408, and that’s all I will tell you.
Based on a Stephen King short story (but having three screenwriters, none of whom were King), “1408” has a distinct challenge of trying to scare us within the walls of a single hotel room. That’s quite a small space compared to a spooky, old mansion. The movie’s conventions used to get around this challenge did not satisfy me, not one bit.
But overall, “1408” is horrible, but it isn’t horrifying, either. It has the usual horror movie conventions of cheap, jumpy scares and our protagonist pursuing noises that we know he should leave well enough alone. This movie is merely OK.
Since I cannot tell you the end of “1408,” I might as well tell you the end of my story that I began with:
Years later, one sunny day I was on a street corner when I saw that same, aforementioned assailant in a car, stopped at a red light. He was sitting in the passenger seat, and I was just outside his window — an exactly parallel situation to that night a few years before, except he was in the hot seat this time (and he wasn’t listening to Billy Joel). Go figure.
The vulnerable delinquent did not recognize me, of course, because his earlier attack was a random act of violence. But I recognized him with certainty. I did not, however, jab my thumb knuckle into his eye (though I honestly considered it), because I realized that he probably had moved onto bigger and better things, like random, drive-by shootings.
But I can tell you this, dear Reader: If I ever end up staying in a room 1408 somewhere, I will most definitely whiz on the carpet. After all, a man can only turn his cheek (or eye, as it were) so many times.
Directed by Mikael Hafstrom
John Cusack / Samuel L. Jackson / Mary McCormack
94 min. Horror / Thriller
MPAA: PG-13 (for thematic material including disturbing sequences of violence and terror, frightening images and language)
Copyright 2007.
JP0144 : 616
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 / June 30, 2007
One fateful night after a football game, my friend, Bill Barnes, and I were stuck in traffic, listening to Billy Joel’s “Until the Night.” The revelry of the moment was interrupted by some dumb kid who inexplicably jabbed me in the eye with the knuckle of his thumb. His attack was completely unprovoked, I assure you. And I could not retaliate as he had several cohorts accompanying him.
Well, I vowed that I would never let that happen again. But darn it all, watching the very last 15 seconds of “1408” was a jab of the thumb knuckle into my eye. Again, I could not retaliate. I hate it when that happens.
To be fair, I can’t think of a haunted house movie that is truly good, much less a haunted hotel room movie. But that’s what “1408” is about: a haunted hotel room.
Mike Enslin (John Cusack) is an author who writes books about his overnight stays in haunted mansions and hotels. He is a cynic who doesn’t believe in much, not even God. When Enslin lodges at these supposedly haunted places, he takes his hand-held tape recorder and dictates notes for his next book.
The writer realizes that most of these places have cooked up their tall tales and ghost stories to attract visitors and fill vacancies. Enslin has no problem with the fabrications because they’re just making their living, and that enables him to make his.
But Enslin hears about an infamous room 1408 in the Dolphin Hotel in New York City. Intrigued, he tries to get a room but is met with significant resistance. The hotel’s manager, Mr. Olin (Samuel L. Jackson), tries to prevent Enslin from staying in the room, with overwrought, ominous warnings of evil, doom and death. Many people died in said room, most of them suicides. Despite the excessive warnings, Enslin stays in room 1408, and that’s all I will tell you.
Based on a Stephen King short story (but having three screenwriters, none of whom were King), “1408” has a distinct challenge of trying to scare us within the walls of a single hotel room. That’s quite a small space compared to a spooky, old mansion. The movie’s conventions used to get around this challenge did not satisfy me, not one bit.
But overall, “1408” is horrible, but it isn’t horrifying, either. It has the usual horror movie conventions of cheap, jumpy scares and our protagonist pursuing noises that we know he should leave well enough alone. This movie is merely OK.
Since I cannot tell you the end of “1408,” I might as well tell you the end of my story that I began with:
Years later, one sunny day I was on a street corner when I saw that same, aforementioned assailant in a car, stopped at a red light. He was sitting in the passenger seat, and I was just outside his window — an exactly parallel situation to that night a few years before, except he was in the hot seat this time (and he wasn’t listening to Billy Joel). Go figure.
The vulnerable delinquent did not recognize me, of course, because his earlier attack was a random act of violence. But I recognized him with certainty. I did not, however, jab my thumb knuckle into his eye (though I honestly considered it), because I realized that he probably had moved onto bigger and better things, like random, drive-by shootings.
But I can tell you this, dear Reader: If I ever end up staying in a room 1408 somewhere, I will most definitely whiz on the carpet. After all, a man can only turn his cheek (or eye, as it were) so many times.
Directed by Mikael Hafstrom
John Cusack / Samuel L. Jackson / Mary McCormack
94 min. Horror / Thriller
MPAA: PG-13 (for thematic material including disturbing sequences of violence and terror, frightening images and language)
Copyright 2007.
JP0144 : 616
A Mighty Heart (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 50
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 / June 30, 2007
Imagine watching a movie made from someone else’s memories of a traumatic time in her life. That isn’t exactly the premise of “A Mighty Heart,” but that’s what it’s like to watch this movie.
Another peculiar quality of this film is the way it gives viewers that same uncomfortable feeling that you experience when someone tells you something intimately personal that they probably shouldn’t have shared.
My viewing of “A Mighty Heart” reminded me of Ingmar Bergman’s shattering film, “Cries and Whispers” (1972), a movie that is unflinching in the way that it allows us to witness the struggles between three sisters as one of them suffers and dies from cancer. Although “Cries and Whispers” is a good film, it’s one you can never forget but wish you could.
In short, “A Mighty Heart” shows us things that we feel like we probably shouldn’t be seeing — not nudity or violence — but the depths of human emotional suffering. This is portrayed with chilling effectiveness. (In fact, there’s a moment in the movie that will likely earn Angelina Jolie a nomination for Best Actress at the 80th Annual Academy Awards.)
If you keep up with the news, you may remember in 2002 when a Wall Street Journal reporter named Danny Pearl was kidnapped by terrorists in Karachi, Pakistan. (Now, because I aspire to be your favorite, most trusted movie critic, I will not reveal what happened with that kidnapped journalist, in case you didn’t follow the coverage.) But you can safely know this: Whether he lived or died, it’s still very sad to watch his pregnant wife’s suffering and worrying throughout her ordeal.
That’s what this movie is about: “A Mighty Heart” doesn’t follow Danny Pearl’s experience of being kidnapped; in fact, we know little about him during the movie. Instead, “A Mighty Heart” carefully chronicles his wife, Mariane’s (Angelina Jolie) experience of having her husband taken by terrorists. Because of this refreshingly unconventional shift of focus, “A Mighty Heart” is not an action movie, nor is it a suspenseful thriller. It is a heavy drama completely fueled by dialogue and the actors’ delivery of it. The realism of this film is so authentic, it seems as though we’re watching actual documentary footage of the events when they occurred in 2002.
So why did I only give the movie a 50, which ranks at the bottom of “Merely OK”? I gave it a low ranking because the movie will be difficult for most moviegoers to follow. Naturally, its characters are plagued by confusion, which we feel along with them, but all of it is compounded by a barrage of foreign names that are nearly impossible to keep straight.
Also, “A Mighty Heart” is not entertaining (not that it should it be, nor was it meant to be). But most people go to see movies to be entertained. I hate to write this, but I must: “A Mighty Heart” is as dull as it is dreary, despite its fine performances.
Directed by Michael Winterbottom
Angelina Jolie / Dan Futterman / Will Patton
100 min. Drama
MPAA: R (for language)
Copyright 2007.
JP0142 : 497
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 / June 30, 2007
Imagine watching a movie made from someone else’s memories of a traumatic time in her life. That isn’t exactly the premise of “A Mighty Heart,” but that’s what it’s like to watch this movie.
Another peculiar quality of this film is the way it gives viewers that same uncomfortable feeling that you experience when someone tells you something intimately personal that they probably shouldn’t have shared.
My viewing of “A Mighty Heart” reminded me of Ingmar Bergman’s shattering film, “Cries and Whispers” (1972), a movie that is unflinching in the way that it allows us to witness the struggles between three sisters as one of them suffers and dies from cancer. Although “Cries and Whispers” is a good film, it’s one you can never forget but wish you could.
In short, “A Mighty Heart” shows us things that we feel like we probably shouldn’t be seeing — not nudity or violence — but the depths of human emotional suffering. This is portrayed with chilling effectiveness. (In fact, there’s a moment in the movie that will likely earn Angelina Jolie a nomination for Best Actress at the 80th Annual Academy Awards.)
If you keep up with the news, you may remember in 2002 when a Wall Street Journal reporter named Danny Pearl was kidnapped by terrorists in Karachi, Pakistan. (Now, because I aspire to be your favorite, most trusted movie critic, I will not reveal what happened with that kidnapped journalist, in case you didn’t follow the coverage.) But you can safely know this: Whether he lived or died, it’s still very sad to watch his pregnant wife’s suffering and worrying throughout her ordeal.
That’s what this movie is about: “A Mighty Heart” doesn’t follow Danny Pearl’s experience of being kidnapped; in fact, we know little about him during the movie. Instead, “A Mighty Heart” carefully chronicles his wife, Mariane’s (Angelina Jolie) experience of having her husband taken by terrorists. Because of this refreshingly unconventional shift of focus, “A Mighty Heart” is not an action movie, nor is it a suspenseful thriller. It is a heavy drama completely fueled by dialogue and the actors’ delivery of it. The realism of this film is so authentic, it seems as though we’re watching actual documentary footage of the events when they occurred in 2002.
So why did I only give the movie a 50, which ranks at the bottom of “Merely OK”? I gave it a low ranking because the movie will be difficult for most moviegoers to follow. Naturally, its characters are plagued by confusion, which we feel along with them, but all of it is compounded by a barrage of foreign names that are nearly impossible to keep straight.
Also, “A Mighty Heart” is not entertaining (not that it should it be, nor was it meant to be). But most people go to see movies to be entertained. I hate to write this, but I must: “A Mighty Heart” is as dull as it is dreary, despite its fine performances.
Directed by Michael Winterbottom
Angelina Jolie / Dan Futterman / Will Patton
100 min. Drama
MPAA: R (for language)
Copyright 2007.
JP0142 : 497
Saturday, June 23, 2007
Evan Almighty (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 84
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 / June 23, 2007
Not only is “Evan Almighty” the best movie of the summer (so far — and for broad audiences), it is the only movie sequel of the summer that is significantly better than its original, which is “Bruce Almighty” (2003). “Evan Almighty” is excellent, and I absolutely loved it. Whether you see it in the theater or rent it, this movie is a must-see.
Now, if you’re a Bible reader (like I AM ... get it?), then you’ve probably cringed at the premise to this movie: Steve Carell plays Evan, a man whom God (Morgan Freeman) calls to build an ark (just like Noah’s, dual animals and all) because a flood is imminent. This premise may have made you scoff because you’ve learned from (Genesis 9:8-17), that the rainbow is a symbol — not of gays — but of God’s promise not to flood the Earth again. Well, let me just say, without spoiling anything, quell your fears: You will be pleasantly surprised at the outcome of that doctrinal predicament.
“Bruce Almighty” starred Jim Carrey, and really, that movie has an entirely different premise: Basically, Bruce (Jim Carrey) was complaining about the job that God was doing of “running things,” and Bruce thought he could do better. And though “Bruce Almighty” had some perceptive parts, I was more displeased than pleased, finding some of it to be disrespectful and in poor taste.
Whereas, in “Evan Almighty,” God doesn’t hand over the reigns; instead, he calls one of his sons to do a special job. There is a sweetness associated with this movie that is hard for me to describe. I felt a little emotionally unbalanced because I would teeter between tears and laughter. There are some moments that are so poignant and spiritually insightful, that God fans will likely find this movie uplifting, inspiring and touching.
The story is simple and familiar: Evan Baxter is a newly elected congressman who wants to “change the world.” He and his wife, Joan (Lauren Graham, the mom from “Gilmore Girls”), and their three sons move from Buffalo, N.Y. to Huntsville, VA. Evan is quickly drawn in by Congressman Long (John Goodman) to help pass some questionable legislation.
But God has other plans for Evan: He commissions Evan to build an ark. Of course, this request is met by resistance, at first by Evan and then by everyone else in Evan’s life. A perpetually growing Grant-Adams beard and a Snow White relationship with animals further complicates Evan’s life. (Kids will love this movie because of all of its animal co-stars. In fact, I’ve heard that “Evan Almighty” has the new record for the most live animals used in a film.)
“Evan Almighty” is rated PG. And there is no “taking the Lord’s name in vain,” which is most refreshing. Adults will catch some mild innuendo, but nothing like you’ll hear in “Surf’s Up,” for example. I would only caution parents that one of Evan’s sons loves “Animal Planet,” so he frequently quotes animal factoids. At one point, the son recites some particulars about a male animal’s genitalia (using a word that rhymes with “Enos”). And this same factoid is repeated once more, in case the first time wasn’t unnecessary enough for you.
My other criticisms are the pacing of the first 15 minutes of the movie; the actors’ dialogue and comedic timing is unmistakably rushed. Also, there is an injury montage where Carell keeps hurting himself while building the ark in the same way, over and over again. This sequence made me want to hurt myself (or someone else). And Wanda Sykes’ “attitude one-liners” miss almost every time, stopping the movie dead in its tracks each time she opens her mouth. But these critiques are comparatively insignificant to the quality of the movie as a whole.
And by the way, if you’re a Steve Carell fan, particularly a Michael Scott of “The Office” fan, then you will love him here. Carell portrays much of his same Michael Scott character, but a sweeter, mostly not obnoxious, non-offensive version of him. In short, Carell mops the floor with Jim Carrey. (I’m sorry; it had to be noted.)
Any movie that recites scripture and has one character telling another character to “repent” is a rare gem. “Evan Almighty” is the kind of movie that you’d want to own on DVD and let your kids watch 50 billion times. I hope this movie does well at the box office and sends Hollywood a message, which is why I would encourage all of you to see it. (The deplorable torture flick, “Hostel: Part II,” unseen by me, was showing at my local theater for only a week, thank goodness. I hope that sends Hollywood a message, too.)
Amid the flood of trashy movies, “Evan Almighty” sails through as a strong, sturdy, floating ark of family entertainment. I got on board; I hope you will, too.
Directed by Tom Shadyac
Steve Carell / Morgan Freeman / Lauren Graham
90 min. Comedy
MPAA: PG (for mild rude humor and some peril)
Copyright 2007.
JP0140 : 812
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 / June 23, 2007
Not only is “Evan Almighty” the best movie of the summer (so far — and for broad audiences), it is the only movie sequel of the summer that is significantly better than its original, which is “Bruce Almighty” (2003). “Evan Almighty” is excellent, and I absolutely loved it. Whether you see it in the theater or rent it, this movie is a must-see.
Now, if you’re a Bible reader (like I AM ... get it?), then you’ve probably cringed at the premise to this movie: Steve Carell plays Evan, a man whom God (Morgan Freeman) calls to build an ark (just like Noah’s, dual animals and all) because a flood is imminent. This premise may have made you scoff because you’ve learned from (Genesis 9:8-17), that the rainbow is a symbol — not of gays — but of God’s promise not to flood the Earth again. Well, let me just say, without spoiling anything, quell your fears: You will be pleasantly surprised at the outcome of that doctrinal predicament.
“Bruce Almighty” starred Jim Carrey, and really, that movie has an entirely different premise: Basically, Bruce (Jim Carrey) was complaining about the job that God was doing of “running things,” and Bruce thought he could do better. And though “Bruce Almighty” had some perceptive parts, I was more displeased than pleased, finding some of it to be disrespectful and in poor taste.
Whereas, in “Evan Almighty,” God doesn’t hand over the reigns; instead, he calls one of his sons to do a special job. There is a sweetness associated with this movie that is hard for me to describe. I felt a little emotionally unbalanced because I would teeter between tears and laughter. There are some moments that are so poignant and spiritually insightful, that God fans will likely find this movie uplifting, inspiring and touching.
The story is simple and familiar: Evan Baxter is a newly elected congressman who wants to “change the world.” He and his wife, Joan (Lauren Graham, the mom from “Gilmore Girls”), and their three sons move from Buffalo, N.Y. to Huntsville, VA. Evan is quickly drawn in by Congressman Long (John Goodman) to help pass some questionable legislation.
But God has other plans for Evan: He commissions Evan to build an ark. Of course, this request is met by resistance, at first by Evan and then by everyone else in Evan’s life. A perpetually growing Grant-Adams beard and a Snow White relationship with animals further complicates Evan’s life. (Kids will love this movie because of all of its animal co-stars. In fact, I’ve heard that “Evan Almighty” has the new record for the most live animals used in a film.)
“Evan Almighty” is rated PG. And there is no “taking the Lord’s name in vain,” which is most refreshing. Adults will catch some mild innuendo, but nothing like you’ll hear in “Surf’s Up,” for example. I would only caution parents that one of Evan’s sons loves “Animal Planet,” so he frequently quotes animal factoids. At one point, the son recites some particulars about a male animal’s genitalia (using a word that rhymes with “Enos”). And this same factoid is repeated once more, in case the first time wasn’t unnecessary enough for you.
My other criticisms are the pacing of the first 15 minutes of the movie; the actors’ dialogue and comedic timing is unmistakably rushed. Also, there is an injury montage where Carell keeps hurting himself while building the ark in the same way, over and over again. This sequence made me want to hurt myself (or someone else). And Wanda Sykes’ “attitude one-liners” miss almost every time, stopping the movie dead in its tracks each time she opens her mouth. But these critiques are comparatively insignificant to the quality of the movie as a whole.
And by the way, if you’re a Steve Carell fan, particularly a Michael Scott of “The Office” fan, then you will love him here. Carell portrays much of his same Michael Scott character, but a sweeter, mostly not obnoxious, non-offensive version of him. In short, Carell mops the floor with Jim Carrey. (I’m sorry; it had to be noted.)
Any movie that recites scripture and has one character telling another character to “repent” is a rare gem. “Evan Almighty” is the kind of movie that you’d want to own on DVD and let your kids watch 50 billion times. I hope this movie does well at the box office and sends Hollywood a message, which is why I would encourage all of you to see it. (The deplorable torture flick, “Hostel: Part II,” unseen by me, was showing at my local theater for only a week, thank goodness. I hope that sends Hollywood a message, too.)
Amid the flood of trashy movies, “Evan Almighty” sails through as a strong, sturdy, floating ark of family entertainment. I got on board; I hope you will, too.
Directed by Tom Shadyac
Steve Carell / Morgan Freeman / Lauren Graham
90 min. Comedy
MPAA: PG (for mild rude humor and some peril)
Copyright 2007.
JP0140 : 812
Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 54
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 / June 23, 2007
“Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer” is better than the first movie. So, if for some reason, somehow, you enjoyed “Fantastic Four” (2005), you’ll probably be quite pleased with its sequel. And if so, chances are great that you’d also be enthralled by a bottle of Bubble Stuff or a plastic egg filled with Silly Putty or a rock or a stick.
(But I can’t be too hard on fans of the first movie: I have a good friend named Mike who liked it (“Mikey likes it”), and he’s a bright kid ... although, this same friend did use a dead cow as a trampoline once. True story.)
In any case, it’s an ominous sign when a PG-13 franchise dips down to PG to lower the age bar to keep ticket sales boosted after an unsuccessful debut of the original. But I rather admired the relative cleanness of this movie.
The Fantastic Four are back and are, more or less, still whining about their “affliction” of having super powers. Reed Richards a.k.a. Mr. Fantastic (Reed Richards) and Sue Storm a.k.a. The Invisible Woman (Jessica Alba) have been trying to tie the knot of holy matrimony. Theirs is a popular love affair with plenty of publicity and paparazzi.
Meanwhile, Sue’s hotshot brother, Johnny Storm a.k.a. The Human Torch (Chris Evans) is enjoying his fame and collecting sponsors who wish to be endorsed by super heroes. And Ben Grimm a.k.a. The Thing (Michael Chiklis) has begun to semi-accept his stony complexion after finding love with a lovely blind girl named Alicia (Kerry Washington).
But when a solitary alien comes to destroy Earth, the heroes’ happiness has to halt. The slick, shiny being of few words, the Silver Surfer, is astoundingly powerful. Here is right about where we get the ramblings of science fiction science: From what I gathered, the Surfer glides around emitting cosmic radiation and creating giant craters in the Earth, all of this is part of an unpleasant process that “kills planets.” Yes, this is yet another “save the world” plot.
The silver being’s influence affects molecules in a peculiar way, allowing the Human Torch to switch powers with his teammates by merely touching them. I guess that’s one way for the filmmakers to switch up the four otherwise boring super powers. (These guys are a step up from Batman, who didn’t actually have powers, he was just a smart, rich guy.) The Fantastic Four remind me of the super-hero tryouts in “Mystery Men” (1999).
Anyway, as a result of the alien surfer’s visit, Dr. Doom (Julian McMahon) resurfaces, too. It’s funny how almost all of the super hero movies these days make the same two mistakes: They feel they must have multiple villains, and some of those invariably seem to return from the first movie.
I have to admit, the Silver Surfer does look pretty cool. But if you want to watch even cooler surfers, go see “Surf’s Up” instead (also rated PG). It is currently in theaters as well.
There are some weird super heroes, aren’t there?: Ghost Rider. Underdog. The Fantastic Four. Instead of all of these, I’d rather see a movie about a kid that can use a dead cow for a trampoline. Now that’s a super hero!
Directed by Tim Story
Ioan Gruffudd / Jessica Alba / Chris Evans
92 min. Action / Science Fiction
MPAA: PG (for sequences of action violence, some mild language and innuendo)
Copyright 2007.
JP0135 : 543
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 / June 23, 2007
“Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer” is better than the first movie. So, if for some reason, somehow, you enjoyed “Fantastic Four” (2005), you’ll probably be quite pleased with its sequel. And if so, chances are great that you’d also be enthralled by a bottle of Bubble Stuff or a plastic egg filled with Silly Putty or a rock or a stick.
(But I can’t be too hard on fans of the first movie: I have a good friend named Mike who liked it (“Mikey likes it”), and he’s a bright kid ... although, this same friend did use a dead cow as a trampoline once. True story.)
In any case, it’s an ominous sign when a PG-13 franchise dips down to PG to lower the age bar to keep ticket sales boosted after an unsuccessful debut of the original. But I rather admired the relative cleanness of this movie.
The Fantastic Four are back and are, more or less, still whining about their “affliction” of having super powers. Reed Richards a.k.a. Mr. Fantastic (Reed Richards) and Sue Storm a.k.a. The Invisible Woman (Jessica Alba) have been trying to tie the knot of holy matrimony. Theirs is a popular love affair with plenty of publicity and paparazzi.
Meanwhile, Sue’s hotshot brother, Johnny Storm a.k.a. The Human Torch (Chris Evans) is enjoying his fame and collecting sponsors who wish to be endorsed by super heroes. And Ben Grimm a.k.a. The Thing (Michael Chiklis) has begun to semi-accept his stony complexion after finding love with a lovely blind girl named Alicia (Kerry Washington).
But when a solitary alien comes to destroy Earth, the heroes’ happiness has to halt. The slick, shiny being of few words, the Silver Surfer, is astoundingly powerful. Here is right about where we get the ramblings of science fiction science: From what I gathered, the Surfer glides around emitting cosmic radiation and creating giant craters in the Earth, all of this is part of an unpleasant process that “kills planets.” Yes, this is yet another “save the world” plot.
The silver being’s influence affects molecules in a peculiar way, allowing the Human Torch to switch powers with his teammates by merely touching them. I guess that’s one way for the filmmakers to switch up the four otherwise boring super powers. (These guys are a step up from Batman, who didn’t actually have powers, he was just a smart, rich guy.) The Fantastic Four remind me of the super-hero tryouts in “Mystery Men” (1999).
Anyway, as a result of the alien surfer’s visit, Dr. Doom (Julian McMahon) resurfaces, too. It’s funny how almost all of the super hero movies these days make the same two mistakes: They feel they must have multiple villains, and some of those invariably seem to return from the first movie.
I have to admit, the Silver Surfer does look pretty cool. But if you want to watch even cooler surfers, go see “Surf’s Up” instead (also rated PG). It is currently in theaters as well.
There are some weird super heroes, aren’t there?: Ghost Rider. Underdog. The Fantastic Four. Instead of all of these, I’d rather see a movie about a kid that can use a dead cow for a trampoline. Now that’s a super hero!
Directed by Tim Story
Ioan Gruffudd / Jessica Alba / Chris Evans
92 min. Action / Science Fiction
MPAA: PG (for sequences of action violence, some mild language and innuendo)
Copyright 2007.
JP0135 : 543
Nancy Drew (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 52
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 / June 23, 2007
As we left the theater after watching “Nancy Drew,” my cute wife enthusiastically declared, “That was entertaining!” ‘Yes,’ I thought, ‘but only for nine-year-old girls and the truly pure in heart.’ Indeed, my wife is pure in heart.
I suspected that “Nancy Drew” would target the younger, teenage audience. I was right. This little movie will work best for young people from nine to 14 years old.
In many ways, this is like a live-action Scooby-Doo cartoon but without Scooby. For example, tense moments are provided by shining a flashlight in an old, grumpy man’s face in a dark tunnel. So parents, this movie isn’t too scary. There are some scenes of mild violence and one “h – e – double hockey sticks,” that I recall, but this movie is appropriately rated PG.
The opening scenes aren’t promising: A young-looking Nancy Drew (Emma Roberts), I’d say about 13 or 14, uses her sleuthing skills to apprehend two criminals. The biggest mystery of this first scene is why the director allowed this dopey acting and groaner dialogue in the final cut. But the movie improves a little after that.
Nancy’s father has some business to conduct in California. So, he and Nancy leave their quaint town of River Heights and journey to the Hollywood area. Nancy’s dad has concerns that her obsession with sleuthing is preventing her from being “a normal teenager.” (What’s that?) So she agrees to suppress her urges for detective work and just be normal.
But the house they move into contains a mystery: A famous movie star, Dehlia Draycott, once lived there. After vanishing for five months, the actress came back to the house and ended up dead in her own swimming pool. This “fantastically famous” unsolved mystery is enough to tempt Nancy to take the case.
(Dehlia Draycott, by the way, is fictitious, despite an onscreen appearance of the typically trusty Internet Movie Database, which brings me to my next point: “Nancy Drew” is modernized, providing opportunities for product placement for its young audiences to notice.)
I predict that Emma Roberts will be the new Emma Watson (Hermione from the “Harry Potter” movies). Yes, she’s cute as a button and is sure to be the new middle school heartthrob.
Overall, “Nancy Drew” is just OK. At least it’s clean and free from and undercurrent of innuendo. If you’re not taking kids and you’re planning to see this movie solely because you’re a fan of the books, then you’ll probably be disappointed ... unless, of course, you’re truly pure in heart, like Natalie Pyles.
Directed by Andrew Fleming
Emma Roberts / Josh Flitter / Max Thieriot
99 min. Mystery
MPAA: PG (for mild violence, thematic elements and brief language)
Copyright 2007.
JP0134 : 425
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 / June 23, 2007
As we left the theater after watching “Nancy Drew,” my cute wife enthusiastically declared, “That was entertaining!” ‘Yes,’ I thought, ‘but only for nine-year-old girls and the truly pure in heart.’ Indeed, my wife is pure in heart.
I suspected that “Nancy Drew” would target the younger, teenage audience. I was right. This little movie will work best for young people from nine to 14 years old.
In many ways, this is like a live-action Scooby-Doo cartoon but without Scooby. For example, tense moments are provided by shining a flashlight in an old, grumpy man’s face in a dark tunnel. So parents, this movie isn’t too scary. There are some scenes of mild violence and one “h – e – double hockey sticks,” that I recall, but this movie is appropriately rated PG.
The opening scenes aren’t promising: A young-looking Nancy Drew (Emma Roberts), I’d say about 13 or 14, uses her sleuthing skills to apprehend two criminals. The biggest mystery of this first scene is why the director allowed this dopey acting and groaner dialogue in the final cut. But the movie improves a little after that.
Nancy’s father has some business to conduct in California. So, he and Nancy leave their quaint town of River Heights and journey to the Hollywood area. Nancy’s dad has concerns that her obsession with sleuthing is preventing her from being “a normal teenager.” (What’s that?) So she agrees to suppress her urges for detective work and just be normal.
But the house they move into contains a mystery: A famous movie star, Dehlia Draycott, once lived there. After vanishing for five months, the actress came back to the house and ended up dead in her own swimming pool. This “fantastically famous” unsolved mystery is enough to tempt Nancy to take the case.
(Dehlia Draycott, by the way, is fictitious, despite an onscreen appearance of the typically trusty Internet Movie Database, which brings me to my next point: “Nancy Drew” is modernized, providing opportunities for product placement for its young audiences to notice.)
I predict that Emma Roberts will be the new Emma Watson (Hermione from the “Harry Potter” movies). Yes, she’s cute as a button and is sure to be the new middle school heartthrob.
Overall, “Nancy Drew” is just OK. At least it’s clean and free from and undercurrent of innuendo. If you’re not taking kids and you’re planning to see this movie solely because you’re a fan of the books, then you’ll probably be disappointed ... unless, of course, you’re truly pure in heart, like Natalie Pyles.
Directed by Andrew Fleming
Emma Roberts / Josh Flitter / Max Thieriot
99 min. Mystery
MPAA: PG (for mild violence, thematic elements and brief language)
Copyright 2007.
JP0134 : 425
Pillow Talk (1959)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 54
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 / June 23, 2007
If you’ve seen “Down With Love” (2003), the one that stars Renee Zellweger and Ewan McGregor, then you’ll know exactly what you’re in for with “Pillow Talk.” Why? Because movies like “Pillow Talk” were the inspiration for “Down With Love.”
“Pillow Talk” is a late ‘50s, sexual, romantic comedy. But it’s not a sexual comedy like we see in today’s movies. By today’s standards, it has very subdued innuendo that would only earn a PG rating from the Motion Picture Association of America. (And if you’re worried about such things, I would warn that “Down With Love” is updated to modern “standards” (or lack thereof) and has a PG-13 rating that really should have been R.) In “Pillow Talk” we get one “d” word, and dialogue like this: “Don’t worry about what he does to me — or when ... ” Or, “Don’t take your bedroom problems out on me.” At one point a character is referred to as a “sex maniac.” All of this may have been edgy for the ‘50s, before the Sexual Revolution seeped into cinema, but the banter seems rather dated and benign now.
Jan Morrow (Doris Day) is a single woman who is an interior decorator. But she has a problem: She has “a party line” (which is a telephone line that she must share with other callers in New York). Every time she needs to call a client, she picks up the phone and hears some playboy wooing a different woman.
Brad Allen (Rock Hudson) is this womanizer. He is a songwriter who uses the same song to sing to various women; he simply inserts the latest gal’s name. In addition to his being a nuisance with his constant calls, Jan finds Brad’s lifestyle reprehensible. One of Jan’s clients, Jonathan Forbes (Tony Randall, “The Odd Couple”), is a millionaire who is in love with her. This spark simply isn’t returned from her though. Coincidentally, Jonathan is Brad’s best friend and boss, sort of.
Basically, Brad hears via Jonathan that Jan is actually quite attractive. Brad ends up seeing for himself, and he agrees. But since Jan is already disgusted with Brad, the ladies’ man disguises himself with a false identity. Naturally, Jan begins falling for Brad (and his trick alter ego who has a horrible accent). Further complicating matters, Brad must keep his deception a secret from Jonathan and figure out a way to reveal his true identity to her with minimal damage. And so forth. (Don’t worry, this lengthy plot description hasn’t spoiled the movie for you.)
“Pillow Talk” seems lame at first, but once you get used to its dated feel (such as voice-over thoughts), you begin to roll with it. About 45 minutes into the movie, it gets interesting. And the last 20 minutes is actually rather funny. I was pleasantly surprised.
Perhaps the most noteworthy, shocking thing about “Pillow Talk” is what amounts to an attempted rape scene: One of Jan’s clients has a son who offers to drive her home one night. On the way, he begins forcing himself upon her. The scene merely shows him trying to hug and kiss her. She keeps pushing him away, rather violently. It continues for an uncomfortably long amount of time and is quite bizarre when viewed in our modern times of “No Means No” and sexual harassment lawsuits.
“Pillow Talk” is weird in a “I’m glad I saw it” kind of way, but there’s no real reason to see it.
Directed by Michael Gordon
Rock Hudson / Doris Day / Tony Randall
102 min. Comedy / Romance
MPAA: Not rated (but probably PG for mild innuendo)
Copyright 2007.
JP0138 : 578
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 / June 23, 2007
If you’ve seen “Down With Love” (2003), the one that stars Renee Zellweger and Ewan McGregor, then you’ll know exactly what you’re in for with “Pillow Talk.” Why? Because movies like “Pillow Talk” were the inspiration for “Down With Love.”
“Pillow Talk” is a late ‘50s, sexual, romantic comedy. But it’s not a sexual comedy like we see in today’s movies. By today’s standards, it has very subdued innuendo that would only earn a PG rating from the Motion Picture Association of America. (And if you’re worried about such things, I would warn that “Down With Love” is updated to modern “standards” (or lack thereof) and has a PG-13 rating that really should have been R.) In “Pillow Talk” we get one “d” word, and dialogue like this: “Don’t worry about what he does to me — or when ... ” Or, “Don’t take your bedroom problems out on me.” At one point a character is referred to as a “sex maniac.” All of this may have been edgy for the ‘50s, before the Sexual Revolution seeped into cinema, but the banter seems rather dated and benign now.
Jan Morrow (Doris Day) is a single woman who is an interior decorator. But she has a problem: She has “a party line” (which is a telephone line that she must share with other callers in New York). Every time she needs to call a client, she picks up the phone and hears some playboy wooing a different woman.
Brad Allen (Rock Hudson) is this womanizer. He is a songwriter who uses the same song to sing to various women; he simply inserts the latest gal’s name. In addition to his being a nuisance with his constant calls, Jan finds Brad’s lifestyle reprehensible. One of Jan’s clients, Jonathan Forbes (Tony Randall, “The Odd Couple”), is a millionaire who is in love with her. This spark simply isn’t returned from her though. Coincidentally, Jonathan is Brad’s best friend and boss, sort of.
Basically, Brad hears via Jonathan that Jan is actually quite attractive. Brad ends up seeing for himself, and he agrees. But since Jan is already disgusted with Brad, the ladies’ man disguises himself with a false identity. Naturally, Jan begins falling for Brad (and his trick alter ego who has a horrible accent). Further complicating matters, Brad must keep his deception a secret from Jonathan and figure out a way to reveal his true identity to her with minimal damage. And so forth. (Don’t worry, this lengthy plot description hasn’t spoiled the movie for you.)
“Pillow Talk” seems lame at first, but once you get used to its dated feel (such as voice-over thoughts), you begin to roll with it. About 45 minutes into the movie, it gets interesting. And the last 20 minutes is actually rather funny. I was pleasantly surprised.
Perhaps the most noteworthy, shocking thing about “Pillow Talk” is what amounts to an attempted rape scene: One of Jan’s clients has a son who offers to drive her home one night. On the way, he begins forcing himself upon her. The scene merely shows him trying to hug and kiss her. She keeps pushing him away, rather violently. It continues for an uncomfortably long amount of time and is quite bizarre when viewed in our modern times of “No Means No” and sexual harassment lawsuits.
“Pillow Talk” is weird in a “I’m glad I saw it” kind of way, but there’s no real reason to see it.
Directed by Michael Gordon
Rock Hudson / Doris Day / Tony Randall
102 min. Comedy / Romance
MPAA: Not rated (but probably PG for mild innuendo)
Copyright 2007.
JP0138 : 578
Friday, June 15, 2007
Surf's Up (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 75
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 / June 15, 2007
Even though “Surf’s Up” is yet another penguin movie, and even though it’s not laugh-out-loud hilarious, it’s still excellent and worth seeing in the theater.
Few non-nostalgic movies can make me feel like a child again, but “Surf’s Up” did. Despite my sitting in a darkened theater, I felt a little self-conscious about my perpetual smiling, gleeful giggling and apparent delight. This movie is enjoyable from beginning to end. (Oh, and in case you’re sick to death of penguins, these characters don’t really seem like penguins for very long. Really, they could have been any animal.)
“Surf’s Up” has two primary strengths: It’s filmed as a “mockumentary,” which is a spoof of documentary filmmaking. (NBC’s “The Office” TV show is a good example of this.) The movie’s other ace in the hole is Shia LaBeouf and his superb delivery. I mean, where did this guy come from? He is on fire this summer. That kid is also excellent in “Disturbia,” which is still in theaters (if you haven’t seen that yet, go). I liked LaBeouf well enough in “Holes” (2003); he was OK. But he has given exceptional performances so far this summer. Let’s hope he keeps it up for “Transformers.”
An unseen documentary crew is making a film about the late, great surfing penguin, “Big Z” (Jeff Bridges), and a young penguin named Cody (Shia LaBeouf) who’s aspiring to be like his legendary idol. Cody has a whale of a time, but gets recruited by a scout who allows him to compete in the big kahuna of surfing competitions.
Along the way, Cody encounters a love interest, a Mr. Miyagi-type of mentor, a good pal named Chicken Joe (Jon Heder) and the jerky competition and reigning surf champion, Tank Evans (Diedrich Bader, the martial arts instructor from “Napoleon Dynamite”).
We occasionally hear questions from the behind-the-scenes documentarians, which is neat because the voices asking the questions are the actual directors, Ash Brannon and Chris Buck. The interspersed interview footage of the secondary and tertiary characters is amusingly complimentary.
And yes, parents, you’ll probably be disappointed to learn that this is one of those animated movies with subtle (and some not-so subtle) sexual innuendo jokes here and there. “Surf’s Up” even has a barely audible “d-word” and some double-edged name-calling. All of this is indeed unnecessary in what is an otherwise excellent family film.
All in all, “Surf’s Up” did a lot for me; namely, I no longer react violently when I see penguin paraphernalia.
Directed by Ash Brannon and Chris Buck
Shia LaBeouf / Jeff Bridges / Jon Heder
85 min. Animation / Comedy
MPAA: PG (for mild language and some rude humor)
Copyright 2007.
JP0131 : 415
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 / June 15, 2007
Even though “Surf’s Up” is yet another penguin movie, and even though it’s not laugh-out-loud hilarious, it’s still excellent and worth seeing in the theater.
Few non-nostalgic movies can make me feel like a child again, but “Surf’s Up” did. Despite my sitting in a darkened theater, I felt a little self-conscious about my perpetual smiling, gleeful giggling and apparent delight. This movie is enjoyable from beginning to end. (Oh, and in case you’re sick to death of penguins, these characters don’t really seem like penguins for very long. Really, they could have been any animal.)
“Surf’s Up” has two primary strengths: It’s filmed as a “mockumentary,” which is a spoof of documentary filmmaking. (NBC’s “The Office” TV show is a good example of this.) The movie’s other ace in the hole is Shia LaBeouf and his superb delivery. I mean, where did this guy come from? He is on fire this summer. That kid is also excellent in “Disturbia,” which is still in theaters (if you haven’t seen that yet, go). I liked LaBeouf well enough in “Holes” (2003); he was OK. But he has given exceptional performances so far this summer. Let’s hope he keeps it up for “Transformers.”
An unseen documentary crew is making a film about the late, great surfing penguin, “Big Z” (Jeff Bridges), and a young penguin named Cody (Shia LaBeouf) who’s aspiring to be like his legendary idol. Cody has a whale of a time, but gets recruited by a scout who allows him to compete in the big kahuna of surfing competitions.
Along the way, Cody encounters a love interest, a Mr. Miyagi-type of mentor, a good pal named Chicken Joe (Jon Heder) and the jerky competition and reigning surf champion, Tank Evans (Diedrich Bader, the martial arts instructor from “Napoleon Dynamite”).
We occasionally hear questions from the behind-the-scenes documentarians, which is neat because the voices asking the questions are the actual directors, Ash Brannon and Chris Buck. The interspersed interview footage of the secondary and tertiary characters is amusingly complimentary.
And yes, parents, you’ll probably be disappointed to learn that this is one of those animated movies with subtle (and some not-so subtle) sexual innuendo jokes here and there. “Surf’s Up” even has a barely audible “d-word” and some double-edged name-calling. All of this is indeed unnecessary in what is an otherwise excellent family film.
All in all, “Surf’s Up” did a lot for me; namely, I no longer react violently when I see penguin paraphernalia.
Directed by Ash Brannon and Chris Buck
Shia LaBeouf / Jeff Bridges / Jon Heder
85 min. Animation / Comedy
MPAA: PG (for mild language and some rude humor)
Copyright 2007.
JP0131 : 415
Friday, June 8, 2007
Ocean's Thirteen (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 / June 8, 2007
Finally, we get a good sequel for summer of 2007. After losing big with “Ocean’s Twelve” (2004), Soderbergh returned to form, closely mirroring the original movie, even down to the plot.
You’ll remember that “Ocean’s Eleven” (2001) was a perfect-crime-heist-caper where Danny Ocean’s cronies humiliated and robbed Terry Benedict (Andy Garcia). Well, “Ocean’s Thirteen” is a similar story, except the crew is taking on a different jerk, Willie Bank (Al Pacino).
The infamous double-crosser Willie Bank is finishing a super-mega casino that’s bigger and more lavish than anything else in Vegas. In the final stages of its completion, Bank betrays Reuben Tishkoff (Elliott Gould), whom you will recognize as one of Danny Ocean’s co-conspirators from the first two movies. This Benedict Arnold treatment wreaks havoc on Reuben’s ticker. Consequently, Danny Ocean (George Clooney) and his crew aim to get even with Bank.
“Thirteen” has all the witty banter, the snacking Brad Pitt, the impossible odds and scenarios, humor, cleverness and satisfaction of “Ocean’s Eleven.” This third movie does omit Tess (Julia Roberts) and Isabel (Catherine Zeta-Jones), because, we’re informed, that “this is not their fight.”
My only real qualm with “Thirteen” is the crew’s inexplicable undying loyalty to Reuben. There are brief scenes that try to establish his significance in the lives of a couple of characters, but I still didn’t buy it. But who’s complaining? After “Spider-Man,” “Shrek” and “Pirates” Parts 3, this movie is a relief.
Is “Ocean’s Thirteen” worth seeing? Basically, if you liked the first movie, you’ll be pleased. And if you didn’t like the second movie, you’ll be pleased.
Directed by Steven Soderbergh
George Clooney / Brad Pitt / Al Pacino
113 min. Crime / Comedy
MPAA: PG-13 (for brief sensuality)
Copyright 2007.
JP0127 : 264
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 / June 8, 2007
Finally, we get a good sequel for summer of 2007. After losing big with “Ocean’s Twelve” (2004), Soderbergh returned to form, closely mirroring the original movie, even down to the plot.
You’ll remember that “Ocean’s Eleven” (2001) was a perfect-crime-heist-caper where Danny Ocean’s cronies humiliated and robbed Terry Benedict (Andy Garcia). Well, “Ocean’s Thirteen” is a similar story, except the crew is taking on a different jerk, Willie Bank (Al Pacino).
The infamous double-crosser Willie Bank is finishing a super-mega casino that’s bigger and more lavish than anything else in Vegas. In the final stages of its completion, Bank betrays Reuben Tishkoff (Elliott Gould), whom you will recognize as one of Danny Ocean’s co-conspirators from the first two movies. This Benedict Arnold treatment wreaks havoc on Reuben’s ticker. Consequently, Danny Ocean (George Clooney) and his crew aim to get even with Bank.
“Thirteen” has all the witty banter, the snacking Brad Pitt, the impossible odds and scenarios, humor, cleverness and satisfaction of “Ocean’s Eleven.” This third movie does omit Tess (Julia Roberts) and Isabel (Catherine Zeta-Jones), because, we’re informed, that “this is not their fight.”
My only real qualm with “Thirteen” is the crew’s inexplicable undying loyalty to Reuben. There are brief scenes that try to establish his significance in the lives of a couple of characters, but I still didn’t buy it. But who’s complaining? After “Spider-Man,” “Shrek” and “Pirates” Parts 3, this movie is a relief.
Is “Ocean’s Thirteen” worth seeing? Basically, if you liked the first movie, you’ll be pleased. And if you didn’t like the second movie, you’ll be pleased.
Directed by Steven Soderbergh
George Clooney / Brad Pitt / Al Pacino
113 min. Crime / Comedy
MPAA: PG-13 (for brief sensuality)
Copyright 2007.
JP0127 : 264
Mr. Brooks (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 75
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 / June 8, 2007
The hunger has returned to Mr. Brooks’ brain. It never really left.
We are informed about this mysterious hunger as the movie begins. We see Earl Brooks (Kevin Costner) engaged in fervent prayers of desperation. Then we see him receiving the “Man of the Year” award in Portland, Oregon, where he runs a box factory.
Yes, we are quickly at ease with Mr. Brooks. He has a lovely wife, Emma (Marg Helgenberger, “CSI – Las Vegas”) and a daughter, Jane (Danielle Panabaker). Indeed, Mr. Brooks seems like he’s nearly perfect.
Except, Mr. Brooks talks to Marshall (William Hurt), whom no else can see or hear. Marshall seems to be the devil on Mr. Brooks’ shoulder, always tempting him to do evil ... serious evil. Now, in case the trailers haven’t ruined it for you, I won’t reveal the nature of Mr. Brooks’ evil addiction for which he hungers. I had no idea, and it made the movie better for me.
Mr. Brooks and his imaginary friend (or alter ego), Marshall, are incredibly intelligent. But during one indulgence, a young man who comes to be known as Mr. Smith (Dane Cook) learns of Mr. Brooks’ dark and secret life. Instead of exposing Brooks, Mr. Smith wishes to learn how to engage in Mr. Brooks’ devilish ways.
That is all I will describe. I apologize for being so vague. But the pleasure of this movie is all of its surprises. In other movies of this sort, there is only one person who is like Brooks. In this movie, however, there are multiple evildoers; some are scarier than Brooks, others are not as scary. All of them add to the intrigue and suspense.
“Mr. Brooks” definitely earns its R rating with its graphic violence, sexual content and language. And yes, I personally find that regrettable. Nevertheless, the writing and acting are well done. “Mr. Brooks” is involving, intelligent, and unique, a rarer and rarer find in today’s cinema.
Directed by Bruce A. Evans
Kevin Costner / Demi Moore / William Hurt
120 min. Thriller / Crime
MPAA: R (for strong bloody violence, some graphic sexual content, nudity and language)
Copyright 2007.
JP0125 : 324
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 / June 8, 2007
The hunger has returned to Mr. Brooks’ brain. It never really left.
We are informed about this mysterious hunger as the movie begins. We see Earl Brooks (Kevin Costner) engaged in fervent prayers of desperation. Then we see him receiving the “Man of the Year” award in Portland, Oregon, where he runs a box factory.
Yes, we are quickly at ease with Mr. Brooks. He has a lovely wife, Emma (Marg Helgenberger, “CSI – Las Vegas”) and a daughter, Jane (Danielle Panabaker). Indeed, Mr. Brooks seems like he’s nearly perfect.
Except, Mr. Brooks talks to Marshall (William Hurt), whom no else can see or hear. Marshall seems to be the devil on Mr. Brooks’ shoulder, always tempting him to do evil ... serious evil. Now, in case the trailers haven’t ruined it for you, I won’t reveal the nature of Mr. Brooks’ evil addiction for which he hungers. I had no idea, and it made the movie better for me.
Mr. Brooks and his imaginary friend (or alter ego), Marshall, are incredibly intelligent. But during one indulgence, a young man who comes to be known as Mr. Smith (Dane Cook) learns of Mr. Brooks’ dark and secret life. Instead of exposing Brooks, Mr. Smith wishes to learn how to engage in Mr. Brooks’ devilish ways.
That is all I will describe. I apologize for being so vague. But the pleasure of this movie is all of its surprises. In other movies of this sort, there is only one person who is like Brooks. In this movie, however, there are multiple evildoers; some are scarier than Brooks, others are not as scary. All of them add to the intrigue and suspense.
“Mr. Brooks” definitely earns its R rating with its graphic violence, sexual content and language. And yes, I personally find that regrettable. Nevertheless, the writing and acting are well done. “Mr. Brooks” is involving, intelligent, and unique, a rarer and rarer find in today’s cinema.
Directed by Bruce A. Evans
Kevin Costner / Demi Moore / William Hurt
120 min. Thriller / Crime
MPAA: R (for strong bloody violence, some graphic sexual content, nudity and language)
Copyright 2007.
JP0125 : 324
Freaks (1932)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 72
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 / June 8, 2007
If you truly love cinema and its oddities, then you must see “Freaks,” a legendary anomaly from 1932. And before you pass on reading a review for a movie that’s 75 years old, there are some things that you should know:
[Note: The following factoids come from Louis Giannetti and Scott Eyman’s “Flashback – A Brief History of Film,” Ronald Bergan’s “Film” and the Internet Movie Database’s trivia page for “Freaks.”]
“Freaks” is still technically illegal in some states of the U.S. (It was banned in several states and cities, and many of these laws were never officially repealed.)
This movie was originally banned in Australia. “Freaks” was also banned in the United Kingdom for 30 years, giving it a record of one of the longest bans in UK film history.
Upon its release, “Freaks” offended its audiences, was reviled by critics, was a financial disaster, and eventually packaged as an exploitation picture and shown as a double feature with nudist camp footage.
“After being withdrawn from distribution for years, “Freaks” was resurrected at the 1962 Venice Film Festival, just a few weeks before the death of its director, Tod Browning.
“Freaks” was rated X in the UK in 1963, though it would probably be PG by today’s standards because there’s no sex or nudity. (The X rating didn’t always strictly suggest pornographic content.)
And lastly, Premiere.com ranked “Freaks” among “The 25 Most Dangerous Movies.”
So what makes “Freaks” so controversial? In simplest terms, the director cast and exploited actual deformed, disabled people, portraying them as the “monsters” that antagonists in the movie suspect they are (even though their characters are actually nice folks). But Tod Browning didn’t do this knowingly; his film’s gross hypocrisy was unintentional. He was attempting to express a moral: Don’t make fun of people. But Browning added an “or else.”
(And, it should be noted, that the atypical actors cast as the so-called “freaks” were actual circus sideshow performers in real life. It’s not proper justification, but these people made their living by exploiting themselves.)
Filmed in black and white, “Freaks” is one of the early “talkies” (or sound films) that tells the story of a midget named Hans (Harry Earles) who is engaged to marry Frieda (Daisy Earles, Harry’s real-life sister), but he’s smitten by a “normal” trapeze artist named Cleopatra (Olga Baclanova).
Cleopatra finds the little guy’s affections amusing. She cruelly ridicules Hans with her sinister friend, Hercules (Henry Victor). And when Cleopatra finds out that Hans is rich, she tries to become his bride that she may dispose of him and inherit his wealth.
Well, Hans’ friends (the other sideshow performers), discover Cleopatra’s dark designs and assemble to execute even darker deeds upon her and Hercules. (And I would note, that Hercules’ fate was permanently removed from the film after it screened for disgusted test audiences, and that footage is now considered lost. If you’re curious about what the scene entailed, the words I used to describe said footage, “permanently removed,” were indicative.)
Where the movie goes south, morally speaking, is that it fails to maintain the humanity of the freaks, and validates any accusations of their having evil, twisted, monstrous natures. In fact, the most uncomfortable scene is the “attack” sequence, which is when the freaks mob the true villains. The director tries to portray these disabled people as menacing, and really, it’s pitiful and sad.
The movie seems dated. It’s not actually horrifying (nor is it excellent), it’s just weird. But amid an age of CGI and phenomenal make-up, it’s fascinating to behold these actors who truly were as we see them in the film.
Prince Randian, “The Living Torso,” had a trunk and a head but no arms or legs. Johnny Eck, “The Half-boy,” was missing everything from his belly button — down. He walked his chest and head around using his hands. An actual bearded lady appears in the film, but she later denounced it and regretted her involvement. My favorite actors were the microcephalics, often called “pinheads.” These actors had remarkably small heads and unusually proportioned facial features. “Schlitze,” who played himself, was male but played a female and wore a dress “for personal hygiene reasons.”
Perhaps the most fascinating element of all, is if you read these actors’ trivia on the Internet Movie Database, you will see that most of them lived an incredibly long time, into their 80s.
In 1994, “Freaks” was selected for the National Film Registry’s archive of cinematic treasures. And considering that “Freaks” was made during the Great Depression, perhaps this movie was a good thing: I doubt many people had money to spend at the circus. So thanks to Tod Browning (who was once a circus contortionist himself), these sideshow performers had work.
Directed by Tod Browning
Olga Baclanova / Harry Earles / Daisy Earles
64 min. Drama / Thriller
MPAA: Not rated (But, by today’s standards, probably PG)
Copyright 2007.
JP0123 : 790
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 / June 8, 2007
If you truly love cinema and its oddities, then you must see “Freaks,” a legendary anomaly from 1932. And before you pass on reading a review for a movie that’s 75 years old, there are some things that you should know:
[Note: The following factoids come from Louis Giannetti and Scott Eyman’s “Flashback – A Brief History of Film,” Ronald Bergan’s “Film” and the Internet Movie Database’s trivia page for “Freaks.”]
“Freaks” is still technically illegal in some states of the U.S. (It was banned in several states and cities, and many of these laws were never officially repealed.)
This movie was originally banned in Australia. “Freaks” was also banned in the United Kingdom for 30 years, giving it a record of one of the longest bans in UK film history.
Upon its release, “Freaks” offended its audiences, was reviled by critics, was a financial disaster, and eventually packaged as an exploitation picture and shown as a double feature with nudist camp footage.
“After being withdrawn from distribution for years, “Freaks” was resurrected at the 1962 Venice Film Festival, just a few weeks before the death of its director, Tod Browning.
“Freaks” was rated X in the UK in 1963, though it would probably be PG by today’s standards because there’s no sex or nudity. (The X rating didn’t always strictly suggest pornographic content.)
And lastly, Premiere.com ranked “Freaks” among “The 25 Most Dangerous Movies.”
So what makes “Freaks” so controversial? In simplest terms, the director cast and exploited actual deformed, disabled people, portraying them as the “monsters” that antagonists in the movie suspect they are (even though their characters are actually nice folks). But Tod Browning didn’t do this knowingly; his film’s gross hypocrisy was unintentional. He was attempting to express a moral: Don’t make fun of people. But Browning added an “or else.”
(And, it should be noted, that the atypical actors cast as the so-called “freaks” were actual circus sideshow performers in real life. It’s not proper justification, but these people made their living by exploiting themselves.)
Filmed in black and white, “Freaks” is one of the early “talkies” (or sound films) that tells the story of a midget named Hans (Harry Earles) who is engaged to marry Frieda (Daisy Earles, Harry’s real-life sister), but he’s smitten by a “normal” trapeze artist named Cleopatra (Olga Baclanova).
Cleopatra finds the little guy’s affections amusing. She cruelly ridicules Hans with her sinister friend, Hercules (Henry Victor). And when Cleopatra finds out that Hans is rich, she tries to become his bride that she may dispose of him and inherit his wealth.
Well, Hans’ friends (the other sideshow performers), discover Cleopatra’s dark designs and assemble to execute even darker deeds upon her and Hercules. (And I would note, that Hercules’ fate was permanently removed from the film after it screened for disgusted test audiences, and that footage is now considered lost. If you’re curious about what the scene entailed, the words I used to describe said footage, “permanently removed,” were indicative.)
Where the movie goes south, morally speaking, is that it fails to maintain the humanity of the freaks, and validates any accusations of their having evil, twisted, monstrous natures. In fact, the most uncomfortable scene is the “attack” sequence, which is when the freaks mob the true villains. The director tries to portray these disabled people as menacing, and really, it’s pitiful and sad.
The movie seems dated. It’s not actually horrifying (nor is it excellent), it’s just weird. But amid an age of CGI and phenomenal make-up, it’s fascinating to behold these actors who truly were as we see them in the film.
Prince Randian, “The Living Torso,” had a trunk and a head but no arms or legs. Johnny Eck, “The Half-boy,” was missing everything from his belly button — down. He walked his chest and head around using his hands. An actual bearded lady appears in the film, but she later denounced it and regretted her involvement. My favorite actors were the microcephalics, often called “pinheads.” These actors had remarkably small heads and unusually proportioned facial features. “Schlitze,” who played himself, was male but played a female and wore a dress “for personal hygiene reasons.”
Perhaps the most fascinating element of all, is if you read these actors’ trivia on the Internet Movie Database, you will see that most of them lived an incredibly long time, into their 80s.
In 1994, “Freaks” was selected for the National Film Registry’s archive of cinematic treasures. And considering that “Freaks” was made during the Great Depression, perhaps this movie was a good thing: I doubt many people had money to spend at the circus. So thanks to Tod Browning (who was once a circus contortionist himself), these sideshow performers had work.
Directed by Tod Browning
Olga Baclanova / Harry Earles / Daisy Earles
64 min. Drama / Thriller
MPAA: Not rated (But, by today’s standards, probably PG)
Copyright 2007.
JP0123 : 790
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
