Overall rating from 1 to 100: 78
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 / August 25, 2007
I learned the hard way from “The Village” (2004) that there’s no accounting for taste. As with “The Village,” here again, we have a good movie such as “The Invasion” that everyone inexplicably seems to hate. Let me put it this way: If you liked “War of the Worlds” (2005), then you’ll like “The Invasion” almost as much.
“The Invasion,” of course, is the fourth remake of the original 1956 sci-fi thriller “Invasion of the Body Snatchers.”
A brief history lesson from Jason:
The very first science fiction movie ever was “A Trip to the Moon” (1902). But the term “science fiction” wasn’t coined until the 1930s — and it wasn’t for film but for literature. Science fiction film blossomed (or should I say mutated?) in the 1950s. Why? Because two fears pertaining to technological development surfaced: anxieties from the Space Age and nuclear weapon development.
All of the fascinating, new science led to concerns like “What if this goes wrong?” The Space Age led us to wonder about extraterrestrial life “out there.” Communism, the Red Scare and the ensuing Cold War with Russia led to little beauties like “Invasion of the Body Snatchers,” which is basically an alien-movie metaphor for having a sabotaging enemy (Communists) secretly hidden among us in plain sight.
The humorous thing about “The Invasion” is, we have a cleverly placed Russian man as an homage to the underlying theme of the 1956 original. And, even better, we have a modernized message that basically mocks the United States for its present fears toward our “enemies of the world,” as if to suggest that we’re smitten by another unfounded hysteria, much like the Red Scare of the ‘50s. (I personally disagree with the message, but I still appreciate the filmmakers’ attempt at being cute.)
All of these invasion movies are essentially a spin on your traditional zombie flick. Here we have Carol Bennell (Nicole Kidman), a good mom and professional woman who slowly realizes that some kind of epidemic is sweeping the Earth, turning its victims into emotionless, zombie-like versions of themselves.
That’s the plot. Kidman’s character has to try to keep herself and her son Oliver (Jackson Bond) from being body snatched.
“The Invasion” is gross and creepy. There is infectious projectile vomiting, much like we have in “28 Days (and Weeks) Later” (2002 and 2007), and violence toward children that aren’t exactly 100 percent children. Even so, it’s weird to watch. (Rest assured, “no children were actually harmed during the making of this film.”)
I guess what I’m trying to convey is that “The Invasion” is an effective thriller and not as benign as its critics claim. In fact, I’d bet my body that it will get under your skin.
Directed by Oliver Hirschbiegel
Nicole Kidman / Daniel Craig / Jackson Bond
93 min. Sci-Fi / Thriller
MPAA: PG-13 (for violence, disturbing images and terror)
Copyright 2007.
JP0179 : 454
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Becoming Jane (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 / August 25, 2007
Though it’s a major “girl movie,” if a guy wanted to make his gal feel very positively toward him, then he would be wise to take her to see “Becoming Jane.” It will work like a charm; I guarantee it.
Much like “Shakespeare in Love” (1998), this movie gives us a character whose life experiences provide inspirational material for her most famous work, “Pride and Prejudice.” Yes, Anne Hathaway plays Jane Austen, inhabiting her role in a most likeable way. Here we have a lovely fictionalized biography, mingled with a little fact.
Jane strictly adheres to all observations of propriety, but her aspirations toward becoming a female novelist disgruntle some. Worse yet, her family is one of diminishing means and she is yet to find a suitable suitor. Of course, her mother is affright with Jane's single state. Sound familiar? (Not you, Reader, I'm referring to miss Elizabeth Bennet's plight.) Alas, a happy ruffian (James McAvoy) is forced to visit; and much like Mr. Darcy, at first our "Elizabethan" Jane finds him repulsive, offensive, then tantalizing.
“Becoming Jane” has a few fist fights and a couple of male bare bottoms, but I suspect that most sensitive viewers will find its PG rating, more or less, appropriate.
Although it seems like a tricky way for Hollywood to recycle something that has worked in the past, “Becoming Jane” has some depth that I haven't seen in the filmed versions of “Pride and Prejudice.” Indeed, “Becoming Jane” is uncommonly good, sadly sweet and touching in unexpected ways.
Directed by Julian Jarrold
Anne Hathaway / James McAvoy / James Cromwell
120 min. Drama / Romance
MPAA: PG (for brief nudity and mild language)
Copyright 2007.
JP0182 : 254
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 / August 25, 2007
Though it’s a major “girl movie,” if a guy wanted to make his gal feel very positively toward him, then he would be wise to take her to see “Becoming Jane.” It will work like a charm; I guarantee it.
Much like “Shakespeare in Love” (1998), this movie gives us a character whose life experiences provide inspirational material for her most famous work, “Pride and Prejudice.” Yes, Anne Hathaway plays Jane Austen, inhabiting her role in a most likeable way. Here we have a lovely fictionalized biography, mingled with a little fact.
Jane strictly adheres to all observations of propriety, but her aspirations toward becoming a female novelist disgruntle some. Worse yet, her family is one of diminishing means and she is yet to find a suitable suitor. Of course, her mother is affright with Jane's single state. Sound familiar? (Not you, Reader, I'm referring to miss Elizabeth Bennet's plight.) Alas, a happy ruffian (James McAvoy) is forced to visit; and much like Mr. Darcy, at first our "Elizabethan" Jane finds him repulsive, offensive, then tantalizing.
“Becoming Jane” has a few fist fights and a couple of male bare bottoms, but I suspect that most sensitive viewers will find its PG rating, more or less, appropriate.
Although it seems like a tricky way for Hollywood to recycle something that has worked in the past, “Becoming Jane” has some depth that I haven't seen in the filmed versions of “Pride and Prejudice.” Indeed, “Becoming Jane” is uncommonly good, sadly sweet and touching in unexpected ways.
Directed by Julian Jarrold
Anne Hathaway / James McAvoy / James Cromwell
120 min. Drama / Romance
MPAA: PG (for brief nudity and mild language)
Copyright 2007.
JP0182 : 254
Stardust (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 71
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 / August 25, 2007
“Stardust” is the first great fantasy in years. OK, I guess since “The Lord of the Rings.” But “Stardust” has all of the necessary elements to carry us away into another world. Indeed “Stardust” is magical, wondrous, bizarre, humorous, creepy, whimsical, romantic and adventurous. All of these adjectives fit; I have not exaggerated one bit ... but I did just inadvertently rhyme. Oh, and “Stardust” has a voice-over narration by Ian McKellen ... how much better could it get?
Somewhere not too far from London lies a village that’s simply called “Wall”; and appropriately so, because the village has a wall that has required a 24-hour guard for years and years. The tireless guard stands at an opening in the wall and tries to keep villagers from passing through to the other side. The gap leads to another dimension, a magical kingdom called “Stormhold.”
As you might suspect, one of Wall’s adventurous youth ventures into Stormhold, entertains a captured princess for a night, and ends up with another adventurous youth of his own, nine months later. This new adventurous youth named Tristan (Charlie Cox) grows up and needs to pass over into Stormhold, too.
You see, Stormhold’s dying king’s antics to decide his heir among his equally vicious sons leads to the falling of a star (Claire Danes). Tristan seeks to find a piece of the star (which he imagines to be a rock), that he may win the heart of a superficial gal from Wall. Little does Tristan know, many others from Stormhold are also desperately seeking — not Susan, but the star.
Although it may seem like I have described too much too extensively, this is the mere setup for the plot. What it becomes is a delightful adventure, filled with ghastly (and not-so-ghastly) witches (such as Michelle Pfeiffer) and romantic comedy. “Stardust” has something to offer to each family member of varying ages and gender.
Oh, and be warned: If you’ve seen Robert De Niro in “Taxi Driver” (1976), then his role in “Stardust” may make your head explode. Scorsese will cry if he ever sees this movie.
Directed by Matthew Vaughn
Claire Danes / Michelle Pfeiffer / Charlie Cox
128 min. Fantasy
MPAA: PG-13 (for some fantasy violence and risqué humor)
Copyright 2007.
JP0178 : 350
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 / August 25, 2007
“Stardust” is the first great fantasy in years. OK, I guess since “The Lord of the Rings.” But “Stardust” has all of the necessary elements to carry us away into another world. Indeed “Stardust” is magical, wondrous, bizarre, humorous, creepy, whimsical, romantic and adventurous. All of these adjectives fit; I have not exaggerated one bit ... but I did just inadvertently rhyme. Oh, and “Stardust” has a voice-over narration by Ian McKellen ... how much better could it get?
Somewhere not too far from London lies a village that’s simply called “Wall”; and appropriately so, because the village has a wall that has required a 24-hour guard for years and years. The tireless guard stands at an opening in the wall and tries to keep villagers from passing through to the other side. The gap leads to another dimension, a magical kingdom called “Stormhold.”
As you might suspect, one of Wall’s adventurous youth ventures into Stormhold, entertains a captured princess for a night, and ends up with another adventurous youth of his own, nine months later. This new adventurous youth named Tristan (Charlie Cox) grows up and needs to pass over into Stormhold, too.
You see, Stormhold’s dying king’s antics to decide his heir among his equally vicious sons leads to the falling of a star (Claire Danes). Tristan seeks to find a piece of the star (which he imagines to be a rock), that he may win the heart of a superficial gal from Wall. Little does Tristan know, many others from Stormhold are also desperately seeking — not Susan, but the star.
Although it may seem like I have described too much too extensively, this is the mere setup for the plot. What it becomes is a delightful adventure, filled with ghastly (and not-so-ghastly) witches (such as Michelle Pfeiffer) and romantic comedy. “Stardust” has something to offer to each family member of varying ages and gender.
Oh, and be warned: If you’ve seen Robert De Niro in “Taxi Driver” (1976), then his role in “Stardust” may make your head explode. Scorsese will cry if he ever sees this movie.
Directed by Matthew Vaughn
Claire Danes / Michelle Pfeiffer / Charlie Cox
128 min. Fantasy
MPAA: PG-13 (for some fantasy violence and risqué humor)
Copyright 2007.
JP0178 : 350
Superbad (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 51
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 / August 25, 2007
My wife is a middle school Spanish teacher. On the first day of school, for an ice-breaking exercise, she asked her students to name their all-time favorite movies. What did they say? “Transformers,” “Hairspray,” “Pirates 3,” etc. You know, the movies that were just released this summer? So cute.
Those are middle schoolers, so it’s permissible. But what happens to America’s adults that they don’t grow out of this fickle, short-term memory phenomenon? The Internet Movie Database currently has “Superbad” ranked # 95 among the top 250 all-time greatest movies. Give me a break. When “The Bourne Ultimatum” was released just a couple of weeks ago, I heard numerous people declare that it was “the greatest action movie ever made!” Give me a full lunch.
And somehow, just a few weeks prior, we’ve already forgotten about “Live Free or Die Hard,” which has far more action sequences than “Bourne.” Sure, 52-year-old Bruce Willis doesn’t have the speed or the martial arts moves that 36-year-old Matt Damon has. But if we were to judge strictly on “action-packed-ness,” the fourth “Die Hard” movie is superior to the third “Bourne” movie. I know. Skeptics abound. (“The Bourne Ultimatum,” by the way, is ranked # 65 among the IMDb’s top 250. See what I mean?)
It is for this reason that I like to call “The Short-term Memory Fickle Phenomenon,” that we keep getting countless movies that have joke after joke of bodily functions, for example. And this is the same reason why high school and college kids will tell you (this month) that “Superbad” is “the greatest comedy ever made.”
I’m not a prude. I do, in fact, enjoy comedy and have a sense of humor. I laugh during every single episode of “The Office,” and I laugh till I cry while watching stand-up comedian Brian Regan. Sorry for this five-paragraph prelude rant, but basically, I’m here to tell you that “Superbad” is merely OK and not as great as everyone says it is. First of all, it’s not “Superbad,” but it’s bad enough. “Knocked Up,” however, could legitimately be called “superbad.”
High school is coming to a close for three friends. Seth (Jonah Hill) and Evan (Michael Cera) are taking it particularly hard because they are best friends who will be separated by college admissions. Fogell, aka “McLovin’, (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) is the third wheel who is more nerdy than the first two pals, but also, somehow cooler at the same time.
Graduation parties are spawning everywhere. The three friends find a way to get a VIP invitation by offering to provide the liquor with a newly acquired fake ID. In the process of obtaining the alcohol before the party, the three find themselves on an adventure that’s far more exciting than the party they’re planning to attend.
Sounds like a decent premise, right? Right. It actually is a good premise, because there are many elements that are true to that difficult era of a young man’s life. (I was not yet LDS in high school.)
So, with all of the nostalgia and some genuinely funny parts, why the disdain for “Superbad”? The excessive, disgustingly vulgar dialogue that infests the first half of the movie is overkill and not authentic. My crew of high school friends were no angels, and plenty vulgar, but they never talked like this. It was as if the screenwriters were trying way too hard to be “superbad.” If they would have eased up on the crudeness and “kept it real,” this movie could have been as good as the fair-weather moviegoers say it is. So, what’s my favorite comedy, then? Well, let me see what hit theaters yesterday, and I’ll tell you ...
Directed by Greg Mottola
Jonah Hill / Michael Cera / Christopher Mintz-Plasse
114 min. Comedy
MPAA: R (for pervasive crude and sexual content, strong language, drinking, some drug use and a fantasy/comic violent image – all involving teens)
Copyright 2007.
JP0180 : 615
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 / August 25, 2007
My wife is a middle school Spanish teacher. On the first day of school, for an ice-breaking exercise, she asked her students to name their all-time favorite movies. What did they say? “Transformers,” “Hairspray,” “Pirates 3,” etc. You know, the movies that were just released this summer? So cute.
Those are middle schoolers, so it’s permissible. But what happens to America’s adults that they don’t grow out of this fickle, short-term memory phenomenon? The Internet Movie Database currently has “Superbad” ranked # 95 among the top 250 all-time greatest movies. Give me a break. When “The Bourne Ultimatum” was released just a couple of weeks ago, I heard numerous people declare that it was “the greatest action movie ever made!” Give me a full lunch.
And somehow, just a few weeks prior, we’ve already forgotten about “Live Free or Die Hard,” which has far more action sequences than “Bourne.” Sure, 52-year-old Bruce Willis doesn’t have the speed or the martial arts moves that 36-year-old Matt Damon has. But if we were to judge strictly on “action-packed-ness,” the fourth “Die Hard” movie is superior to the third “Bourne” movie. I know. Skeptics abound. (“The Bourne Ultimatum,” by the way, is ranked # 65 among the IMDb’s top 250. See what I mean?)
It is for this reason that I like to call “The Short-term Memory Fickle Phenomenon,” that we keep getting countless movies that have joke after joke of bodily functions, for example. And this is the same reason why high school and college kids will tell you (this month) that “Superbad” is “the greatest comedy ever made.”
I’m not a prude. I do, in fact, enjoy comedy and have a sense of humor. I laugh during every single episode of “The Office,” and I laugh till I cry while watching stand-up comedian Brian Regan. Sorry for this five-paragraph prelude rant, but basically, I’m here to tell you that “Superbad” is merely OK and not as great as everyone says it is. First of all, it’s not “Superbad,” but it’s bad enough. “Knocked Up,” however, could legitimately be called “superbad.”
High school is coming to a close for three friends. Seth (Jonah Hill) and Evan (Michael Cera) are taking it particularly hard because they are best friends who will be separated by college admissions. Fogell, aka “McLovin’, (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) is the third wheel who is more nerdy than the first two pals, but also, somehow cooler at the same time.
Graduation parties are spawning everywhere. The three friends find a way to get a VIP invitation by offering to provide the liquor with a newly acquired fake ID. In the process of obtaining the alcohol before the party, the three find themselves on an adventure that’s far more exciting than the party they’re planning to attend.
Sounds like a decent premise, right? Right. It actually is a good premise, because there are many elements that are true to that difficult era of a young man’s life. (I was not yet LDS in high school.)
So, with all of the nostalgia and some genuinely funny parts, why the disdain for “Superbad”? The excessive, disgustingly vulgar dialogue that infests the first half of the movie is overkill and not authentic. My crew of high school friends were no angels, and plenty vulgar, but they never talked like this. It was as if the screenwriters were trying way too hard to be “superbad.” If they would have eased up on the crudeness and “kept it real,” this movie could have been as good as the fair-weather moviegoers say it is. So, what’s my favorite comedy, then? Well, let me see what hit theaters yesterday, and I’ll tell you ...
Directed by Greg Mottola
Jonah Hill / Michael Cera / Christopher Mintz-Plasse
114 min. Comedy
MPAA: R (for pervasive crude and sexual content, strong language, drinking, some drug use and a fantasy/comic violent image – all involving teens)
Copyright 2007.
JP0180 : 615
Daddy Day Camp (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 34
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
O Good video rental (60-74)
O Merely OK (50-59)
X Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don't watch (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / August 25, 2007
I am writing this review from Provo, Utah where I live. For those of you who also live here (or nearby), you’ll probably be interested to know that “Daddy Day Camp” was filmed in Provo, in Park City, and though the Internet Movie Database doesn’t indicate this, I saw a sign for Heber City in the movie, too.
For those of you who don’t live in Utah, I’m sure you don’t care about any of these factoids, but my first paragraph is more entertaining than this movie. So, what does that tell ya?
“Daddy Day Camp” is a sequel to “Daddy Day Care” (2003), which slips us one of those actor substitutions and hopes we won’t notice. You know, where we replace Eddie Murphy with Cuba Gooding Jr.? Even the lesser-known co-star, Jeff Garlin, from the first movie opted out of reprising his role as Phil. So, what does that tell ya?
In short, “Daddy Day Camp” is precisely what you’d expect from what you see in the trailer: dumb physical comedy, overacting and plenty of jokes about nature and bodily functions (look below at the MPAA rating reasons). But these complaints don’t constitute the fatal flaw of “Daddy Day Camp.” The fatal flaw lies somewhere between the casting and the screenwriting, but I don’t know which one.
Allow me to explain: Cuba Gooding Jr., who is usually a fine actor, plays super dad, Charlie Hinton. Although he had bad experiences at camp as a boy, Charlie wants his son to have a positive experience at day camp. But when Camp Driftwood is in physical and financial ruin, and is threatened to be bought out by Charlie’s boyhood foe who runs the neighboring Camp Canola, Charlie and his day-care partner, Phil (Paul Rae), volunteer to take over the camp.
Competition between the camps ensues. Also, Charlie and Phil are terrible camp directors who are ignorant and incompetent outdoorsmen. So, they call in reinforcements and get some backup from Charlie’s father, Col. Buck Hinton (Richard Grant), a gung-ho marine.
Herein lies the fatal flaw: Charlie’s father is the coolest, most interesting character in the movie — not Gooding, who is supposed to be the movie’s star. Instead, poor Cuba is reduced to nothing more than a background figure who is an overacting, wimpy, whiny worry wart; but nevertheless, a good father.
If casting or the screenwriters would have allowed Gooding to shine as the hero, the movie would have been greatly improved, though still not great overall.
If you remember the TV show “The Wonder Years,” then you’ll remember Fred Savage, the man who directed this movie. Back then, Savage filled us with wonder as we reflected on the bittersweet nature of teenage years. Now, he’s left us to wonder why he took on a project like “Daddy Day Camp.”
This is an appropriate family movie, but you’d be much better off taking your family to see the much more wonderful “Evan Almighty.” It has a lot more animals, too.
Directed by Fred Savage
Cuba Gooding Jr. / Paul Rae / Richard Grant
93 min. Comedy / Family
MPAA: PG (for mild bodily humor and language)
Copyright 2007.
JP0181 : 498
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
O Good video rental (60-74)
O Merely OK (50-59)
X Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don't watch (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / August 25, 2007
I am writing this review from Provo, Utah where I live. For those of you who also live here (or nearby), you’ll probably be interested to know that “Daddy Day Camp” was filmed in Provo, in Park City, and though the Internet Movie Database doesn’t indicate this, I saw a sign for Heber City in the movie, too.
For those of you who don’t live in Utah, I’m sure you don’t care about any of these factoids, but my first paragraph is more entertaining than this movie. So, what does that tell ya?
“Daddy Day Camp” is a sequel to “Daddy Day Care” (2003), which slips us one of those actor substitutions and hopes we won’t notice. You know, where we replace Eddie Murphy with Cuba Gooding Jr.? Even the lesser-known co-star, Jeff Garlin, from the first movie opted out of reprising his role as Phil. So, what does that tell ya?
In short, “Daddy Day Camp” is precisely what you’d expect from what you see in the trailer: dumb physical comedy, overacting and plenty of jokes about nature and bodily functions (look below at the MPAA rating reasons). But these complaints don’t constitute the fatal flaw of “Daddy Day Camp.” The fatal flaw lies somewhere between the casting and the screenwriting, but I don’t know which one.
Allow me to explain: Cuba Gooding Jr., who is usually a fine actor, plays super dad, Charlie Hinton. Although he had bad experiences at camp as a boy, Charlie wants his son to have a positive experience at day camp. But when Camp Driftwood is in physical and financial ruin, and is threatened to be bought out by Charlie’s boyhood foe who runs the neighboring Camp Canola, Charlie and his day-care partner, Phil (Paul Rae), volunteer to take over the camp.
Competition between the camps ensues. Also, Charlie and Phil are terrible camp directors who are ignorant and incompetent outdoorsmen. So, they call in reinforcements and get some backup from Charlie’s father, Col. Buck Hinton (Richard Grant), a gung-ho marine.
Herein lies the fatal flaw: Charlie’s father is the coolest, most interesting character in the movie — not Gooding, who is supposed to be the movie’s star. Instead, poor Cuba is reduced to nothing more than a background figure who is an overacting, wimpy, whiny worry wart; but nevertheless, a good father.
If casting or the screenwriters would have allowed Gooding to shine as the hero, the movie would have been greatly improved, though still not great overall.
If you remember the TV show “The Wonder Years,” then you’ll remember Fred Savage, the man who directed this movie. Back then, Savage filled us with wonder as we reflected on the bittersweet nature of teenage years. Now, he’s left us to wonder why he took on a project like “Daddy Day Camp.”
This is an appropriate family movie, but you’d be much better off taking your family to see the much more wonderful “Evan Almighty.” It has a lot more animals, too.
Directed by Fred Savage
Cuba Gooding Jr. / Paul Rae / Richard Grant
93 min. Comedy / Family
MPAA: PG (for mild bodily humor and language)
Copyright 2007.
JP0181 : 498
Saturday, August 11, 2007
Rush Hour 3 (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 71
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 / August 11, 2007
Jackie Chan and Chris Tucker are back again in their third “Rush Hour” movie. I doubt that buddy-cop movies will ever go out of style. But these two characters are getting to be a little like “Shrek” … enough is enough.
Even though “Rush Hour 3” is exactly what you’d expect it to be, which is more of the same, it’s actually the funniest of the three. There’s a delicate balance in the “Rush Hour” movies between the co-stars. They try to give equal time to Tucker’s comedy and Chan’s martial arts. But this movie seems to have more comedy.
Detective James Carter (Chris Tucker) and Chief Inspector Lee (Jackie Chan) are still, more or less, working for the LAPD. Looming over the globe is the imminent threat of a criminal empire called the Chinese Triad. (According to the Internet Movie Database, this is a real organization. “Rush Hour 3” has been banned in China because of the movie’s usage of the Triad, even though it’s fictitious usage.)
And that’s just about enough of the plot. Plot doesn’t matter in Jackie Chan movies, anyway. We go see “Rush Hour” to see Jackie Chan wax on crazy martial arts skills using some kind of bizarre prop, and to hear Chris Tucker’s smart mouth. But as you can imagine, we end up having the unlikely scenario of two cops from L.A. taking on the Triad — in France.
I need to reiterate that the movie is basically hilarious. There are some memorable scenes involving a giant, a translator, a duet, the Eiffel Tower and a French flag. Oh, and of course, the usual outtakes at the end.
My only caution for moviegoers is the sexual content. This “Rush Hour” is not only funnier, but also a little more risqué. Even though it’s rated PG-13, I think it borders closely on an R. As you can see from the MPAA’s assessment, there is sexual content and nudity, albeit brief and somewhat obscured.
I’ve done my duty. You know what to expect: a pretty funny karate movie sequel that’s just like the first two.
Directed by Brett Ratner
Jackie Chan / Chris Tucker / Noemie Lenoir
90 min. Comedy / Action
MPAA: PG-13 (for sequences of action violence, sexual content, nudity and language)
Copyright 2007.
JP0177 : 349
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 / August 11, 2007
Jackie Chan and Chris Tucker are back again in their third “Rush Hour” movie. I doubt that buddy-cop movies will ever go out of style. But these two characters are getting to be a little like “Shrek” … enough is enough.
Even though “Rush Hour 3” is exactly what you’d expect it to be, which is more of the same, it’s actually the funniest of the three. There’s a delicate balance in the “Rush Hour” movies between the co-stars. They try to give equal time to Tucker’s comedy and Chan’s martial arts. But this movie seems to have more comedy.
Detective James Carter (Chris Tucker) and Chief Inspector Lee (Jackie Chan) are still, more or less, working for the LAPD. Looming over the globe is the imminent threat of a criminal empire called the Chinese Triad. (According to the Internet Movie Database, this is a real organization. “Rush Hour 3” has been banned in China because of the movie’s usage of the Triad, even though it’s fictitious usage.)
And that’s just about enough of the plot. Plot doesn’t matter in Jackie Chan movies, anyway. We go see “Rush Hour” to see Jackie Chan wax on crazy martial arts skills using some kind of bizarre prop, and to hear Chris Tucker’s smart mouth. But as you can imagine, we end up having the unlikely scenario of two cops from L.A. taking on the Triad — in France.
I need to reiterate that the movie is basically hilarious. There are some memorable scenes involving a giant, a translator, a duet, the Eiffel Tower and a French flag. Oh, and of course, the usual outtakes at the end.
My only caution for moviegoers is the sexual content. This “Rush Hour” is not only funnier, but also a little more risqué. Even though it’s rated PG-13, I think it borders closely on an R. As you can see from the MPAA’s assessment, there is sexual content and nudity, albeit brief and somewhat obscured.
I’ve done my duty. You know what to expect: a pretty funny karate movie sequel that’s just like the first two.
Directed by Brett Ratner
Jackie Chan / Chris Tucker / Noemie Lenoir
90 min. Comedy / Action
MPAA: PG-13 (for sequences of action violence, sexual content, nudity and language)
Copyright 2007.
JP0177 : 349
Underdog (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 51
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 / August 11, 2007
In 1964, a silly but vintage cartoon called “Underdog” began on television, introducing a canine superhero that is, more or less, a dog version of Superman. Flash forward to present day when Walt Disney Pictures brings us a live-action feature film that has a dog-like loyalty to its animated antecedent.
I'd typically describe the plot, but since this is a movie about a flying super-dog, that no longer seems pertinent.
Let me just mention that this movie follows all of the same steps that any other superhero’s origin story does, which means you’ll know how the initially inadequate protagonist accidentally receives his super powers and how hard it is for him to get used to them.
Believe it or not, my biggest gripe with “Underdog” is more of a technical one. I was immensely dissatisfied with the movie’s sound, an essential element to a sound film. As presumptuous as I may seem for writing that, I’m here to tell you that it’s noticeably bad. For example, during one scene, the characters stand outside, in their yard; and when they talk, they sound like their talking inside of a tin can. Come on, Jessica Gallavan (supervising ADR editor), let’s get it together.
There are some humorous parts, here and there, particularly one well-done homage to a much earlier Disney-dog creation, “Lady and the Tramp” (1955).
Also, I might add that Underdog’s voice was provided by Jason Lee, the lead from the TV show “My Name is Earl.” He employs the same voice-over narration style in this movie. James Belushi has a thankless role, but it sure is good to see him again. Oh, and you will most likely enjoy Patrick Warburton, playing his usual character from “Seinfeld” and “The Emperor’s New Groove” (2000).
“Underdog” is quite silly and even more preposterous, but let’s face it: There are worse movies. (See my review for “Bratz: The Movie.”) In short, “Underdog” is only for dog lovers, young children and hardcore fans of the cartoon.
Directed by Frederik Du Chau
Jason Lee / James Belushi / Patrick Warburton
84 min. Comedy / Family
MPAA: PG (for rude humor, mild language and action)
Copyright 2007.
JP0175 : 331
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 / August 11, 2007
In 1964, a silly but vintage cartoon called “Underdog” began on television, introducing a canine superhero that is, more or less, a dog version of Superman. Flash forward to present day when Walt Disney Pictures brings us a live-action feature film that has a dog-like loyalty to its animated antecedent.
I'd typically describe the plot, but since this is a movie about a flying super-dog, that no longer seems pertinent.
Let me just mention that this movie follows all of the same steps that any other superhero’s origin story does, which means you’ll know how the initially inadequate protagonist accidentally receives his super powers and how hard it is for him to get used to them.
Believe it or not, my biggest gripe with “Underdog” is more of a technical one. I was immensely dissatisfied with the movie’s sound, an essential element to a sound film. As presumptuous as I may seem for writing that, I’m here to tell you that it’s noticeably bad. For example, during one scene, the characters stand outside, in their yard; and when they talk, they sound like their talking inside of a tin can. Come on, Jessica Gallavan (supervising ADR editor), let’s get it together.
There are some humorous parts, here and there, particularly one well-done homage to a much earlier Disney-dog creation, “Lady and the Tramp” (1955).
Also, I might add that Underdog’s voice was provided by Jason Lee, the lead from the TV show “My Name is Earl.” He employs the same voice-over narration style in this movie. James Belushi has a thankless role, but it sure is good to see him again. Oh, and you will most likely enjoy Patrick Warburton, playing his usual character from “Seinfeld” and “The Emperor’s New Groove” (2000).
“Underdog” is quite silly and even more preposterous, but let’s face it: There are worse movies. (See my review for “Bratz: The Movie.”) In short, “Underdog” is only for dog lovers, young children and hardcore fans of the cartoon.
Directed by Frederik Du Chau
Jason Lee / James Belushi / Patrick Warburton
84 min. Comedy / Family
MPAA: PG (for rude humor, mild language and action)
Copyright 2007.
JP0175 : 331
Hot Rod (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 / August 11, 2007
Something remarkable happens toward the end of “Hot Rod.” At one point, as part of a fundraiser, stuntman Rod Kimble shows a film of his homespun stunts to his local townspeople in a movie theater. I suspected the movie was about to make a joke of itself, just as “The Simpsons Movie” does, where it ridicules its audience by depicting a similarly displeased group of people who paid to see the stuntman on the big screen.
Not so. Instead, the movie audience within the movie begins to laugh at what they’re watching, which had a magical affect on my theater’s real group of spectators: From that point on, we begin to laugh, too. Perhaps the movie gets funnier after that point. Perhaps we were just broken down from the bludgeoning of stupidity. Or maybe the onscreen audience had some psychological affect on us. In any case, it’s an interesting coincidence.
I don’t feel the same pressure to “get the word out” with movies like “Hot Rod.” The type of people who will love a movie like this are the ones who buy the tickets. The type of people who know better don’t go in the first place.
Rod Kimble (Andy Samberg) has two ambitions: being a world-class stuntman and gaining the respect and recognition from his stepfather by beating him in a fight. But Kimble has three problems: He’s not a very good stuntman. He can’t beat his stepfather in a fight. And the stepfather’s ticker needs to be replaced, or else he’ll die soon and remain “the undefeated champ.”
The only way to overcome each of these obstacles is to perform the death-defying feat of ramping over 15 school buses (one more than Evel Knievel) at a fundraising spectacle designed to collect enough money to cover the stepfather’s heart transplant. Once Ron’s stepfather has a new heart, he plans to gain his respect by beating him up.
This is what you’re looking at experiencing by going to see this movie. But I must admit, later in the movie, I did laugh quite a bit. Andy Samberg’s Rod Kimble ultimately seems to be an attempt at blending a typical Adam Sandler character with a Jon Heder character.
There are four types of comedies by my reckoning: the clever comedy, the abstract comedy, the “so stupid it hurts” comedy, and the “so stupid it’s funny” comedy. “Hot Rod” falls under the last category. “Little Miss Sunshine” (2006) is a clever comedy. “Napoleon Dynamite” (2004) is an abstract comedy. “Delta Farce” (2007) is a very painful “so stupid it hurts” comedy. (By the way, never see “Delta Farce.”)
My biggest criticism of “Hot Rod” is something that most movies are guilty of, and that’s showing all of the funniest parts in the trailer. But “Hot Rod” is especially guilty. During the first 10 minutes, I thought the projectionist was mistakenly playing the trailer reel. The best stunt mishaps, which are revealed in said trailer, would have gotten the biggest laughs during screenings. But hey, I guess you have to get people into the theater somehow. Perhaps “Hot Rod” could have been a charity fundraiser for Paramount Pictures and SNL Films.
Directed by Akiva Schaffer
Andy Samberg / Isla Fisher / Ian McShane
88 min. Comedy
MPAA: PG-13 (for crude humor, language, some comic drug-related and violent content)
Copyright 2007.
JP0173 : 528
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 / August 11, 2007
Something remarkable happens toward the end of “Hot Rod.” At one point, as part of a fundraiser, stuntman Rod Kimble shows a film of his homespun stunts to his local townspeople in a movie theater. I suspected the movie was about to make a joke of itself, just as “The Simpsons Movie” does, where it ridicules its audience by depicting a similarly displeased group of people who paid to see the stuntman on the big screen.
Not so. Instead, the movie audience within the movie begins to laugh at what they’re watching, which had a magical affect on my theater’s real group of spectators: From that point on, we begin to laugh, too. Perhaps the movie gets funnier after that point. Perhaps we were just broken down from the bludgeoning of stupidity. Or maybe the onscreen audience had some psychological affect on us. In any case, it’s an interesting coincidence.
I don’t feel the same pressure to “get the word out” with movies like “Hot Rod.” The type of people who will love a movie like this are the ones who buy the tickets. The type of people who know better don’t go in the first place.
Rod Kimble (Andy Samberg) has two ambitions: being a world-class stuntman and gaining the respect and recognition from his stepfather by beating him in a fight. But Kimble has three problems: He’s not a very good stuntman. He can’t beat his stepfather in a fight. And the stepfather’s ticker needs to be replaced, or else he’ll die soon and remain “the undefeated champ.”
The only way to overcome each of these obstacles is to perform the death-defying feat of ramping over 15 school buses (one more than Evel Knievel) at a fundraising spectacle designed to collect enough money to cover the stepfather’s heart transplant. Once Ron’s stepfather has a new heart, he plans to gain his respect by beating him up.
This is what you’re looking at experiencing by going to see this movie. But I must admit, later in the movie, I did laugh quite a bit. Andy Samberg’s Rod Kimble ultimately seems to be an attempt at blending a typical Adam Sandler character with a Jon Heder character.
There are four types of comedies by my reckoning: the clever comedy, the abstract comedy, the “so stupid it hurts” comedy, and the “so stupid it’s funny” comedy. “Hot Rod” falls under the last category. “Little Miss Sunshine” (2006) is a clever comedy. “Napoleon Dynamite” (2004) is an abstract comedy. “Delta Farce” (2007) is a very painful “so stupid it hurts” comedy. (By the way, never see “Delta Farce.”)
My biggest criticism of “Hot Rod” is something that most movies are guilty of, and that’s showing all of the funniest parts in the trailer. But “Hot Rod” is especially guilty. During the first 10 minutes, I thought the projectionist was mistakenly playing the trailer reel. The best stunt mishaps, which are revealed in said trailer, would have gotten the biggest laughs during screenings. But hey, I guess you have to get people into the theater somehow. Perhaps “Hot Rod” could have been a charity fundraiser for Paramount Pictures and SNL Films.
Directed by Akiva Schaffer
Andy Samberg / Isla Fisher / Ian McShane
88 min. Comedy
MPAA: PG-13 (for crude humor, language, some comic drug-related and violent content)
Copyright 2007.
JP0173 : 528
Bratz: The Movie (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 32
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
O Good video rental (60-74)
O Merely OK (50-59)
X Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don't watch (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / August 11, 2007
Oh, the pain. “Transformers” is a movie that is based on a toy, and is, at least, bearable. (In fact, to me “Transformers” is exceptional.) But “Bratz: The Movie,” which is also based on a toy, is icky.
Here’s what I mean: Do you know those situations where someone says or does something and it makes you feel embarrassed for them? Well, for some reason, all through “Bratz” I felt deeply embarrassed, I guess, for the actors (and everyone who was ever involved with this movie). Oh, the pain.
I know you’re second-guessing me right now. What did I expect from a movie aimed at 9-year-old girls, right? Not so. Believe it or not, and I’m reluctant to admit this, I was kind of looking forward to this movie. Why? Because I thought it was going to be another “Clueless” (1995), which I loved. I can’t lie; I’m into “Clueless.” Make fun of me if you wish, but I know you secretly are too.
“Bratz” is not at all like “Clueless,” not even close. Watching “Bratz” is like getting your little brother’s fishing hook caught in your lip during his first casting attempt. Oh, the pain.
Four hip gals begin 9th grade at Carry Nation High School in California. They take the school by storm. But the principal’s daughter, Meredith (Chelsea Staub), who is also the perpetual student body president, is an egomaniac and an absolute control freak. Meredith’s lofty mission is to continue to keep the entire school segregated into orderly divisions of cliques. (This Meredith character is one of the most obnoxious creations in film.)
The new gals, Sasha, Jade, Yasmin and Cloe, are mingling free spirits who believe the cliques should be abolished. In due course, the four new gals are drawn into four different groups and drift apart. When they try to rekindle their bonds of friendship, the evil Meredith wages war against them. I know, absolutely stimulating.
It almost sounds like there’s an underlying metaphor about racism. Nope, that’s not it. (Although, the four lead gals are two white girls, one black girl and one Asian girl; so, I guess that’s good.) Instead, the “moral” of this story is that in high school, people change and drift apart, but the separation doesn’t have to happen. We just need to accept one another’s new directions, and still be friends.
Teaching kids that high school will bring changes in friends is noble. But all of this is destroyed by the movie’s other lessons, such as “whine and you’ll get what you want, which, of course, you’re already entitled to.” Or, how about “expect to be the best and nothing less ... or else you’re a total loser.”
“Bratz” is awfully colorful and awfully contrived. It’s the kind of movie that parades around with phrases of dialogue, such as “BFF” (best friends forever) and “OMG” (Oh, my gosh!), over and over. Oh, the pain.
Because it’s filmed like a toy commercial and one episodic confrontation after another, in the interest of keeping the MTV generation’s attention, “Bratz” is like watching 14 after-school specials back-to-back. “Bratz” is as long and as arduous as high school itself. Oh, the pain.
Directed by Sean McNamara
Nathalia Ramos / Janel Parrish / Chelsea Staub
110 min. Comedy / Drama
MPAA: PG (for thematic elements)
Copyright 2007.
JP0176 : 530
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
O Good video rental (60-74)
O Merely OK (50-59)
X Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don't watch (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / August 11, 2007
Oh, the pain. “Transformers” is a movie that is based on a toy, and is, at least, bearable. (In fact, to me “Transformers” is exceptional.) But “Bratz: The Movie,” which is also based on a toy, is icky.
Here’s what I mean: Do you know those situations where someone says or does something and it makes you feel embarrassed for them? Well, for some reason, all through “Bratz” I felt deeply embarrassed, I guess, for the actors (and everyone who was ever involved with this movie). Oh, the pain.
I know you’re second-guessing me right now. What did I expect from a movie aimed at 9-year-old girls, right? Not so. Believe it or not, and I’m reluctant to admit this, I was kind of looking forward to this movie. Why? Because I thought it was going to be another “Clueless” (1995), which I loved. I can’t lie; I’m into “Clueless.” Make fun of me if you wish, but I know you secretly are too.
“Bratz” is not at all like “Clueless,” not even close. Watching “Bratz” is like getting your little brother’s fishing hook caught in your lip during his first casting attempt. Oh, the pain.
Four hip gals begin 9th grade at Carry Nation High School in California. They take the school by storm. But the principal’s daughter, Meredith (Chelsea Staub), who is also the perpetual student body president, is an egomaniac and an absolute control freak. Meredith’s lofty mission is to continue to keep the entire school segregated into orderly divisions of cliques. (This Meredith character is one of the most obnoxious creations in film.)
The new gals, Sasha, Jade, Yasmin and Cloe, are mingling free spirits who believe the cliques should be abolished. In due course, the four new gals are drawn into four different groups and drift apart. When they try to rekindle their bonds of friendship, the evil Meredith wages war against them. I know, absolutely stimulating.
It almost sounds like there’s an underlying metaphor about racism. Nope, that’s not it. (Although, the four lead gals are two white girls, one black girl and one Asian girl; so, I guess that’s good.) Instead, the “moral” of this story is that in high school, people change and drift apart, but the separation doesn’t have to happen. We just need to accept one another’s new directions, and still be friends.
Teaching kids that high school will bring changes in friends is noble. But all of this is destroyed by the movie’s other lessons, such as “whine and you’ll get what you want, which, of course, you’re already entitled to.” Or, how about “expect to be the best and nothing less ... or else you’re a total loser.”
“Bratz” is awfully colorful and awfully contrived. It’s the kind of movie that parades around with phrases of dialogue, such as “BFF” (best friends forever) and “OMG” (Oh, my gosh!), over and over. Oh, the pain.
Because it’s filmed like a toy commercial and one episodic confrontation after another, in the interest of keeping the MTV generation’s attention, “Bratz” is like watching 14 after-school specials back-to-back. “Bratz” is as long and as arduous as high school itself. Oh, the pain.
Directed by Sean McNamara
Nathalia Ramos / Janel Parrish / Chelsea Staub
110 min. Comedy / Drama
MPAA: PG (for thematic elements)
Copyright 2007.
JP0176 : 530
Saturday, August 4, 2007
The Bourne Ultimatum (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 / August 4, 2007
I’ll answer the question always asked about the third installment of trilogies: “The Bourne Ultimatum” is better than the second movie and not quite as good as the first.
But if you loved the first two movies, then you’ll probably love this one. In addition to the plot, naturally, the way “The Bourne Ultimatum” is made seems to be a blend of the first two movies.
This is where we and Jason Bourne (Matt Damon) find out who?, what?, when?, where? That’s my plot description. Since this is a spy movie with ever unraveling and perpetually building secrets, I’m not comfortable, in good conscience as a good movie critic, revealing anything further. But you already knew this third movie was the explanatory conclusion, anyway, so, moving on.
I’ll proceed by telling you the second thing you really want to know. The action is exceptional, though not as frequent as I would have wished. But I guess the intensity and quality make up for the quantity. There are two scenes involving Bourne’s outfoxing a surveillance operation and a spy vs. spy battle that dazzle and astound. But overall, there is too much plotting and not enough action. Think less of me, but after all, this is an action flick.
When we do finally find out the big revelation, it’s not that big of a revelation or a surprise. If you want epiphany and closure, then this probably isn’t the movie for you. Rent it. But if you just want to see Matt Damon kick some [ top secret ], then go see “The Bourne Ultimatum.”
Directed by Paul Greengrass
Matt Damon / David Stathairn / Joan Allen
111 min. Action
MPAA: PG-13 (for violence and intense sequences of action)
Copyright 2007.
JP0170 : 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 / August 4, 2007
I’ll answer the question always asked about the third installment of trilogies: “The Bourne Ultimatum” is better than the second movie and not quite as good as the first.
But if you loved the first two movies, then you’ll probably love this one. In addition to the plot, naturally, the way “The Bourne Ultimatum” is made seems to be a blend of the first two movies.
This is where we and Jason Bourne (Matt Damon) find out who?, what?, when?, where? That’s my plot description. Since this is a spy movie with ever unraveling and perpetually building secrets, I’m not comfortable, in good conscience as a good movie critic, revealing anything further. But you already knew this third movie was the explanatory conclusion, anyway, so, moving on.
I’ll proceed by telling you the second thing you really want to know. The action is exceptional, though not as frequent as I would have wished. But I guess the intensity and quality make up for the quantity. There are two scenes involving Bourne’s outfoxing a surveillance operation and a spy vs. spy battle that dazzle and astound. But overall, there is too much plotting and not enough action. Think less of me, but after all, this is an action flick.
When we do finally find out the big revelation, it’s not that big of a revelation or a surprise. If you want epiphany and closure, then this probably isn’t the movie for you. Rent it. But if you just want to see Matt Damon kick some [ top secret ], then go see “The Bourne Ultimatum.”
Directed by Paul Greengrass
Matt Damon / David Stathairn / Joan Allen
111 min. Action
MPAA: PG-13 (for violence and intense sequences of action)
Copyright 2007.
JP0170 : 264
Sunshine (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 93
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 / August 4, 2007
OK, get this: Imagine if someone described the following science fiction movie premise to you: The movie is simply titled “Sunshine” and begins with a shot of the sun. There’s a voice-over narration that explains that our sun is dying, and mankind faces extinction. The narrator proceeds to explain that it is his team’s mission is to “restart the sun” and create a star within a star.
Sounds lame, right? Wrong.
“Sunshine” isn’t the same kind of sci-fi movie that “Armageddon” (1998) is, oh no. “Sunshine” is a sci-fi film along the same lines as “2001: A Space Odyssey,” the type of movie that seems like it’s more science than fiction.
The genius of “Sunshine” is this: The sun is simultaneously the precious subject of concern and the monster. Wonder, awe and respect describe the way the crew regards the sun, which is, as it should be.
The setting is in the future. A second team of Earth’s best astronauts and scientists are hurling toward the sun, strapped to the back of a giant bomb with obscene power. (Oh, and their ship has shields for the profound, ever-increasing heat.) This mission is called Icarus II. There was an Icarus I attempt, but they never reached the sun.
We follow a physicist named Robert Capa (Cillian Murphy) and his team as they approach the monstrous star. As is the case with astronauts, their calculations and measurements must be exactly precise — or else. So, there’s that to contend with, and then there’s unforeseen complications that always accompany humans and manmade products.
The movie is filled with many beautiful moments. The dialogue — somehow — doesn’t seem corny like something from Buck Rogers. Perhaps it is, in part, the actors’ fine delivery.
Unfortunately, this movie falls shy of being a masterpiece because it doesn’t stay true to its convictions. I felt a little betrayed when “Sunshine” disappointingly replaces our fears elsewhere, meaning not with the sun. This subplot figuratively (and literally) carries the movie’s mission off track. It gets a little too arty for my taste. You’ll see what I mean.
Even so, I still love this movie. I gave it a 93 out of 100 (which is coincidental because the Earth is typically about 93 million miles from the sun).
“Sunshine” is a limited release, which means that it is not commonly found among the multiplexes and the summer popcorn movies, at least not yet. But if you live near a big city, and you love science fiction, then make the trip. “Sunshine” is excellent and a must-see.
Directed by Danny Boyle
Cillian Murphy / Chris Evans / Cliff Curtis
108 min. Sci-Fi
MPAA: R (for violent content and language)
Copyright 2007.
JP0167 : 424
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 / August 4, 2007
OK, get this: Imagine if someone described the following science fiction movie premise to you: The movie is simply titled “Sunshine” and begins with a shot of the sun. There’s a voice-over narration that explains that our sun is dying, and mankind faces extinction. The narrator proceeds to explain that it is his team’s mission is to “restart the sun” and create a star within a star.
Sounds lame, right? Wrong.
“Sunshine” isn’t the same kind of sci-fi movie that “Armageddon” (1998) is, oh no. “Sunshine” is a sci-fi film along the same lines as “2001: A Space Odyssey,” the type of movie that seems like it’s more science than fiction.
The genius of “Sunshine” is this: The sun is simultaneously the precious subject of concern and the monster. Wonder, awe and respect describe the way the crew regards the sun, which is, as it should be.
The setting is in the future. A second team of Earth’s best astronauts and scientists are hurling toward the sun, strapped to the back of a giant bomb with obscene power. (Oh, and their ship has shields for the profound, ever-increasing heat.) This mission is called Icarus II. There was an Icarus I attempt, but they never reached the sun.
We follow a physicist named Robert Capa (Cillian Murphy) and his team as they approach the monstrous star. As is the case with astronauts, their calculations and measurements must be exactly precise — or else. So, there’s that to contend with, and then there’s unforeseen complications that always accompany humans and manmade products.
The movie is filled with many beautiful moments. The dialogue — somehow — doesn’t seem corny like something from Buck Rogers. Perhaps it is, in part, the actors’ fine delivery.
Unfortunately, this movie falls shy of being a masterpiece because it doesn’t stay true to its convictions. I felt a little betrayed when “Sunshine” disappointingly replaces our fears elsewhere, meaning not with the sun. This subplot figuratively (and literally) carries the movie’s mission off track. It gets a little too arty for my taste. You’ll see what I mean.
Even so, I still love this movie. I gave it a 93 out of 100 (which is coincidental because the Earth is typically about 93 million miles from the sun).
“Sunshine” is a limited release, which means that it is not commonly found among the multiplexes and the summer popcorn movies, at least not yet. But if you live near a big city, and you love science fiction, then make the trip. “Sunshine” is excellent and a must-see.
Directed by Danny Boyle
Cillian Murphy / Chris Evans / Cliff Curtis
108 min. Sci-Fi
MPAA: R (for violent content and language)
Copyright 2007.
JP0167 : 424
Rescue Dawn (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 91
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 / August 4, 2007
Some movies you just don’t forget. I think “Rescue Dawn” is one of them.
Famed German director Werner Herzog brings us a Vietnam War drama inspired by true events from the life of an American pilot named Dieter Dengler (Christian Bale). This film is, perhaps, a further exploration of Herzog’s documentary called “Little Dieter Needs to Fly” (1997).
Dieter Dengler is a pilot who is shot down during his first mission in 1965. His air-bombing mission over Laos is illegal, and therefore, top secret. Dengler survives the crash (apparently, he has a knack for that). Soon he is captured by the Viet Cong and experiences the harrowing life of a POW camp. But Dengler is not alone. He becomes fast friends with the other prisoners, particularly another American named Duane (Steve Zahn).
“Rescue Dawn” is rated PG-13. The violence and torture depicted are relatively mild, though still upsetting. But as my colleague Luke Hickman observes, “Rescue Dawn” isn’t your typical, bleak, Vietnam movie. It isn’t a story about war but about friendship, inner strength and resilience.
Herzog is one of those legendary directors, one who is often associated with madness. The mere filming in exotic locations is always part of the tension and danger of his movies. Herzog’s work includes (but is not limited to) “Aguirre, the Wrath of God” (1972), “Fitzcarraldo” (1982) and more recently, “Grizzly Man” (2005). Many of his films are documentaries, but all of them could supply material for “making of” documentaries. For example, the insane feat that “Fitzcarraldo” is based on was actually executed by Herzog “in real life” for the filming of the movie. Accordingly, there is a making-of documentary called “Burden of Dreams” (1982).
If you get a chance, get acquainted with Herzog; “Rescue Dawn” is as good a place as any to begin. I’ll just mention two points of excellence (among many) from this film: A POW’s diet is limited to things that we might consider inedible. There is, of course, such a scene and actor Christian Bale performs this feat with enthusiasm. Unforgettable. (I’m talking, he deserves to receive the Best Actor Academy Award by default, hands down, no questions asked.)
Another aspect I loved was the way Herzog and his cinematographer Peter Zeitlinger use the thick vegetation of the shooting location in Thailand to fill the frame of the camera lens. When we see our protagonist tearing and pulling through the thick jungle, it appears as though he is being eaten by a foliage monster.
In short, “Rescue Dawn” is horrifying, touching, inspiring and marvelous. I highly recommend it.
Directed by Werner Herzog
Christian Bale / Steve Zahn / Jeremy Davies
126 min. Drama / War
MPAA: PG-13 (for some sequences of intense war violence and torture)
Copyright 2007.
JP0169 : 429
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 / August 4, 2007
Some movies you just don’t forget. I think “Rescue Dawn” is one of them.
Famed German director Werner Herzog brings us a Vietnam War drama inspired by true events from the life of an American pilot named Dieter Dengler (Christian Bale). This film is, perhaps, a further exploration of Herzog’s documentary called “Little Dieter Needs to Fly” (1997).
Dieter Dengler is a pilot who is shot down during his first mission in 1965. His air-bombing mission over Laos is illegal, and therefore, top secret. Dengler survives the crash (apparently, he has a knack for that). Soon he is captured by the Viet Cong and experiences the harrowing life of a POW camp. But Dengler is not alone. He becomes fast friends with the other prisoners, particularly another American named Duane (Steve Zahn).
“Rescue Dawn” is rated PG-13. The violence and torture depicted are relatively mild, though still upsetting. But as my colleague Luke Hickman observes, “Rescue Dawn” isn’t your typical, bleak, Vietnam movie. It isn’t a story about war but about friendship, inner strength and resilience.
Herzog is one of those legendary directors, one who is often associated with madness. The mere filming in exotic locations is always part of the tension and danger of his movies. Herzog’s work includes (but is not limited to) “Aguirre, the Wrath of God” (1972), “Fitzcarraldo” (1982) and more recently, “Grizzly Man” (2005). Many of his films are documentaries, but all of them could supply material for “making of” documentaries. For example, the insane feat that “Fitzcarraldo” is based on was actually executed by Herzog “in real life” for the filming of the movie. Accordingly, there is a making-of documentary called “Burden of Dreams” (1982).
If you get a chance, get acquainted with Herzog; “Rescue Dawn” is as good a place as any to begin. I’ll just mention two points of excellence (among many) from this film: A POW’s diet is limited to things that we might consider inedible. There is, of course, such a scene and actor Christian Bale performs this feat with enthusiasm. Unforgettable. (I’m talking, he deserves to receive the Best Actor Academy Award by default, hands down, no questions asked.)
Another aspect I loved was the way Herzog and his cinematographer Peter Zeitlinger use the thick vegetation of the shooting location in Thailand to fill the frame of the camera lens. When we see our protagonist tearing and pulling through the thick jungle, it appears as though he is being eaten by a foliage monster.
In short, “Rescue Dawn” is horrifying, touching, inspiring and marvelous. I highly recommend it.
Directed by Werner Herzog
Christian Bale / Steve Zahn / Jeremy Davies
126 min. Drama / War
MPAA: PG-13 (for some sequences of intense war violence and torture)
Copyright 2007.
JP0169 : 429
No Reservations (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 69
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 / August 4, 2007
I must not be a very good pillow fighter: I never draw feathers. In the movies, however, every pillow fight yields feathers. Surely I’m doing something wrong. Let me know.
The pillow fight I’m referring to is just one of the pure pleasures to this soft, gentle movie. If you liked last year’s “The Lake House” with Sandra Bullock and Keanu Reeves, then I bet you’d appreciate “No Reservations.” Both movies are rated PG and are remarkably clean romances (clean meaning an absence of smut).
“No Reservations” isn’t as much of a romance as it is a drama, however. So, if you’re expecting a Meg Ryan, Tom Hanks romantic comedy, that’s not quite it. Beneath its typically sweet tone, “No Reservations” broods with complex issues that are authentic and believable. The primary issue lies with a strained relationship between a New York chef and a sad little girl.
Kate (Catherine Zeta-Jones) is the master chef at a fancy restaurant that is simply named after its address: “22 Bleecker.” Kate is somewhat rigid as a result of her pragmatic, self-inflicted rules. She runs a tight ship in the kitchen and keeps her love-life safely docked at the harbor.
But two events drastically change Kate and her world. (The following is not a spoiler.) Her sister dies in a car accident, which results in Kate’s becoming the guardian of her niece, Zoe (Abigail Breslin, “Little Miss Sunshine”). The difficult adjustments between these two characters are the focus of the film (not the romance).
Up to this point, things are a little somber. Luckily, the fatal car crash happens off screen. But the movie needs color, and that’s where Nick (Aaron Eckhart) comes in. Kate’s restaurant hires Nick as a su-chef, which basically means an assistant chef who’s second in command. Nick is a joy to watch. He adds brightness to the film’s murky mood. As you can imagine, both Zoe and Nick complicate and enhance Kate’s life, compelling her to change.
“No Reservations” has two key problems that keep it from being excellent: First, the pace is too slow. The movie tends to mosey along, slowing down from time to time, from an already-lethargic pace. The second flaw compounds the first. Each scene is fine by itself, but they do not flow together as a unified whole.
But the film’s score is so good, it almost merits looking into purchasing the soundtrack. Philip Glass’ original music is lovely and quite complementary. In fact, I was impressed with all of the song selections and their arrangements.
It is worth noting that there is another chef movie still in theaters called “Ratatouille.” It’s the less dramatic, animated version of “No Reservations.” Both movies are worth seeing. I just hope this summer doesn’t become like that of 2005, where one penguin movie turned into multiple penguin movies. Perhaps the penguin activists and the culinary arts folks have connections in Hollywood.
All kidding aside, I can recommend “No Reservations.” It’s the perfect date movie, and it’s heartwarming. But if you’re one of those people who scoff at movies like “No Reservations” and “The Lake House,” then I challenge you to a pillow fight ... and feathers will fly.
Directed by Scott Hicks
Catherine Zeta-Jones / Aaron Eckhart / Abigail Breslin
103 min. Drama / Romance
MPAA: PG (for some sensuality and language)
Copyright 2007.
JP0166 : 532
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 / August 4, 2007
I must not be a very good pillow fighter: I never draw feathers. In the movies, however, every pillow fight yields feathers. Surely I’m doing something wrong. Let me know.
The pillow fight I’m referring to is just one of the pure pleasures to this soft, gentle movie. If you liked last year’s “The Lake House” with Sandra Bullock and Keanu Reeves, then I bet you’d appreciate “No Reservations.” Both movies are rated PG and are remarkably clean romances (clean meaning an absence of smut).
“No Reservations” isn’t as much of a romance as it is a drama, however. So, if you’re expecting a Meg Ryan, Tom Hanks romantic comedy, that’s not quite it. Beneath its typically sweet tone, “No Reservations” broods with complex issues that are authentic and believable. The primary issue lies with a strained relationship between a New York chef and a sad little girl.
Kate (Catherine Zeta-Jones) is the master chef at a fancy restaurant that is simply named after its address: “22 Bleecker.” Kate is somewhat rigid as a result of her pragmatic, self-inflicted rules. She runs a tight ship in the kitchen and keeps her love-life safely docked at the harbor.
But two events drastically change Kate and her world. (The following is not a spoiler.) Her sister dies in a car accident, which results in Kate’s becoming the guardian of her niece, Zoe (Abigail Breslin, “Little Miss Sunshine”). The difficult adjustments between these two characters are the focus of the film (not the romance).
Up to this point, things are a little somber. Luckily, the fatal car crash happens off screen. But the movie needs color, and that’s where Nick (Aaron Eckhart) comes in. Kate’s restaurant hires Nick as a su-chef, which basically means an assistant chef who’s second in command. Nick is a joy to watch. He adds brightness to the film’s murky mood. As you can imagine, both Zoe and Nick complicate and enhance Kate’s life, compelling her to change.
“No Reservations” has two key problems that keep it from being excellent: First, the pace is too slow. The movie tends to mosey along, slowing down from time to time, from an already-lethargic pace. The second flaw compounds the first. Each scene is fine by itself, but they do not flow together as a unified whole.
But the film’s score is so good, it almost merits looking into purchasing the soundtrack. Philip Glass’ original music is lovely and quite complementary. In fact, I was impressed with all of the song selections and their arrangements.
It is worth noting that there is another chef movie still in theaters called “Ratatouille.” It’s the less dramatic, animated version of “No Reservations.” Both movies are worth seeing. I just hope this summer doesn’t become like that of 2005, where one penguin movie turned into multiple penguin movies. Perhaps the penguin activists and the culinary arts folks have connections in Hollywood.
All kidding aside, I can recommend “No Reservations.” It’s the perfect date movie, and it’s heartwarming. But if you’re one of those people who scoff at movies like “No Reservations” and “The Lake House,” then I challenge you to a pillow fight ... and feathers will fly.
Directed by Scott Hicks
Catherine Zeta-Jones / Aaron Eckhart / Abigail Breslin
103 min. Drama / Romance
MPAA: PG (for some sensuality and language)
Copyright 2007.
JP0166 : 532
Brooklyn Rules (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 71
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 / August 4, 2007
I must confess to having an unconditional love for mafia movies. Now that I have that out of the way ... “Brooklyn Rules” is more of a drama about three friends than it is a mobster story. But I’ll take what I can get.
Alec Baldwin makes a great mob boss, no question about it; but Freddie Prinze Jr. is another story. Apparently, he’s trying to change his image to be more edgy. The last thing I saw him in was “Down to You” (2000), with Julia Stiles. That was a movie for young, teenage girls. (Can’t tell ya why I saw it.)
The actor has done many things since 2000. But now I see him in “Brooklyn Rules,” and he talks like a truck driver’s grandma when “it’s Miller time.” I was quite alarmed. (Imagine your 1st-grade teacher saying bad words.) It just doesn’t seem right.
Three boys grow up together in Brooklyn. Mike (Freddie Prinze Jr.), Bobby (Jerry Ferrara) and Carmine (Scott Caan) are basically good kids, but they’ve come up in a rough neighborhood and are, therefore, rough around the edges themselves. As young men, they even happened onto a guy that the mob whacked down by the river. The three have seen a lot.
Mike decides to go to college to try to rise up out of his background. Bobby has already found his true love. He only wants to get married and work for the post office. Scott, on the other hand, is impressed with the power of the mobsters, much like Henry Hill in “Goodfellas” (1990). He decides to join their ranks. Naturally, Scott’s other two friends are nervous about his dealings with a crime lord like the infamous Caesar Manganaro (Alec Baldwin). But Scott’s connection tends to have its pluses and minuses.
The movie follows the three friends as they try to stay together while being pulled in different directions. I like the friendship between the trio, which is the point of the movie. But I get the sense that “Brooklyn Rules” is supposed to be about the mafia encroaching upon their camaraderie. It’s much like watching “Jaws” (1975): When the mafia comes around, that’s when Jaws visits — we have fun. When the shark swims away, we sink into our seats again, a little bored.
This isn’t a Scorsese picture, but it begins to approach that status. “Brooklyn Rules” has a certain authenticity to it that makes us wish it were a little more “Hollywood-ized” or “Scorsese-ized.” After all, those of us who like mafia movies only watch them to see who’s gonna “sleep with the fishes.”
Directed by Michael Corrente
Alec Baldwin / Freddie Prinze Jr. / Scott Caan
99 min. Drama / Crime
MPAA: R (for violence, pervasive language and some sexual content)
Copyright 2007.
JP0168 : 434
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 / August 4, 2007
I must confess to having an unconditional love for mafia movies. Now that I have that out of the way ... “Brooklyn Rules” is more of a drama about three friends than it is a mobster story. But I’ll take what I can get.
Alec Baldwin makes a great mob boss, no question about it; but Freddie Prinze Jr. is another story. Apparently, he’s trying to change his image to be more edgy. The last thing I saw him in was “Down to You” (2000), with Julia Stiles. That was a movie for young, teenage girls. (Can’t tell ya why I saw it.)
The actor has done many things since 2000. But now I see him in “Brooklyn Rules,” and he talks like a truck driver’s grandma when “it’s Miller time.” I was quite alarmed. (Imagine your 1st-grade teacher saying bad words.) It just doesn’t seem right.
Three boys grow up together in Brooklyn. Mike (Freddie Prinze Jr.), Bobby (Jerry Ferrara) and Carmine (Scott Caan) are basically good kids, but they’ve come up in a rough neighborhood and are, therefore, rough around the edges themselves. As young men, they even happened onto a guy that the mob whacked down by the river. The three have seen a lot.
Mike decides to go to college to try to rise up out of his background. Bobby has already found his true love. He only wants to get married and work for the post office. Scott, on the other hand, is impressed with the power of the mobsters, much like Henry Hill in “Goodfellas” (1990). He decides to join their ranks. Naturally, Scott’s other two friends are nervous about his dealings with a crime lord like the infamous Caesar Manganaro (Alec Baldwin). But Scott’s connection tends to have its pluses and minuses.
The movie follows the three friends as they try to stay together while being pulled in different directions. I like the friendship between the trio, which is the point of the movie. But I get the sense that “Brooklyn Rules” is supposed to be about the mafia encroaching upon their camaraderie. It’s much like watching “Jaws” (1975): When the mafia comes around, that’s when Jaws visits — we have fun. When the shark swims away, we sink into our seats again, a little bored.
This isn’t a Scorsese picture, but it begins to approach that status. “Brooklyn Rules” has a certain authenticity to it that makes us wish it were a little more “Hollywood-ized” or “Scorsese-ized.” After all, those of us who like mafia movies only watch them to see who’s gonna “sleep with the fishes.”
Directed by Michael Corrente
Alec Baldwin / Freddie Prinze Jr. / Scott Caan
99 min. Drama / Crime
MPAA: R (for violence, pervasive language and some sexual content)
Copyright 2007.
JP0168 : 434
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
