Overall rating from 1 to 100: 75
O Masterpiece (100)
X Excellent (75-99)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / October 26, 2007
Jerry: Your dad was my best friend.
Harper: When?
Jerry: When I was your age ... and last week.
Such is the mostly pitch-perfect dialogue in “Things We Lost in the Fire,” a story about characters who try to overcome the most difficult challenges of their lives, one day at a time.
In modern-day Seattle, Brian (David Duchovny) and Audrey Burke (Halle Berry) have a blissful marriage and two kids, Harper (Alexis Llewellyn) who’s 10 and Dory (Micah Berry) who’s six. Their idyllic life together is permanently altered when Brian heroically tries to intervene during a domestic dispute and is murdered. (That was not a spoiler but common knowledge regarding the film’s premise.)
Brian’s lifelong friend and recovering heroine addict, Jerry (Benicio Del Toro), comes to the funeral and is asked to help the grieving family, which, of course, is mutually beneficial to him.
“Things We Lost in the Fire” could have been a masterpiece, perhaps a perfect 100, had it not tried so hard to “swing for the fence.” There are moments (unmistakably saccharine, bittersweet moments) when we can sense the film trying to manipulate us to tears (much like the scads of country songs whose last verse takes place in heaven). I will refrain from citing specific examples from the movie, in case you’re a sucker for such moments. Why spoil them for you, too?
But the film’s biggest problem and evidence of overextending an arty appeal to “Oscar” is the two parents’ abundant use of the “F-word.” Sure, many adults say that word – often, in fact. But “good,” intelligent parents, such as those depicted here, who have two sets of small, impressionable ears always listening, do not use such language with such fervor and frequency.
To the film’s credit, it attempts to travel unforeseen roads, surprising us by not becoming what we think it will inevitably become; but the plot’s alternate course is, at times, tiresome. Specifically, Audrey’s reaction to Jerry’s helpfulness seems improbable.
Though the movie is about love, friendship and the death of the family’s father, it is equally about Jerry’s attempt to overcome his heroine addiction. Berry’s acting is commendable, even excellent at times, but Del Toro’s nuanced performance is nothing less than Oscar-worthy. His screen presence alone is worth the price of admission.
Despite some exceptions, “Things We Lost in the Fire” shines with credibility, offering moments that feel exactly right: Reminiscent conversations around a table about the departed enable us to see that Jerry truly was Brian’s best friend. And we get to see other little details like the endearing sensitivities of a tender wife and child in response to an animal activist group’s commercial. These are inclusions of careful filmmakers.
But the movie’s most novel filmmaking technique is the subjective soundtrack that we hear while Jerry is listening to his blaring headphones. We hear them as he does – loudly. Then, when he removes them from his ears, his tunes reduce to small background noise, playing faintly from their source. There are also lots of close-ups of sad eyes, which are probably relevant in this narrative, albeit overdone.
At one point, the widowed Audrey asks another woman who also lost her true love, “Does it get better?” The answer: “It gets different,” which is also an accurate description of this film.
Directed by Susanne Bier
Halle Berry / Benicio Del Toro / David Duchovny
119 min. Drama
MPPA: R (for drug content and language)
Copyright 2007. 204
Friday, October 26, 2007
Rendition (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 73
O Masterpiece (100)
O Excellent (75-99)
X Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / October 26, 2007
By now most of the escapist-entertainment fare of summer has gone with the leaves, and with the chill of autumn comes an even chillier cinema. Heavy, emotional and brooding, the Oscar gunners this year are pointed, political, and sociological dramas, such as “In the Valley of Elah,” “The Kingdom” and “Gone Baby Gone.”
“Rendition” boldly stands among these, posing rhetorical questions for our consideration, the foremost of which is “To what extremes are we justified going to in order to protect ourselves from terrorist extremists?” Or, in other words, does the means of torture justify the end ... and by the way, what is that end?
As you can see, much like “Gone Baby Gone,” “Rendition” isn’t really a movie you’d watch to be entertained. It is unpleasant and uncomfortable. It will likely anger you, while simultaneously making you feel paranoid and fearful. Art is often created in hopes of agitating its partakers toward action. And sometimes, its implications simply evoke despair.
Anwar El-Ilbrahimi (Omar Metwally) lives in Chicago with his very pregnant wife, Isabella (Reese Witherspoon), and their little son, Jeremy (Aramis Knight). Anwar travels to Cape Town, South Africa to give a presentation at a conference for his fellow chemical engineers.
But on his way back to the states, Anwar is intercepted and abducted by the CIA, because he is under suspicion of having terrorist ties with an Egyptian national whose terrorist group is claiming responsibility for increasingly potent bombing attacks in North Africa.
The CIA seems convinced that Anwar is affiliated with the terrorist group. Isabella, his wife, is convinced of his absolute innocence. Both sides have compelling evidence, insomuch that we are unsure ourselves, which is worrisome. But in the meantime, brutal methods of interrogation are used at a foreign prison in an attempt to ascertain the truth. (Though unpleasant, watching these scenes is not like watching the “Saw” movies, thankfully.)
Whether Anwar truly is a terrorist, is innocent or even survives the abusive imprisonment, I dare not reveal. The bulk of “Rendition” is designed to be ambiguous, that we, the viewer, may become engaged in mulling over the issues, while identifying with the various characters’ points of view.
And while we automatically empathize with this apparent family man who’s being tortured, the filmmakers successfully instill within us the alarming nature of the terrorist extremists, which is conducive to feelings of desperate urgency toward finding an effective solution for investigating such suspects. This film also demonstrates various pitfalls (such as politicians’ fears of public perception) that lull a nation into turning its head and fooling itself about the necessity of resorting to unthinkable measures for extracting information.
Though it may seem like I have been overly generous in my elaborations, “Rendition” is much richer than this discussion represents. Truly, it is a film whose viewing will yield a personal, emotional experience, much like “A Mighty Heart.” The more films I see like these, the louder the final moments of “In the Valley of Elah” ring true to me. I guess that’s why it’s just easier to look the other way and watch popcorn movies like “Transformers.”
Directed by Gavin Hood
Meryl Streep / Reese Witherspoon / Jake Gyllenhaal
120 min. Drama / Crime
MPPA: R (for torture/violence and language)
Copyright 2007. 203
O Masterpiece (100)
O Excellent (75-99)
X Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / October 26, 2007
By now most of the escapist-entertainment fare of summer has gone with the leaves, and with the chill of autumn comes an even chillier cinema. Heavy, emotional and brooding, the Oscar gunners this year are pointed, political, and sociological dramas, such as “In the Valley of Elah,” “The Kingdom” and “Gone Baby Gone.”
“Rendition” boldly stands among these, posing rhetorical questions for our consideration, the foremost of which is “To what extremes are we justified going to in order to protect ourselves from terrorist extremists?” Or, in other words, does the means of torture justify the end ... and by the way, what is that end?
As you can see, much like “Gone Baby Gone,” “Rendition” isn’t really a movie you’d watch to be entertained. It is unpleasant and uncomfortable. It will likely anger you, while simultaneously making you feel paranoid and fearful. Art is often created in hopes of agitating its partakers toward action. And sometimes, its implications simply evoke despair.
Anwar El-Ilbrahimi (Omar Metwally) lives in Chicago with his very pregnant wife, Isabella (Reese Witherspoon), and their little son, Jeremy (Aramis Knight). Anwar travels to Cape Town, South Africa to give a presentation at a conference for his fellow chemical engineers.
But on his way back to the states, Anwar is intercepted and abducted by the CIA, because he is under suspicion of having terrorist ties with an Egyptian national whose terrorist group is claiming responsibility for increasingly potent bombing attacks in North Africa.
The CIA seems convinced that Anwar is affiliated with the terrorist group. Isabella, his wife, is convinced of his absolute innocence. Both sides have compelling evidence, insomuch that we are unsure ourselves, which is worrisome. But in the meantime, brutal methods of interrogation are used at a foreign prison in an attempt to ascertain the truth. (Though unpleasant, watching these scenes is not like watching the “Saw” movies, thankfully.)
Whether Anwar truly is a terrorist, is innocent or even survives the abusive imprisonment, I dare not reveal. The bulk of “Rendition” is designed to be ambiguous, that we, the viewer, may become engaged in mulling over the issues, while identifying with the various characters’ points of view.
And while we automatically empathize with this apparent family man who’s being tortured, the filmmakers successfully instill within us the alarming nature of the terrorist extremists, which is conducive to feelings of desperate urgency toward finding an effective solution for investigating such suspects. This film also demonstrates various pitfalls (such as politicians’ fears of public perception) that lull a nation into turning its head and fooling itself about the necessity of resorting to unthinkable measures for extracting information.
Though it may seem like I have been overly generous in my elaborations, “Rendition” is much richer than this discussion represents. Truly, it is a film whose viewing will yield a personal, emotional experience, much like “A Mighty Heart.” The more films I see like these, the louder the final moments of “In the Valley of Elah” ring true to me. I guess that’s why it’s just easier to look the other way and watch popcorn movies like “Transformers.”
Directed by Gavin Hood
Meryl Streep / Reese Witherspoon / Jake Gyllenhaal
120 min. Drama / Crime
MPPA: R (for torture/violence and language)
Copyright 2007. 203
Monday, October 22, 2007
Gone Baby Gone (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 94
O Masterpiece (100)
X Excellent (75-99)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / October 22, 2007
“Gone Baby Gone” is a good, hard punch in the face. Calling it entertainment seems inappropriate, but calling this movie excellent is right on the money. Few movies have left me frozen in the theater seat after the credits began to roll, but this one did.
More than disturbing, “Gone Baby Gone” is unsettling. If you think I’ve revealed the ending, or anything significant about the movie by writing that, you’re wrong. This review contains no spoilers. Consider all of the above mere warnings. Besides, you couldn’t possibly guess the film’s final shot and its penetrating reality.
A child has been abducted in Boston. An adorable, little four-year-old girl named Amanda McCready (Madeline O’Brien) has vanished. Seventy-six hours have passed. Maybe the unthinkable has happened (or is happening).
The little girl’s aunt and uncle hire Patrick Kenzie (Casey Affleck) and Angie Gennaro (Michelle Monaghan, the cool gal from “The Heartbreak Kid”) as private detectives to help with the search. Despite the Boston police’s not being thrilled about their new “partners,” the investigators all work together on their common goal.
We follow the police and the detectives during this investigation into a grotesque menagerie of seedy characters, and the vilest of all may be the missing girl’s drug-addict “mother,” a word that’s only true in the biological sense. That is all I will write regarding what the movie is about. The following describes how it is about it.
“Gone Baby Gone” is dreadfully sad and difficult to watch, but not for the reasons you’d think. If you’re human, while watching you’ll have tears, anger and anxiety close to the surface. And if you’re sensitive, some of those will spill over.
But it’s important to note that “Gone Baby Gone” is not cheaply manipulative. A horrifying look into a pedophile’s dwelling shows us unpleasant things, but not the all-too-common graphic, ghastly exploitation trend of the modern horror genre.
The movie notably raises questions about “justice” for pedophiles, child neglecters, abusers and killers.
“Gone Baby Gone” has many strengths, but its casting by Nadia Aleyd and Donna Morong is unrivaled all the way back to “The Godfather” (1972). Let me be more emphatic: If there were a casting Oscar, those two would get it, probably for the next two years. The people selected to inhabit the characters for these roles are picture perfect, as well as fine actors.
Speaking of fine acting, Casey Affleck (Ben’s little brother) has established himself as a dramatic force to be reckoned with. This performance and his role in “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford” are both stellar. And if you haven’t seen his experimental film that he starred in with Matt Damon called “Gerry” (2002), it would be a good choice for expanding your cinematic-viewing horizons.
Veteran actor Morgan Freeman delivers a shattering monologue that is unbearable to hear. It’s not that it’s graphic; it’s just potent. Ed Harris is nothing less than ferocious, and his goatee adds to his ferocity.
“Gone Baby Gone” is rated R for violence (which is considerable), drug content (which is significant) and “pervasive language” (which is an understatement). Pervasive, indeed.
This film isn’t perfect, though. At one point the movie becomes purposely confusing. Don’t worry: Even the most careful viewer will be lost, for that is what is intended. The twists and turns pile up a little too high, however, detracting from the realism of the film’s themes. This movie is too heavy to go out on a limb that far. But two primary episodic narratives told as a mini story sandwiched within a larger one makes up for some of the deficit.
Oh, and I can’t forget to compliment a momentary, stylistic use of silence that hearkens back to “Cop Land” (1997).
Ben Affleck has made a fine film, a movie about doing the right thing (and whether that’s always the best thing). Life-changing movies, if they exist at all, may only be fleeting and temporary. And that’s too bad, because films like “Gone Baby Gone” need to stick ... permanently.
Directed by Ben Affleck
Casey Affleck / Morgan Freeman / Ed Harris
114 min. Drama / Mystery
MPPA: R (for violence, drug content and pervasive language)
Copyright 2007. 202
O Masterpiece (100)
X Excellent (75-99)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / October 22, 2007
“Gone Baby Gone” is a good, hard punch in the face. Calling it entertainment seems inappropriate, but calling this movie excellent is right on the money. Few movies have left me frozen in the theater seat after the credits began to roll, but this one did.
More than disturbing, “Gone Baby Gone” is unsettling. If you think I’ve revealed the ending, or anything significant about the movie by writing that, you’re wrong. This review contains no spoilers. Consider all of the above mere warnings. Besides, you couldn’t possibly guess the film’s final shot and its penetrating reality.
A child has been abducted in Boston. An adorable, little four-year-old girl named Amanda McCready (Madeline O’Brien) has vanished. Seventy-six hours have passed. Maybe the unthinkable has happened (or is happening).
The little girl’s aunt and uncle hire Patrick Kenzie (Casey Affleck) and Angie Gennaro (Michelle Monaghan, the cool gal from “The Heartbreak Kid”) as private detectives to help with the search. Despite the Boston police’s not being thrilled about their new “partners,” the investigators all work together on their common goal.
We follow the police and the detectives during this investigation into a grotesque menagerie of seedy characters, and the vilest of all may be the missing girl’s drug-addict “mother,” a word that’s only true in the biological sense. That is all I will write regarding what the movie is about. The following describes how it is about it.
“Gone Baby Gone” is dreadfully sad and difficult to watch, but not for the reasons you’d think. If you’re human, while watching you’ll have tears, anger and anxiety close to the surface. And if you’re sensitive, some of those will spill over.
But it’s important to note that “Gone Baby Gone” is not cheaply manipulative. A horrifying look into a pedophile’s dwelling shows us unpleasant things, but not the all-too-common graphic, ghastly exploitation trend of the modern horror genre.
The movie notably raises questions about “justice” for pedophiles, child neglecters, abusers and killers.
“Gone Baby Gone” has many strengths, but its casting by Nadia Aleyd and Donna Morong is unrivaled all the way back to “The Godfather” (1972). Let me be more emphatic: If there were a casting Oscar, those two would get it, probably for the next two years. The people selected to inhabit the characters for these roles are picture perfect, as well as fine actors.
Speaking of fine acting, Casey Affleck (Ben’s little brother) has established himself as a dramatic force to be reckoned with. This performance and his role in “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford” are both stellar. And if you haven’t seen his experimental film that he starred in with Matt Damon called “Gerry” (2002), it would be a good choice for expanding your cinematic-viewing horizons.
Veteran actor Morgan Freeman delivers a shattering monologue that is unbearable to hear. It’s not that it’s graphic; it’s just potent. Ed Harris is nothing less than ferocious, and his goatee adds to his ferocity.
“Gone Baby Gone” is rated R for violence (which is considerable), drug content (which is significant) and “pervasive language” (which is an understatement). Pervasive, indeed.
This film isn’t perfect, though. At one point the movie becomes purposely confusing. Don’t worry: Even the most careful viewer will be lost, for that is what is intended. The twists and turns pile up a little too high, however, detracting from the realism of the film’s themes. This movie is too heavy to go out on a limb that far. But two primary episodic narratives told as a mini story sandwiched within a larger one makes up for some of the deficit.
Oh, and I can’t forget to compliment a momentary, stylistic use of silence that hearkens back to “Cop Land” (1997).
Ben Affleck has made a fine film, a movie about doing the right thing (and whether that’s always the best thing). Life-changing movies, if they exist at all, may only be fleeting and temporary. And that’s too bad, because films like “Gone Baby Gone” need to stick ... permanently.
Directed by Ben Affleck
Casey Affleck / Morgan Freeman / Ed Harris
114 min. Drama / Mystery
MPPA: R (for violence, drug content and pervasive language)
Copyright 2007. 202
Elizabeth: The Golden Age (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 71
O Masterpiece (100)
O Excellent (75-99)
X Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / October 22, 2007
In 1998, Shekhar Kapur directed “Elizabeth,” a film that depicts the so-called “Virgin Queen,” Elizabeth I’s (Cate Blanchett) turbulent inheritance of the throne of England, and her necessarily rapid learning curve.
During the course of the movie, which covers the first five years of her reign, we see an idealistic, young woman who is transformed into a mighty monarch.
Nearly a decade later, Kapur reassembles Blanchett and Geoffrey Rush again for “Elizabeth: The Golden Age”; and despite its continuation of superb performances and spectacular sets and costumes, alas, this new film falls prey to the sequel curse, which simply means “it’s not as good as the first one.”
This is why: In the first film, suspense and intrigue prevail because Elizabeth’s deadly enemies surrounded the unseasoned queen within her perilous palace. But in “The Golden Age,” the experienced monarch’s most fearsome threat, King Philip II of Spain, and his looming naval warfare, all seem afar off and less threatening ... probably because he is far off and therefore, less threatening.
Instead, this film is concerned with paying close attention to Elizabeth’s loneliness, and her fascination with the rugged adventurer-explorer Walter Raleigh (Clive Owen). While the first film held true to its artistic merit, “The Golden Age” gives us the old reliable: a love story and battle scenes.
“The Golden Age” also succumbs to other common conventions that are beneath a movie of its quality. For example, each time King Philip is shown in his castle, or Mary Stuart, the sets are dark and gloomy, and the music ominous and unsettling. Meanwhile, Elizabeth’s castle is bathed in sunbeams, moon dreams, dancing beans and a charismatic Clive Owen (which is funny considering that a movie about King Philip would place Elizabeth I in villainous environs).
As for the rating, PG-13 is a little gracious because the blood, violence, and torture scenes rapidly approach the subjective “R” status, especially when joined with mild sexuality and brief nudity.
In the end, the movie is worth seeing solely on the merits of Cate Blanchett’s performance. She is the foremost actress of her generation, the queen, indeed. None can rival her. Her stormy delivery of the “I have a hurricane in me ... “ line, shown in the trailer, literally floods me with chills each time I experience it.
And if you want to know just how talented Cate Blanchett is, look at her range by watching “The Golden Age,” then “The Aviator” (2004) and “Bandits” (2001). Wow. She does Katharine Hepburn better than Katharine Hepburn did Katharine Hepburn. A rose is a rose is a rose, but Cate can be anything she wants.
Directed by Shekhar Kapur
Cate Blanchett / Geoffrey Rush / Clive Owen
114 min. Drama / History
MPPA: PG-13 (for violence, some sexuality and nudity)
Copyright 2007. 201
O Masterpiece (100)
O Excellent (75-99)
X Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / October 22, 2007
In 1998, Shekhar Kapur directed “Elizabeth,” a film that depicts the so-called “Virgin Queen,” Elizabeth I’s (Cate Blanchett) turbulent inheritance of the throne of England, and her necessarily rapid learning curve.
During the course of the movie, which covers the first five years of her reign, we see an idealistic, young woman who is transformed into a mighty monarch.
Nearly a decade later, Kapur reassembles Blanchett and Geoffrey Rush again for “Elizabeth: The Golden Age”; and despite its continuation of superb performances and spectacular sets and costumes, alas, this new film falls prey to the sequel curse, which simply means “it’s not as good as the first one.”
This is why: In the first film, suspense and intrigue prevail because Elizabeth’s deadly enemies surrounded the unseasoned queen within her perilous palace. But in “The Golden Age,” the experienced monarch’s most fearsome threat, King Philip II of Spain, and his looming naval warfare, all seem afar off and less threatening ... probably because he is far off and therefore, less threatening.
Instead, this film is concerned with paying close attention to Elizabeth’s loneliness, and her fascination with the rugged adventurer-explorer Walter Raleigh (Clive Owen). While the first film held true to its artistic merit, “The Golden Age” gives us the old reliable: a love story and battle scenes.
“The Golden Age” also succumbs to other common conventions that are beneath a movie of its quality. For example, each time King Philip is shown in his castle, or Mary Stuart, the sets are dark and gloomy, and the music ominous and unsettling. Meanwhile, Elizabeth’s castle is bathed in sunbeams, moon dreams, dancing beans and a charismatic Clive Owen (which is funny considering that a movie about King Philip would place Elizabeth I in villainous environs).
As for the rating, PG-13 is a little gracious because the blood, violence, and torture scenes rapidly approach the subjective “R” status, especially when joined with mild sexuality and brief nudity.
In the end, the movie is worth seeing solely on the merits of Cate Blanchett’s performance. She is the foremost actress of her generation, the queen, indeed. None can rival her. Her stormy delivery of the “I have a hurricane in me ... “ line, shown in the trailer, literally floods me with chills each time I experience it.
And if you want to know just how talented Cate Blanchett is, look at her range by watching “The Golden Age,” then “The Aviator” (2004) and “Bandits” (2001). Wow. She does Katharine Hepburn better than Katharine Hepburn did Katharine Hepburn. A rose is a rose is a rose, but Cate can be anything she wants.
Directed by Shekhar Kapur
Cate Blanchett / Geoffrey Rush / Clive Owen
114 min. Drama / History
MPPA: PG-13 (for violence, some sexuality and nudity)
Copyright 2007. 201
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
The Heartbreak Kid (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 30
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
X Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / October 10, 2007
Based on an innocent 1972 film by the same name, the Farrelly brothers’ remake of “The Heartbreak Kid” twists its ideal premise (meeting Miss Right after marrying Miss Wrong) into sordid, romantic comedy squalor.
Something terribly upsetting is happening with so-called romantic comedies these days. They have degenerated, like inbred anteaters, into grotesqueries such as “Knocked Up” and “Good Luck Chuck.” Note to guys: These movies are not what your sweethearts have in mind when they say they want to see a “chick flick.”
For your convenience, the following are good choices for romantic dates: “Becoming Jane,” “The Lake House,” “Waitress” and “No Reservations.”
It’s not that “The Heartbreak Kid” doesn’t have some funny parts, because it does, especially if you enjoy an exasperated Ben Stiller’s “anger humor.” But when a movie’s message seems to be, “Don’t get married; and if you do make that mistake, leave your spouse for someone that you like better whenever the goin’ gets tough,” it quickly becomes disheartening. Can you see why this might not make a good date movie?
Eddie Cantrow (Ben Stiller) is a single man in San Francisco who’s getting older and feeling pressure to settle down. His old flame is getting married. Eddie’s vile father (Jerry Stiller) harasses him with even viler words about his “deficit of nighttime companionship.” And his best friend (whose marriage is horrifying) unconvincingly pushes him to experience the joys of a nuptial union.
At about this time, Eddie meets Lila (Malin Akerman). She seems like the perfect gal. So, after a brief courtship and intense prodding from his cohorts, Eddie marries Lila, a woman he hardly knows. As their honeymoon to Mexico begins, Eddie quickly learns revolting revelations about his new bride. But amid his increasing misery, he discovers Miranda (Michelle Monaghan), the one he should have married.
Aside from its thematic moral offenses that won’t offend everyone, where “The Heartbreak Kid” derails, killing goats, kittens and small children, is when we’re shown not one but two graphic glimpses of Lila’s alarming, aberrant bedroom behavior. These scenes single-handedly ruin the movie, for they are neither comedic nor romantic; they forsake this genre and would be more at home in an explicit horror film or some NC-17 piece of trash.
Were it not for these scenes, “The Heartbreak Kid” would be decent. But even its underlying messages would be unsettling to those who have “traditional, middle-American values.”
Despite this lapse, the Farrelly brothers have a talent for comedy, even romantic comedy. Their movie, “Fever Pitch,” one of the best comedies of 2005, should not be forgotten. Indeed, it can be added to the favorable, heartwarming, humorous date movies listed above, outshining the likes of “The Heartbreak Kid” in its dismal dregs below.
Directed by Bobby and Peter Farrelly
Ben Stiller / Michelle Monaghan / Malin Akerman
115 min. Comedy / Romance
MPAA: R (for strong sexual content, crude humor and language)
Copyright 2007. 196
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
X Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / October 10, 2007
Based on an innocent 1972 film by the same name, the Farrelly brothers’ remake of “The Heartbreak Kid” twists its ideal premise (meeting Miss Right after marrying Miss Wrong) into sordid, romantic comedy squalor.
Something terribly upsetting is happening with so-called romantic comedies these days. They have degenerated, like inbred anteaters, into grotesqueries such as “Knocked Up” and “Good Luck Chuck.” Note to guys: These movies are not what your sweethearts have in mind when they say they want to see a “chick flick.”
For your convenience, the following are good choices for romantic dates: “Becoming Jane,” “The Lake House,” “Waitress” and “No Reservations.”
It’s not that “The Heartbreak Kid” doesn’t have some funny parts, because it does, especially if you enjoy an exasperated Ben Stiller’s “anger humor.” But when a movie’s message seems to be, “Don’t get married; and if you do make that mistake, leave your spouse for someone that you like better whenever the goin’ gets tough,” it quickly becomes disheartening. Can you see why this might not make a good date movie?
Eddie Cantrow (Ben Stiller) is a single man in San Francisco who’s getting older and feeling pressure to settle down. His old flame is getting married. Eddie’s vile father (Jerry Stiller) harasses him with even viler words about his “deficit of nighttime companionship.” And his best friend (whose marriage is horrifying) unconvincingly pushes him to experience the joys of a nuptial union.
At about this time, Eddie meets Lila (Malin Akerman). She seems like the perfect gal. So, after a brief courtship and intense prodding from his cohorts, Eddie marries Lila, a woman he hardly knows. As their honeymoon to Mexico begins, Eddie quickly learns revolting revelations about his new bride. But amid his increasing misery, he discovers Miranda (Michelle Monaghan), the one he should have married.
Aside from its thematic moral offenses that won’t offend everyone, where “The Heartbreak Kid” derails, killing goats, kittens and small children, is when we’re shown not one but two graphic glimpses of Lila’s alarming, aberrant bedroom behavior. These scenes single-handedly ruin the movie, for they are neither comedic nor romantic; they forsake this genre and would be more at home in an explicit horror film or some NC-17 piece of trash.
Were it not for these scenes, “The Heartbreak Kid” would be decent. But even its underlying messages would be unsettling to those who have “traditional, middle-American values.”
Despite this lapse, the Farrelly brothers have a talent for comedy, even romantic comedy. Their movie, “Fever Pitch,” one of the best comedies of 2005, should not be forgotten. Indeed, it can be added to the favorable, heartwarming, humorous date movies listed above, outshining the likes of “The Heartbreak Kid” in its dismal dregs below.
Directed by Bobby and Peter Farrelly
Ben Stiller / Michelle Monaghan / Malin Akerman
115 min. Comedy / Romance
MPAA: R (for strong sexual content, crude humor and language)
Copyright 2007. 196
Resident Evil: Extinction (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 55
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
O Rental (60-74)
X OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / October 10, 2007
“Resident Evil: Extinction” is the third installment of a video game-gone-movie series; and like the first two releases, it’s a zombie movie. If you haven’t seen either of the previous “Resident Evil” flicks, think “Lara Croft: Tomb Raider” meets “Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome” meets “28 Weeks Later” (2007).
Now think about what better movies you can go see, instead.
Are zombie movies fun? Yes. Why? For the same reasons that it’s fun for little kids to spread a blanket on the floor and pretend it’s a raft floating on lava. Or, the same reason why, since the invention of the balloon, people like to play that dumb game where you can’t let the balloon touch the ground. We like the thrill of things that “should not” but eventually, inevitably will. Zombie movies thrill us because they work according to this same principle.
Of course, there are much better options for zombie movies, if that’s your thing. There are those intentionally mingled with comedy: “Shaun of the Dead” (2004). There are those that are actually scary and have little-to-no comedy: “28 Days Later” (2002). Then there are those that are better than the “Resident Evil” series, which nearly covers everything else, including the original and the remake of “Dawn of the Dead” (1978, 2004).
It’s not that “Extinction” is a bad movie. It’s fairly entertaining and funny, though the humor is probably, for the most part, unintentional. But the dialogue and the acting are more or less inexcusable. Some bad dialogue is quotable for its intrinsic mockery value, such as “I don’t like sand. It’s coarse and rough and irritating, and it gets everywhere. Not like here. Here, everything is soft and smooth” (“Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones”). Other bad dialogue is best left unrepeated.
The outbreak continues. The viral infection that left most of the Earth in withered ruins still plagues the barren landscape, which is primarily inhabited by roaming undead who love to feed on “un-undead” (regular humans) flesh. Alice (Milla Jovovich) wanders about in solitude, keeping on the move and scavenging the smaller ghost towns for fuel, just as the other survivors are wont to do.
Meanwhile, a caravan of virus-free, tough customers who have banded together (which include some of Alice’s old peeps), plan to find enough fuel to travel from the deserts of Utah and Nevada to Alaska, a possible place of uninfected refuge. And, of course, the corrupt, international Umbrella Corp. continues its experiments and mad-scientist testing, which makes the fleeing caravan’s ambition more difficult to realize.
Overall, “Resident Evil: Extinction” is more of the same and about what you’d expect: intermittent suspenseful moments, easily anticipated jolts and lots of gory, blood-splattering zombie killings. Ah, the evolution of American entertainment … it just keeps getting better and better.
Directed by Russell Mulcahy
Milla Jovovich / Oded Fehr / Iain Glen
95 min. Thriller / Horror
MPAA: R (for strong horror violence throughout and some nudity)
Copyright 2007. 195
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
O Rental (60-74)
X OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / October 10, 2007
“Resident Evil: Extinction” is the third installment of a video game-gone-movie series; and like the first two releases, it’s a zombie movie. If you haven’t seen either of the previous “Resident Evil” flicks, think “Lara Croft: Tomb Raider” meets “Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome” meets “28 Weeks Later” (2007).
Now think about what better movies you can go see, instead.
Are zombie movies fun? Yes. Why? For the same reasons that it’s fun for little kids to spread a blanket on the floor and pretend it’s a raft floating on lava. Or, the same reason why, since the invention of the balloon, people like to play that dumb game where you can’t let the balloon touch the ground. We like the thrill of things that “should not” but eventually, inevitably will. Zombie movies thrill us because they work according to this same principle.
Of course, there are much better options for zombie movies, if that’s your thing. There are those intentionally mingled with comedy: “Shaun of the Dead” (2004). There are those that are actually scary and have little-to-no comedy: “28 Days Later” (2002). Then there are those that are better than the “Resident Evil” series, which nearly covers everything else, including the original and the remake of “Dawn of the Dead” (1978, 2004).
It’s not that “Extinction” is a bad movie. It’s fairly entertaining and funny, though the humor is probably, for the most part, unintentional. But the dialogue and the acting are more or less inexcusable. Some bad dialogue is quotable for its intrinsic mockery value, such as “I don’t like sand. It’s coarse and rough and irritating, and it gets everywhere. Not like here. Here, everything is soft and smooth” (“Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones”). Other bad dialogue is best left unrepeated.
The outbreak continues. The viral infection that left most of the Earth in withered ruins still plagues the barren landscape, which is primarily inhabited by roaming undead who love to feed on “un-undead” (regular humans) flesh. Alice (Milla Jovovich) wanders about in solitude, keeping on the move and scavenging the smaller ghost towns for fuel, just as the other survivors are wont to do.
Meanwhile, a caravan of virus-free, tough customers who have banded together (which include some of Alice’s old peeps), plan to find enough fuel to travel from the deserts of Utah and Nevada to Alaska, a possible place of uninfected refuge. And, of course, the corrupt, international Umbrella Corp. continues its experiments and mad-scientist testing, which makes the fleeing caravan’s ambition more difficult to realize.
Overall, “Resident Evil: Extinction” is more of the same and about what you’d expect: intermittent suspenseful moments, easily anticipated jolts and lots of gory, blood-splattering zombie killings. Ah, the evolution of American entertainment … it just keeps getting better and better.
Directed by Russell Mulcahy
Milla Jovovich / Oded Fehr / Iain Glen
95 min. Thriller / Horror
MPAA: R (for strong horror violence throughout and some nudity)
Copyright 2007. 195
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Across the Universe (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 75
O Masterpiece (95-100)
X Excellent (75-94)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / October 4, 2007
The following people will cherish the new Beatles-song musical, “Across the Universe”: those who love the Silver Beetles, those who watch for the synchronicity of “The Wizard of Oz” and Pink Floyd's “Dark Side of the Moon,” those who relish “Tommy” (1975) and “The Wall” (1982), those who risk eating Pop Rocks with soda, and those who do drugs.
Don't do drugs.
Not only has this been "The Summer of 'Suck-quels,'" (“Bourne” and “Ocean’s” excluded), but summer 2007 also seems to be the comeback attempt for faded genres, such as the western (“3:10 to Yuma”) and the musical (“Hairspray”).
And though many musicals are like eggnog (a little goes a long way), “Across the Universe” showcases an artistic richness, particularly with its colorful production design, vibrant visual effects and soundtrack ... unlike eggnog.
Indeed, the music alone is worth the admission price, featuring more than 30, well-done Beatles cover tunes that play more like music videos than musical numbers. According to Amazon.com, the CD soundtrack has 16 of the 30-plus songs, which would be money well spent.
By the way, “Across the Universe” is rated PG-13, but conservative viewers will likely disagree with this rating due to more than one instance of "artistically depicted" nudity.
Much like the Broadway musical “Movin’ Out,” which further develops the storylines of characters in Billy Joel songs, “Across the Universe” creates a screenplay that loosely incorporates The Beatles' songs'characters and concepts into the story.
It is the 1960s and the Vietnam War is underway. Jude (Jim Sturgess) travels from Liverpool, England to Princeton, N.J. to meet someone who played a significant, rather enjoyable role in his past. During his visit, Jude encounters Max (Joe Anderson) and his sister, Lucy (Evan Rachel Wood).
The siblings become fast friends with Jude, so they eventually end up living in New York City, meeting other characters with Beatles song names, such as JoJo and Prudence. Max receives an unlucky invitation. Lucy passionately protests the war, supplying unmistakable parallels to present-day arguments against the Iraq War. And Jude wanders amid the colorful mayhem, singing songs, looking sad and being British.
In truth, not very much happens in “Across the Universe,” especially considering its overlong 131-minute runtime. But Beatles freaks, even the purists, will enjoy the buried nuggets that nod to the knowledgeable fans who, like Maxwell, are "silver hammer men" (or women).
Addenda:
Speaking of the Piano Man, Billy Joel himself will be performing at Salt Lake's EnergySolutions Arena Nov. 29. And, you can find out why Pop Rocks pop, the candy's history and other need-to-knowinfo at www.poprockscandy.com
Directed by Julie Taymor
Jim Sturgess / Evan Rachel Wood / Joe Anderson
131 min. Musical / Drama
MPAA: PG-13 (for drug content, nudity, sexuality, violence and language)
Copyright 2007. 194
O Masterpiece (95-100)
X Excellent (75-94)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / October 4, 2007
The following people will cherish the new Beatles-song musical, “Across the Universe”: those who love the Silver Beetles, those who watch for the synchronicity of “The Wizard of Oz” and Pink Floyd's “Dark Side of the Moon,” those who relish “Tommy” (1975) and “The Wall” (1982), those who risk eating Pop Rocks with soda, and those who do drugs.
Don't do drugs.
Not only has this been "The Summer of 'Suck-quels,'" (“Bourne” and “Ocean’s” excluded), but summer 2007 also seems to be the comeback attempt for faded genres, such as the western (“3:10 to Yuma”) and the musical (“Hairspray”).
And though many musicals are like eggnog (a little goes a long way), “Across the Universe” showcases an artistic richness, particularly with its colorful production design, vibrant visual effects and soundtrack ... unlike eggnog.
Indeed, the music alone is worth the admission price, featuring more than 30, well-done Beatles cover tunes that play more like music videos than musical numbers. According to Amazon.com, the CD soundtrack has 16 of the 30-plus songs, which would be money well spent.
By the way, “Across the Universe” is rated PG-13, but conservative viewers will likely disagree with this rating due to more than one instance of "artistically depicted" nudity.
Much like the Broadway musical “Movin’ Out,” which further develops the storylines of characters in Billy Joel songs, “Across the Universe” creates a screenplay that loosely incorporates The Beatles' songs'characters and concepts into the story.
It is the 1960s and the Vietnam War is underway. Jude (Jim Sturgess) travels from Liverpool, England to Princeton, N.J. to meet someone who played a significant, rather enjoyable role in his past. During his visit, Jude encounters Max (Joe Anderson) and his sister, Lucy (Evan Rachel Wood).
The siblings become fast friends with Jude, so they eventually end up living in New York City, meeting other characters with Beatles song names, such as JoJo and Prudence. Max receives an unlucky invitation. Lucy passionately protests the war, supplying unmistakable parallels to present-day arguments against the Iraq War. And Jude wanders amid the colorful mayhem, singing songs, looking sad and being British.
In truth, not very much happens in “Across the Universe,” especially considering its overlong 131-minute runtime. But Beatles freaks, even the purists, will enjoy the buried nuggets that nod to the knowledgeable fans who, like Maxwell, are "silver hammer men" (or women).
Addenda:
Speaking of the Piano Man, Billy Joel himself will be performing at Salt Lake's EnergySolutions Arena Nov. 29. And, you can find out why Pop Rocks pop, the candy's history and other need-to-knowinfo at www.poprockscandy.com
Directed by Julie Taymor
Jim Sturgess / Evan Rachel Wood / Joe Anderson
131 min. Musical / Drama
MPAA: PG-13 (for drug content, nudity, sexuality, violence and language)
Copyright 2007. 194
The Kingdom (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 94
O Masterpiece (95-100)
X Excellent (75-94)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / October 4, 2007
“The Kingdom” may very well end up being the best movie of the year. It achieves many uncommon feats within the context of one film, which means that it is an effective action film, an effective drama and an effective thriller. Also, “The Kingdom” has poignant moments where it resonates with strong, emotional points that are minimally preachy. And, I might add, the acting is excellent, too, which is often uncharacteristic of the action genre.
The movie’s title refers to “the kingdom of Saudi Arabia” (a phrase used in the movie), which is where terrorists attack an idyllic picnic and softball game at an American compound. The victims include men, women and child of all ages. These images of horror, though shocking, are only part of the most horrifying elements in the movie.
Immediately, the FBI desires to visit Saudi Arabia and investigate the crime scene. But, of course, we are subjected to the frustrating moments of red tape, delicate diplomatic considerations and so forth. When a special, four-member, Evidence Response team is dispatched, there is a lengthy portion establishing the extreme differences in culture, including varying investigative practices and attitudes toward women.
Much of the plot is a police procedural, which has been equated with “CSI” (but is, in fact, not quite as extensive). We follow the team’s leader, Ron Fleury (Jamie Foxx), and his crew played by Chris Cooper, Jennifer Garner and Jason Bateman. The four actors work well together, and their camaraderie is credible. Perhaps the best performance, however, comes from the team’s friend and guide, Colonel Al Ghazi (Ashraf Barhom), a family man who doesn’t like profanity.
You’ve probably seen director Peter Berg’s work before: “Friday Night Lights” (2004), “The Rundown” (2003) and “Very Bad Things” (1998). But “The Kingdom” is his best. It seems real, like we’re watching a documentary. And thankfully, unlike other action flicks, there aren’t painful one-liners blurted in the midst of intense action, a sure-fire way to incorporate artificiality at the cost of a laugh.
“The Kingdom” is meant to entertain, but I suspect that this purpose is secondary. I’m guessing that this film is meant to be eye opening. This moment happened for me when we get to see some of the little, unpleasant surprises the terrorists include while building their bombs, namely marbles and nails. Absolutely chilling.
While watching “The Kingdom,” I had the most troublesome feeling: I literally felt dread come over me because I was worried about some radical extremist blowing up the theater. In addition to my tangible uneasiness, this also filled me with sadness. Naturally, experiencing a well-executed movie like “The Kingdom” might make anyone leery; but beyond that, I couldn’t help but feel that after six years, the chill of terrorism has sunk into my bones.
Directed by Peter Berg
Jamie Foxx / Chris Cooper / Jennifer Garner
110 min. Action / Drama
MPAA: R (for intense sequences of graphic brutal violence, and for language)
Copyright 2007. 193
O Masterpiece (95-100)
X Excellent (75-94)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / October 4, 2007
“The Kingdom” may very well end up being the best movie of the year. It achieves many uncommon feats within the context of one film, which means that it is an effective action film, an effective drama and an effective thriller. Also, “The Kingdom” has poignant moments where it resonates with strong, emotional points that are minimally preachy. And, I might add, the acting is excellent, too, which is often uncharacteristic of the action genre.
The movie’s title refers to “the kingdom of Saudi Arabia” (a phrase used in the movie), which is where terrorists attack an idyllic picnic and softball game at an American compound. The victims include men, women and child of all ages. These images of horror, though shocking, are only part of the most horrifying elements in the movie.
Immediately, the FBI desires to visit Saudi Arabia and investigate the crime scene. But, of course, we are subjected to the frustrating moments of red tape, delicate diplomatic considerations and so forth. When a special, four-member, Evidence Response team is dispatched, there is a lengthy portion establishing the extreme differences in culture, including varying investigative practices and attitudes toward women.
Much of the plot is a police procedural, which has been equated with “CSI” (but is, in fact, not quite as extensive). We follow the team’s leader, Ron Fleury (Jamie Foxx), and his crew played by Chris Cooper, Jennifer Garner and Jason Bateman. The four actors work well together, and their camaraderie is credible. Perhaps the best performance, however, comes from the team’s friend and guide, Colonel Al Ghazi (Ashraf Barhom), a family man who doesn’t like profanity.
You’ve probably seen director Peter Berg’s work before: “Friday Night Lights” (2004), “The Rundown” (2003) and “Very Bad Things” (1998). But “The Kingdom” is his best. It seems real, like we’re watching a documentary. And thankfully, unlike other action flicks, there aren’t painful one-liners blurted in the midst of intense action, a sure-fire way to incorporate artificiality at the cost of a laugh.
“The Kingdom” is meant to entertain, but I suspect that this purpose is secondary. I’m guessing that this film is meant to be eye opening. This moment happened for me when we get to see some of the little, unpleasant surprises the terrorists include while building their bombs, namely marbles and nails. Absolutely chilling.
While watching “The Kingdom,” I had the most troublesome feeling: I literally felt dread come over me because I was worried about some radical extremist blowing up the theater. In addition to my tangible uneasiness, this also filled me with sadness. Naturally, experiencing a well-executed movie like “The Kingdom” might make anyone leery; but beyond that, I couldn’t help but feel that after six years, the chill of terrorism has sunk into my bones.
Directed by Peter Berg
Jamie Foxx / Chris Cooper / Jennifer Garner
110 min. Action / Drama
MPAA: R (for intense sequences of graphic brutal violence, and for language)
Copyright 2007. 193
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
