Overall rating from 1 to 100: 69
O Masterpiece (100)
O Excellent (75-99)
X Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / November 19, 2007
The first thing you should know about “Beowulf” is that its MPAA rating is inappropriate, in every sense of the word. If you avoid R-rated movies, and are careful to not see R-rated movies parading as PG-13 movies, then you’ll want to avoid “Beowulf” altogether. Despite its PG-13 rating, it’s an R film, plain and simple. I can’t tell you which it has the most of: violence, gore, nudity or blatant sexual innuendo.
Even so, despite my personal sensitivities, I realize that not every filmgoer minds these things in a PG-13 film. My chief complaint is that parents depend on the MPAA to help them select appropriate films for their kids. The MPAA’s rating of movies like “Beowulf” represents a betrayal of parents’ trust, if that still exists. Whereas, an R rating gives us fair warning that anything short of explicit, hard-core pornography could be found in such a film, including violence, torture, gore and wall-to-wall profanity. Come on, MPAA, let’s call ‘em like we see ‘em.
Enough of that rant ... on to others. Setting its rating aside, “Beowulf” tells a neat story. And it is precisely for those who enjoy fantasy films, such as “Clash of the Titans” (1981) and “The Beastmaster” (1982), that I have still given “Beowulf” a decent rating of 69, which means it’s rental-worthy. In fact, because “Beowulf” has the best dragon-fighting scene I’ve ever seen on film, it’s worth renting solely for that battle.
And for the record, and you can quote me on this, the absolute worst dragon-slaying scene I’ve ever seen on film was the lame, wimp-out, sell-out, off-camera, so-called “battle” in “Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire” (2005). There’s even better dragon action in “Reign of Fire” (2002) and “Dragonheart” (1996). Heck, there’s even better dragon action in “Shrek” (2001) and “Pete’s Dragon” (1977).
The setting is Denmark, A.D. 507. King Hrothgar (Anthony Hopkins) is afflicted by an ignominious curse: When his subjects gather in his grand Meat Hall to eat, drink and be with Mary, a grotesque demon with ultra-sensitive hearing named Grendel (Crispin Glover) crashes the king’s party by unleashing lethal rampages.
Fearful, angry and troubled, the king puts a price on the demon’s head. The handsome offer attracts a legendary, overseas monster-killer named Beowulf (Ray Winstone). And we get to watch the warrior challenge Grendel and his temptress, water-demon mother (Angelina Jolie).
Director Robert Zemeckis employs the same, eerie “performance capture” technique that he used for “The Polar Express” (2004). Performance capture is a new format that Zemeckis developed, according to a press kit, in which the filmmakers use digital sensors attached to the actors’ faces and bodies (using a form-fitting Lycra suit) to input the data from their performance into computers, rendering a life-like, CGI re-creation for the big screen. So, even though the film is computer-animated, it often looks real.
Richard Barsam’s book, “Looking at Movies” (2007), mentions that some viewers and critics respond negatively to this weird, life-like animation. This negative response is attributed, according to Barsam, to something called “uncanny valley,” which is a theory used to explain why we “react negatively to robotic designs that mimic human appearance and mannerisms too faithfully.”
This all-CGI approach allows the filmmakers to incorporate monsters, super-human abilities and gore seamlessly into the rest of the movie; but in truth, this can already be done with live-action films. So, I guess it’s novel, but I still prefer live-action for portraying verisimilitude.
Alas, perhaps a mom like Angelina Jolie wouldn’t have otherwise been willing, at this point in her career, to be a gold-leafed nude demon that resembles an Oscar statue with more curves and a tail. According to the Internet Movie Database’s trivia page for “Beowulf,” Angelina Jolie revealed in an interview that she was “shocked to see how nude she really was, to the point that she said she was reluctant to allow Brad Pitt and her children to see the movie.”
But hey, Angelina, it’s OK to let kids as young as 13 attend ... just ask the MPAA.
Directed by Robert Zemeckis
Anthony Hopkins / Angelina Jolie / John Malkovich
113 min. Fantasy / Action
MPPA: PG-13 (for intense sequences of violence including disturbing images, some sexual material and nudity)
U.S. release date: November 16, 2007
Copyright 2007. 218
Monday, November 19, 2007
Friday, November 16, 2007
30 Days of Night (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 74
O Masterpiece (100)
O Excellent (75-99)
X Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / November 16, 2007
Each winter in Barrow, Alaska, the town faces an annual inconvenience when it is buried beneath a blanket of darkness for 30 days. An island unto itself, Barrow is surrounded by 80 miles of wilderness that has no roads to speak of. Travelers fly in and out of the town through its small, private airport. And each year at about this time, most of Barrow’s inhabitants flee from the sunless month, which shrinks its population from about 563 down to 152 people.
The 30-day nighttime fast approaches. And when a mysterious saboteur wreaks havoc upon the city’s various means of communication and transportation, we have the perfect setup for stranded townspeople to be terrorized, much like Stephen King’s “Storm of the Century” (1999). Indeed, “30 Days of Night” owes a lot to that film, as well as “28 Days (and Weeks) Later” (2002 and 2007). Basically, that’s the simple beauty of the plot: A small town’s residents are hunted down by a pack of vampires who have free reign during a month’s worth of ‘round-the-clock darkness.
The Good: “30 Days of Night” does a lot of things right. First of all, its nerve-racking suspense is quite engaging. The vampires speak in some kind of bizarre tongue, a veritable vampire language, so subtitles accompany their dialogue.
There are several shots of huge patches of bloodstained snow, including the movie’s money shot where the camera travels overhead looking down upon the carnage of the attack in progress. (Some will call this blasphemy, but this shot, though much simpler, begins to approach the excellence of the beginning of Orson Welles’ 1958 film noir, “Touch of Evil.”)
The movie’s jumpy, “Gotcha!” scares are inventive, and therefore, refreshing. The vampires themselves are fast, vigorous, messy maulers, much like the zombies of “28 Days Later.” They have creepy fingernails and even creepier facial structures. And, of course, actor Ben Foster (“3:10 to Yuma”) may end up being the new Klaus Kinski; he is unmistakably menacing, and he’s not even a vampire.
The Bad: Why, oh why, must horror films try to fit in a love story in need of repair? Lame. The “leader” of vamps is a terrific casting blunder: He looks like a stockbroker, not a monster mentor.
We watch the 30 days tick away, leaving long periods of time where those in hiding are unmolested and the vampires are inexplicably not breaking down doors to retrieve them. Also, the humans keep making deadly moves from hideout to hideout, taking truly unnecessary, unbelievable risks.
And even though the vampires speak in an eerie language, the subtitled translation totally deflates its novelty, with lines like “There is no escape,” and snappy little limericks (not really limericks, I just wanted to use that word) that want so badly to be wise and profound but fail. And speaking of dialogue, why is it that anytime there’s a child monster, it has to say stupid kiddy lines, like, “I’m done playing with him, now”? Ugh.
The Ugly: We see gruesome violence done to a child; and no, it doesn’t make it OK that she’s a little vampiress. I simply think we should choose to refrain (in almost every circumstance) from depicting violence toward children. And in similarly related tastelessness, the vamps stand in a circle and beat a young girl, a scene that literally made me angry with the filmmakers. Needless and very ugly, indeed.
Incidental, spoiler-free side note: Many have complained over this movie’s ending, but I was satisfied. It ends the way it has to. There is no other way. (Don’t worry, you will not guess how it ends from this side note.)
The Verdict: “30 Days of Night” is an effective thriller and a decent horror flick. It’s definitely more suspenseful than it is scary; but even so, this is a good rental choice if you’re in the mood for monsters and you aren’t too squeamish.
Directed by David Slade
Josh Hartnett / Melissa George / Ben Foster
113 min. Horror / Thriller
MPPA: R (for strong horror violence and language)
Copyright 2007. 217
O Masterpiece (100)
O Excellent (75-99)
X Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / November 16, 2007
Each winter in Barrow, Alaska, the town faces an annual inconvenience when it is buried beneath a blanket of darkness for 30 days. An island unto itself, Barrow is surrounded by 80 miles of wilderness that has no roads to speak of. Travelers fly in and out of the town through its small, private airport. And each year at about this time, most of Barrow’s inhabitants flee from the sunless month, which shrinks its population from about 563 down to 152 people.
The 30-day nighttime fast approaches. And when a mysterious saboteur wreaks havoc upon the city’s various means of communication and transportation, we have the perfect setup for stranded townspeople to be terrorized, much like Stephen King’s “Storm of the Century” (1999). Indeed, “30 Days of Night” owes a lot to that film, as well as “28 Days (and Weeks) Later” (2002 and 2007). Basically, that’s the simple beauty of the plot: A small town’s residents are hunted down by a pack of vampires who have free reign during a month’s worth of ‘round-the-clock darkness.
The Good: “30 Days of Night” does a lot of things right. First of all, its nerve-racking suspense is quite engaging. The vampires speak in some kind of bizarre tongue, a veritable vampire language, so subtitles accompany their dialogue.
There are several shots of huge patches of bloodstained snow, including the movie’s money shot where the camera travels overhead looking down upon the carnage of the attack in progress. (Some will call this blasphemy, but this shot, though much simpler, begins to approach the excellence of the beginning of Orson Welles’ 1958 film noir, “Touch of Evil.”)
The movie’s jumpy, “Gotcha!” scares are inventive, and therefore, refreshing. The vampires themselves are fast, vigorous, messy maulers, much like the zombies of “28 Days Later.” They have creepy fingernails and even creepier facial structures. And, of course, actor Ben Foster (“3:10 to Yuma”) may end up being the new Klaus Kinski; he is unmistakably menacing, and he’s not even a vampire.
The Bad: Why, oh why, must horror films try to fit in a love story in need of repair? Lame. The “leader” of vamps is a terrific casting blunder: He looks like a stockbroker, not a monster mentor.
We watch the 30 days tick away, leaving long periods of time where those in hiding are unmolested and the vampires are inexplicably not breaking down doors to retrieve them. Also, the humans keep making deadly moves from hideout to hideout, taking truly unnecessary, unbelievable risks.
And even though the vampires speak in an eerie language, the subtitled translation totally deflates its novelty, with lines like “There is no escape,” and snappy little limericks (not really limericks, I just wanted to use that word) that want so badly to be wise and profound but fail. And speaking of dialogue, why is it that anytime there’s a child monster, it has to say stupid kiddy lines, like, “I’m done playing with him, now”? Ugh.
The Ugly: We see gruesome violence done to a child; and no, it doesn’t make it OK that she’s a little vampiress. I simply think we should choose to refrain (in almost every circumstance) from depicting violence toward children. And in similarly related tastelessness, the vamps stand in a circle and beat a young girl, a scene that literally made me angry with the filmmakers. Needless and very ugly, indeed.
Incidental, spoiler-free side note: Many have complained over this movie’s ending, but I was satisfied. It ends the way it has to. There is no other way. (Don’t worry, you will not guess how it ends from this side note.)
The Verdict: “30 Days of Night” is an effective thriller and a decent horror flick. It’s definitely more suspenseful than it is scary; but even so, this is a good rental choice if you’re in the mood for monsters and you aren’t too squeamish.
Directed by David Slade
Josh Hartnett / Melissa George / Ben Foster
113 min. Horror / Thriller
MPPA: R (for strong horror violence and language)
Copyright 2007. 217
Control (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 54
O Masterpiece (100)
O Excellent (75-99)
O Rental (60-74)
X OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / November 16, 2007
“Control” recounts the tragic life and untimely death of Ian Curtis (Sam Riley), the lead singer of an English rock band of the ‘70s called Joy Division (a band whose residual members later assembled New Order). Filmed in black and white, “Control” attempts to tell his simple story, straight through, beginning to end.
Curtis’ wife, Deborah (Samantha Morton) and their baby daughter, are depicted even more pitifully and more sympathetically than the tortured-artist whom the film is about. But this bias is easily understood when we realize that the movie is based on Deborah Curtis’ autobiographical book, “Touching From a Distance.” And, not to mention, she also co-produced the film.
But that’s not to say that she’s unfair to her late husband. The impression given is that she just wanted Ian’s story to be told. And so it is ... and it’s a sad one.
“Control” opens in 1973 in Macclesfield, England. Here we witness the selfish character of Ian, a brooding writer and daydreamer. We worry as we witness his impetuous decisions to marry young and have a baby. We see the rise of his band, Joy Division, including several performances, which are enjoyable. And we also see Ian’s struggle with epilepsy, fame, family, and love, which all eventually lead to his downfall (a traditional rock star’s saga, for the most part).
“Control” is a film that is unforgiving in its downward spiral. In much the same way that a depressed person’s sorrow is tangibly felt by those nearby, the film remarkably bestows its melancholy and dread upon us, the audience.
“Control” has appreciable artistic elements, such as an alarming, uncomfortable close-up of one of Ian’s epileptic “fits.” Another moment shows us Ian singing about isolation, while he is literally isolated in a recording studio’s isolation booth, added to his apparent emotional isolation. Not bad.
But let’s be honest: Unless you particularly love Ian Curtis, Joy Division or a slow-moving injection of depression, “Control” probably isn’t worth seeing. As unfortunate and tragic as it all is, subjecting ourselves to this singer’s selfishness and inexplicable, tormented despair is unneeded and unnecessary, at least for most of us, but evidently not for his widow.
Directed by Anton Corbijn
Sam Riley / Samantha Morton / Alexandra Maria Lara
121 min. Drama / Biography
MPPA: R (for language and brief sexuality)
Copyright 2007. 216
O Masterpiece (100)
O Excellent (75-99)
O Rental (60-74)
X OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / November 16, 2007
“Control” recounts the tragic life and untimely death of Ian Curtis (Sam Riley), the lead singer of an English rock band of the ‘70s called Joy Division (a band whose residual members later assembled New Order). Filmed in black and white, “Control” attempts to tell his simple story, straight through, beginning to end.
Curtis’ wife, Deborah (Samantha Morton) and their baby daughter, are depicted even more pitifully and more sympathetically than the tortured-artist whom the film is about. But this bias is easily understood when we realize that the movie is based on Deborah Curtis’ autobiographical book, “Touching From a Distance.” And, not to mention, she also co-produced the film.
But that’s not to say that she’s unfair to her late husband. The impression given is that she just wanted Ian’s story to be told. And so it is ... and it’s a sad one.
“Control” opens in 1973 in Macclesfield, England. Here we witness the selfish character of Ian, a brooding writer and daydreamer. We worry as we witness his impetuous decisions to marry young and have a baby. We see the rise of his band, Joy Division, including several performances, which are enjoyable. And we also see Ian’s struggle with epilepsy, fame, family, and love, which all eventually lead to his downfall (a traditional rock star’s saga, for the most part).
“Control” is a film that is unforgiving in its downward spiral. In much the same way that a depressed person’s sorrow is tangibly felt by those nearby, the film remarkably bestows its melancholy and dread upon us, the audience.
“Control” has appreciable artistic elements, such as an alarming, uncomfortable close-up of one of Ian’s epileptic “fits.” Another moment shows us Ian singing about isolation, while he is literally isolated in a recording studio’s isolation booth, added to his apparent emotional isolation. Not bad.
But let’s be honest: Unless you particularly love Ian Curtis, Joy Division or a slow-moving injection of depression, “Control” probably isn’t worth seeing. As unfortunate and tragic as it all is, subjecting ourselves to this singer’s selfishness and inexplicable, tormented despair is unneeded and unnecessary, at least for most of us, but evidently not for his widow.
Directed by Anton Corbijn
Sam Riley / Samantha Morton / Alexandra Maria Lara
121 min. Drama / Biography
MPPA: R (for language and brief sexuality)
Copyright 2007. 216
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Fred Claus (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 65
O Masterpiece (100)
O Excellent (75-99)
X Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / November 15, 2007
Now, when I rate “Fred Claus” as a rental, that’s taking into consideration that “Elf” (2003) is already checked out. But even so, “Fred Claus” is funny, especially if you like Vince Vaughn.
Most critics are panning “Fred Claus,” but let’s be fair: Here we have a movie about Santa Claus’s jealous older brother ... um, what were we expecting, Othello? So, it’s not exceptional, but it’s good enough for light-hearted holiday fare.
You know, it’s difficult to live in the shadow of a saint who’s loved by all the world’s children, as well as all those who were once children. And such is the existence of Fred Claus (Vince Vaughn). Unlike his brother, Santa (Paul Giamatti), Fred is a polar opposite ... get it? Polar? Santa delivers the goods, while Fred is a repo man. Funny, right?
But when Fred gets in a significant financial bind, he has to call his jolly brother for the money. Old Saint Nick agrees to front the cash if Fred comes to the North Pole and helps prepare for the Christmas rush by overseeing the Naughty-Nice Department. But the plot thickens: An “efficiency expert” named Clyde Northcutt (Kevin Spacey) looms over Santa’s operation with a stringent three-strike audit. A failing inspection could shut down the North Pole forever, and that makes it an especially bad time for a sibling rivalry.
Vince Vaughn is excellent in this film, except for the times he’s made to resort to slapstick, which are always low points. Otherwise, his fast-talking, cynical, smart mouth is hilarious. Best of all, and this praise can also be said of Kevin Spacey, Vaughn plays the movie very seriously, like its characters are absolutely real. And Spacey has such conviction in his performance, you’d think he was aiming for an Oscar.
Paul Giamatti is an actor of many talents; however, he should not have been cast as Santa Claus. I’m not sure why, but he doesn’t pull it off. And Elizabeth Banks, who plays “Santa’s Little Helper,” Charlene, could pass for Naomi Watts’ twin sister any time of year. Banks reminds me that this movie isn’t completely innocent: It has some mild profanity and noticeable innuendo.
Does Fred end up having to save Christmas? I won’t tell. But would this be a Christmas movie if he didn’t? It doesn’t seem to matter; one way or another, Christmas must be in jeopardy or it isn’t an authentic Christmas movie. Above all, “Fred Claus” joins the ranks of those holiday films that make for good ambiance, a festive backdrop for your family parties.
Directed by David Dobkin
Vince Vaughn / Paul Giamatti / Kevin Spacey
116 min. Holiday / Comedy
MPPA: PG (for mild language and some rude humor)
Copyright 2007. 214
O Masterpiece (100)
O Excellent (75-99)
X Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / November 15, 2007
Now, when I rate “Fred Claus” as a rental, that’s taking into consideration that “Elf” (2003) is already checked out. But even so, “Fred Claus” is funny, especially if you like Vince Vaughn.
Most critics are panning “Fred Claus,” but let’s be fair: Here we have a movie about Santa Claus’s jealous older brother ... um, what were we expecting, Othello? So, it’s not exceptional, but it’s good enough for light-hearted holiday fare.
You know, it’s difficult to live in the shadow of a saint who’s loved by all the world’s children, as well as all those who were once children. And such is the existence of Fred Claus (Vince Vaughn). Unlike his brother, Santa (Paul Giamatti), Fred is a polar opposite ... get it? Polar? Santa delivers the goods, while Fred is a repo man. Funny, right?
But when Fred gets in a significant financial bind, he has to call his jolly brother for the money. Old Saint Nick agrees to front the cash if Fred comes to the North Pole and helps prepare for the Christmas rush by overseeing the Naughty-Nice Department. But the plot thickens: An “efficiency expert” named Clyde Northcutt (Kevin Spacey) looms over Santa’s operation with a stringent three-strike audit. A failing inspection could shut down the North Pole forever, and that makes it an especially bad time for a sibling rivalry.
Vince Vaughn is excellent in this film, except for the times he’s made to resort to slapstick, which are always low points. Otherwise, his fast-talking, cynical, smart mouth is hilarious. Best of all, and this praise can also be said of Kevin Spacey, Vaughn plays the movie very seriously, like its characters are absolutely real. And Spacey has such conviction in his performance, you’d think he was aiming for an Oscar.
Paul Giamatti is an actor of many talents; however, he should not have been cast as Santa Claus. I’m not sure why, but he doesn’t pull it off. And Elizabeth Banks, who plays “Santa’s Little Helper,” Charlene, could pass for Naomi Watts’ twin sister any time of year. Banks reminds me that this movie isn’t completely innocent: It has some mild profanity and noticeable innuendo.
Does Fred end up having to save Christmas? I won’t tell. But would this be a Christmas movie if he didn’t? It doesn’t seem to matter; one way or another, Christmas must be in jeopardy or it isn’t an authentic Christmas movie. Above all, “Fred Claus” joins the ranks of those holiday films that make for good ambiance, a festive backdrop for your family parties.
Directed by David Dobkin
Vince Vaughn / Paul Giamatti / Kevin Spacey
116 min. Holiday / Comedy
MPPA: PG (for mild language and some rude humor)
Copyright 2007. 214
P2 (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 49
O Masterpiece (100)
O Excellent (75-99)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
X Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / November 15, 2007
Presumably, people like horror movies because it’s fun to be scared, especially while they are, in actuality, safe in the theater. OK, I get that. But how can we explain (or excuse) today’s jaded spectators and filmmakers who enjoy this troubling trend of explicitly grisly and graphic movies? No, these films aren’t new, but they’re gaining momentum.
To be fair, “P2” is not so tasteless. I wouldn’t classify it by the new term, “torture porn,” which doesn’t refer to gruesome violence and sexually explicit images. This unpleasant phrase refers to grisly violence graphically depicted, just as pornography typically refers to sexually explicit depictions. At any rate, I see absolutely no merit whatsoever in dragging the dregs of these heinous images from the worst possible scenarios of society’s imagination.
It’s not that I’m claiming that raw sewage like “Hostel” (2005), “Chaos” (2005) or “Wolf Creek” (2005) should be forbidden by law, they simply should have never been made in the first place. If you make torture-porn, toxic-sludge movies like those, there’s something wrong with you.
Anyway, this tangential rant used too many words to make a simple statement: “P2” isn’t as reprehensible as a lot of the other present-day horror flicks, though it does have horrendous moments, so be warned.
It’s Christmas Eve in New York City, and Angela (Rachel Nichols) is late for a family Christmas party. She is unaware of an obsessed admirer (Wes Bentley) who has other holiday plans for her. Basically, she is trapped in an underground parking garage, and terrorized by this psychopath and his dog. That’s the plot.
Wes Bentley plays a good nutcase as Thomas; he’s even funny at times. And his dialogue is often humorously ironic. Rachel Nichols does fine with her character, but I couldn’t help but think she was trying too hard to be Jodie Foster (whose latest movie, “The Brave One,” is excellent, by the way).
“P2” has an interesting element: Since it’s Christmas Eve, there are lots of Christmas carols playing throughout the film. This has an interesting effect on us, the viewers. Christmas carols are typically associated with peace and happiness; so, to have them playing during horror-movie moments leaves us to struggle with oxymoronic emotions.
“P2” also has problems: The parking garage is unusually dim, even before the horrors begin. The screenplay requires Rachel Nichols to talk to herself quite a bit (so we’ll know what she’s thinking and feeling), but it doesn’t really work. There is an absolutely unnecessary scene involving a fingernail. The film’s elevators are water tight in the bottom but not at the top. And, of course, it uses this genre’s typical cheap-shot, “Gotcha!” scare-tactic, which is to be expected, but how many times is reasonable for a barking dog to do this?
But overall, “P2” effectively makes us wonder, “What ever would I do if I were in this situation?” The movie creates respectable suspense and empathy for its protagonist. And, of course, there are painful moments to make us wince and squirm and be thankful that we’re sitting safely in a theater.
Directed by Franck Khalfoun
Wes Bentley / Rachel Nichols / Simon Reynolds
98 min. Horror / Thriller
MPPA: R (for strong violence/gore, terror and language)
Copyright 2007. 215
O Masterpiece (100)
O Excellent (75-99)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
X Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / November 15, 2007
Presumably, people like horror movies because it’s fun to be scared, especially while they are, in actuality, safe in the theater. OK, I get that. But how can we explain (or excuse) today’s jaded spectators and filmmakers who enjoy this troubling trend of explicitly grisly and graphic movies? No, these films aren’t new, but they’re gaining momentum.
To be fair, “P2” is not so tasteless. I wouldn’t classify it by the new term, “torture porn,” which doesn’t refer to gruesome violence and sexually explicit images. This unpleasant phrase refers to grisly violence graphically depicted, just as pornography typically refers to sexually explicit depictions. At any rate, I see absolutely no merit whatsoever in dragging the dregs of these heinous images from the worst possible scenarios of society’s imagination.
It’s not that I’m claiming that raw sewage like “Hostel” (2005), “Chaos” (2005) or “Wolf Creek” (2005) should be forbidden by law, they simply should have never been made in the first place. If you make torture-porn, toxic-sludge movies like those, there’s something wrong with you.
Anyway, this tangential rant used too many words to make a simple statement: “P2” isn’t as reprehensible as a lot of the other present-day horror flicks, though it does have horrendous moments, so be warned.
It’s Christmas Eve in New York City, and Angela (Rachel Nichols) is late for a family Christmas party. She is unaware of an obsessed admirer (Wes Bentley) who has other holiday plans for her. Basically, she is trapped in an underground parking garage, and terrorized by this psychopath and his dog. That’s the plot.
Wes Bentley plays a good nutcase as Thomas; he’s even funny at times. And his dialogue is often humorously ironic. Rachel Nichols does fine with her character, but I couldn’t help but think she was trying too hard to be Jodie Foster (whose latest movie, “The Brave One,” is excellent, by the way).
“P2” has an interesting element: Since it’s Christmas Eve, there are lots of Christmas carols playing throughout the film. This has an interesting effect on us, the viewers. Christmas carols are typically associated with peace and happiness; so, to have them playing during horror-movie moments leaves us to struggle with oxymoronic emotions.
“P2” also has problems: The parking garage is unusually dim, even before the horrors begin. The screenplay requires Rachel Nichols to talk to herself quite a bit (so we’ll know what she’s thinking and feeling), but it doesn’t really work. There is an absolutely unnecessary scene involving a fingernail. The film’s elevators are water tight in the bottom but not at the top. And, of course, it uses this genre’s typical cheap-shot, “Gotcha!” scare-tactic, which is to be expected, but how many times is reasonable for a barking dog to do this?
But overall, “P2” effectively makes us wonder, “What ever would I do if I were in this situation?” The movie creates respectable suspense and empathy for its protagonist. And, of course, there are painful moments to make us wince and squirm and be thankful that we’re sitting safely in a theater.
Directed by Franck Khalfoun
Wes Bentley / Rachel Nichols / Simon Reynolds
98 min. Horror / Thriller
MPPA: R (for strong violence/gore, terror and language)
Copyright 2007. 215
Into the Wild (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 91
O Masterpiece (100)
X Excellent (75-99)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / November 15, 2007
Yes, this film is an adaptation of the sobering Jon Krakauer book of the same name. Yes, said book (and therefore, the movie) is based on a real person’s real life. Yes, “Into the Wild” was directed by Sean Penn, who also wrote the screenplay. And yes, “Into the Wild” ranks among the 10 best films of the year. Oh, and yes, you should see it.
Set in 1992, “Into the Wild” depicts brief segments from a several-week period in the life of Christopher McCandless (Emile Hirsch), while flashing back to catch us up on his back story. Chris is a well-read, idealistic, passionate college graduate. Chris deeply resents capitalistic society, materialism, “the American dream,” and especially his parents.
An avid reader and student of Jack London, Thoreau and Tolstoy, just to name a few, Chris seeks to find Truth by renouncing the typical, loathsome, American lifestyle and launching himself into a journey of self-discovery and rebirth, and perhaps most importantly, returning to nature.
So, through these flashbacks, we watch the young wanderer’s sojourns and acquaintances whom he meets during his adventures. Each encounter is carefully recorded in his traveler’s diary, which is revealed to us primarily through the visual images and some voice-over narration. And the goal of his journey is to live freely and uninhibited deep in the unpopulated Alaskan wilderness, which is where the “present-moment” storyline between the flashbacks comes from.
Because “Into the Wild” is biographical, it doesn’t follow the usual formula for Hollywood story arcs. Indeed, truth is stranger than fiction, and such is the case here. And because the film’s protagonist seeks to be enveloped by nature, we get many beautiful scenes of the actual shooting locations in Alaska, Oregon, California, Nevada, Arizona, Washington, South Dakota and Mexico. The film’s wildlife photography is also stunning.
While witnessing this communion with nature and its struggles, we are reminded of “Cast Away” (2000), except Emile Hirsch’s character chooses his solitude, and Tom Hanks’s character doesn’t.
“Into the Wild” has some interesting touches, such as original songs by Pearl Jam’s Eddie Vedder. And in one curious moment, actor Emile Hirsch “breaks the fourth wall” by looking into the camera (which isn’t supposed to be there) and makes a silly face at us. There is also an instance where the screen divides into thirds, somewhat reminiscent of Abel Gance’s “Polyvision” work in “Napoleon” (1927).
In one subtle but effective scene, we see Chris walking on the rocks at the top of a waterfall. But because the camera only shows us from his knees up, we are very uneasy about his footing and where he’s stepping. And for yet another exceptional filmmaking moment, watch for the payphone/quarter scene ... amazing.
“Into the Wild” is a beautiful film, not just aesthetically, but also idealistically. It should appeal to and inspire any soul-searcher or dream-chaser. What an incredible story.
Directed by Sean Penn
Emile Hirsch / William Hurt / Vince Vaughn
140 min. Drama / Biography
MPPA: R (for language and some nudity)
Copyright 2007. 213
O Masterpiece (100)
X Excellent (75-99)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / November 15, 2007
Yes, this film is an adaptation of the sobering Jon Krakauer book of the same name. Yes, said book (and therefore, the movie) is based on a real person’s real life. Yes, “Into the Wild” was directed by Sean Penn, who also wrote the screenplay. And yes, “Into the Wild” ranks among the 10 best films of the year. Oh, and yes, you should see it.
Set in 1992, “Into the Wild” depicts brief segments from a several-week period in the life of Christopher McCandless (Emile Hirsch), while flashing back to catch us up on his back story. Chris is a well-read, idealistic, passionate college graduate. Chris deeply resents capitalistic society, materialism, “the American dream,” and especially his parents.
An avid reader and student of Jack London, Thoreau and Tolstoy, just to name a few, Chris seeks to find Truth by renouncing the typical, loathsome, American lifestyle and launching himself into a journey of self-discovery and rebirth, and perhaps most importantly, returning to nature.
So, through these flashbacks, we watch the young wanderer’s sojourns and acquaintances whom he meets during his adventures. Each encounter is carefully recorded in his traveler’s diary, which is revealed to us primarily through the visual images and some voice-over narration. And the goal of his journey is to live freely and uninhibited deep in the unpopulated Alaskan wilderness, which is where the “present-moment” storyline between the flashbacks comes from.
Because “Into the Wild” is biographical, it doesn’t follow the usual formula for Hollywood story arcs. Indeed, truth is stranger than fiction, and such is the case here. And because the film’s protagonist seeks to be enveloped by nature, we get many beautiful scenes of the actual shooting locations in Alaska, Oregon, California, Nevada, Arizona, Washington, South Dakota and Mexico. The film’s wildlife photography is also stunning.
While witnessing this communion with nature and its struggles, we are reminded of “Cast Away” (2000), except Emile Hirsch’s character chooses his solitude, and Tom Hanks’s character doesn’t.
“Into the Wild” has some interesting touches, such as original songs by Pearl Jam’s Eddie Vedder. And in one curious moment, actor Emile Hirsch “breaks the fourth wall” by looking into the camera (which isn’t supposed to be there) and makes a silly face at us. There is also an instance where the screen divides into thirds, somewhat reminiscent of Abel Gance’s “Polyvision” work in “Napoleon” (1927).
In one subtle but effective scene, we see Chris walking on the rocks at the top of a waterfall. But because the camera only shows us from his knees up, we are very uneasy about his footing and where he’s stepping. And for yet another exceptional filmmaking moment, watch for the payphone/quarter scene ... amazing.
“Into the Wild” is a beautiful film, not just aesthetically, but also idealistically. It should appeal to and inspire any soul-searcher or dream-chaser. What an incredible story.
Directed by Sean Penn
Emile Hirsch / William Hurt / Vince Vaughn
140 min. Drama / Biography
MPPA: R (for language and some nudity)
Copyright 2007. 213
Once (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 85
O Masterpiece (100)
X Excellent (75-99)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / November 15, 2007
It has been said that one of the greatest gifts you can give someone is the recommendation of an excellent film. Well, Barrett Hilton and Craig Tovey, thank you for the gift: “Once” is wonderful. And while I’m shamelessly namedropping, I’d like to call out Bill Barnes, Dave Eaton, and Cory Mon, specifically, and offer them this same gift. Music lovers will appreciate it; but musicians will revel in it.
And oddly, nothing much really happens in “Once.” Basically, two musicians meet and play music together. The “guy” (Glen Hansard), so called in the credits because we never learn his name, works in his dad’s vacuum repair store (a veritable “sweeper” shop) by day, and is a streetlife serenader by night. The “guy” needs no orchestration (for much of the film), probably because the melody comes easy: incontrovertible Billy Joel logic.
The “girl” (Marketa Irglova) is a bashful singer and pianist, but they hit it off, begin playing music together and even record a CD. Um, let’s see ... what else ... yeah, that’s about it. But it’s quite entertaining, somehow. In fact, the opening sequence that precedes the film’s title could easily be a successful, stand-alone short film.
Is “Once” a musical? Yes, but it doesn’t feel anything like “Singin’ In the Rain” (1952) or “The Sound of Music” (1965). Is it a music video? It could possibly be considered a collection of music videos strung together and interwoven with waves of dialogue (but most people simply call that a musical).
Is “Once” a documentary? No, not in a strict sense, but the film has a traditional documentary feel to it, minus intermittent talking heads. The dialogue seems unscripted but is equally as entertaining as walking around listening to your friends’ unremarkable banter. The only malady that afflicts the dialogue’s wellness is the ruthlessly recurring phrase, “I have to go now,” which is used plenty.
But the music makes this movie. I’d attempt to describe its flavor, but I’m not as eclectic as I should be, so it might be hard for me to make accurate comparisons. (Anyone can feel free to do so by adding comments.) But I’ll put it this way: If I only buy one soundtrack each year, which is probably true, then “Once” would be that soundtrack. When I first heard the song “Falling Slowly,” which is initially performed in a music store, it gave me chills and evoked tears.
Being a singer/songwriter myself, the depiction “Once” gives of such an existence (which is one that Dave Eaton describes as always “swooning and brooding”) is pitch-perfect. For example, we glimpse the wrestle of songwriting sessions, the awkward discord of working with a recording engineer, and that coy game of pseudo-bashfulness and false modesty that every songwriter plays when asked to perform a song. That’s just what it’s like to be a musician, I guess. And “Once” fully understands that. I have to go now.
Directed by John Carney
Glen Hansard / Marketa Irglova / Bill Hodnett
85 min. Drama / Musical
MPPA: R (for language)
Copyright 2007. 212
O Masterpiece (100)
X Excellent (75-99)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / November 15, 2007
It has been said that one of the greatest gifts you can give someone is the recommendation of an excellent film. Well, Barrett Hilton and Craig Tovey, thank you for the gift: “Once” is wonderful. And while I’m shamelessly namedropping, I’d like to call out Bill Barnes, Dave Eaton, and Cory Mon, specifically, and offer them this same gift. Music lovers will appreciate it; but musicians will revel in it.
And oddly, nothing much really happens in “Once.” Basically, two musicians meet and play music together. The “guy” (Glen Hansard), so called in the credits because we never learn his name, works in his dad’s vacuum repair store (a veritable “sweeper” shop) by day, and is a streetlife serenader by night. The “guy” needs no orchestration (for much of the film), probably because the melody comes easy: incontrovertible Billy Joel logic.
The “girl” (Marketa Irglova) is a bashful singer and pianist, but they hit it off, begin playing music together and even record a CD. Um, let’s see ... what else ... yeah, that’s about it. But it’s quite entertaining, somehow. In fact, the opening sequence that precedes the film’s title could easily be a successful, stand-alone short film.
Is “Once” a musical? Yes, but it doesn’t feel anything like “Singin’ In the Rain” (1952) or “The Sound of Music” (1965). Is it a music video? It could possibly be considered a collection of music videos strung together and interwoven with waves of dialogue (but most people simply call that a musical).
Is “Once” a documentary? No, not in a strict sense, but the film has a traditional documentary feel to it, minus intermittent talking heads. The dialogue seems unscripted but is equally as entertaining as walking around listening to your friends’ unremarkable banter. The only malady that afflicts the dialogue’s wellness is the ruthlessly recurring phrase, “I have to go now,” which is used plenty.
But the music makes this movie. I’d attempt to describe its flavor, but I’m not as eclectic as I should be, so it might be hard for me to make accurate comparisons. (Anyone can feel free to do so by adding comments.) But I’ll put it this way: If I only buy one soundtrack each year, which is probably true, then “Once” would be that soundtrack. When I first heard the song “Falling Slowly,” which is initially performed in a music store, it gave me chills and evoked tears.
Being a singer/songwriter myself, the depiction “Once” gives of such an existence (which is one that Dave Eaton describes as always “swooning and brooding”) is pitch-perfect. For example, we glimpse the wrestle of songwriting sessions, the awkward discord of working with a recording engineer, and that coy game of pseudo-bashfulness and false modesty that every songwriter plays when asked to perform a song. That’s just what it’s like to be a musician, I guess. And “Once” fully understands that. I have to go now.
Directed by John Carney
Glen Hansard / Marketa Irglova / Bill Hodnett
85 min. Drama / Musical
MPPA: R (for language)
Copyright 2007. 212
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Lions for Lambs (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 76
O Masterpiece (100)
X Excellent (75-99)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / November 10, 2007
Motion pictures can provide effective historical commentary, if we realize that the nature of commentary is inherently and unavoidably subjective. Indeed, even documentarists whose pure desire is to simply capture events as they unfold helplessly taint their subject matter with their placement of the camera.
This being stated, we now live in an era comparable to the ‘70s (or any wartime era of the last 100 years) when we have a variety of forthcoming films about the current war. Among the Iraq War films, “Lions for Lambs” is worth consideration, as is “In the Valley of Elah.”
Of course it has an agenda, and of course it’s a political film. And yes, this film will probably provoke an emotional response from you. In fact, a guy who sat a couple seats down from me couldn’t stop himself from yelling at the screen from time to time.
And though it leans a little to the Left, “Lions for Lambs” largely gives fair time, within reason, to the viewpoints. But the movie also delivers a couple of calculated blows, here and there.
I admired it not as much from a political standpoint but from its narrative structure. We cut between three storylines happening simultaneously. Tom Cruise plays a senator who has given Meryl Streep, a reporter, an exclusive interview to break a story about a new military offensive in Afghanistan.
This is crosscut with the launching of the offensive, where we watch two soldiers, in particular, deal with a precarious predicament that becomes a tense waiting game. And the third story shows us Robert Redford playing a professor who’s trying to counteract one of his brighter student’s newfound apathy.
So, what we have with this film is a critique on the media, politicians and the apathy of Americans, especially the younger generation. The film regards individual military personnel with honor but mostly sympathy. And while we watch people discuss the issues “back home,” we see the issues themselves unfold on the battlefield. … Like I said, a little to the Left.
I was particularly impressed that the film keeps us engaged when two-thirds of it is conversational debate, staged in offices. The military scenes provide a little action and even more suspense with an impending timeline that symbolizes a grander representation of the timeline for troop withdrawal.
Overall, “Lions for Lambs” is an engaging film that has enough power to inspire conversations, discussions, arguments and even screaming at the screen.
Directed by Robert Redford
Robert Redford / Meryl Streep / Tom Cruise
88 min. Drama
MPPA: R (for some war violence and language)
Copyright 2007. 211
O Masterpiece (100)
X Excellent (75-99)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / November 10, 2007
Motion pictures can provide effective historical commentary, if we realize that the nature of commentary is inherently and unavoidably subjective. Indeed, even documentarists whose pure desire is to simply capture events as they unfold helplessly taint their subject matter with their placement of the camera.
This being stated, we now live in an era comparable to the ‘70s (or any wartime era of the last 100 years) when we have a variety of forthcoming films about the current war. Among the Iraq War films, “Lions for Lambs” is worth consideration, as is “In the Valley of Elah.”
Of course it has an agenda, and of course it’s a political film. And yes, this film will probably provoke an emotional response from you. In fact, a guy who sat a couple seats down from me couldn’t stop himself from yelling at the screen from time to time.
And though it leans a little to the Left, “Lions for Lambs” largely gives fair time, within reason, to the viewpoints. But the movie also delivers a couple of calculated blows, here and there.
I admired it not as much from a political standpoint but from its narrative structure. We cut between three storylines happening simultaneously. Tom Cruise plays a senator who has given Meryl Streep, a reporter, an exclusive interview to break a story about a new military offensive in Afghanistan.
This is crosscut with the launching of the offensive, where we watch two soldiers, in particular, deal with a precarious predicament that becomes a tense waiting game. And the third story shows us Robert Redford playing a professor who’s trying to counteract one of his brighter student’s newfound apathy.
So, what we have with this film is a critique on the media, politicians and the apathy of Americans, especially the younger generation. The film regards individual military personnel with honor but mostly sympathy. And while we watch people discuss the issues “back home,” we see the issues themselves unfold on the battlefield. … Like I said, a little to the Left.
I was particularly impressed that the film keeps us engaged when two-thirds of it is conversational debate, staged in offices. The military scenes provide a little action and even more suspense with an impending timeline that symbolizes a grander representation of the timeline for troop withdrawal.
Overall, “Lions for Lambs” is an engaging film that has enough power to inspire conversations, discussions, arguments and even screaming at the screen.
Directed by Robert Redford
Robert Redford / Meryl Streep / Tom Cruise
88 min. Drama
MPPA: R (for some war violence and language)
Copyright 2007. 211
American Gangster (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 74
O Masterpiece (100)
O Excellent (75-99)
X Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Mini Review by Jason Pyles / November 10, 2007
Don't expect “The Departed” (2006) or “Goodfellas” (1990) ... because Martin Scorsese Ridley Scott ain't. Even so, “American Gangster” is admirable, as is Ridley Scott.
Much like “The Mexican” (2001), this film's two headliners, Denzel Washington and Russell Crowe, spend most of the movie apart, which is unfortunate.
Also, Ridley Scott has no qualms with taking his time (not always a bad thing). See “Alien” (1979). For this reason, this based-on-a-true-story gangster film builds more like a smoldering drama than an action thriller.
But “American Gangster” convincingly evokes Harlem in the late '60s and '70s, telling the involving story of fearsome Frank Lucas' illicit "business" empire.
Directed by Ridley Scott
Denzel Washington / Russell Crowe / Josh Brolin
157 min. Crime / Drama
MPPA: R (for violence, pervasive drug content and language, nudity and sexuality)
Copyright 2007. 208
O Masterpiece (100)
O Excellent (75-99)
X Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Mini Review by Jason Pyles / November 10, 2007
Don't expect “The Departed” (2006) or “Goodfellas” (1990) ... because Martin Scorsese Ridley Scott ain't. Even so, “American Gangster” is admirable, as is Ridley Scott.
Much like “The Mexican” (2001), this film's two headliners, Denzel Washington and Russell Crowe, spend most of the movie apart, which is unfortunate.
Also, Ridley Scott has no qualms with taking his time (not always a bad thing). See “Alien” (1979). For this reason, this based-on-a-true-story gangster film builds more like a smoldering drama than an action thriller.
But “American Gangster” convincingly evokes Harlem in the late '60s and '70s, telling the involving story of fearsome Frank Lucas' illicit "business" empire.
Directed by Ridley Scott
Denzel Washington / Russell Crowe / Josh Brolin
157 min. Crime / Drama
MPPA: R (for violence, pervasive drug content and language, nudity and sexuality)
Copyright 2007. 208
Bee Movie (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 68
O Masterpiece (100)
O Excellent (75-99)
X Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Mini Review by Jason Pyles / November 10, 2007
As strange as this seems, “Bee Movie” is actually scarier than “An Inconvenient Truth” (2006). Relax. Its frightfulness will buzz right over the kids' heads.
While Al Gore's documentary warns about global warming, “Bee Movie” has a plot that plays out some of the ramifications of "Colony Collapse Disorder," the name given to the alarming phenomenon where honey bees are inexplicably dying.
”Bee Movie” is spectacularly colorful; and when the bees soar through the air, the sweeping cinematography makes us feel like we're along for the ride.
But Jerry Seinfeld's "acting" is still deplorable, making performances in the “Star Wars” series look like a production by the Royal Shakespeare Company.
And despite several laugh-out-loud one-liners and an excellent homage to “The Graduate” (1967), the disappointing “Bee Movie” seems like the writers' strike began 20 minutes into the film: A courtroom drama within a cartoon is always an ominous sign.
Directed by Steve Hickner and Simon J. Smith
Jerry Seinfeld / Renee Zellweger / John Goodman
90 min. Animation / Family
MPPA: PG (for mild suggestive humor and a brief depiction of smoking)
Copyright 2007. 209
O Masterpiece (100)
O Excellent (75-99)
X Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Mini Review by Jason Pyles / November 10, 2007
As strange as this seems, “Bee Movie” is actually scarier than “An Inconvenient Truth” (2006). Relax. Its frightfulness will buzz right over the kids' heads.
While Al Gore's documentary warns about global warming, “Bee Movie” has a plot that plays out some of the ramifications of "Colony Collapse Disorder," the name given to the alarming phenomenon where honey bees are inexplicably dying.
”Bee Movie” is spectacularly colorful; and when the bees soar through the air, the sweeping cinematography makes us feel like we're along for the ride.
But Jerry Seinfeld's "acting" is still deplorable, making performances in the “Star Wars” series look like a production by the Royal Shakespeare Company.
And despite several laugh-out-loud one-liners and an excellent homage to “The Graduate” (1967), the disappointing “Bee Movie” seems like the writers' strike began 20 minutes into the film: A courtroom drama within a cartoon is always an ominous sign.
Directed by Steve Hickner and Simon J. Smith
Jerry Seinfeld / Renee Zellweger / John Goodman
90 min. Animation / Family
MPPA: PG (for mild suggestive humor and a brief depiction of smoking)
Copyright 2007. 209
Martian Child (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 73
O Masterpiece (100)
O Excellent (75-99)
X Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Mini Review by Jason Pyles / November 10, 2007
Remember the movie “K-PAX” (2001)? It's that one where Kevin Spacey's character eats bananas, peeling and all, and claims to be from another planet. The strength of “K-PAX” is how it makes us wonder whether he's an alien.
”Martian Child” gently raises the same question about an orphaned boy named Dennis (Bobby Coleman). But the point of “Martian Child” isn't whether the kid is from Mars. This movie's magic comes from its successful illustration of the difference a loving parent can make in the life of a child.
John Cusack's performance is stellar, even touching, at times. The same cannot be said, however, for his sister, Joan.
Directed by Menno Meyjes
John Cusack / Amanda Peet / Bobby Coleman
108 min. Drama / Family
MPPA: PG (for thematic elements and mild language)
Copyright 2007. 210
O Masterpiece (100)
O Excellent (75-99)
X Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Mini Review by Jason Pyles / November 10, 2007
Remember the movie “K-PAX” (2001)? It's that one where Kevin Spacey's character eats bananas, peeling and all, and claims to be from another planet. The strength of “K-PAX” is how it makes us wonder whether he's an alien.
”Martian Child” gently raises the same question about an orphaned boy named Dennis (Bobby Coleman). But the point of “Martian Child” isn't whether the kid is from Mars. This movie's magic comes from its successful illustration of the difference a loving parent can make in the life of a child.
John Cusack's performance is stellar, even touching, at times. The same cannot be said, however, for his sister, Joan.
Directed by Menno Meyjes
John Cusack / Amanda Peet / Bobby Coleman
108 min. Drama / Family
MPPA: PG (for thematic elements and mild language)
Copyright 2007. 210
The Darjeeling Limited (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 71
O Masterpiece (100)
X Excellent (75-99)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Mini Review by Jason Pyles / November 10, 2007
“The Darjeeling Limited” consists of two parts: Part 1 is a short film called “Hotel Chavelier.” It is only marginally relevant but mostly unnecessary to its following Part 2, which is the whole feature film itself. You’ve probably already heard, the most noteworthy thing about this otherwise unmemorable prelude is we are shown a different side of Natalie Portman, namely her backside, which I’ve heard from “reliable Irish sources” she reportedly now regrets. (My concern from the scene was primarily anorexia.)
But don’t see “The Darjeeling Limited” for Natalie Portman. If you’re a fan of hers and want to see her true acting prowess, watch the opening of “Free Zone” (2005), a film where the camera holds a close-up of her face while she weeps heavily for eight minutes. That may be the most difficult acting feat I’ve ever seen executed on film.
I digress. “The Darjeeling Limited” is an atypical (albeit recognizable) Wes Anderson film that leans more upon the serious than the silly (which is not to say that there isn’t silliness). Three brothers played by Owen Wilson, Adrien Brody and Jason Schwartzman meet on a train in India to embark on “a spiritual journey.”
This arty film is interesting to watch, easy to look at, creative and whimsical but not overly engaging. There are a couple of humorous moments, and even some poignant moments, but the sum loses something that the individual parts have on their own.
Certainly, “The Darjeeling Limited” is a must-see for any Wes Anderson fan, and probably even required viewing for any lover of film; but if you want to be solely entertained in the escapist’s sense, see something else.
Directed by Wes Anderson
Owen Wilson / Adrien Brody / Jason Schwartzman
91 min. Comedy / Adventure
MPPA: R (for language)
Copyright 2007. 207
O Masterpiece (100)
X Excellent (75-99)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Mini Review by Jason Pyles / November 10, 2007
“The Darjeeling Limited” consists of two parts: Part 1 is a short film called “Hotel Chavelier.” It is only marginally relevant but mostly unnecessary to its following Part 2, which is the whole feature film itself. You’ve probably already heard, the most noteworthy thing about this otherwise unmemorable prelude is we are shown a different side of Natalie Portman, namely her backside, which I’ve heard from “reliable Irish sources” she reportedly now regrets. (My concern from the scene was primarily anorexia.)
But don’t see “The Darjeeling Limited” for Natalie Portman. If you’re a fan of hers and want to see her true acting prowess, watch the opening of “Free Zone” (2005), a film where the camera holds a close-up of her face while she weeps heavily for eight minutes. That may be the most difficult acting feat I’ve ever seen executed on film.
I digress. “The Darjeeling Limited” is an atypical (albeit recognizable) Wes Anderson film that leans more upon the serious than the silly (which is not to say that there isn’t silliness). Three brothers played by Owen Wilson, Adrien Brody and Jason Schwartzman meet on a train in India to embark on “a spiritual journey.”
This arty film is interesting to watch, easy to look at, creative and whimsical but not overly engaging. There are a couple of humorous moments, and even some poignant moments, but the sum loses something that the individual parts have on their own.
Certainly, “The Darjeeling Limited” is a must-see for any Wes Anderson fan, and probably even required viewing for any lover of film; but if you want to be solely entertained in the escapist’s sense, see something else.
Directed by Wes Anderson
Owen Wilson / Adrien Brody / Jason Schwartzman
91 min. Comedy / Adventure
MPPA: R (for language)
Copyright 2007. 207
Lars and the Real Girl (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 94
O Masterpiece (100)
X Excellent (75-99)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Mini Review by Jason Pyles / November 10, 2007
"Lars and the Real Girl" is the sweetest movie of the year, no doubt about it. But more importantly, this film illustrates Christ-like principles more than any other movie of recent years, and it does this without being overtly religious. “Lars and the Real Girl” simply exudes purity and goodness.
You wouldn’t think it, though, considering that Lars (Ryan Gosling) orders a sex doll that he seems to think is a real person. But this movie isn’t about sex dolls, despite an occasional mild joke about it sprinkled here and there.
I walked into the theater, and much to my surprise, I didn’t really feel like seeing a movie. But Ryan Gosling’s Lars character obtains our undivided attention and curiosity almost immediately. Lars’ caring sister-in-law seems obsessed with figuring him out, and we can relate. But his oddity rises to a whole new level when he begins introducing “Bianca” to everyone.
“Lars and the Real Girl” is one of those movies where, if you had to leave the theater and miss the ending for some reason, you’d probably lose your mind. It intrigues us to ask questions that we must have answered. And thankfully, “Lars and the Real Girl” gives us all we need to know.
Directed by Craig Gillespie
Ryan Gosling / Emily Mortimer / Paul Schneider
106 min. Drama
MPPA: PG-13 (for some sex-related content)
Copyright 2007. 206
O Masterpiece (100)
X Excellent (75-99)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Mini Review by Jason Pyles / November 10, 2007
"Lars and the Real Girl" is the sweetest movie of the year, no doubt about it. But more importantly, this film illustrates Christ-like principles more than any other movie of recent years, and it does this without being overtly religious. “Lars and the Real Girl” simply exudes purity and goodness.
You wouldn’t think it, though, considering that Lars (Ryan Gosling) orders a sex doll that he seems to think is a real person. But this movie isn’t about sex dolls, despite an occasional mild joke about it sprinkled here and there.
I walked into the theater, and much to my surprise, I didn’t really feel like seeing a movie. But Ryan Gosling’s Lars character obtains our undivided attention and curiosity almost immediately. Lars’ caring sister-in-law seems obsessed with figuring him out, and we can relate. But his oddity rises to a whole new level when he begins introducing “Bianca” to everyone.
“Lars and the Real Girl” is one of those movies where, if you had to leave the theater and miss the ending for some reason, you’d probably lose your mind. It intrigues us to ask questions that we must have answered. And thankfully, “Lars and the Real Girl” gives us all we need to know.
Directed by Craig Gillespie
Ryan Gosling / Emily Mortimer / Paul Schneider
106 min. Drama
MPPA: PG-13 (for some sex-related content)
Copyright 2007. 206
Michael Clayton (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 86
O Masterpiece (100)
X Excellent (75-99)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Mini Review by Jason Pyles / November 10, 2007
A good story can go a long way. Exhibit A: “Michael Clayton.” Often, filmmakers mistakenly assume that special effects can compensate for a poor story. Heresy. Exhibit B: “D-War.”
“Michael Clayton” has few noticeable special effects and is still exceptional entertainment thanks to its story’s quality.
If it’s not evident by the aforementioned exhibits, “Michael Clayton” is a thriller involving high-powered attorneys, corporate litigation and an exhibitionist.
Thankfully, this movie spares us the overused courtroom-drama sequences for more exciting, behind-the-scenes finagling, giving it inherent intrigue, despite its unconvincing, unappealing trailer. Exhibit C: “Do I look like I’m negotiating?”
Notably, notwithstanding Exhibit C, the film is worth seeing for George Clooney’s title-role performance. Watch him closely during scenes with his character’s son; or, when he holds his composure during a very long close-up of his face.
So, what is the overall verdict on whether to watch this movie? See Exhibit A.
Directed by Tony Gilroy
George Clooney / Tom Wilkinson / Tilda Swinton
119 min. Drama / Crime
MPPA: R (for language including some sexual dialogue)
Copyright 2007. 199
O Masterpiece (100)
X Excellent (75-99)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Mini Review by Jason Pyles / November 10, 2007
A good story can go a long way. Exhibit A: “Michael Clayton.” Often, filmmakers mistakenly assume that special effects can compensate for a poor story. Heresy. Exhibit B: “D-War.”
“Michael Clayton” has few noticeable special effects and is still exceptional entertainment thanks to its story’s quality.
If it’s not evident by the aforementioned exhibits, “Michael Clayton” is a thriller involving high-powered attorneys, corporate litigation and an exhibitionist.
Thankfully, this movie spares us the overused courtroom-drama sequences for more exciting, behind-the-scenes finagling, giving it inherent intrigue, despite its unconvincing, unappealing trailer. Exhibit C: “Do I look like I’m negotiating?”
Notably, notwithstanding Exhibit C, the film is worth seeing for George Clooney’s title-role performance. Watch him closely during scenes with his character’s son; or, when he holds his composure during a very long close-up of his face.
So, what is the overall verdict on whether to watch this movie? See Exhibit A.
Directed by Tony Gilroy
George Clooney / Tom Wilkinson / Tilda Swinton
119 min. Drama / Crime
MPPA: R (for language including some sexual dialogue)
Copyright 2007. 199
We Own the Night (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 73
O Masterpiece (100)
O Excellent (75-99)
X Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Mini Review by Jason Pyles / November 10, 2007
The time is 1988. The place is Brooklyn, N.Y. Robert Duvall plays an NYPD police chief and the father of two sons, Bobby (Joaquin Phoenix) and Joseph (Mark Wahlberg).
Joseph is the good son and an exceptional, decorated police officer; while Bobby is the black sheep who manages a popular nightclub where he associates with shady people of the underworld, natural enemies of his brother and father.
The movie’s primary conflict revolves around Bobby’s having to choose between his friends and his family (a choice that’s tougher than it sounds), and then trying to live with that choice.
“We Own the Night” is unmistakably contrived, but at the same time it takes some unconventional turns that pleasantly surprise us and defy our expectations of the genre. It’s not a perfect movie, but it’s definitely worth checking out.
Directed by James Gray
Joaquin Phoenix / Mark Wahlberg / Robert Duvall
117 min. Action / Crime
MPPA: R (for strong violence, drug material, language, some sexual content and brief nudity)
Copyright 2007. 200
O Masterpiece (100)
O Excellent (75-99)
X Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Mini Review by Jason Pyles / November 10, 2007
The time is 1988. The place is Brooklyn, N.Y. Robert Duvall plays an NYPD police chief and the father of two sons, Bobby (Joaquin Phoenix) and Joseph (Mark Wahlberg).
Joseph is the good son and an exceptional, decorated police officer; while Bobby is the black sheep who manages a popular nightclub where he associates with shady people of the underworld, natural enemies of his brother and father.
The movie’s primary conflict revolves around Bobby’s having to choose between his friends and his family (a choice that’s tougher than it sounds), and then trying to live with that choice.
“We Own the Night” is unmistakably contrived, but at the same time it takes some unconventional turns that pleasantly surprise us and defy our expectations of the genre. It’s not a perfect movie, but it’s definitely worth checking out.
Directed by James Gray
Joaquin Phoenix / Mark Wahlberg / Robert Duvall
117 min. Action / Crime
MPPA: R (for strong violence, drug material, language, some sexual content and brief nudity)
Copyright 2007. 200
The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 71
O Masterpiece (100)
O Excellent (75-99)
X Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Mini Review by Jason Pyles / November 10, 2007
Adapted from a Ron Hansen novel, “Jesse James” defies the shoot-‘em-up western genre to deliver a biographical drama starring Brad Pitt and Casey Affleck.
Those who seek the gun fighting of a rootin’, tootin’ western will be happier seeing this year’s “3:10 to Yuma.”
An oddly quiet and poetic film, “Jesse James” depicts the downtime between events, and usually not the events themselves, which are occasionally shown later. Uncommonly yet admirably, action is incidental.
Complaints abound accusing “Jesse James” of dragging, but the film’s lackadaisical pacing isn’t the problem: A movie this slow shouldn’t run this long (or vice versa). Indeed, the only thing that exceeds the 160-minute runtime of “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford” is the movie’s title.
All in all, the film is well made and memorable, with lines like “Poetry don’t work on whores,” which could also be said of westerns.
Directed by Andrew Dominik
Brad Pitt / Casey Affleck / Paul Schneider
160 min. Drama / Western
MPPA: R (for some strong violence and brief sexual references)
Copyright 2007. 198
O Masterpiece (100)
O Excellent (75-99)
X Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Mini Review by Jason Pyles / November 10, 2007
Adapted from a Ron Hansen novel, “Jesse James” defies the shoot-‘em-up western genre to deliver a biographical drama starring Brad Pitt and Casey Affleck.
Those who seek the gun fighting of a rootin’, tootin’ western will be happier seeing this year’s “3:10 to Yuma.”
An oddly quiet and poetic film, “Jesse James” depicts the downtime between events, and usually not the events themselves, which are occasionally shown later. Uncommonly yet admirably, action is incidental.
Complaints abound accusing “Jesse James” of dragging, but the film’s lackadaisical pacing isn’t the problem: A movie this slow shouldn’t run this long (or vice versa). Indeed, the only thing that exceeds the 160-minute runtime of “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford” is the movie’s title.
All in all, the film is well made and memorable, with lines like “Poetry don’t work on whores,” which could also be said of westerns.
Directed by Andrew Dominik
Brad Pitt / Casey Affleck / Paul Schneider
160 min. Drama / Western
MPPA: R (for some strong violence and brief sexual references)
Copyright 2007. 198
In the Valley of Elah (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 95
O Masterpiece (100)
X Excellent (75-99)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Mini Review by Jason Pyles / November 10, 2007
"In the Valley of Elah" is a mystery, specifically a police procedural, whose commentary on the Iraq War is stirring and memorable, regardless of your political position. But above all, this is an exceptional film, and without question, one of the year's best.
"Inspired by actual events," the film begins in 2004 when Hank Deerfield (Tommy Lee Jones) receives a phone call from the U.S. Army, informing him that his son who recently returned from the war in Iraq is AWOL, and presumably somewhere in New Mexico. This inciting incident initiates the retired military-police sergeant’s search for his missing son.
Sadly, a mini review doesn’t permit me the space to adequately emphasize the excellence of this film. But to name one example, many scenes are shot with Jones behind glass, usually a truck window. Thanks to his MP experience, Deerfield can see things the investigative detectives cannot. But because he’s just a civilian, the sergeant isn’t permitted to act directly (hence the recurring image of seeing clearly from behind glass). Watch what happens, however, during the scene where the window is rolled halfway down.
The viewer who pays close attention to the film’s subtle set-ups, will reap rich rewards from its pay-offs.
Directed by Paul Haggis
Tommy Lee Jones / Charlize Theron / Susan Sarandon
124 min. Mystery / Drama
MPAA: R (for violent and disturbing content, language and some sexuality/nudity)
Copyright 2007. 197
O Masterpiece (100)
X Excellent (75-99)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Mini Review by Jason Pyles / November 10, 2007
"In the Valley of Elah" is a mystery, specifically a police procedural, whose commentary on the Iraq War is stirring and memorable, regardless of your political position. But above all, this is an exceptional film, and without question, one of the year's best.
"Inspired by actual events," the film begins in 2004 when Hank Deerfield (Tommy Lee Jones) receives a phone call from the U.S. Army, informing him that his son who recently returned from the war in Iraq is AWOL, and presumably somewhere in New Mexico. This inciting incident initiates the retired military-police sergeant’s search for his missing son.
Sadly, a mini review doesn’t permit me the space to adequately emphasize the excellence of this film. But to name one example, many scenes are shot with Jones behind glass, usually a truck window. Thanks to his MP experience, Deerfield can see things the investigative detectives cannot. But because he’s just a civilian, the sergeant isn’t permitted to act directly (hence the recurring image of seeing clearly from behind glass). Watch what happens, however, during the scene where the window is rolled halfway down.
The viewer who pays close attention to the film’s subtle set-ups, will reap rich rewards from its pay-offs.
Directed by Paul Haggis
Tommy Lee Jones / Charlize Theron / Susan Sarandon
124 min. Mystery / Drama
MPAA: R (for violent and disturbing content, language and some sexuality/nudity)
Copyright 2007. 197
3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 94
O Masterpiece (100)
X Excellent (75-99)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Mini Review by Jason Pyles / November 10, 2007
If “3:10 to Yuma” can’t revive the western genre, nothing can. Another noteworthy attempt at resuscitation was made back in 1992 with Clint Eastwood’s “Unforgiven,” also an exceptional film that won Best Picture. But honestly, I don’t know that I could tell you the better film between the two, unless we had them duel.
This film is actually a remake of an earlier film by the same name (unseen by me), so I couldn’t really tell you how closely this movie follows its predecessor. But if the first film was about “doin’ the right thing” and “cowboying up,” then I’d say it holds true where it counts.
Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) is a bad, bad man, an outlaw and a killer who’s notoriously ruthless and profoundly deadly. (Yes, “profoundly” is the right word. You’ll see.)
When Wade is captured and needs to be on the 3:10 train to Yuma for his court date, the short-handed law men agree to pay poor Dan Evans (Christian Bale) to help transport the prisoner, keeping him from being sprung by his fellow bandits.
“3:10 to Yuma” has excellent dialogue. In fact, it has the best line I’ve ever heard in a western, though I won’t recite it here in case you’re one of the lucky ones who haven’t heard it from the trailers. But I will tell you this: “3:10 to Yuma” proudly ranks among the top five films of 2007.
Directed by James Mangold
Russell Crowe / Christian Bale / Peter Fonda
117 min. Western
MPPA: R (for violence and some language)
Copyright 2007. 187
O Masterpiece (100)
X Excellent (75-99)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Mini Review by Jason Pyles / November 10, 2007
If “3:10 to Yuma” can’t revive the western genre, nothing can. Another noteworthy attempt at resuscitation was made back in 1992 with Clint Eastwood’s “Unforgiven,” also an exceptional film that won Best Picture. But honestly, I don’t know that I could tell you the better film between the two, unless we had them duel.
This film is actually a remake of an earlier film by the same name (unseen by me), so I couldn’t really tell you how closely this movie follows its predecessor. But if the first film was about “doin’ the right thing” and “cowboying up,” then I’d say it holds true where it counts.
Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) is a bad, bad man, an outlaw and a killer who’s notoriously ruthless and profoundly deadly. (Yes, “profoundly” is the right word. You’ll see.)
When Wade is captured and needs to be on the 3:10 train to Yuma for his court date, the short-handed law men agree to pay poor Dan Evans (Christian Bale) to help transport the prisoner, keeping him from being sprung by his fellow bandits.
“3:10 to Yuma” has excellent dialogue. In fact, it has the best line I’ve ever heard in a western, though I won’t recite it here in case you’re one of the lucky ones who haven’t heard it from the trailers. But I will tell you this: “3:10 to Yuma” proudly ranks among the top five films of 2007.
Directed by James Mangold
Russell Crowe / Christian Bale / Peter Fonda
117 min. Western
MPPA: R (for violence and some language)
Copyright 2007. 187
Resurrecting the Champ (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 86
O Masterpiece (100)
X Excellent (75-99)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Mini Review by Jason Pyles / November 10, 2007
Sometimes movies that were “inspired by a true story,” such as “Catch a Fire” (2006), tell a story that’s not really worth telling. Other films like “Resurrecting the Champ” have a narrative worthy of our attention.
Unfortunately, “Resurrecting the Champ” is going to go down as one of those underrated, underappreciated, unknown films, ironically enough. But trust me: You should check out this movie.
As cryptic as this may sound, “Resurrecting the Champ” is about being what you wanted to be, regardless of not getting to be what you wanted to be. I know, maddening. But that is the greatness that is the concept of this movie. “Resurrecting the Champ” will also be of interest to sports fans, journalists, fathers and sons.
Erik Kernan (Josh Hartnett) is a sports writer who is struggling to live up to the journalistic greatness of his father. But when he discovers a former boxing champion (Samuel L. Jackson) who is now a homeless person, the young writer has the boxer’s incredible story to tell.
And that’s all I can tell you. The less you know about the film, the better. But be prepared for Samuel L. Jackson’s character’s voice: You’ll either love it, or you’ll hate it; but either way, you should appreciate his ability to maintain such a high pitch.
Directed by Rod Lurie
Samuel L. Jackson / Josh Hartnett / Alan Alda
111 min. Drama
MPPA: PG-13 (for some violence and brief language)
Copyright 2007. 185
O Masterpiece (100)
X Excellent (75-99)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Mini Review by Jason Pyles / November 10, 2007
Sometimes movies that were “inspired by a true story,” such as “Catch a Fire” (2006), tell a story that’s not really worth telling. Other films like “Resurrecting the Champ” have a narrative worthy of our attention.
Unfortunately, “Resurrecting the Champ” is going to go down as one of those underrated, underappreciated, unknown films, ironically enough. But trust me: You should check out this movie.
As cryptic as this may sound, “Resurrecting the Champ” is about being what you wanted to be, regardless of not getting to be what you wanted to be. I know, maddening. But that is the greatness that is the concept of this movie. “Resurrecting the Champ” will also be of interest to sports fans, journalists, fathers and sons.
Erik Kernan (Josh Hartnett) is a sports writer who is struggling to live up to the journalistic greatness of his father. But when he discovers a former boxing champion (Samuel L. Jackson) who is now a homeless person, the young writer has the boxer’s incredible story to tell.
And that’s all I can tell you. The less you know about the film, the better. But be prepared for Samuel L. Jackson’s character’s voice: You’ll either love it, or you’ll hate it; but either way, you should appreciate his ability to maintain such a high pitch.
Directed by Rod Lurie
Samuel L. Jackson / Josh Hartnett / Alan Alda
111 min. Drama
MPPA: PG-13 (for some violence and brief language)
Copyright 2007. 185
The Last Legion (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 53
O Masterpiece (100)
O Excellent (75-99)
O Rental (60-74)
X OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Mini Review by Jason Pyles / November 10, 2007
My good friend and esteemed fellow movie critic, Luke Hickman, told me he walked into the theater during this film, stayed for 15 minutes, and laughed the whole time. So why did I see it? Because the film I was planning to see wasn’t playing (for some reason), and this was my only option. Poor movie critic me, I know. Tough job.
Let’s take a moment to notice that my rating scale doesn’t go down to zero, the lowest it gets is 1. That’s because, it seems to me, that the wonder of the motion picture, no matter how detestable its images, should at least register on the scale.
“The Last Legion” isn’t hideously horrible; in fact, it clocks in at a 53, which is better than half and translates to “OK.” But the worst movie of 2007 is easily “Delta Farce,” which received an 8. Avoid that puppy at all costs.
I mention all of this to simply say that I’d watch “The Last Legion” 100 times in a row before subjecting myself, once again, to the likes of “D-War” or “Daddy Day Camp” or “Delta Farce.” My laughing friend, Luke, obviously has yet to experience the pains of those “D” movies, if he’s so amused by “The Last Legion.” Which reminds me ... in my college cafeteria once, I saw “all-purpose meat” boxes which read, “Grade D but edible.” The same cannot be said of those films.
Truly, it is a testament to the talents of Colin Firth and Ben Kingsley (who carry this entire film) that they are able to carry this entire film. Yes, I know I wrote that twice. Young Thomas Sangster, who plays the last Caesar, also does a fair job with his performance.
But what harms this sword-in-the-stone/Camelot rendition is its low-budget look. The lead actors are fine, the story is tried and true (obviously, since it’s been retold 41 million times), but it all falls apart because we cannot take “The Last Legion” seriously.
But, alas, any eight- to 10-year-old boys would probably love it. My buddy, Luke, sure got a kick out of it.
Directed by Doug Lefler
Colin Firth / Ben Kingsley / Thomas Sangster
110 min. Action / Adventure
MPPA: PG-13 (for sequences of intense action violence)
Copyright 2007. 184
O Masterpiece (100)
O Excellent (75-99)
O Rental (60-74)
X OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Mini Review by Jason Pyles / November 10, 2007
My good friend and esteemed fellow movie critic, Luke Hickman, told me he walked into the theater during this film, stayed for 15 minutes, and laughed the whole time. So why did I see it? Because the film I was planning to see wasn’t playing (for some reason), and this was my only option. Poor movie critic me, I know. Tough job.
Let’s take a moment to notice that my rating scale doesn’t go down to zero, the lowest it gets is 1. That’s because, it seems to me, that the wonder of the motion picture, no matter how detestable its images, should at least register on the scale.
“The Last Legion” isn’t hideously horrible; in fact, it clocks in at a 53, which is better than half and translates to “OK.” But the worst movie of 2007 is easily “Delta Farce,” which received an 8. Avoid that puppy at all costs.
I mention all of this to simply say that I’d watch “The Last Legion” 100 times in a row before subjecting myself, once again, to the likes of “D-War” or “Daddy Day Camp” or “Delta Farce.” My laughing friend, Luke, obviously has yet to experience the pains of those “D” movies, if he’s so amused by “The Last Legion.” Which reminds me ... in my college cafeteria once, I saw “all-purpose meat” boxes which read, “Grade D but edible.” The same cannot be said of those films.
Truly, it is a testament to the talents of Colin Firth and Ben Kingsley (who carry this entire film) that they are able to carry this entire film. Yes, I know I wrote that twice. Young Thomas Sangster, who plays the last Caesar, also does a fair job with his performance.
But what harms this sword-in-the-stone/Camelot rendition is its low-budget look. The lead actors are fine, the story is tried and true (obviously, since it’s been retold 41 million times), but it all falls apart because we cannot take “The Last Legion” seriously.
But, alas, any eight- to 10-year-old boys would probably love it. My buddy, Luke, sure got a kick out of it.
Directed by Doug Lefler
Colin Firth / Ben Kingsley / Thomas Sangster
110 min. Action / Adventure
MPPA: PG-13 (for sequences of intense action violence)
Copyright 2007. 184
Friday, November 2, 2007
Dan in Real Life (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 85
O Masterpiece (100)
X Excellent (75-99)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / November 2, 2007
Since “Lars and the Real Girl” is the sweetest movie of the year, “Dan in Real Life” can safely be called the happiest, feel-good movie of 2007.
Remember how the end of “Little Miss Sunshine” (2006) and “Hitch” (2005) brought feelings of self-consciousness, for fear of potential Amelies in the theater looking back at us to see our gleeful, smiling faces? “Dan in Real Life” has similar good vibrations.
Dan Burns (Steve Carell) is a newspaper advice columnist, an author, a widower, father of three girls and a good man. Annually, Dan's extended family gathers at a cabin in Rhode Island. While visiting the New England town, the lonely bachelor meets Annie (Juliette Binoche), the perfect woman. But it turns out that Dan's brother, Mitch (Dane Cook), is already dating Dan's new dream girl.
“Dan in Real Life” is fun because Dan and Annie's affinity for each other is a secret. And Dan is torn between being a loyal brother and pursuing such an evident "keeper."
What makes this comedy particularly enjoyable is that we are genuinely intrigued by not knowing how this mess could ever be untangled. We have suspicions, sure, but resolution seems impossible.
The dynamics and exchanges among the family members are humorous, making “Dan in Real Life” reminiscent of “The Family Stone” (2005), which is another "bring the new gal to meet the whole fam" farce.
There's something about this film's quality and substance that places it higher than a typical, hollow, romantic comedy. It almost feels like a tame Wes Anderson project or a Sundance indie film.
“Dan in Real Life” has some pitch-perfect moments of playful revenge, genuine humor and touching sincerity. There's even a brief spell where Steve Carell gets to evoke the obnoxiousness of his “Office” persona, Michael Scott.
“Dan in Real Life” is delightful, quaint and a great option for a date movie.
Directed by Peter Hedges
Steve Carell / Dane Cook / Juliette Binoche
95 min. Comedy / Romance
MPPA: PG-13 (for some innuendo)
Copyright 2007. 205
O Masterpiece (100)
X Excellent (75-99)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / November 2, 2007
Since “Lars and the Real Girl” is the sweetest movie of the year, “Dan in Real Life” can safely be called the happiest, feel-good movie of 2007.
Remember how the end of “Little Miss Sunshine” (2006) and “Hitch” (2005) brought feelings of self-consciousness, for fear of potential Amelies in the theater looking back at us to see our gleeful, smiling faces? “Dan in Real Life” has similar good vibrations.
Dan Burns (Steve Carell) is a newspaper advice columnist, an author, a widower, father of three girls and a good man. Annually, Dan's extended family gathers at a cabin in Rhode Island. While visiting the New England town, the lonely bachelor meets Annie (Juliette Binoche), the perfect woman. But it turns out that Dan's brother, Mitch (Dane Cook), is already dating Dan's new dream girl.
“Dan in Real Life” is fun because Dan and Annie's affinity for each other is a secret. And Dan is torn between being a loyal brother and pursuing such an evident "keeper."
What makes this comedy particularly enjoyable is that we are genuinely intrigued by not knowing how this mess could ever be untangled. We have suspicions, sure, but resolution seems impossible.
The dynamics and exchanges among the family members are humorous, making “Dan in Real Life” reminiscent of “The Family Stone” (2005), which is another "bring the new gal to meet the whole fam" farce.
There's something about this film's quality and substance that places it higher than a typical, hollow, romantic comedy. It almost feels like a tame Wes Anderson project or a Sundance indie film.
“Dan in Real Life” has some pitch-perfect moments of playful revenge, genuine humor and touching sincerity. There's even a brief spell where Steve Carell gets to evoke the obnoxiousness of his “Office” persona, Michael Scott.
“Dan in Real Life” is delightful, quaint and a great option for a date movie.
Directed by Peter Hedges
Steve Carell / Dane Cook / Juliette Binoche
95 min. Comedy / Romance
MPPA: PG-13 (for some innuendo)
Copyright 2007. 205
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
