by Jason Pyles / December 27, 2008
2008 was a great year for the cinema and a momentous year for my family. I only make mention of my life’s personal events to emphasize that after having our first baby, a college graduation, a move across the country and working one and a half new jobs, I’ve only been able to see 101 of this year’s films (in contrast to my 176 reviews in 2007). And unfortunately, many films that are receiving the most critical acclaim are, as of yet, unseen by me.* (see list below)
So again, the following 11 films are only some of the best films of 2008.
1.) The Dark Knight (PG-13)
Some people have said “Iron Man” is a superhero movie for those who don’t like superhero movies. OK, maybe, but it’s still a superhero movie, an excellent one. But “The Dark Knight” transcends the genre. And not to be technical, but Batman never really was a superhero in the truest sense: He’s just a rich guy with the means to have slick, crime-fighting gadgets. But let me be clear here: Yes, Christopher Nolan is a superb director whose contributions cannot be diminished; Christian Bale successfully pulls off the bat man with a straight face; in fact, all the film’s actors have become their characters. Yet it is Heath Ledger’s performance as the Joker that makes “The Dark Knight” so lofty. Ledger deserves the Oscar — and not as a consolation prize for being deceased. A good villain is just as important as having a good hero. Among the films I’ve seen in 2008, “The Dark Knight” is the best of the year.
2.) The Orphanage (R)
“The Orphanage” is a truly creepy film and perhaps more impressive, one of the few effective haunted house movies. Filmed in Spanish with English subtitles, this non-slasher, spine-tingler is rated R but not for the usual reasons: Its rating is solely due to “disturbing content.” I might have termed it “troubling” content.
3.) Cloverfield (PG-13)
Everybody plays the “what if” game. And because of that, “Cloverfield” is pure cinematic delight because it allows the “what if” game to unfold before our eyes. What if a real monster attacked New York City? This is no King Kong or Godzilla monster mash; “Cloverfield” endeavors, as realistically as possible, to portray such a horrific event. Best of all, the movie pulls us up onto the screen, into the action, because we identify with a character videographer’s subjective point of view through his camera lens, a trick that “Quarantine” later attempted in October but with much less success.
4.) Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (PG)
Highly controversial and arguably slanted unfairly, “Expelled” is a documentary for “the believers,” meaning, those who believe “Genesis” over “The Origin of the Species.” Ben Stein is the gadfly of the scientific community as he observes that it seems to have closed its mind to ideas like Creationism and wholly accepted Evolution. “Expelled” is a showdown that is much more engaging than it sounds.
5.) Snow Angels (R)
Some films can carefully portray with lifelike verisimilitude the sad dramas that play out in the lives of regular, everyday people. “Snow Angels” is one such film, and its magnificence is matched only by its pensiveness.
6.) Run Fatboy Run (PG-13)
Because its director is David Schwimmer and its title is “Run Fatboy Run,” you may doubt my judgment on this surprising comedy. But Schwimmer shows considerable promise as a director, and the movie’s title is likely a marketing design, even though it is somewhat fitting. “Run Fatboy Run” is funny, but it’s also inspiring. This movie is a banner and a beacon for anyone who’s tired of being a loser and wants to stop sucking.
7.) Rambo (R)
I know. Sy Stallone is like 62 years old and “Rambo,” like most of the “Rocky” movies, is a thing of the ‘80s. But who goes to see a “Rambo” movie? Someone expecting a Merchant Ivory Production? No. Someone who wants to see “Rambo” blow everybody away. Done. But that’s not what makes this movie excellent: Reportedly, in this time of war, Stallone wanted to try to depict the true horrors of warfare, and it appears he has succeeded with a film that approaches the graphic violence of “Saving Private Ryan” (1998). And though it’s difficult to make a war film that doesn’t ultimately glorify war (which I suppose “Rambo” still does), it still paints a vividly grotesque picture.
8.) Iron Man (PG-13)
As mentioned above, “Iron Man” is a fine example of a comic book movie. It’s a well made, summer-fun, big-budget, popcorn blockbuster that is wonderfully entertaining. But as Heath Ledger is to “The Dark Knight,” so is Robert Downey Jr. to “Iron Man.” He makes the movie worth seeing on the merits of his humorous performance alone.
9.) Tropic Thunder (R)
Speaking of Robert Downey Jr., when an actor can convincingly perform in layers, piling character upon character within a role, then you know he or she has a remarkable gift. I don’t care if this is a comedy, he still should be nominated for his performance. Not only is “Tropic Thunder” hilarious, it savagely cannibalizes and ridicules the Hollywood from whence it sprang. It has an updated variation of the “Three Amigos!” (1986) plot that’s both smarter and funnier.
10.) The Ruins (R)
Many people will disagree with my ranking “The Ruins” among this list, but I don’t care. This is an excellent horror movie, which is nearly an oxymoron. While watching this film, imagine that you have fallen into this scenario. Yes, the vines (which are not the point) are ridiculous, but this is no “Little Shop of Horrors” (1986). Setting the vines aside, which are merely a plot device, the true horrors of “The Ruins” could happen. What is scarier than being marooned in another country and watching those who are with you — the only people you thought you could trust — make dreadful decisions out of fear? It is what the characters do to one another (and it’s typically not meant to be mean-spirited) in this midst of their crisis that makes “The Ruins” an effective horror movie.
11.) U2 3D (G)
I’m not even a U2 fan, per se. But I like their music, and besides, who doesn’t enjoy concerts? “U2 3D” is comprised of incredible footage from several U2 concerts that puts the viewer up on the stage with the performers. And even without the 3-D glasses, this would still be an enjoyable experience for any music lover — especially a true U2 fan.
Jason's Honorable Mention of 2008:
4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days
Appaloosa
Changeling
Charlie Bartlett
Definitely, Maybe
The Happening
Horton Hears a Who!
The Incredible Hulk
Lakeview Terrace
The Other Boleyn Girl
Penelope
Pride and Glory
Quantum of Solace
Righteous Kill
Smart People
Under the Same Moon
Untraceable
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* These are the films from 2008 that I haven’t seen yet that are supposed to be exceptional:
Ballast
The Band’s Visit
Che
A Christmas Tale
Chop Shop
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Defiance
Doubt
The Duchess of Langeais
The Edge of Heaven
Encounters at the End of the World
The Fall
Frost/Nixon
Frozen River
A Girl Cut in Two
Gran Torino
Happy-Go-Lucky
In Bruges
I.O.U.S.A.
I’ve Loved You So Long
The Last Mistress
Let the Right One In
Man on Wire
Milk
My Winnipeg
Rachel Getting Married
The Reader
Revolutionary Road
Shotgun Stories
Slumdog Millionaire
Standard Operating Procedure
Synecdoche, New York
Tell No One
Trouble the Water
Vicky Cristina Barcelona
WALL-E
The Wrestler
XXY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
And for what it’s worth (which isn’t much), these are the 10 worst movies of 2008, with the absolute most terrible one listed at the bottom.
Doomsday
Harold & Kumar Escape From Guantanamo Bay
Vantage Point
The Eye
How She Move
Superhero Movie
First Sunday
Witless Protection
One Missed Call
Meet the Spartans
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Monday, December 22, 2008
Debate: In Cold Celluloid
by Jason Pyles / December 22, 2008
Ever since the gangster pictures of the 1930s, there has been considerable debate about the portrayal of violence in film — is it exploitative? — or does it serve a meaningful purpose? It’s such an age-old controversy, many people are altogether weary of the discussion. But I have a different question, though it is related to this topic.
In 1967, Richard Brooks released a film called “In Cold Blood” that is an adaptation of Truman Capote’s novel by the same name. Both tell the grim but true tale of two zeros who planned to rob a Kansas farm family and slaughtered them all in the process. The phrase “senseless deaths” has never been more fitting.
(Interestingly, the film stars Robert Blake as one of the killers; you might remember that around 2002, Blake was arrested for the murder of his second wife but was later acquitted in 2005.)
Relative to the explicit and graphic nature of present-day movies, “In Cold Blood” is tame, perhaps even mild enough for a PG rating — minus the profanity.
But here’s the issue: The film is shot in the actual home of the murdered family. This begs an obvious moral question. What was the merit in shooting the film in their home? The reasons must have pertained to authenticity and perhaps because it’s somewhat intriguing, but are these reasons justified? I suspect that it had less to do with artistic motives and more to do with cashing in on a fascinated nation’s curiosity.
Yet, I can’t help but wonder if the same heinous event befell my family — heaven forbid — how would I feel if Hollywood wanted to tell the story within the walls of our sacred home, where the horrific acts occurred?
In his 1968 review of “In Cold Blood,” Roger Ebert wrote this:
“And every detail of the film, from the physical appearance of the actors to the use of actual locations like the Clutter farmhouse, was chosen to make the film a literal copy of those events. I do not object to this. Men have always learned about themselves by studying the things their fellows do. If mass murders of this sort are possible in American society (and many have been), then perhaps it is useful to see a thoughtful film about one of them.”
My Take:
I’ve heard this argument before, but I don’t buy it. I think it’s imperative for us to realize that monsters exist and such dangers are possible, but to me “In Cold Blood” crosses the line with its shooting location. When I watched “Breakdown” (1997), for example, I thought it a valuable cautionary tale, but it was fictitious; whereas, “In Cold Blood” unfortunately happened. (And regarding violence in film, most people think it’s fun to be scared. Fine. So fictitious horror is one thing, but when we watch the “Saw” movies for their “entertainment value?!,” I think that’s sociologically problematic.)
Please feel free to post comments and discuss this question.
[ Note: I might mention, as a mere afterthought, that we’re probably more familiar with the more recent Philip Seymour Hoffman film, “Capote” (2005), about the journalist and author who followed the story and conducted extensive interviews with one of the killers. ]
Ever since the gangster pictures of the 1930s, there has been considerable debate about the portrayal of violence in film — is it exploitative? — or does it serve a meaningful purpose? It’s such an age-old controversy, many people are altogether weary of the discussion. But I have a different question, though it is related to this topic.
In 1967, Richard Brooks released a film called “In Cold Blood” that is an adaptation of Truman Capote’s novel by the same name. Both tell the grim but true tale of two zeros who planned to rob a Kansas farm family and slaughtered them all in the process. The phrase “senseless deaths” has never been more fitting.
(Interestingly, the film stars Robert Blake as one of the killers; you might remember that around 2002, Blake was arrested for the murder of his second wife but was later acquitted in 2005.)
Relative to the explicit and graphic nature of present-day movies, “In Cold Blood” is tame, perhaps even mild enough for a PG rating — minus the profanity.
But here’s the issue: The film is shot in the actual home of the murdered family. This begs an obvious moral question. What was the merit in shooting the film in their home? The reasons must have pertained to authenticity and perhaps because it’s somewhat intriguing, but are these reasons justified? I suspect that it had less to do with artistic motives and more to do with cashing in on a fascinated nation’s curiosity.
Yet, I can’t help but wonder if the same heinous event befell my family — heaven forbid — how would I feel if Hollywood wanted to tell the story within the walls of our sacred home, where the horrific acts occurred?
In his 1968 review of “In Cold Blood,” Roger Ebert wrote this:
“And every detail of the film, from the physical appearance of the actors to the use of actual locations like the Clutter farmhouse, was chosen to make the film a literal copy of those events. I do not object to this. Men have always learned about themselves by studying the things their fellows do. If mass murders of this sort are possible in American society (and many have been), then perhaps it is useful to see a thoughtful film about one of them.”
My Take:
I’ve heard this argument before, but I don’t buy it. I think it’s imperative for us to realize that monsters exist and such dangers are possible, but to me “In Cold Blood” crosses the line with its shooting location. When I watched “Breakdown” (1997), for example, I thought it a valuable cautionary tale, but it was fictitious; whereas, “In Cold Blood” unfortunately happened. (And regarding violence in film, most people think it’s fun to be scared. Fine. So fictitious horror is one thing, but when we watch the “Saw” movies for their “entertainment value?!,” I think that’s sociologically problematic.)
Please feel free to post comments and discuss this question.
[ Note: I might mention, as a mere afterthought, that we’re probably more familiar with the more recent Philip Seymour Hoffman film, “Capote” (2005), about the journalist and author who followed the story and conducted extensive interviews with one of the killers. ]
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Australia (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
O Good
X OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / December 21, 2008
“Australia” is essentially two movies combined, and it hearkens back to the extravagant epics of the early ’60s, when Hollywood was overextending itself to compete with television: e.g., “Cleopatra” (1963).
With a 165-minute run time, “Australia’s” first story involves an uppity, English widow (Nicole Kidman) who commissions an Aussie cowboy (Hugh Jackman) to lead a cattle drive in hopes of eclipsing a local monopolist who was destroying her late husband’s business.
Few films feature such large-scale cattle drives (which are the western equivalent of road movies), but “Australia” is no “Lonesome Dove” (1989) — the best cattle drive movie and one of the great westerns.
The latter half of “Australia” strains for a dramatic attempt to reassemble the couple’s makeshift family amidst the turbulent backdrop of World War II.
“Australia” begins with silly comedy that’s not as funny as “Crocodile Dundee” (1986), breaks into an adventure that’s inferior to “Raiders of the Lost Ark” (1981), falls short of accomplishing the visual sweep of “Lonesome Dove,” and wraps up with wartime melodrama comparable to “Pearl Harbor” (2001). Yet “Australia” wishes to evoke all of the above.
Yes, the movie is somewhat entertaining, but aside from a couple of parables on racism, broad spectacle is the extent of “Australia’s” ambition: In planning this film, I picture a number of studio execs sitting around a table, compiling all the elements that would delight audiences. Their primary consideration: have Kidman and Jackman kiss as many times as possible.
Directed by Baz Luhrmann
Nicole Kidman / Hugh Jackman / Brandon Walters
Adventure / Drama 165 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for some violence, a scene of sensuality, and brief strong language)
U.S. Release Date: November 26, 2008
Copyright 2008: 329
O Excellent
O Good
X OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / December 21, 2008
“Australia” is essentially two movies combined, and it hearkens back to the extravagant epics of the early ’60s, when Hollywood was overextending itself to compete with television: e.g., “Cleopatra” (1963).
With a 165-minute run time, “Australia’s” first story involves an uppity, English widow (Nicole Kidman) who commissions an Aussie cowboy (Hugh Jackman) to lead a cattle drive in hopes of eclipsing a local monopolist who was destroying her late husband’s business.
Few films feature such large-scale cattle drives (which are the western equivalent of road movies), but “Australia” is no “Lonesome Dove” (1989) — the best cattle drive movie and one of the great westerns.
The latter half of “Australia” strains for a dramatic attempt to reassemble the couple’s makeshift family amidst the turbulent backdrop of World War II.
“Australia” begins with silly comedy that’s not as funny as “Crocodile Dundee” (1986), breaks into an adventure that’s inferior to “Raiders of the Lost Ark” (1981), falls short of accomplishing the visual sweep of “Lonesome Dove,” and wraps up with wartime melodrama comparable to “Pearl Harbor” (2001). Yet “Australia” wishes to evoke all of the above.
Yes, the movie is somewhat entertaining, but aside from a couple of parables on racism, broad spectacle is the extent of “Australia’s” ambition: In planning this film, I picture a number of studio execs sitting around a table, compiling all the elements that would delight audiences. Their primary consideration: have Kidman and Jackman kiss as many times as possible.
Directed by Baz Luhrmann
Nicole Kidman / Hugh Jackman / Brandon Walters
Adventure / Drama 165 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for some violence, a scene of sensuality, and brief strong language)
U.S. Release Date: November 26, 2008
Copyright 2008: 329
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Twilight (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
X Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / November 30, 2008
My friend Merinda Pearce said it best when she explained, “Even though ‘Twilight’ is a love story about teenage vampires, it’s a lot better than it sounds.” Despite my initial skepticism, Merinda was correct. “Twilight” is adapted from Stephenie Meyer’s book of the same name, an addictive series that has seduced many female readers (including my wife).
Though I haven’t read the book, the movie is intriguing — without a doubt — and the film’s success (and presumably the book’s) lies in its ability to make us increasingly anxious about what will happen next. We’ve all heard numerous vampire stories, which makes “Twilight’s” fresh appeal somewhat surprising.
While her mother and step-father travel to Florida for spring training, 17-year-old “Bella” Swan (Kristen Stewart), of Phoenix, moves to the tiny town of Forks, Washington (population 3,120) to live for a time with her father, Charlie Swan (the uncannily likable Billy Burke), who serves as Forks’ chief of police.
At Bella’s new high school, she encounters the mysterious, pale-faced Cullen kids, who turn out to be vampires, unbeknownst somehow to everyone else in the community. A mutual and eventually romantic intrigue befalls Bella and one of the Cullens named Edward (Robert Pattinson). But when a blood-sucking vampire and a human fall in love, things become dangerously complicated.
And the precarious circumstances of the unlikely couple’s relationship comprise the bulk of the film. Edward hungers for Bella’s blood, but he is well aware of the magnitude of such a dating faux pas. Edward’s family also finds his new girlfriend … tempting. Then there are other local vampires who aren’t so well mannered.
The best aspect to “Twilight” is its ability to make us as curious as Bella is about Edward’s vampirism. A remarkable incident occurs that initially tips Bella off that Edward is very different from the boys down in Arizona. But at the risk of evoking the wrath of die-hard “Twilight” fans, I was disappointed by the way the movie breaks its own spell when we’re shown poorly depicted demonstrations of vampiric power.
Unfortunately, “Twilight’s” portrayal of a vampire’s physical abilities (which is precisely when we need Hollywood’s illusory magic the most) is ridiculously unconvincing. Watching Edward leap about, scaling trees is comparable to a high school stage production of “Peter Pan.” I kept looking for the wire.
The worst aspect to “Twilight” is its performances. Perhaps the actors are not the ones to blame. I have read excerpts of dialogue from Meyer’s book, and at times, the cast may have had little to work with. But I suspect the real culprit is director Catherine Hardwicke, who also directed “The Nativity Story” (2006), “Lords of Dogtown” (2005) and “Thirteen” (2003).
For instance, during Bella’s first few encounters with Edward, poor Robert Pattinson’s performance is laugh-out-loud ludicrous — again, something I blame on Hardwicke’s instruction (or lack thereof). I’m sure the book describes a similar scene, but Edward just keeps staring at Bella — “real hard.” Honestly, I was worried the kid was going to pull something from straining so much. … And incidentally, shooting a person’s movements at a slower speed so they’ll playback in fast-forward, merely looks like fast-forward, not super-human speed.
Otherwise, the film’s casting works. The Cullen vampires are beautiful people, as the book prescribes. Kristen Stewart, who is somewhat reminiscent of the “Gilmore Girls’” Alexis Bledel, makes a fine Bella. Pattinson’s Edward is a faint mix between Jason Priestley and New Age pianist Paul Cardall — especially during his piano scene. And Cam Gigandet’s (“Never Back Down”) James is genuinely unsettling.
Vampire movies have been around a long time; the German film, “Nosferatu” (1922), is the earliest one I was aware of, but according to a vampire history Web site, a British film called “The Secrets of House No. 5” (1912) was the first one. (Tod Browning and Bela Lugosi’s “Dracula” didn’t come out until 1931.)
In any case, vampires have been in the cinema for decades, and their attributes have been fairly consistent, until recently. The overlooked “Cronos” (1993) throws a different spin on vampirism, for example. And “Twilight” is quite liberal with its vampiric “rules” and limitations. But much like zombies, who have become frighteningly fast in recent years, I guess vampires have to evolve, too.
Directed by Catherine Hardwicke
Kristen Stewart / Robert Pattinson / Billy Burke
Romance / Thriller 122 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for some violence and a scene of sensuality)
U.S. Release Date: November 21, 2008
Copyright 2008: 327
O Excellent
X Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / November 30, 2008
My friend Merinda Pearce said it best when she explained, “Even though ‘Twilight’ is a love story about teenage vampires, it’s a lot better than it sounds.” Despite my initial skepticism, Merinda was correct. “Twilight” is adapted from Stephenie Meyer’s book of the same name, an addictive series that has seduced many female readers (including my wife).
Though I haven’t read the book, the movie is intriguing — without a doubt — and the film’s success (and presumably the book’s) lies in its ability to make us increasingly anxious about what will happen next. We’ve all heard numerous vampire stories, which makes “Twilight’s” fresh appeal somewhat surprising.
While her mother and step-father travel to Florida for spring training, 17-year-old “Bella” Swan (Kristen Stewart), of Phoenix, moves to the tiny town of Forks, Washington (population 3,120) to live for a time with her father, Charlie Swan (the uncannily likable Billy Burke), who serves as Forks’ chief of police.
At Bella’s new high school, she encounters the mysterious, pale-faced Cullen kids, who turn out to be vampires, unbeknownst somehow to everyone else in the community. A mutual and eventually romantic intrigue befalls Bella and one of the Cullens named Edward (Robert Pattinson). But when a blood-sucking vampire and a human fall in love, things become dangerously complicated.
And the precarious circumstances of the unlikely couple’s relationship comprise the bulk of the film. Edward hungers for Bella’s blood, but he is well aware of the magnitude of such a dating faux pas. Edward’s family also finds his new girlfriend … tempting. Then there are other local vampires who aren’t so well mannered.
The best aspect to “Twilight” is its ability to make us as curious as Bella is about Edward’s vampirism. A remarkable incident occurs that initially tips Bella off that Edward is very different from the boys down in Arizona. But at the risk of evoking the wrath of die-hard “Twilight” fans, I was disappointed by the way the movie breaks its own spell when we’re shown poorly depicted demonstrations of vampiric power.
Unfortunately, “Twilight’s” portrayal of a vampire’s physical abilities (which is precisely when we need Hollywood’s illusory magic the most) is ridiculously unconvincing. Watching Edward leap about, scaling trees is comparable to a high school stage production of “Peter Pan.” I kept looking for the wire.
The worst aspect to “Twilight” is its performances. Perhaps the actors are not the ones to blame. I have read excerpts of dialogue from Meyer’s book, and at times, the cast may have had little to work with. But I suspect the real culprit is director Catherine Hardwicke, who also directed “The Nativity Story” (2006), “Lords of Dogtown” (2005) and “Thirteen” (2003).
For instance, during Bella’s first few encounters with Edward, poor Robert Pattinson’s performance is laugh-out-loud ludicrous — again, something I blame on Hardwicke’s instruction (or lack thereof). I’m sure the book describes a similar scene, but Edward just keeps staring at Bella — “real hard.” Honestly, I was worried the kid was going to pull something from straining so much. … And incidentally, shooting a person’s movements at a slower speed so they’ll playback in fast-forward, merely looks like fast-forward, not super-human speed.
Otherwise, the film’s casting works. The Cullen vampires are beautiful people, as the book prescribes. Kristen Stewart, who is somewhat reminiscent of the “Gilmore Girls’” Alexis Bledel, makes a fine Bella. Pattinson’s Edward is a faint mix between Jason Priestley and New Age pianist Paul Cardall — especially during his piano scene. And Cam Gigandet’s (“Never Back Down”) James is genuinely unsettling.
Vampire movies have been around a long time; the German film, “Nosferatu” (1922), is the earliest one I was aware of, but according to a vampire history Web site, a British film called “The Secrets of House No. 5” (1912) was the first one. (Tod Browning and Bela Lugosi’s “Dracula” didn’t come out until 1931.)
In any case, vampires have been in the cinema for decades, and their attributes have been fairly consistent, until recently. The overlooked “Cronos” (1993) throws a different spin on vampirism, for example. And “Twilight” is quite liberal with its vampiric “rules” and limitations. But much like zombies, who have become frighteningly fast in recent years, I guess vampires have to evolve, too.
Directed by Catherine Hardwicke
Kristen Stewart / Robert Pattinson / Billy Burke
Romance / Thriller 122 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for some violence and a scene of sensuality)
U.S. Release Date: November 21, 2008
Copyright 2008: 327
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Classifying a Movie as a "Rental"
by Jason Pyles
How often do I disagree with Roger Ebert? Not very often.
But in Ebert’s Oct. 23 Answer Man column, he said that recommending a movie as a rental (as opposed to seeing it in the theater) is terrible advice. Ebert said when someone tells you to “wait for the video,” that usually means don’t see it, but he thinks it should mean see the movie. After all, Ebert reasons, two hours of a person’s life are the same whether they’re spent in the theater or at home.
I submit that the deal-breaker between recommending a theater viewing and a video rental is whether a film is worth paying $8 to see, or is it only worth $3? (Yeah, yeah, I know, when considering matinee prices versus evening shows, exorbitant Blockbuster video prices, reasonable Netflix prices, etc., it all depends. Indeed, the cost of watching movies can vary wildly, but generally speaking, I hope we can agree that renting a movie is typically less expensive than seeing it in the theater, all things considered.)
Many people I know only make it out to the theater on special occasions, meaning, a few times a year. So if I encourage them to go to the theater and sit among texting, talking, seat-kicking strangers, instead of watching it in the comfort of their own homes, which also have surround sound and big-screen TVs, then it had better be worth it. My friend Andy Howell immediately comes to mind.
There are four reasons to see a film in the theater:
1.) The audio-visual experience and being part of that week’s big, pop-culture event
2.) For a date
3.) If it’s truly excellent or has big surprises that could be spoiled by overhearing too much buzz
4.) Simply because you like going to the theater
And if you’re a movie critic, 5.) Because you have to review the movie asap.
Of course, there are some films that should be seen in theaters first: The six “Star Wars” episodes are good examples, because of the spectacle, the event itself, and the monster speakers. (When I heard Jango Fett’s “depth charges” (or whatever those explosive devices were called) that he unleashed while being pursued by Obi-Wan in Episode II, it was unforgettable. In fact, I saw “Attack of the Clones” a second time in the theater, just to be enveloped again in those two overwhelming sounds.)
But there was no reason to catch “Dan in Real Life” in the theater (even though it’s a good movie), when it was cheaper and more comfortable to snuggle up with my sweetheart and watch it at home.
However, whenever going out to the theater is part of a date-night itinerary, then the theater’s a fine (albeit unsociable) choice.
I realize that box-office figures send production companies “messages” from the public, which means avoiding the theater could potentially hurt the making of future, similarly good films. But DVD rentals and sales also send a message.
And as a movie critic (or a friend giving an opinion about a movie to another friend), it seems like it’s my duty to be an advocate for my trusting inquirer’s “movie allowance.” After all, we only have so much money we can spend on seeing movies. In addition, I also realize that movie critics should also be advocates for great films, which brings me to my final point.
Besides experiencing an audio-visual extravaganza or seeing a fine flick on a date, the only other reason to invest in theater prices is because the movie is so good, you shouldn’t wait for it to hit video. A good example of this would be “The Sixth Sense,” which also has a big secret that you wouldn’t want to risk being spoiled for you in the passing months until it hits DVD.
And don’t forget the people who see movies at the theater just for the experience of going out to the movies. That’s OK, too, of course.
In my rating system — Masterpiece, Excellent, Good, OK, Mediocre, Avoid — oftentimes there’s a fine line between Excellent and Good, and Good and OK. But to be clear, when I say a film is Excellent, that means it’s worth seeing in the theater and will always be a good rental choice. But when I say a movie is a rental, that means it’s good — but not $8 good.
How often do I disagree with Roger Ebert? Not very often.
But in Ebert’s Oct. 23 Answer Man column, he said that recommending a movie as a rental (as opposed to seeing it in the theater) is terrible advice. Ebert said when someone tells you to “wait for the video,” that usually means don’t see it, but he thinks it should mean see the movie. After all, Ebert reasons, two hours of a person’s life are the same whether they’re spent in the theater or at home.
I submit that the deal-breaker between recommending a theater viewing and a video rental is whether a film is worth paying $8 to see, or is it only worth $3? (Yeah, yeah, I know, when considering matinee prices versus evening shows, exorbitant Blockbuster video prices, reasonable Netflix prices, etc., it all depends. Indeed, the cost of watching movies can vary wildly, but generally speaking, I hope we can agree that renting a movie is typically less expensive than seeing it in the theater, all things considered.)
Many people I know only make it out to the theater on special occasions, meaning, a few times a year. So if I encourage them to go to the theater and sit among texting, talking, seat-kicking strangers, instead of watching it in the comfort of their own homes, which also have surround sound and big-screen TVs, then it had better be worth it. My friend Andy Howell immediately comes to mind.
There are four reasons to see a film in the theater:
1.) The audio-visual experience and being part of that week’s big, pop-culture event
2.) For a date
3.) If it’s truly excellent or has big surprises that could be spoiled by overhearing too much buzz
4.) Simply because you like going to the theater
And if you’re a movie critic, 5.) Because you have to review the movie asap.
Of course, there are some films that should be seen in theaters first: The six “Star Wars” episodes are good examples, because of the spectacle, the event itself, and the monster speakers. (When I heard Jango Fett’s “depth charges” (or whatever those explosive devices were called) that he unleashed while being pursued by Obi-Wan in Episode II, it was unforgettable. In fact, I saw “Attack of the Clones” a second time in the theater, just to be enveloped again in those two overwhelming sounds.)
But there was no reason to catch “Dan in Real Life” in the theater (even though it’s a good movie), when it was cheaper and more comfortable to snuggle up with my sweetheart and watch it at home.
However, whenever going out to the theater is part of a date-night itinerary, then the theater’s a fine (albeit unsociable) choice.
I realize that box-office figures send production companies “messages” from the public, which means avoiding the theater could potentially hurt the making of future, similarly good films. But DVD rentals and sales also send a message.
And as a movie critic (or a friend giving an opinion about a movie to another friend), it seems like it’s my duty to be an advocate for my trusting inquirer’s “movie allowance.” After all, we only have so much money we can spend on seeing movies. In addition, I also realize that movie critics should also be advocates for great films, which brings me to my final point.
Besides experiencing an audio-visual extravaganza or seeing a fine flick on a date, the only other reason to invest in theater prices is because the movie is so good, you shouldn’t wait for it to hit video. A good example of this would be “The Sixth Sense,” which also has a big secret that you wouldn’t want to risk being spoiled for you in the passing months until it hits DVD.
And don’t forget the people who see movies at the theater just for the experience of going out to the movies. That’s OK, too, of course.
In my rating system — Masterpiece, Excellent, Good, OK, Mediocre, Avoid — oftentimes there’s a fine line between Excellent and Good, and Good and OK. But to be clear, when I say a film is Excellent, that means it’s worth seeing in the theater and will always be a good rental choice. But when I say a movie is a rental, that means it’s good — but not $8 good.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Righteous Kill (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
X Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / September 13, 2008
Speaking of unfair expectations (which I did in my previous review of “Burn After Reading”), “Righteous Kill” is up against everyone’s belief that a movie starring Robert De Niro and Al Pacino should be as good as any one of their individual movies but squared. Yes, I’m referring to exponents.
As for me, I’m just rating this movie by itself, on its own terms — regardless of its cast. I mean, it doesn’t matter one bit that “The Devil’s Own” (1997), for example, has Harrison Ford and Brad Pitt, ‘cause that movie still sucks. You can even ask Brad Pitt.
But “Righteous Kill” is better than it seems. What I mean is, while I sat watching it, wondering what they were thinking, I eventually realized that its screenwriters were cleverer than I suspected. I can comfortably recommend that you check out this movie. Much like “Burn After Reading,” the Coen brothers’ film that was released the same day, “Righteous Kill” isn’t as good as you hoped it would be. Still, if you’ve only got time to catch one movie this weekend, choose “Righteous Kill” over the Coens.
“The Godfather: Part II” (1974) featured these two actors as father and son, but they never shared the screen at the same time. Then in 1995, Michael Mann’s “Heat” brought them together again but as enemies. So I guess it was inevitable that De Niro and Pacino get cast together in a buddy movie, as cop buddies, no less.
No spoilers follow. What follows is the premise, which is gleaned from the trailers: De Niro and Pacino play New York City police detectives, “Turk” and “Rooster,” respectively, and they’re tough on their criminals. Awfully tough. In fact, much of the movie is narrated by De Niro’s character, who’s filmed on a poor-quality camera giving a confessional interview, of sorts. Apparently, Turk has resorted to vigilantism to ensure that justice is served, and he becomes a serial killer who also happens to be a cop. And that’s all I can say.
No matter what, though, people are still going to be displeased with this movie. After all, it combines two titans of modern cinema, two of the finest actors alive. Many people don’t realize that great actors don’t necessarily make a movie great, but great actors can often make a not-so-great movie tolerable — sometimes. (No such luck with “The Devil’s Own.”) But “Righteous Kill,” on the other hand, is entertaining and good enough to put in your Netflix queue.
Directed by Jon Avnet
Robert De Niro / Al Pacino / 50 Cent
Crime / Drama 101 min.
MPAA: R (for violence, pervasive language, some sexuality and brief drug use)
U.S. Release Date: September 12, 2008
Copyright 2008: 313
O Excellent
X Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / September 13, 2008
Speaking of unfair expectations (which I did in my previous review of “Burn After Reading”), “Righteous Kill” is up against everyone’s belief that a movie starring Robert De Niro and Al Pacino should be as good as any one of their individual movies but squared. Yes, I’m referring to exponents.
As for me, I’m just rating this movie by itself, on its own terms — regardless of its cast. I mean, it doesn’t matter one bit that “The Devil’s Own” (1997), for example, has Harrison Ford and Brad Pitt, ‘cause that movie still sucks. You can even ask Brad Pitt.
But “Righteous Kill” is better than it seems. What I mean is, while I sat watching it, wondering what they were thinking, I eventually realized that its screenwriters were cleverer than I suspected. I can comfortably recommend that you check out this movie. Much like “Burn After Reading,” the Coen brothers’ film that was released the same day, “Righteous Kill” isn’t as good as you hoped it would be. Still, if you’ve only got time to catch one movie this weekend, choose “Righteous Kill” over the Coens.
“The Godfather: Part II” (1974) featured these two actors as father and son, but they never shared the screen at the same time. Then in 1995, Michael Mann’s “Heat” brought them together again but as enemies. So I guess it was inevitable that De Niro and Pacino get cast together in a buddy movie, as cop buddies, no less.
No spoilers follow. What follows is the premise, which is gleaned from the trailers: De Niro and Pacino play New York City police detectives, “Turk” and “Rooster,” respectively, and they’re tough on their criminals. Awfully tough. In fact, much of the movie is narrated by De Niro’s character, who’s filmed on a poor-quality camera giving a confessional interview, of sorts. Apparently, Turk has resorted to vigilantism to ensure that justice is served, and he becomes a serial killer who also happens to be a cop. And that’s all I can say.
No matter what, though, people are still going to be displeased with this movie. After all, it combines two titans of modern cinema, two of the finest actors alive. Many people don’t realize that great actors don’t necessarily make a movie great, but great actors can often make a not-so-great movie tolerable — sometimes. (No such luck with “The Devil’s Own.”) But “Righteous Kill,” on the other hand, is entertaining and good enough to put in your Netflix queue.
Directed by Jon Avnet
Robert De Niro / Al Pacino / 50 Cent
Crime / Drama 101 min.
MPAA: R (for violence, pervasive language, some sexuality and brief drug use)
U.S. Release Date: September 12, 2008
Copyright 2008: 313
Friday, September 12, 2008
Burn After Reading (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
X Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / September 12, 2008
Let’s get one thing straight: I’m not a Coen brothers apologist, but let’s remember that their last movie received Best Picture — not to mention their ambiguous receipt of the Best Director Oscar — at the Academy Awards, so we’re all bound to have lofty expectations for this next film.
That’s what happened to M. Night Shyamalan after “The Sixth Sense” (1999), and he’s never been received the same way since, nor do I think his films have been viewed fairly because of it. Yes, I am a Shyamalan apologist.
And another thing about the Coens’ new flick: “Burn After Reading” is intended to be a comedy, a farcical parable, a scathing satire. So, let’s be wise and not hold it up against the likes of “No Country for Old Men.” We’d be talking about apples and oranges.
Not quite as silly as “O Brother, Where Art Thou?” (2000), “Burn After Reading” ridicules and rebukes the U.S. government and its intelligence program, namely the CIA, by highlighting the fallibility of human nature. The directors’ overarching statement seems clear: Crazy things will happen when we allow imperfect people to make life-or-death decisions that affect other imperfect people.
And we can tell that the Coens and their cast are being playful, mostly, except for a couple “No Country … ” or “Fargo-like” surprises that wake us up. But it’s not that the movie is boring, per se. “Burn After Reading” is expressly casual, however. Its characters meander around, making mischief as they mingle. The attention-getting action doesn’t kick in until about 60 minutes into the film, at which point, we only get about 36 minutes more of Coen-caliber filmmaking to enjoy.
“Burn After Reading” is a multi-character, multi-sub-plot entanglement whose general themes are primarily adultery and blackmail. Taking care not to spoil anything, I’ll vaguely sketch the main characters: Harry Pfarrer (George Clooney) is a U.S. marshal and womanizer whose scariest romantic association is with a human barracuda, Katie Cox (Tilda Swinton). Osborne Cox (John Malkovich) is a demoted CIA analyst whose disc of private information falls into the hands of Linda Litzke (Frances McDormand), and her dimwitted co-worker, Chad Feldheimer (Brad Pitt).
Basically, “Burn After Reading” is like trying to solve a Rubik’s Cube, you twist and turn colors on one side and it affects all the other sides. These characters affect one another in much the same way.
When it’s all said and done, “Burn After Reading” is a Coen brothers film, and therefore, should not be missed … but that’s not to say that renting it wouldn’t be sufficient.
Directed by Ethan Coen and Joel Coen
George Clooney / Brad Pitt / John Malkovich
Comedy / Crime 96 min.
MPAA: R (for pervasive language, some sexual content and violence)
U.S. Release Date: September 12, 2008
Copyright 2008: 312
O Excellent
X Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / September 12, 2008
Let’s get one thing straight: I’m not a Coen brothers apologist, but let’s remember that their last movie received Best Picture — not to mention their ambiguous receipt of the Best Director Oscar — at the Academy Awards, so we’re all bound to have lofty expectations for this next film.
That’s what happened to M. Night Shyamalan after “The Sixth Sense” (1999), and he’s never been received the same way since, nor do I think his films have been viewed fairly because of it. Yes, I am a Shyamalan apologist.
And another thing about the Coens’ new flick: “Burn After Reading” is intended to be a comedy, a farcical parable, a scathing satire. So, let’s be wise and not hold it up against the likes of “No Country for Old Men.” We’d be talking about apples and oranges.
Not quite as silly as “O Brother, Where Art Thou?” (2000), “Burn After Reading” ridicules and rebukes the U.S. government and its intelligence program, namely the CIA, by highlighting the fallibility of human nature. The directors’ overarching statement seems clear: Crazy things will happen when we allow imperfect people to make life-or-death decisions that affect other imperfect people.
And we can tell that the Coens and their cast are being playful, mostly, except for a couple “No Country … ” or “Fargo-like” surprises that wake us up. But it’s not that the movie is boring, per se. “Burn After Reading” is expressly casual, however. Its characters meander around, making mischief as they mingle. The attention-getting action doesn’t kick in until about 60 minutes into the film, at which point, we only get about 36 minutes more of Coen-caliber filmmaking to enjoy.
“Burn After Reading” is a multi-character, multi-sub-plot entanglement whose general themes are primarily adultery and blackmail. Taking care not to spoil anything, I’ll vaguely sketch the main characters: Harry Pfarrer (George Clooney) is a U.S. marshal and womanizer whose scariest romantic association is with a human barracuda, Katie Cox (Tilda Swinton). Osborne Cox (John Malkovich) is a demoted CIA analyst whose disc of private information falls into the hands of Linda Litzke (Frances McDormand), and her dimwitted co-worker, Chad Feldheimer (Brad Pitt).
Basically, “Burn After Reading” is like trying to solve a Rubik’s Cube, you twist and turn colors on one side and it affects all the other sides. These characters affect one another in much the same way.
When it’s all said and done, “Burn After Reading” is a Coen brothers film, and therefore, should not be missed … but that’s not to say that renting it wouldn’t be sufficient.
Directed by Ethan Coen and Joel Coen
George Clooney / Brad Pitt / John Malkovich
Comedy / Crime 96 min.
MPAA: R (for pervasive language, some sexual content and violence)
U.S. Release Date: September 12, 2008
Copyright 2008: 312
Monday, August 18, 2008
The X-Files: I Want to Believe (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
O Good
O OK
X Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / August 18, 2008
This movie is called “The X-Files: I Want to Believe,” but it should be called “I Want to Believe This Is the X-Files,” or better yet: “I Don’t Want to Believe This Is the X-Files.”
Rating the new “X-Files” sequel as mere mediocrity may seem harsh, but this movie utterly betrays the beloved television series that supposedly inspired it. Chris Carter should be a little ashamed of himself. The last time I heard of such an atrocity is when I learned that some animals eat their own babies. When I get this disappointed in a movie, sometimes I wish my mom had eaten me.
OK. Here’s the primary problem: Remember how the TV show was about the FBI’s “X-Files” (aka cases that were weird, unusual, paranormal, inexplicable, mysterious, seemingly supernatural, etc.)? Well, the only X-Files-ish element to this movie is that one guy is kind of psychic. Maybe. That’s it!
Otherwise, “I Want to Believe” is nothing more than a second-rate, police procedural, criminal investigation, murder-mystery thriller. This could have been a made-for-television Saturday afternoon TBS movie.
We pick up with our favorite FBI agents, Dana Scully (Gillian Anderson) and Fox Mulder (David Duchovny). But obviously time has passed because they’ve gone their separate ways; I’m being general intentionally: Readers have varying spoiler sensitivity when it comes to plot summaries. But I can say this much, the point A that we left off from when we last saw these two characters is definitely not a straight line to the point B that we pick up at again in this movie. Much has happened, but Carter never bothers to fill us in on it.
In short, in Somerset, W.Va., people start going missing and an occasional severed body part turns up here and there, thanks to a psychic-priest-pedophile (Billy Connolly), who assists the authorities in finding said body parts. Scully and Mulder investigate. We get a needless subplot about a sick kid. The main plot creeps along slowly but not creepily enough. It almost starts getting interesting — but no. The end. Thanks for everything, Chris.
The first feature-length motion picture called “The X-Files” was released in 1998. It wasn’t too bad, but it was also a kind of a let-down. It went downhill quickly after the initial bomb-in-the-vending-machine scene. That film was directed by Rob Bowman. “X-Files” fans everywhere awaited the series’ feature-length redemption. With this new movie, we got Chris Carter as the director, which was a hopeful sign considering he was the mastermind behind the successful series. Nope. Not this time, either.
Supposedly, this new one, it seemed, was very hush-hush. Remember? You hardly heard anything about it until a week before its release. … Now we know why. I can’t believe we waited 10 years for this.
Directed by Chris Carter
David Duchovny / Gillian Anderson / Billy Connolly
Mystery / Thriller 104 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for violent and disturbing content and thematic material)
U.S. Release Date: July 25, 2008
Copyright 2008: 306
O Excellent
O Good
O OK
X Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / August 18, 2008
This movie is called “The X-Files: I Want to Believe,” but it should be called “I Want to Believe This Is the X-Files,” or better yet: “I Don’t Want to Believe This Is the X-Files.”
Rating the new “X-Files” sequel as mere mediocrity may seem harsh, but this movie utterly betrays the beloved television series that supposedly inspired it. Chris Carter should be a little ashamed of himself. The last time I heard of such an atrocity is when I learned that some animals eat their own babies. When I get this disappointed in a movie, sometimes I wish my mom had eaten me.
OK. Here’s the primary problem: Remember how the TV show was about the FBI’s “X-Files” (aka cases that were weird, unusual, paranormal, inexplicable, mysterious, seemingly supernatural, etc.)? Well, the only X-Files-ish element to this movie is that one guy is kind of psychic. Maybe. That’s it!
Otherwise, “I Want to Believe” is nothing more than a second-rate, police procedural, criminal investigation, murder-mystery thriller. This could have been a made-for-television Saturday afternoon TBS movie.
We pick up with our favorite FBI agents, Dana Scully (Gillian Anderson) and Fox Mulder (David Duchovny). But obviously time has passed because they’ve gone their separate ways; I’m being general intentionally: Readers have varying spoiler sensitivity when it comes to plot summaries. But I can say this much, the point A that we left off from when we last saw these two characters is definitely not a straight line to the point B that we pick up at again in this movie. Much has happened, but Carter never bothers to fill us in on it.
In short, in Somerset, W.Va., people start going missing and an occasional severed body part turns up here and there, thanks to a psychic-priest-pedophile (Billy Connolly), who assists the authorities in finding said body parts. Scully and Mulder investigate. We get a needless subplot about a sick kid. The main plot creeps along slowly but not creepily enough. It almost starts getting interesting — but no. The end. Thanks for everything, Chris.
The first feature-length motion picture called “The X-Files” was released in 1998. It wasn’t too bad, but it was also a kind of a let-down. It went downhill quickly after the initial bomb-in-the-vending-machine scene. That film was directed by Rob Bowman. “X-Files” fans everywhere awaited the series’ feature-length redemption. With this new movie, we got Chris Carter as the director, which was a hopeful sign considering he was the mastermind behind the successful series. Nope. Not this time, either.
Supposedly, this new one, it seemed, was very hush-hush. Remember? You hardly heard anything about it until a week before its release. … Now we know why. I can’t believe we waited 10 years for this.
Directed by Chris Carter
David Duchovny / Gillian Anderson / Billy Connolly
Mystery / Thriller 104 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for violent and disturbing content and thematic material)
U.S. Release Date: July 25, 2008
Copyright 2008: 306
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Tropic Thunder (2008)
O Masterpiece
X Excellent
O Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / August 17, 2008
Truly funny comedies seem to be an endangered species, which makes “Tropic Thunder” a rare animal. Much of this movie is hilarious — and vulgar — and hilarious. And I highly recommend it to any non-conservative movie buff.
The cat, no doubt, is out of the bag that “Tropic Thunder” is a fierce satire which mercilessly ridicules big-budget Hollywood and its bottom-line titans.
Ben Stiller, Robert Downey Jr., Jack Black, Tom Cruise, Matthew McConaughey, and Nick Nolte star in this movie about the making of a high-dollar, Vietnam War movie called “Tropic Thunder.”
Now, it’s interesting that the movie these characters are making is called “Tropic Thunder,” while the actual movie we’re watching also has the same title but is in fact a different movie. This would be similar to “Burden of Dreams” (1982) being named “Fitzcarraldo” (1982).
The fictitious studio has spared no expense in special effects, location shooting and big-name actors. Action movie star Tugg Speedman (Ben Stiller) is cast as Foley, the platoon leader. Rick Peck (Matthew McConaughey) is Speedman’s agent, and the most dedicated agent since Jerry Maguire.
And award-winning method actor Kirk Lazarus (Robert Downey Jr.) is an Aussie who has undergone a controversial pigmentation surgery to play an African-American soldier.
Jeff Portnoy (Jack Black) is a heroin addict who’s typically a comedic actor but trying to expand his résumé. Four Leaf (Nick Nolte) is the Vietnam vet who wrote “Tropic Thunder,” the book that the fictitious movie is adapted from. And last but not least, Tom Cruise plays the aptly named Les Grossman, the ruthless, despicable movie mogul whose production company is financing “Tropic Thunder.”
Right away the filming of the movie within the movie is problematic. It is costing far more than the studio execs planned, and the prima donna actors’ egos keep bumping heads. Following the advice of the war-vet-gone-author, first-time director Damien Cockburn (Steve Coogan) deploys his actors deep into the jungle, where they unwittingly encounter real hostiles that they suppose are also actors, much like we saw in “Three Amigos!” (1986).
“Tropic Thunder” gets so many things right: It begins with spoof trailers from the actors’ previous movies, all of which are fictitious, of course. These are great parodies, and are somehow reminiscent of the trailers that played between the “Grindhouse” (2007) double feature. One of these trailers takes aim at Eddie Murphy, and it’s a well-deserved attack.
This could almost be an action movie, too, which is another thing “Tropic Thunder” does right. Unlike Adam Sandler’s “You Don’t Mess With the Zohan” from earlier this year, “Tropic Thunder” is a comedy that also has some fairly entertaining action scenes. Once and a while they go over the top, particularly in the violence department, but it works for the intended comedic effect. “Zohan’s” attempts fail.
As noted above, “Tropic Thunder” is quite vulgar and will surely be offensive to many people: I winced while thinking how war veterans might react to this movie’s parody of “Platoon” (1986), and war in general. And I’ve already read scathing reactions to this movie’s ongoing jokes about mental retardation. Both communities probably should be offended.
Tom Cruise’s brave, surprise performance is a delight. And though Jack Black is usually quite humorous, he is mostly useless in this movie. But it is Robert Downey Jr. who truly steals the show. I suspect that his method-actor character pokes fun at Daniel Day-Lewis and those like him.
I know it’s extremely rare — and nearly unheard of — for comedic actors to be nominated for Academy Awards, but Downey Jr. should receive such a nod. He doesn’t have to win, but he should be nominated. I’m not holding my breath, and neither is Downey Jr.
His character dominates the screen with lines like, “I don’t read the script; the script reads me.” His makeup is exceptional, too. He truly looks like a black man. You know, in the pioneering days of motion pictures, white actors played African-Americans with black face makeup, a practice that has since stirred frequent resentment. So, Downey Jr.’s character shockingly returns to that distasteful yesteryear, incorporating many stereotypes. Whether it’s offensive or not, the role is well done.
At one point Downey Jr. alternates between the African-American soldier and the Australian-born actor. The concentration it must have taken to pull that off — and still be funny — is remarkable.
Remember his line from the trailer: “I’m the dude that’s playin’ the dude disguised as another dude”? That scene is brilliant because it has a double meaning. Watch for it.
All in all, “Tropic Thunder” is an excellent, laugh-out-loud comedy. It’s the kind of movie that’s best to watch by yourself, so you won’t feel ashamed of your reaction.
Directed by Ben Stiller
Robert Downey Jr. / Ben Stiller / Jack Black
Comedy / Action 107 min.
MPAA: R (for pervasive language including sexual references, violent content and drug material)
U.S. Release Date: August 13, 2008
Copyright 2008: 310
X Excellent
O Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / August 17, 2008
Truly funny comedies seem to be an endangered species, which makes “Tropic Thunder” a rare animal. Much of this movie is hilarious — and vulgar — and hilarious. And I highly recommend it to any non-conservative movie buff.
The cat, no doubt, is out of the bag that “Tropic Thunder” is a fierce satire which mercilessly ridicules big-budget Hollywood and its bottom-line titans.
Ben Stiller, Robert Downey Jr., Jack Black, Tom Cruise, Matthew McConaughey, and Nick Nolte star in this movie about the making of a high-dollar, Vietnam War movie called “Tropic Thunder.”
Now, it’s interesting that the movie these characters are making is called “Tropic Thunder,” while the actual movie we’re watching also has the same title but is in fact a different movie. This would be similar to “Burden of Dreams” (1982) being named “Fitzcarraldo” (1982).
The fictitious studio has spared no expense in special effects, location shooting and big-name actors. Action movie star Tugg Speedman (Ben Stiller) is cast as Foley, the platoon leader. Rick Peck (Matthew McConaughey) is Speedman’s agent, and the most dedicated agent since Jerry Maguire.
And award-winning method actor Kirk Lazarus (Robert Downey Jr.) is an Aussie who has undergone a controversial pigmentation surgery to play an African-American soldier.
Jeff Portnoy (Jack Black) is a heroin addict who’s typically a comedic actor but trying to expand his résumé. Four Leaf (Nick Nolte) is the Vietnam vet who wrote “Tropic Thunder,” the book that the fictitious movie is adapted from. And last but not least, Tom Cruise plays the aptly named Les Grossman, the ruthless, despicable movie mogul whose production company is financing “Tropic Thunder.”
Right away the filming of the movie within the movie is problematic. It is costing far more than the studio execs planned, and the prima donna actors’ egos keep bumping heads. Following the advice of the war-vet-gone-author, first-time director Damien Cockburn (Steve Coogan) deploys his actors deep into the jungle, where they unwittingly encounter real hostiles that they suppose are also actors, much like we saw in “Three Amigos!” (1986).
“Tropic Thunder” gets so many things right: It begins with spoof trailers from the actors’ previous movies, all of which are fictitious, of course. These are great parodies, and are somehow reminiscent of the trailers that played between the “Grindhouse” (2007) double feature. One of these trailers takes aim at Eddie Murphy, and it’s a well-deserved attack.
This could almost be an action movie, too, which is another thing “Tropic Thunder” does right. Unlike Adam Sandler’s “You Don’t Mess With the Zohan” from earlier this year, “Tropic Thunder” is a comedy that also has some fairly entertaining action scenes. Once and a while they go over the top, particularly in the violence department, but it works for the intended comedic effect. “Zohan’s” attempts fail.
As noted above, “Tropic Thunder” is quite vulgar and will surely be offensive to many people: I winced while thinking how war veterans might react to this movie’s parody of “Platoon” (1986), and war in general. And I’ve already read scathing reactions to this movie’s ongoing jokes about mental retardation. Both communities probably should be offended.
Tom Cruise’s brave, surprise performance is a delight. And though Jack Black is usually quite humorous, he is mostly useless in this movie. But it is Robert Downey Jr. who truly steals the show. I suspect that his method-actor character pokes fun at Daniel Day-Lewis and those like him.
I know it’s extremely rare — and nearly unheard of — for comedic actors to be nominated for Academy Awards, but Downey Jr. should receive such a nod. He doesn’t have to win, but he should be nominated. I’m not holding my breath, and neither is Downey Jr.
His character dominates the screen with lines like, “I don’t read the script; the script reads me.” His makeup is exceptional, too. He truly looks like a black man. You know, in the pioneering days of motion pictures, white actors played African-Americans with black face makeup, a practice that has since stirred frequent resentment. So, Downey Jr.’s character shockingly returns to that distasteful yesteryear, incorporating many stereotypes. Whether it’s offensive or not, the role is well done.
At one point Downey Jr. alternates between the African-American soldier and the Australian-born actor. The concentration it must have taken to pull that off — and still be funny — is remarkable.
Remember his line from the trailer: “I’m the dude that’s playin’ the dude disguised as another dude”? That scene is brilliant because it has a double meaning. Watch for it.
All in all, “Tropic Thunder” is an excellent, laugh-out-loud comedy. It’s the kind of movie that’s best to watch by yourself, so you won’t feel ashamed of your reaction.
Directed by Ben Stiller
Robert Downey Jr. / Ben Stiller / Jack Black
Comedy / Action 107 min.
MPAA: R (for pervasive language including sexual references, violent content and drug material)
U.S. Release Date: August 13, 2008
Copyright 2008: 310
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
The Dark Knight (2008)
O Masterpiece
X Excellent
O Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / July 22, 2008
“The Dark Knight” is the towering masterpiece of the superhero movie genre. Nothing else even comes close (except maybe “Batman Begins,” but it’s still a distant second).
In fact, I practice significant self-restraint to avoid ranking “The Dark Knight” as a masterpiece across the board, meaning, not just among superhero movies but among all movies. I can’t do that. I’ll explain later. But I do feel comfortable writing this: “The Dark Knight” is the best film of 2008 … thus far.
Yes, Heath Ledger’s Joker performance makes the movie. But one should not overlook the brilliance that is director Christopher Nolan. Let’s remember his filmography: “The Dark Knight,” “The Prestige” (2006), “Batman Begins (2005), “Insomnia” (2002) and “Memento” (2000). Oh, he also was a writer for all those great films, too, except “Insomnia.”
“The Dark Knight” isn’t perfect, but it’s close. I’m sentimental, sure, but not when it comes to dead actors. I thought Ledger’s untimely death back in January was regrettable, but I felt the same briefly passing pensiveness that I’d feel if any 28-year-old died.
Unfortunately, if Ledger receives an Academy Award next January for best supporting actor, I fear many people will shrug it off as a “consolation prize” for dying. But Ledger is deserving of a nomination for the merits of his performance alone. I can’t remember the last time I was so captivated by an actor. I couldn’t take my eyes off him.
For all you naysayers, if any exist, compare Ledger’s performance as Ennis Del Mar in “Brokeback Mountain” (2005) with this Joker performance. His range is undeniable; the distance between those two characters is so remarkably pronounced, it seems clear to me that Ledger was one of the great actors of his generation. And while it is true that artists are always better appreciated after they’re gone, I’m not just writing this because he’s dead.
Reportedly, veteran actor Michael Caine thought Ledger’s Joker performance was quite unsettling, even frightening. I’ve heard this a couple places, and I believe it’s true: To prepare for the role, Ledger stayed in a hotel room for a month to “become” the Joker. He worked on the character’s psychology and his voice. He supposedly kept a diary, according to the IMDb trivia, of the Joker’s thoughts and feelings to guide himself during his performances. And Ledger was also given various comic books featuring the Joker, so he could become acquainted with the character.
Not all the credit for this masterful character should be given to Ledger. It was brilliant (on somebody’s part) that he doesn’t have a perma-smile, but instead, scars that grimly suggest a smile. His makeup is “war paint,” used to scare people — not just a gimmick. At one point the Joker says he’s not crazy, which makes him scarier. (What if somebody were truly that vile and simultaneously completely sane? Uh oh.) Now that’s scary. And I love how he isn’t afraid of Batman (Christian Bale), nor is he intimidated; in fact, he greatly appreciates him. How do you battle a guy like that?
In short, Heath Ledger’s Joker is one of the best movie villains in the history of cinema (if not the best), ranking up there with the likes of Darth Vader, Hannibal Lecter and Norman Bates.
Currently on the Internet Movie Database, “The Dark Knight” is ranked No. 1 on its top 250 list. Impressive but temporary. That fickle list is always shifting. Even so, Rotten Tomatoes and its exclusive critics rank this movie 94 percent fresh (out of 100). So, the critics are impressed. The movie-going public is also pleased: “The Dark Knight” broke box-office records for the highest all-time gross for opening weekend, which was $155,340,000. It also broke the opening day record with $66.4 million.
Despite my desire to sit in the theater again for a back-to-back showing, the following reasons were my only grounds for not rating “The Dark Knight” as a bona fide masterpiece: The movie is too long, kinda like this review. Yes, I just wrote about how I was willing to sit through it again, but masterpieces (in my estimation) need to be re-watchable, over and over again. Few people will sit through an overly lengthy movie countless times: Case in point, how many times have you watched your “Lord of the Rings” trilogy?
(There is, however, one exception to this rule: The “Up” documentary series, which is up to its seventh film, is a masterpiece, without question, no matter how seldom one watches it.)
The other problems with “The Dark Knight” are that its labyrinthine plot and its often unintelligible action sequences are a little hard to follow. I love action sequences that are clearly able to be seen and comprehended. And the story is impressive; it’s just not a movie that is completely understandable the first time around.
Another problem is its “surprise” (which isn’t really a surprise for most people) super villain who develops later in the movie. I know the movie was just following the character, but he’s simply a weak character. I will credit this movie for not making us wait until the next film to encounter the wrath of that villain.
And why do most superhero movie franchises always hit that whiny point where the superhero cries about the world no longer needing him, lamenting that the world would be better off without him? That is so tiresome, and I was disappointed to see it in a movie of this caliber. But at least we didn’t have to have an origin story for the Joker, a mystery that made him creepier.
Due to the length of this review, I won’t cite examples, but I found it fascinating how many parallels there were (perhaps homages) to the 1989 “Batman” movie.
And now that I’ve reached the end of this review, I’ll close with a nutshell plot summary: Gotham City’s “white knight,” Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) is cleaning up the city. He’s even putting the squeeze on the mafia. Joker (Ledger) comes out of the blue to rally the criminals and to kill their primary obstacle: Batman (Christian Bale).
“The Dark Knight” is a must-see — in the theater. Go right now and please, take me with you.
Directed by Christopher Nolan
Christian Bale / Heath Ledger / Aaron Eckhart
Action / Crime 152 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for intense sequences of violence and some menace)
U.S. Release Date: July 18, 2008
Copyright 2008: 305
Addendum: I have received some interesting criticism for this review of "The Dark Knight," even though I gave it a great review. Some people didn't think my review was great enough. Read the exchange at www.ConsideringTheCinema.blogspot.com.
X Excellent
O Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / July 22, 2008
“The Dark Knight” is the towering masterpiece of the superhero movie genre. Nothing else even comes close (except maybe “Batman Begins,” but it’s still a distant second).
In fact, I practice significant self-restraint to avoid ranking “The Dark Knight” as a masterpiece across the board, meaning, not just among superhero movies but among all movies. I can’t do that. I’ll explain later. But I do feel comfortable writing this: “The Dark Knight” is the best film of 2008 … thus far.
Yes, Heath Ledger’s Joker performance makes the movie. But one should not overlook the brilliance that is director Christopher Nolan. Let’s remember his filmography: “The Dark Knight,” “The Prestige” (2006), “Batman Begins (2005), “Insomnia” (2002) and “Memento” (2000). Oh, he also was a writer for all those great films, too, except “Insomnia.”
“The Dark Knight” isn’t perfect, but it’s close. I’m sentimental, sure, but not when it comes to dead actors. I thought Ledger’s untimely death back in January was regrettable, but I felt the same briefly passing pensiveness that I’d feel if any 28-year-old died.
Unfortunately, if Ledger receives an Academy Award next January for best supporting actor, I fear many people will shrug it off as a “consolation prize” for dying. But Ledger is deserving of a nomination for the merits of his performance alone. I can’t remember the last time I was so captivated by an actor. I couldn’t take my eyes off him.
For all you naysayers, if any exist, compare Ledger’s performance as Ennis Del Mar in “Brokeback Mountain” (2005) with this Joker performance. His range is undeniable; the distance between those two characters is so remarkably pronounced, it seems clear to me that Ledger was one of the great actors of his generation. And while it is true that artists are always better appreciated after they’re gone, I’m not just writing this because he’s dead.
Reportedly, veteran actor Michael Caine thought Ledger’s Joker performance was quite unsettling, even frightening. I’ve heard this a couple places, and I believe it’s true: To prepare for the role, Ledger stayed in a hotel room for a month to “become” the Joker. He worked on the character’s psychology and his voice. He supposedly kept a diary, according to the IMDb trivia, of the Joker’s thoughts and feelings to guide himself during his performances. And Ledger was also given various comic books featuring the Joker, so he could become acquainted with the character.
Not all the credit for this masterful character should be given to Ledger. It was brilliant (on somebody’s part) that he doesn’t have a perma-smile, but instead, scars that grimly suggest a smile. His makeup is “war paint,” used to scare people — not just a gimmick. At one point the Joker says he’s not crazy, which makes him scarier. (What if somebody were truly that vile and simultaneously completely sane? Uh oh.) Now that’s scary. And I love how he isn’t afraid of Batman (Christian Bale), nor is he intimidated; in fact, he greatly appreciates him. How do you battle a guy like that?
In short, Heath Ledger’s Joker is one of the best movie villains in the history of cinema (if not the best), ranking up there with the likes of Darth Vader, Hannibal Lecter and Norman Bates.
Currently on the Internet Movie Database, “The Dark Knight” is ranked No. 1 on its top 250 list. Impressive but temporary. That fickle list is always shifting. Even so, Rotten Tomatoes and its exclusive critics rank this movie 94 percent fresh (out of 100). So, the critics are impressed. The movie-going public is also pleased: “The Dark Knight” broke box-office records for the highest all-time gross for opening weekend, which was $155,340,000. It also broke the opening day record with $66.4 million.
Despite my desire to sit in the theater again for a back-to-back showing, the following reasons were my only grounds for not rating “The Dark Knight” as a bona fide masterpiece: The movie is too long, kinda like this review. Yes, I just wrote about how I was willing to sit through it again, but masterpieces (in my estimation) need to be re-watchable, over and over again. Few people will sit through an overly lengthy movie countless times: Case in point, how many times have you watched your “Lord of the Rings” trilogy?
(There is, however, one exception to this rule: The “Up” documentary series, which is up to its seventh film, is a masterpiece, without question, no matter how seldom one watches it.)
The other problems with “The Dark Knight” are that its labyrinthine plot and its often unintelligible action sequences are a little hard to follow. I love action sequences that are clearly able to be seen and comprehended. And the story is impressive; it’s just not a movie that is completely understandable the first time around.
Another problem is its “surprise” (which isn’t really a surprise for most people) super villain who develops later in the movie. I know the movie was just following the character, but he’s simply a weak character. I will credit this movie for not making us wait until the next film to encounter the wrath of that villain.
And why do most superhero movie franchises always hit that whiny point where the superhero cries about the world no longer needing him, lamenting that the world would be better off without him? That is so tiresome, and I was disappointed to see it in a movie of this caliber. But at least we didn’t have to have an origin story for the Joker, a mystery that made him creepier.
Due to the length of this review, I won’t cite examples, but I found it fascinating how many parallels there were (perhaps homages) to the 1989 “Batman” movie.
And now that I’ve reached the end of this review, I’ll close with a nutshell plot summary: Gotham City’s “white knight,” Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) is cleaning up the city. He’s even putting the squeeze on the mafia. Joker (Ledger) comes out of the blue to rally the criminals and to kill their primary obstacle: Batman (Christian Bale).
“The Dark Knight” is a must-see — in the theater. Go right now and please, take me with you.
Directed by Christopher Nolan
Christian Bale / Heath Ledger / Aaron Eckhart
Action / Crime 152 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for intense sequences of violence and some menace)
U.S. Release Date: July 18, 2008
Copyright 2008: 305
Addendum: I have received some interesting criticism for this review of "The Dark Knight," even though I gave it a great review. Some people didn't think my review was great enough. Read the exchange at www.ConsideringTheCinema.blogspot.com.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Attention Mr. Patrick Svensson
Dear Mr. Svensson,
If you are the same Patrick who has, on occasion, raised a critical voice toward the former College Times movie reviewing, and the same Patrick who leaves comments on my movie review blogs from time to time, please send me an e-mail at this address:
ConsideringTheCinema@gmail.com
I have an invitation that might interest you ...
Thank you.
Jason Pyles
To all others, thank you for checking this blog. I have recently moved across the country, from Utah back to West Virginia, and I've been getting settled. But soon I'll be posting one new release movie review each week, and writing a compilation of most of 2008's theatrical releases, including limited releases. The book will be finished on July 1, 2009. I plan to begin an annual movie yearbook tradition. This first book will be called "Considering the Cinema 2008."
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
The Happening (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
X Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 18, 2008
“The Happening” is a good movie because its writer, producer and director, M. Night Shyamalan, knows how to make an involving film. Here is the secret: When a movie makes us ask questions and wonder about who, what, when, where, why, or how, then it is intriguing. And the more intensely we are compelled to wonder, the better the film. “The Happening” makes us wonder a good bit, so it clocks in at “Good.”
Shyamalan sucks us into an opening scene set in Central Park, where two girls are sitting on a bench. One asks the other if the people off in the distance are clawing themselves. Then, quite unexpectedly, one of the girls does something horribly shocking to herself.
Since I am discussing a Shyamalan film, I will tread lightly with plot description. But basically, bizarre occurrences of gruesome, mass suicides are plaguing the Northeastern United States. The morbid phenomenon is inexplicable. The usual conspiracy theories are employed: biological terrorism, water contamination, nuclear contamination, a deadly airborne virus, and so forth.
Through these troubling times, we follow the experiences of Elliot Moore (Mark Wahlberg), a dedicated science teacher. We watch as he gathers his family and friends, flees and avoids the big cities, and watches the ominous, escalating news reports. This nerve-racking mystery continues through most of the movie, accentuated by chillingly graphic instances of suicidal grotesqueries.
The feeling that pervades “The Happening” reminded me of the uneasy feelings I had the day the terrorists attacks were unfolding on Sept. 11, 2001. I remember that morning how no one really knew — initially — the extent of the attack. As more planes were reported to slam into buildings, one could not help but become irrational and wonder if one’s house would be next. Indeed, United 93, the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania probably flew over my home at the time, according to the maps on TV, so I guess it could have been my house.
And though Sept. 11 wasn’t fun at all, “The Happening” is a good time. I thrill to watch movies that make me ask myself, ‘What would I possibly do if I were in that situation?’ In fact, I usually identify so closely with the characters, for that 90 minutes, I am in their predicament vicariously.
“The Happening” was pitched as the director’s first R-rated film. Oooo. But the R-rating comes solely from its violent images of suicide. I cannot recall any profanity (to speak of), nudity, sexuality, drug use, etc. Even so, the R-rating is appropriate.
In true Shyamalan fashion, there is an eventual revelation that more or less explains the creepy phenomenon. And the director loves to leave us clues along the way; perceptive audience members can glean much. But similar to some of his other movies’ anti-climactic revelations, such as “Unbreakable” (2000), Shyamalan’s “The Happening” yields a surprisingly quiet pay-off. Still, the noisy stir that leads to said pay-off makes the overall movie work.
It is particularly admirable how Shyamalan’s “villain,” for lack of a better term, is uncommonly benign … or so it would seem. But in addition to entertaining us with a tingly mystery, Shyamalan manages to deliver a message movie, too.
Directed by M. Night Shyamalan
Mark Wahlberg / Zooey Deschanel / John Leguizamo
Thriller / Mystery 91 min.
MPAA: R (for violent and disturbing images)
U.S. Release Date: June 13, 2008
Copyright 2008: 299
O Excellent
X Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 18, 2008
“The Happening” is a good movie because its writer, producer and director, M. Night Shyamalan, knows how to make an involving film. Here is the secret: When a movie makes us ask questions and wonder about who, what, when, where, why, or how, then it is intriguing. And the more intensely we are compelled to wonder, the better the film. “The Happening” makes us wonder a good bit, so it clocks in at “Good.”
Shyamalan sucks us into an opening scene set in Central Park, where two girls are sitting on a bench. One asks the other if the people off in the distance are clawing themselves. Then, quite unexpectedly, one of the girls does something horribly shocking to herself.
Since I am discussing a Shyamalan film, I will tread lightly with plot description. But basically, bizarre occurrences of gruesome, mass suicides are plaguing the Northeastern United States. The morbid phenomenon is inexplicable. The usual conspiracy theories are employed: biological terrorism, water contamination, nuclear contamination, a deadly airborne virus, and so forth.
Through these troubling times, we follow the experiences of Elliot Moore (Mark Wahlberg), a dedicated science teacher. We watch as he gathers his family and friends, flees and avoids the big cities, and watches the ominous, escalating news reports. This nerve-racking mystery continues through most of the movie, accentuated by chillingly graphic instances of suicidal grotesqueries.
The feeling that pervades “The Happening” reminded me of the uneasy feelings I had the day the terrorists attacks were unfolding on Sept. 11, 2001. I remember that morning how no one really knew — initially — the extent of the attack. As more planes were reported to slam into buildings, one could not help but become irrational and wonder if one’s house would be next. Indeed, United 93, the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania probably flew over my home at the time, according to the maps on TV, so I guess it could have been my house.
And though Sept. 11 wasn’t fun at all, “The Happening” is a good time. I thrill to watch movies that make me ask myself, ‘What would I possibly do if I were in that situation?’ In fact, I usually identify so closely with the characters, for that 90 minutes, I am in their predicament vicariously.
“The Happening” was pitched as the director’s first R-rated film. Oooo. But the R-rating comes solely from its violent images of suicide. I cannot recall any profanity (to speak of), nudity, sexuality, drug use, etc. Even so, the R-rating is appropriate.
In true Shyamalan fashion, there is an eventual revelation that more or less explains the creepy phenomenon. And the director loves to leave us clues along the way; perceptive audience members can glean much. But similar to some of his other movies’ anti-climactic revelations, such as “Unbreakable” (2000), Shyamalan’s “The Happening” yields a surprisingly quiet pay-off. Still, the noisy stir that leads to said pay-off makes the overall movie work.
It is particularly admirable how Shyamalan’s “villain,” for lack of a better term, is uncommonly benign … or so it would seem. But in addition to entertaining us with a tingly mystery, Shyamalan manages to deliver a message movie, too.
Directed by M. Night Shyamalan
Mark Wahlberg / Zooey Deschanel / John Leguizamo
Thriller / Mystery 91 min.
MPAA: R (for violent and disturbing images)
U.S. Release Date: June 13, 2008
Copyright 2008: 299
The Incredible Hulk (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
X Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 18, 2008
The first thing you probably want to know is if this new Hulk movie is better than Ang Lee’s “Hulk” from five years ago. Yes, it is. But I didn’t hate the 2003 version like most other people did; I was just disappointed. Lee made an arty superhero movie that investigated the hero’s feelings more than his powers. But with “The Incredible Hulk,” director Louis Leterrier and writer Zak Penn give us (mostly) what we wanted, which is carnage.
In 1996 I saw “Twister” with my best friend, Bill. After it was over he made an insightful comment. Bill said, “I think it’s funny how they [the filmmakers] knew we’d want to see a lot of big stuff thrown around.” Well, Leterrier and Penn also knew this odd desire of American moviegoers. We want to see the Hulk “toss a forklift like a softball,” not search his feelings.
Notably, “The Incredible Hulk” also successfully portrays Bruce Banner’s lonely, alienated lifestyle. He is correctly depicted as a wandering stranger, drifting from place to place, trying to keep his cool and his head down. Bruce Banner (Ed Norton) is pensive and tormented.
The next thing you’ll probably want to know, after reading these first three paragraphs, is why didn’t I rate this movie as “Excellent,” or a “Masterpiece”? Two words: computer-generated imagery. CGI has proven, beyond dispute, that it is possible to have too much of a good thing. This movie might have been Excellent, but the Hulk’s face looked too much like a cartoon, and it killed the movie’s chance at any semblance of realism.
Once again I’m forced to cite the example of King Kong. I don’t know about you, but while watching Peter Jackson’s remake, I was visually convinced that I was watching an actual giant gorilla — not a cartoon. Take, for example, the scene where Kong is frolicking upon the frozen pond with Ann, and he slides into the snow bank. Snow gets into his fur, so he shakes it off. Amazing. Absolutely incredible.
So, after seeing what can be done and what wasn’t done for “The Incredible Hulk,” its cartoony Hulk knocked it down to just “Good.” But hey, it was good enough, I suppose.
In “Hulk” (2003), Eric Bana played Bruce Banner, and he’s no slouch when it comes to acting. But casting Ed Norton for the Banner role in the new movie was brilliant. Ed Norton has remarkable range as an actor. He can be funny (“Keeping the Faith“), despicable (“The Italian Job”), troubling (“Fight Club”) and downright frightening (“Primal Fear”). In short, he can be anything he wants to be, apparently, except chums with Louis Leterrier.
What pleased me most about “The Incredible Hulk,” however, was the way it dispenses with the origin story altogether by presenting it to us in brief flashes at the beginning of the film. So, within about 45 seconds or so, we see what happened in the Hulk’s past, and we pick up later on in Banner’s saga when the movie begins. Bravo.
Banner is hiding out in Brazil and desperately trying to learn to control his anger. He has a wristband that monitors his heart rate. If he gets too worked up, he hulks out. Also, from time to time we are shown a useful counter that lets us know how long it’s been since the big green guy was provoked. As the movie begins, we’re told that there have been “158 days without incident.”
But the short-sighted Gen. Ross (William Hurt), who had hoped to make genetically enhanced super-soldiers, relentlessly tracks down Banner, again and again, because he was a remarkable fluke-of-a-success story for super-soliderdom. And because the Hulk is too powerful to be contained, the general experiments with enhancing another dangerous solider, Emil Blonsky (Tim Roth), whose love for the strongman juice makes Barry Bonds look like Mr. Peanut. Of course, Blonsky’s insatiable lust for power and strength turns him into a monster, giving us the big clash-of-the-titans duel for a grand finale.
As far as big-budget popcorn movies go, “The Incredible Hulk” is worth renting, at the very least. But I’m a little worried about something: If Hollywood is shameless enough to try to make something like “Speed Racer” into a feature film, then I don’t think we’re safe from the likes of a “She-Hulk” movie. Please, no.
Directed by Louis Leterrier
Ed Norton / Liv Tyler / Tim Roth
Action / Sci-Fi 114 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for sequences of intense action violence, some frightening sci-fi images, and brief suggestive content)
U.S. Release Date: June 13, 2008
Copyright 2008: 300
O Excellent
X Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 18, 2008
The first thing you probably want to know is if this new Hulk movie is better than Ang Lee’s “Hulk” from five years ago. Yes, it is. But I didn’t hate the 2003 version like most other people did; I was just disappointed. Lee made an arty superhero movie that investigated the hero’s feelings more than his powers. But with “The Incredible Hulk,” director Louis Leterrier and writer Zak Penn give us (mostly) what we wanted, which is carnage.
In 1996 I saw “Twister” with my best friend, Bill. After it was over he made an insightful comment. Bill said, “I think it’s funny how they [the filmmakers] knew we’d want to see a lot of big stuff thrown around.” Well, Leterrier and Penn also knew this odd desire of American moviegoers. We want to see the Hulk “toss a forklift like a softball,” not search his feelings.
Notably, “The Incredible Hulk” also successfully portrays Bruce Banner’s lonely, alienated lifestyle. He is correctly depicted as a wandering stranger, drifting from place to place, trying to keep his cool and his head down. Bruce Banner (Ed Norton) is pensive and tormented.
The next thing you’ll probably want to know, after reading these first three paragraphs, is why didn’t I rate this movie as “Excellent,” or a “Masterpiece”? Two words: computer-generated imagery. CGI has proven, beyond dispute, that it is possible to have too much of a good thing. This movie might have been Excellent, but the Hulk’s face looked too much like a cartoon, and it killed the movie’s chance at any semblance of realism.
Once again I’m forced to cite the example of King Kong. I don’t know about you, but while watching Peter Jackson’s remake, I was visually convinced that I was watching an actual giant gorilla — not a cartoon. Take, for example, the scene where Kong is frolicking upon the frozen pond with Ann, and he slides into the snow bank. Snow gets into his fur, so he shakes it off. Amazing. Absolutely incredible.
So, after seeing what can be done and what wasn’t done for “The Incredible Hulk,” its cartoony Hulk knocked it down to just “Good.” But hey, it was good enough, I suppose.
In “Hulk” (2003), Eric Bana played Bruce Banner, and he’s no slouch when it comes to acting. But casting Ed Norton for the Banner role in the new movie was brilliant. Ed Norton has remarkable range as an actor. He can be funny (“Keeping the Faith“), despicable (“The Italian Job”), troubling (“Fight Club”) and downright frightening (“Primal Fear”). In short, he can be anything he wants to be, apparently, except chums with Louis Leterrier.
What pleased me most about “The Incredible Hulk,” however, was the way it dispenses with the origin story altogether by presenting it to us in brief flashes at the beginning of the film. So, within about 45 seconds or so, we see what happened in the Hulk’s past, and we pick up later on in Banner’s saga when the movie begins. Bravo.
Banner is hiding out in Brazil and desperately trying to learn to control his anger. He has a wristband that monitors his heart rate. If he gets too worked up, he hulks out. Also, from time to time we are shown a useful counter that lets us know how long it’s been since the big green guy was provoked. As the movie begins, we’re told that there have been “158 days without incident.”
But the short-sighted Gen. Ross (William Hurt), who had hoped to make genetically enhanced super-soldiers, relentlessly tracks down Banner, again and again, because he was a remarkable fluke-of-a-success story for super-soliderdom. And because the Hulk is too powerful to be contained, the general experiments with enhancing another dangerous solider, Emil Blonsky (Tim Roth), whose love for the strongman juice makes Barry Bonds look like Mr. Peanut. Of course, Blonsky’s insatiable lust for power and strength turns him into a monster, giving us the big clash-of-the-titans duel for a grand finale.
As far as big-budget popcorn movies go, “The Incredible Hulk” is worth renting, at the very least. But I’m a little worried about something: If Hollywood is shameless enough to try to make something like “Speed Racer” into a feature film, then I don’t think we’re safe from the likes of a “She-Hulk” movie. Please, no.
Directed by Louis Leterrier
Ed Norton / Liv Tyler / Tim Roth
Action / Sci-Fi 114 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for sequences of intense action violence, some frightening sci-fi images, and brief suggestive content)
U.S. Release Date: June 13, 2008
Copyright 2008: 300
Kung Fu Panda (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
X Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 18, 2008
When I was young, I probably had more than 50 stuffed animals. I called them “poor things.” One of my favorite poor things was a panda bear that I cleverly named “Pandy.” Pandy was a lethal martial artist whose kung fu skills were unbeatable. I don’t know how they did it, but I’m convinced the writers of “Kung Fu Panda” ripped off my childhood idea. Somebody’s gotta pay for this.
I promise I’m not displacing when I write that I thought “Kung Fu Panda” would be much funnier. It’s a good animated action flick where eccentric animals are kung fu masters, but it’s not hilarious — no, not nearly as much as you might have hoped.
Po (Jack Black) is a plump panda who feels obligated to work in his so-called father’s noodle restaurant, but his heart is in becoming a kung fu expert. (He is much like Jason from “The Forbidden Kingdom,” an untrained but passionate wannabe.) Po’s heroes are “The Furious Five,” a team of kung fu masters that includes Tigress (Angelina Jolie), Monkey (Jackie Chan), Mantis (Seth Rogen), Viper (Lucy Liu), and Crane (David Cross). These flashy fighters were trained by Master Shifu (Dustin Hoffman), who was trained by the mystical Master Oogway (Randall Duk Kim), a turtle that’s the kung-fu equivalent of Yoda.
It just so happens that 1,000 years have passed, and the whole village has awaited the selection of the Dragon Warrior, a previously unnamed kung fu master whose privilege it is to open the sacred Dragon Scroll and learn its secret(s). The time has come for Master Oogway to identify the Dragon Warrior. Guess who that might be? Yes, the most unlikely candidate: Po.
Naturally, Shifu and his five fabulous students are truly furious by the panda’s appointment. But they’re the least of Po’s problems: Supposedly, the Dragon Warrior is the only one who can defeat the ferocious, deadly Tai Lung (Ian McShane), a kung fu beast that even made me nervous (and I took karate for 10 years). That’s the gist of “Kung Fu Panda.”
There is something particularly noteworthy about this movie that might make it go down in history: Remember how “Seinfeld” was credited with introducing the phrase “yada, yada, yada,” into the language of our pop culture? Well, I predict that “Kung Fu Panda” will coin a new word that will stick, too. Here it is: “ska-doosh.” I admit, the movie’s usage of this word is quite humorous.
The movie is colorful and well made. Its voice-over characters are also great. And if you have kids, “Kung Fu Panda” is an instant babysitter, anytime, guaranteed. Your kids (especially boy kids) will absolutely love it. But if you were hoping for another side-splitting Jack Black performance, this movie is only the equivalent of a white belt in the humor department; whereas, my bear, Pandy, was a black belt. I’m just sayin’…
Directed by Mark Osborne and John Stevenson
Jack Black / Dustin Hoffman / Angelina Jolie
Animation / Action 92 min.
MPAA: PG (for sequences of martial arts action)
U.S. Release Date: June 6, 2008
Copyright 2008: 298
O Excellent
X Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 18, 2008
When I was young, I probably had more than 50 stuffed animals. I called them “poor things.” One of my favorite poor things was a panda bear that I cleverly named “Pandy.” Pandy was a lethal martial artist whose kung fu skills were unbeatable. I don’t know how they did it, but I’m convinced the writers of “Kung Fu Panda” ripped off my childhood idea. Somebody’s gotta pay for this.
I promise I’m not displacing when I write that I thought “Kung Fu Panda” would be much funnier. It’s a good animated action flick where eccentric animals are kung fu masters, but it’s not hilarious — no, not nearly as much as you might have hoped.
Po (Jack Black) is a plump panda who feels obligated to work in his so-called father’s noodle restaurant, but his heart is in becoming a kung fu expert. (He is much like Jason from “The Forbidden Kingdom,” an untrained but passionate wannabe.) Po’s heroes are “The Furious Five,” a team of kung fu masters that includes Tigress (Angelina Jolie), Monkey (Jackie Chan), Mantis (Seth Rogen), Viper (Lucy Liu), and Crane (David Cross). These flashy fighters were trained by Master Shifu (Dustin Hoffman), who was trained by the mystical Master Oogway (Randall Duk Kim), a turtle that’s the kung-fu equivalent of Yoda.
It just so happens that 1,000 years have passed, and the whole village has awaited the selection of the Dragon Warrior, a previously unnamed kung fu master whose privilege it is to open the sacred Dragon Scroll and learn its secret(s). The time has come for Master Oogway to identify the Dragon Warrior. Guess who that might be? Yes, the most unlikely candidate: Po.
Naturally, Shifu and his five fabulous students are truly furious by the panda’s appointment. But they’re the least of Po’s problems: Supposedly, the Dragon Warrior is the only one who can defeat the ferocious, deadly Tai Lung (Ian McShane), a kung fu beast that even made me nervous (and I took karate for 10 years). That’s the gist of “Kung Fu Panda.”
There is something particularly noteworthy about this movie that might make it go down in history: Remember how “Seinfeld” was credited with introducing the phrase “yada, yada, yada,” into the language of our pop culture? Well, I predict that “Kung Fu Panda” will coin a new word that will stick, too. Here it is: “ska-doosh.” I admit, the movie’s usage of this word is quite humorous.
The movie is colorful and well made. Its voice-over characters are also great. And if you have kids, “Kung Fu Panda” is an instant babysitter, anytime, guaranteed. Your kids (especially boy kids) will absolutely love it. But if you were hoping for another side-splitting Jack Black performance, this movie is only the equivalent of a white belt in the humor department; whereas, my bear, Pandy, was a black belt. I’m just sayin’…
Directed by Mark Osborne and John Stevenson
Jack Black / Dustin Hoffman / Angelina Jolie
Animation / Action 92 min.
MPAA: PG (for sequences of martial arts action)
U.S. Release Date: June 6, 2008
Copyright 2008: 298
You Don't Mess With the Zohan (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
O Good
O OK
X Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 18, 2008
Though I can’t give him much credit for “You Don’t Mess With the Zohan,” Adam Sandler has taken some chances and ventured out from his junior-high-school humor and tried some different roles, much like Robin Williams and Jim Carrey have. I have to admire it when an otherwise one-trick pony like Sandler takes refreshing risks.
Most recently there was “Reign Over Me” (2007), where Sandler plays a man broken by his grief over losing his family in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. That was a dramatic role. “Spanglish” (2004), where Sandler plays a good-hearted chef, would be another prime example of an atypical Sandler film. And then there was Paul Thomas Anderson’s near-masterpiece, “Punch-Drunk Love” (2002), where Sandler delivers the role he was born to play.
But “You Don’t Mess With the Zohan” is more of the same old adolescent, locker-room jokes. In fact, “Zohan” should not be rated PG-13; it should have received an R rating. Blatant sexual innuendo pervades the film. I’ll send a big bottle of Paul Mitchell hair product to anyone who can name another PG-13 film that has more ejaculation humor than “Zohan.” If this movie has one such joke, it has 20 — and none of them is subtle.
But here’s what I want to know: How many times in a row are ejaculation sight gags funny? Are these jokes even funny the first time? No, not really.
Though the plot is ridiculous, it’s original. “The Zohan” (Adam Sandler) is an Israeli counter-terrorist whose warring skills make him a blend of Sayid, from “L O S T,” and Superman, from Krypton. Here is one of the movie’s major wrong turns. Instead of capitalizing on the opportunity to include legit action and fighting scenes that would surely dazzle the movie’s target audience (aka 14-year-old boys), “Zohan” opts to go with cartoonish, defy-all-the-laws-of-physics-and-gravity sequences.
This miscalculation isn’t comical, as it is intended; instead, it’s distracting. Think about it: If you watch someone who’s purposely trying to be funny, he or she has a more difficult time making you laugh (unless you’re watching an exceptionally gifted comedian, which Sandler is not). But when you watch someone do something funny who’s not necessarily trying to be funny, it’s hilarious. Plus, the distraction breaks the verisimilar spell of the movie, and we remember that we’re stuck subjecting ourselves to another dumb Adam Sandler flick, though, not as dumb as “Little Nicky” (2000).
Back to the plot: Zohan, the super soldier, decides he’s finished with violence. His heart’s secret desire is to move to New York City to cut and style hair, making people “silky smooth.” At one point Zohan says, “I like hair. It’s pleasant. It’s peaceful. No one gets hurt.”
But like all movie characters who try to bury their old lives and start fresh, the Zohan cannot escape from his past. Whereas, in real life, we have guys like D.B. Cooper, the parachuting skyjacker who mysteriously disappeared with the $200,000 he swiped from a Boeing 727 in 1971. If he survived his daring jump, his old days don’t seem to haunt him at all.
Naturally, “Zohan” has several cameos and countless advertisements. Inevitably, 14-year-old boys will probably love this movie. Unfortunately, if we’re honest with ourselves, “You Don’t Mess With the Zohan” is a waste of time for anyone of any age.
Directed by Dennis Dugan
Adam Sandler / John Turturro / Emmanuelle Chriqui
Comedy 113 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for crude and sexual content throughout, language and nudity)
U.S. Release Date: June 6, 2008
Copyright 2008: 297
O Excellent
O Good
O OK
X Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 18, 2008
Though I can’t give him much credit for “You Don’t Mess With the Zohan,” Adam Sandler has taken some chances and ventured out from his junior-high-school humor and tried some different roles, much like Robin Williams and Jim Carrey have. I have to admire it when an otherwise one-trick pony like Sandler takes refreshing risks.
Most recently there was “Reign Over Me” (2007), where Sandler plays a man broken by his grief over losing his family in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. That was a dramatic role. “Spanglish” (2004), where Sandler plays a good-hearted chef, would be another prime example of an atypical Sandler film. And then there was Paul Thomas Anderson’s near-masterpiece, “Punch-Drunk Love” (2002), where Sandler delivers the role he was born to play.
But “You Don’t Mess With the Zohan” is more of the same old adolescent, locker-room jokes. In fact, “Zohan” should not be rated PG-13; it should have received an R rating. Blatant sexual innuendo pervades the film. I’ll send a big bottle of Paul Mitchell hair product to anyone who can name another PG-13 film that has more ejaculation humor than “Zohan.” If this movie has one such joke, it has 20 — and none of them is subtle.
But here’s what I want to know: How many times in a row are ejaculation sight gags funny? Are these jokes even funny the first time? No, not really.
Though the plot is ridiculous, it’s original. “The Zohan” (Adam Sandler) is an Israeli counter-terrorist whose warring skills make him a blend of Sayid, from “L O S T,” and Superman, from Krypton. Here is one of the movie’s major wrong turns. Instead of capitalizing on the opportunity to include legit action and fighting scenes that would surely dazzle the movie’s target audience (aka 14-year-old boys), “Zohan” opts to go with cartoonish, defy-all-the-laws-of-physics-and-gravity sequences.
This miscalculation isn’t comical, as it is intended; instead, it’s distracting. Think about it: If you watch someone who’s purposely trying to be funny, he or she has a more difficult time making you laugh (unless you’re watching an exceptionally gifted comedian, which Sandler is not). But when you watch someone do something funny who’s not necessarily trying to be funny, it’s hilarious. Plus, the distraction breaks the verisimilar spell of the movie, and we remember that we’re stuck subjecting ourselves to another dumb Adam Sandler flick, though, not as dumb as “Little Nicky” (2000).
Back to the plot: Zohan, the super soldier, decides he’s finished with violence. His heart’s secret desire is to move to New York City to cut and style hair, making people “silky smooth.” At one point Zohan says, “I like hair. It’s pleasant. It’s peaceful. No one gets hurt.”
But like all movie characters who try to bury their old lives and start fresh, the Zohan cannot escape from his past. Whereas, in real life, we have guys like D.B. Cooper, the parachuting skyjacker who mysteriously disappeared with the $200,000 he swiped from a Boeing 727 in 1971. If he survived his daring jump, his old days don’t seem to haunt him at all.
Naturally, “Zohan” has several cameos and countless advertisements. Inevitably, 14-year-old boys will probably love this movie. Unfortunately, if we’re honest with ourselves, “You Don’t Mess With the Zohan” is a waste of time for anyone of any age.
Directed by Dennis Dugan
Adam Sandler / John Turturro / Emmanuelle Chriqui
Comedy 113 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for crude and sexual content throughout, language and nudity)
U.S. Release Date: June 6, 2008
Copyright 2008: 297
Sex and the City: The Movie (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
X Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 18, 2008
No, I’ve never watched the TV show. But I still enjoyed the movie.
I’ve heard other male critics griping about this movie, and I think they’re being a little ridiculous. Everybody knows going in whom this movie is made for. Let’s just call a spade a spade. “Sex and the City: The Movie” is a heavy-duty chick flick, or as my wife calls it, “a girl movie.”
Even so, I can appreciate a good girl movie. Most people like movies because they enjoy observing other people’s stories. So, what’s the difference if the stories happen to revolve around women (aka “half the population”)?
Though I wasn’t overly familiar with the series, I could tell the film included lots of nods and inside jokes for faithful followers. No doubt, if I were a true fan, I would have enjoyed it even more. But the movie is still easy to follow going in cold, even though there are moments that don’t carry the same emotional charge, because they lack the historical context. In short, it’s like getting to know any other characters that we’re meeting in a movie for the first time, and Michael Patrick King does a good job with getting us acquainted.
As I understood it, four girls met and became BFFs during their early 20s in New York City. They have had countless adventures together, most of which revolve around dating, sex and fashion. Now, they’re in their early 40s, and they are still reveling in the drama surrounding dating, sex and fashion.
Carrie Bradshaw (Sarah Jessica Parker) is still a writer and still on-and-off again with Mr. Big (Chris Noth). But wait a minute … weddings bells are ringing not too far off. Samantha Jones (Kim Cattrall), a true cougar, is the only one of the friends who no longer lives in New York. She’s out in Hollywood with her boy-toy model, Smith (Jason Lewis).
Miranda Hobbes (Cynthia Nixon) has a hectic family life, and we see how her marriage with Steve (David Eigenberg) hits the rocks. And then there’s Charlotte York (Kristin Davis), the fourth friend whose lovely little life is picture-perfect. We all know people like that; it’s fun to hate them.
So, we watch each woman’s drama unfold through individual, occasionally overlapping storylines. And, of course, there are multiple rendezvous where the four women gather, discuss the matters at hand, assess the damage, give advice, and break with a new game plan. In other words, we get plenty of girl talk.
There are definite highlights, such as a Vogue photo shoot, breathtaking, NYC, high-rise apartments (and other city scenery), and certainly many bittersweet moments of friendship, betrayal and forgiveness. But then there are unmistakable low-points that truly surprised me, such as an incessantly humping dog (like something out of an Adam Sandler movie) and an intestinal turmoil scene (like something out of a Larry the Cable Guy movie). How did these scenes ever get into this movie?
And yes, faithful to its name, along with the city, the movie also depicts the sex. I wouldn’t say the sexual scenes pervade the movie, but the evenly dispersed, occasional doses are graphic and explicit. The R-rating is well deserved.
The trailer for “Sex and the City,” which is one of the best I’ve seen in recent years, reveals an absolute treasure from the film’s soundtrack: India.Arie’s cover of “The Heart of the Matter.” Wow. It’s phenomenal! Listen to it right now: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGmxzV8eNdk.
And at the risk of seeming like a stereotyping sexist, which is only stating the blatantly obvious, “Sex and the City: The Movie,” like the television show itself, will be best enjoyed by its target audience: women. On another note, if only there could be a “The Sopranos: The Movie,” they could throw a bone to the men and an atonement could be made for that pathetic excuse for an ending.
Directed by Michael Patrick King
Sarah Jessica Parker / Kim Cattrall / Kristin Davis / Cynthia Nixon
Drama / Comedy 148 min.
MPAA: R (for strong sexual content, graphic nudity and language)
U.S. Release Date: May 30, 2008
Copyright 2008: 296
O Excellent
X Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 18, 2008
No, I’ve never watched the TV show. But I still enjoyed the movie.
I’ve heard other male critics griping about this movie, and I think they’re being a little ridiculous. Everybody knows going in whom this movie is made for. Let’s just call a spade a spade. “Sex and the City: The Movie” is a heavy-duty chick flick, or as my wife calls it, “a girl movie.”
Even so, I can appreciate a good girl movie. Most people like movies because they enjoy observing other people’s stories. So, what’s the difference if the stories happen to revolve around women (aka “half the population”)?
Though I wasn’t overly familiar with the series, I could tell the film included lots of nods and inside jokes for faithful followers. No doubt, if I were a true fan, I would have enjoyed it even more. But the movie is still easy to follow going in cold, even though there are moments that don’t carry the same emotional charge, because they lack the historical context. In short, it’s like getting to know any other characters that we’re meeting in a movie for the first time, and Michael Patrick King does a good job with getting us acquainted.
As I understood it, four girls met and became BFFs during their early 20s in New York City. They have had countless adventures together, most of which revolve around dating, sex and fashion. Now, they’re in their early 40s, and they are still reveling in the drama surrounding dating, sex and fashion.
Carrie Bradshaw (Sarah Jessica Parker) is still a writer and still on-and-off again with Mr. Big (Chris Noth). But wait a minute … weddings bells are ringing not too far off. Samantha Jones (Kim Cattrall), a true cougar, is the only one of the friends who no longer lives in New York. She’s out in Hollywood with her boy-toy model, Smith (Jason Lewis).
Miranda Hobbes (Cynthia Nixon) has a hectic family life, and we see how her marriage with Steve (David Eigenberg) hits the rocks. And then there’s Charlotte York (Kristin Davis), the fourth friend whose lovely little life is picture-perfect. We all know people like that; it’s fun to hate them.
So, we watch each woman’s drama unfold through individual, occasionally overlapping storylines. And, of course, there are multiple rendezvous where the four women gather, discuss the matters at hand, assess the damage, give advice, and break with a new game plan. In other words, we get plenty of girl talk.
There are definite highlights, such as a Vogue photo shoot, breathtaking, NYC, high-rise apartments (and other city scenery), and certainly many bittersweet moments of friendship, betrayal and forgiveness. But then there are unmistakable low-points that truly surprised me, such as an incessantly humping dog (like something out of an Adam Sandler movie) and an intestinal turmoil scene (like something out of a Larry the Cable Guy movie). How did these scenes ever get into this movie?
And yes, faithful to its name, along with the city, the movie also depicts the sex. I wouldn’t say the sexual scenes pervade the movie, but the evenly dispersed, occasional doses are graphic and explicit. The R-rating is well deserved.
The trailer for “Sex and the City,” which is one of the best I’ve seen in recent years, reveals an absolute treasure from the film’s soundtrack: India.Arie’s cover of “The Heart of the Matter.” Wow. It’s phenomenal! Listen to it right now: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGmxzV8eNdk.
And at the risk of seeming like a stereotyping sexist, which is only stating the blatantly obvious, “Sex and the City: The Movie,” like the television show itself, will be best enjoyed by its target audience: women. On another note, if only there could be a “The Sopranos: The Movie,” they could throw a bone to the men and an atonement could be made for that pathetic excuse for an ending.
Directed by Michael Patrick King
Sarah Jessica Parker / Kim Cattrall / Kristin Davis / Cynthia Nixon
Drama / Comedy 148 min.
MPAA: R (for strong sexual content, graphic nudity and language)
U.S. Release Date: May 30, 2008
Copyright 2008: 296
The Strangers (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
X Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 18, 2008
“The Strangers” is an effective thriller, though it is bleak and uninventive. Nevertheless, if you’re looking to curl up on the couch in the dark and get creeped out, this movie would do the trick. For some reason, we find it fun to be scared. But since this movie is supposedly “inspired by true events,” it’s a little uncomfortable watching the victims’ ordeal for entertainment value. But I guess the alleged actuality of the story empowers it to be a little scarier, too.
From the very beginning, the film tells us that Feb. 11, 2005, after a wedding reception, bizarre events transpired at the Hoyt family’s summer home that still aren’t fully understood. Again, this is one of the first lines of the movie, so you can’t consider my explaining that a spoiler. But if you’re a thinking person, what does this tell you about the movie’s outcome? Right. So, just so you know, it’s that kind of movie: bleak.
But “The Strangers” isn’t a gory torture flick. It uses some classic horror film techniques, similar to what we see (or rather, hear) in “Signs” (2002). Much of the movie’s suspense comes not from what we see but what we hear. There was at least once, I must admit, where I just about jumped out of my skin. (I’m certain that distribution companies instruct exhibitors to turn the volume higher for horror movies.)
James (Scott Speedman) and Kristen (Liv Tyler) are having a bad night. They’ve just come from a wedding reception and Kristen is crying. We glean that things aren’t going well, and it places a damper on the evening. This melancholy mood prepares us from the start to pity them. We already feel bad for the couple, and we know we’re about to feel worse, as are they. At this point, the film yokes us with a tangible sensation of dread.
They plan to stay at James’ secluded summer home, then take off the next day for a road trip together. Their plan changes. Around 4 a.m., someone starts pounding on the door. This is the beginning of their real-life nightmare. Three masked weirdoes start terrorizing the couple. When I said this isn’t a torture flick, I meant physical torture (for the most part). Indeed, the escalating onslaught of fear-inducing harassment is essentially psychological torture.
There is a moment or two when we are filled with hope, solely because James is a male. While experiencing the movie, I was a little ashamed to find myself disregarding Kristen’s ability to fight back (perhaps because she is such a skittish character); but when James decides to fight back, I found myself investing an unreasonable amount of confidence in his “maleness.” Paradoxically, the physically dominant trio of tormentors comprises two women and one man. So, go figure.
Speaking of Kristen, I might mention that Liv Tyler’s performance should be admired. Imagine pulling off “scared out of your mind” in front of an up-close, ever-scrutinizing camera. It’s extremely difficult to do. Just look at the late Fay Wray’s performance as Ann Darrow in the original “King Kong” (1933). Thanks to her incessant screaming, that classic “King Kong” is only a classic when it can be viewed as a silent film.
“The Strangers” is chilling, tense, and unpleasant, which is exactly its intention. It’s nothing like the “Saw” movies or “Hostel,” but it’s still upsetting. As far as thrillers go, it’s pretty good at thrilling. My two chief complaints are a mysterious 9-1-1 call that is never logistically explained, and a stupid ending. Yes, the last second of this movie, before the screen goes black, is just plain dumb. But up until that point, “The Strangers” is successfully unsettling.
Directed by Bryan Bertino
Liv Tyler / Scott Speedman / Kip Weeks
Horror / Thriller 90 min.
MPAA: R (for violence/terror and language)
U.S. Release Date: May 30, 2008
Copyright 2008: 295
O Excellent
X Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 18, 2008
“The Strangers” is an effective thriller, though it is bleak and uninventive. Nevertheless, if you’re looking to curl up on the couch in the dark and get creeped out, this movie would do the trick. For some reason, we find it fun to be scared. But since this movie is supposedly “inspired by true events,” it’s a little uncomfortable watching the victims’ ordeal for entertainment value. But I guess the alleged actuality of the story empowers it to be a little scarier, too.
From the very beginning, the film tells us that Feb. 11, 2005, after a wedding reception, bizarre events transpired at the Hoyt family’s summer home that still aren’t fully understood. Again, this is one of the first lines of the movie, so you can’t consider my explaining that a spoiler. But if you’re a thinking person, what does this tell you about the movie’s outcome? Right. So, just so you know, it’s that kind of movie: bleak.
But “The Strangers” isn’t a gory torture flick. It uses some classic horror film techniques, similar to what we see (or rather, hear) in “Signs” (2002). Much of the movie’s suspense comes not from what we see but what we hear. There was at least once, I must admit, where I just about jumped out of my skin. (I’m certain that distribution companies instruct exhibitors to turn the volume higher for horror movies.)
James (Scott Speedman) and Kristen (Liv Tyler) are having a bad night. They’ve just come from a wedding reception and Kristen is crying. We glean that things aren’t going well, and it places a damper on the evening. This melancholy mood prepares us from the start to pity them. We already feel bad for the couple, and we know we’re about to feel worse, as are they. At this point, the film yokes us with a tangible sensation of dread.
They plan to stay at James’ secluded summer home, then take off the next day for a road trip together. Their plan changes. Around 4 a.m., someone starts pounding on the door. This is the beginning of their real-life nightmare. Three masked weirdoes start terrorizing the couple. When I said this isn’t a torture flick, I meant physical torture (for the most part). Indeed, the escalating onslaught of fear-inducing harassment is essentially psychological torture.
There is a moment or two when we are filled with hope, solely because James is a male. While experiencing the movie, I was a little ashamed to find myself disregarding Kristen’s ability to fight back (perhaps because she is such a skittish character); but when James decides to fight back, I found myself investing an unreasonable amount of confidence in his “maleness.” Paradoxically, the physically dominant trio of tormentors comprises two women and one man. So, go figure.
Speaking of Kristen, I might mention that Liv Tyler’s performance should be admired. Imagine pulling off “scared out of your mind” in front of an up-close, ever-scrutinizing camera. It’s extremely difficult to do. Just look at the late Fay Wray’s performance as Ann Darrow in the original “King Kong” (1933). Thanks to her incessant screaming, that classic “King Kong” is only a classic when it can be viewed as a silent film.
“The Strangers” is chilling, tense, and unpleasant, which is exactly its intention. It’s nothing like the “Saw” movies or “Hostel,” but it’s still upsetting. As far as thrillers go, it’s pretty good at thrilling. My two chief complaints are a mysterious 9-1-1 call that is never logistically explained, and a stupid ending. Yes, the last second of this movie, before the screen goes black, is just plain dumb. But up until that point, “The Strangers” is successfully unsettling.
Directed by Bryan Bertino
Liv Tyler / Scott Speedman / Kip Weeks
Horror / Thriller 90 min.
MPAA: R (for violence/terror and language)
U.S. Release Date: May 30, 2008
Copyright 2008: 295
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
X Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 18, 2008
I was one of those who waited for hours in line to see “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.” But that was nothing. Like countless others, I have been waiting for years for this one.
The new Indy movie is good, not great. It’s certainly worth any Indiana Jones fan’s attention; but you don’t necessarily need to wait for hours in line. I recommend catching a matinee in a week or two. And if you’re not a die-hard Indy fan, this movie will do as a rental.
To be fair, even if “The Crystal Skull” had achieved cinematic perfection (if there is such a thing), it still probably would have been eclipsed by the mountainous expectations looming over it. After years of hearing that George Lucas and Steven Spielberg rejected numerous scripts, taking care to make sure they had chosen a worthy story, all the while, risking an aging Harrison Ford, I think my hopes were unfairly too high.
The story they settled on (whose secrets I will not spoil) was fiercely protected: For the most part, no advanced press screenings were permitted, which either means a movie sucks or it has some huge secret(s). For this movie, it is the latter. And while I initially felt that the plot of the new film was too far out in left field, I realized that the previous three “Indiana Jones” movies also incorporated fantastical, supernatural elements. So, I’m OK with the bizarreness. Oh, and though the trailers make the movie appear as though it’s an artificial, CGI fest, it normally isn’t as fake-looking as I had feared.
You’ll remember that the first three films were set in the late 1930s, and Indy’s primary enemies were Nazis. “The Crystal Skull” is set in 1957, amid nuclear and Communist paranoia, and his foes are Russian Commies. And, we gather that over the years Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) has continued his archeological adventures.
We catch up with him again as he is forcibly drawn into another quest. A brazen young man named “Mutt” Williams (Shia LaBeouf) is sent by his mother to commission Jones’ help. Their family friend, Harold Oxley (John Hurt), who also happens to be one of Indy’s archeologist colleagues, was in pursuit of a crystal skull and the fabled lost city of gold, El Dorado, until he was kidnapped.
So, Jones and Williams travel to Peru, retracing the missing professor’s steps. Meanwhile, a group of KGB, led by the nefarious Irina Spalko (Cate Blanchett), also has an interest in finding the crystal skull and El Dorado. And that’s about all I can describe of the plot without exposing anything juicy.
Karen Allen returns as Marion (Indy’s love interest in “Raiders”), but Sean Connery declined to appear in this film. And the actor who played the beloved Marcus Brody, Denholm Elliott, died with AIDS in 1992. Both absences are handled well.
And speaking of handling things well, Harrison Ford did a fine job reprising his role as the action-adventurer at age 65. In an interview Ford said he has kept his body in shape and wasn’t injured during filming. I wondered if he used a stunt double at times; but according to the Internet Movie Database’s trivia, Ford did his own stunts in this movie, just as he did in the previous three films. There is one stunt involving Ford riding a motorcycle with Shia LaBeouf that is astounding, especially when considering his age.
And for true “Indiana Jones” fans, there are many subtle nods to the older movies, particularly “Raiders” and “Last Crusade.” “The Temple of Doom,” the red-headed step-child of the trilogy, doesn’t really come up. For one small example of the subtlety, keep in mind Indy and his father’s motorcycle journey in “Last Crusade” as you watch the older Indy ride with Mutt Williams. Priceless.
And I worried they’d hammer the old-age jokes into the ground, but the filmmakers practiced some restraint. It is acknowledged several times, but we don’t get the feeling they’re belaboring the point. And at times Ford is slow and wobbly, and at other times he’s rather nimble; it works.
Perhaps I was most disappointed that the humorous interplay between Ford and LaBeouf was relatively sparse. Especially after seeing LaBeouf’s comedic ability in “Transformers,” I thought the duo would deliver something more along the lines of Ford and Connery’s performance in “Last Crusade.”
Still, the humor is there. I’m glad I lived to see this movie. One of my motivators for living a healthy lifestyle is so I can squeeze as many summers of blockbusters into my lifetime as possible. I just know they’re finally going to make that Wonder Woman movie the summer after I die. My picks for the casting of Wonder Woman: Kate Beckinsale, Claire Forlani, or Rachel McAdams.
Directed by Steven Spielberg
Harrison Ford / Shia LaBeouf / Cate Blanchett
Action / Adventure 124 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for adventure violence and scary images)
U.S. Release Date: May 22, 2008
Copyright 2008: 294
O Excellent
X Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 18, 2008
I was one of those who waited for hours in line to see “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.” But that was nothing. Like countless others, I have been waiting for years for this one.
The new Indy movie is good, not great. It’s certainly worth any Indiana Jones fan’s attention; but you don’t necessarily need to wait for hours in line. I recommend catching a matinee in a week or two. And if you’re not a die-hard Indy fan, this movie will do as a rental.
To be fair, even if “The Crystal Skull” had achieved cinematic perfection (if there is such a thing), it still probably would have been eclipsed by the mountainous expectations looming over it. After years of hearing that George Lucas and Steven Spielberg rejected numerous scripts, taking care to make sure they had chosen a worthy story, all the while, risking an aging Harrison Ford, I think my hopes were unfairly too high.
The story they settled on (whose secrets I will not spoil) was fiercely protected: For the most part, no advanced press screenings were permitted, which either means a movie sucks or it has some huge secret(s). For this movie, it is the latter. And while I initially felt that the plot of the new film was too far out in left field, I realized that the previous three “Indiana Jones” movies also incorporated fantastical, supernatural elements. So, I’m OK with the bizarreness. Oh, and though the trailers make the movie appear as though it’s an artificial, CGI fest, it normally isn’t as fake-looking as I had feared.
You’ll remember that the first three films were set in the late 1930s, and Indy’s primary enemies were Nazis. “The Crystal Skull” is set in 1957, amid nuclear and Communist paranoia, and his foes are Russian Commies. And, we gather that over the years Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) has continued his archeological adventures.
We catch up with him again as he is forcibly drawn into another quest. A brazen young man named “Mutt” Williams (Shia LaBeouf) is sent by his mother to commission Jones’ help. Their family friend, Harold Oxley (John Hurt), who also happens to be one of Indy’s archeologist colleagues, was in pursuit of a crystal skull and the fabled lost city of gold, El Dorado, until he was kidnapped.
So, Jones and Williams travel to Peru, retracing the missing professor’s steps. Meanwhile, a group of KGB, led by the nefarious Irina Spalko (Cate Blanchett), also has an interest in finding the crystal skull and El Dorado. And that’s about all I can describe of the plot without exposing anything juicy.
Karen Allen returns as Marion (Indy’s love interest in “Raiders”), but Sean Connery declined to appear in this film. And the actor who played the beloved Marcus Brody, Denholm Elliott, died with AIDS in 1992. Both absences are handled well.
And speaking of handling things well, Harrison Ford did a fine job reprising his role as the action-adventurer at age 65. In an interview Ford said he has kept his body in shape and wasn’t injured during filming. I wondered if he used a stunt double at times; but according to the Internet Movie Database’s trivia, Ford did his own stunts in this movie, just as he did in the previous three films. There is one stunt involving Ford riding a motorcycle with Shia LaBeouf that is astounding, especially when considering his age.
And for true “Indiana Jones” fans, there are many subtle nods to the older movies, particularly “Raiders” and “Last Crusade.” “The Temple of Doom,” the red-headed step-child of the trilogy, doesn’t really come up. For one small example of the subtlety, keep in mind Indy and his father’s motorcycle journey in “Last Crusade” as you watch the older Indy ride with Mutt Williams. Priceless.
And I worried they’d hammer the old-age jokes into the ground, but the filmmakers practiced some restraint. It is acknowledged several times, but we don’t get the feeling they’re belaboring the point. And at times Ford is slow and wobbly, and at other times he’s rather nimble; it works.
Perhaps I was most disappointed that the humorous interplay between Ford and LaBeouf was relatively sparse. Especially after seeing LaBeouf’s comedic ability in “Transformers,” I thought the duo would deliver something more along the lines of Ford and Connery’s performance in “Last Crusade.”
Still, the humor is there. I’m glad I lived to see this movie. One of my motivators for living a healthy lifestyle is so I can squeeze as many summers of blockbusters into my lifetime as possible. I just know they’re finally going to make that Wonder Woman movie the summer after I die. My picks for the casting of Wonder Woman: Kate Beckinsale, Claire Forlani, or Rachel McAdams.
Directed by Steven Spielberg
Harrison Ford / Shia LaBeouf / Cate Blanchett
Action / Adventure 124 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for adventure violence and scary images)
U.S. Release Date: May 22, 2008
Copyright 2008: 294
The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
O Good
X OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 18, 2008
I know it’s probably inaccurate and perhaps a little unfair to write this, but “The Chronicles of Narnia” seems like a watered-down “Lord of the Rings,” a poor man’s version. There’s something not fun about watching four kids be monarchs over a fantastical kingdom. Perhaps I’m just getting old and crotchety.
Don’t get me wrong, “Prince Caspian” is satisfactory entertainment. If you liked “The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe,” then you’ll be pleased with “Prince Caspian,” too. But there’s something over-polished and artificial about these movies that I find off-putting. They’re just not grungy enough.
For instance, tell me you’ve seen “Clash of the Titans” (1981) or “The Beastmaster” (1982). Both movies have a gritty realism to them, even now, despite their datedness. And “The Lord of the Rings” movies are also convincing. But “The Chronicles of Narnia” employs excessive, cartoonish GCI. Another good example of such an offense is this month’s “The Incredible Hulk.” What is this? “Pete’s Dragon?” “Who Framed Roger Rabbit?” I prefer live-action movies to either have seamless CGI or none at all.
I will confess that I have not read C.S. Lewis’ Narnia books. Sorry. Nor do I plan to. Sorry again. But I have a feeling, even if I had, I still wouldn’t be clear about who’s who and why that matters. Take Prince Caspian (Ben Barnes), for example. The movie opens with Caspian as the rightful heir to some kingdom (but what kingdom?), except Caspian’s aunt and evil uncle just had a male child. Caspian is a threat and therefore, in danger of being eliminated.
So Caspian flees and encounters the Narnians, which are basically the cast of “The Muppet Show” or Shrek’s magical, woodland fairytale friends. Then, what I understood next, was that it was time for the Pevensie kids to finally return to Narnia (OK, but why?). And when they do, as we found out from the previews, a great deal of time has passed in Narnia. So, to be short, Prince Caspian and the Pevensie royalty must team up with the Narnians and defeat the innumerable armies of the evil uncle. Oh, and Aslan (Liam Neeson) the lion is rather cheeky about his screen time, meaning, he’s hardly in the movie, even though he’s one of the most interesting characters.
And that’s about it. Despite my lack of enthusiasm for the movie, “Prince Caspian” is a decent family film whose PG-rating could probably be PG-13. Kids will be dazzled, and I’m all for that; I’m just not crazy about them being monarchs.
Directed by Andrew Adamson
Ben Barnes / William Moseley / Georgie Henley
Fantasy / Adventure 144 min.
MPAA: PG (for epic battle action and violence)
U.S. Release Date: May 16, 2008
Copyright 2008: 293
O Excellent
O Good
X OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 18, 2008
I know it’s probably inaccurate and perhaps a little unfair to write this, but “The Chronicles of Narnia” seems like a watered-down “Lord of the Rings,” a poor man’s version. There’s something not fun about watching four kids be monarchs over a fantastical kingdom. Perhaps I’m just getting old and crotchety.
Don’t get me wrong, “Prince Caspian” is satisfactory entertainment. If you liked “The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe,” then you’ll be pleased with “Prince Caspian,” too. But there’s something over-polished and artificial about these movies that I find off-putting. They’re just not grungy enough.
For instance, tell me you’ve seen “Clash of the Titans” (1981) or “The Beastmaster” (1982). Both movies have a gritty realism to them, even now, despite their datedness. And “The Lord of the Rings” movies are also convincing. But “The Chronicles of Narnia” employs excessive, cartoonish GCI. Another good example of such an offense is this month’s “The Incredible Hulk.” What is this? “Pete’s Dragon?” “Who Framed Roger Rabbit?” I prefer live-action movies to either have seamless CGI or none at all.
I will confess that I have not read C.S. Lewis’ Narnia books. Sorry. Nor do I plan to. Sorry again. But I have a feeling, even if I had, I still wouldn’t be clear about who’s who and why that matters. Take Prince Caspian (Ben Barnes), for example. The movie opens with Caspian as the rightful heir to some kingdom (but what kingdom?), except Caspian’s aunt and evil uncle just had a male child. Caspian is a threat and therefore, in danger of being eliminated.
So Caspian flees and encounters the Narnians, which are basically the cast of “The Muppet Show” or Shrek’s magical, woodland fairytale friends. Then, what I understood next, was that it was time for the Pevensie kids to finally return to Narnia (OK, but why?). And when they do, as we found out from the previews, a great deal of time has passed in Narnia. So, to be short, Prince Caspian and the Pevensie royalty must team up with the Narnians and defeat the innumerable armies of the evil uncle. Oh, and Aslan (Liam Neeson) the lion is rather cheeky about his screen time, meaning, he’s hardly in the movie, even though he’s one of the most interesting characters.
And that’s about it. Despite my lack of enthusiasm for the movie, “Prince Caspian” is a decent family film whose PG-rating could probably be PG-13. Kids will be dazzled, and I’m all for that; I’m just not crazy about them being monarchs.
Directed by Andrew Adamson
Ben Barnes / William Moseley / Georgie Henley
Fantasy / Adventure 144 min.
MPAA: PG (for epic battle action and violence)
U.S. Release Date: May 16, 2008
Copyright 2008: 293
Redbelt (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
O Good
X OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 18, 2008
“Redbelt” should be admired to some degree. It is far from a typical martial arts movie. It’s a drama. Most “fighter movies” have the tired old “Rocky” scenario, where a fighter with heart isn’t quite good enough to keep from getting knocked around by life — or jerks. So, there’s a long training sequence and a big, final bout or tournament at the end of the movie where the fighter is vindicated with a hard-earned, well-deserved victory. We all cheer and go home happy.
David Mamet, writer and director of “Redbelt,” doesn’t travel those familiar, dusty roads. Nope. He gives us an unusual film that keeps making unexpected turns — not twists, necessarily — but deviations from the course we’re anticipating. In fact, because of this unique trait, “Redbelt” almost seems to meander.
But I still only ranked it as OK. Why? Most martial arts movies are similar to pornography: The plot is irrelevant, except for its function as a vehicle to deliver us lots of “action.” Yes, martial arts movies have simplistic conflicts of black-and-white good versus evil, which sets the stage for lots of kung-fu fighting and the like.
“Redbelt,” on the other hand, is a drama whose martial arts scenes are mere decoration, incidental trimmings. Almost every person who will want to see “Redbelt” will want to see a full-blown karate movie, something along the lines of a Jet Li film; therefore, most of those people will be disappointed. Expectations will be breached (unless you’ve read this review first), and you’ll probably feel dissatisfied. I did. Hence, the OK rating. Had I known “Redbelt” is a drama beforehand, I might have ranked it as Good.
Mike Terry (Chiwetel Ejiofor) runs a tough, mixed-martial-arts academy that has prepared many a cop for street brawling. Indeed, Terry’s intense training is credited as being life-saving preparation for those in uniform. Like most martial arts movies, Terry is the unfailingly honorable, stringently principled master who won’t back down from anyone when “doing the right thing” is put in jeopardy.
But Terry’s school is struggling financially. And he makes matters worse by always trying to protect people, which oftentimes doesn’t involve using violence at all. It is in these entanglements (and I’m purposely being vague to avoid spoiling) that Terry gets drawn into deeper and deeper problems, like a person struggling to get out of quicksand. But Terry is a fighter, and “Redbelt” shows us whether he can fight his way out of his imploding life’s predicaments. There are several small surprises during the plot, so I’ll leave it at that.
But in short, if you’re looking for something like “Enter the Dragon” (1973), then you’re looking in the wrong genre. This puppy is a drama … an OK one.
Directed by David Mamet
Chiwetel Ejiofor / Tim Allen / Alice Braga
Drama / Martial Arts 99 min.
MPAA: R (for strong language)
U.S. Release Date: May 9, 2008
Copyright 2008: 290
O Excellent
O Good
X OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 18, 2008
“Redbelt” should be admired to some degree. It is far from a typical martial arts movie. It’s a drama. Most “fighter movies” have the tired old “Rocky” scenario, where a fighter with heart isn’t quite good enough to keep from getting knocked around by life — or jerks. So, there’s a long training sequence and a big, final bout or tournament at the end of the movie where the fighter is vindicated with a hard-earned, well-deserved victory. We all cheer and go home happy.
David Mamet, writer and director of “Redbelt,” doesn’t travel those familiar, dusty roads. Nope. He gives us an unusual film that keeps making unexpected turns — not twists, necessarily — but deviations from the course we’re anticipating. In fact, because of this unique trait, “Redbelt” almost seems to meander.
But I still only ranked it as OK. Why? Most martial arts movies are similar to pornography: The plot is irrelevant, except for its function as a vehicle to deliver us lots of “action.” Yes, martial arts movies have simplistic conflicts of black-and-white good versus evil, which sets the stage for lots of kung-fu fighting and the like.
“Redbelt,” on the other hand, is a drama whose martial arts scenes are mere decoration, incidental trimmings. Almost every person who will want to see “Redbelt” will want to see a full-blown karate movie, something along the lines of a Jet Li film; therefore, most of those people will be disappointed. Expectations will be breached (unless you’ve read this review first), and you’ll probably feel dissatisfied. I did. Hence, the OK rating. Had I known “Redbelt” is a drama beforehand, I might have ranked it as Good.
Mike Terry (Chiwetel Ejiofor) runs a tough, mixed-martial-arts academy that has prepared many a cop for street brawling. Indeed, Terry’s intense training is credited as being life-saving preparation for those in uniform. Like most martial arts movies, Terry is the unfailingly honorable, stringently principled master who won’t back down from anyone when “doing the right thing” is put in jeopardy.
But Terry’s school is struggling financially. And he makes matters worse by always trying to protect people, which oftentimes doesn’t involve using violence at all. It is in these entanglements (and I’m purposely being vague to avoid spoiling) that Terry gets drawn into deeper and deeper problems, like a person struggling to get out of quicksand. But Terry is a fighter, and “Redbelt” shows us whether he can fight his way out of his imploding life’s predicaments. There are several small surprises during the plot, so I’ll leave it at that.
But in short, if you’re looking for something like “Enter the Dragon” (1973), then you’re looking in the wrong genre. This puppy is a drama … an OK one.
Directed by David Mamet
Chiwetel Ejiofor / Tim Allen / Alice Braga
Drama / Martial Arts 99 min.
MPAA: R (for strong language)
U.S. Release Date: May 9, 2008
Copyright 2008: 290
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Speed Racer (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
O Good
O OK
X Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 17, 2008
Well, at least they tried, right? I mean, why not? Looking back through the extinct-cartoon archives (you know, those cartoons that are no longer on TV?), someone decided it would be a good idea to make “Inspector Gadget” and “Fat Albert” into live-action flicks. So, why not “Speed Racer”?
Well, because it’s not a very good idea. That’s why. “The Simpsons Movie” (2007) took a popular cartoon that’s still on TV and made an animated feature film and it went over quite well at the box office. But digging up old fossils like “Speed Racer” probably isn’t the best way to invest several million dollars, unless you want to lose it.
Young children will thoroughly enjoy “Speed Racer.” It is chock-full of flashy, splashy colors and revving, ramping, race cars. It even has ninjas! And though it has been heavily promoted as a “family film,” and though it has a PG rating, “Speed Racer” has a noticeable amount of profanity. … Why?
I mean, obviously the filmmakers weren’t worried about entertaining the adults — obviously. So, why include the profanity at all? There aren’t any humdingers like the F-word, but it has plenty of the smaller offenders. Protective parents beware.
I’ll tell you what there isn’t much of in “Speed Racer”: plot. After all, it’s a race-car movie. Speed Racer (Emile Hirsch) has a gift for racing. In fact, he is utterly obsessed with it. His late brother, Rex Racer, taught Speed how to tear up the track, and the young prodigy’s talent attracts significant attention.
One day the Racer family is approached by the president of Royalton Industries, E.P. Arnold Royalton (Roger Allam), a corporate mega-giant who becomes dangerously disgruntled toward Speed Racer when the kid refuses to join Royalton’s racing team. And so, races are run (and won) to try to inexplicably settle some intangible moral score; meanwhile, the bad guys cheat worse than Dr. Jones while playing Short Round.
Basically, watching “Speed Racer” is like having your head stuck inside a kaleidoscope for more than two hours. Its ultra-fast editing could even make the so-called MTV Generation dizzy. “Speed Racer” is not much more than a vibrant, green-screen extravaganza: If it were possible for a spectator to overdose on CGI, “Speed Racer” would be a killer.
Directed by Andy Wachowski and Larry Wachowski
Emile Hirsch / Christina Ricci / Matthew Fox
Action / Sports 135 min.
MPAA: PG (for sequences of action, some violence and language)
U.S. Release Date: May 9, 2008
Copyright 2008: 291
O Excellent
O Good
O OK
X Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 17, 2008
Well, at least they tried, right? I mean, why not? Looking back through the extinct-cartoon archives (you know, those cartoons that are no longer on TV?), someone decided it would be a good idea to make “Inspector Gadget” and “Fat Albert” into live-action flicks. So, why not “Speed Racer”?
Well, because it’s not a very good idea. That’s why. “The Simpsons Movie” (2007) took a popular cartoon that’s still on TV and made an animated feature film and it went over quite well at the box office. But digging up old fossils like “Speed Racer” probably isn’t the best way to invest several million dollars, unless you want to lose it.
Young children will thoroughly enjoy “Speed Racer.” It is chock-full of flashy, splashy colors and revving, ramping, race cars. It even has ninjas! And though it has been heavily promoted as a “family film,” and though it has a PG rating, “Speed Racer” has a noticeable amount of profanity. … Why?
I mean, obviously the filmmakers weren’t worried about entertaining the adults — obviously. So, why include the profanity at all? There aren’t any humdingers like the F-word, but it has plenty of the smaller offenders. Protective parents beware.
I’ll tell you what there isn’t much of in “Speed Racer”: plot. After all, it’s a race-car movie. Speed Racer (Emile Hirsch) has a gift for racing. In fact, he is utterly obsessed with it. His late brother, Rex Racer, taught Speed how to tear up the track, and the young prodigy’s talent attracts significant attention.
One day the Racer family is approached by the president of Royalton Industries, E.P. Arnold Royalton (Roger Allam), a corporate mega-giant who becomes dangerously disgruntled toward Speed Racer when the kid refuses to join Royalton’s racing team. And so, races are run (and won) to try to inexplicably settle some intangible moral score; meanwhile, the bad guys cheat worse than Dr. Jones while playing Short Round.
Basically, watching “Speed Racer” is like having your head stuck inside a kaleidoscope for more than two hours. Its ultra-fast editing could even make the so-called MTV Generation dizzy. “Speed Racer” is not much more than a vibrant, green-screen extravaganza: If it were possible for a spectator to overdose on CGI, “Speed Racer” would be a killer.
Directed by Andy Wachowski and Larry Wachowski
Emile Hirsch / Christina Ricci / Matthew Fox
Action / Sports 135 min.
MPAA: PG (for sequences of action, some violence and language)
U.S. Release Date: May 9, 2008
Copyright 2008: 291
What Happens in Vegas... (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
O Good
X OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 17, 2008
I’ve often wondered why we enjoy watching movies where couples fight; I think it makes us feel better about our own relationship predicaments.
“What Happens in Vegas…” is one of those battle-of-the-sexes movies where it’s crystal clear to us that the feuding parties ultimately deserve each other. And it’s a good time, I guess … that is, if you have nothing else to do and “Family Guy” isn’t on TV.
Jack Fuller (Ashton Kutcher) is kind of a goof-off who can even manage to get fired by his own father. And Joy McNally (Cameron Diaz) is Jack’s antithesis, driven and nitpicky, which may be why her fiancé breaks up with her. The two New Yorkers take their best friends with them to forget their sorrows in Las Vegas, where Jack and Joy meet, party it up, and get married. The next day, as they part ways, they win $3 million from a slot machine.
All the above is revealed in the trailer, which also shows us how they end up in court, trying to get the money, but the cash is frozen while they are “sentenced to six months hard marriage.” From this point on, it becomes a war movie: We watch as the two try to break each other. And unless you’ve never seen a movie before, you can probably guess where this goes.
But it’s surprisingly fun getting there. The highlight of “What Happens in Vegas…” is Joy’s best friend, Tipper (Lake Bell), whose disdain for Jack’s best friend, Hater (Rob Corddry), is legendary. So, we get hilarious lines from Tipper, like, “If I could make someone dead with my mind, it would be you.” Not bad. Obviously, the writer, Dana Fox, has been in a relationship before.
Directed by Tom Vaughan
Ashton Kutcher / Cameron Diaz / Lake Bell
Comedy 99 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for some sexual and crude content, and language, including a drug reference)
U.S. Release Date: May 9, 2008
Copyright 2008: 292
O Excellent
O Good
X OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 17, 2008
I’ve often wondered why we enjoy watching movies where couples fight; I think it makes us feel better about our own relationship predicaments.
“What Happens in Vegas…” is one of those battle-of-the-sexes movies where it’s crystal clear to us that the feuding parties ultimately deserve each other. And it’s a good time, I guess … that is, if you have nothing else to do and “Family Guy” isn’t on TV.
Jack Fuller (Ashton Kutcher) is kind of a goof-off who can even manage to get fired by his own father. And Joy McNally (Cameron Diaz) is Jack’s antithesis, driven and nitpicky, which may be why her fiancé breaks up with her. The two New Yorkers take their best friends with them to forget their sorrows in Las Vegas, where Jack and Joy meet, party it up, and get married. The next day, as they part ways, they win $3 million from a slot machine.
All the above is revealed in the trailer, which also shows us how they end up in court, trying to get the money, but the cash is frozen while they are “sentenced to six months hard marriage.” From this point on, it becomes a war movie: We watch as the two try to break each other. And unless you’ve never seen a movie before, you can probably guess where this goes.
But it’s surprisingly fun getting there. The highlight of “What Happens in Vegas…” is Joy’s best friend, Tipper (Lake Bell), whose disdain for Jack’s best friend, Hater (Rob Corddry), is legendary. So, we get hilarious lines from Tipper, like, “If I could make someone dead with my mind, it would be you.” Not bad. Obviously, the writer, Dana Fox, has been in a relationship before.
Directed by Tom Vaughan
Ashton Kutcher / Cameron Diaz / Lake Bell
Comedy 99 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for some sexual and crude content, and language, including a drug reference)
U.S. Release Date: May 9, 2008
Copyright 2008: 292
Iron Man (2008)
O Masterpiece
X Excellent
O Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 17, 2008
Every once in a while Tinseltown gets it right. “Iron Man” is one of those jubilant occasions. Another oft-cited example is “Batman Begins” (2005), and I suspect this summer’s “The Dark Knight” will follow suit. The antithesis of these is something like “Ghost Rider” (2007), which is a veritable abomination.
Here is the key to a good superhero movie: Make it as believable as possible. Yes, credibility is the elusive, common thread that links the greatest examples of the genre. Think about it: Superhero movies, by nature, are far-fetched fiction. Sure. But if a movie can sweep me away for two hours by persuading me to believe that this super-person has a feasible way to exist, then I am under its spell. Now then, in this day and age of convincing CGI, anything can appear to be possible because we can see it with our incredulous eyes. Peter Jackson’s “King Kong” (2005) is a great example. So the burden of credibility ultimately falls upon the screenwriters, provided the CGI personnel aren’t clowns who give us cartoony CGI.
“Iron Man” joins the short list that does justice to the genre. Its director, Jon Favreau, is obviously an Iron Man fan, who evidently wanted to empower his hero with credibility, because “Iron Man” is refreshingly realistic … inasmuch as that is possible for a superhero movie.
As with any first superhero movie (or comic book), “Iron Man” is largely composed of the origin story. Mostly I find this tradition tiresome, which is why I prefer superhero-movie sequels. Here’s how origin stories go: The hero is usually physically weak in some way — initially. Something tragic yet remarkable happens to make him (yes, the hero is usually is a him) powerful, insomuch that his new ability exceeds that of typical human beings’ capabilities. Alas, said power is almost always a two-edged sword, a blessing and a curse, and it tends to alienate the lonely hero from fitting in with others. And then there’s the costuming issue (which is excellently non-existent in “Unbreakable”), coupled with a fumbling, often painful training on learning to wield the newfound superpower.
Most of “Iron Man” is origin story, but surprisingly, it’s not tiresome. Even the origin story is interesting. The secret to this particular movie’s success, however, is its casting, namely, Robert Downey Jr. as Iron Man. He is exceptionally entertaining in this movie.
Again we’re brought to the writing. The movie’s story is fine, but it’s the humorous dialogue and Downey Jr.’s delivery that make the movie great. Everyone loves a caped crusader’s battle scenes. But the time the hero spends running from the telephone booth decked out in Technicolor tights and the time he spends as his timid secret identity differ greatly. There are usually precious few superhero-in-action scenes compared to his bumbling, loser, alter-ego scenes.
But that’s another admirable aspect of “Iron Man”: The development and set-up scenes aren’t boring like they were, in say, “Superman Returns” (2006). Nope, instead, Downey Jr.’s Tony Stark is just as interesting and flashy as Iron Man. It is his dialogue and the actor’s delivery of it that make his secret identity so intriguing.
Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) is a world-renowned weapons developer who is demonstrating his newest wares for the U.S. military in Afghanistan when he is captured by “bad guys,” essentially terrorist types who want Stark to be their personal weapons designer. And so he does, except, he doesn’t build any weapons for his captors, he builds his first Iron Man suit. This invention marks the beginning of a superhero and all that entails, as described above.
I can comfortably recommend “Iron Man,” because it is excellent summer-blockbuster entertainment. And for “Iron Man” fans that have followed the comics and anxiously await this franchise’s sequel(s), keep watching after the credits begin to roll; otherwise, the 10-second bone isn’t much of a scrap.
Directed by Jon Favreau
Robert Downey Jr. / Gwyneth Paltrow / Jeff Bridges
Action / Sci-Fi 126 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for some intense sequences of sci-fi action and violence, and brief suggestive content)
U.S. Release Date: May 2, 2008
Copyright 2008: 288
X Excellent
O Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 17, 2008
Every once in a while Tinseltown gets it right. “Iron Man” is one of those jubilant occasions. Another oft-cited example is “Batman Begins” (2005), and I suspect this summer’s “The Dark Knight” will follow suit. The antithesis of these is something like “Ghost Rider” (2007), which is a veritable abomination.
Here is the key to a good superhero movie: Make it as believable as possible. Yes, credibility is the elusive, common thread that links the greatest examples of the genre. Think about it: Superhero movies, by nature, are far-fetched fiction. Sure. But if a movie can sweep me away for two hours by persuading me to believe that this super-person has a feasible way to exist, then I am under its spell. Now then, in this day and age of convincing CGI, anything can appear to be possible because we can see it with our incredulous eyes. Peter Jackson’s “King Kong” (2005) is a great example. So the burden of credibility ultimately falls upon the screenwriters, provided the CGI personnel aren’t clowns who give us cartoony CGI.
“Iron Man” joins the short list that does justice to the genre. Its director, Jon Favreau, is obviously an Iron Man fan, who evidently wanted to empower his hero with credibility, because “Iron Man” is refreshingly realistic … inasmuch as that is possible for a superhero movie.
As with any first superhero movie (or comic book), “Iron Man” is largely composed of the origin story. Mostly I find this tradition tiresome, which is why I prefer superhero-movie sequels. Here’s how origin stories go: The hero is usually physically weak in some way — initially. Something tragic yet remarkable happens to make him (yes, the hero is usually is a him) powerful, insomuch that his new ability exceeds that of typical human beings’ capabilities. Alas, said power is almost always a two-edged sword, a blessing and a curse, and it tends to alienate the lonely hero from fitting in with others. And then there’s the costuming issue (which is excellently non-existent in “Unbreakable”), coupled with a fumbling, often painful training on learning to wield the newfound superpower.
Most of “Iron Man” is origin story, but surprisingly, it’s not tiresome. Even the origin story is interesting. The secret to this particular movie’s success, however, is its casting, namely, Robert Downey Jr. as Iron Man. He is exceptionally entertaining in this movie.
Again we’re brought to the writing. The movie’s story is fine, but it’s the humorous dialogue and Downey Jr.’s delivery that make the movie great. Everyone loves a caped crusader’s battle scenes. But the time the hero spends running from the telephone booth decked out in Technicolor tights and the time he spends as his timid secret identity differ greatly. There are usually precious few superhero-in-action scenes compared to his bumbling, loser, alter-ego scenes.
But that’s another admirable aspect of “Iron Man”: The development and set-up scenes aren’t boring like they were, in say, “Superman Returns” (2006). Nope, instead, Downey Jr.’s Tony Stark is just as interesting and flashy as Iron Man. It is his dialogue and the actor’s delivery of it that make his secret identity so intriguing.
Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) is a world-renowned weapons developer who is demonstrating his newest wares for the U.S. military in Afghanistan when he is captured by “bad guys,” essentially terrorist types who want Stark to be their personal weapons designer. And so he does, except, he doesn’t build any weapons for his captors, he builds his first Iron Man suit. This invention marks the beginning of a superhero and all that entails, as described above.
I can comfortably recommend “Iron Man,” because it is excellent summer-blockbuster entertainment. And for “Iron Man” fans that have followed the comics and anxiously await this franchise’s sequel(s), keep watching after the credits begin to roll; otherwise, the 10-second bone isn’t much of a scrap.
Directed by Jon Favreau
Robert Downey Jr. / Gwyneth Paltrow / Jeff Bridges
Action / Sci-Fi 126 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for some intense sequences of sci-fi action and violence, and brief suggestive content)
U.S. Release Date: May 2, 2008
Copyright 2008: 288
Made of Honor (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
X Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 17, 2008
You know, people chuckle at this movie’s title, but it happens. In fact, I have a good pal named Rich whose female best friend asked him to be her “dude of honor” when she got married. And he dutifully did. So yeah, it happens.
“Made of Honor” is a successful romantic comedy, which means it’s a perfectly good rental for date night. It follows that familiar formula that we all love, and hate.
Tom (Patrick Dempsey) and Hannah (Michelle Monaghan) have grown to be more or less inseparable best friends during the past 10 years. But their relationship has been strictly platonic. Tom has complicated, self-imposed rules that enable him to enjoy meaningless sex with numberless women, without settling down with any of them. But when Hannah goes to Scotland for six weeks on a business trip, Tom realizes what an important, happy role she plays in his life. He decides, as the previews have revealed, that Hannah is a keeper, and the woman he should marry.
But Hannah returns from Scotland with big news for Tom: She’s engaged to Colin (Kevin McKidd), a seemingly perfect man’s man. Hannah asks Tom to be her maid of honor, and he agrees. But Tom has a scheme to try to break up Colin and Hannah’s engagement and prevent their wedding. And in the process of his nefarious plotting, Tom has to convince Hannah that he’s a keeper, too.
“Made of Honor” is predictable but funny. Patrick Dempsey plays these kinds of characters perfectly. The movie also has some nice, little touches. For instance, when Hannah breaks the news of her engagement to Tom, he is dazed and his head is figuratively spinning. Director of photography Tony Pierce-Roberts enhances this moment visually with a swirling camera that encircles Tom, Hannah and Colin. This classic cinematographer’s trick enables us to experience what Tom is experiencing.
I’ve seen Michelle Monaghan in several movies now, and I have to say, she’s quite likable. In fact, I predict that she’ll be the next Meg Ryan, with her girl-next-door amiability.
Speaking of likability, sometimes the enjoyment of a movie comes from the person you’re watching it with. I saw “Made of Honor” with my mom when she was visiting me in Utah from West Virginia. And I like my mom lots, naturally, so the movie was even more fun because she enjoyed it, too. Indeed, had I not chosen Dave Eaton to be the best man at my wedding, I might have just as easily chosen her: She could have been my “best dudette,” or something like that.
Directed by Paul Weiland
Patrick Dempsey / Michelle Monaghan / Kevin McKidd
Comedy / Romance 101 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for sexual content and language)
U.S. Release Date: May 2, 2008
Copyright 2008: 289
O Excellent
X Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 17, 2008
You know, people chuckle at this movie’s title, but it happens. In fact, I have a good pal named Rich whose female best friend asked him to be her “dude of honor” when she got married. And he dutifully did. So yeah, it happens.
“Made of Honor” is a successful romantic comedy, which means it’s a perfectly good rental for date night. It follows that familiar formula that we all love, and hate.
Tom (Patrick Dempsey) and Hannah (Michelle Monaghan) have grown to be more or less inseparable best friends during the past 10 years. But their relationship has been strictly platonic. Tom has complicated, self-imposed rules that enable him to enjoy meaningless sex with numberless women, without settling down with any of them. But when Hannah goes to Scotland for six weeks on a business trip, Tom realizes what an important, happy role she plays in his life. He decides, as the previews have revealed, that Hannah is a keeper, and the woman he should marry.
But Hannah returns from Scotland with big news for Tom: She’s engaged to Colin (Kevin McKidd), a seemingly perfect man’s man. Hannah asks Tom to be her maid of honor, and he agrees. But Tom has a scheme to try to break up Colin and Hannah’s engagement and prevent their wedding. And in the process of his nefarious plotting, Tom has to convince Hannah that he’s a keeper, too.
“Made of Honor” is predictable but funny. Patrick Dempsey plays these kinds of characters perfectly. The movie also has some nice, little touches. For instance, when Hannah breaks the news of her engagement to Tom, he is dazed and his head is figuratively spinning. Director of photography Tony Pierce-Roberts enhances this moment visually with a swirling camera that encircles Tom, Hannah and Colin. This classic cinematographer’s trick enables us to experience what Tom is experiencing.
I’ve seen Michelle Monaghan in several movies now, and I have to say, she’s quite likable. In fact, I predict that she’ll be the next Meg Ryan, with her girl-next-door amiability.
Speaking of likability, sometimes the enjoyment of a movie comes from the person you’re watching it with. I saw “Made of Honor” with my mom when she was visiting me in Utah from West Virginia. And I like my mom lots, naturally, so the movie was even more fun because she enjoyed it, too. Indeed, had I not chosen Dave Eaton to be the best man at my wedding, I might have just as easily chosen her: She could have been my “best dudette,” or something like that.
Directed by Paul Weiland
Patrick Dempsey / Michelle Monaghan / Kevin McKidd
Comedy / Romance 101 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for sexual content and language)
U.S. Release Date: May 2, 2008
Copyright 2008: 289
Baby Mama (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
X Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 17, 2008
Kate Holbrook (Tina Fey) is 37, single, and a professional woman with a flourishing career in Philadelphia. She has almost everything she’s ever wanted — except a baby. Yes, Kate wants to be a mom more than anything; she’s basically tried all the modern medical methods, short of adoption (which is not a medical method), but Kate is told that she has a “hostile uterus.”
Now, up to this point, “Baby Mama” has a tinge of underlying sadness to it. There’s nothing funny about someone who desperately wants to be a parent but cannot. Take heart, the movie cheers up.
Kate eventually uses a surrogate service, which is a business contract where the mother-hopeful pays another woman to carry her baby to term, at which point the surrogate hands the baby over to the new mom and happily departs with her considerable financial compensation.
In “Baby Mama,” Kate doesn’t have much say over her surrogate’s selection process, so she ends up with Angie Ostrowiski (Amy Poehler), a childlike woman who is Kate’s opposite in every way. Naturally, with Kate’s ultra-carefulness and Angie’s relative carelessness, conflicts abound.
But that’s not all there is to “Baby Mama.” It has a number of refreshingly unexpected developments that horrify and delight us. The writer, Michael McCullers (who is also the director), has given us a good movie that conjures within us a wide range of emotions, some of them complex.
No. I’m not claiming it’s the best movie of the year, but “Baby Mama” delivers.
Directed by Michael McCullers
Tina Fey / Amy Poehler / Greg Kinnear
Comedy 99 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for crude and sexual humor, language and a drug reference)
U.S. Release Date: April 25, 2008
Copyright 2008: 285
O Excellent
X Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 17, 2008
Kate Holbrook (Tina Fey) is 37, single, and a professional woman with a flourishing career in Philadelphia. She has almost everything she’s ever wanted — except a baby. Yes, Kate wants to be a mom more than anything; she’s basically tried all the modern medical methods, short of adoption (which is not a medical method), but Kate is told that she has a “hostile uterus.”
Now, up to this point, “Baby Mama” has a tinge of underlying sadness to it. There’s nothing funny about someone who desperately wants to be a parent but cannot. Take heart, the movie cheers up.
Kate eventually uses a surrogate service, which is a business contract where the mother-hopeful pays another woman to carry her baby to term, at which point the surrogate hands the baby over to the new mom and happily departs with her considerable financial compensation.
In “Baby Mama,” Kate doesn’t have much say over her surrogate’s selection process, so she ends up with Angie Ostrowiski (Amy Poehler), a childlike woman who is Kate’s opposite in every way. Naturally, with Kate’s ultra-carefulness and Angie’s relative carelessness, conflicts abound.
But that’s not all there is to “Baby Mama.” It has a number of refreshingly unexpected developments that horrify and delight us. The writer, Michael McCullers (who is also the director), has given us a good movie that conjures within us a wide range of emotions, some of them complex.
No. I’m not claiming it’s the best movie of the year, but “Baby Mama” delivers.
Directed by Michael McCullers
Tina Fey / Amy Poehler / Greg Kinnear
Comedy 99 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for crude and sexual humor, language and a drug reference)
U.S. Release Date: April 25, 2008
Copyright 2008: 285
Deception (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
O Good
X OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 17, 2008
“Deception” might have been a better movie had its trailer not spoiled all its surprises. I realize it’s rather cliché to gripe about movie previews “giving away too much,” but in this case the spoiling is blatant.
Basically, we know where the entire movie is going from the moment it begins. I’m sure if I could have gone into “Deception” cold, I would have thought more of it. If you haven’t seen the trailers, you could probably call it “Good.” For those who are still in the dark about the premise revealed in the previews, I’ll summarize the plot gingerly.
Jonathan McQuarry (Ewan McGregor) is a lonely, friendless man. There’s nothing wrong with him, per se; he simply leads an unexciting life. Jonathan is an audit manager who crunches the numbers at big companies, making sure everything adds up as it should.
But it is through this job that Jonathan meets Wyatt Bose (Hugh Jackman), his antithesis. Wyatt is a charismatic, influential lawyer with an exciting life. Wyatt belongs to a sex club where the members receive anonymous phone calls from a list of willing, one-night-stand lovers. No names are exchanged; it’s just physical and that’s that: It’s “intimacy without intricacy for people that are too busy for love.”
Needless to say, Jonathan is dazzled by his new friend’s lifestyle. One day the two accidentally switch cell phones right before Wyatt takes a trip overseas to London. Now, Jonathan is in the driver’s seat of Wyatt’s exhilarating life. Best of all, Wyatt doesn’t mind one bit.
Well, that’s about as far as I’ll describe, except for one last thing: Wyatt’s lifestyle has dire consequences for Jonathan; when something seems too good to be true, it usually is.
With a premise like this, you’re probably wondering about the film’s sexual content. Though it sounds more prevalent, the sex club is merely a vehicle or a subplot to help carry the plot along. Even so, there are a couple semi-graphic sexual scenes, so “Deception” deserves its R-rating.
But when it’s all said and done, “Deception” is far too contrived, which means it’s so unlikely that these events would ever happen to someone that the movie loses its power of suspense. We know we are being toyed with by a work of pure fiction. As we watch “Deception,” we are not effectively drawn into the drama surrounding the characters. We are not, in fact, deceived … unless you count being duped into buying a ticket to see this movie.
Directed by Marcel Langenegger
Hugh Jackman / Ewan McGregor / Michelle Williams
Drama / Mystery 108 min.
MPAA: R (for sexual content, language, brief violence and some drug use)
U.S. Release Date: April 25, 2008
Copyright 2008: 286
O Excellent
O Good
X OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 17, 2008
“Deception” might have been a better movie had its trailer not spoiled all its surprises. I realize it’s rather cliché to gripe about movie previews “giving away too much,” but in this case the spoiling is blatant.
Basically, we know where the entire movie is going from the moment it begins. I’m sure if I could have gone into “Deception” cold, I would have thought more of it. If you haven’t seen the trailers, you could probably call it “Good.” For those who are still in the dark about the premise revealed in the previews, I’ll summarize the plot gingerly.
Jonathan McQuarry (Ewan McGregor) is a lonely, friendless man. There’s nothing wrong with him, per se; he simply leads an unexciting life. Jonathan is an audit manager who crunches the numbers at big companies, making sure everything adds up as it should.
But it is through this job that Jonathan meets Wyatt Bose (Hugh Jackman), his antithesis. Wyatt is a charismatic, influential lawyer with an exciting life. Wyatt belongs to a sex club where the members receive anonymous phone calls from a list of willing, one-night-stand lovers. No names are exchanged; it’s just physical and that’s that: It’s “intimacy without intricacy for people that are too busy for love.”
Needless to say, Jonathan is dazzled by his new friend’s lifestyle. One day the two accidentally switch cell phones right before Wyatt takes a trip overseas to London. Now, Jonathan is in the driver’s seat of Wyatt’s exhilarating life. Best of all, Wyatt doesn’t mind one bit.
Well, that’s about as far as I’ll describe, except for one last thing: Wyatt’s lifestyle has dire consequences for Jonathan; when something seems too good to be true, it usually is.
With a premise like this, you’re probably wondering about the film’s sexual content. Though it sounds more prevalent, the sex club is merely a vehicle or a subplot to help carry the plot along. Even so, there are a couple semi-graphic sexual scenes, so “Deception” deserves its R-rating.
But when it’s all said and done, “Deception” is far too contrived, which means it’s so unlikely that these events would ever happen to someone that the movie loses its power of suspense. We know we are being toyed with by a work of pure fiction. As we watch “Deception,” we are not effectively drawn into the drama surrounding the characters. We are not, in fact, deceived … unless you count being duped into buying a ticket to see this movie.
Directed by Marcel Langenegger
Hugh Jackman / Ewan McGregor / Michelle Williams
Drama / Mystery 108 min.
MPAA: R (for sexual content, language, brief violence and some drug use)
U.S. Release Date: April 25, 2008
Copyright 2008: 286
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
