O Masterpiece
O Excellent
X Rental
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / February 29, 2008
“Semi-Pro” is semi-funny. But then again, any movie that has Will Ferrell karate-chopping a grizzly bear in the neck is worth checking out.
The year is 1976. The town is Flint, Michigan. And the game is basketball. Jackie Moon (Will Ferrell) owns, coaches, pre-game-announces and plays power-forward for the Tropics, an American Basketball Association (ABA) team. He is also the team’s “expert choreographer” and promoter.
A one-hit wonder, Moon got all his money from his song “Love Me Sexy,” a comical, steamy little tune that evokes Barry White. The Tropics’ motto, which is enforced by Moon, is ELE (no, not Extinction Level Event, you “Deep Impact” fans) but simply “Everybody Love Everybody.” Don’t forget: This is the ‘70s.
But changes are afoot. The ABA is quickly going under. And at the end of this current season, four ABA teams will merge with the NBA and become professional franchises. The four teams with the best records will be exalted and the losers will be extinct. The problem is, Jackie Moon’s Tropics are more entertainers than basketball players (but not like the Harlem Globetrotters).
And that brings up a good point. Basketball fans shouldn’t expect to see a comical version of “Hoosiers” (1986). Let’s remember, this is a Will Ferrell movie, after all; and though he’s a tall man, you don’t get the feeling from the movie that basketball is one of his hobbies. Indeed, Ferrell’s “Blades of Glory” (2007) with Jon Heder has more ice skating than “Semi-Pro” has basketball, which is fine. The point is, don’t expect a big basketball flick.
“Semi-Pro” is great at resurrecting the ‘70s. We get nice touches like jokes about the variations on the “high-five” (there were many), America’s newest food crazes, Pong, the invention of new basketball plays and “Mother, Jugs & Speed” on a movie marquis, which did in fact hit theaters in 1976.
Aside from the bout with Dewie the Killer Bear (which gives a shout-out to “Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story”), the funniest scene involves a crowded poker table, a not-loaded handgun and the words “jive turkey.” The movie is worth seeing for this one scene, but I’m not sure anybody younger than 18 should see it. It’s not that it’s dirty, it’s just reckless.
Overall, “Semi-Pro” isn’t a bottom-rung comedy like “Witless Protection.” It’s more along the lines of “Hot Rod” (2007): funny but not hilarious; good but not great. “Semi-Pro” missteps by having Will Ferrell semi-worried and semi-responsible, instead of turning him to his usual full-blown mania. If you’d like to see Will Ferrell in a worrisome role, on the other hand, make sure you see “Stranger Than Fiction” (2006). It is, without question, his best movie to date and one of the best films of 2006.
Directed by Kent Alterman
Will Ferrell / Woody Harrelson / André Benjamin
Comedy / Sports 90 min.
MPAA: R (for language and some sexual content)
U.S. Release Date: February 29, 2008
Copyright 2008: 249
Friday, February 29, 2008
Monday, February 25, 2008
The Winners of the 80th Annual Academy Awards
2007 was a pretty good year for cinema. These are the results of the Academy Award-winners in each of the 24 categories for outstanding film achievements. The Academy Awards were presented on Sunday, February 24, 2008, at the Kodak Theatre. For more information, visit www.oscars.org
1. Best motion picture of the year:
O “Atonement”
O “Juno”
O “Michael Clayton”
X “No Country for Old Men”
O “There Will Be Blood”
2. Achievement in directing:
O “The Diving Bell and the Butterfly”
O “Juno”
O “Michael Clayton”
X “No Country for Old Men”
O “There Will Be Blood”
3. Performance by an actress in a leading role:
O Cate Blanchett in “Elizabeth: The Golden Age”
O Julie Christie in “Away From Her”
X Marion Cotillard in “La Vie en Rose”
O Laura Linney in “The Savages”
O Ellen Page in “Juno”
4. Performance by an actor in a leading role:
O George Clooney in “Michael Clayton”
X Daniel Day-Lewis in “There Will Be Blood”
O Johnny Depp in “Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street”
O Tommy Lee Jones in “In the Valley of Elah”
O Viggo Mortensen in “Eastern Promises”
5. Performance by an actress in a supporting role:
O Cate Blanchett in “I’m Not There”
O Ruby Dee in “American Gangster”
O Saoirse Ronan in “Atonement”
O Amy Ryan in “Gone Baby Gone”
X Tilda Swinton in “Michael Clayton”
6. Performance by an actor in a supporting role:
O Casey Affleck in “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford”
X Javier Bardem in “No Country for Old Men”
O Philip Seymour Hoffman in “Charlie Wilson’s War”
O Hal Holbrook in “Into the Wild”
O Tom Wilkinson in “Michael Clayton”
7. Adapted screenplay:
O “Atonement”
O “Away From Her”
O “The Diving Bell and the Butterfly”
X “No Country for Old Men”
O “There Will Be Blood”
8. Original screenplay:
X “Juno”
O “Lars and the Real Girl”
O “Michael Clayton”
O “Ratatouille”
O “The Savages”
9. Best documentary feature:
O “No End in Sight”
O “Operation Homecoming: Writing the Wartime Experience”
O “Sicko”
X “Taxi to the Dark Side”
O “War/Dance”
10. Best documentary short subject:
X “Freeheld”
O “La Corona (The Crown)”
O “Salim Baba”
O “Sari’s Mother”
11. Best foreign language film of the year:
O “Beaufort” (Israel)
X “The Counterfeiters” (Austria)
O “Katyn” (Poland)
O “Mongol” (Kazakhstan)
O “12” (Russia)
12. Best animated feature film of the year:
O “Persepolis”
X “Ratatouille”
O “Surf’s Up”
13. Best animated short film:
O “I Met the Walrus”
O “Madame Tutli-Putli”
O “Meme Les Pigeons Vont au Paradis (Even Pigeons Go to Heaven)
O “My Love (Moya Lyubov)”
X “Peter & the Wolf”
14. Best live action short film:
O “At Night”
O “Il Supplente (The Substitute)”
X “Le Mozart des Pickpockets (The Mozart of Pickpockets)”
O “Tanghi Argentini”
O “The Tonto Woman”
15. Achievement in cinematography:
O “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford”
O “Atonement”
O “The Diving Bell and the Butterfly”
O “No Country for Old Men”
X “There Will Be Blood”
16. Achievement in visual effects:
X “The Golden Compass”
O “Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End”
O “Transformers”
17. Achievement in film editing:
X “The Bourne Ultimatum”
O “The Diving Bell and the Butterfly”
O “Into the Wild”
O “No Country for Old Men”
O “There Will Be Blood”
18. Achievement in sound editing:
X “The Bourne Ultimatum”
O “No Country for Old Men”
O “Ratatouille”
O “There Will Be Blood”
O “Transformers”
19. Achievement in sound mixing:
X “The Bourne Ultimatum”
O “No Country for Old Men”
O “Ratatouille”
O “3:10 to Yuma”
O “Transformers”
20. Achievement in music written for motion pictures (Original score):
X “Atonement”
O “The Kite Runner”
O “Michael Clayton”
O “Ratatouille”
O “3:10 to Yuma”
21. Achievement in music written for motion pictures (Original song):
X “Falling Slowly” from “Once”
O “Happy Working Song” from “Enchanted”
O “Raise It Up” from “August Rush”
O “So Close” from “Enchanted”
O “That’s How You Know” from “Enchanted”
22. Achievement in art direction:
O “American Gangster”
O “Atonement”
O “The Golden Compass”
X “Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street”
O “There Will Be Blood”
23. Achievement in costume design:
O “Across the Universe”
O “Atonement”
X “Elizabeth: The Golden Age”
O “La Vie en Rose”
O “Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street”
24. Achievement in makeup:
X “La Vie en Rose”
O “Norbit”
O “Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End”
1. Best motion picture of the year:
O “Atonement”
O “Juno”
O “Michael Clayton”
X “No Country for Old Men”
O “There Will Be Blood”
2. Achievement in directing:
O “The Diving Bell and the Butterfly”
O “Juno”
O “Michael Clayton”
X “No Country for Old Men”
O “There Will Be Blood”
3. Performance by an actress in a leading role:
O Cate Blanchett in “Elizabeth: The Golden Age”
O Julie Christie in “Away From Her”
X Marion Cotillard in “La Vie en Rose”
O Laura Linney in “The Savages”
O Ellen Page in “Juno”
4. Performance by an actor in a leading role:
O George Clooney in “Michael Clayton”
X Daniel Day-Lewis in “There Will Be Blood”
O Johnny Depp in “Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street”
O Tommy Lee Jones in “In the Valley of Elah”
O Viggo Mortensen in “Eastern Promises”
5. Performance by an actress in a supporting role:
O Cate Blanchett in “I’m Not There”
O Ruby Dee in “American Gangster”
O Saoirse Ronan in “Atonement”
O Amy Ryan in “Gone Baby Gone”
X Tilda Swinton in “Michael Clayton”
6. Performance by an actor in a supporting role:
O Casey Affleck in “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford”
X Javier Bardem in “No Country for Old Men”
O Philip Seymour Hoffman in “Charlie Wilson’s War”
O Hal Holbrook in “Into the Wild”
O Tom Wilkinson in “Michael Clayton”
7. Adapted screenplay:
O “Atonement”
O “Away From Her”
O “The Diving Bell and the Butterfly”
X “No Country for Old Men”
O “There Will Be Blood”
8. Original screenplay:
X “Juno”
O “Lars and the Real Girl”
O “Michael Clayton”
O “Ratatouille”
O “The Savages”
9. Best documentary feature:
O “No End in Sight”
O “Operation Homecoming: Writing the Wartime Experience”
O “Sicko”
X “Taxi to the Dark Side”
O “War/Dance”
10. Best documentary short subject:
X “Freeheld”
O “La Corona (The Crown)”
O “Salim Baba”
O “Sari’s Mother”
11. Best foreign language film of the year:
O “Beaufort” (Israel)
X “The Counterfeiters” (Austria)
O “Katyn” (Poland)
O “Mongol” (Kazakhstan)
O “12” (Russia)
12. Best animated feature film of the year:
O “Persepolis”
X “Ratatouille”
O “Surf’s Up”
13. Best animated short film:
O “I Met the Walrus”
O “Madame Tutli-Putli”
O “Meme Les Pigeons Vont au Paradis (Even Pigeons Go to Heaven)
O “My Love (Moya Lyubov)”
X “Peter & the Wolf”
14. Best live action short film:
O “At Night”
O “Il Supplente (The Substitute)”
X “Le Mozart des Pickpockets (The Mozart of Pickpockets)”
O “Tanghi Argentini”
O “The Tonto Woman”
15. Achievement in cinematography:
O “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford”
O “Atonement”
O “The Diving Bell and the Butterfly”
O “No Country for Old Men”
X “There Will Be Blood”
16. Achievement in visual effects:
X “The Golden Compass”
O “Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End”
O “Transformers”
17. Achievement in film editing:
X “The Bourne Ultimatum”
O “The Diving Bell and the Butterfly”
O “Into the Wild”
O “No Country for Old Men”
O “There Will Be Blood”
18. Achievement in sound editing:
X “The Bourne Ultimatum”
O “No Country for Old Men”
O “Ratatouille”
O “There Will Be Blood”
O “Transformers”
19. Achievement in sound mixing:
X “The Bourne Ultimatum”
O “No Country for Old Men”
O “Ratatouille”
O “3:10 to Yuma”
O “Transformers”
20. Achievement in music written for motion pictures (Original score):
X “Atonement”
O “The Kite Runner”
O “Michael Clayton”
O “Ratatouille”
O “3:10 to Yuma”
21. Achievement in music written for motion pictures (Original song):
X “Falling Slowly” from “Once”
O “Happy Working Song” from “Enchanted”
O “Raise It Up” from “August Rush”
O “So Close” from “Enchanted”
O “That’s How You Know” from “Enchanted”
22. Achievement in art direction:
O “American Gangster”
O “Atonement”
O “The Golden Compass”
X “Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street”
O “There Will Be Blood”
23. Achievement in costume design:
O “Across the Universe”
O “Atonement”
X “Elizabeth: The Golden Age”
O “La Vie en Rose”
O “Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street”
24. Achievement in makeup:
X “La Vie en Rose”
O “Norbit”
O “Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End”
Witless Protection (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
O Rental
O OK
O Mediocrity
X Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / February 25, 2008
Benny Provenzano, my former karate instructor, taught us a Code of Ethics. The first one was “Look for the good in all people, and make them feel worthwhile.” That was later amended to “…and help them develop self-esteem.” Out of respect for that code, I can say perhaps Larry the Cable Guy is noble. There has to be something noble about wanting to make people laugh.
During his new movie, “Witless Protection,” some of my fellow audience members laughed, though I did not. I just don’t think gallows humor or redneck jokes are funny. As my fellow critic Luke Hickman observed, Larry the Cable Guy (and Jeff Foxworthy) keep “beating that dead, redneck horse.”
And somehow, I feel like a bully when I review these types of movies. First of all, they intend to be stupid. Even the title suggests an insult, referring to its lead character as witless. In some weird way, calling a meant-to-be-stupid movie stupid is actually a compliment, as it is acknowledging that its objective was successfully attained. Moreover, movie critics’ reviews of these kinds of flicks are largely unnecessary, because anyone who sees the trailer or hears the name “Larry the Cable Guy” already knows exactly what to expect.
But I care enough about the cinema to look into this movie, rather than turning my nose up at it. Admittedly, I quickly dismissed Larry the Cable Guy’s movie, “Delta Farce,” as the worst movie of the year in 2007. And it probably was. But “Witless Protection” is an improvement (albeit slight); and as a major motion picture release, it deserves an observant review, just like any other film. (Why does this review all of a sudden feel like Jerry Maguire’s infamous “The Things We Think and Do Not Say: The Future of Our Business” memo?)
There are some common threads through Larry’s movies. He seems to enjoy the good-hearted, good ol’ boy character who foolishly fumbles his way into “doing some good,” despite his seemingly blatant incompetence. In “Larry the Cable Guy: Health Inspector” (2006), he tackles a food poisoning epidemic. With “Delta Farce” (2007), he basically remakes a lesser version of “Three Amigos!” (1986).
In “Witless Protection,” Larry Stalder (Larry the Cable Guy) is a small-town law man, a sheriff’s deputy in Amicus County, Mississippi, who’s dedicated to his work. In fact, Larry even practices his police skills along with training videos and various homemade rigs that simulate the rigors of law enforcement. Ultimately, Larry aspires to become an FBI agent.
Naturally, he sort of gets his chance. A group of mysterious men in black blow through Larry’s town, escorting an unhappy woman named Madeleine (Ivana Milicevic). It turns out that the men in black are FBI agents who are transferring her under the safety of the witness protection program to testify in a corporate-scandal trial in Chicago. But of course, Larry assumes that Madeleine is being kidnapped and kidnaps her from the FBI. A chase ensues as Larry plans to personally deliver Madeleine safely at the trial. All the while, the FBI agents follow behind, and so do those who wish the girl harm.
In addition to this story line, you can expect slapstick, redneck jokes, plenty of bodily functions and gross-out humor. Indeed, there’s a pea green projectile vomiting scene that rivals “The Exorcist” (1973). And, of course, you get Larry’s standup routine metaphors, such as “…busier than a blow-up doll at a frat party,” or “…faster than Angelina Jolie adoptin’ jungle pigmies.”
“Witless Protection” has some senseless dialogue that I’m not sure how it made it into the movie. For instance, at one point Larry says, “You can’t make an omelet without crackin’ a few walnuts.” A line like this is inexplicable. If you think I’m being nitpicky, consider this exchange: “Are you insane?” “No, I’m Larry.” Or how about, “I’m going to miss your bodily functions.” There’s a difference between intentional, dumb writing and just plain laziness.
Setup and pay-off is a screenwriter’s trick that’s just like it sounds: There is something set up that we know about that comes back around again, later in the story, as the pay-off. As far as setups and pay-offs go, “Witless Protection” has a real winner. Larry sticks a corn cob into the FBI guys’ vehicle’s tailpipe. The camera shows us a close-up. Action, action, then the camera shows another close-up of the corn cob stuck in the tailpipe. More action, action, and finally, we see popcorn blowing out of the tail pipe. Nothing else happens, just some popcorn. … What? Perhaps the point was that we were expecting the corn to be some effective form of sabotage, and it was harmless. Again, I say laziness.
There’s something else I can’t figure out: Is Larry the Cable Guy truly making fun of rednecks or is he celebrating them? It’s probably a combination of both. But it’s peculiar to me that he chooses to embody the persona of that which he ridicules. He is ambiguous in this way.
Another example of that ambiguity is a scene where Larry unleashes a stream of racial slurs, suggesting that a man he thinks is Arab is associated with terrorism. Now, is this an actual racist comment about the fears of having various ethnicities live and work in America, or is it Larry the Cable Guy making fun of ignorant people who exhibit racist behavior like this? The cartoon, “Family Guy,” has been accused on many occasions of blatant racism and political incorrectness. But the intent is to show how ignorant, irrational and small-minded it is to think and act like Peter Griffin.
Larry the Cable Guy’s movies tend to have other unmistakable targets for both tribute and criticism. In “Witless Protection,” there’s a nod to the U.S. troops, and there’s an attack on post-9/11 airport security. These attention-getters are always conspicuous, but these films would be smarter to employ more subtlety. Indeed, there’s nothing subtle about Larry the Cable Guy’s characters or his movies.
Obviously there’s a market for this kind of humor, or these movies would not continue to be produced. My laughing, fellow audience members lend additional proof to this notion. So, how can we fairly judge a film when it seems to be a matter of taste? If the filmmakers accomplish what they set out to accomplish (which is easier to determine than it sounds), and the advertising accurately represents the movie, then we can ask no more.
“Witless Protection” intends to be stupid and gross and replete with redneck humor. And so it is, which means, even if these things don’t match your tastes or mine, they are excusable. But the reason I rated this movie as one to avoid is because it is guilty of the inexcusable, which is laziness. It’s one thing to finish a film and say, “This movie is dumb, just like we planned.” It’s another thing to finish a film and say, “Well, I guess that’s good enough…” No, it isn’t.
Directed by Charles Robert Carner
Larry the Cable Guy / Ivana Milicevic / Jenny McCarthy
Comedy 97 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for crude and sex-related humor)
U.S. Release Date: February 22, 2008
Copyright 2008: 247
O Excellent
O Rental
O OK
O Mediocrity
X Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / February 25, 2008
Benny Provenzano, my former karate instructor, taught us a Code of Ethics. The first one was “Look for the good in all people, and make them feel worthwhile.” That was later amended to “…and help them develop self-esteem.” Out of respect for that code, I can say perhaps Larry the Cable Guy is noble. There has to be something noble about wanting to make people laugh.
During his new movie, “Witless Protection,” some of my fellow audience members laughed, though I did not. I just don’t think gallows humor or redneck jokes are funny. As my fellow critic Luke Hickman observed, Larry the Cable Guy (and Jeff Foxworthy) keep “beating that dead, redneck horse.”
And somehow, I feel like a bully when I review these types of movies. First of all, they intend to be stupid. Even the title suggests an insult, referring to its lead character as witless. In some weird way, calling a meant-to-be-stupid movie stupid is actually a compliment, as it is acknowledging that its objective was successfully attained. Moreover, movie critics’ reviews of these kinds of flicks are largely unnecessary, because anyone who sees the trailer or hears the name “Larry the Cable Guy” already knows exactly what to expect.
But I care enough about the cinema to look into this movie, rather than turning my nose up at it. Admittedly, I quickly dismissed Larry the Cable Guy’s movie, “Delta Farce,” as the worst movie of the year in 2007. And it probably was. But “Witless Protection” is an improvement (albeit slight); and as a major motion picture release, it deserves an observant review, just like any other film. (Why does this review all of a sudden feel like Jerry Maguire’s infamous “The Things We Think and Do Not Say: The Future of Our Business” memo?)
There are some common threads through Larry’s movies. He seems to enjoy the good-hearted, good ol’ boy character who foolishly fumbles his way into “doing some good,” despite his seemingly blatant incompetence. In “Larry the Cable Guy: Health Inspector” (2006), he tackles a food poisoning epidemic. With “Delta Farce” (2007), he basically remakes a lesser version of “Three Amigos!” (1986).
In “Witless Protection,” Larry Stalder (Larry the Cable Guy) is a small-town law man, a sheriff’s deputy in Amicus County, Mississippi, who’s dedicated to his work. In fact, Larry even practices his police skills along with training videos and various homemade rigs that simulate the rigors of law enforcement. Ultimately, Larry aspires to become an FBI agent.
Naturally, he sort of gets his chance. A group of mysterious men in black blow through Larry’s town, escorting an unhappy woman named Madeleine (Ivana Milicevic). It turns out that the men in black are FBI agents who are transferring her under the safety of the witness protection program to testify in a corporate-scandal trial in Chicago. But of course, Larry assumes that Madeleine is being kidnapped and kidnaps her from the FBI. A chase ensues as Larry plans to personally deliver Madeleine safely at the trial. All the while, the FBI agents follow behind, and so do those who wish the girl harm.
In addition to this story line, you can expect slapstick, redneck jokes, plenty of bodily functions and gross-out humor. Indeed, there’s a pea green projectile vomiting scene that rivals “The Exorcist” (1973). And, of course, you get Larry’s standup routine metaphors, such as “…busier than a blow-up doll at a frat party,” or “…faster than Angelina Jolie adoptin’ jungle pigmies.”
“Witless Protection” has some senseless dialogue that I’m not sure how it made it into the movie. For instance, at one point Larry says, “You can’t make an omelet without crackin’ a few walnuts.” A line like this is inexplicable. If you think I’m being nitpicky, consider this exchange: “Are you insane?” “No, I’m Larry.” Or how about, “I’m going to miss your bodily functions.” There’s a difference between intentional, dumb writing and just plain laziness.
Setup and pay-off is a screenwriter’s trick that’s just like it sounds: There is something set up that we know about that comes back around again, later in the story, as the pay-off. As far as setups and pay-offs go, “Witless Protection” has a real winner. Larry sticks a corn cob into the FBI guys’ vehicle’s tailpipe. The camera shows us a close-up. Action, action, then the camera shows another close-up of the corn cob stuck in the tailpipe. More action, action, and finally, we see popcorn blowing out of the tail pipe. Nothing else happens, just some popcorn. … What? Perhaps the point was that we were expecting the corn to be some effective form of sabotage, and it was harmless. Again, I say laziness.
There’s something else I can’t figure out: Is Larry the Cable Guy truly making fun of rednecks or is he celebrating them? It’s probably a combination of both. But it’s peculiar to me that he chooses to embody the persona of that which he ridicules. He is ambiguous in this way.
Another example of that ambiguity is a scene where Larry unleashes a stream of racial slurs, suggesting that a man he thinks is Arab is associated with terrorism. Now, is this an actual racist comment about the fears of having various ethnicities live and work in America, or is it Larry the Cable Guy making fun of ignorant people who exhibit racist behavior like this? The cartoon, “Family Guy,” has been accused on many occasions of blatant racism and political incorrectness. But the intent is to show how ignorant, irrational and small-minded it is to think and act like Peter Griffin.
Larry the Cable Guy’s movies tend to have other unmistakable targets for both tribute and criticism. In “Witless Protection,” there’s a nod to the U.S. troops, and there’s an attack on post-9/11 airport security. These attention-getters are always conspicuous, but these films would be smarter to employ more subtlety. Indeed, there’s nothing subtle about Larry the Cable Guy’s characters or his movies.
Obviously there’s a market for this kind of humor, or these movies would not continue to be produced. My laughing, fellow audience members lend additional proof to this notion. So, how can we fairly judge a film when it seems to be a matter of taste? If the filmmakers accomplish what they set out to accomplish (which is easier to determine than it sounds), and the advertising accurately represents the movie, then we can ask no more.
“Witless Protection” intends to be stupid and gross and replete with redneck humor. And so it is, which means, even if these things don’t match your tastes or mine, they are excusable. But the reason I rated this movie as one to avoid is because it is guilty of the inexcusable, which is laziness. It’s one thing to finish a film and say, “This movie is dumb, just like we planned.” It’s another thing to finish a film and say, “Well, I guess that’s good enough…” No, it isn’t.
Directed by Charles Robert Carner
Larry the Cable Guy / Ivana Milicevic / Jenny McCarthy
Comedy 97 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for crude and sex-related humor)
U.S. Release Date: February 22, 2008
Copyright 2008: 247
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Orange Duck Shoes Hurt? (2000)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
O Rental
O OK
O Mediocrity
X Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / February 24, 2008
As more of a self-amusing exercise than anything else, this is a review of a movie that I made eight years ago with my friend, Zach Ziegler. “Be Kind Rewind” reminded me of it; and as I wrote in that review, “Orange Duck Shoes Hurt?” came about because Zach and I decided that we could make a movie just as entertaining as “Jackie Chan’s First Strike” (1996). We failed miserably.
Without further ado, I will attempt to review this movie objectively; and though it might seem weird, I will refer to my filmmaker self in third person.
On one hand, “Orange Duck Shoes Hurt?” is proof that one should be required to have a competency license to make a movie … the same goes for making babies. But on the other hand, “Orange Duck Shoes Hurt?,” if nothing else, makes a statement about the influence of Hollywood filmmaking conventions and their prevalent impressions upon the average filmgoer.
I believe it was André Bazin who said that each person must learn how to watch and understand films. Our three-dimensional world is represented within a frame of a two-dimensional world, complete with editing cuts, omniscient observance and ellipses in time and space. In other words, we come to accept that there’s a world within the movie screen; and though it appears to be like our own surroundings, it’s much different from our reality. Even so, we accept it as if it were our own.
This being said, first-time filmmakers, Jason Pyles and Zach Ziegler, demonstrate an instinctive imitation of traditional Hollywood screenplay conventions and story-arc structure. In other words, despite their complete ignorance about filmmaking (which is not a judgment but a fact), the two apparently watched and learned. Indeed, “Orange Duck Shoes Hurt?” has an inciting incident, rising action and a climax. There’s even an attempt at an M. Night Shyamalan twist.
The other redeeming element of “Orange Duck Shoes Hurt?,” from a theoretical standpoint, is the way it’s a historical record documenting things the way they were. But of course, like photography, most films capture their subjects the way they appeared to be at that time. This is not something to praise the filmmaker for, however, it is the medium that deserves the praise, as this happens quite naturally, by default.
“Orange Duck Shoes Hurt?” is not a low-budget film but a no-budget film, literally. In fact, this movie had no script, of any kind, which means the dialogue is the result of painfully poor improvisation, as is the plot. What makes this worse is, for the most part, the characters play themselves; so you’d think that they could at least be themselves with no trouble. Not so. Judging by this one movie’s performance, Jason Pyles has to be the biggest over-actor I’ve seen, while Zach Ziegler is flatly the worst actor – period, even exceeding Jerry Seinfeld, which is a real accomplishment. Unfortunately, these two have the most screen time, so for 61 minutes we are pummeled by their paltry performances. The critiques in this paragraph, alone, are reason enough to avoid watching “Orange Duck Shoes Hurt?”
The movie is primarily a mystery. But it is also an attempted comedy and briefly a thriller and an action flick. Set in the modern-day Ohio Valley, “Orange Duck Shoes Hurt?” begins with Jason and Zach getting together to play video games. During their bout, Jason’s Aunt Darlene calls to report that her son, Matt (aka “C-Money”), is missing. At first, the news is disregarded because C-Money has a tendency to wander about nomadically, due to his wild lifestyle.
But Zach and Jason quickly take the case. The two begin an investigation that leads them to Darlene’s house, Missing Persons Anonymous, a Wendy’s drive-thru and many other places. Zach and Jason even get into a car chase scene, which has to be the worst one in movie history because there are no cross-cuts. The lengthy scene is solely shot from Zach’s back seat; and quite frankly, it’s boring.
At one point, Jason and Zach end up on the sixth floor of a parking garage, where they are attacked by gang members who complain, repeatedly, to the two trespassers on their turf. During this, the movie’s only action scene, Zooks (Mark Chamberlain) attacks Zach, who employs an unconvincing, Three Stooges onslaught, mixed with professional wrestling moves.
Next Mr. Marsh (Jason Marsh), who’s dressed like a preppy college kid, squares off against Pyles in a martial arts battle. Now, this fight scene was the motivation to make the film. It’s not horrible. Marsh (a real-life blackbelt) is quick and has good form. Pyles, on the other hand, is slow and out of shape, which kills the momentum of the sequence. But this climactic fight ends with the movie’s best scene: Pyles dangling from the sixth floor of the parking garage. (There is a whole other story behind “the making of” that can be found in my “Be Kind Rewind” review.) This is the best scene because of how convincing it is. Indeed, it is Pyles’ first and last attempt at being a stuntman. That’s probably for the best.
The movie’s only notable special effects come from a segment supplied by Bill Barnes. His portion of the film was shot in Philadelphia. He includes moving computer graphics (CGI, I suppose) that suggest a dream sequence. Relating to this, at one point Pyles writes a letter to Barnes, asking for his help. Though it’s too long, this is one of the movie’s few truly humorous moments.
The novice filmmakers shot the entire movie in chronological order, according to the plot. And in the beginning, it seems that Pyles and Ziegler had the discipline to film a quick scene and not linger too long. But perhaps in the interest of lengthening the runtime or simple overindulgence, the scenes get unnecessarily longer and longer. The movie’s low-point is the overlong, bizarre additions to Barnes’ dream sequence.
“Orange Duck Shoes Hurt?,” a movie whose nonsensical title was randomly assembled by its filmmakers, is a 61-minute waste of time. Perhaps the Marsh-Pyles fight scene and the letter sequence could be salvaged to entertain the masses on YouTube; but otherwise, let’s hope these two filmmakers go missing with C-Money.
Directed by Jason Pyles and Zach Ziegler
Jason Pyles / Zach Ziegler / Matt Taylor
Mystery / Comedy 61 min.
MPAA: No official MPAA rating (but it would be PG for thematic elements)
U.S. Release Date: October 1, 2000
Copyright 2008: 246
O Excellent
O Rental
O OK
O Mediocrity
X Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / February 24, 2008
As more of a self-amusing exercise than anything else, this is a review of a movie that I made eight years ago with my friend, Zach Ziegler. “Be Kind Rewind” reminded me of it; and as I wrote in that review, “Orange Duck Shoes Hurt?” came about because Zach and I decided that we could make a movie just as entertaining as “Jackie Chan’s First Strike” (1996). We failed miserably.
Without further ado, I will attempt to review this movie objectively; and though it might seem weird, I will refer to my filmmaker self in third person.
On one hand, “Orange Duck Shoes Hurt?” is proof that one should be required to have a competency license to make a movie … the same goes for making babies. But on the other hand, “Orange Duck Shoes Hurt?,” if nothing else, makes a statement about the influence of Hollywood filmmaking conventions and their prevalent impressions upon the average filmgoer.
I believe it was André Bazin who said that each person must learn how to watch and understand films. Our three-dimensional world is represented within a frame of a two-dimensional world, complete with editing cuts, omniscient observance and ellipses in time and space. In other words, we come to accept that there’s a world within the movie screen; and though it appears to be like our own surroundings, it’s much different from our reality. Even so, we accept it as if it were our own.
This being said, first-time filmmakers, Jason Pyles and Zach Ziegler, demonstrate an instinctive imitation of traditional Hollywood screenplay conventions and story-arc structure. In other words, despite their complete ignorance about filmmaking (which is not a judgment but a fact), the two apparently watched and learned. Indeed, “Orange Duck Shoes Hurt?” has an inciting incident, rising action and a climax. There’s even an attempt at an M. Night Shyamalan twist.
The other redeeming element of “Orange Duck Shoes Hurt?,” from a theoretical standpoint, is the way it’s a historical record documenting things the way they were. But of course, like photography, most films capture their subjects the way they appeared to be at that time. This is not something to praise the filmmaker for, however, it is the medium that deserves the praise, as this happens quite naturally, by default.
“Orange Duck Shoes Hurt?” is not a low-budget film but a no-budget film, literally. In fact, this movie had no script, of any kind, which means the dialogue is the result of painfully poor improvisation, as is the plot. What makes this worse is, for the most part, the characters play themselves; so you’d think that they could at least be themselves with no trouble. Not so. Judging by this one movie’s performance, Jason Pyles has to be the biggest over-actor I’ve seen, while Zach Ziegler is flatly the worst actor – period, even exceeding Jerry Seinfeld, which is a real accomplishment. Unfortunately, these two have the most screen time, so for 61 minutes we are pummeled by their paltry performances. The critiques in this paragraph, alone, are reason enough to avoid watching “Orange Duck Shoes Hurt?”
The movie is primarily a mystery. But it is also an attempted comedy and briefly a thriller and an action flick. Set in the modern-day Ohio Valley, “Orange Duck Shoes Hurt?” begins with Jason and Zach getting together to play video games. During their bout, Jason’s Aunt Darlene calls to report that her son, Matt (aka “C-Money”), is missing. At first, the news is disregarded because C-Money has a tendency to wander about nomadically, due to his wild lifestyle.
But Zach and Jason quickly take the case. The two begin an investigation that leads them to Darlene’s house, Missing Persons Anonymous, a Wendy’s drive-thru and many other places. Zach and Jason even get into a car chase scene, which has to be the worst one in movie history because there are no cross-cuts. The lengthy scene is solely shot from Zach’s back seat; and quite frankly, it’s boring.
At one point, Jason and Zach end up on the sixth floor of a parking garage, where they are attacked by gang members who complain, repeatedly, to the two trespassers on their turf. During this, the movie’s only action scene, Zooks (Mark Chamberlain) attacks Zach, who employs an unconvincing, Three Stooges onslaught, mixed with professional wrestling moves.
Next Mr. Marsh (Jason Marsh), who’s dressed like a preppy college kid, squares off against Pyles in a martial arts battle. Now, this fight scene was the motivation to make the film. It’s not horrible. Marsh (a real-life blackbelt) is quick and has good form. Pyles, on the other hand, is slow and out of shape, which kills the momentum of the sequence. But this climactic fight ends with the movie’s best scene: Pyles dangling from the sixth floor of the parking garage. (There is a whole other story behind “the making of” that can be found in my “Be Kind Rewind” review.) This is the best scene because of how convincing it is. Indeed, it is Pyles’ first and last attempt at being a stuntman. That’s probably for the best.
The movie’s only notable special effects come from a segment supplied by Bill Barnes. His portion of the film was shot in Philadelphia. He includes moving computer graphics (CGI, I suppose) that suggest a dream sequence. Relating to this, at one point Pyles writes a letter to Barnes, asking for his help. Though it’s too long, this is one of the movie’s few truly humorous moments.
The novice filmmakers shot the entire movie in chronological order, according to the plot. And in the beginning, it seems that Pyles and Ziegler had the discipline to film a quick scene and not linger too long. But perhaps in the interest of lengthening the runtime or simple overindulgence, the scenes get unnecessarily longer and longer. The movie’s low-point is the overlong, bizarre additions to Barnes’ dream sequence.
“Orange Duck Shoes Hurt?,” a movie whose nonsensical title was randomly assembled by its filmmakers, is a 61-minute waste of time. Perhaps the Marsh-Pyles fight scene and the letter sequence could be salvaged to entertain the masses on YouTube; but otherwise, let’s hope these two filmmakers go missing with C-Money.
Directed by Jason Pyles and Zach Ziegler
Jason Pyles / Zach Ziegler / Matt Taylor
Mystery / Comedy 61 min.
MPAA: No official MPAA rating (but it would be PG for thematic elements)
U.S. Release Date: October 1, 2000
Copyright 2008: 246
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Be Kind Rewind (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
X Rental
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / February 23, 2008
Note: The following preface is unusually lengthy but worth reading.
True story: In 2001, my friend Zach Ziegler and I were watching “Jackie Chan’s First Strike” (1996), a movie that I recommend, because it has Chan’s best-ever usage of a prop: “the ladder scene”; it’s unforgettable.
Even so, in our arrogance Zach and I discussed Chan’s tendency to do all his own stunts, and we decided that we were unimpressed; and since I had taken karate for 10 years, I felt confident that we could make our own movies, too, and do just as well, despite our budgetary restraints.
We began filming and cast various other friends and family members. That was our first mistake. Our second mistake was Zach’s decision to film without a screenplay or any pre-written dialogue; instead, we foolishly relied on improvisation and creative whimsy. Our film, which is inexplicably titled “Orange Duck Shoes Hurt?” (2000), is a simple story, a thriller, about a young man’s search for his missing cousin. (I should review it someday, just for fun.)
Anyway, it was time to shoot the climactic scene. We were planning a martial arts fight scene atop a six-story parking garage in downtown Wheeling, W.Va. I was supposed to be kicked over the edge of the parking structure but hang onto the side and dangle, Jackie-Chan style.
Lucky for me, my intelligent friend, Jason Marsh, refused to have me perform the stunt over the actual six-story edge. Instead, I’d simply hang over a wall that had no drop at all. I agreed begrudgingly. When we performed the stunt, I lost my grip and my feet hit the ground on the other side of the wall. To my horror, at that moment, I realized that I would have fallen to my ignominious death had I not listened to Marsh.
But that’s not the end of the story: On another day, Zach and I returned to the parking structure unsatisfied. We still needed to shoot the dangling-Jason footage. So, I slowly lowered myself into position to hang one story up. This gave the illusion of my desired six-story hang. I hammed it up, swinging my legs and pretending to climb up. But again, to my horror, when it was time to pull myself up, I had reached exhaustion and could not do it.
Soon Zach came to pull me up, which eventually worked, but not without painful effort and broken glasses. It turns out that amid the idiocy, someone saw me swinging from the building and dutifully called 9-1-1. By the time the fire trucks (plural) and police cars (plural) arrived, Zach and I were casually driving out of the parking garage, looking innocent. I’m ashamed to reveal that I was 25 years old at the time.
I began with this personal prelude for the three lessons it teaches: 1. In the movies, when you see a guy hanging off a ledge and he climbs back up, unless that guy is Jackie Chan, he couldn’t really do that. 2. When they say “Don’t try this at home,” we should listen. 3. I respect Jackie Chan and am humbled anew at his stuntman-martial artist prowess. Admittedly, making movies is not as easy as it looks.
Eerily similar to Zach and me, “Be Kind Rewind” is about two pals who also think they can make movies just as well as Hollywood. In fact, they even remake “Rush Hour 2” (2001), a movie starring Jackie Chan, and they film a scene depicting one of them hanging from a building. I laughed out loud from the instant recollection of my embarrassing memory. But you know what? My scene was better.
Like the zany documentary “Cinemania” (2002), “Be Kind Rewind” is made especially for movie lovers. Mike (Mos Def) works in a video store in Passaic, N.J. called Be Kind Rewind. The store only rents VHS tapes, and has the following motto: one video, one day, one dollar, everyday. Also, despite its dilapidated condition, the store is a historical landmark, as it is the birthplace for the great jazz musician, Fats Waller.
Of course, there’s a corporate presence trying to tear down the store and refurbish the entire block. (This plot line also previously happened in Wheeling.) Meanwhile, amid the pressure of competing with the Blockbuster-like competition (West Coast Video), Be Kind Rewind struggles to remain afloat.
So, when its owner, Mr. Fletcher (Danny Glover), goes on a “business trip” to spy on his competitor, he leaves the store in Mike’s capable hands. But when his pal Jerry (Jack Black) unwittingly and ridiculously becomes magnetized, the result is a store full of erased VHS movies.
In order to keep the business going, Mike and Jerry begin making “Sweded” films, which means they star in shorter, hilarious, low-budget, homespun remakes of the titles customers request, such as “Ghost Busters” (1984), “The Lion King” (1994) and “2001: A Space Odyssey” (1968), just to name a few. And, only in the movies, the homemade movies become all the rage, a neighborhood craze.
From the previews, you might think that the Sweded remakes are the primary focus of “Be Kind Rewind.” Unfortunately, they’re not. In fact, it’s a shame that the movie doesn’t stick to this winning concept. Instead, it has several plots afoot, which take considerable time to develop and resolve. This is a miscalculation on writer-director Michel Gondry’s part.
Indeed, the brilliance behind “Be Kind Rewind” is that it makes us, the audience, crave to see more and more of the low-budget films within the film. That’s a funny and amazing trick that Gondry pulls, because we usually hate low-budget films!
Had Gondry stuck with the golden idea to have Jack Black remake movies we’re all familiar with, “Be Kind Rewind” could have been excellent, possibly even a masterpiece. The inventive and ingenious ways that Mike and Jerry come up with to film special effects scenes give us a wink from the professional filmmakers behind the camera.
“Be Kind Rewind” is worth seeing, particularly if you’re a film buff, solely for its in-joke tributes of classic films of the past. And though I’d recommend seeing the movie first, you should check out the film’s Web site: www.bekindmovie.com
I read somewhere that the best way to learn how to critique movies is to try to make one yourself. And so it is with a few of the most respected movie critics: The legendary Graham Greene wrote the screenplay for “The Third Man” (1949). The monumental James Agee worked on writing the adaptation of “The African Queen” (1951). And my favorite critic, Roger Ebert, wrote the screenplay for “Beyond the Valley of the Dolls” (1970).
But not even the great Roger Ebert did his own stunts. I guess not everybody can be a stuntman gone movie critic. … Any attempts were probably not survived.
Directed by Michel Gondry
Jack Black / Mos Def / Danny Glover
Comedy 101 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for some sexual references)
U.S. Release Date: February 22, 2008
Copyright 2008: 245
O Excellent
X Rental
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / February 23, 2008
Note: The following preface is unusually lengthy but worth reading.
True story: In 2001, my friend Zach Ziegler and I were watching “Jackie Chan’s First Strike” (1996), a movie that I recommend, because it has Chan’s best-ever usage of a prop: “the ladder scene”; it’s unforgettable.
Even so, in our arrogance Zach and I discussed Chan’s tendency to do all his own stunts, and we decided that we were unimpressed; and since I had taken karate for 10 years, I felt confident that we could make our own movies, too, and do just as well, despite our budgetary restraints.
We began filming and cast various other friends and family members. That was our first mistake. Our second mistake was Zach’s decision to film without a screenplay or any pre-written dialogue; instead, we foolishly relied on improvisation and creative whimsy. Our film, which is inexplicably titled “Orange Duck Shoes Hurt?” (2000), is a simple story, a thriller, about a young man’s search for his missing cousin. (I should review it someday, just for fun.)
Anyway, it was time to shoot the climactic scene. We were planning a martial arts fight scene atop a six-story parking garage in downtown Wheeling, W.Va. I was supposed to be kicked over the edge of the parking structure but hang onto the side and dangle, Jackie-Chan style.
Lucky for me, my intelligent friend, Jason Marsh, refused to have me perform the stunt over the actual six-story edge. Instead, I’d simply hang over a wall that had no drop at all. I agreed begrudgingly. When we performed the stunt, I lost my grip and my feet hit the ground on the other side of the wall. To my horror, at that moment, I realized that I would have fallen to my ignominious death had I not listened to Marsh.
But that’s not the end of the story: On another day, Zach and I returned to the parking structure unsatisfied. We still needed to shoot the dangling-Jason footage. So, I slowly lowered myself into position to hang one story up. This gave the illusion of my desired six-story hang. I hammed it up, swinging my legs and pretending to climb up. But again, to my horror, when it was time to pull myself up, I had reached exhaustion and could not do it.
Soon Zach came to pull me up, which eventually worked, but not without painful effort and broken glasses. It turns out that amid the idiocy, someone saw me swinging from the building and dutifully called 9-1-1. By the time the fire trucks (plural) and police cars (plural) arrived, Zach and I were casually driving out of the parking garage, looking innocent. I’m ashamed to reveal that I was 25 years old at the time.
I began with this personal prelude for the three lessons it teaches: 1. In the movies, when you see a guy hanging off a ledge and he climbs back up, unless that guy is Jackie Chan, he couldn’t really do that. 2. When they say “Don’t try this at home,” we should listen. 3. I respect Jackie Chan and am humbled anew at his stuntman-martial artist prowess. Admittedly, making movies is not as easy as it looks.
Eerily similar to Zach and me, “Be Kind Rewind” is about two pals who also think they can make movies just as well as Hollywood. In fact, they even remake “Rush Hour 2” (2001), a movie starring Jackie Chan, and they film a scene depicting one of them hanging from a building. I laughed out loud from the instant recollection of my embarrassing memory. But you know what? My scene was better.
Like the zany documentary “Cinemania” (2002), “Be Kind Rewind” is made especially for movie lovers. Mike (Mos Def) works in a video store in Passaic, N.J. called Be Kind Rewind. The store only rents VHS tapes, and has the following motto: one video, one day, one dollar, everyday. Also, despite its dilapidated condition, the store is a historical landmark, as it is the birthplace for the great jazz musician, Fats Waller.
Of course, there’s a corporate presence trying to tear down the store and refurbish the entire block. (This plot line also previously happened in Wheeling.) Meanwhile, amid the pressure of competing with the Blockbuster-like competition (West Coast Video), Be Kind Rewind struggles to remain afloat.
So, when its owner, Mr. Fletcher (Danny Glover), goes on a “business trip” to spy on his competitor, he leaves the store in Mike’s capable hands. But when his pal Jerry (Jack Black) unwittingly and ridiculously becomes magnetized, the result is a store full of erased VHS movies.
In order to keep the business going, Mike and Jerry begin making “Sweded” films, which means they star in shorter, hilarious, low-budget, homespun remakes of the titles customers request, such as “Ghost Busters” (1984), “The Lion King” (1994) and “2001: A Space Odyssey” (1968), just to name a few. And, only in the movies, the homemade movies become all the rage, a neighborhood craze.
From the previews, you might think that the Sweded remakes are the primary focus of “Be Kind Rewind.” Unfortunately, they’re not. In fact, it’s a shame that the movie doesn’t stick to this winning concept. Instead, it has several plots afoot, which take considerable time to develop and resolve. This is a miscalculation on writer-director Michel Gondry’s part.
Indeed, the brilliance behind “Be Kind Rewind” is that it makes us, the audience, crave to see more and more of the low-budget films within the film. That’s a funny and amazing trick that Gondry pulls, because we usually hate low-budget films!
Had Gondry stuck with the golden idea to have Jack Black remake movies we’re all familiar with, “Be Kind Rewind” could have been excellent, possibly even a masterpiece. The inventive and ingenious ways that Mike and Jerry come up with to film special effects scenes give us a wink from the professional filmmakers behind the camera.
“Be Kind Rewind” is worth seeing, particularly if you’re a film buff, solely for its in-joke tributes of classic films of the past. And though I’d recommend seeing the movie first, you should check out the film’s Web site: www.bekindmovie.com
I read somewhere that the best way to learn how to critique movies is to try to make one yourself. And so it is with a few of the most respected movie critics: The legendary Graham Greene wrote the screenplay for “The Third Man” (1949). The monumental James Agee worked on writing the adaptation of “The African Queen” (1951). And my favorite critic, Roger Ebert, wrote the screenplay for “Beyond the Valley of the Dolls” (1970).
But not even the great Roger Ebert did his own stunts. I guess not everybody can be a stuntman gone movie critic. … Any attempts were probably not survived.
Directed by Michel Gondry
Jack Black / Mos Def / Danny Glover
Comedy 101 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for some sexual references)
U.S. Release Date: February 22, 2008
Copyright 2008: 245
Friday, February 22, 2008
Vantage Point (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
O Rental
O OK
X Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / February 22, 2008
“The Blair Witch Project” (1999) supposedly cost a mere $22,000 to produce … surely “Vantage Point” cost even less than that.
“Vantage Point” gives us the same footage, played over and over, with different camera angles. That’s right, we’re shown the same 23 minutes of events, six times.
The setting is Salamanca, Spain, modern-day, Aug. 11 to be exact. In an open plaza, 150 countries’ leaders and representatives are attending a “World Summit Against Terrorism,” where the president of the United States, President Ashton (William Hurt), is about to announce his counter-terrorist strategy, a plan that will finally enable western and Arab nations to reach an agreement and live harmoniously … only in the movies, right?
As we have been shown through relentless, merciless advertising for this movie, a sniper shoots the U.S. president while he’s at the podium. Two bombs explode. Havoc and chaos ensue. The Secret Service scurries to find the assassin(s). What I have just described is basically the whole movie, except we get to see a few additional minutes with each replay.
I don’t know about you, but I was looking forward to “Vantage Point” with great hope. It seems like a good idea, right? Well, it is a good idea if it’s done well. I happen to know this because this revision-and-retelling technique of the narrative has been done masterfully before by Akira Kurosawa in “Rashômon” (1950). While watching “Vantage Point,” I couldn’t help but wonder if director Pete Travis and writer Barry Levy had ever seen Kurosawa’s film. After all, it is required viewing.
“Rashômon” investigates a murder by showing us each various, discrepancy-filled perspective of individuals associated with a murder. One point that is effectively made in Kurosawa’s film is that the specifics of an event can vary greatly from witness to witness, notwithstanding liars. “Vantage Point” even fails to illustrate this concept, because each instant replay is the same, suggesting that everyone saw the incident the same way. Ludicrous.
Next I thought of Alfred Hitchcock’s “Rope” (1948), because almost the entire film takes place in one room: Two weird dudes strangle a guy, place him in a chest, and invite his family to have dinner in that same room. Incidentally, it’s not boring, either. But “Vantage Point” essentially takes place on the same stage, so to speak, and quickly becomes monotonous.
What about “Groundhog Day” (1993)? Isn’t it also tedious? It can be somewhat tiresome if you’ve seen it before; but overall that movie works because Bill Murray’s character changes his actions with each new February 2. A “Vantage Point” version of “Groundhog Day” would have us watch the events of Bill Murray’s first Groundhog Day, over and over. Very fun.
And here’s another gripe: The movie is called “Vantage Point,” let’s note. One of the movie’s taglines reads, “8 Strangers. 8 Point of View. 1 Truth.” Adding these facts together, and considering that the event is shown six times, it seems clear that we are to understand that we are seeing what these people are seeing through their subjective points of view.
Simply put, “Vantage Point” looks more closely at these characters’ actions during the event, but the camera (which we identify with) still usually remains an omniscient, third-person observer. The tagline leads me to believe that we’ll see something similar to the subjective point of view found in “Cloverfield.” But not so.
When we do get through the twists and turns and learn the plot secrets, we are both disappointed and disgruntled. “Vantage Points” gives us mechanical dialogue (which is repeated), and several heinous car wrecks that the characters walk away from … I’m talkin’ wrecks that crash-test dummies couldn’t survive.
Each time the movie would “rewind” to start another retelling, the packed theater would groan or laugh (and this is not a comedy). As the movie progressed, the laughter became more frequent and intense. I was honestly waiting for Leslie Nielsen to be onscreen any minute.
You might wonder how “Vantage Point” could go wrong with such a stellar cast: Dennis Quaid, Matthew Fox, Forest Whitaker, Sigourney Weaver, William Hurt. Well, I learned the hard way from “The Devil’s Own” (1997), starring Harrison Ford and Brad Pitt, just how bad big-star movies can be. It has happened before, and it has again with “Vantage Point.”
Lastly, I end with a helpful illustration of what it’s like to watch “Vantage Point.” Note the fun:
“Vantage Point” gives us the same footage, played over and over.
“Vantage Point” gives us the same footage, played over and over. This is the …
“Vantage Point” gives us the same footage, played over and over. This is the end …
“Vantage Point” gives us the same footage, played over and over. This is the end and …
“Vantage Point” gives us the same footage, played over and over. This is the end and that’s …
“Vantage Point” gives us the same footage, played over and over. This is the end and that’s it.
Directed by Pete Travis
Dennis Quaid / Matthew Fox / William Hurt
Drama / Action 90 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for sequences of intense violence and action, some disturbing images and brief strong language)
U.S. Release Date: February 22, 2008
Copyright 2008: 244
O Excellent
O Rental
O OK
X Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / February 22, 2008
“The Blair Witch Project” (1999) supposedly cost a mere $22,000 to produce … surely “Vantage Point” cost even less than that.
“Vantage Point” gives us the same footage, played over and over, with different camera angles. That’s right, we’re shown the same 23 minutes of events, six times.
The setting is Salamanca, Spain, modern-day, Aug. 11 to be exact. In an open plaza, 150 countries’ leaders and representatives are attending a “World Summit Against Terrorism,” where the president of the United States, President Ashton (William Hurt), is about to announce his counter-terrorist strategy, a plan that will finally enable western and Arab nations to reach an agreement and live harmoniously … only in the movies, right?
As we have been shown through relentless, merciless advertising for this movie, a sniper shoots the U.S. president while he’s at the podium. Two bombs explode. Havoc and chaos ensue. The Secret Service scurries to find the assassin(s). What I have just described is basically the whole movie, except we get to see a few additional minutes with each replay.
I don’t know about you, but I was looking forward to “Vantage Point” with great hope. It seems like a good idea, right? Well, it is a good idea if it’s done well. I happen to know this because this revision-and-retelling technique of the narrative has been done masterfully before by Akira Kurosawa in “Rashômon” (1950). While watching “Vantage Point,” I couldn’t help but wonder if director Pete Travis and writer Barry Levy had ever seen Kurosawa’s film. After all, it is required viewing.
“Rashômon” investigates a murder by showing us each various, discrepancy-filled perspective of individuals associated with a murder. One point that is effectively made in Kurosawa’s film is that the specifics of an event can vary greatly from witness to witness, notwithstanding liars. “Vantage Point” even fails to illustrate this concept, because each instant replay is the same, suggesting that everyone saw the incident the same way. Ludicrous.
Next I thought of Alfred Hitchcock’s “Rope” (1948), because almost the entire film takes place in one room: Two weird dudes strangle a guy, place him in a chest, and invite his family to have dinner in that same room. Incidentally, it’s not boring, either. But “Vantage Point” essentially takes place on the same stage, so to speak, and quickly becomes monotonous.
What about “Groundhog Day” (1993)? Isn’t it also tedious? It can be somewhat tiresome if you’ve seen it before; but overall that movie works because Bill Murray’s character changes his actions with each new February 2. A “Vantage Point” version of “Groundhog Day” would have us watch the events of Bill Murray’s first Groundhog Day, over and over. Very fun.
And here’s another gripe: The movie is called “Vantage Point,” let’s note. One of the movie’s taglines reads, “8 Strangers. 8 Point of View. 1 Truth.” Adding these facts together, and considering that the event is shown six times, it seems clear that we are to understand that we are seeing what these people are seeing through their subjective points of view.
Simply put, “Vantage Point” looks more closely at these characters’ actions during the event, but the camera (which we identify with) still usually remains an omniscient, third-person observer. The tagline leads me to believe that we’ll see something similar to the subjective point of view found in “Cloverfield.” But not so.
When we do get through the twists and turns and learn the plot secrets, we are both disappointed and disgruntled. “Vantage Points” gives us mechanical dialogue (which is repeated), and several heinous car wrecks that the characters walk away from … I’m talkin’ wrecks that crash-test dummies couldn’t survive.
Each time the movie would “rewind” to start another retelling, the packed theater would groan or laugh (and this is not a comedy). As the movie progressed, the laughter became more frequent and intense. I was honestly waiting for Leslie Nielsen to be onscreen any minute.
You might wonder how “Vantage Point” could go wrong with such a stellar cast: Dennis Quaid, Matthew Fox, Forest Whitaker, Sigourney Weaver, William Hurt. Well, I learned the hard way from “The Devil’s Own” (1997), starring Harrison Ford and Brad Pitt, just how bad big-star movies can be. It has happened before, and it has again with “Vantage Point.”
Lastly, I end with a helpful illustration of what it’s like to watch “Vantage Point.” Note the fun:
“Vantage Point” gives us the same footage, played over and over.
“Vantage Point” gives us the same footage, played over and over. This is the …
“Vantage Point” gives us the same footage, played over and over. This is the end …
“Vantage Point” gives us the same footage, played over and over. This is the end and …
“Vantage Point” gives us the same footage, played over and over. This is the end and that’s …
“Vantage Point” gives us the same footage, played over and over. This is the end and that’s it.
Directed by Pete Travis
Dennis Quaid / Matthew Fox / William Hurt
Drama / Action 90 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for sequences of intense violence and action, some disturbing images and brief strong language)
U.S. Release Date: February 22, 2008
Copyright 2008: 244
Charlie Bartlett (2008)
O Masterpiece
X Excellent
O Rental
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / February 22, 2008
“Charlie Bartlett” proves, on multiple levels, that looks can be deceiving. At first blush, “Charlie Bartlett” looks like a typical, flash-in-the-plan, coming-of-age, high school movie. But it’s better than that. Similarly, on the surface, the Charlie Bartlett character himself appears to be nothing more than a rich, nerdy kid, but he is more than he seems.
Like Keebler, “Charlie Bartlett” is uncommonly good, especially when considering the movie within the context of its genre. Many high school movies merely focus on partying, sex, and at most, teenage rebellion of one kind or another. “Charlie Bartlett” hones in on the crux of teenage angst, which is the all-consuming desire for acceptance, popularity and being well-liked. This film also underscores how teens are unstable adults-in-training, with genuine stressors of their own.
A film that effectively conveys all the aforementioned, while also entertaining us with many laughs, is a significant accomplishment.
Charlie Bartlett (Anton Yelchin) is an exceptionally bright and charismatic 17-year-old. He has been expelled from several private schools for his mischievous enterprises (and yes, I mean to write “enterprises” because that’s what they are). Finally, Charlie is sent to Western Summit High, a public school where he develops an inconvenient affinity for the unhappy principal’s daughter, Susan (Kat Dennings).
At first, Charlie is not well received. He shows up on his first day of school in his smug, prep-school garb, which serves as a bull's-eye for the local bully, Murphy Bivens (Tyler Hilton), the best character of the movie. “Murph,” as he is often called, is worth the price of admission.
But Charlie, a young man of means who’s wise beyond his years, quickly devises a scheme where he becomes the school’s on-site psychiatrist, giving advice and prescribing medication to his fellow students. This extra-curricular activity changes everything and is the premise of the movie.
Robert Downey Jr., who plays Principal Gardner, gives the best performance in the film. This role encompasses many facets, and Downey owns every one of them. It is Principal Gardner’s conflict with Charlie that provides the most interesting subplot. Their turbulent relationship and verbal exchanges are captivating. Gardner struggles to be a father and a principal; and Charlie struggles to be a son and a student. And in the middle of their struggling, they collide and understand each other.
“Charlie Bartlett” is inevitably reminiscent of “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off” (1986), “The Breakfast Club” (1985) and especially “The New Guy” (2002), starring DJ Qualls. In fact, “Charlie Bartlett” is what “The New Guy” wanted to be … or should have been.
Last but not least, I should make mention of Anton Yelchin, whom you might know from “Hearts in Atlantis” (2001) or “House of D” (2004). Born in Leningrad, Russia (much like Viktor), Yelchin is an actor who seems capable of being just as comfortable on stage as he is on the screen. Though he may not look it, with his boy-next-door appearance, Yelchin is versatile. I suspect that we will see him in a vast range of role types as he gets older, much like Emile Hirsch’s wide variance between “Into the Wild” (2007) and the upcoming “Speed Racer.”
Directed by Jon Poll
Anton Yelchin / Robert Downey Jr. / Kat Dennings
Comedy / Drama 97 min.
MPAA: R (for language, drug content and brief nudity)
U.S. Release Date: February 22, 2008
Copyright 2008: 241
X Excellent
O Rental
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / February 22, 2008
“Charlie Bartlett” proves, on multiple levels, that looks can be deceiving. At first blush, “Charlie Bartlett” looks like a typical, flash-in-the-plan, coming-of-age, high school movie. But it’s better than that. Similarly, on the surface, the Charlie Bartlett character himself appears to be nothing more than a rich, nerdy kid, but he is more than he seems.
Like Keebler, “Charlie Bartlett” is uncommonly good, especially when considering the movie within the context of its genre. Many high school movies merely focus on partying, sex, and at most, teenage rebellion of one kind or another. “Charlie Bartlett” hones in on the crux of teenage angst, which is the all-consuming desire for acceptance, popularity and being well-liked. This film also underscores how teens are unstable adults-in-training, with genuine stressors of their own.
A film that effectively conveys all the aforementioned, while also entertaining us with many laughs, is a significant accomplishment.
Charlie Bartlett (Anton Yelchin) is an exceptionally bright and charismatic 17-year-old. He has been expelled from several private schools for his mischievous enterprises (and yes, I mean to write “enterprises” because that’s what they are). Finally, Charlie is sent to Western Summit High, a public school where he develops an inconvenient affinity for the unhappy principal’s daughter, Susan (Kat Dennings).
At first, Charlie is not well received. He shows up on his first day of school in his smug, prep-school garb, which serves as a bull's-eye for the local bully, Murphy Bivens (Tyler Hilton), the best character of the movie. “Murph,” as he is often called, is worth the price of admission.
But Charlie, a young man of means who’s wise beyond his years, quickly devises a scheme where he becomes the school’s on-site psychiatrist, giving advice and prescribing medication to his fellow students. This extra-curricular activity changes everything and is the premise of the movie.
Robert Downey Jr., who plays Principal Gardner, gives the best performance in the film. This role encompasses many facets, and Downey owns every one of them. It is Principal Gardner’s conflict with Charlie that provides the most interesting subplot. Their turbulent relationship and verbal exchanges are captivating. Gardner struggles to be a father and a principal; and Charlie struggles to be a son and a student. And in the middle of their struggling, they collide and understand each other.
“Charlie Bartlett” is inevitably reminiscent of “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off” (1986), “The Breakfast Club” (1985) and especially “The New Guy” (2002), starring DJ Qualls. In fact, “Charlie Bartlett” is what “The New Guy” wanted to be … or should have been.
Last but not least, I should make mention of Anton Yelchin, whom you might know from “Hearts in Atlantis” (2001) or “House of D” (2004). Born in Leningrad, Russia (much like Viktor), Yelchin is an actor who seems capable of being just as comfortable on stage as he is on the screen. Though he may not look it, with his boy-next-door appearance, Yelchin is versatile. I suspect that we will see him in a vast range of role types as he gets older, much like Emile Hirsch’s wide variance between “Into the Wild” (2007) and the upcoming “Speed Racer.”
Directed by Jon Poll
Anton Yelchin / Robert Downey Jr. / Kat Dennings
Comedy / Drama 97 min.
MPAA: R (for language, drug content and brief nudity)
U.S. Release Date: February 22, 2008
Copyright 2008: 241
The Spiderwick Chronicles (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
X Rental
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / February 22, 2008
“The Spiderwick Chronicles” is a surprisingly entertaining fantasy that exceeded my expectations. I can comfortably recommend it as a rental for your family, provided your children aren’t too young. Though it’s rated PG, “The Spiderwick Chronicles” should definitely be PG-13. It is violent, has mild gore (but gore nevertheless) and frightening, mythical monsters, such as trolls, goblins and ogres. I don’t want to dismiss this PG-13 assessment too lightly; there is a scene where a child sticks a knife in an adult’s chest. It’s a little shocking, to say the least, especially for a PG movie. (See my review of “Fool’s Gold,” fifth paragraph.)
About 80 years ago, an astute man named Arthur Spiderwick (David Strathairn) compiled an incredible record of remarkable information. In this book he catalogued all of the typically unseen creatures, pleasant and unpleasant, which inhabit our unobservant world. The author titled his book “Arthur Spiderwick’s Field Guide to the Fantastical World Around You,” and it was his life’s work.
Decades later, in the present-day, Spiderwick’s relatives move into his long-since-abandoned house. A mother (Mary-Louise Parker), her daughter Mallory (Sarah Bolger) and two twin sons, Simon and Jared (both played by Freddie Highmore) quickly learn that their home has an unsettling (and unsettled) history.
When Jared discovers a book that he is warned not to read, he reads it anyway. (Naturally, he’s a teenager.) Strange events begin to take place, including a reawakening of an 80-year-old war: It turns out than an evil ogre named Mulgarath (Nick Nolte) desperately wants Spiderwick’s Field Guide, so he can learn the temperate creatures’ secrets and destroy them.
But Jared and his family have a helper named Thimbletack (Martin Short), guardian of the Field Guide. Now, this Thimbletack creature is easily the neatest character in the film. He’s a tiny, elfish-looking guy whose temper turns him green, much like the Incredible Hulk. At which point, he can only be appeased with honey. Cute.
“The Spiderwick Chronicles” has common threads with “The Neverending Story” (1984), “The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe” (2005), “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy and the many “Harry Potter” movies. Chances are, if you liked those, you’ll like this.
What impressed me about “The Spiderwick Chronicles” was its dark notes. There are fluffy fantasies where everything is rainbows and lollipops, except for a solitary antagonist. In these cases, good and evil is black and white, cut and dried.
And then there are fantasy worlds that are parallel with our own, which means they are complicated, and good and evil are intricately entangled. We get examples of this when we find out what happened to the kids’ father, or when we see Aunt Lucinda’s (Joan Plowright) arm.
With fantasy worlds like that, sometimes you’re better off sticking with the real world.
Directed by Mark Waters
Freddie Highmore / David Strathairn / Martin Short
Fantasy 97 min.
MPAA: PG (for scary creature action and violence, peril and some thematic elements)
U.S. Release Date: February 14, 2008
Copyright 2008: 243
O Excellent
X Rental
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / February 22, 2008
“The Spiderwick Chronicles” is a surprisingly entertaining fantasy that exceeded my expectations. I can comfortably recommend it as a rental for your family, provided your children aren’t too young. Though it’s rated PG, “The Spiderwick Chronicles” should definitely be PG-13. It is violent, has mild gore (but gore nevertheless) and frightening, mythical monsters, such as trolls, goblins and ogres. I don’t want to dismiss this PG-13 assessment too lightly; there is a scene where a child sticks a knife in an adult’s chest. It’s a little shocking, to say the least, especially for a PG movie. (See my review of “Fool’s Gold,” fifth paragraph.)
About 80 years ago, an astute man named Arthur Spiderwick (David Strathairn) compiled an incredible record of remarkable information. In this book he catalogued all of the typically unseen creatures, pleasant and unpleasant, which inhabit our unobservant world. The author titled his book “Arthur Spiderwick’s Field Guide to the Fantastical World Around You,” and it was his life’s work.
Decades later, in the present-day, Spiderwick’s relatives move into his long-since-abandoned house. A mother (Mary-Louise Parker), her daughter Mallory (Sarah Bolger) and two twin sons, Simon and Jared (both played by Freddie Highmore) quickly learn that their home has an unsettling (and unsettled) history.
When Jared discovers a book that he is warned not to read, he reads it anyway. (Naturally, he’s a teenager.) Strange events begin to take place, including a reawakening of an 80-year-old war: It turns out than an evil ogre named Mulgarath (Nick Nolte) desperately wants Spiderwick’s Field Guide, so he can learn the temperate creatures’ secrets and destroy them.
But Jared and his family have a helper named Thimbletack (Martin Short), guardian of the Field Guide. Now, this Thimbletack creature is easily the neatest character in the film. He’s a tiny, elfish-looking guy whose temper turns him green, much like the Incredible Hulk. At which point, he can only be appeased with honey. Cute.
“The Spiderwick Chronicles” has common threads with “The Neverending Story” (1984), “The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe” (2005), “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy and the many “Harry Potter” movies. Chances are, if you liked those, you’ll like this.
What impressed me about “The Spiderwick Chronicles” was its dark notes. There are fluffy fantasies where everything is rainbows and lollipops, except for a solitary antagonist. In these cases, good and evil is black and white, cut and dried.
And then there are fantasy worlds that are parallel with our own, which means they are complicated, and good and evil are intricately entangled. We get examples of this when we find out what happened to the kids’ father, or when we see Aunt Lucinda’s (Joan Plowright) arm.
With fantasy worlds like that, sometimes you’re better off sticking with the real world.
Directed by Mark Waters
Freddie Highmore / David Strathairn / Martin Short
Fantasy 97 min.
MPAA: PG (for scary creature action and violence, peril and some thematic elements)
U.S. Release Date: February 14, 2008
Copyright 2008: 243
Fool's Gold (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
O Rental
O OK
X Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / February 22, 2008
Who knew that Malcolm-Jamal Warner was still around? You might remember him as Theo Huxtable from “The Cosby Show.” In “Fool’s Gold,” he plays Cordell, a loan shark’s thug. Casting Warner counts for something … but it’s just not enough.
“Fool’s Gold” is the poor man’s “Into the Blue” (2005), not that “Into the Blue” exemplifies refinement. Even though “Fool’s Gold” is an oceanic treasure-hunt movie, surprisingly little of it takes place under water; whereas, “Into the Blue” makes sure its characters get wet. And though I’m nothing to write home about while wearing my swimming trunks, Paul Walker and Jessica Alba Matthew McConaughey and Kate Hudson ain’t. Like I said, a poor man’s “Into the Blue.”
Still, most critics were probably too hard on “Fool’s Gold.” It doesn’t try to swing for the fence, and I think we all know that going in. “Fool’s Gold” is simply a vehicle for re-pairing McConaughey and Hudson again (remember “How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days”?), giving us plenty of McConaughey with his shirt off, and a light-hearted, beach-fun movie that will be just in time for a summery DVD release. Filler.
Despite its superfluousness, there are a couple parts of “Fool’s Gold” that are of note, which make the remainder of this review worth reading, even though the movie isn’t worth seeing: There is an ugly little scene that feels wrong for such a silly, PG-13 romantic comedy. A damsel in distress bashes the bad guy in the face with a rock. Ouch. In retaliation, the bad guy knocks the damsel out with a punch in the face. Ha, ha hilarious. We sure are havin’ fun on our date, aren’t we, Honey?
As prudish as it may sound, it’s overlooked content like this that indulges a movie that has a scene where a character rips the pulsating, beating heart from a live man’s chest, and still escapes an R rating (“Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom”). Also, scenes like this eventually allow movies like “Beowulf” (2007) to slink by with a PG-13 rating, even though Angelina Jolie’s costume is basically her birthday suit … plus a tail. This slippery slope follows the result of allowing a camel to stick his nose in your tent during a sandstorm; eventually, you’ll have a whole camel in your tent.
The other questionable scene from “Fool’s Gold” is similar: An explosion occurs underwater that launches a sword into the air. The sword sticks in the deck of a yacht, landing in front of a young girl, between her legs. What makes this scene suspect is the camera angle: The shot is filmed from deck-level, focusing the sword in the center of the foreground and the girl’s spread-open legs in the nearby background. And the cinematographer lingers, holding the shot for an unseemly amount of time.
I realize the controversy over rating systems and content is a tired topic. But it’s important that we try to maintain and improve this current system, because a careful study of film history will reveal former systems of regulation that conservative and liberal viewers alike would oppose. In the meantime, for you viewers who don’t trust the MPAA system, I have three suggestions: 1.) Read my reviews. If it’s PG-13 and should be R, I’ll let you know (according to my opinion, of course). 2.) Look up the movie in question on www.imdb.com and click on the MORE link associated with the “Plot Keywords.” This list is indicative of the movie’s content. 3.) Visit www.kids-in-mind.com, but be warned that this site’s descriptions are explicit, insomuch that it could be counter-productive for those who wish to avoid entertaining their thoughts with “questionable content.”
As for “Fool’s Gold,” we’ve got Matthew McConaughey playing a ditzy, air-headed version of his usual onscreen persona, but this time he’s a treasure-hunter named Finn. He and his wife, Tess (Kate Hudson), have searched for a $500 million treasure that sunk around 1715, but to no avail. Tess is unhappy with Finn and is filing for a divorce, much to his dismay.
Meanwhile, Finn gets in deep water with a loan shark called “Bigg Bunny,” a name which he insists is one word but all of his shops’ signs spell it as two. Just when Finn happens onto a significant clue during his treasure hunt, Big Bunny becomes a life-threatening hindrance.
To make an irrelevant and long plot summary shorter, Finn and Tess team up with a millionaire (Donald Sutherland) and his Paris Hilton-like daughter (Alexis Dziena) to try to find said treasure. But the motley crew must also race against their competition: Bigg Bunny and his goons, as well as another seasoned treasure-hunter.
The back story on the treasure is suspiciously lengthy and complex, as is the quest for the treasure itself. Indeed, this smacks of screenwriters’ sleight of hand: distract the viewers with a bunch of impenetrable smoke, and they won’t realize it’s a shabby plot. Another example of this is “Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End” (2007).
But again, “Fool’s Gold” doesn’t claim to be Academy Awards material, and pretty much anything is better than “At World’s End.” So, if you like Matt McConaughey, Kate Hudson and dumb movies, have at it. Besides, it has Theo Huxtable!
Directed by Andy Tennant
Matthew McConaughey / Kate Hudson / Donald Sutherland
Adventure / Romance 113 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for action violence, some sexual material, brief nudity and language)
U.S. Release Date: February 22, 2008
Copyright 2008: 242
O Excellent
O Rental
O OK
X Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / February 22, 2008
Who knew that Malcolm-Jamal Warner was still around? You might remember him as Theo Huxtable from “The Cosby Show.” In “Fool’s Gold,” he plays Cordell, a loan shark’s thug. Casting Warner counts for something … but it’s just not enough.
“Fool’s Gold” is the poor man’s “Into the Blue” (2005), not that “Into the Blue” exemplifies refinement. Even though “Fool’s Gold” is an oceanic treasure-hunt movie, surprisingly little of it takes place under water; whereas, “Into the Blue” makes sure its characters get wet. And though I’m nothing to write home about while wearing my swimming trunks, Paul Walker and Jessica Alba Matthew McConaughey and Kate Hudson ain’t. Like I said, a poor man’s “Into the Blue.”
Still, most critics were probably too hard on “Fool’s Gold.” It doesn’t try to swing for the fence, and I think we all know that going in. “Fool’s Gold” is simply a vehicle for re-pairing McConaughey and Hudson again (remember “How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days”?), giving us plenty of McConaughey with his shirt off, and a light-hearted, beach-fun movie that will be just in time for a summery DVD release. Filler.
Despite its superfluousness, there are a couple parts of “Fool’s Gold” that are of note, which make the remainder of this review worth reading, even though the movie isn’t worth seeing: There is an ugly little scene that feels wrong for such a silly, PG-13 romantic comedy. A damsel in distress bashes the bad guy in the face with a rock. Ouch. In retaliation, the bad guy knocks the damsel out with a punch in the face. Ha, ha hilarious. We sure are havin’ fun on our date, aren’t we, Honey?
As prudish as it may sound, it’s overlooked content like this that indulges a movie that has a scene where a character rips the pulsating, beating heart from a live man’s chest, and still escapes an R rating (“Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom”). Also, scenes like this eventually allow movies like “Beowulf” (2007) to slink by with a PG-13 rating, even though Angelina Jolie’s costume is basically her birthday suit … plus a tail. This slippery slope follows the result of allowing a camel to stick his nose in your tent during a sandstorm; eventually, you’ll have a whole camel in your tent.
The other questionable scene from “Fool’s Gold” is similar: An explosion occurs underwater that launches a sword into the air. The sword sticks in the deck of a yacht, landing in front of a young girl, between her legs. What makes this scene suspect is the camera angle: The shot is filmed from deck-level, focusing the sword in the center of the foreground and the girl’s spread-open legs in the nearby background. And the cinematographer lingers, holding the shot for an unseemly amount of time.
I realize the controversy over rating systems and content is a tired topic. But it’s important that we try to maintain and improve this current system, because a careful study of film history will reveal former systems of regulation that conservative and liberal viewers alike would oppose. In the meantime, for you viewers who don’t trust the MPAA system, I have three suggestions: 1.) Read my reviews. If it’s PG-13 and should be R, I’ll let you know (according to my opinion, of course). 2.) Look up the movie in question on www.imdb.com and click on the MORE link associated with the “Plot Keywords.” This list is indicative of the movie’s content. 3.) Visit www.kids-in-mind.com, but be warned that this site’s descriptions are explicit, insomuch that it could be counter-productive for those who wish to avoid entertaining their thoughts with “questionable content.”
As for “Fool’s Gold,” we’ve got Matthew McConaughey playing a ditzy, air-headed version of his usual onscreen persona, but this time he’s a treasure-hunter named Finn. He and his wife, Tess (Kate Hudson), have searched for a $500 million treasure that sunk around 1715, but to no avail. Tess is unhappy with Finn and is filing for a divorce, much to his dismay.
Meanwhile, Finn gets in deep water with a loan shark called “Bigg Bunny,” a name which he insists is one word but all of his shops’ signs spell it as two. Just when Finn happens onto a significant clue during his treasure hunt, Big Bunny becomes a life-threatening hindrance.
To make an irrelevant and long plot summary shorter, Finn and Tess team up with a millionaire (Donald Sutherland) and his Paris Hilton-like daughter (Alexis Dziena) to try to find said treasure. But the motley crew must also race against their competition: Bigg Bunny and his goons, as well as another seasoned treasure-hunter.
The back story on the treasure is suspiciously lengthy and complex, as is the quest for the treasure itself. Indeed, this smacks of screenwriters’ sleight of hand: distract the viewers with a bunch of impenetrable smoke, and they won’t realize it’s a shabby plot. Another example of this is “Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End” (2007).
But again, “Fool’s Gold” doesn’t claim to be Academy Awards material, and pretty much anything is better than “At World’s End.” So, if you like Matt McConaughey, Kate Hudson and dumb movies, have at it. Besides, it has Theo Huxtable!
Directed by Andy Tennant
Matthew McConaughey / Kate Hudson / Donald Sutherland
Adventure / Romance 113 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for action violence, some sexual material, brief nudity and language)
U.S. Release Date: February 22, 2008
Copyright 2008: 242
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Welcome Home, Roscoe Jenkins (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
O Rental
X OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / February 20, 2008
The biggest problem with “Welcome Home, Roscoe Jenkins” is that it wears out its welcome. The 114-minute runtime might as well be three hours, thanks to the last 15 minutes. Granted, “Welcome Home” is funnier than I expected, but still not as funny as Martin Lawrence has been in the past. If you’re a non-believer of Lawrence’s abilities, see “Blue Streak” (1999), one of his best movies.
In “Welcome Home,” Martin Lawrence is somewhat reined in as R.J. (Roscoe Jenkins) Stevens. Because his role has a sad undercurrent, in many scenes he’s the straight man. (“Straight man” in the comedic sense.) This miscalculation also occurs in “Daddy Day Camp” (2007), a lesser movie whose very similar story line made the same mistake by putting Cuba Gooding Jr. on the bench instead of in the game.
R.J. Stevens is the successful talk show host for “Access Hollywood,” a television program that appears to be a hybrid mix between Oprah and Jerry Springer. Stevens is also the author of a motivational, self-help book titled “Team of Me.” And last but not least, Stevens is engaged to Bianca Kittles (Joy Bryant), a recent winner of the hit reality TV show “Survivor.”
Just when life seems like it couldn’t be better for Stevens, his parents call and invite him to come back home to Dry Springs, Georgia, to enjoy a four-day family reunion celebrating their 50th wedding anniversary. It’s been nine years since Stevens has been home, and he has his reasons for that.
To name a few, the fancy Hollywood man incurs the ferocity of family scrutiny, including several physical scuffles. Also, Stevens has always sought approval and validation, particularly from his father, but has never received it. However, most of his grief comes from a fierce, competitive rivalry with his cousin, Clyde (Cedric the Entertainer), whom he blames for losing the girl of his dreams, the love of his life, Lucinda (Nicole Ari Parker).
Now, I pause a moment from the plot summary to point out that Lucinda’s introduction is one of the great Hollywood entrances in the history of cinema. It’s true! Though it’s a standard convention for the first glimpse of “the pretty girl,” Parker’s first scene ranks up there with the moment we first see Harry Lime (Orson Welles) in “The Third Man” (1949).
As you might have guessed, the festivities of the family reunion, such as the barbecue, the softball game, the fish fry and the obstacle course provide a backdrop for the feuding cousins to compete, while a not-so-ideal fiancée and an old flame simmer on the sidelines.
“Welcome Back, Roscoe Jenkins” has a solid cast, from James Earl Jones as Papa Jenkins, to Michael Clarke Duncan as Sheriff Otis, Roscoe’s brother. But the funniest actor is easily Mike Epps as cousin Reggie; he even steals the show from Martin Lawrence.
There are, however, “unpleasantries,” such as Betty, played by Mo’Nique. As a contrast to Nicole Ari Parker’s entrance, Mo’Nique’s character is initially the most over-the-top, overdone, overbearing affliction of film since Jar Jar Binks. “Saw 19” should feature Betty and Jar Jar in a room together as its gruesome curtain-raiser. Another misfortune found in “Welcome Home” is an overboard, rough sex scene, which is the most ridiculous of its kind since “My Super Ex-Girlfriend” (2006). Oh, and there’s even a parallel rough sex scene to match involving two dogs. … Hilarious, just like whoopi cushions are hilarious.
You know, we’ve seen “Welcome Home, Roscoe Jenkins” before. In fact, it was just last year, except it was cast with white people: “Mr. Woodcock.” Seann William Scott leaves home and a bunch of bad memories behind and becomes a famous self-help book author. But when he must return to his home town again, he’s forced to face his ugly memories, which, in this movie come in the form of Billy Bob Thornton or Mr. Woodcock, his abusive gym teacher. If you’re itching to see this story played out, “Welcome Home” is the better of the two.
Although it’s utterly irrelevant now, since it was omitted from the movie altogether, there was something about the trailer that bothered me: Because Lawrence plays a talk show host, another character makes a joke about him being a male Oprah or “Op-bro.” Get it? … Who wrote that? Isn’t it obvious that “Bro-prah” works better? Maybe that slipped through during the writers’ strike.
I don’t know why I care, but a few things were omitted from the trailer, including the Nell Carter shower reference. The revised scene, as it is in the movie, is strained and cumbersome and doesn’t work nearly as well. Nevertheless, an unkind but funny Forest Whitaker impersonation compensates for the deletion.
As for you Martin Lawrence fans, there’s good news: Though I have my doubts, he’s got another crack at bringing us an even funnier movie with his upcoming “College Road Trip,” which is scheduled for release on March 7.
One final note: “Welcome Home, Roscoe Jenkins” has some additional footage during the credits, but it’s not worth sticking around for. When the credits roll, you can roll. Buhlee-dat!
Directed by Malcolm D. Lee
Martin Lawrence / James Earl Jones / Cedric the Entertainer
Comedy 114 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for crude and sexual content, language and some drug references)
U.S. Release Date: February 8, 2008
Copyright 2008: 240
O Excellent
O Rental
X OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / February 20, 2008
The biggest problem with “Welcome Home, Roscoe Jenkins” is that it wears out its welcome. The 114-minute runtime might as well be three hours, thanks to the last 15 minutes. Granted, “Welcome Home” is funnier than I expected, but still not as funny as Martin Lawrence has been in the past. If you’re a non-believer of Lawrence’s abilities, see “Blue Streak” (1999), one of his best movies.
In “Welcome Home,” Martin Lawrence is somewhat reined in as R.J. (Roscoe Jenkins) Stevens. Because his role has a sad undercurrent, in many scenes he’s the straight man. (“Straight man” in the comedic sense.) This miscalculation also occurs in “Daddy Day Camp” (2007), a lesser movie whose very similar story line made the same mistake by putting Cuba Gooding Jr. on the bench instead of in the game.
R.J. Stevens is the successful talk show host for “Access Hollywood,” a television program that appears to be a hybrid mix between Oprah and Jerry Springer. Stevens is also the author of a motivational, self-help book titled “Team of Me.” And last but not least, Stevens is engaged to Bianca Kittles (Joy Bryant), a recent winner of the hit reality TV show “Survivor.”
Just when life seems like it couldn’t be better for Stevens, his parents call and invite him to come back home to Dry Springs, Georgia, to enjoy a four-day family reunion celebrating their 50th wedding anniversary. It’s been nine years since Stevens has been home, and he has his reasons for that.
To name a few, the fancy Hollywood man incurs the ferocity of family scrutiny, including several physical scuffles. Also, Stevens has always sought approval and validation, particularly from his father, but has never received it. However, most of his grief comes from a fierce, competitive rivalry with his cousin, Clyde (Cedric the Entertainer), whom he blames for losing the girl of his dreams, the love of his life, Lucinda (Nicole Ari Parker).
Now, I pause a moment from the plot summary to point out that Lucinda’s introduction is one of the great Hollywood entrances in the history of cinema. It’s true! Though it’s a standard convention for the first glimpse of “the pretty girl,” Parker’s first scene ranks up there with the moment we first see Harry Lime (Orson Welles) in “The Third Man” (1949).
As you might have guessed, the festivities of the family reunion, such as the barbecue, the softball game, the fish fry and the obstacle course provide a backdrop for the feuding cousins to compete, while a not-so-ideal fiancée and an old flame simmer on the sidelines.
“Welcome Back, Roscoe Jenkins” has a solid cast, from James Earl Jones as Papa Jenkins, to Michael Clarke Duncan as Sheriff Otis, Roscoe’s brother. But the funniest actor is easily Mike Epps as cousin Reggie; he even steals the show from Martin Lawrence.
There are, however, “unpleasantries,” such as Betty, played by Mo’Nique. As a contrast to Nicole Ari Parker’s entrance, Mo’Nique’s character is initially the most over-the-top, overdone, overbearing affliction of film since Jar Jar Binks. “Saw 19” should feature Betty and Jar Jar in a room together as its gruesome curtain-raiser. Another misfortune found in “Welcome Home” is an overboard, rough sex scene, which is the most ridiculous of its kind since “My Super Ex-Girlfriend” (2006). Oh, and there’s even a parallel rough sex scene to match involving two dogs. … Hilarious, just like whoopi cushions are hilarious.
You know, we’ve seen “Welcome Home, Roscoe Jenkins” before. In fact, it was just last year, except it was cast with white people: “Mr. Woodcock.” Seann William Scott leaves home and a bunch of bad memories behind and becomes a famous self-help book author. But when he must return to his home town again, he’s forced to face his ugly memories, which, in this movie come in the form of Billy Bob Thornton or Mr. Woodcock, his abusive gym teacher. If you’re itching to see this story played out, “Welcome Home” is the better of the two.
Although it’s utterly irrelevant now, since it was omitted from the movie altogether, there was something about the trailer that bothered me: Because Lawrence plays a talk show host, another character makes a joke about him being a male Oprah or “Op-bro.” Get it? … Who wrote that? Isn’t it obvious that “Bro-prah” works better? Maybe that slipped through during the writers’ strike.
I don’t know why I care, but a few things were omitted from the trailer, including the Nell Carter shower reference. The revised scene, as it is in the movie, is strained and cumbersome and doesn’t work nearly as well. Nevertheless, an unkind but funny Forest Whitaker impersonation compensates for the deletion.
As for you Martin Lawrence fans, there’s good news: Though I have my doubts, he’s got another crack at bringing us an even funnier movie with his upcoming “College Road Trip,” which is scheduled for release on March 7.
One final note: “Welcome Home, Roscoe Jenkins” has some additional footage during the credits, but it’s not worth sticking around for. When the credits roll, you can roll. Buhlee-dat!
Directed by Malcolm D. Lee
Martin Lawrence / James Earl Jones / Cedric the Entertainer
Comedy 114 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for crude and sexual content, language and some drug references)
U.S. Release Date: February 8, 2008
Copyright 2008: 240
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Definitely, Maybe (2008)
O Masterpiece
X Excellent
O Rental
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / February 19, 2008
Flowing down the relentless stream of forthcoming romantic comedies, once in a great while, comes a romance of genuine authenticity, a film that carefully conveys the complexities of real life. “Definitely, Maybe” is one such movie, poignant and endearing, and I recommend it.
What makes “Definitely, Maybe” excellent is obviously not its title, but its accurate portrayal of how scary it is to not know if you’re settling down with the right person. I clearly remember the pains of dating, falling in love, breaking up and returning to dating again. And because every relationship is complicated and imperfect, you can be with the right person at the right time and still not know it.
If you can relate to what I just wrote, then I think you’ll appreciate this movie. If not, “Rambo” is still in theaters.
Upon picking up his daughter, Maya (Abigail Breslin), from school, Will Hayes (Ryan Reynolds) finds that there’s been a psycho-sociological disaster – sex ed. class. This leads to two things: We hear 11-year-old actress Abigail Breslin repeatedly (and needlessly) roll call male and female genitalia, and Maya learns of the concept of a kid being “an accident,” prompting her to ask if she herself fits such criteria.
Now, this question takes on special significance, considering that Maya’s parents are getting divorced, a fact that troubles her greatly. But this movie isn’t about Maya, it’s about Will and his love-life leading up to Maya. Told primarily as a bedtime story-flashback, I’d argue that the movie’s inciting incident is Maya’s request to hear the story of her parents’ relationship. Playfully, yet begrudgingly, Will explains the story of the three loves of his life, one of which is Maya’s mother, but the little girl must figure out which of the three flowers is the one she blossomed from. Breslin ensures that this investigative query is cute.
Now, having seen the previews and reading what I’ve written thus far, you might think you have “Definitely, Maybe” figured out. But you don’t. This little film has numerous surprises, which are always refreshing, and it doesn’t completely give way to the traditional Hollywood ending.
What’s tricky about this film, and perhaps its most impressive element, is how all three of Will’s love interests (played by Elizabeth Banks, Rachel Weisz and Isla Fisher) are simultaneously likable. This extremely difficult but necessary feat is important because we, the audience, must all be able to choose our favorite candidate for Maya’s mom; but at the same time, if we’re wrong, still be happy with the correct choice. Films fail when the person the audience is cheering for doesn’t make the cut: I cite Bambi’s mom as my example. Who hasn’t cried over that letdown?
Another impressive aspect of “Definitely, Maybe” is that each actress (Breslin, Banks, Weisz and Fisher) gets the opportunity to show her stuff with crucial dramatic moments where the nuances of the performance become intricate. All but Fisher pass the test. Fisher, who plays April, is very lovable, but when it really counts (and you’ll know when that is because it pertains to a gift), she fails to deliver. On the other hand, she has a challenging scene with Reynolds after a birthday party that’s surprisingly heavy, almost Ingmar Bergman heavy, and she does just fine. And I should mention that at first, I wished Hugh Grant had been cast in this role, but Ryan Reynolds (who has a Ben Affleck quality) passes with flying colors.
“Definitely, Maybe” isn’t perfect, but it’s worth two theater tickets on date night. Having written that, I might mention that some people may flinch to hear young Abigail Breslin say the “b-word,” or hear a brief discussion of homosexual and multi-partner sexual activity. These unnecessary additions were inserted for comedic effect.
Overall, “Definitely, Maybe” has much to admire. It’s refreshing to see a mainstream, widespread release remain a little more faithful to the real world, than say, “50 First Dates” (2004). Could this movie potentially be among the best romances of 2008? Definitely, maybe.
Directed by Adam Brooks
Ryan Reynolds / Abigail Breslin / Elizabeth Banks
Romance / Drama 112 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for sexual content, including some frank dialogue, language and smoking)
U.S. Release Date: February 14, 2008
Copyright 2008: 239
X Excellent
O Rental
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / February 19, 2008
Flowing down the relentless stream of forthcoming romantic comedies, once in a great while, comes a romance of genuine authenticity, a film that carefully conveys the complexities of real life. “Definitely, Maybe” is one such movie, poignant and endearing, and I recommend it.
What makes “Definitely, Maybe” excellent is obviously not its title, but its accurate portrayal of how scary it is to not know if you’re settling down with the right person. I clearly remember the pains of dating, falling in love, breaking up and returning to dating again. And because every relationship is complicated and imperfect, you can be with the right person at the right time and still not know it.
If you can relate to what I just wrote, then I think you’ll appreciate this movie. If not, “Rambo” is still in theaters.
Upon picking up his daughter, Maya (Abigail Breslin), from school, Will Hayes (Ryan Reynolds) finds that there’s been a psycho-sociological disaster – sex ed. class. This leads to two things: We hear 11-year-old actress Abigail Breslin repeatedly (and needlessly) roll call male and female genitalia, and Maya learns of the concept of a kid being “an accident,” prompting her to ask if she herself fits such criteria.
Now, this question takes on special significance, considering that Maya’s parents are getting divorced, a fact that troubles her greatly. But this movie isn’t about Maya, it’s about Will and his love-life leading up to Maya. Told primarily as a bedtime story-flashback, I’d argue that the movie’s inciting incident is Maya’s request to hear the story of her parents’ relationship. Playfully, yet begrudgingly, Will explains the story of the three loves of his life, one of which is Maya’s mother, but the little girl must figure out which of the three flowers is the one she blossomed from. Breslin ensures that this investigative query is cute.
Now, having seen the previews and reading what I’ve written thus far, you might think you have “Definitely, Maybe” figured out. But you don’t. This little film has numerous surprises, which are always refreshing, and it doesn’t completely give way to the traditional Hollywood ending.
What’s tricky about this film, and perhaps its most impressive element, is how all three of Will’s love interests (played by Elizabeth Banks, Rachel Weisz and Isla Fisher) are simultaneously likable. This extremely difficult but necessary feat is important because we, the audience, must all be able to choose our favorite candidate for Maya’s mom; but at the same time, if we’re wrong, still be happy with the correct choice. Films fail when the person the audience is cheering for doesn’t make the cut: I cite Bambi’s mom as my example. Who hasn’t cried over that letdown?
Another impressive aspect of “Definitely, Maybe” is that each actress (Breslin, Banks, Weisz and Fisher) gets the opportunity to show her stuff with crucial dramatic moments where the nuances of the performance become intricate. All but Fisher pass the test. Fisher, who plays April, is very lovable, but when it really counts (and you’ll know when that is because it pertains to a gift), she fails to deliver. On the other hand, she has a challenging scene with Reynolds after a birthday party that’s surprisingly heavy, almost Ingmar Bergman heavy, and she does just fine. And I should mention that at first, I wished Hugh Grant had been cast in this role, but Ryan Reynolds (who has a Ben Affleck quality) passes with flying colors.
“Definitely, Maybe” isn’t perfect, but it’s worth two theater tickets on date night. Having written that, I might mention that some people may flinch to hear young Abigail Breslin say the “b-word,” or hear a brief discussion of homosexual and multi-partner sexual activity. These unnecessary additions were inserted for comedic effect.
Overall, “Definitely, Maybe” has much to admire. It’s refreshing to see a mainstream, widespread release remain a little more faithful to the real world, than say, “50 First Dates” (2004). Could this movie potentially be among the best romances of 2008? Definitely, maybe.
Directed by Adam Brooks
Ryan Reynolds / Abigail Breslin / Elizabeth Banks
Romance / Drama 112 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for sexual content, including some frank dialogue, language and smoking)
U.S. Release Date: February 14, 2008
Copyright 2008: 239
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Step Up 2 the Streets (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
X Rental
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / February 16, 2008
Much like Jay Leno or circus clowns, “Step Up 2 the Streets” has some kind of charismatic appeal that allows it to please us more than it should. Most dance movies solely rely on choreography to entertain the audience, but “Step Up 2” also has charming actors (or acting charmers) who distract us from the non-dance nonsense. I cite as my example Robert Hoffman, who plays Chase. Watch the eyes.
And, of course, there’s Briana Evigan, whose Andie “midriff” West character has been dazzled by dancing all her life: “I remember the first time I saw someone move like they were from another planet,” she says, “I couldn’t take my eyes away.” Now Andie’s street moves and her mischievous dance crew called “410” (pronounced 4-1-Oh) captures onlookers’ gazes in that same mystical way.
But like most dance-movie dancers, Andie busts her moves and moves her bust to deal with the loss of someone special, in her case, her mother. (A close relative’s death almost always begins dance movies: “Stomp the Yard” (2007), “How She Move” (2008).)
Having been entrusted with Andie’s care, her mother’s best friend, Sarah (Sonja Sohn), cracks down on Andie and threatens to send her to Aunt Alice’s place in Texas, that she may be whisked away from the bad influences of her street life in Baltimore. (The logic is sure: Everybody knows Texas doesn’t have bad crowds.)
Luckily, though uncharacteristically, Tyler Gage (Channing Tatum) intervenes and convinces Sarah to give Andie one last shot at MSA, aka the Maryland School of the Arts. Of course, the institution has a fine dance program, specifically for ballet, hence the tie-in and justification to call this sequel “Step Up 2.” The “streets” part comes in later …
Yes, Channing Tatum played the lead role in the first movie, “Step Up” (2006), which is about a hoodlum street-dancer who starts dancing with a ballerina, of sorts. But it turns out that Tatum and ballet only have brief appearances in this sequel. In fact, “Step Up 2” seems so sure that its audience wouldn’t have the attention span for ballet that it cross-cuts between ballet practice and street dancing practice. It’s always nice to feel underestimated.
As Andie progresses away from her old lifestyle, there is a tug-of-war for her time and talent. “Step Up 2” relies on The Streets versus The Higher Education dilemma; except in this movie, “the streets” happens to also mean the big dance competition, lest we miss the message. (Such spoon-feeding slights the audience, yet again.)
The interesting thing about “Step Up 2” and the countless other movies like it, is what I call “the consolation compromise”: The target audience drawn by such a movie is, presumably, much like its characters. The movie celebrates individualism, but also recognizes that even the most unique people can still learn from “The System” or societal norms. Indeed, there’s always a point in movies like this where the nagging parent(s) or disciplinary educator sees the misfit in his or her element and admits fault. This is a consolation compromise, but I guess the target audience would disapprove if the parents or the school were altogether correct. After all, we mustn’t alienate the ticket buyer.
But just once, wouldn’t it be refreshing to see a film where the odd duck “figures it out” and finally grows up (like most of us eventually have to do)? Never mind that; let’s just keep making the same movie, instead.
Country singer Brad Paisley has a song called “Letter to Me,” which is about the insights that he’d write in a letter to a 17-year-old version of himself. In this song, he sings, “Each and every time you have a fight, just assume you’re wrong and dad is right.” This seems more true to life than the eating of crow that goes on in “Step Up 2.”
Amid this rash of street-dance films, “Step Up 2” is one of the best I’ve seen. Hi-Hat, Dave Scott and Jamal Sims, the movie’s choreographers, have unmistakable talent. And the dancers defy the natural mobility of the human body, the law of gravity, and probably several laws of physics. This being the case, be sure to keep watching through the end credits.
I must admit that I like dance movies, probably because they remind me of martial arts movies: The flimsy plots are merely a vehicle for showcasing stellar stunts. And with snappy lines like, “Don’t sweat it. Everybody’s just hatin’ on ya ‘cause you’re dope,” we can even tolerate a little overused story line, right?
Despite the shameless tying up of loose ends at the end of the movie, “Step Up 2” is surprisingly entertaining. The dancing is fabulous and the soundtrack compelling and complementary. And though I never thought much about movie-trailer-makers until I saw “The Holiday” (2006), “Step Up 2” has an effective trailer that represents it well.
But above all, know this: The rain-dance scene (from said trailer) is worth the price of renting this movie. And without a doubt, the best dancer in the film is the character called Robert Alexander III or “Moose” (Adam G. Sevani). He moves like Michael Jackson on speed, played in fast forward.
Directed by Jon Chu
Briana Evigan / Robert Hoffman / Adam G. Sevani
Drama / Romance 98 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for language, some suggestive material and brief violence)
U.S. Release Date: February 14, 2008
Copyright 2008: 237
O Excellent
X Rental
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / February 16, 2008
Much like Jay Leno or circus clowns, “Step Up 2 the Streets” has some kind of charismatic appeal that allows it to please us more than it should. Most dance movies solely rely on choreography to entertain the audience, but “Step Up 2” also has charming actors (or acting charmers) who distract us from the non-dance nonsense. I cite as my example Robert Hoffman, who plays Chase. Watch the eyes.
And, of course, there’s Briana Evigan, whose Andie “midriff” West character has been dazzled by dancing all her life: “I remember the first time I saw someone move like they were from another planet,” she says, “I couldn’t take my eyes away.” Now Andie’s street moves and her mischievous dance crew called “410” (pronounced 4-1-Oh) captures onlookers’ gazes in that same mystical way.
But like most dance-movie dancers, Andie busts her moves and moves her bust to deal with the loss of someone special, in her case, her mother. (A close relative’s death almost always begins dance movies: “Stomp the Yard” (2007), “How She Move” (2008).)
Having been entrusted with Andie’s care, her mother’s best friend, Sarah (Sonja Sohn), cracks down on Andie and threatens to send her to Aunt Alice’s place in Texas, that she may be whisked away from the bad influences of her street life in Baltimore. (The logic is sure: Everybody knows Texas doesn’t have bad crowds.)
Luckily, though uncharacteristically, Tyler Gage (Channing Tatum) intervenes and convinces Sarah to give Andie one last shot at MSA, aka the Maryland School of the Arts. Of course, the institution has a fine dance program, specifically for ballet, hence the tie-in and justification to call this sequel “Step Up 2.” The “streets” part comes in later …
Yes, Channing Tatum played the lead role in the first movie, “Step Up” (2006), which is about a hoodlum street-dancer who starts dancing with a ballerina, of sorts. But it turns out that Tatum and ballet only have brief appearances in this sequel. In fact, “Step Up 2” seems so sure that its audience wouldn’t have the attention span for ballet that it cross-cuts between ballet practice and street dancing practice. It’s always nice to feel underestimated.
As Andie progresses away from her old lifestyle, there is a tug-of-war for her time and talent. “Step Up 2” relies on The Streets versus The Higher Education dilemma; except in this movie, “the streets” happens to also mean the big dance competition, lest we miss the message. (Such spoon-feeding slights the audience, yet again.)
The interesting thing about “Step Up 2” and the countless other movies like it, is what I call “the consolation compromise”: The target audience drawn by such a movie is, presumably, much like its characters. The movie celebrates individualism, but also recognizes that even the most unique people can still learn from “The System” or societal norms. Indeed, there’s always a point in movies like this where the nagging parent(s) or disciplinary educator sees the misfit in his or her element and admits fault. This is a consolation compromise, but I guess the target audience would disapprove if the parents or the school were altogether correct. After all, we mustn’t alienate the ticket buyer.
But just once, wouldn’t it be refreshing to see a film where the odd duck “figures it out” and finally grows up (like most of us eventually have to do)? Never mind that; let’s just keep making the same movie, instead.
Country singer Brad Paisley has a song called “Letter to Me,” which is about the insights that he’d write in a letter to a 17-year-old version of himself. In this song, he sings, “Each and every time you have a fight, just assume you’re wrong and dad is right.” This seems more true to life than the eating of crow that goes on in “Step Up 2.”
Amid this rash of street-dance films, “Step Up 2” is one of the best I’ve seen. Hi-Hat, Dave Scott and Jamal Sims, the movie’s choreographers, have unmistakable talent. And the dancers defy the natural mobility of the human body, the law of gravity, and probably several laws of physics. This being the case, be sure to keep watching through the end credits.
I must admit that I like dance movies, probably because they remind me of martial arts movies: The flimsy plots are merely a vehicle for showcasing stellar stunts. And with snappy lines like, “Don’t sweat it. Everybody’s just hatin’ on ya ‘cause you’re dope,” we can even tolerate a little overused story line, right?
Despite the shameless tying up of loose ends at the end of the movie, “Step Up 2” is surprisingly entertaining. The dancing is fabulous and the soundtrack compelling and complementary. And though I never thought much about movie-trailer-makers until I saw “The Holiday” (2006), “Step Up 2” has an effective trailer that represents it well.
But above all, know this: The rain-dance scene (from said trailer) is worth the price of renting this movie. And without a doubt, the best dancer in the film is the character called Robert Alexander III or “Moose” (Adam G. Sevani). He moves like Michael Jackson on speed, played in fast forward.
Directed by Jon Chu
Briana Evigan / Robert Hoffman / Adam G. Sevani
Drama / Romance 98 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for language, some suggestive material and brief violence)
U.S. Release Date: February 14, 2008
Copyright 2008: 237
Jason's POLITICAL Movie Reviews
By the way, I have begun to review films for Scoop08.com, a Web site where high school and college-age journalists submit articles pertaining to the upcoming presidential election. It is my job to review politically relevant films, both old and new, and discuss them in context with the present-day political climate. These reviews only appear on the Scoop08 Web site. If you'd like to read my first review of "1984" (1984), or other good articles, click these links:
Jason's "1984" review: http://www.scoop08.com/big-brother%2C-big-sister%2C-and-ant-farm
Scoop08: www.Scoop08.com
Note: I will be posting at least one new review at Scoop08 each week.
Jason's "1984" review: http://www.scoop08.com/big-brother%2C-big-sister%2C-and-ant-farm
Scoop08: www.Scoop08.com
Note: I will be posting at least one new review at Scoop08 each week.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Jumper (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
X Rental
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / February 15, 2008
What I am about to confess is absolutely true: I am fearful of flying kites, because I have great anxiety that I will be lifted off the Earth. To cope with this fear, I lie on the ground while kite flying. And, I am even more afraid of being spontaneously teleported somewhere else, particularly faraway places (like the Moon), and not knowing where I am or how to get back home again. Though, I’d probably figure it out pretty quickly if I were on the Moon.
“Jumper” stirred within me the latter phobia. David Rice (Hayden Christensen) seemed to be a normal 15-year-old kid, until one day he fell through a frozen pond and teleported himself into his local library. Neat. But let’s see him try that again. He does, and it works, again and again. And since David’s life at home and school was miserable, he ran away … or should I say “jumped” away.
Yes, this ability is called jumping, and one who jumps is called a jumper. Let’s discuss the movie’s portrayal of this jumping. Though the movie is based on a novel by Steven Gould, the screen depiction of the jumps owes a lot to Nightcrawler’s (Kurt Wagner) teleportation in “X2” (2003), even down to the hazy, residual particle-cloud aftermath and the jumping sound effects.
But this isn’t a criticism; why fix something that’s not broken? In fact, one clever convention in “Jumper” is the way we learn to recognize the jump sound. There are many instances during the movie when we hear the jump but don’t see it. This technique is entertaining, because it adds extra moments of brief suspense and anticipation.
And let’s just be honest and call a spade a spade: “Jumper” is nothing more than a superhero movie. All of the elements are present: You’ve got this loser kid who’s picked on by a bully in front of a compassionate, sweet, should-be girlfriend. You’ve got that awkward discovery-of-powers moment, complete with the mind-numbing “I need to learn how to use these powers” sequence. Oh, and there’s the tiresome “hide my powers from my girlfriend” game. And, of course, you have to have the battles with other powerful beings.
Thankfully, Hayden Christensen doesn’t sport any brightly colored tights. And interestingly, he’s more of an anti-hero (along the lines of Wolverine), because David is rather selfish and arrogant: “Once I was a normal person, a chump, just like you.“ And there’s even a moment during a newscast when David sees people in distress that he could help but doesn’t.
Unfortunately for David, there are jumper police, of sorts. Samuel L. Jackson plays another one of his eccentric roles as Roland, the apparent leader of a group called Paladins, religious fanatics who kill jumpers because such a power is a blasphemous abomination. “Only God should be able to be in all places at all times.” (The word “paladin,” by the way, means a knightly defender of a noble cause.)
But the Paladin plotline is strictly to add antagonism, ensuring battle scenes and action flick criteria. How much better might the movie have been if the screenwriters had simply pursued the pros and cons of being a jumper? If that sounds boring, think of David trying to maintain two jobs in two different countries … or two families!
“Jumper” is rated PG-13, and part of that warning should be for protecting young children from Hayden Christensen’s “Star Wars”-esque acting. In addition, there’s one F-word (and it’s not Fresno) and a gruesome but bloodless stabbing. Interestingly, I don’t recall any guns in “Jumper,” which is an impressive feat for a modern-day action flick.
The fun thing about “Jumper” is that it gets you thinking, wondering where you might jump if you had that ability. And even though the movie actually goes the extra miles to authentically film in various locations around the globe, it still seems like it lacks imagination, somehow. Admittedly, I couldn’t figure out where else I’d have him jump to. The head of the Sphinx is a nice touch, but what about the Moon, even if just for a second? Is he an interplanetary jumper? We’ll never know.
If I were a jumper, I bet I’d end up landing in front of an oncoming train, like the time travelers in that ‘80s TV show called “Voyagers!” But truthfully, I’d just be happy to jump my way out of the inescapability of parking garages, which is another irrational fear of mine.
Directed by Doug Liman
Hayden Christensen / Samuel L. Jackson / Jamie Bell
Fantasy / Adventure 90 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for sequences of intense action violence, some language and brief sexuality)
U.S. Release Date: February 14, 2008
Copyright 2008: 236
O Excellent
X Rental
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / February 15, 2008
What I am about to confess is absolutely true: I am fearful of flying kites, because I have great anxiety that I will be lifted off the Earth. To cope with this fear, I lie on the ground while kite flying. And, I am even more afraid of being spontaneously teleported somewhere else, particularly faraway places (like the Moon), and not knowing where I am or how to get back home again. Though, I’d probably figure it out pretty quickly if I were on the Moon.
“Jumper” stirred within me the latter phobia. David Rice (Hayden Christensen) seemed to be a normal 15-year-old kid, until one day he fell through a frozen pond and teleported himself into his local library. Neat. But let’s see him try that again. He does, and it works, again and again. And since David’s life at home and school was miserable, he ran away … or should I say “jumped” away.
Yes, this ability is called jumping, and one who jumps is called a jumper. Let’s discuss the movie’s portrayal of this jumping. Though the movie is based on a novel by Steven Gould, the screen depiction of the jumps owes a lot to Nightcrawler’s (Kurt Wagner) teleportation in “X2” (2003), even down to the hazy, residual particle-cloud aftermath and the jumping sound effects.
But this isn’t a criticism; why fix something that’s not broken? In fact, one clever convention in “Jumper” is the way we learn to recognize the jump sound. There are many instances during the movie when we hear the jump but don’t see it. This technique is entertaining, because it adds extra moments of brief suspense and anticipation.
And let’s just be honest and call a spade a spade: “Jumper” is nothing more than a superhero movie. All of the elements are present: You’ve got this loser kid who’s picked on by a bully in front of a compassionate, sweet, should-be girlfriend. You’ve got that awkward discovery-of-powers moment, complete with the mind-numbing “I need to learn how to use these powers” sequence. Oh, and there’s the tiresome “hide my powers from my girlfriend” game. And, of course, you have to have the battles with other powerful beings.
Thankfully, Hayden Christensen doesn’t sport any brightly colored tights. And interestingly, he’s more of an anti-hero (along the lines of Wolverine), because David is rather selfish and arrogant: “Once I was a normal person, a chump, just like you.“ And there’s even a moment during a newscast when David sees people in distress that he could help but doesn’t.
Unfortunately for David, there are jumper police, of sorts. Samuel L. Jackson plays another one of his eccentric roles as Roland, the apparent leader of a group called Paladins, religious fanatics who kill jumpers because such a power is a blasphemous abomination. “Only God should be able to be in all places at all times.” (The word “paladin,” by the way, means a knightly defender of a noble cause.)
But the Paladin plotline is strictly to add antagonism, ensuring battle scenes and action flick criteria. How much better might the movie have been if the screenwriters had simply pursued the pros and cons of being a jumper? If that sounds boring, think of David trying to maintain two jobs in two different countries … or two families!
“Jumper” is rated PG-13, and part of that warning should be for protecting young children from Hayden Christensen’s “Star Wars”-esque acting. In addition, there’s one F-word (and it’s not Fresno) and a gruesome but bloodless stabbing. Interestingly, I don’t recall any guns in “Jumper,” which is an impressive feat for a modern-day action flick.
The fun thing about “Jumper” is that it gets you thinking, wondering where you might jump if you had that ability. And even though the movie actually goes the extra miles to authentically film in various locations around the globe, it still seems like it lacks imagination, somehow. Admittedly, I couldn’t figure out where else I’d have him jump to. The head of the Sphinx is a nice touch, but what about the Moon, even if just for a second? Is he an interplanetary jumper? We’ll never know.
If I were a jumper, I bet I’d end up landing in front of an oncoming train, like the time travelers in that ‘80s TV show called “Voyagers!” But truthfully, I’d just be happy to jump my way out of the inescapability of parking garages, which is another irrational fear of mine.
Directed by Doug Liman
Hayden Christensen / Samuel L. Jackson / Jamie Bell
Fantasy / Adventure 90 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for sequences of intense action violence, some language and brief sexuality)
U.S. Release Date: February 14, 2008
Copyright 2008: 236
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Over Her Dead Body (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
X Rental
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / February 6, 2008
There’s simply no avoiding it: Things go wrong on your wedding day, no matter how carefully you’ve planned. But even if your wedding cake topples onto the ground, you can still come back from that. If you should die, however, well, there’s no coming back from that. … Or is there?
The unfortunate bride-to-be in “Over Her Dead Body” does come back, and she haunts her fiancé’s new girlfriend. That’s the movie’s premise, and it’s a fun one. When Kate (Eva Longoria Parker) is killed by an ice sculpture of an ambiguous angel, her groom, Henry (Paul Rudd), takes it pretty hard.
In fact, for about a year he mopes around, unwilling to leave his apartment, unless he’s going to his clinic where he works as a veterinarian. Luckily, Henry’s sister Chloe (Lindsay Sloane) is an intrusive busybody who insists that he visit a psychic to try to contact his dead fiancée.
Reluctantly, the skeptical Henry sees Ashley (Lake Bell), a psychic/caterer. And when the psychic and Henry start to get better acquainted, ghostly Kate begins to harass Ashley, the only living person who can see her. The movie unfolds in an entertaining manner as we watch Ashley attempt to deal with her relentless phantom menace.
Paul Rudd demonstrates excellent comedic timing and delivery as Henry. “Over Her Dead Body” has a few decent laughs and is comparable to this year’s “27 Dresses.” Both romantic comedies are sure bets for enjoyable rentals.
There was, however, a mysterious undercurrent of viciousness seeping from this movie. Unlike most romantic comedies, there is an absence of innocence in “Over Her Dead Body,” despite its bittersweet moments. It’s hard to identify, specifically, but you might see what I mean if you watch it.
Last year’s filmmakers must have been revisiting “Ghost” (1990), because both “The Eye” and “Over Her Dead Body” borrow a lot from that Patrick Swayze-Demi Moore hit. The similarities are hard to miss.
But when it’s all said and done, “Over Her Dead Body” is decent; but more importantly, it can serve as a consolation to couples who have ever had something royally screwed up at their wedding. So just remember: It could always be worse than your best man’s inappropriate toast or your unwatchable wedding video ... but not by much.
Directed by Jeff Lowell
Eva Longoria Parker / Paul Rudd / Lake Bell
Comedy / Romance 95 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for sexual content and language)
U.S. Release Date: February 1, 2008
Copyright 2008: 234
O Excellent
X Rental
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / February 6, 2008
There’s simply no avoiding it: Things go wrong on your wedding day, no matter how carefully you’ve planned. But even if your wedding cake topples onto the ground, you can still come back from that. If you should die, however, well, there’s no coming back from that. … Or is there?
The unfortunate bride-to-be in “Over Her Dead Body” does come back, and she haunts her fiancé’s new girlfriend. That’s the movie’s premise, and it’s a fun one. When Kate (Eva Longoria Parker) is killed by an ice sculpture of an ambiguous angel, her groom, Henry (Paul Rudd), takes it pretty hard.
In fact, for about a year he mopes around, unwilling to leave his apartment, unless he’s going to his clinic where he works as a veterinarian. Luckily, Henry’s sister Chloe (Lindsay Sloane) is an intrusive busybody who insists that he visit a psychic to try to contact his dead fiancée.
Reluctantly, the skeptical Henry sees Ashley (Lake Bell), a psychic/caterer. And when the psychic and Henry start to get better acquainted, ghostly Kate begins to harass Ashley, the only living person who can see her. The movie unfolds in an entertaining manner as we watch Ashley attempt to deal with her relentless phantom menace.
Paul Rudd demonstrates excellent comedic timing and delivery as Henry. “Over Her Dead Body” has a few decent laughs and is comparable to this year’s “27 Dresses.” Both romantic comedies are sure bets for enjoyable rentals.
There was, however, a mysterious undercurrent of viciousness seeping from this movie. Unlike most romantic comedies, there is an absence of innocence in “Over Her Dead Body,” despite its bittersweet moments. It’s hard to identify, specifically, but you might see what I mean if you watch it.
Last year’s filmmakers must have been revisiting “Ghost” (1990), because both “The Eye” and “Over Her Dead Body” borrow a lot from that Patrick Swayze-Demi Moore hit. The similarities are hard to miss.
But when it’s all said and done, “Over Her Dead Body” is decent; but more importantly, it can serve as a consolation to couples who have ever had something royally screwed up at their wedding. So just remember: It could always be worse than your best man’s inappropriate toast or your unwatchable wedding video ... but not by much.
Directed by Jeff Lowell
Eva Longoria Parker / Paul Rudd / Lake Bell
Comedy / Romance 95 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for sexual content and language)
U.S. Release Date: February 1, 2008
Copyright 2008: 234
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
The Eye (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
O Rental
O OK
X Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / February 5, 2008
I once worked at “Wylie Eye & Dental,” a family business where the wife is an optometrist and the husband a dentist. Cute, huh? All incoming calls to the office had to be directed to the appropriate department. But for some reason, when patients called in for an optometry appointment, an alarming percentage of them would ask, “Can I talk to ‘The Eye?’”
Yes, inexplicably, they’d ask for “The Eye,” as if we had some big, pulsating, vein-protruding, all-seeing eyeball behind a blue-velvet curtain, always asking for its slippers and cigarettes, waiting to receive phone calls. Funny, none of the dental patients (who were presumably the same people) ever asked for “The Tooth.” Go figure.
Needless to say, it was difficult to shake the thought that I was going to review a movie about my old boss, “The Eye.” If only … it surely would have been cleverer than this remake.
That’s right; “The Eye” stars Jessica Alba and is a remake of a Chinese film by the same name. It’s even funnier to me that this movie is called “The Eye,” singular, when it’s actually about two eyeballs, plural. OK, well, which eye?
Sweet, sweet Sydney Wells (Jessica Alba) is blind and has been since she was five years old. Over the past 15 years or so, she’s adapted quite well to her disability, and “The Eye” demonstrates this by resorting to the overdone cliché where the blind person saves the seeing person from getting hit by a bus.
But there’s good news: Sydney is getting cornea transplants from an unnamed donor, a surgery which should restore her sight. There is, however, a problem. Her donor’s eyes have seen (and continue to see) very unpleasant things, which evokes frightening experiences for the newly seeing Sydney.
You get the idea. “The Eye” is not scary, but it supplies at least two really good jumps, though they’re those cheap Gotcha! moments. “The Eye” is like a broken record, because its plot developments keep replaying the same events in the same sequences to the point that it’s tiresome. Oh, and there’s one scene that’s not supposed to be funny, but I laughed out loud. It’s supposed to be very dramatic, where something bad happens to Sydney, but it’s ridiculous.
If I’m not mistaken, “The Eye” is one of Alba’s first films that she has been entrusted to carry alone with her own name. I commend her for taking a role where she doesn’t look glamorous at every moment; though, the frosty-glass shower scene to “throw the lusty males some PG-13 crumbs” was insulting. Despite that, I was most impressed with the various treatments that she underwent to get her eyes to look as they do, barring that wasn’t all digitally inserted.
My best friend, Bill Barnes, is also an optometrist. (I’m up to my eyeball, singular, in O.D. friends.) When he attended optometry school, he’d get to enjoy a fancy dance called “The Eye Ball.” Get it? Eyeball? Yeah, undeniably corny, but even that’s cleverer than “The Eye.” In short, “The Eye” isn’t worth your time or your money: Visit the dentist, instead.
Note: If you’d like to see a very good thriller about a blind woman, then I recommend “Wait Until Dark” (1967), with Audrey Hepburn.
Directed by David Moreau and Xavier Palud
Jessica Alba / Alessandro Nivola / Parker Posey
Thriller 97 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for violence/terror and disturbing content)
U.S. Release Date: February 1, 2008
Copyright 2008: 233
O Excellent
O Rental
O OK
X Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / February 5, 2008
I once worked at “Wylie Eye & Dental,” a family business where the wife is an optometrist and the husband a dentist. Cute, huh? All incoming calls to the office had to be directed to the appropriate department. But for some reason, when patients called in for an optometry appointment, an alarming percentage of them would ask, “Can I talk to ‘The Eye?’”
Yes, inexplicably, they’d ask for “The Eye,” as if we had some big, pulsating, vein-protruding, all-seeing eyeball behind a blue-velvet curtain, always asking for its slippers and cigarettes, waiting to receive phone calls. Funny, none of the dental patients (who were presumably the same people) ever asked for “The Tooth.” Go figure.
Needless to say, it was difficult to shake the thought that I was going to review a movie about my old boss, “The Eye.” If only … it surely would have been cleverer than this remake.
That’s right; “The Eye” stars Jessica Alba and is a remake of a Chinese film by the same name. It’s even funnier to me that this movie is called “The Eye,” singular, when it’s actually about two eyeballs, plural. OK, well, which eye?
Sweet, sweet Sydney Wells (Jessica Alba) is blind and has been since she was five years old. Over the past 15 years or so, she’s adapted quite well to her disability, and “The Eye” demonstrates this by resorting to the overdone cliché where the blind person saves the seeing person from getting hit by a bus.
But there’s good news: Sydney is getting cornea transplants from an unnamed donor, a surgery which should restore her sight. There is, however, a problem. Her donor’s eyes have seen (and continue to see) very unpleasant things, which evokes frightening experiences for the newly seeing Sydney.
You get the idea. “The Eye” is not scary, but it supplies at least two really good jumps, though they’re those cheap Gotcha! moments. “The Eye” is like a broken record, because its plot developments keep replaying the same events in the same sequences to the point that it’s tiresome. Oh, and there’s one scene that’s not supposed to be funny, but I laughed out loud. It’s supposed to be very dramatic, where something bad happens to Sydney, but it’s ridiculous.
If I’m not mistaken, “The Eye” is one of Alba’s first films that she has been entrusted to carry alone with her own name. I commend her for taking a role where she doesn’t look glamorous at every moment; though, the frosty-glass shower scene to “throw the lusty males some PG-13 crumbs” was insulting. Despite that, I was most impressed with the various treatments that she underwent to get her eyes to look as they do, barring that wasn’t all digitally inserted.
My best friend, Bill Barnes, is also an optometrist. (I’m up to my eyeball, singular, in O.D. friends.) When he attended optometry school, he’d get to enjoy a fancy dance called “The Eye Ball.” Get it? Eyeball? Yeah, undeniably corny, but even that’s cleverer than “The Eye.” In short, “The Eye” isn’t worth your time or your money: Visit the dentist, instead.
Note: If you’d like to see a very good thriller about a blind woman, then I recommend “Wait Until Dark” (1967), with Audrey Hepburn.
Directed by David Moreau and Xavier Palud
Jessica Alba / Alessandro Nivola / Parker Posey
Thriller 97 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for violence/terror and disturbing content)
U.S. Release Date: February 1, 2008
Copyright 2008: 233
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Strange Wilderness (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
O Rental
X OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / February 2, 2008
“Strange Wilderness” shows promise and potential for hilarity (yes, that’s a word). In fact, this movie has brief, fleeting strokes of brilliance, probably similar to what Benjamin Franklin experienced before inventing the light bulb (yes, that’s a joke).
I know it was supposedly Thomas Edison who invented the light bulb, or more accurately, one of his cronies whom he never gave credit to. Film history suggests as much.
And just as I have unwisely strayed from the matter at hand, as seen with the above demonstration, “Strange Wilderness” strays from the strength of its inspired concept: a group of ignorant goofballs wing producing a nature show.
“Strange Wilderness” unfolds mostly through a flashback. As it opens, Peter (Steve Zahn) is on the phone explaining his failed attempts at filling his father’s big shoes. You see, Peter’s dad was a famous nature show host with his own television program called “Strange Wilderness.” After his father’s death, Peter inherited the show and tried to carry the torch.
Next we see flashbacks of Peter and his idiotic, moronic and degenerate friends filming the show, while obviously knowing nothing about animals. The best parts of “Strange Wilderness” are those that show footage of wildlife with Peter completely fabricating his narration, making it up as he goes along. Here is an example of Peter’s voice-over during a clip that shows monkeys gamboling about: “Monkeys make up over 80 percent of the world’s monkey population.” Or, consider the narration while we’re shown a clip of innumerable sea lions: “No matter how many sea lions are eaten by sharks each year, it never seems like enough.”
As you can tell, these parts are laugh-out-loud funny. But they are few and far between. Had “Strange Wilderness” stuck with its concept, it could have been exceptional. But what does it do, instead?
Well, we get a story line where “Strange Wilderness” is about to be taken off the air. Peter’s competitor’s show is stomping his into the ground. But when Bigfoot’s cave is found, yes, Bigfoot, the two nature shows race to see who can film the Sasquatch first. This also sounds like it has potential to be funny; and though it has its moments, it’s not.
I will admit that if you watched “Strange Wilderness” in a slaphappy mood, you would probably have a good time. It’s easily far funnier than this year’s silly comedies thus far, such as “Meet the Spartans” and “First Sunday.” But just know that “Strange Wilderness” earns its R rating, and is outlandishly crude with its sexual humor, including nudity and sexuality, though these aren’t mentioned in the MPAA warning. It is no “Superbad” or “Knocked Up,” but “Strange Wilderness” approaches the former.
And considering that the point of “Strange Wilderness” is to make people laugh, it’s a moderately successful movie. I laughed a number of times. But the reason I ranked it “OK” (rather than “Mediocrity”) is one scene that is nothing short of hilarious: If you see “Strange Wilderness,” watch for the repetitive clip of the toothy shark. It’s the funniest thing I’ve seen in a long time.
Directed by Fred Wolf
Steve Zahn / Allen Covert / Jonah Hill
Comedy 87 min.
MPAA: R (for nonstop language, drug use, crude and sexual humor)
U.S. Release Date: February 1, 2008
Copyright 2008: 231
O Excellent
O Rental
X OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / February 2, 2008
“Strange Wilderness” shows promise and potential for hilarity (yes, that’s a word). In fact, this movie has brief, fleeting strokes of brilliance, probably similar to what Benjamin Franklin experienced before inventing the light bulb (yes, that’s a joke).
I know it was supposedly Thomas Edison who invented the light bulb, or more accurately, one of his cronies whom he never gave credit to. Film history suggests as much.
And just as I have unwisely strayed from the matter at hand, as seen with the above demonstration, “Strange Wilderness” strays from the strength of its inspired concept: a group of ignorant goofballs wing producing a nature show.
“Strange Wilderness” unfolds mostly through a flashback. As it opens, Peter (Steve Zahn) is on the phone explaining his failed attempts at filling his father’s big shoes. You see, Peter’s dad was a famous nature show host with his own television program called “Strange Wilderness.” After his father’s death, Peter inherited the show and tried to carry the torch.
Next we see flashbacks of Peter and his idiotic, moronic and degenerate friends filming the show, while obviously knowing nothing about animals. The best parts of “Strange Wilderness” are those that show footage of wildlife with Peter completely fabricating his narration, making it up as he goes along. Here is an example of Peter’s voice-over during a clip that shows monkeys gamboling about: “Monkeys make up over 80 percent of the world’s monkey population.” Or, consider the narration while we’re shown a clip of innumerable sea lions: “No matter how many sea lions are eaten by sharks each year, it never seems like enough.”
As you can tell, these parts are laugh-out-loud funny. But they are few and far between. Had “Strange Wilderness” stuck with its concept, it could have been exceptional. But what does it do, instead?
Well, we get a story line where “Strange Wilderness” is about to be taken off the air. Peter’s competitor’s show is stomping his into the ground. But when Bigfoot’s cave is found, yes, Bigfoot, the two nature shows race to see who can film the Sasquatch first. This also sounds like it has potential to be funny; and though it has its moments, it’s not.
I will admit that if you watched “Strange Wilderness” in a slaphappy mood, you would probably have a good time. It’s easily far funnier than this year’s silly comedies thus far, such as “Meet the Spartans” and “First Sunday.” But just know that “Strange Wilderness” earns its R rating, and is outlandishly crude with its sexual humor, including nudity and sexuality, though these aren’t mentioned in the MPAA warning. It is no “Superbad” or “Knocked Up,” but “Strange Wilderness” approaches the former.
And considering that the point of “Strange Wilderness” is to make people laugh, it’s a moderately successful movie. I laughed a number of times. But the reason I ranked it “OK” (rather than “Mediocrity”) is one scene that is nothing short of hilarious: If you see “Strange Wilderness,” watch for the repetitive clip of the toothy shark. It’s the funniest thing I’ve seen in a long time.
Directed by Fred Wolf
Steve Zahn / Allen Covert / Jonah Hill
Comedy 87 min.
MPAA: R (for nonstop language, drug use, crude and sexual humor)
U.S. Release Date: February 1, 2008
Copyright 2008: 231
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
