O Masterpiece
O Excellent
X Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 18, 2008
“The Happening” is a good movie because its writer, producer and director, M. Night Shyamalan, knows how to make an involving film. Here is the secret: When a movie makes us ask questions and wonder about who, what, when, where, why, or how, then it is intriguing. And the more intensely we are compelled to wonder, the better the film. “The Happening” makes us wonder a good bit, so it clocks in at “Good.”
Shyamalan sucks us into an opening scene set in Central Park, where two girls are sitting on a bench. One asks the other if the people off in the distance are clawing themselves. Then, quite unexpectedly, one of the girls does something horribly shocking to herself.
Since I am discussing a Shyamalan film, I will tread lightly with plot description. But basically, bizarre occurrences of gruesome, mass suicides are plaguing the Northeastern United States. The morbid phenomenon is inexplicable. The usual conspiracy theories are employed: biological terrorism, water contamination, nuclear contamination, a deadly airborne virus, and so forth.
Through these troubling times, we follow the experiences of Elliot Moore (Mark Wahlberg), a dedicated science teacher. We watch as he gathers his family and friends, flees and avoids the big cities, and watches the ominous, escalating news reports. This nerve-racking mystery continues through most of the movie, accentuated by chillingly graphic instances of suicidal grotesqueries.
The feeling that pervades “The Happening” reminded me of the uneasy feelings I had the day the terrorists attacks were unfolding on Sept. 11, 2001. I remember that morning how no one really knew — initially — the extent of the attack. As more planes were reported to slam into buildings, one could not help but become irrational and wonder if one’s house would be next. Indeed, United 93, the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania probably flew over my home at the time, according to the maps on TV, so I guess it could have been my house.
And though Sept. 11 wasn’t fun at all, “The Happening” is a good time. I thrill to watch movies that make me ask myself, ‘What would I possibly do if I were in that situation?’ In fact, I usually identify so closely with the characters, for that 90 minutes, I am in their predicament vicariously.
“The Happening” was pitched as the director’s first R-rated film. Oooo. But the R-rating comes solely from its violent images of suicide. I cannot recall any profanity (to speak of), nudity, sexuality, drug use, etc. Even so, the R-rating is appropriate.
In true Shyamalan fashion, there is an eventual revelation that more or less explains the creepy phenomenon. And the director loves to leave us clues along the way; perceptive audience members can glean much. But similar to some of his other movies’ anti-climactic revelations, such as “Unbreakable” (2000), Shyamalan’s “The Happening” yields a surprisingly quiet pay-off. Still, the noisy stir that leads to said pay-off makes the overall movie work.
It is particularly admirable how Shyamalan’s “villain,” for lack of a better term, is uncommonly benign … or so it would seem. But in addition to entertaining us with a tingly mystery, Shyamalan manages to deliver a message movie, too.
Directed by M. Night Shyamalan
Mark Wahlberg / Zooey Deschanel / John Leguizamo
Thriller / Mystery 91 min.
MPAA: R (for violent and disturbing images)
U.S. Release Date: June 13, 2008
Copyright 2008: 299
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
The Incredible Hulk (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
X Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 18, 2008
The first thing you probably want to know is if this new Hulk movie is better than Ang Lee’s “Hulk” from five years ago. Yes, it is. But I didn’t hate the 2003 version like most other people did; I was just disappointed. Lee made an arty superhero movie that investigated the hero’s feelings more than his powers. But with “The Incredible Hulk,” director Louis Leterrier and writer Zak Penn give us (mostly) what we wanted, which is carnage.
In 1996 I saw “Twister” with my best friend, Bill. After it was over he made an insightful comment. Bill said, “I think it’s funny how they [the filmmakers] knew we’d want to see a lot of big stuff thrown around.” Well, Leterrier and Penn also knew this odd desire of American moviegoers. We want to see the Hulk “toss a forklift like a softball,” not search his feelings.
Notably, “The Incredible Hulk” also successfully portrays Bruce Banner’s lonely, alienated lifestyle. He is correctly depicted as a wandering stranger, drifting from place to place, trying to keep his cool and his head down. Bruce Banner (Ed Norton) is pensive and tormented.
The next thing you’ll probably want to know, after reading these first three paragraphs, is why didn’t I rate this movie as “Excellent,” or a “Masterpiece”? Two words: computer-generated imagery. CGI has proven, beyond dispute, that it is possible to have too much of a good thing. This movie might have been Excellent, but the Hulk’s face looked too much like a cartoon, and it killed the movie’s chance at any semblance of realism.
Once again I’m forced to cite the example of King Kong. I don’t know about you, but while watching Peter Jackson’s remake, I was visually convinced that I was watching an actual giant gorilla — not a cartoon. Take, for example, the scene where Kong is frolicking upon the frozen pond with Ann, and he slides into the snow bank. Snow gets into his fur, so he shakes it off. Amazing. Absolutely incredible.
So, after seeing what can be done and what wasn’t done for “The Incredible Hulk,” its cartoony Hulk knocked it down to just “Good.” But hey, it was good enough, I suppose.
In “Hulk” (2003), Eric Bana played Bruce Banner, and he’s no slouch when it comes to acting. But casting Ed Norton for the Banner role in the new movie was brilliant. Ed Norton has remarkable range as an actor. He can be funny (“Keeping the Faith“), despicable (“The Italian Job”), troubling (“Fight Club”) and downright frightening (“Primal Fear”). In short, he can be anything he wants to be, apparently, except chums with Louis Leterrier.
What pleased me most about “The Incredible Hulk,” however, was the way it dispenses with the origin story altogether by presenting it to us in brief flashes at the beginning of the film. So, within about 45 seconds or so, we see what happened in the Hulk’s past, and we pick up later on in Banner’s saga when the movie begins. Bravo.
Banner is hiding out in Brazil and desperately trying to learn to control his anger. He has a wristband that monitors his heart rate. If he gets too worked up, he hulks out. Also, from time to time we are shown a useful counter that lets us know how long it’s been since the big green guy was provoked. As the movie begins, we’re told that there have been “158 days without incident.”
But the short-sighted Gen. Ross (William Hurt), who had hoped to make genetically enhanced super-soldiers, relentlessly tracks down Banner, again and again, because he was a remarkable fluke-of-a-success story for super-soliderdom. And because the Hulk is too powerful to be contained, the general experiments with enhancing another dangerous solider, Emil Blonsky (Tim Roth), whose love for the strongman juice makes Barry Bonds look like Mr. Peanut. Of course, Blonsky’s insatiable lust for power and strength turns him into a monster, giving us the big clash-of-the-titans duel for a grand finale.
As far as big-budget popcorn movies go, “The Incredible Hulk” is worth renting, at the very least. But I’m a little worried about something: If Hollywood is shameless enough to try to make something like “Speed Racer” into a feature film, then I don’t think we’re safe from the likes of a “She-Hulk” movie. Please, no.
Directed by Louis Leterrier
Ed Norton / Liv Tyler / Tim Roth
Action / Sci-Fi 114 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for sequences of intense action violence, some frightening sci-fi images, and brief suggestive content)
U.S. Release Date: June 13, 2008
Copyright 2008: 300
O Excellent
X Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 18, 2008
The first thing you probably want to know is if this new Hulk movie is better than Ang Lee’s “Hulk” from five years ago. Yes, it is. But I didn’t hate the 2003 version like most other people did; I was just disappointed. Lee made an arty superhero movie that investigated the hero’s feelings more than his powers. But with “The Incredible Hulk,” director Louis Leterrier and writer Zak Penn give us (mostly) what we wanted, which is carnage.
In 1996 I saw “Twister” with my best friend, Bill. After it was over he made an insightful comment. Bill said, “I think it’s funny how they [the filmmakers] knew we’d want to see a lot of big stuff thrown around.” Well, Leterrier and Penn also knew this odd desire of American moviegoers. We want to see the Hulk “toss a forklift like a softball,” not search his feelings.
Notably, “The Incredible Hulk” also successfully portrays Bruce Banner’s lonely, alienated lifestyle. He is correctly depicted as a wandering stranger, drifting from place to place, trying to keep his cool and his head down. Bruce Banner (Ed Norton) is pensive and tormented.
The next thing you’ll probably want to know, after reading these first three paragraphs, is why didn’t I rate this movie as “Excellent,” or a “Masterpiece”? Two words: computer-generated imagery. CGI has proven, beyond dispute, that it is possible to have too much of a good thing. This movie might have been Excellent, but the Hulk’s face looked too much like a cartoon, and it killed the movie’s chance at any semblance of realism.
Once again I’m forced to cite the example of King Kong. I don’t know about you, but while watching Peter Jackson’s remake, I was visually convinced that I was watching an actual giant gorilla — not a cartoon. Take, for example, the scene where Kong is frolicking upon the frozen pond with Ann, and he slides into the snow bank. Snow gets into his fur, so he shakes it off. Amazing. Absolutely incredible.
So, after seeing what can be done and what wasn’t done for “The Incredible Hulk,” its cartoony Hulk knocked it down to just “Good.” But hey, it was good enough, I suppose.
In “Hulk” (2003), Eric Bana played Bruce Banner, and he’s no slouch when it comes to acting. But casting Ed Norton for the Banner role in the new movie was brilliant. Ed Norton has remarkable range as an actor. He can be funny (“Keeping the Faith“), despicable (“The Italian Job”), troubling (“Fight Club”) and downright frightening (“Primal Fear”). In short, he can be anything he wants to be, apparently, except chums with Louis Leterrier.
What pleased me most about “The Incredible Hulk,” however, was the way it dispenses with the origin story altogether by presenting it to us in brief flashes at the beginning of the film. So, within about 45 seconds or so, we see what happened in the Hulk’s past, and we pick up later on in Banner’s saga when the movie begins. Bravo.
Banner is hiding out in Brazil and desperately trying to learn to control his anger. He has a wristband that monitors his heart rate. If he gets too worked up, he hulks out. Also, from time to time we are shown a useful counter that lets us know how long it’s been since the big green guy was provoked. As the movie begins, we’re told that there have been “158 days without incident.”
But the short-sighted Gen. Ross (William Hurt), who had hoped to make genetically enhanced super-soldiers, relentlessly tracks down Banner, again and again, because he was a remarkable fluke-of-a-success story for super-soliderdom. And because the Hulk is too powerful to be contained, the general experiments with enhancing another dangerous solider, Emil Blonsky (Tim Roth), whose love for the strongman juice makes Barry Bonds look like Mr. Peanut. Of course, Blonsky’s insatiable lust for power and strength turns him into a monster, giving us the big clash-of-the-titans duel for a grand finale.
As far as big-budget popcorn movies go, “The Incredible Hulk” is worth renting, at the very least. But I’m a little worried about something: If Hollywood is shameless enough to try to make something like “Speed Racer” into a feature film, then I don’t think we’re safe from the likes of a “She-Hulk” movie. Please, no.
Directed by Louis Leterrier
Ed Norton / Liv Tyler / Tim Roth
Action / Sci-Fi 114 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for sequences of intense action violence, some frightening sci-fi images, and brief suggestive content)
U.S. Release Date: June 13, 2008
Copyright 2008: 300
Kung Fu Panda (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
X Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 18, 2008
When I was young, I probably had more than 50 stuffed animals. I called them “poor things.” One of my favorite poor things was a panda bear that I cleverly named “Pandy.” Pandy was a lethal martial artist whose kung fu skills were unbeatable. I don’t know how they did it, but I’m convinced the writers of “Kung Fu Panda” ripped off my childhood idea. Somebody’s gotta pay for this.
I promise I’m not displacing when I write that I thought “Kung Fu Panda” would be much funnier. It’s a good animated action flick where eccentric animals are kung fu masters, but it’s not hilarious — no, not nearly as much as you might have hoped.
Po (Jack Black) is a plump panda who feels obligated to work in his so-called father’s noodle restaurant, but his heart is in becoming a kung fu expert. (He is much like Jason from “The Forbidden Kingdom,” an untrained but passionate wannabe.) Po’s heroes are “The Furious Five,” a team of kung fu masters that includes Tigress (Angelina Jolie), Monkey (Jackie Chan), Mantis (Seth Rogen), Viper (Lucy Liu), and Crane (David Cross). These flashy fighters were trained by Master Shifu (Dustin Hoffman), who was trained by the mystical Master Oogway (Randall Duk Kim), a turtle that’s the kung-fu equivalent of Yoda.
It just so happens that 1,000 years have passed, and the whole village has awaited the selection of the Dragon Warrior, a previously unnamed kung fu master whose privilege it is to open the sacred Dragon Scroll and learn its secret(s). The time has come for Master Oogway to identify the Dragon Warrior. Guess who that might be? Yes, the most unlikely candidate: Po.
Naturally, Shifu and his five fabulous students are truly furious by the panda’s appointment. But they’re the least of Po’s problems: Supposedly, the Dragon Warrior is the only one who can defeat the ferocious, deadly Tai Lung (Ian McShane), a kung fu beast that even made me nervous (and I took karate for 10 years). That’s the gist of “Kung Fu Panda.”
There is something particularly noteworthy about this movie that might make it go down in history: Remember how “Seinfeld” was credited with introducing the phrase “yada, yada, yada,” into the language of our pop culture? Well, I predict that “Kung Fu Panda” will coin a new word that will stick, too. Here it is: “ska-doosh.” I admit, the movie’s usage of this word is quite humorous.
The movie is colorful and well made. Its voice-over characters are also great. And if you have kids, “Kung Fu Panda” is an instant babysitter, anytime, guaranteed. Your kids (especially boy kids) will absolutely love it. But if you were hoping for another side-splitting Jack Black performance, this movie is only the equivalent of a white belt in the humor department; whereas, my bear, Pandy, was a black belt. I’m just sayin’…
Directed by Mark Osborne and John Stevenson
Jack Black / Dustin Hoffman / Angelina Jolie
Animation / Action 92 min.
MPAA: PG (for sequences of martial arts action)
U.S. Release Date: June 6, 2008
Copyright 2008: 298
O Excellent
X Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 18, 2008
When I was young, I probably had more than 50 stuffed animals. I called them “poor things.” One of my favorite poor things was a panda bear that I cleverly named “Pandy.” Pandy was a lethal martial artist whose kung fu skills were unbeatable. I don’t know how they did it, but I’m convinced the writers of “Kung Fu Panda” ripped off my childhood idea. Somebody’s gotta pay for this.
I promise I’m not displacing when I write that I thought “Kung Fu Panda” would be much funnier. It’s a good animated action flick where eccentric animals are kung fu masters, but it’s not hilarious — no, not nearly as much as you might have hoped.
Po (Jack Black) is a plump panda who feels obligated to work in his so-called father’s noodle restaurant, but his heart is in becoming a kung fu expert. (He is much like Jason from “The Forbidden Kingdom,” an untrained but passionate wannabe.) Po’s heroes are “The Furious Five,” a team of kung fu masters that includes Tigress (Angelina Jolie), Monkey (Jackie Chan), Mantis (Seth Rogen), Viper (Lucy Liu), and Crane (David Cross). These flashy fighters were trained by Master Shifu (Dustin Hoffman), who was trained by the mystical Master Oogway (Randall Duk Kim), a turtle that’s the kung-fu equivalent of Yoda.
It just so happens that 1,000 years have passed, and the whole village has awaited the selection of the Dragon Warrior, a previously unnamed kung fu master whose privilege it is to open the sacred Dragon Scroll and learn its secret(s). The time has come for Master Oogway to identify the Dragon Warrior. Guess who that might be? Yes, the most unlikely candidate: Po.
Naturally, Shifu and his five fabulous students are truly furious by the panda’s appointment. But they’re the least of Po’s problems: Supposedly, the Dragon Warrior is the only one who can defeat the ferocious, deadly Tai Lung (Ian McShane), a kung fu beast that even made me nervous (and I took karate for 10 years). That’s the gist of “Kung Fu Panda.”
There is something particularly noteworthy about this movie that might make it go down in history: Remember how “Seinfeld” was credited with introducing the phrase “yada, yada, yada,” into the language of our pop culture? Well, I predict that “Kung Fu Panda” will coin a new word that will stick, too. Here it is: “ska-doosh.” I admit, the movie’s usage of this word is quite humorous.
The movie is colorful and well made. Its voice-over characters are also great. And if you have kids, “Kung Fu Panda” is an instant babysitter, anytime, guaranteed. Your kids (especially boy kids) will absolutely love it. But if you were hoping for another side-splitting Jack Black performance, this movie is only the equivalent of a white belt in the humor department; whereas, my bear, Pandy, was a black belt. I’m just sayin’…
Directed by Mark Osborne and John Stevenson
Jack Black / Dustin Hoffman / Angelina Jolie
Animation / Action 92 min.
MPAA: PG (for sequences of martial arts action)
U.S. Release Date: June 6, 2008
Copyright 2008: 298
You Don't Mess With the Zohan (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
O Good
O OK
X Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 18, 2008
Though I can’t give him much credit for “You Don’t Mess With the Zohan,” Adam Sandler has taken some chances and ventured out from his junior-high-school humor and tried some different roles, much like Robin Williams and Jim Carrey have. I have to admire it when an otherwise one-trick pony like Sandler takes refreshing risks.
Most recently there was “Reign Over Me” (2007), where Sandler plays a man broken by his grief over losing his family in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. That was a dramatic role. “Spanglish” (2004), where Sandler plays a good-hearted chef, would be another prime example of an atypical Sandler film. And then there was Paul Thomas Anderson’s near-masterpiece, “Punch-Drunk Love” (2002), where Sandler delivers the role he was born to play.
But “You Don’t Mess With the Zohan” is more of the same old adolescent, locker-room jokes. In fact, “Zohan” should not be rated PG-13; it should have received an R rating. Blatant sexual innuendo pervades the film. I’ll send a big bottle of Paul Mitchell hair product to anyone who can name another PG-13 film that has more ejaculation humor than “Zohan.” If this movie has one such joke, it has 20 — and none of them is subtle.
But here’s what I want to know: How many times in a row are ejaculation sight gags funny? Are these jokes even funny the first time? No, not really.
Though the plot is ridiculous, it’s original. “The Zohan” (Adam Sandler) is an Israeli counter-terrorist whose warring skills make him a blend of Sayid, from “L O S T,” and Superman, from Krypton. Here is one of the movie’s major wrong turns. Instead of capitalizing on the opportunity to include legit action and fighting scenes that would surely dazzle the movie’s target audience (aka 14-year-old boys), “Zohan” opts to go with cartoonish, defy-all-the-laws-of-physics-and-gravity sequences.
This miscalculation isn’t comical, as it is intended; instead, it’s distracting. Think about it: If you watch someone who’s purposely trying to be funny, he or she has a more difficult time making you laugh (unless you’re watching an exceptionally gifted comedian, which Sandler is not). But when you watch someone do something funny who’s not necessarily trying to be funny, it’s hilarious. Plus, the distraction breaks the verisimilar spell of the movie, and we remember that we’re stuck subjecting ourselves to another dumb Adam Sandler flick, though, not as dumb as “Little Nicky” (2000).
Back to the plot: Zohan, the super soldier, decides he’s finished with violence. His heart’s secret desire is to move to New York City to cut and style hair, making people “silky smooth.” At one point Zohan says, “I like hair. It’s pleasant. It’s peaceful. No one gets hurt.”
But like all movie characters who try to bury their old lives and start fresh, the Zohan cannot escape from his past. Whereas, in real life, we have guys like D.B. Cooper, the parachuting skyjacker who mysteriously disappeared with the $200,000 he swiped from a Boeing 727 in 1971. If he survived his daring jump, his old days don’t seem to haunt him at all.
Naturally, “Zohan” has several cameos and countless advertisements. Inevitably, 14-year-old boys will probably love this movie. Unfortunately, if we’re honest with ourselves, “You Don’t Mess With the Zohan” is a waste of time for anyone of any age.
Directed by Dennis Dugan
Adam Sandler / John Turturro / Emmanuelle Chriqui
Comedy 113 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for crude and sexual content throughout, language and nudity)
U.S. Release Date: June 6, 2008
Copyright 2008: 297
O Excellent
O Good
O OK
X Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 18, 2008
Though I can’t give him much credit for “You Don’t Mess With the Zohan,” Adam Sandler has taken some chances and ventured out from his junior-high-school humor and tried some different roles, much like Robin Williams and Jim Carrey have. I have to admire it when an otherwise one-trick pony like Sandler takes refreshing risks.
Most recently there was “Reign Over Me” (2007), where Sandler plays a man broken by his grief over losing his family in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. That was a dramatic role. “Spanglish” (2004), where Sandler plays a good-hearted chef, would be another prime example of an atypical Sandler film. And then there was Paul Thomas Anderson’s near-masterpiece, “Punch-Drunk Love” (2002), where Sandler delivers the role he was born to play.
But “You Don’t Mess With the Zohan” is more of the same old adolescent, locker-room jokes. In fact, “Zohan” should not be rated PG-13; it should have received an R rating. Blatant sexual innuendo pervades the film. I’ll send a big bottle of Paul Mitchell hair product to anyone who can name another PG-13 film that has more ejaculation humor than “Zohan.” If this movie has one such joke, it has 20 — and none of them is subtle.
But here’s what I want to know: How many times in a row are ejaculation sight gags funny? Are these jokes even funny the first time? No, not really.
Though the plot is ridiculous, it’s original. “The Zohan” (Adam Sandler) is an Israeli counter-terrorist whose warring skills make him a blend of Sayid, from “L O S T,” and Superman, from Krypton. Here is one of the movie’s major wrong turns. Instead of capitalizing on the opportunity to include legit action and fighting scenes that would surely dazzle the movie’s target audience (aka 14-year-old boys), “Zohan” opts to go with cartoonish, defy-all-the-laws-of-physics-and-gravity sequences.
This miscalculation isn’t comical, as it is intended; instead, it’s distracting. Think about it: If you watch someone who’s purposely trying to be funny, he or she has a more difficult time making you laugh (unless you’re watching an exceptionally gifted comedian, which Sandler is not). But when you watch someone do something funny who’s not necessarily trying to be funny, it’s hilarious. Plus, the distraction breaks the verisimilar spell of the movie, and we remember that we’re stuck subjecting ourselves to another dumb Adam Sandler flick, though, not as dumb as “Little Nicky” (2000).
Back to the plot: Zohan, the super soldier, decides he’s finished with violence. His heart’s secret desire is to move to New York City to cut and style hair, making people “silky smooth.” At one point Zohan says, “I like hair. It’s pleasant. It’s peaceful. No one gets hurt.”
But like all movie characters who try to bury their old lives and start fresh, the Zohan cannot escape from his past. Whereas, in real life, we have guys like D.B. Cooper, the parachuting skyjacker who mysteriously disappeared with the $200,000 he swiped from a Boeing 727 in 1971. If he survived his daring jump, his old days don’t seem to haunt him at all.
Naturally, “Zohan” has several cameos and countless advertisements. Inevitably, 14-year-old boys will probably love this movie. Unfortunately, if we’re honest with ourselves, “You Don’t Mess With the Zohan” is a waste of time for anyone of any age.
Directed by Dennis Dugan
Adam Sandler / John Turturro / Emmanuelle Chriqui
Comedy 113 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for crude and sexual content throughout, language and nudity)
U.S. Release Date: June 6, 2008
Copyright 2008: 297
Sex and the City: The Movie (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
X Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 18, 2008
No, I’ve never watched the TV show. But I still enjoyed the movie.
I’ve heard other male critics griping about this movie, and I think they’re being a little ridiculous. Everybody knows going in whom this movie is made for. Let’s just call a spade a spade. “Sex and the City: The Movie” is a heavy-duty chick flick, or as my wife calls it, “a girl movie.”
Even so, I can appreciate a good girl movie. Most people like movies because they enjoy observing other people’s stories. So, what’s the difference if the stories happen to revolve around women (aka “half the population”)?
Though I wasn’t overly familiar with the series, I could tell the film included lots of nods and inside jokes for faithful followers. No doubt, if I were a true fan, I would have enjoyed it even more. But the movie is still easy to follow going in cold, even though there are moments that don’t carry the same emotional charge, because they lack the historical context. In short, it’s like getting to know any other characters that we’re meeting in a movie for the first time, and Michael Patrick King does a good job with getting us acquainted.
As I understood it, four girls met and became BFFs during their early 20s in New York City. They have had countless adventures together, most of which revolve around dating, sex and fashion. Now, they’re in their early 40s, and they are still reveling in the drama surrounding dating, sex and fashion.
Carrie Bradshaw (Sarah Jessica Parker) is still a writer and still on-and-off again with Mr. Big (Chris Noth). But wait a minute … weddings bells are ringing not too far off. Samantha Jones (Kim Cattrall), a true cougar, is the only one of the friends who no longer lives in New York. She’s out in Hollywood with her boy-toy model, Smith (Jason Lewis).
Miranda Hobbes (Cynthia Nixon) has a hectic family life, and we see how her marriage with Steve (David Eigenberg) hits the rocks. And then there’s Charlotte York (Kristin Davis), the fourth friend whose lovely little life is picture-perfect. We all know people like that; it’s fun to hate them.
So, we watch each woman’s drama unfold through individual, occasionally overlapping storylines. And, of course, there are multiple rendezvous where the four women gather, discuss the matters at hand, assess the damage, give advice, and break with a new game plan. In other words, we get plenty of girl talk.
There are definite highlights, such as a Vogue photo shoot, breathtaking, NYC, high-rise apartments (and other city scenery), and certainly many bittersweet moments of friendship, betrayal and forgiveness. But then there are unmistakable low-points that truly surprised me, such as an incessantly humping dog (like something out of an Adam Sandler movie) and an intestinal turmoil scene (like something out of a Larry the Cable Guy movie). How did these scenes ever get into this movie?
And yes, faithful to its name, along with the city, the movie also depicts the sex. I wouldn’t say the sexual scenes pervade the movie, but the evenly dispersed, occasional doses are graphic and explicit. The R-rating is well deserved.
The trailer for “Sex and the City,” which is one of the best I’ve seen in recent years, reveals an absolute treasure from the film’s soundtrack: India.Arie’s cover of “The Heart of the Matter.” Wow. It’s phenomenal! Listen to it right now: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGmxzV8eNdk.
And at the risk of seeming like a stereotyping sexist, which is only stating the blatantly obvious, “Sex and the City: The Movie,” like the television show itself, will be best enjoyed by its target audience: women. On another note, if only there could be a “The Sopranos: The Movie,” they could throw a bone to the men and an atonement could be made for that pathetic excuse for an ending.
Directed by Michael Patrick King
Sarah Jessica Parker / Kim Cattrall / Kristin Davis / Cynthia Nixon
Drama / Comedy 148 min.
MPAA: R (for strong sexual content, graphic nudity and language)
U.S. Release Date: May 30, 2008
Copyright 2008: 296
O Excellent
X Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 18, 2008
No, I’ve never watched the TV show. But I still enjoyed the movie.
I’ve heard other male critics griping about this movie, and I think they’re being a little ridiculous. Everybody knows going in whom this movie is made for. Let’s just call a spade a spade. “Sex and the City: The Movie” is a heavy-duty chick flick, or as my wife calls it, “a girl movie.”
Even so, I can appreciate a good girl movie. Most people like movies because they enjoy observing other people’s stories. So, what’s the difference if the stories happen to revolve around women (aka “half the population”)?
Though I wasn’t overly familiar with the series, I could tell the film included lots of nods and inside jokes for faithful followers. No doubt, if I were a true fan, I would have enjoyed it even more. But the movie is still easy to follow going in cold, even though there are moments that don’t carry the same emotional charge, because they lack the historical context. In short, it’s like getting to know any other characters that we’re meeting in a movie for the first time, and Michael Patrick King does a good job with getting us acquainted.
As I understood it, four girls met and became BFFs during their early 20s in New York City. They have had countless adventures together, most of which revolve around dating, sex and fashion. Now, they’re in their early 40s, and they are still reveling in the drama surrounding dating, sex and fashion.
Carrie Bradshaw (Sarah Jessica Parker) is still a writer and still on-and-off again with Mr. Big (Chris Noth). But wait a minute … weddings bells are ringing not too far off. Samantha Jones (Kim Cattrall), a true cougar, is the only one of the friends who no longer lives in New York. She’s out in Hollywood with her boy-toy model, Smith (Jason Lewis).
Miranda Hobbes (Cynthia Nixon) has a hectic family life, and we see how her marriage with Steve (David Eigenberg) hits the rocks. And then there’s Charlotte York (Kristin Davis), the fourth friend whose lovely little life is picture-perfect. We all know people like that; it’s fun to hate them.
So, we watch each woman’s drama unfold through individual, occasionally overlapping storylines. And, of course, there are multiple rendezvous where the four women gather, discuss the matters at hand, assess the damage, give advice, and break with a new game plan. In other words, we get plenty of girl talk.
There are definite highlights, such as a Vogue photo shoot, breathtaking, NYC, high-rise apartments (and other city scenery), and certainly many bittersweet moments of friendship, betrayal and forgiveness. But then there are unmistakable low-points that truly surprised me, such as an incessantly humping dog (like something out of an Adam Sandler movie) and an intestinal turmoil scene (like something out of a Larry the Cable Guy movie). How did these scenes ever get into this movie?
And yes, faithful to its name, along with the city, the movie also depicts the sex. I wouldn’t say the sexual scenes pervade the movie, but the evenly dispersed, occasional doses are graphic and explicit. The R-rating is well deserved.
The trailer for “Sex and the City,” which is one of the best I’ve seen in recent years, reveals an absolute treasure from the film’s soundtrack: India.Arie’s cover of “The Heart of the Matter.” Wow. It’s phenomenal! Listen to it right now: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGmxzV8eNdk.
And at the risk of seeming like a stereotyping sexist, which is only stating the blatantly obvious, “Sex and the City: The Movie,” like the television show itself, will be best enjoyed by its target audience: women. On another note, if only there could be a “The Sopranos: The Movie,” they could throw a bone to the men and an atonement could be made for that pathetic excuse for an ending.
Directed by Michael Patrick King
Sarah Jessica Parker / Kim Cattrall / Kristin Davis / Cynthia Nixon
Drama / Comedy 148 min.
MPAA: R (for strong sexual content, graphic nudity and language)
U.S. Release Date: May 30, 2008
Copyright 2008: 296
The Strangers (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
X Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 18, 2008
“The Strangers” is an effective thriller, though it is bleak and uninventive. Nevertheless, if you’re looking to curl up on the couch in the dark and get creeped out, this movie would do the trick. For some reason, we find it fun to be scared. But since this movie is supposedly “inspired by true events,” it’s a little uncomfortable watching the victims’ ordeal for entertainment value. But I guess the alleged actuality of the story empowers it to be a little scarier, too.
From the very beginning, the film tells us that Feb. 11, 2005, after a wedding reception, bizarre events transpired at the Hoyt family’s summer home that still aren’t fully understood. Again, this is one of the first lines of the movie, so you can’t consider my explaining that a spoiler. But if you’re a thinking person, what does this tell you about the movie’s outcome? Right. So, just so you know, it’s that kind of movie: bleak.
But “The Strangers” isn’t a gory torture flick. It uses some classic horror film techniques, similar to what we see (or rather, hear) in “Signs” (2002). Much of the movie’s suspense comes not from what we see but what we hear. There was at least once, I must admit, where I just about jumped out of my skin. (I’m certain that distribution companies instruct exhibitors to turn the volume higher for horror movies.)
James (Scott Speedman) and Kristen (Liv Tyler) are having a bad night. They’ve just come from a wedding reception and Kristen is crying. We glean that things aren’t going well, and it places a damper on the evening. This melancholy mood prepares us from the start to pity them. We already feel bad for the couple, and we know we’re about to feel worse, as are they. At this point, the film yokes us with a tangible sensation of dread.
They plan to stay at James’ secluded summer home, then take off the next day for a road trip together. Their plan changes. Around 4 a.m., someone starts pounding on the door. This is the beginning of their real-life nightmare. Three masked weirdoes start terrorizing the couple. When I said this isn’t a torture flick, I meant physical torture (for the most part). Indeed, the escalating onslaught of fear-inducing harassment is essentially psychological torture.
There is a moment or two when we are filled with hope, solely because James is a male. While experiencing the movie, I was a little ashamed to find myself disregarding Kristen’s ability to fight back (perhaps because she is such a skittish character); but when James decides to fight back, I found myself investing an unreasonable amount of confidence in his “maleness.” Paradoxically, the physically dominant trio of tormentors comprises two women and one man. So, go figure.
Speaking of Kristen, I might mention that Liv Tyler’s performance should be admired. Imagine pulling off “scared out of your mind” in front of an up-close, ever-scrutinizing camera. It’s extremely difficult to do. Just look at the late Fay Wray’s performance as Ann Darrow in the original “King Kong” (1933). Thanks to her incessant screaming, that classic “King Kong” is only a classic when it can be viewed as a silent film.
“The Strangers” is chilling, tense, and unpleasant, which is exactly its intention. It’s nothing like the “Saw” movies or “Hostel,” but it’s still upsetting. As far as thrillers go, it’s pretty good at thrilling. My two chief complaints are a mysterious 9-1-1 call that is never logistically explained, and a stupid ending. Yes, the last second of this movie, before the screen goes black, is just plain dumb. But up until that point, “The Strangers” is successfully unsettling.
Directed by Bryan Bertino
Liv Tyler / Scott Speedman / Kip Weeks
Horror / Thriller 90 min.
MPAA: R (for violence/terror and language)
U.S. Release Date: May 30, 2008
Copyright 2008: 295
O Excellent
X Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 18, 2008
“The Strangers” is an effective thriller, though it is bleak and uninventive. Nevertheless, if you’re looking to curl up on the couch in the dark and get creeped out, this movie would do the trick. For some reason, we find it fun to be scared. But since this movie is supposedly “inspired by true events,” it’s a little uncomfortable watching the victims’ ordeal for entertainment value. But I guess the alleged actuality of the story empowers it to be a little scarier, too.
From the very beginning, the film tells us that Feb. 11, 2005, after a wedding reception, bizarre events transpired at the Hoyt family’s summer home that still aren’t fully understood. Again, this is one of the first lines of the movie, so you can’t consider my explaining that a spoiler. But if you’re a thinking person, what does this tell you about the movie’s outcome? Right. So, just so you know, it’s that kind of movie: bleak.
But “The Strangers” isn’t a gory torture flick. It uses some classic horror film techniques, similar to what we see (or rather, hear) in “Signs” (2002). Much of the movie’s suspense comes not from what we see but what we hear. There was at least once, I must admit, where I just about jumped out of my skin. (I’m certain that distribution companies instruct exhibitors to turn the volume higher for horror movies.)
James (Scott Speedman) and Kristen (Liv Tyler) are having a bad night. They’ve just come from a wedding reception and Kristen is crying. We glean that things aren’t going well, and it places a damper on the evening. This melancholy mood prepares us from the start to pity them. We already feel bad for the couple, and we know we’re about to feel worse, as are they. At this point, the film yokes us with a tangible sensation of dread.
They plan to stay at James’ secluded summer home, then take off the next day for a road trip together. Their plan changes. Around 4 a.m., someone starts pounding on the door. This is the beginning of their real-life nightmare. Three masked weirdoes start terrorizing the couple. When I said this isn’t a torture flick, I meant physical torture (for the most part). Indeed, the escalating onslaught of fear-inducing harassment is essentially psychological torture.
There is a moment or two when we are filled with hope, solely because James is a male. While experiencing the movie, I was a little ashamed to find myself disregarding Kristen’s ability to fight back (perhaps because she is such a skittish character); but when James decides to fight back, I found myself investing an unreasonable amount of confidence in his “maleness.” Paradoxically, the physically dominant trio of tormentors comprises two women and one man. So, go figure.
Speaking of Kristen, I might mention that Liv Tyler’s performance should be admired. Imagine pulling off “scared out of your mind” in front of an up-close, ever-scrutinizing camera. It’s extremely difficult to do. Just look at the late Fay Wray’s performance as Ann Darrow in the original “King Kong” (1933). Thanks to her incessant screaming, that classic “King Kong” is only a classic when it can be viewed as a silent film.
“The Strangers” is chilling, tense, and unpleasant, which is exactly its intention. It’s nothing like the “Saw” movies or “Hostel,” but it’s still upsetting. As far as thrillers go, it’s pretty good at thrilling. My two chief complaints are a mysterious 9-1-1 call that is never logistically explained, and a stupid ending. Yes, the last second of this movie, before the screen goes black, is just plain dumb. But up until that point, “The Strangers” is successfully unsettling.
Directed by Bryan Bertino
Liv Tyler / Scott Speedman / Kip Weeks
Horror / Thriller 90 min.
MPAA: R (for violence/terror and language)
U.S. Release Date: May 30, 2008
Copyright 2008: 295
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
X Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 18, 2008
I was one of those who waited for hours in line to see “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.” But that was nothing. Like countless others, I have been waiting for years for this one.
The new Indy movie is good, not great. It’s certainly worth any Indiana Jones fan’s attention; but you don’t necessarily need to wait for hours in line. I recommend catching a matinee in a week or two. And if you’re not a die-hard Indy fan, this movie will do as a rental.
To be fair, even if “The Crystal Skull” had achieved cinematic perfection (if there is such a thing), it still probably would have been eclipsed by the mountainous expectations looming over it. After years of hearing that George Lucas and Steven Spielberg rejected numerous scripts, taking care to make sure they had chosen a worthy story, all the while, risking an aging Harrison Ford, I think my hopes were unfairly too high.
The story they settled on (whose secrets I will not spoil) was fiercely protected: For the most part, no advanced press screenings were permitted, which either means a movie sucks or it has some huge secret(s). For this movie, it is the latter. And while I initially felt that the plot of the new film was too far out in left field, I realized that the previous three “Indiana Jones” movies also incorporated fantastical, supernatural elements. So, I’m OK with the bizarreness. Oh, and though the trailers make the movie appear as though it’s an artificial, CGI fest, it normally isn’t as fake-looking as I had feared.
You’ll remember that the first three films were set in the late 1930s, and Indy’s primary enemies were Nazis. “The Crystal Skull” is set in 1957, amid nuclear and Communist paranoia, and his foes are Russian Commies. And, we gather that over the years Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) has continued his archeological adventures.
We catch up with him again as he is forcibly drawn into another quest. A brazen young man named “Mutt” Williams (Shia LaBeouf) is sent by his mother to commission Jones’ help. Their family friend, Harold Oxley (John Hurt), who also happens to be one of Indy’s archeologist colleagues, was in pursuit of a crystal skull and the fabled lost city of gold, El Dorado, until he was kidnapped.
So, Jones and Williams travel to Peru, retracing the missing professor’s steps. Meanwhile, a group of KGB, led by the nefarious Irina Spalko (Cate Blanchett), also has an interest in finding the crystal skull and El Dorado. And that’s about all I can describe of the plot without exposing anything juicy.
Karen Allen returns as Marion (Indy’s love interest in “Raiders”), but Sean Connery declined to appear in this film. And the actor who played the beloved Marcus Brody, Denholm Elliott, died with AIDS in 1992. Both absences are handled well.
And speaking of handling things well, Harrison Ford did a fine job reprising his role as the action-adventurer at age 65. In an interview Ford said he has kept his body in shape and wasn’t injured during filming. I wondered if he used a stunt double at times; but according to the Internet Movie Database’s trivia, Ford did his own stunts in this movie, just as he did in the previous three films. There is one stunt involving Ford riding a motorcycle with Shia LaBeouf that is astounding, especially when considering his age.
And for true “Indiana Jones” fans, there are many subtle nods to the older movies, particularly “Raiders” and “Last Crusade.” “The Temple of Doom,” the red-headed step-child of the trilogy, doesn’t really come up. For one small example of the subtlety, keep in mind Indy and his father’s motorcycle journey in “Last Crusade” as you watch the older Indy ride with Mutt Williams. Priceless.
And I worried they’d hammer the old-age jokes into the ground, but the filmmakers practiced some restraint. It is acknowledged several times, but we don’t get the feeling they’re belaboring the point. And at times Ford is slow and wobbly, and at other times he’s rather nimble; it works.
Perhaps I was most disappointed that the humorous interplay between Ford and LaBeouf was relatively sparse. Especially after seeing LaBeouf’s comedic ability in “Transformers,” I thought the duo would deliver something more along the lines of Ford and Connery’s performance in “Last Crusade.”
Still, the humor is there. I’m glad I lived to see this movie. One of my motivators for living a healthy lifestyle is so I can squeeze as many summers of blockbusters into my lifetime as possible. I just know they’re finally going to make that Wonder Woman movie the summer after I die. My picks for the casting of Wonder Woman: Kate Beckinsale, Claire Forlani, or Rachel McAdams.
Directed by Steven Spielberg
Harrison Ford / Shia LaBeouf / Cate Blanchett
Action / Adventure 124 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for adventure violence and scary images)
U.S. Release Date: May 22, 2008
Copyright 2008: 294
O Excellent
X Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 18, 2008
I was one of those who waited for hours in line to see “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.” But that was nothing. Like countless others, I have been waiting for years for this one.
The new Indy movie is good, not great. It’s certainly worth any Indiana Jones fan’s attention; but you don’t necessarily need to wait for hours in line. I recommend catching a matinee in a week or two. And if you’re not a die-hard Indy fan, this movie will do as a rental.
To be fair, even if “The Crystal Skull” had achieved cinematic perfection (if there is such a thing), it still probably would have been eclipsed by the mountainous expectations looming over it. After years of hearing that George Lucas and Steven Spielberg rejected numerous scripts, taking care to make sure they had chosen a worthy story, all the while, risking an aging Harrison Ford, I think my hopes were unfairly too high.
The story they settled on (whose secrets I will not spoil) was fiercely protected: For the most part, no advanced press screenings were permitted, which either means a movie sucks or it has some huge secret(s). For this movie, it is the latter. And while I initially felt that the plot of the new film was too far out in left field, I realized that the previous three “Indiana Jones” movies also incorporated fantastical, supernatural elements. So, I’m OK with the bizarreness. Oh, and though the trailers make the movie appear as though it’s an artificial, CGI fest, it normally isn’t as fake-looking as I had feared.
You’ll remember that the first three films were set in the late 1930s, and Indy’s primary enemies were Nazis. “The Crystal Skull” is set in 1957, amid nuclear and Communist paranoia, and his foes are Russian Commies. And, we gather that over the years Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) has continued his archeological adventures.
We catch up with him again as he is forcibly drawn into another quest. A brazen young man named “Mutt” Williams (Shia LaBeouf) is sent by his mother to commission Jones’ help. Their family friend, Harold Oxley (John Hurt), who also happens to be one of Indy’s archeologist colleagues, was in pursuit of a crystal skull and the fabled lost city of gold, El Dorado, until he was kidnapped.
So, Jones and Williams travel to Peru, retracing the missing professor’s steps. Meanwhile, a group of KGB, led by the nefarious Irina Spalko (Cate Blanchett), also has an interest in finding the crystal skull and El Dorado. And that’s about all I can describe of the plot without exposing anything juicy.
Karen Allen returns as Marion (Indy’s love interest in “Raiders”), but Sean Connery declined to appear in this film. And the actor who played the beloved Marcus Brody, Denholm Elliott, died with AIDS in 1992. Both absences are handled well.
And speaking of handling things well, Harrison Ford did a fine job reprising his role as the action-adventurer at age 65. In an interview Ford said he has kept his body in shape and wasn’t injured during filming. I wondered if he used a stunt double at times; but according to the Internet Movie Database’s trivia, Ford did his own stunts in this movie, just as he did in the previous three films. There is one stunt involving Ford riding a motorcycle with Shia LaBeouf that is astounding, especially when considering his age.
And for true “Indiana Jones” fans, there are many subtle nods to the older movies, particularly “Raiders” and “Last Crusade.” “The Temple of Doom,” the red-headed step-child of the trilogy, doesn’t really come up. For one small example of the subtlety, keep in mind Indy and his father’s motorcycle journey in “Last Crusade” as you watch the older Indy ride with Mutt Williams. Priceless.
And I worried they’d hammer the old-age jokes into the ground, but the filmmakers practiced some restraint. It is acknowledged several times, but we don’t get the feeling they’re belaboring the point. And at times Ford is slow and wobbly, and at other times he’s rather nimble; it works.
Perhaps I was most disappointed that the humorous interplay between Ford and LaBeouf was relatively sparse. Especially after seeing LaBeouf’s comedic ability in “Transformers,” I thought the duo would deliver something more along the lines of Ford and Connery’s performance in “Last Crusade.”
Still, the humor is there. I’m glad I lived to see this movie. One of my motivators for living a healthy lifestyle is so I can squeeze as many summers of blockbusters into my lifetime as possible. I just know they’re finally going to make that Wonder Woman movie the summer after I die. My picks for the casting of Wonder Woman: Kate Beckinsale, Claire Forlani, or Rachel McAdams.
Directed by Steven Spielberg
Harrison Ford / Shia LaBeouf / Cate Blanchett
Action / Adventure 124 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for adventure violence and scary images)
U.S. Release Date: May 22, 2008
Copyright 2008: 294
The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
O Good
X OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 18, 2008
I know it’s probably inaccurate and perhaps a little unfair to write this, but “The Chronicles of Narnia” seems like a watered-down “Lord of the Rings,” a poor man’s version. There’s something not fun about watching four kids be monarchs over a fantastical kingdom. Perhaps I’m just getting old and crotchety.
Don’t get me wrong, “Prince Caspian” is satisfactory entertainment. If you liked “The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe,” then you’ll be pleased with “Prince Caspian,” too. But there’s something over-polished and artificial about these movies that I find off-putting. They’re just not grungy enough.
For instance, tell me you’ve seen “Clash of the Titans” (1981) or “The Beastmaster” (1982). Both movies have a gritty realism to them, even now, despite their datedness. And “The Lord of the Rings” movies are also convincing. But “The Chronicles of Narnia” employs excessive, cartoonish GCI. Another good example of such an offense is this month’s “The Incredible Hulk.” What is this? “Pete’s Dragon?” “Who Framed Roger Rabbit?” I prefer live-action movies to either have seamless CGI or none at all.
I will confess that I have not read C.S. Lewis’ Narnia books. Sorry. Nor do I plan to. Sorry again. But I have a feeling, even if I had, I still wouldn’t be clear about who’s who and why that matters. Take Prince Caspian (Ben Barnes), for example. The movie opens with Caspian as the rightful heir to some kingdom (but what kingdom?), except Caspian’s aunt and evil uncle just had a male child. Caspian is a threat and therefore, in danger of being eliminated.
So Caspian flees and encounters the Narnians, which are basically the cast of “The Muppet Show” or Shrek’s magical, woodland fairytale friends. Then, what I understood next, was that it was time for the Pevensie kids to finally return to Narnia (OK, but why?). And when they do, as we found out from the previews, a great deal of time has passed in Narnia. So, to be short, Prince Caspian and the Pevensie royalty must team up with the Narnians and defeat the innumerable armies of the evil uncle. Oh, and Aslan (Liam Neeson) the lion is rather cheeky about his screen time, meaning, he’s hardly in the movie, even though he’s one of the most interesting characters.
And that’s about it. Despite my lack of enthusiasm for the movie, “Prince Caspian” is a decent family film whose PG-rating could probably be PG-13. Kids will be dazzled, and I’m all for that; I’m just not crazy about them being monarchs.
Directed by Andrew Adamson
Ben Barnes / William Moseley / Georgie Henley
Fantasy / Adventure 144 min.
MPAA: PG (for epic battle action and violence)
U.S. Release Date: May 16, 2008
Copyright 2008: 293
O Excellent
O Good
X OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 18, 2008
I know it’s probably inaccurate and perhaps a little unfair to write this, but “The Chronicles of Narnia” seems like a watered-down “Lord of the Rings,” a poor man’s version. There’s something not fun about watching four kids be monarchs over a fantastical kingdom. Perhaps I’m just getting old and crotchety.
Don’t get me wrong, “Prince Caspian” is satisfactory entertainment. If you liked “The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe,” then you’ll be pleased with “Prince Caspian,” too. But there’s something over-polished and artificial about these movies that I find off-putting. They’re just not grungy enough.
For instance, tell me you’ve seen “Clash of the Titans” (1981) or “The Beastmaster” (1982). Both movies have a gritty realism to them, even now, despite their datedness. And “The Lord of the Rings” movies are also convincing. But “The Chronicles of Narnia” employs excessive, cartoonish GCI. Another good example of such an offense is this month’s “The Incredible Hulk.” What is this? “Pete’s Dragon?” “Who Framed Roger Rabbit?” I prefer live-action movies to either have seamless CGI or none at all.
I will confess that I have not read C.S. Lewis’ Narnia books. Sorry. Nor do I plan to. Sorry again. But I have a feeling, even if I had, I still wouldn’t be clear about who’s who and why that matters. Take Prince Caspian (Ben Barnes), for example. The movie opens with Caspian as the rightful heir to some kingdom (but what kingdom?), except Caspian’s aunt and evil uncle just had a male child. Caspian is a threat and therefore, in danger of being eliminated.
So Caspian flees and encounters the Narnians, which are basically the cast of “The Muppet Show” or Shrek’s magical, woodland fairytale friends. Then, what I understood next, was that it was time for the Pevensie kids to finally return to Narnia (OK, but why?). And when they do, as we found out from the previews, a great deal of time has passed in Narnia. So, to be short, Prince Caspian and the Pevensie royalty must team up with the Narnians and defeat the innumerable armies of the evil uncle. Oh, and Aslan (Liam Neeson) the lion is rather cheeky about his screen time, meaning, he’s hardly in the movie, even though he’s one of the most interesting characters.
And that’s about it. Despite my lack of enthusiasm for the movie, “Prince Caspian” is a decent family film whose PG-rating could probably be PG-13. Kids will be dazzled, and I’m all for that; I’m just not crazy about them being monarchs.
Directed by Andrew Adamson
Ben Barnes / William Moseley / Georgie Henley
Fantasy / Adventure 144 min.
MPAA: PG (for epic battle action and violence)
U.S. Release Date: May 16, 2008
Copyright 2008: 293
Redbelt (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
O Good
X OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 18, 2008
“Redbelt” should be admired to some degree. It is far from a typical martial arts movie. It’s a drama. Most “fighter movies” have the tired old “Rocky” scenario, where a fighter with heart isn’t quite good enough to keep from getting knocked around by life — or jerks. So, there’s a long training sequence and a big, final bout or tournament at the end of the movie where the fighter is vindicated with a hard-earned, well-deserved victory. We all cheer and go home happy.
David Mamet, writer and director of “Redbelt,” doesn’t travel those familiar, dusty roads. Nope. He gives us an unusual film that keeps making unexpected turns — not twists, necessarily — but deviations from the course we’re anticipating. In fact, because of this unique trait, “Redbelt” almost seems to meander.
But I still only ranked it as OK. Why? Most martial arts movies are similar to pornography: The plot is irrelevant, except for its function as a vehicle to deliver us lots of “action.” Yes, martial arts movies have simplistic conflicts of black-and-white good versus evil, which sets the stage for lots of kung-fu fighting and the like.
“Redbelt,” on the other hand, is a drama whose martial arts scenes are mere decoration, incidental trimmings. Almost every person who will want to see “Redbelt” will want to see a full-blown karate movie, something along the lines of a Jet Li film; therefore, most of those people will be disappointed. Expectations will be breached (unless you’ve read this review first), and you’ll probably feel dissatisfied. I did. Hence, the OK rating. Had I known “Redbelt” is a drama beforehand, I might have ranked it as Good.
Mike Terry (Chiwetel Ejiofor) runs a tough, mixed-martial-arts academy that has prepared many a cop for street brawling. Indeed, Terry’s intense training is credited as being life-saving preparation for those in uniform. Like most martial arts movies, Terry is the unfailingly honorable, stringently principled master who won’t back down from anyone when “doing the right thing” is put in jeopardy.
But Terry’s school is struggling financially. And he makes matters worse by always trying to protect people, which oftentimes doesn’t involve using violence at all. It is in these entanglements (and I’m purposely being vague to avoid spoiling) that Terry gets drawn into deeper and deeper problems, like a person struggling to get out of quicksand. But Terry is a fighter, and “Redbelt” shows us whether he can fight his way out of his imploding life’s predicaments. There are several small surprises during the plot, so I’ll leave it at that.
But in short, if you’re looking for something like “Enter the Dragon” (1973), then you’re looking in the wrong genre. This puppy is a drama … an OK one.
Directed by David Mamet
Chiwetel Ejiofor / Tim Allen / Alice Braga
Drama / Martial Arts 99 min.
MPAA: R (for strong language)
U.S. Release Date: May 9, 2008
Copyright 2008: 290
O Excellent
O Good
X OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 18, 2008
“Redbelt” should be admired to some degree. It is far from a typical martial arts movie. It’s a drama. Most “fighter movies” have the tired old “Rocky” scenario, where a fighter with heart isn’t quite good enough to keep from getting knocked around by life — or jerks. So, there’s a long training sequence and a big, final bout or tournament at the end of the movie where the fighter is vindicated with a hard-earned, well-deserved victory. We all cheer and go home happy.
David Mamet, writer and director of “Redbelt,” doesn’t travel those familiar, dusty roads. Nope. He gives us an unusual film that keeps making unexpected turns — not twists, necessarily — but deviations from the course we’re anticipating. In fact, because of this unique trait, “Redbelt” almost seems to meander.
But I still only ranked it as OK. Why? Most martial arts movies are similar to pornography: The plot is irrelevant, except for its function as a vehicle to deliver us lots of “action.” Yes, martial arts movies have simplistic conflicts of black-and-white good versus evil, which sets the stage for lots of kung-fu fighting and the like.
“Redbelt,” on the other hand, is a drama whose martial arts scenes are mere decoration, incidental trimmings. Almost every person who will want to see “Redbelt” will want to see a full-blown karate movie, something along the lines of a Jet Li film; therefore, most of those people will be disappointed. Expectations will be breached (unless you’ve read this review first), and you’ll probably feel dissatisfied. I did. Hence, the OK rating. Had I known “Redbelt” is a drama beforehand, I might have ranked it as Good.
Mike Terry (Chiwetel Ejiofor) runs a tough, mixed-martial-arts academy that has prepared many a cop for street brawling. Indeed, Terry’s intense training is credited as being life-saving preparation for those in uniform. Like most martial arts movies, Terry is the unfailingly honorable, stringently principled master who won’t back down from anyone when “doing the right thing” is put in jeopardy.
But Terry’s school is struggling financially. And he makes matters worse by always trying to protect people, which oftentimes doesn’t involve using violence at all. It is in these entanglements (and I’m purposely being vague to avoid spoiling) that Terry gets drawn into deeper and deeper problems, like a person struggling to get out of quicksand. But Terry is a fighter, and “Redbelt” shows us whether he can fight his way out of his imploding life’s predicaments. There are several small surprises during the plot, so I’ll leave it at that.
But in short, if you’re looking for something like “Enter the Dragon” (1973), then you’re looking in the wrong genre. This puppy is a drama … an OK one.
Directed by David Mamet
Chiwetel Ejiofor / Tim Allen / Alice Braga
Drama / Martial Arts 99 min.
MPAA: R (for strong language)
U.S. Release Date: May 9, 2008
Copyright 2008: 290
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Speed Racer (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
O Good
O OK
X Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 17, 2008
Well, at least they tried, right? I mean, why not? Looking back through the extinct-cartoon archives (you know, those cartoons that are no longer on TV?), someone decided it would be a good idea to make “Inspector Gadget” and “Fat Albert” into live-action flicks. So, why not “Speed Racer”?
Well, because it’s not a very good idea. That’s why. “The Simpsons Movie” (2007) took a popular cartoon that’s still on TV and made an animated feature film and it went over quite well at the box office. But digging up old fossils like “Speed Racer” probably isn’t the best way to invest several million dollars, unless you want to lose it.
Young children will thoroughly enjoy “Speed Racer.” It is chock-full of flashy, splashy colors and revving, ramping, race cars. It even has ninjas! And though it has been heavily promoted as a “family film,” and though it has a PG rating, “Speed Racer” has a noticeable amount of profanity. … Why?
I mean, obviously the filmmakers weren’t worried about entertaining the adults — obviously. So, why include the profanity at all? There aren’t any humdingers like the F-word, but it has plenty of the smaller offenders. Protective parents beware.
I’ll tell you what there isn’t much of in “Speed Racer”: plot. After all, it’s a race-car movie. Speed Racer (Emile Hirsch) has a gift for racing. In fact, he is utterly obsessed with it. His late brother, Rex Racer, taught Speed how to tear up the track, and the young prodigy’s talent attracts significant attention.
One day the Racer family is approached by the president of Royalton Industries, E.P. Arnold Royalton (Roger Allam), a corporate mega-giant who becomes dangerously disgruntled toward Speed Racer when the kid refuses to join Royalton’s racing team. And so, races are run (and won) to try to inexplicably settle some intangible moral score; meanwhile, the bad guys cheat worse than Dr. Jones while playing Short Round.
Basically, watching “Speed Racer” is like having your head stuck inside a kaleidoscope for more than two hours. Its ultra-fast editing could even make the so-called MTV Generation dizzy. “Speed Racer” is not much more than a vibrant, green-screen extravaganza: If it were possible for a spectator to overdose on CGI, “Speed Racer” would be a killer.
Directed by Andy Wachowski and Larry Wachowski
Emile Hirsch / Christina Ricci / Matthew Fox
Action / Sports 135 min.
MPAA: PG (for sequences of action, some violence and language)
U.S. Release Date: May 9, 2008
Copyright 2008: 291
O Excellent
O Good
O OK
X Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 17, 2008
Well, at least they tried, right? I mean, why not? Looking back through the extinct-cartoon archives (you know, those cartoons that are no longer on TV?), someone decided it would be a good idea to make “Inspector Gadget” and “Fat Albert” into live-action flicks. So, why not “Speed Racer”?
Well, because it’s not a very good idea. That’s why. “The Simpsons Movie” (2007) took a popular cartoon that’s still on TV and made an animated feature film and it went over quite well at the box office. But digging up old fossils like “Speed Racer” probably isn’t the best way to invest several million dollars, unless you want to lose it.
Young children will thoroughly enjoy “Speed Racer.” It is chock-full of flashy, splashy colors and revving, ramping, race cars. It even has ninjas! And though it has been heavily promoted as a “family film,” and though it has a PG rating, “Speed Racer” has a noticeable amount of profanity. … Why?
I mean, obviously the filmmakers weren’t worried about entertaining the adults — obviously. So, why include the profanity at all? There aren’t any humdingers like the F-word, but it has plenty of the smaller offenders. Protective parents beware.
I’ll tell you what there isn’t much of in “Speed Racer”: plot. After all, it’s a race-car movie. Speed Racer (Emile Hirsch) has a gift for racing. In fact, he is utterly obsessed with it. His late brother, Rex Racer, taught Speed how to tear up the track, and the young prodigy’s talent attracts significant attention.
One day the Racer family is approached by the president of Royalton Industries, E.P. Arnold Royalton (Roger Allam), a corporate mega-giant who becomes dangerously disgruntled toward Speed Racer when the kid refuses to join Royalton’s racing team. And so, races are run (and won) to try to inexplicably settle some intangible moral score; meanwhile, the bad guys cheat worse than Dr. Jones while playing Short Round.
Basically, watching “Speed Racer” is like having your head stuck inside a kaleidoscope for more than two hours. Its ultra-fast editing could even make the so-called MTV Generation dizzy. “Speed Racer” is not much more than a vibrant, green-screen extravaganza: If it were possible for a spectator to overdose on CGI, “Speed Racer” would be a killer.
Directed by Andy Wachowski and Larry Wachowski
Emile Hirsch / Christina Ricci / Matthew Fox
Action / Sports 135 min.
MPAA: PG (for sequences of action, some violence and language)
U.S. Release Date: May 9, 2008
Copyright 2008: 291
What Happens in Vegas... (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
O Good
X OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 17, 2008
I’ve often wondered why we enjoy watching movies where couples fight; I think it makes us feel better about our own relationship predicaments.
“What Happens in Vegas…” is one of those battle-of-the-sexes movies where it’s crystal clear to us that the feuding parties ultimately deserve each other. And it’s a good time, I guess … that is, if you have nothing else to do and “Family Guy” isn’t on TV.
Jack Fuller (Ashton Kutcher) is kind of a goof-off who can even manage to get fired by his own father. And Joy McNally (Cameron Diaz) is Jack’s antithesis, driven and nitpicky, which may be why her fiancé breaks up with her. The two New Yorkers take their best friends with them to forget their sorrows in Las Vegas, where Jack and Joy meet, party it up, and get married. The next day, as they part ways, they win $3 million from a slot machine.
All the above is revealed in the trailer, which also shows us how they end up in court, trying to get the money, but the cash is frozen while they are “sentenced to six months hard marriage.” From this point on, it becomes a war movie: We watch as the two try to break each other. And unless you’ve never seen a movie before, you can probably guess where this goes.
But it’s surprisingly fun getting there. The highlight of “What Happens in Vegas…” is Joy’s best friend, Tipper (Lake Bell), whose disdain for Jack’s best friend, Hater (Rob Corddry), is legendary. So, we get hilarious lines from Tipper, like, “If I could make someone dead with my mind, it would be you.” Not bad. Obviously, the writer, Dana Fox, has been in a relationship before.
Directed by Tom Vaughan
Ashton Kutcher / Cameron Diaz / Lake Bell
Comedy 99 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for some sexual and crude content, and language, including a drug reference)
U.S. Release Date: May 9, 2008
Copyright 2008: 292
O Excellent
O Good
X OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 17, 2008
I’ve often wondered why we enjoy watching movies where couples fight; I think it makes us feel better about our own relationship predicaments.
“What Happens in Vegas…” is one of those battle-of-the-sexes movies where it’s crystal clear to us that the feuding parties ultimately deserve each other. And it’s a good time, I guess … that is, if you have nothing else to do and “Family Guy” isn’t on TV.
Jack Fuller (Ashton Kutcher) is kind of a goof-off who can even manage to get fired by his own father. And Joy McNally (Cameron Diaz) is Jack’s antithesis, driven and nitpicky, which may be why her fiancé breaks up with her. The two New Yorkers take their best friends with them to forget their sorrows in Las Vegas, where Jack and Joy meet, party it up, and get married. The next day, as they part ways, they win $3 million from a slot machine.
All the above is revealed in the trailer, which also shows us how they end up in court, trying to get the money, but the cash is frozen while they are “sentenced to six months hard marriage.” From this point on, it becomes a war movie: We watch as the two try to break each other. And unless you’ve never seen a movie before, you can probably guess where this goes.
But it’s surprisingly fun getting there. The highlight of “What Happens in Vegas…” is Joy’s best friend, Tipper (Lake Bell), whose disdain for Jack’s best friend, Hater (Rob Corddry), is legendary. So, we get hilarious lines from Tipper, like, “If I could make someone dead with my mind, it would be you.” Not bad. Obviously, the writer, Dana Fox, has been in a relationship before.
Directed by Tom Vaughan
Ashton Kutcher / Cameron Diaz / Lake Bell
Comedy 99 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for some sexual and crude content, and language, including a drug reference)
U.S. Release Date: May 9, 2008
Copyright 2008: 292
Iron Man (2008)
O Masterpiece
X Excellent
O Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 17, 2008
Every once in a while Tinseltown gets it right. “Iron Man” is one of those jubilant occasions. Another oft-cited example is “Batman Begins” (2005), and I suspect this summer’s “The Dark Knight” will follow suit. The antithesis of these is something like “Ghost Rider” (2007), which is a veritable abomination.
Here is the key to a good superhero movie: Make it as believable as possible. Yes, credibility is the elusive, common thread that links the greatest examples of the genre. Think about it: Superhero movies, by nature, are far-fetched fiction. Sure. But if a movie can sweep me away for two hours by persuading me to believe that this super-person has a feasible way to exist, then I am under its spell. Now then, in this day and age of convincing CGI, anything can appear to be possible because we can see it with our incredulous eyes. Peter Jackson’s “King Kong” (2005) is a great example. So the burden of credibility ultimately falls upon the screenwriters, provided the CGI personnel aren’t clowns who give us cartoony CGI.
“Iron Man” joins the short list that does justice to the genre. Its director, Jon Favreau, is obviously an Iron Man fan, who evidently wanted to empower his hero with credibility, because “Iron Man” is refreshingly realistic … inasmuch as that is possible for a superhero movie.
As with any first superhero movie (or comic book), “Iron Man” is largely composed of the origin story. Mostly I find this tradition tiresome, which is why I prefer superhero-movie sequels. Here’s how origin stories go: The hero is usually physically weak in some way — initially. Something tragic yet remarkable happens to make him (yes, the hero is usually is a him) powerful, insomuch that his new ability exceeds that of typical human beings’ capabilities. Alas, said power is almost always a two-edged sword, a blessing and a curse, and it tends to alienate the lonely hero from fitting in with others. And then there’s the costuming issue (which is excellently non-existent in “Unbreakable”), coupled with a fumbling, often painful training on learning to wield the newfound superpower.
Most of “Iron Man” is origin story, but surprisingly, it’s not tiresome. Even the origin story is interesting. The secret to this particular movie’s success, however, is its casting, namely, Robert Downey Jr. as Iron Man. He is exceptionally entertaining in this movie.
Again we’re brought to the writing. The movie’s story is fine, but it’s the humorous dialogue and Downey Jr.’s delivery that make the movie great. Everyone loves a caped crusader’s battle scenes. But the time the hero spends running from the telephone booth decked out in Technicolor tights and the time he spends as his timid secret identity differ greatly. There are usually precious few superhero-in-action scenes compared to his bumbling, loser, alter-ego scenes.
But that’s another admirable aspect of “Iron Man”: The development and set-up scenes aren’t boring like they were, in say, “Superman Returns” (2006). Nope, instead, Downey Jr.’s Tony Stark is just as interesting and flashy as Iron Man. It is his dialogue and the actor’s delivery of it that make his secret identity so intriguing.
Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) is a world-renowned weapons developer who is demonstrating his newest wares for the U.S. military in Afghanistan when he is captured by “bad guys,” essentially terrorist types who want Stark to be their personal weapons designer. And so he does, except, he doesn’t build any weapons for his captors, he builds his first Iron Man suit. This invention marks the beginning of a superhero and all that entails, as described above.
I can comfortably recommend “Iron Man,” because it is excellent summer-blockbuster entertainment. And for “Iron Man” fans that have followed the comics and anxiously await this franchise’s sequel(s), keep watching after the credits begin to roll; otherwise, the 10-second bone isn’t much of a scrap.
Directed by Jon Favreau
Robert Downey Jr. / Gwyneth Paltrow / Jeff Bridges
Action / Sci-Fi 126 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for some intense sequences of sci-fi action and violence, and brief suggestive content)
U.S. Release Date: May 2, 2008
Copyright 2008: 288
X Excellent
O Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 17, 2008
Every once in a while Tinseltown gets it right. “Iron Man” is one of those jubilant occasions. Another oft-cited example is “Batman Begins” (2005), and I suspect this summer’s “The Dark Knight” will follow suit. The antithesis of these is something like “Ghost Rider” (2007), which is a veritable abomination.
Here is the key to a good superhero movie: Make it as believable as possible. Yes, credibility is the elusive, common thread that links the greatest examples of the genre. Think about it: Superhero movies, by nature, are far-fetched fiction. Sure. But if a movie can sweep me away for two hours by persuading me to believe that this super-person has a feasible way to exist, then I am under its spell. Now then, in this day and age of convincing CGI, anything can appear to be possible because we can see it with our incredulous eyes. Peter Jackson’s “King Kong” (2005) is a great example. So the burden of credibility ultimately falls upon the screenwriters, provided the CGI personnel aren’t clowns who give us cartoony CGI.
“Iron Man” joins the short list that does justice to the genre. Its director, Jon Favreau, is obviously an Iron Man fan, who evidently wanted to empower his hero with credibility, because “Iron Man” is refreshingly realistic … inasmuch as that is possible for a superhero movie.
As with any first superhero movie (or comic book), “Iron Man” is largely composed of the origin story. Mostly I find this tradition tiresome, which is why I prefer superhero-movie sequels. Here’s how origin stories go: The hero is usually physically weak in some way — initially. Something tragic yet remarkable happens to make him (yes, the hero is usually is a him) powerful, insomuch that his new ability exceeds that of typical human beings’ capabilities. Alas, said power is almost always a two-edged sword, a blessing and a curse, and it tends to alienate the lonely hero from fitting in with others. And then there’s the costuming issue (which is excellently non-existent in “Unbreakable”), coupled with a fumbling, often painful training on learning to wield the newfound superpower.
Most of “Iron Man” is origin story, but surprisingly, it’s not tiresome. Even the origin story is interesting. The secret to this particular movie’s success, however, is its casting, namely, Robert Downey Jr. as Iron Man. He is exceptionally entertaining in this movie.
Again we’re brought to the writing. The movie’s story is fine, but it’s the humorous dialogue and Downey Jr.’s delivery that make the movie great. Everyone loves a caped crusader’s battle scenes. But the time the hero spends running from the telephone booth decked out in Technicolor tights and the time he spends as his timid secret identity differ greatly. There are usually precious few superhero-in-action scenes compared to his bumbling, loser, alter-ego scenes.
But that’s another admirable aspect of “Iron Man”: The development and set-up scenes aren’t boring like they were, in say, “Superman Returns” (2006). Nope, instead, Downey Jr.’s Tony Stark is just as interesting and flashy as Iron Man. It is his dialogue and the actor’s delivery of it that make his secret identity so intriguing.
Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) is a world-renowned weapons developer who is demonstrating his newest wares for the U.S. military in Afghanistan when he is captured by “bad guys,” essentially terrorist types who want Stark to be their personal weapons designer. And so he does, except, he doesn’t build any weapons for his captors, he builds his first Iron Man suit. This invention marks the beginning of a superhero and all that entails, as described above.
I can comfortably recommend “Iron Man,” because it is excellent summer-blockbuster entertainment. And for “Iron Man” fans that have followed the comics and anxiously await this franchise’s sequel(s), keep watching after the credits begin to roll; otherwise, the 10-second bone isn’t much of a scrap.
Directed by Jon Favreau
Robert Downey Jr. / Gwyneth Paltrow / Jeff Bridges
Action / Sci-Fi 126 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for some intense sequences of sci-fi action and violence, and brief suggestive content)
U.S. Release Date: May 2, 2008
Copyright 2008: 288
Made of Honor (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
X Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 17, 2008
You know, people chuckle at this movie’s title, but it happens. In fact, I have a good pal named Rich whose female best friend asked him to be her “dude of honor” when she got married. And he dutifully did. So yeah, it happens.
“Made of Honor” is a successful romantic comedy, which means it’s a perfectly good rental for date night. It follows that familiar formula that we all love, and hate.
Tom (Patrick Dempsey) and Hannah (Michelle Monaghan) have grown to be more or less inseparable best friends during the past 10 years. But their relationship has been strictly platonic. Tom has complicated, self-imposed rules that enable him to enjoy meaningless sex with numberless women, without settling down with any of them. But when Hannah goes to Scotland for six weeks on a business trip, Tom realizes what an important, happy role she plays in his life. He decides, as the previews have revealed, that Hannah is a keeper, and the woman he should marry.
But Hannah returns from Scotland with big news for Tom: She’s engaged to Colin (Kevin McKidd), a seemingly perfect man’s man. Hannah asks Tom to be her maid of honor, and he agrees. But Tom has a scheme to try to break up Colin and Hannah’s engagement and prevent their wedding. And in the process of his nefarious plotting, Tom has to convince Hannah that he’s a keeper, too.
“Made of Honor” is predictable but funny. Patrick Dempsey plays these kinds of characters perfectly. The movie also has some nice, little touches. For instance, when Hannah breaks the news of her engagement to Tom, he is dazed and his head is figuratively spinning. Director of photography Tony Pierce-Roberts enhances this moment visually with a swirling camera that encircles Tom, Hannah and Colin. This classic cinematographer’s trick enables us to experience what Tom is experiencing.
I’ve seen Michelle Monaghan in several movies now, and I have to say, she’s quite likable. In fact, I predict that she’ll be the next Meg Ryan, with her girl-next-door amiability.
Speaking of likability, sometimes the enjoyment of a movie comes from the person you’re watching it with. I saw “Made of Honor” with my mom when she was visiting me in Utah from West Virginia. And I like my mom lots, naturally, so the movie was even more fun because she enjoyed it, too. Indeed, had I not chosen Dave Eaton to be the best man at my wedding, I might have just as easily chosen her: She could have been my “best dudette,” or something like that.
Directed by Paul Weiland
Patrick Dempsey / Michelle Monaghan / Kevin McKidd
Comedy / Romance 101 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for sexual content and language)
U.S. Release Date: May 2, 2008
Copyright 2008: 289
O Excellent
X Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 17, 2008
You know, people chuckle at this movie’s title, but it happens. In fact, I have a good pal named Rich whose female best friend asked him to be her “dude of honor” when she got married. And he dutifully did. So yeah, it happens.
“Made of Honor” is a successful romantic comedy, which means it’s a perfectly good rental for date night. It follows that familiar formula that we all love, and hate.
Tom (Patrick Dempsey) and Hannah (Michelle Monaghan) have grown to be more or less inseparable best friends during the past 10 years. But their relationship has been strictly platonic. Tom has complicated, self-imposed rules that enable him to enjoy meaningless sex with numberless women, without settling down with any of them. But when Hannah goes to Scotland for six weeks on a business trip, Tom realizes what an important, happy role she plays in his life. He decides, as the previews have revealed, that Hannah is a keeper, and the woman he should marry.
But Hannah returns from Scotland with big news for Tom: She’s engaged to Colin (Kevin McKidd), a seemingly perfect man’s man. Hannah asks Tom to be her maid of honor, and he agrees. But Tom has a scheme to try to break up Colin and Hannah’s engagement and prevent their wedding. And in the process of his nefarious plotting, Tom has to convince Hannah that he’s a keeper, too.
“Made of Honor” is predictable but funny. Patrick Dempsey plays these kinds of characters perfectly. The movie also has some nice, little touches. For instance, when Hannah breaks the news of her engagement to Tom, he is dazed and his head is figuratively spinning. Director of photography Tony Pierce-Roberts enhances this moment visually with a swirling camera that encircles Tom, Hannah and Colin. This classic cinematographer’s trick enables us to experience what Tom is experiencing.
I’ve seen Michelle Monaghan in several movies now, and I have to say, she’s quite likable. In fact, I predict that she’ll be the next Meg Ryan, with her girl-next-door amiability.
Speaking of likability, sometimes the enjoyment of a movie comes from the person you’re watching it with. I saw “Made of Honor” with my mom when she was visiting me in Utah from West Virginia. And I like my mom lots, naturally, so the movie was even more fun because she enjoyed it, too. Indeed, had I not chosen Dave Eaton to be the best man at my wedding, I might have just as easily chosen her: She could have been my “best dudette,” or something like that.
Directed by Paul Weiland
Patrick Dempsey / Michelle Monaghan / Kevin McKidd
Comedy / Romance 101 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for sexual content and language)
U.S. Release Date: May 2, 2008
Copyright 2008: 289
Baby Mama (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
X Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 17, 2008
Kate Holbrook (Tina Fey) is 37, single, and a professional woman with a flourishing career in Philadelphia. She has almost everything she’s ever wanted — except a baby. Yes, Kate wants to be a mom more than anything; she’s basically tried all the modern medical methods, short of adoption (which is not a medical method), but Kate is told that she has a “hostile uterus.”
Now, up to this point, “Baby Mama” has a tinge of underlying sadness to it. There’s nothing funny about someone who desperately wants to be a parent but cannot. Take heart, the movie cheers up.
Kate eventually uses a surrogate service, which is a business contract where the mother-hopeful pays another woman to carry her baby to term, at which point the surrogate hands the baby over to the new mom and happily departs with her considerable financial compensation.
In “Baby Mama,” Kate doesn’t have much say over her surrogate’s selection process, so she ends up with Angie Ostrowiski (Amy Poehler), a childlike woman who is Kate’s opposite in every way. Naturally, with Kate’s ultra-carefulness and Angie’s relative carelessness, conflicts abound.
But that’s not all there is to “Baby Mama.” It has a number of refreshingly unexpected developments that horrify and delight us. The writer, Michael McCullers (who is also the director), has given us a good movie that conjures within us a wide range of emotions, some of them complex.
No. I’m not claiming it’s the best movie of the year, but “Baby Mama” delivers.
Directed by Michael McCullers
Tina Fey / Amy Poehler / Greg Kinnear
Comedy 99 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for crude and sexual humor, language and a drug reference)
U.S. Release Date: April 25, 2008
Copyright 2008: 285
O Excellent
X Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 17, 2008
Kate Holbrook (Tina Fey) is 37, single, and a professional woman with a flourishing career in Philadelphia. She has almost everything she’s ever wanted — except a baby. Yes, Kate wants to be a mom more than anything; she’s basically tried all the modern medical methods, short of adoption (which is not a medical method), but Kate is told that she has a “hostile uterus.”
Now, up to this point, “Baby Mama” has a tinge of underlying sadness to it. There’s nothing funny about someone who desperately wants to be a parent but cannot. Take heart, the movie cheers up.
Kate eventually uses a surrogate service, which is a business contract where the mother-hopeful pays another woman to carry her baby to term, at which point the surrogate hands the baby over to the new mom and happily departs with her considerable financial compensation.
In “Baby Mama,” Kate doesn’t have much say over her surrogate’s selection process, so she ends up with Angie Ostrowiski (Amy Poehler), a childlike woman who is Kate’s opposite in every way. Naturally, with Kate’s ultra-carefulness and Angie’s relative carelessness, conflicts abound.
But that’s not all there is to “Baby Mama.” It has a number of refreshingly unexpected developments that horrify and delight us. The writer, Michael McCullers (who is also the director), has given us a good movie that conjures within us a wide range of emotions, some of them complex.
No. I’m not claiming it’s the best movie of the year, but “Baby Mama” delivers.
Directed by Michael McCullers
Tina Fey / Amy Poehler / Greg Kinnear
Comedy 99 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for crude and sexual humor, language and a drug reference)
U.S. Release Date: April 25, 2008
Copyright 2008: 285
Deception (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
O Good
X OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 17, 2008
“Deception” might have been a better movie had its trailer not spoiled all its surprises. I realize it’s rather cliché to gripe about movie previews “giving away too much,” but in this case the spoiling is blatant.
Basically, we know where the entire movie is going from the moment it begins. I’m sure if I could have gone into “Deception” cold, I would have thought more of it. If you haven’t seen the trailers, you could probably call it “Good.” For those who are still in the dark about the premise revealed in the previews, I’ll summarize the plot gingerly.
Jonathan McQuarry (Ewan McGregor) is a lonely, friendless man. There’s nothing wrong with him, per se; he simply leads an unexciting life. Jonathan is an audit manager who crunches the numbers at big companies, making sure everything adds up as it should.
But it is through this job that Jonathan meets Wyatt Bose (Hugh Jackman), his antithesis. Wyatt is a charismatic, influential lawyer with an exciting life. Wyatt belongs to a sex club where the members receive anonymous phone calls from a list of willing, one-night-stand lovers. No names are exchanged; it’s just physical and that’s that: It’s “intimacy without intricacy for people that are too busy for love.”
Needless to say, Jonathan is dazzled by his new friend’s lifestyle. One day the two accidentally switch cell phones right before Wyatt takes a trip overseas to London. Now, Jonathan is in the driver’s seat of Wyatt’s exhilarating life. Best of all, Wyatt doesn’t mind one bit.
Well, that’s about as far as I’ll describe, except for one last thing: Wyatt’s lifestyle has dire consequences for Jonathan; when something seems too good to be true, it usually is.
With a premise like this, you’re probably wondering about the film’s sexual content. Though it sounds more prevalent, the sex club is merely a vehicle or a subplot to help carry the plot along. Even so, there are a couple semi-graphic sexual scenes, so “Deception” deserves its R-rating.
But when it’s all said and done, “Deception” is far too contrived, which means it’s so unlikely that these events would ever happen to someone that the movie loses its power of suspense. We know we are being toyed with by a work of pure fiction. As we watch “Deception,” we are not effectively drawn into the drama surrounding the characters. We are not, in fact, deceived … unless you count being duped into buying a ticket to see this movie.
Directed by Marcel Langenegger
Hugh Jackman / Ewan McGregor / Michelle Williams
Drama / Mystery 108 min.
MPAA: R (for sexual content, language, brief violence and some drug use)
U.S. Release Date: April 25, 2008
Copyright 2008: 286
O Excellent
O Good
X OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 17, 2008
“Deception” might have been a better movie had its trailer not spoiled all its surprises. I realize it’s rather cliché to gripe about movie previews “giving away too much,” but in this case the spoiling is blatant.
Basically, we know where the entire movie is going from the moment it begins. I’m sure if I could have gone into “Deception” cold, I would have thought more of it. If you haven’t seen the trailers, you could probably call it “Good.” For those who are still in the dark about the premise revealed in the previews, I’ll summarize the plot gingerly.
Jonathan McQuarry (Ewan McGregor) is a lonely, friendless man. There’s nothing wrong with him, per se; he simply leads an unexciting life. Jonathan is an audit manager who crunches the numbers at big companies, making sure everything adds up as it should.
But it is through this job that Jonathan meets Wyatt Bose (Hugh Jackman), his antithesis. Wyatt is a charismatic, influential lawyer with an exciting life. Wyatt belongs to a sex club where the members receive anonymous phone calls from a list of willing, one-night-stand lovers. No names are exchanged; it’s just physical and that’s that: It’s “intimacy without intricacy for people that are too busy for love.”
Needless to say, Jonathan is dazzled by his new friend’s lifestyle. One day the two accidentally switch cell phones right before Wyatt takes a trip overseas to London. Now, Jonathan is in the driver’s seat of Wyatt’s exhilarating life. Best of all, Wyatt doesn’t mind one bit.
Well, that’s about as far as I’ll describe, except for one last thing: Wyatt’s lifestyle has dire consequences for Jonathan; when something seems too good to be true, it usually is.
With a premise like this, you’re probably wondering about the film’s sexual content. Though it sounds more prevalent, the sex club is merely a vehicle or a subplot to help carry the plot along. Even so, there are a couple semi-graphic sexual scenes, so “Deception” deserves its R-rating.
But when it’s all said and done, “Deception” is far too contrived, which means it’s so unlikely that these events would ever happen to someone that the movie loses its power of suspense. We know we are being toyed with by a work of pure fiction. As we watch “Deception,” we are not effectively drawn into the drama surrounding the characters. We are not, in fact, deceived … unless you count being duped into buying a ticket to see this movie.
Directed by Marcel Langenegger
Hugh Jackman / Ewan McGregor / Michelle Williams
Drama / Mystery 108 min.
MPAA: R (for sexual content, language, brief violence and some drug use)
U.S. Release Date: April 25, 2008
Copyright 2008: 286
Harold & Kumar Escape From Guantanamo Bay (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
O Good
O OK
X Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 17, 2008
Nope. I did not see “Harold & Kumar Go to White Caste” (2004), and I count myself fortunate, based on this sequel. “Harold & Kumar Escape From Guantanamo Bay” is a filthy, satirical comedy whose filmmakers obviously have something to say, but their points are undermined by the movie’s unflinching tastelessness.
This is not to say that I hated “Escape From Gitmo,” because it was better than I feared it might be. But even at that, this movie is mediocrity — at best.
Just to be clear about what you’re in for if you choose to subject yourself to “Escape From Gitmo,” you’ll get plenty of bathroom humor; pubic-hair, masturbation, and semen humor; racism humor (can there be such a thing?); disabilities humor (also tasteless), and so on and so forth.
I could go on, but it’s basically as low-brow and as gallows as you can get, without being “Freddy Got Fingered” (2001) or “Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan” (2006). I’m not sure the bar of decency can be lowered any further for a comedy than it was for those two movies, but if it can, I don’t want to know.
Anyway, here’s the premise: Best pals Harold (John Cho) and Kumar (Kal Penn) are flying to Amsterdam, but their new destination suddenly becomes Guantanamo Bay when the plane’s passengers mistake the two for terrorists. The duo is imprisoned and escapes, and the rest of the movie follows the pair on their idiotic quest to exonerate themselves. Meanwhile, Secretary Ron Fox (Rob Corddry) from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security fiercely pursues them like Tommy Lee Jones chases Wesley Snipes in “U.S. Marshals” (1998). Oh, and along the way, Harold and Kumar encounter a psychedelic Neil Patrick Harris, whom you’ll probably remember as Doogie Howser, M.D.
To point out a more constructive criticism, I was most displeased with the inconsistency of Kal Penn’s Kumar character. He is a human paradox. We learn along the way that Kumar is exceptionally intelligent — even brilliant. Yet, he is also the character whose stupidity is so profound at times, it’s bewildering. Perhaps I could get behind these characters and their zany adventures if they were credible human beings. But to be fair, I don’t really have a problem with John Cho’s character.
Speaking of John Cho, it comes to mind that I know another guy with that same name. The John Cho I know is a brilliant young man, similar to Kumar. But he had a weird habit of climbing on top of apartment complexes and lurking about, a tendency that might be called stupid, if not bewildering. Perhaps paradoxical humans are possible … I think they’re called Geminis.
Directed by Jon Hurwitz and Hayden Schlossberg
John Cho / Kal Penn / Rob Corddry
Comedy 102 min.
MPAA: R (for strong crude and sexual content, graphic nudity, pervasive language and drug use)
U.S. Release Date: April 25, 2008
Copyright 2008: 287
O Excellent
O Good
O OK
X Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 17, 2008
Nope. I did not see “Harold & Kumar Go to White Caste” (2004), and I count myself fortunate, based on this sequel. “Harold & Kumar Escape From Guantanamo Bay” is a filthy, satirical comedy whose filmmakers obviously have something to say, but their points are undermined by the movie’s unflinching tastelessness.
This is not to say that I hated “Escape From Gitmo,” because it was better than I feared it might be. But even at that, this movie is mediocrity — at best.
Just to be clear about what you’re in for if you choose to subject yourself to “Escape From Gitmo,” you’ll get plenty of bathroom humor; pubic-hair, masturbation, and semen humor; racism humor (can there be such a thing?); disabilities humor (also tasteless), and so on and so forth.
I could go on, but it’s basically as low-brow and as gallows as you can get, without being “Freddy Got Fingered” (2001) or “Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan” (2006). I’m not sure the bar of decency can be lowered any further for a comedy than it was for those two movies, but if it can, I don’t want to know.
Anyway, here’s the premise: Best pals Harold (John Cho) and Kumar (Kal Penn) are flying to Amsterdam, but their new destination suddenly becomes Guantanamo Bay when the plane’s passengers mistake the two for terrorists. The duo is imprisoned and escapes, and the rest of the movie follows the pair on their idiotic quest to exonerate themselves. Meanwhile, Secretary Ron Fox (Rob Corddry) from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security fiercely pursues them like Tommy Lee Jones chases Wesley Snipes in “U.S. Marshals” (1998). Oh, and along the way, Harold and Kumar encounter a psychedelic Neil Patrick Harris, whom you’ll probably remember as Doogie Howser, M.D.
To point out a more constructive criticism, I was most displeased with the inconsistency of Kal Penn’s Kumar character. He is a human paradox. We learn along the way that Kumar is exceptionally intelligent — even brilliant. Yet, he is also the character whose stupidity is so profound at times, it’s bewildering. Perhaps I could get behind these characters and their zany adventures if they were credible human beings. But to be fair, I don’t really have a problem with John Cho’s character.
Speaking of John Cho, it comes to mind that I know another guy with that same name. The John Cho I know is a brilliant young man, similar to Kumar. But he had a weird habit of climbing on top of apartment complexes and lurking about, a tendency that might be called stupid, if not bewildering. Perhaps paradoxical humans are possible … I think they’re called Geminis.
Directed by Jon Hurwitz and Hayden Schlossberg
John Cho / Kal Penn / Rob Corddry
Comedy 102 min.
MPAA: R (for strong crude and sexual content, graphic nudity, pervasive language and drug use)
U.S. Release Date: April 25, 2008
Copyright 2008: 287
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (2008)
O Masterpiece
X Excellent
O Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 17, 2008
In “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” there’s a quiet scene where Ben Stein stands face to face, confronting a statue of Charles Darwin. This brief moment is a metaphor for the whole film, which is a documentary where Stein investigates the scientific community’s attitudes toward Darwinism and Intelligent Design.
Many people only know Ben Stein as the monotone, roll-calling economics teacher from “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off” (1986). But he was also once Richard Nixon’s speechwriter and a pundit, of sorts. In “Expelled,” Stein travels the globe with his unexcitable — almost sleepy demeanor, wearing a suit and tennis shoes. His interviewing style is remarkable: His lines of questioning are driving but never threatening, so his subjects feel compelled to answer, but they do not become combative.
And naturally, as documentaries tend to be, “Expelled” is clearly slanted. Indeed, Ben Stein is a “believer,” meaning, in God, the Creator. Consequently, the Darwinists of the scientific community are, perhaps unfairly, vilified. All too often, Hollywood movies portray religious people as manic zealots, obsessed and potentially dangerous. But “Expelled” does the opposite: This film’s editing includes highly spirited, sometimes irrational overreactions from the evolutionist types, while those who consider the question of Intelligent Design are portrayed as reasonable, calm and collected.
“Expelled” is sometimes troubling, other times sad. Stein draws parallels between Darwinism and Nazism, and he digs up what he calls “the darkest chapter of American medicine,” the implementation of eugenics, where 50,000 people were sterilized or prevented marriage, all in the name of “helping evolution along,” because they were “feeble-minded.” Stein goes so far as to claim that Planned Parenthood is a form of eugenics that still exists today.
“Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” is one of the best films of 2008, an overlooked, underrated gem that will particularly be enjoyed by “the believers,” but probably not as much by the nonbelievers. Stein uses a metaphor that employs the Berlin Wall, and it’s brilliant.
In the beginning of the movie, there are interspersed clips of silliness, animations and old film footage that are included to spice up the material, add humor and to mock Stein’s antagonists. These childish insertions are unnecessary and detract from the film’s power.
But if you see “Expelled” for no other reason, watch it so you can catch a climactic showdown between Ben Stein and Richard Dawkins, a vehement nonbeliever who is described by another colleague in the movie as “a very smart guy but a little bit of a reptile.” It seems an unfair classification, but if Darwinism is accurate, perhaps there could be some truth to it.
Directed by Nathan Frankowski
Ben Stein / Steven Meyer / Richard Dawkins
Documentary 90 min.
MPAA: PG (for thematic material, some disturbing images and brief smoking)
U.S. Release Date: April 18, 2008
Copyright 2008: 282
X Excellent
O Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 17, 2008
In “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” there’s a quiet scene where Ben Stein stands face to face, confronting a statue of Charles Darwin. This brief moment is a metaphor for the whole film, which is a documentary where Stein investigates the scientific community’s attitudes toward Darwinism and Intelligent Design.
Many people only know Ben Stein as the monotone, roll-calling economics teacher from “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off” (1986). But he was also once Richard Nixon’s speechwriter and a pundit, of sorts. In “Expelled,” Stein travels the globe with his unexcitable — almost sleepy demeanor, wearing a suit and tennis shoes. His interviewing style is remarkable: His lines of questioning are driving but never threatening, so his subjects feel compelled to answer, but they do not become combative.
And naturally, as documentaries tend to be, “Expelled” is clearly slanted. Indeed, Ben Stein is a “believer,” meaning, in God, the Creator. Consequently, the Darwinists of the scientific community are, perhaps unfairly, vilified. All too often, Hollywood movies portray religious people as manic zealots, obsessed and potentially dangerous. But “Expelled” does the opposite: This film’s editing includes highly spirited, sometimes irrational overreactions from the evolutionist types, while those who consider the question of Intelligent Design are portrayed as reasonable, calm and collected.
“Expelled” is sometimes troubling, other times sad. Stein draws parallels between Darwinism and Nazism, and he digs up what he calls “the darkest chapter of American medicine,” the implementation of eugenics, where 50,000 people were sterilized or prevented marriage, all in the name of “helping evolution along,” because they were “feeble-minded.” Stein goes so far as to claim that Planned Parenthood is a form of eugenics that still exists today.
“Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” is one of the best films of 2008, an overlooked, underrated gem that will particularly be enjoyed by “the believers,” but probably not as much by the nonbelievers. Stein uses a metaphor that employs the Berlin Wall, and it’s brilliant.
In the beginning of the movie, there are interspersed clips of silliness, animations and old film footage that are included to spice up the material, add humor and to mock Stein’s antagonists. These childish insertions are unnecessary and detract from the film’s power.
But if you see “Expelled” for no other reason, watch it so you can catch a climactic showdown between Ben Stein and Richard Dawkins, a vehement nonbeliever who is described by another colleague in the movie as “a very smart guy but a little bit of a reptile.” It seems an unfair classification, but if Darwinism is accurate, perhaps there could be some truth to it.
Directed by Nathan Frankowski
Ben Stein / Steven Meyer / Richard Dawkins
Documentary 90 min.
MPAA: PG (for thematic material, some disturbing images and brief smoking)
U.S. Release Date: April 18, 2008
Copyright 2008: 282
The Forbidden Kingdom (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
O Good
X OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 17, 2008
I love movies just as much as the next guy, probably more in most cases. So I rarely ever fall asleep during a movie, no matter how paltry it is, unless it’s something utterly reprehensible like “Batman & Robin” (1997). But it is a bad sign when I, who am a lover of martial arts, keep drifting off during a martial-arts action flick. That is what happened to me during “The Forbidden Kingdom.” I know. Nobody cares.
But to be fair, I have a new baby who keeps me up at night, so I may give “The Forbidden Kingdom” another viewing someday because of my intermittent head-bobbing. Rick Moody’s rule is, don’t review a movie unless you’ve stayed to watch the whole thing. Well, I was physically there for the whole thing — if not consciously — so I’ll live on the edge and review it, anyway. And if anyone who reads this review feels I have not described “The Forbidden Kingdom” accurately, then you can correct me. But I think I’ve got a good handle on it, and the movie was merely OK.
“The Forbidden Kingdom” has an awfully risky curtain-raiser: It’s one of those scenes that look so preposterous that people walk out of the theater and demand their money back. But if you stick it out, you’ll obtain some relief by finding out that it was just a dream sequence. Unfortunately, that relief is short-lived because there continue to be storm-out-of-the-theater scenes that are not dream sequences.
Jason Tripitikas (Michael Angarano) is a martial arts nut — he even dreams in kung fu! Little does he know, his dreams are shadows of things to come. Jason loves to visit “Old Hop’s” pawnshop in Chinatown in South Boston. The old merchant (Jackie Chan) who owns the shop is fond of Jason, perhaps because he faithfully buys old martial arts movies from his store. During one of his visits, Jason sees a peculiar bo staff (a martial arts weapon that is essentially a stick) that Hop claims has been there ever since the store opened 100 years ago.
Like all martial arts movies with an initially wimpy protagonist, Jason is afflicted by bullies. And these bullies are of the same caliber of startling cruelty as those found in “Drillbit Taylor.” Is it me, or has the viciousness of bullies waxed worse lately? These hoods make Johnny Lawrence, Danielson’s arch-nemesis, look tame. (By the way, why doesn’t some smart casting director give Billy Zabka another chance, so he doesn’t have to keep playing in movies like “Python 2”?)
Anyway, in the midst of Jason’s flight from the meanies, he takes the bo staff, which magically transports him to rural, old-school China, where he encounters more magical phenomena and more bandits, but is rescued by the martial arts skills of the usually-drunken Lu Yan (also Jackie Chan). This double-role casting that spans characters in both of the protagonist’s worlds is reminiscent of Dorothy’s familiar-faced pals in “The Wizard of Oz” (1939).
Lu Yan immediately recognizes the bo staff as the one that belonged to The Monkey King (Jet Li), the most painfully annoying character since Jar Jar Binks. According to legend, the idiotic Monkey King was magically imprisoned, or banished, or something, by a really mean meanie called the Jade Warlord (Collin Chou), which I thought was kind of a sissy name. (I’m the Sapphire Prince. Fear me.)
The legend also tells of “a seeker” (Jason) who will return the powerful staff to the Monkey King that he might finally conquer the Jade Warlord. So, it becomes their quest to return the staff to its rightful owner, and along the way, they are joined by the helping hands and feet of Golden Sparrow (Yifei Liu) and the Silent Monk (Jet Li). And naturally, the Jade Warlord doesn’t want the staff to return to the Monkey King, so he makes the journey difficult for our intrepid travelers.
That’s the premise. This sets the stage for some martial arts action, but the problem is the movie’s pacing: It has short bursts of fighting action, then long, slow, drawn-out sequences of several quiet, plot-furthering dialogue scenes in a row. Then a quick fight scene. Then long, slow sequences again. It is enough to lull a movie critic to sleep.
According to the Internet Movie Database’s trivia page, “The Forbidden Kingdom” went through five script re-writes, some of which occurred during filming. Yes, such a thing isn’t all that uncommon, but it’s typically symptomatic of bigger problems. Indeed, if “The Forbidden Kingdom” had re-writes, it shows. And if it didn’t, maybe it should have.
But those who were excited about “The Forbidden Kingdom” were not looking forward to a dazzling, coherent script, they were anxious to see Jackie Chan and Jet Li team up for the first time. Yes, that is interesting, but aside from one really good fight against each other, the two are on the same side most of the movie. But I suppose that seeing their one fight against each other would be worth admission for martial arts fans. I guess it’s similar to the way I paid so much money to see Billy Joel and Elton John play together on their Face to Face Tour; as a piano man, I had to see it. And I stayed awake for the entire show.
Directed by Rob Minkoff
Jet Li / Jackie Chan / Michael Angarano
Martial Arts / Comedy 113 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for sequences of martial arts action and some violence)
U.S. Release Date: April 18, 2008
Copyright 2008: 284
O Excellent
O Good
X OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 17, 2008
I love movies just as much as the next guy, probably more in most cases. So I rarely ever fall asleep during a movie, no matter how paltry it is, unless it’s something utterly reprehensible like “Batman & Robin” (1997). But it is a bad sign when I, who am a lover of martial arts, keep drifting off during a martial-arts action flick. That is what happened to me during “The Forbidden Kingdom.” I know. Nobody cares.
But to be fair, I have a new baby who keeps me up at night, so I may give “The Forbidden Kingdom” another viewing someday because of my intermittent head-bobbing. Rick Moody’s rule is, don’t review a movie unless you’ve stayed to watch the whole thing. Well, I was physically there for the whole thing — if not consciously — so I’ll live on the edge and review it, anyway. And if anyone who reads this review feels I have not described “The Forbidden Kingdom” accurately, then you can correct me. But I think I’ve got a good handle on it, and the movie was merely OK.
“The Forbidden Kingdom” has an awfully risky curtain-raiser: It’s one of those scenes that look so preposterous that people walk out of the theater and demand their money back. But if you stick it out, you’ll obtain some relief by finding out that it was just a dream sequence. Unfortunately, that relief is short-lived because there continue to be storm-out-of-the-theater scenes that are not dream sequences.
Jason Tripitikas (Michael Angarano) is a martial arts nut — he even dreams in kung fu! Little does he know, his dreams are shadows of things to come. Jason loves to visit “Old Hop’s” pawnshop in Chinatown in South Boston. The old merchant (Jackie Chan) who owns the shop is fond of Jason, perhaps because he faithfully buys old martial arts movies from his store. During one of his visits, Jason sees a peculiar bo staff (a martial arts weapon that is essentially a stick) that Hop claims has been there ever since the store opened 100 years ago.
Like all martial arts movies with an initially wimpy protagonist, Jason is afflicted by bullies. And these bullies are of the same caliber of startling cruelty as those found in “Drillbit Taylor.” Is it me, or has the viciousness of bullies waxed worse lately? These hoods make Johnny Lawrence, Danielson’s arch-nemesis, look tame. (By the way, why doesn’t some smart casting director give Billy Zabka another chance, so he doesn’t have to keep playing in movies like “Python 2”?)
Anyway, in the midst of Jason’s flight from the meanies, he takes the bo staff, which magically transports him to rural, old-school China, where he encounters more magical phenomena and more bandits, but is rescued by the martial arts skills of the usually-drunken Lu Yan (also Jackie Chan). This double-role casting that spans characters in both of the protagonist’s worlds is reminiscent of Dorothy’s familiar-faced pals in “The Wizard of Oz” (1939).
Lu Yan immediately recognizes the bo staff as the one that belonged to The Monkey King (Jet Li), the most painfully annoying character since Jar Jar Binks. According to legend, the idiotic Monkey King was magically imprisoned, or banished, or something, by a really mean meanie called the Jade Warlord (Collin Chou), which I thought was kind of a sissy name. (I’m the Sapphire Prince. Fear me.)
The legend also tells of “a seeker” (Jason) who will return the powerful staff to the Monkey King that he might finally conquer the Jade Warlord. So, it becomes their quest to return the staff to its rightful owner, and along the way, they are joined by the helping hands and feet of Golden Sparrow (Yifei Liu) and the Silent Monk (Jet Li). And naturally, the Jade Warlord doesn’t want the staff to return to the Monkey King, so he makes the journey difficult for our intrepid travelers.
That’s the premise. This sets the stage for some martial arts action, but the problem is the movie’s pacing: It has short bursts of fighting action, then long, slow, drawn-out sequences of several quiet, plot-furthering dialogue scenes in a row. Then a quick fight scene. Then long, slow sequences again. It is enough to lull a movie critic to sleep.
According to the Internet Movie Database’s trivia page, “The Forbidden Kingdom” went through five script re-writes, some of which occurred during filming. Yes, such a thing isn’t all that uncommon, but it’s typically symptomatic of bigger problems. Indeed, if “The Forbidden Kingdom” had re-writes, it shows. And if it didn’t, maybe it should have.
But those who were excited about “The Forbidden Kingdom” were not looking forward to a dazzling, coherent script, they were anxious to see Jackie Chan and Jet Li team up for the first time. Yes, that is interesting, but aside from one really good fight against each other, the two are on the same side most of the movie. But I suppose that seeing their one fight against each other would be worth admission for martial arts fans. I guess it’s similar to the way I paid so much money to see Billy Joel and Elton John play together on their Face to Face Tour; as a piano man, I had to see it. And I stayed awake for the entire show.
Directed by Rob Minkoff
Jet Li / Jackie Chan / Michael Angarano
Martial Arts / Comedy 113 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for sequences of martial arts action and some violence)
U.S. Release Date: April 18, 2008
Copyright 2008: 284
Forgetting Sarah Marshall (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
X Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 17, 2008
Jason Segel, the actor who plays Pete Bretter in “Forgetting Sarah Marshall,” claimed in a late-night-talk-show interview that a girl broke up with him once while he was naked, which is quite possibly the most vulnerable time to get dumped.
And since the best material is inspired by real life, “Forgetting Sarah Marshall” opens with a birthday-suit breakup that includes full frontal male nudity. Some actors, like Jason Segel, take substantial risks. Pure bravery. And to think I used to be impressed with Christian Bale’s dangerously extreme weight-loss for “The Machinist” (2004).
But this is the kind of movie “Forgetting Sarah Marshall” is. Yes, it’s the same funny, over-the-top smut as “The 40-Year-Old Virgin” (2005), “Knocked Up” (2007), and “Superbad” (2007); in short, another Judd Apatow production whose R-rating should not be taken lightly.
After being dismissed by his TV-actress girlfriend, Sarah (Kristen Bell), Peter takes his best friend’s advice and goes on a solo vacation to Hawaii. Unfortunately, Sarah is also vacationing at the same resort with her British, rock-star, Aldous Snow (Russell Brand). Snow is one of the movie’s funniest characters. And after seeing Peter mope around for a few days, we get to see him begin to emerge from the breakup, “discover” himself, make new friends, and even meet a new, hip gal named Rachel (Mila Kunis).
There is an overall good feeling to “Forgetting Sarah Marshall.” It has that zesty invigoration of a fun vacation, which is a credit to director Nicholas Stoller, because that’s exactly what he was supposed to depict. The inevitable run-ins between the two couples are truly entertaining. Sometimes the social awkwardness makes you squirm a little in your seat, but it’s always funny.
And in addition to the naked breakup scene, “Forgetting Sarah Marshall” has one other refreshingly original idea that I’ve never seen in a movie before, and probably never will again: a Dracula puppet rock opera. Nice.
In the end, I suspect most people will love this movie, that is, if they go in already aware of its sexual content. “Forgetting Sarah Marshall” is essentially an edgy romantic comedy; it’s kind of like that deodorant called Secret: “Strong enough for a man [and] made for a woman.”
Directed by Nicholas Stoller
Jason Segel / Kristen Bell / Mila Kunis
Comedy / Romance 112 min.
MPAA: R (for sexual content, language and some graphic nudity)
U.S. Release Date: April 18, 2008
Copyright 2008: 283
O Excellent
X Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 17, 2008
Jason Segel, the actor who plays Pete Bretter in “Forgetting Sarah Marshall,” claimed in a late-night-talk-show interview that a girl broke up with him once while he was naked, which is quite possibly the most vulnerable time to get dumped.
And since the best material is inspired by real life, “Forgetting Sarah Marshall” opens with a birthday-suit breakup that includes full frontal male nudity. Some actors, like Jason Segel, take substantial risks. Pure bravery. And to think I used to be impressed with Christian Bale’s dangerously extreme weight-loss for “The Machinist” (2004).
But this is the kind of movie “Forgetting Sarah Marshall” is. Yes, it’s the same funny, over-the-top smut as “The 40-Year-Old Virgin” (2005), “Knocked Up” (2007), and “Superbad” (2007); in short, another Judd Apatow production whose R-rating should not be taken lightly.
After being dismissed by his TV-actress girlfriend, Sarah (Kristen Bell), Peter takes his best friend’s advice and goes on a solo vacation to Hawaii. Unfortunately, Sarah is also vacationing at the same resort with her British, rock-star, Aldous Snow (Russell Brand). Snow is one of the movie’s funniest characters. And after seeing Peter mope around for a few days, we get to see him begin to emerge from the breakup, “discover” himself, make new friends, and even meet a new, hip gal named Rachel (Mila Kunis).
There is an overall good feeling to “Forgetting Sarah Marshall.” It has that zesty invigoration of a fun vacation, which is a credit to director Nicholas Stoller, because that’s exactly what he was supposed to depict. The inevitable run-ins between the two couples are truly entertaining. Sometimes the social awkwardness makes you squirm a little in your seat, but it’s always funny.
And in addition to the naked breakup scene, “Forgetting Sarah Marshall” has one other refreshingly original idea that I’ve never seen in a movie before, and probably never will again: a Dracula puppet rock opera. Nice.
In the end, I suspect most people will love this movie, that is, if they go in already aware of its sexual content. “Forgetting Sarah Marshall” is essentially an edgy romantic comedy; it’s kind of like that deodorant called Secret: “Strong enough for a man [and] made for a woman.”
Directed by Nicholas Stoller
Jason Segel / Kristen Bell / Mila Kunis
Comedy / Romance 112 min.
MPAA: R (for sexual content, language and some graphic nudity)
U.S. Release Date: April 18, 2008
Copyright 2008: 283
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
