Up (2009)

O Masterpiece

X Excellent

O Good

O OK

O Mediocrity

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / May 29, 2009

Much like an escaped helium balloon, “Up” climbs quickly, but it only ascends so high before it is blown around by the required winds of action sequences. Even so, Disney-Pixar’s new animated film begins like a masterpiece.

First of all, we meet a boy whose eyeglasses resemble the 3-D glasses we’re wearing as spectators, and we see him sitting in a movie theater, making us immediately identify with his character. We like him because he’s like us.

Next this boy whose name is Carl meets a girl named Ellie. They both want to be adventurer-explorers like their hero, Charles Muntz, whose travels take him to Paradise Falls in South America. From the couple’s childhood meeting, “Up” proceeds with a bittersweet and beautiful passage-of-time montage that highlights their lives together.

The most successful animated films are those that offer something for each member of the family. The less ambitious movies rely on the distasteful practice of including sexual innuendo or suggestive symbolism to keep the adults’ attention, but “Up” provides a touching love story with a potency rarely summoned by animation.

As the movie’s previews reveal, Carl (Ed Asner) is the elderly man who ties hundreds of helium-filled balloons to his house, enabling it to float away with him inside of it. Carl is leaving because he has an old promise to keep. But the aged traveler also has a stowaway onboard his airborne abode — young Russell (Jordan Nagai), a Wilderness Explorer endeavoring to earn his “Assisting the Elderly” badge.

The boy’s unintentional annoyance to the old man who secretly regards the kid fondly calls to mind the strained relationship between “Dennis the Menace” and Mr. Wilson. The discordant duo’s adventures usher in the action scenes and the animals.

Notably, many animated films give animals the ability to speak, usually without explanation. But “Up” gives a reason for granting dogs the gift of tongues. Surely the hilarious canine dialogue is what dogs would say if they were articulate. Having human beings amid a society of talking dogs is reminiscent of “Planet of the Apes.”

As is the Pixar tradition, “Up” is preceded by an exceptional, animated short film titled “Partly Cloudy.” Oh, and there are a few 3-D trailers for upcoming movies, including the teaser for “Toy Story 3,” which is slated for release in 2010.

By the way, moms and dads should note that “Up” is rated PG — not G. The film has some mild violence, including two instances of actual bloodshed and some dog attacks, that might give parents pause.

Directed by Pete Docter and Bob Peterson

Ed Asner / Jordan Nagai / Christopher Plummer

Animation     96 min.

MPAA Rating: PG (for some peril and action)

Terminator Salvation (2009)

O Masterpiece

O Excellent

X Good

O OK

O Mediocrity

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / May 21, 2009

Throughout the “Terminator” movies, our perception of the present is relative, due to the series’ shifting focus on various dates in time. The first three “Terminator” films are mostly set in the past (pre-Judgment Day), with brief glimpses of a nightmarish future, circa 2029. But “Terminator Salvation” primarily takes place in a war-torn 2018, after Judgment Day has occurred and the remnant of humanity is raging against the machines.

John Connor (Christian Bale) is ascending to become the leader of the worldwide resistance, as he carefully listens to his mother’s instructional cassette tapes and prepares for the day when he’ll dispatch Kyle Reese back to 1984. Meanwhile, the machines and the resistance unleash devastating plots in hopes of checkmating their enemies.

Above all, “Terminator Salvation” is a war movie whose dingy, industrial production design echoes Fritz Lang’s “Metropolis” (1927), an early sci-fi film that’s also a futuristic portrayal of human misery borne from technological advancement gone awry.

Those who say “Salvation” is an orphan among its predecessors haven’t seen the trilogy recently. Revisiting the preceding movies will enhance your understanding and appreciation of this new film. Still, some fans will no doubt be disappointed with the new installment, since it’s not a hunt-and-chase movie like the others.

James Cameron — the director of “Aliens,” “The Abyss” and “Titanic” — co-wrote and directed “The Terminator” (1984) and “Terminator 2: Judgment Day” (1991). Without question, those first two films are the best of the series, which attests to Cameron’s filmmaking prowess.

The 1984 film is excellent because a human chases a cyborg 45 years back in time to protect another human. The 1991 film is great because a familiar cyborg follows a more advanced robotic assassin back in time to protect a human.

The third movie is a kitschy rerun of the second film, with two monstrous machines battling over the lives of mortals. “Salvation” is both refreshing and intriguing because we get to see the post-nuclear-war time period, various other terminator models in action, and the unfolding of events we heard about in the previous movies.

The ending is a little unsatisfying, but it’s obvious that “Salvation” is the beginning of another trilogy. (Indeed, a fifth “Terminator” movie is already in development.)

Because of these films’ sparse release dates, they provide a fascinating record of the evolution of special effects, particularly when observing the disparity between the dated, 1984 film and the dazzling CGI of “T2.” With an average of about eight years between films, we might need to time-travel to 2029 to see how this series ends.

Directed by McG

Christian Bale / Sam Worthington / Anton Yelchin

Sci-fi / War     130 min.

MPAA Rating: PG-13 (for intense sequences of sci-fi violence and action, and language)

Angels & Demons (2009)

O Masterpiece

O Excellent

O Good

X OK

O Mediocrity

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / May 15, 2009

Unless you’ve already read Dan Brown’s novel “Angels & Demons,” watching the movie is like playing a new card game — it’s a little confusing, sometimes boring, and it seems like the rules are being made up as it goes along.

Though “Angels & Demons” preceded “The Da Vinci Code” (2006), it is set as a sequel. But the chronology is more or less irrelevant, since Brown unfolds more adventures of symbologist Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks), rather than rehashing his hero’s previous scavenger hunts.

In “Angels & Demons” the pope has died, and it’s time to select a successor. But four cardinals — all prospective papal contenders — have been abducted from the Vatican. When the church discovers that the abductor(s) might be a centuries-old secret society called the Illuminati, it seeks Langdon’s sleuthing expertise.

The professor must do his thing and frantically find clues around Rome before each cardinal is publicly (and thematically) executed an hour apart from one another, until the final hour when a technological terror will be detonated somewhere in Rome.

The misleading trailers for “Angels & Demons” appear to suggest that it will contain encounters with supernatural creatures, but the only angels or demons in this movie are statues and human beings. This is not a horror movie; it’s a “diet” thriller — at best.

Hollywood is sometimes unkind to the Catholic Church or specialty groups like Opus Dei, which associate themselves with the church, or the Illuminati, who openly despise it. With its implications that suggest that the church is politically corrupt and even murderous, some Catholic viewers might be put off by this film.

And at the same time, “Angels & Demons” is also likely to alienate its non-Catholic viewers who might find themselves marooned in the sea of church jargon, some of which is in Italian or Latin.

When judging a film adapted from a book, we commonly say “the book was better,” because we prefer our vision of things over someone else’s conceptualization. Plus, the number of pages between book covers is more generous than the number of minutes between movie credits. Screenwriters are compelled to preserve the original source material while transforming the story from written words to filmic images. Books tell; films show.

But the question is not whether “Angels & Demons” is as good as the novel; the question is, does this adaptation stand on its own? The answer is — it’s OK — but it limps like a monk wearing a cilice.

Directed by Ron Howard

Tom Hanks / Ewan McGregor / Ayelet Zurer

Mystery      138 min.

MPAA Rating: PG-13 (for sequences of violence, disturbing images and thematic material).

Obsessed (2009)

O Masterpiece

O Excellent

O Good

X OK

O Mediocrity

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / May 13, 2009

If nothing else, “Obsessed” is ambitious — or is the right word “brave”? To make a PG-13 movie about this subject matter must have been difficult. Lazier filmmakers would have gone with R-rated content, allowing their project to slip into slinky sleaziness. But “Obsessed” doesn’t take the low road, and as a result, it’s a little more noble, despite the way it appears in its sultry marketing.

In other words, if you’re looking for sex and nudity, this ain’t your movie (and shame on you). If you strive to avoid such explicit content, “Obsessed” is fairly “clean.” Indeed, the PG-13 rating primarily comes from the ideas of lust, temptation and adultery — not the actual depiction of those themes.

Derek (Idris Elba) and Sharon (Beyoncé Knowles) are happily married with one little son, Kyle, who always seems sedated. All is well, but when a new temp (Ali Larter) starts trying to tempt Derek at work, the couple’s idyllic lifestyle crumbles. Lisa, the would-be home-wrecker, is not only attractive and driven, she’s also obsessed with Derek. Her predatory preoccupation with him reveals a darker and darker character whose relentless tactics escalate from appalling to unforgivable.

“Obsessed” is intriguing for two reasons: The first reason is because it inspires us, the viewers, to have different questions throughout the movie. Initially, we are very curious to know whether Derek will succumb to Lisa’s advances. Later in the movie, we have more questions that we’re just as eager to have answered. The other reason “Obsessed” is somewhat fascinating is because we simultaneously cringe and look forward to seeing what the crazy chick will do next.

Unfortunately, the movie grows tiresome, because it’s one of those frustrating plots where everything could be resolved if the victimized protagonist would simply communicate with those around him. 

But the movie’s biggest black eye is its descent into utter ridiculousness, when the inevitable physical confrontation occurs: What is meant to feel like vindication seems more like some Wrestlemania-type brawl between the Fabulous Moolah and Wendy Richter. Though it’s not meant to be funny, it is laughable.

Some people might consider “Obsessed” to be a love story or a drama — or maybe even an action flick (but that’s pushing it). Actually, “Obsessed” is intended to be a thriller, which is immediately evident from its peculiar horror-flick piano on the soundtrack. In fact, the music throughout the film is odd: During the beginning scenes with the blissfully happy couple, we hear that uneasy piano score; then at the end, after we’ve witnessed much unpleasantness, we hear happy music, as if years of therapy won’t be requisite.

I’ve thought about “Obsessed” for a considerable amount of time, and I just can’t pinpoint what it is about the film that relegates it to a rating of merely OK. I keep returning to something The New York Times film critic, Vincent Canby, once wrote in a preface to a “worst movies” list: 

“Actually, most movies, like most anything else, are neither very, very bad nor very, very good. They tend to fall into that vast middle ground of forgettableness ... ” 

Yes, I can say that although “Obsessed” is moderately entertaining, it is unremarkable enough to be easily forgettable.

Directed by Steve Shill

Idris Elba / Beyoncé Knowles / Ali Larter

Thriller     108 min.

MPAA Rating: PG-13 (for sexual material, including some suggestive dialogue, some violence and thematic content).

X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009)

O Masterpiece

O Excellent

X Good

O OK

O Mediocrity

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / May 10, 2009

Now that the blockbuster season is under way, let’s just call a spade a spade: “X-Men Origins: Wolverine” was designed to draw big box office sales and aimed to entertain boys and young men via lots of special effects and superhero action — that’s it. Mission accomplished.

We all know what to expect from the previews, so why do critics and some moviegoers complain when the movie is composed of bumper-to-bumper action that’s riddled with implausibility? 

Nothing revolutionary is revealed about the cinematic medium or the human condition, but here’s the key: The filmmakers never pursued any such ambitions. To judge fairly, shouldn’t we take into consideration what the filmmakers’ were trying to accomplish? I think so.

“X-Men Origins: Wolverine” is thoroughly entertaining. It rarely slows down. I nearly rated it “Excellent,” but it’s just falls short of the stature of “Iron Man.” Instead, “Wolverine” is “Good” like “The Incredible Hulk,” and probably not quite as good as the “X-Men” trilogy.

The movie opens in 1845, when we see a brief but tragic episode that results in two unusual brothers’ permanent flight from their family. The siblings grow up together, battling back to back in multiple wars throughout the decades. They are mutants whose remarkable gifts lend them incredible resilience against aging, injuries and death. But due to the divergence of their natures, Logan (Hugh Jackman) and Victor (Liev Schreiber) part ways and become fierce enemies.

The plot summary above is quite simplistic and doesn’t begin to span the myriad developments in the movie. However, if you’re schooled in Wolverine’s comic-book history, you won’t need a lengthy explanation, and if you’re altogether ignorant of his story, then it’s better that you’re surprised during the movie.

Typically, origin stories (which are often supplied in a superhero’s first movie) are tiresome. Sure, if a person didn’t have super powers but then obtained them, he or she would have to fumble around with those new abilities for a while. A good example of this is “Spider-Man” (2002). But I’m often irritated by having to sit through the “learning curve,” which is usually intended to be funny and never is. And though Wolverine was born with his “powers,” there is a brief scene of this fumbling sort involving his atomantium (not positive about that spelling) claws.

Film often reflects the anxieties of the day. The sci-fi genre is a good example of this — especially during the 1950s when two of the primary fears were nuclear armageddon (atom bomb) and alien invasion (the Red Scare and McCarthyism). And with respect to all of the dismissive comments I made at the beginning of this review, perhaps there lies beneath “X-Men Origins: Wolverine” a sub-conscious fear of genetic engineering and experimentation. But probably not. It’s probably just action for action’s sake.

Lastly, there is a very small and insignificant morsel at the very end of this film for those who wait until the end-credits are finished rolling. But as my filmmaker friend Joshua Ligairi pointed out to me after reading my “Star Trek” review, those little “Easter eggs” aren’t the only reason to watch the credits.

Directed by Gavin Hood

Hugh Jackman / Liev Schreiber / Remy LeBeau

Action     107 min.

MPAA Rating: PG-13 (for intense sequences of action and violence, and some partial nudity).

Ghosts of Girlfriends Past (2009)

O Masterpiece

O Excellent

O Good

X OK

O Mediocrity

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / May 10, 2009

“Ghosts of Girlfriends Past” is not as good as you think it’s going to be. It looks like it has real potential —  and why wouldn’t it, since its premise borrows heavily from Charles Dickens’ “A Christmas Carol”? 

The problem is an all-too-common one: The characters aren’t overly likable — particularly the protagonist, played by Matthew McConaughey. Yes, Ebenezer Scrooge is undeniably crotchety, but I’d argue that he’s still likable, because his despicableness is obviously who he really is and we tend to respect that; whereas, McConaughey’s Scrooge-like character openly flaunts his choice to be obnoxious.

Connor Mead (McConaughey) is an edgy and in-demand photographer whose specialty is making sexy women look even sexier by arraying them in photogenic lingerie. Then he sleeps with them. Yes, we learn quickly that Mead is an unscrupulous dog: For instance, he breaks up with three women simultaneously on a conference call while the fourth watches and waits for him in bed.

Scrooge is pig-headed and Mead is simply a pig. You get the idea. Consequently, the photographer is visited by three ghosts who enlighten him with their escapades to watch episodes from his past, present and future. And naturally, since this is a romantic comedy, Mead isn’t being taught the true meaning of Christmas — or even that women aren’t objects; instead, there was always one special gal in his life, Jenny Perotti (Jennifer Garner), whom Mead should have settled down with years ago.

While watching the film, I apologetically kept thinking that the concept is a great idea, then I’d remember that it was actually Dickens’ tale, and not the screenwriters’ of “Girlfriends Past.” The movie follows the usual pattern of a romantic comedy, and it’s built around a wedding (which is a secret weapon of the genre), but even the priceless actor Michael Douglas isn’t able to save this sinking ship.

Contrast this flick with two feel-good winners from 2005, “Hitch” and “Fever Pitch.” When I left the theater after those two movies, I was borderline gleeful. When I watched “Girlfriends Past,” I felt a a little dreary inside and not too optimistic about the happily ever after.

All in all, “Ghosts of Girlfriends Past” is OK, but it doesn’t stand out among the blue million others like it in this genre.

P.S. By the way, the hands-down best film adaptation of “A Christmas Carol” is the 1984 TV version that was directed by Clive Donner and stars the great George C. Scott.

Directed by Mark Waters

Matthew McConaughey / Jennifer Garner / Michael Douglas

Romantic Comedy     100 min.

MPAA Rating: PG-13 (for sexual content throughout, some language and a drug reference).

Star Trek (2009)

O Masterpiece

O Excellent

X Good

O OK

O Mediocrity

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / May 8, 2009

Writing about a universal phenomenon like “Star Trek” can incur the wrath of Khan, the Gorn captain and trekkies across the galaxy. Luckily, the kind of people who wear pointy ears to conventions and movie theaters typically aren’t that intimidating, so I’ll risk it.

Such dedicated fan-boys and fan-girls will likely have split opinions in the extreme, either loving or hating this new film, depending on whether they’re among the camp that has an unconditional love for anything related to Starfleet, or the half that gripes about every little incongruent detail that they perceive as inauthentic.

In actuality, J.J. Abrams’ “Star Trek” lies somewhere in between. Sure, the critic within us all can always have qualms, but this blockbuster succeeds in capturing the spirit of the series and entertaining with flashy, loud, sci-fi action.

“Star Trek” begins with a poignant curtain raiser, where we witness the valor of George Kirk — James T. Kirk’s father — as he makes an unbearable sacrifice. The conflict surrounding this opening incident sends ripples throughout the movie.

Technically, this “Star Trek” installment could loosely be called a prequel — and though Kirk and Spock aren’t generally considered to be superheroes — it’s also an origin story, of sorts. The primary plot depicts the young Enterprise crew trying to deal with a Romulan aggressor (played by a nearly unrecognizable Eric Bana), and his dismal designs which involve drilling into planet cores.

Naturally, “Star Trek” has  mind-melding, Vulcan neck-gripping, a She-Hulk look-alike, and of course, some “colorful metaphors.”

Since the series began in 1966, “Star Trek” has had an uncanny way of conjuring uneasiness within its viewers: Typically, some deadly dilemma is presented to the crew of the Enterprise, and time is given for that danger to ruminate with us before we see it play out. To its credit, this movie is able to reproduce that same tension.

“Star Trek” is fairly well cast, but there are always unavoidable discrepancies when altogether different actors take on the roles of familiar characters. The appearance of one of the original cast members, however, surely lends more validity to the film. But in order to accommodate the actor’s aged appearance, the screenplay  incorporates a time-travel plot line, which leads to discussion of alternate realities, which leads to our doubting whether this prequel actually is the real story or just one possible reality.

As with any good action flick, “Star Trek” also has its share of humor, including in-jokes for the faithful, but even the simpletons who call it “Star ‘Track’” and expect to see swordplay with “life savers” will get some laughs. 

Oh, and there aren’t any surprises after the end credits finish rolling, so don’t bother waiting around.

Directed by J.J. Abrams

Chris Pine / Zachary Quinto / Eric Bana

Sci-fi     126 min.

MPAA: PG-13 (for sci-fi action and violence, and brief sexual content).

Crank: High Voltage (2009)

O Masterpiece

O Excellent

O Good

X OK

O Mediocrity

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / May 2, 2009

The first movie, "Crank" (2006), took the intriguing plot device used in "Speed" (1994) and gave it a biological twist: In "Speed," Sandra Bullock's character is trapped driving a bus rigged to explode if its speed falls below 50 mph. In "Crank," Jason Statham's Chev Chelios is injected with a poison that will kill him if he doesn't keep his heart rate up and adrenaline pumping.

Now we have "Crank 2: High Voltage," which is just as preposterous as its predecessor, and just as alienating to its viewers. Yes, these "Crank" movies are apparently made only for a select type of moviegoer, an audience of outliers. The typical spectator would likely be put off by these movies or simply regard them with contempt. In short, "Crank 2: High Voltage" is guilty pleasure escapists' fare: mindless, vulgar action, a movie requires a hefty suspension of disbelief — not for realists.

The movie opens with Chelios being dropped out of a helicopter. After his spill, Chelios’ heart is stolen from his chest, and he's graciously given an artificial one in its place. (The organ harvesters evidently aren't as heartless as Chelios.) So basically, he spends the remainder of the movie trying to recover his real heart — a pursuit that he undertakes with real heart — but there's a catch: His loaner is only designed for temporary, non-strenuous use. Oh, and it frequently needs to be charged, because once it runs out of juice, his heart will stop beating.

That leads to the movie’s sole gimmick, a plot device that is basically a game for the screenwriters who have to come up with myriad ways for Chelios to recharge. These methods typically involve electricity, but “friction” is one method, and I’ll give you three guesses how that is achieved: Yes, there’s a scene at a horse race that is nothing short of pornographic.

Chelios’ real heart essentially serves as what Alfred Hitchcock referred to as a “MacGuffin,” which is an object whose purpose is truly irrelevant, except for its utility as a plot device to motivate the characters to action, moving the story along. For instance, whatever was in the mysterious briefcase in “Pulp Fiction” (1994) is a good example of a MacGuffin. It doesn’t matter what it is, it only matters that it provides the engine to drive the plot forward.

It may seems strange, but “Crank 2: High Voltage” made me reflect on one of the significant events in film history: According to film historians Louis Giannetti and Scott Eyman, in 1872 the governor of California insisted that a horse has all four feet off the ground during a full-stride run. The governor had skeptics who doubted his assertion, so he hired a photographer (and murderer) from San Francisco named Eadward Muybridge to prove his theory. 

To make a long story shorter, Muybridge set up a line of cameras that photographed a running horse and proved that a horse does, in fact, have all four feet off the ground during a full-stride run. Well, there’s a shot in “Crank 2” that suggests another little-known fact about the whereabouts of a horse’s anatomy while running. Enlightening indeed.

Directed by Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor

Jason Statham / Amy Smart / Dwight Yoakam

Action     96 min.

MPAA: R (for frenetic strong bloody violence throughout, crude and graphic sexual content, nudity and pervasive language).