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
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
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
Saturday, May 17, 2008
88 Minutes (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
O Good
X OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / May 17, 2008
In 1952, a western called “High Noon” starring Gary Cooper made excellent use of real time to fuel the suspense and intrigue of its narrative. “88 Minutes” is much less effective at employing real time, to the point that it’s almost unnoticeable. And in 1997, Harrison Ford and Brad Pitt starred in “The Devil’s Own,” a poor film that is barely carried by its stars. “88 Minutes” is the same: It is barely carried by Al Pacino.
The film opens in Seattle in 1997 when a serial murderer and rapist dubbed “The Seattle Slayer” is on the loose. Like all movie serial killers, this one does a strange thing to his victims. The film jumps to nine years later, when the man convicted as The Seattle Slayer, Jon Forster (Neal McDonough), is waiting till his midnight execution, after years on Death Row.
The man who is primarily responsible for Forster’s conviction is Dr. Jack Gramm (Al Pacino), a forensic psychiatrist and highly esteemed professor at the University of Northwest Washington. Naturally, the two arch nemeses have a burning hatred for each other.
All of this is setup for the rest of the movie, most of which is supposed to be in real time. On the same day that Forster is to be executed, another Seattle Slayer murder scene surfaces and Dr. Gramm’s credibility is not only put into question, he’s also implicated. What worse, Gramm gets a mysterious phone call that informs him that he only has 88 minutes to live. Several more phone calls follow, reminding Gramm (and us) of his “dead”line. I couldn’t help myself.
The biggest problem with “88 Minutes” is that Gramm spends most of his time making and answering phone calls, which quickly becomes tiresome: It’s like spending an hour and a half with a busy secretary. All this “reaching out and touching someone” occurs while Gramm dodges various dangerous situations and the pervading suspicion of his students.
The movie isn’t bad; it just isn’t good. And above all, “88 Minutes” isn’t worth the 108 minutes that it takes to watch it.
Directed by Jon Avnet
Al Pacino / Neal McDonough / Alicia Witt
Crime / Mystery 108 min.
MPAA: R (for disturbing violent content, brief nudity and language)
U.S. Release Date: April 18, 2008
Copyright 2008: 280
O Excellent
O Good
X OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / May 17, 2008
In 1952, a western called “High Noon” starring Gary Cooper made excellent use of real time to fuel the suspense and intrigue of its narrative. “88 Minutes” is much less effective at employing real time, to the point that it’s almost unnoticeable. And in 1997, Harrison Ford and Brad Pitt starred in “The Devil’s Own,” a poor film that is barely carried by its stars. “88 Minutes” is the same: It is barely carried by Al Pacino.
The film opens in Seattle in 1997 when a serial murderer and rapist dubbed “The Seattle Slayer” is on the loose. Like all movie serial killers, this one does a strange thing to his victims. The film jumps to nine years later, when the man convicted as The Seattle Slayer, Jon Forster (Neal McDonough), is waiting till his midnight execution, after years on Death Row.
The man who is primarily responsible for Forster’s conviction is Dr. Jack Gramm (Al Pacino), a forensic psychiatrist and highly esteemed professor at the University of Northwest Washington. Naturally, the two arch nemeses have a burning hatred for each other.
All of this is setup for the rest of the movie, most of which is supposed to be in real time. On the same day that Forster is to be executed, another Seattle Slayer murder scene surfaces and Dr. Gramm’s credibility is not only put into question, he’s also implicated. What worse, Gramm gets a mysterious phone call that informs him that he only has 88 minutes to live. Several more phone calls follow, reminding Gramm (and us) of his “dead”line. I couldn’t help myself.
The biggest problem with “88 Minutes” is that Gramm spends most of his time making and answering phone calls, which quickly becomes tiresome: It’s like spending an hour and a half with a busy secretary. All this “reaching out and touching someone” occurs while Gramm dodges various dangerous situations and the pervading suspicion of his students.
The movie isn’t bad; it just isn’t good. And above all, “88 Minutes” isn’t worth the 108 minutes that it takes to watch it.
Directed by Jon Avnet
Al Pacino / Neal McDonough / Alicia Witt
Crime / Mystery 108 min.
MPAA: R (for disturbing violent content, brief nudity and language)
U.S. Release Date: April 18, 2008
Copyright 2008: 280
Under the Same Moon (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
X Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / May 17, 2008
“Under the Same Moon” is a Mexican film about the urgent love between a son and his mother. Though the film is good, there are times it wanders into melodrama. We don’t mind too much, however, because we’re so fond of its characters.
Four years ago Rosario Reyes (Kate del Castillo) left Mexico, illegally crossed the border into the United States, and has been working multiple jobs ever since to provide “a better life” for her son, “Carlitos” (Adrian Alonso). The now nine-year-old boy remains in Mexico with his ailing grandmother, his sole guardian. The father abandoned the little family years ago.
Carlitos (or little Carlos) longs for his mother. Their Sunday phone calls are tearful. When Carlitos’ grandmother dies, he sets off for the United States, attempting the perilous journey that includes a border crossing near El Paso and making his way to Los Angeles to somehow find his mother.
“Under the Same Moon,” which is primarily in Spanish and subtitled in English, tells the other side of the story. The film gives us a sympathetic look at the plight of illegal immigrants. Perspective varies with anybody’s eyes. Lou Dobbs would no doubt consider illegal immigrants like Rosario and Carlitos problematic. But “Under the Same Moon” has different villains, namely cops, border patrol guards, and rich, white people.
The film has two huge oversights that cannot be overlooked. Though we’re given a story meant to evoke our empathy for the mother and son, the surrounding collateral damage of all the people their illegal immigration effects is too significant. The movie points out that being an illegal immigrant isn’t easy for those who cross over, but it also unintentionally shows us the strain it puts on others. In short, if “Under the Same Moon” means to be pro-illegal immigration (and I’m not sure it does), that backfires.
The other oversight is an unforgivable filmmaker’s blunder. It is obvious what will eventually happen in the end. It is not a spoiler to discuss that the mother and son are reunited. But their embrace, which is the pay-off we long to see, is shown to us halfway through the movie in a dreamlike fantasy. Then, when the two finally get within each other’s sight, the film never shows us their actual embrace. Instead, the final shot is a nice echo back to a road sign shown earlier in the movie, that warns drivers of illegal immigrants crossing the road. While symbolism is nice, closure is better.
Directed by Patricia Riggen
Adrian Alonso / Kate del Castillo / Eugenio Derbez
Drama 106 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for some mature thematic elements)
U.S. Release Date: March 19, 2008
Copyright 2008: 281
O Excellent
X Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / May 17, 2008
“Under the Same Moon” is a Mexican film about the urgent love between a son and his mother. Though the film is good, there are times it wanders into melodrama. We don’t mind too much, however, because we’re so fond of its characters.
Four years ago Rosario Reyes (Kate del Castillo) left Mexico, illegally crossed the border into the United States, and has been working multiple jobs ever since to provide “a better life” for her son, “Carlitos” (Adrian Alonso). The now nine-year-old boy remains in Mexico with his ailing grandmother, his sole guardian. The father abandoned the little family years ago.
Carlitos (or little Carlos) longs for his mother. Their Sunday phone calls are tearful. When Carlitos’ grandmother dies, he sets off for the United States, attempting the perilous journey that includes a border crossing near El Paso and making his way to Los Angeles to somehow find his mother.
“Under the Same Moon,” which is primarily in Spanish and subtitled in English, tells the other side of the story. The film gives us a sympathetic look at the plight of illegal immigrants. Perspective varies with anybody’s eyes. Lou Dobbs would no doubt consider illegal immigrants like Rosario and Carlitos problematic. But “Under the Same Moon” has different villains, namely cops, border patrol guards, and rich, white people.
The film has two huge oversights that cannot be overlooked. Though we’re given a story meant to evoke our empathy for the mother and son, the surrounding collateral damage of all the people their illegal immigration effects is too significant. The movie points out that being an illegal immigrant isn’t easy for those who cross over, but it also unintentionally shows us the strain it puts on others. In short, if “Under the Same Moon” means to be pro-illegal immigration (and I’m not sure it does), that backfires.
The other oversight is an unforgivable filmmaker’s blunder. It is obvious what will eventually happen in the end. It is not a spoiler to discuss that the mother and son are reunited. But their embrace, which is the pay-off we long to see, is shown to us halfway through the movie in a dreamlike fantasy. Then, when the two finally get within each other’s sight, the film never shows us their actual embrace. Instead, the final shot is a nice echo back to a road sign shown earlier in the movie, that warns drivers of illegal immigrants crossing the road. While symbolism is nice, closure is better.
Directed by Patricia Riggen
Adrian Alonso / Kate del Castillo / Eugenio Derbez
Drama 106 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for some mature thematic elements)
U.S. Release Date: March 19, 2008
Copyright 2008: 281
Prom Night (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
O Good
X OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / May 17, 2008
“Prom Night” is mildly entertaining because it lets us, the audience, know things the characters don’t, namely that the killer is lurking in the hotel where the Bridgeport High School prom is being hosted. Unfortunately, this relatively commonplace convention is the only thing the movie has going for it.
Otherwise, “Prom Night” follows the same old “dead teenager movie” clichés: Members of a group of friends wander off alone and are picked off by the killer, one by one. Yep, we’ve seen this movie before — lots.
Three years ago, Donna (Brittany Snow) was stalked by a psycho teacher (Johnathon Schaech) who became scarily obsessed with her. After inflicting atrocities upon Donna’s family, the nutcase was locked away in prison. Somehow, he escapes, just in time for Donna’s senior prom.
The stealthy lunatic sneaks into the hotel where the prom is being held, and he haunts the room Donna’s group of friends rented for the night. But Donna has an advocate in Detective Winn (Idris Elba), the cop who helped lock up the killer three years ago. When Winn learns of the teacher’s escape from prison, he tries to oversee the safety of the prom and its attendees.
That’s the premise. Much of the movie is ridiculous, such as the grand finale. Much more of it is predictable. “Prom Night” is not, by any means, necessary viewing.
Last year, a movie called “Look” gave us an opposite, much scarier scenario where a female student became obsessed with her teacher and stalked him. Variations on worn-out themes can be quite refreshing. Instead of remaking “Prom Night,” director Nelson McCormick and writer J.S. Cardone should have rethought it.
Directed by Nelson McCormick
Brittany Snow / Johnathon Schaech / Idris Elba
Thriller 88 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for violence and terror, some sexual material, underage drinking, and language)
U.S. Release Date: April 11, 2008
Copyright 2008: 277
O Excellent
O Good
X OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / May 17, 2008
“Prom Night” is mildly entertaining because it lets us, the audience, know things the characters don’t, namely that the killer is lurking in the hotel where the Bridgeport High School prom is being hosted. Unfortunately, this relatively commonplace convention is the only thing the movie has going for it.
Otherwise, “Prom Night” follows the same old “dead teenager movie” clichés: Members of a group of friends wander off alone and are picked off by the killer, one by one. Yep, we’ve seen this movie before — lots.
Three years ago, Donna (Brittany Snow) was stalked by a psycho teacher (Johnathon Schaech) who became scarily obsessed with her. After inflicting atrocities upon Donna’s family, the nutcase was locked away in prison. Somehow, he escapes, just in time for Donna’s senior prom.
The stealthy lunatic sneaks into the hotel where the prom is being held, and he haunts the room Donna’s group of friends rented for the night. But Donna has an advocate in Detective Winn (Idris Elba), the cop who helped lock up the killer three years ago. When Winn learns of the teacher’s escape from prison, he tries to oversee the safety of the prom and its attendees.
That’s the premise. Much of the movie is ridiculous, such as the grand finale. Much more of it is predictable. “Prom Night” is not, by any means, necessary viewing.
Last year, a movie called “Look” gave us an opposite, much scarier scenario where a female student became obsessed with her teacher and stalked him. Variations on worn-out themes can be quite refreshing. Instead of remaking “Prom Night,” director Nelson McCormick and writer J.S. Cardone should have rethought it.
Directed by Nelson McCormick
Brittany Snow / Johnathon Schaech / Idris Elba
Thriller 88 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for violence and terror, some sexual material, underage drinking, and language)
U.S. Release Date: April 11, 2008
Copyright 2008: 277
Smart People (2008)
O Masterpiece
X Excellent
O Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / May 17, 2008
Much like Ashley Judd’s “Come Early Morning” (2006), “Smart People” is excellent for its ability to present a slice of life with interesting but credible characters. We might not love all the smart people in this film, but we believe they could exist, and more importantly, we see where they’re coming from.
Dennis Quaid plays Lawrence Wetherhold, a pompous literature professor at Carnegie-Mellon University in Pittsburgh who’s trying to publish a book and climb to the head of his department. Moreover, Lawrence is a widower with an equally bright daughter, Vanessa (Ellen Page of “Juno” fame), and a son, James (Ashton Holmes).
Through an ignominious accident, Lawrence finds himself in the hospital, where his doctor and inevitable love interest is played by one Sarah Jessica Parker. They have history together, but the professor doesn’t remember it.
Also, Lawrence’s adopted, black-sheep brother and the best character in the film, Chuck (Thomas Haden Church), moves in with the family for symbiotic reasons, much to Lawrence’s chagrin. Church plays the tension-breaker amidst the dramatic strain.
“Smart People” is one of those films where very little happens in the way of plot developments, and that’s just fine. The entertaining element of the film is its characters and their clashing, intermingled, bumper-car relationships. The value of a film like “Smart People” is to simply escape one’s own family to watch the conflicts of another, equally dysfunctional group of people who love one another, despite themselves.
Directed by Noam Murro
Dennis Quaid / Thomas Haden Church / Sarah Jessica Parker
Drama / Comedy 95 min.
MPAA: R (for language, brief teen drug and alcohol use, and for some sexuality)
U.S. Release Date: April 11, 2008
Copyright 2008: 276
X Excellent
O Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / May 17, 2008
Much like Ashley Judd’s “Come Early Morning” (2006), “Smart People” is excellent for its ability to present a slice of life with interesting but credible characters. We might not love all the smart people in this film, but we believe they could exist, and more importantly, we see where they’re coming from.
Dennis Quaid plays Lawrence Wetherhold, a pompous literature professor at Carnegie-Mellon University in Pittsburgh who’s trying to publish a book and climb to the head of his department. Moreover, Lawrence is a widower with an equally bright daughter, Vanessa (Ellen Page of “Juno” fame), and a son, James (Ashton Holmes).
Through an ignominious accident, Lawrence finds himself in the hospital, where his doctor and inevitable love interest is played by one Sarah Jessica Parker. They have history together, but the professor doesn’t remember it.
Also, Lawrence’s adopted, black-sheep brother and the best character in the film, Chuck (Thomas Haden Church), moves in with the family for symbiotic reasons, much to Lawrence’s chagrin. Church plays the tension-breaker amidst the dramatic strain.
“Smart People” is one of those films where very little happens in the way of plot developments, and that’s just fine. The entertaining element of the film is its characters and their clashing, intermingled, bumper-car relationships. The value of a film like “Smart People” is to simply escape one’s own family to watch the conflicts of another, equally dysfunctional group of people who love one another, despite themselves.
Directed by Noam Murro
Dennis Quaid / Thomas Haden Church / Sarah Jessica Parker
Drama / Comedy 95 min.
MPAA: R (for language, brief teen drug and alcohol use, and for some sexuality)
U.S. Release Date: April 11, 2008
Copyright 2008: 276
Street Kings (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
X Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / May 17, 2008
Somewhat reminiscent of “Serpico” (1973), “Street Kings” implicitly deals with corruption within a police department that is rationalized to be justifiable, albeit immoral. But explicitly, “Street Kings” provides a gritty, violent, action flick whose rationale is vigilantism a la “Dirty Harry” (1971) or “Death Wish” (1974).
And let’s face it, we enjoy watching the heavy boom of personal, vengeful justice fall upon deserving scumbags. To this end, “Street Kings” is entertaining, especially if watching Keanu Reeves implement “Matrix”-like ferocity is your thing. But for those who also seek a well-built narrative to accompany the high body count, “Street Kings” doesn’t hold water.
Detective Tom Ludlow (Keanu Reeves) is “the tip of the spear” in Captain Jack Wander’s (Forest Whitaker) team of hard-core, Los Angeles cops. They hunt their criminals and execute justice in a very literal sense. These cops’ perpetrators get no trial, nor are they innocent until proven guilty; they are simply killed.
And for quite a while, Wander’s crew maintains its “it doesn’t matter how it happens; it matters how we write it up” mentality, garnering glowingly heroic headlines, that is, until Internal Affairs gets uncomfortably curious.
That’s all I will reveal about the plot of “Street Kings.” Overall, the movie celebrates surges of testosterone and even mindlessness. And at times, an adjectival phrase like “over-the-top” doesn’t quite describe it well enough. Yes, might makes right in “Street Kings.” And the movie’s conveniently tidy ending pulls a slick trick by somehow substituting happiness for what is, in fact, hopelessness.
Directed by David Ayer
Keanu Reeves / Forest Whitaker / Chris Evans
Action / Crime 109 min.
MPAA: R (for strong violence and pervasive language)
U.S. Release Date: April 11, 2008
Copyright 2008: 275
O Excellent
X Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / May 17, 2008
Somewhat reminiscent of “Serpico” (1973), “Street Kings” implicitly deals with corruption within a police department that is rationalized to be justifiable, albeit immoral. But explicitly, “Street Kings” provides a gritty, violent, action flick whose rationale is vigilantism a la “Dirty Harry” (1971) or “Death Wish” (1974).
And let’s face it, we enjoy watching the heavy boom of personal, vengeful justice fall upon deserving scumbags. To this end, “Street Kings” is entertaining, especially if watching Keanu Reeves implement “Matrix”-like ferocity is your thing. But for those who also seek a well-built narrative to accompany the high body count, “Street Kings” doesn’t hold water.
Detective Tom Ludlow (Keanu Reeves) is “the tip of the spear” in Captain Jack Wander’s (Forest Whitaker) team of hard-core, Los Angeles cops. They hunt their criminals and execute justice in a very literal sense. These cops’ perpetrators get no trial, nor are they innocent until proven guilty; they are simply killed.
And for quite a while, Wander’s crew maintains its “it doesn’t matter how it happens; it matters how we write it up” mentality, garnering glowingly heroic headlines, that is, until Internal Affairs gets uncomfortably curious.
That’s all I will reveal about the plot of “Street Kings.” Overall, the movie celebrates surges of testosterone and even mindlessness. And at times, an adjectival phrase like “over-the-top” doesn’t quite describe it well enough. Yes, might makes right in “Street Kings.” And the movie’s conveniently tidy ending pulls a slick trick by somehow substituting happiness for what is, in fact, hopelessness.
Directed by David Ayer
Keanu Reeves / Forest Whitaker / Chris Evans
Action / Crime 109 min.
MPAA: R (for strong violence and pervasive language)
U.S. Release Date: April 11, 2008
Copyright 2008: 275
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Emma Smith: My Story (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
O Good
X OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / April 23, 2008
“Emma Smith: My Story” is essentially a companion film to “Joseph Smith: Prophet of the Restoration.” Indeed, as in the latter film, we have Katherine Thompson and Nathan Mitchell reprising their roles as Emma and Joseph Smith, respectively. But instead of this film being Emma’s story, as the title suggests, it is merely Emma’s side of Joseph Smith’s story.
In fact, the film isn’t really much of a story at all; instead, it’s like a “greatest hits flashback” that touches on the highlights of Joseph and Emma’s lives. Like a quilt, the film is comprised of historical squares sewn together into one whole. The hodgepodge narrative is delivered through these flashbacks by an aged Emma, a sage with resolute conviction who attempts to buoy her doubtful daughter Julia’s faith through numerous maxims and axioms.
Indeed, what the filmmakers seem to want us to know about Emma Smith, above all, is that she was a strong woman. Yes, I counted at least four times that Emma Smith gave a definition of the word “strength.” Subtlety is not one of the film’s strengths.
“Emma Smith: My Story” has some beautiful moments, to be sure, but these are eclipsed by its shameless dips into blatantly overblown melodrama. At one point a distraught Emma yells for Joseph and is shown running toward him in slow motion. Meanwhile, the soundtrack’s music swells and even her speaking of his name is drawn out into painful slow motion. (I’m surprised Gary Cook and T.C. Christensen would include such melodramatic techniques that have been obsolete in filmmaking for at least 25 years.)
Perhaps the most shocking part of “Emma Smith: My Story” was the brief mention of Joseph Smith’s practicing of polygamy and Emma’s obvious distaste for it. (As I recall, “Joseph Smith: Prophet of the Restoration” avoids the topic altogether.)
It was a good idea to make a film that tells Emma Smith’s story. If only the filmmakers had done that. But as a Latter-day Saint myself, I did find the film inspiring, despite its technical faults. Overall, “Emma Smith: My Story” is bittersweet but predominantly sad.
As the film’s history was compiled by The Joseph Smith Jr. and Emma Hale Smith Historical Society, its facts are presumably trustworthy. That being written, if the film is worth seeing at all, it is worth seeing just to learn of Emma’s final words, which are breathtakingly beautiful.
Directed by Gary Cook and T.C. Christensen
Katherine Thompson / Nathan Mitchell / Rick Macy
Drama / Historical 98 min.
MPAA: PG (for mild thematic elements and brief violence)
U.S. Release Date: April 11, 2008
Copyright 2008: 278
O Excellent
O Good
X OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / April 23, 2008
“Emma Smith: My Story” is essentially a companion film to “Joseph Smith: Prophet of the Restoration.” Indeed, as in the latter film, we have Katherine Thompson and Nathan Mitchell reprising their roles as Emma and Joseph Smith, respectively. But instead of this film being Emma’s story, as the title suggests, it is merely Emma’s side of Joseph Smith’s story.
In fact, the film isn’t really much of a story at all; instead, it’s like a “greatest hits flashback” that touches on the highlights of Joseph and Emma’s lives. Like a quilt, the film is comprised of historical squares sewn together into one whole. The hodgepodge narrative is delivered through these flashbacks by an aged Emma, a sage with resolute conviction who attempts to buoy her doubtful daughter Julia’s faith through numerous maxims and axioms.
Indeed, what the filmmakers seem to want us to know about Emma Smith, above all, is that she was a strong woman. Yes, I counted at least four times that Emma Smith gave a definition of the word “strength.” Subtlety is not one of the film’s strengths.
“Emma Smith: My Story” has some beautiful moments, to be sure, but these are eclipsed by its shameless dips into blatantly overblown melodrama. At one point a distraught Emma yells for Joseph and is shown running toward him in slow motion. Meanwhile, the soundtrack’s music swells and even her speaking of his name is drawn out into painful slow motion. (I’m surprised Gary Cook and T.C. Christensen would include such melodramatic techniques that have been obsolete in filmmaking for at least 25 years.)
Perhaps the most shocking part of “Emma Smith: My Story” was the brief mention of Joseph Smith’s practicing of polygamy and Emma’s obvious distaste for it. (As I recall, “Joseph Smith: Prophet of the Restoration” avoids the topic altogether.)
It was a good idea to make a film that tells Emma Smith’s story. If only the filmmakers had done that. But as a Latter-day Saint myself, I did find the film inspiring, despite its technical faults. Overall, “Emma Smith: My Story” is bittersweet but predominantly sad.
As the film’s history was compiled by The Joseph Smith Jr. and Emma Hale Smith Historical Society, its facts are presumably trustworthy. That being written, if the film is worth seeing at all, it is worth seeing just to learn of Emma’s final words, which are breathtakingly beautiful.
Directed by Gary Cook and T.C. Christensen
Katherine Thompson / Nathan Mitchell / Rick Macy
Drama / Historical 98 min.
MPAA: PG (for mild thematic elements and brief violence)
U.S. Release Date: April 11, 2008
Copyright 2008: 278
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
