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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
