O Masterpiece
O Excellent
O Good
O OK
X Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / August 18, 2008
This movie is called “The X-Files: I Want to Believe,” but it should be called “I Want to Believe This Is the X-Files,” or better yet: “I Don’t Want to Believe This Is the X-Files.”
Rating the new “X-Files” sequel as mere mediocrity may seem harsh, but this movie utterly betrays the beloved television series that supposedly inspired it. Chris Carter should be a little ashamed of himself. The last time I heard of such an atrocity is when I learned that some animals eat their own babies. When I get this disappointed in a movie, sometimes I wish my mom had eaten me.
OK. Here’s the primary problem: Remember how the TV show was about the FBI’s “X-Files” (aka cases that were weird, unusual, paranormal, inexplicable, mysterious, seemingly supernatural, etc.)? Well, the only X-Files-ish element to this movie is that one guy is kind of psychic. Maybe. That’s it!
Otherwise, “I Want to Believe” is nothing more than a second-rate, police procedural, criminal investigation, murder-mystery thriller. This could have been a made-for-television Saturday afternoon TBS movie.
We pick up with our favorite FBI agents, Dana Scully (Gillian Anderson) and Fox Mulder (David Duchovny). But obviously time has passed because they’ve gone their separate ways; I’m being general intentionally: Readers have varying spoiler sensitivity when it comes to plot summaries. But I can say this much, the point A that we left off from when we last saw these two characters is definitely not a straight line to the point B that we pick up at again in this movie. Much has happened, but Carter never bothers to fill us in on it.
In short, in Somerset, W.Va., people start going missing and an occasional severed body part turns up here and there, thanks to a psychic-priest-pedophile (Billy Connolly), who assists the authorities in finding said body parts. Scully and Mulder investigate. We get a needless subplot about a sick kid. The main plot creeps along slowly but not creepily enough. It almost starts getting interesting — but no. The end. Thanks for everything, Chris.
The first feature-length motion picture called “The X-Files” was released in 1998. It wasn’t too bad, but it was also a kind of a let-down. It went downhill quickly after the initial bomb-in-the-vending-machine scene. That film was directed by Rob Bowman. “X-Files” fans everywhere awaited the series’ feature-length redemption. With this new movie, we got Chris Carter as the director, which was a hopeful sign considering he was the mastermind behind the successful series. Nope. Not this time, either.
Supposedly, this new one, it seemed, was very hush-hush. Remember? You hardly heard anything about it until a week before its release. … Now we know why. I can’t believe we waited 10 years for this.
Directed by Chris Carter
David Duchovny / Gillian Anderson / Billy Connolly
Mystery / Thriller 104 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for violent and disturbing content and thematic material)
U.S. Release Date: July 25, 2008
Copyright 2008: 306
Monday, August 18, 2008
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Tropic Thunder (2008)
O Masterpiece
X Excellent
O Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / August 17, 2008
Truly funny comedies seem to be an endangered species, which makes “Tropic Thunder” a rare animal. Much of this movie is hilarious — and vulgar — and hilarious. And I highly recommend it to any non-conservative movie buff.
The cat, no doubt, is out of the bag that “Tropic Thunder” is a fierce satire which mercilessly ridicules big-budget Hollywood and its bottom-line titans.
Ben Stiller, Robert Downey Jr., Jack Black, Tom Cruise, Matthew McConaughey, and Nick Nolte star in this movie about the making of a high-dollar, Vietnam War movie called “Tropic Thunder.”
Now, it’s interesting that the movie these characters are making is called “Tropic Thunder,” while the actual movie we’re watching also has the same title but is in fact a different movie. This would be similar to “Burden of Dreams” (1982) being named “Fitzcarraldo” (1982).
The fictitious studio has spared no expense in special effects, location shooting and big-name actors. Action movie star Tugg Speedman (Ben Stiller) is cast as Foley, the platoon leader. Rick Peck (Matthew McConaughey) is Speedman’s agent, and the most dedicated agent since Jerry Maguire.
And award-winning method actor Kirk Lazarus (Robert Downey Jr.) is an Aussie who has undergone a controversial pigmentation surgery to play an African-American soldier.
Jeff Portnoy (Jack Black) is a heroin addict who’s typically a comedic actor but trying to expand his résumé. Four Leaf (Nick Nolte) is the Vietnam vet who wrote “Tropic Thunder,” the book that the fictitious movie is adapted from. And last but not least, Tom Cruise plays the aptly named Les Grossman, the ruthless, despicable movie mogul whose production company is financing “Tropic Thunder.”
Right away the filming of the movie within the movie is problematic. It is costing far more than the studio execs planned, and the prima donna actors’ egos keep bumping heads. Following the advice of the war-vet-gone-author, first-time director Damien Cockburn (Steve Coogan) deploys his actors deep into the jungle, where they unwittingly encounter real hostiles that they suppose are also actors, much like we saw in “Three Amigos!” (1986).
“Tropic Thunder” gets so many things right: It begins with spoof trailers from the actors’ previous movies, all of which are fictitious, of course. These are great parodies, and are somehow reminiscent of the trailers that played between the “Grindhouse” (2007) double feature. One of these trailers takes aim at Eddie Murphy, and it’s a well-deserved attack.
This could almost be an action movie, too, which is another thing “Tropic Thunder” does right. Unlike Adam Sandler’s “You Don’t Mess With the Zohan” from earlier this year, “Tropic Thunder” is a comedy that also has some fairly entertaining action scenes. Once and a while they go over the top, particularly in the violence department, but it works for the intended comedic effect. “Zohan’s” attempts fail.
As noted above, “Tropic Thunder” is quite vulgar and will surely be offensive to many people: I winced while thinking how war veterans might react to this movie’s parody of “Platoon” (1986), and war in general. And I’ve already read scathing reactions to this movie’s ongoing jokes about mental retardation. Both communities probably should be offended.
Tom Cruise’s brave, surprise performance is a delight. And though Jack Black is usually quite humorous, he is mostly useless in this movie. But it is Robert Downey Jr. who truly steals the show. I suspect that his method-actor character pokes fun at Daniel Day-Lewis and those like him.
I know it’s extremely rare — and nearly unheard of — for comedic actors to be nominated for Academy Awards, but Downey Jr. should receive such a nod. He doesn’t have to win, but he should be nominated. I’m not holding my breath, and neither is Downey Jr.
His character dominates the screen with lines like, “I don’t read the script; the script reads me.” His makeup is exceptional, too. He truly looks like a black man. You know, in the pioneering days of motion pictures, white actors played African-Americans with black face makeup, a practice that has since stirred frequent resentment. So, Downey Jr.’s character shockingly returns to that distasteful yesteryear, incorporating many stereotypes. Whether it’s offensive or not, the role is well done.
At one point Downey Jr. alternates between the African-American soldier and the Australian-born actor. The concentration it must have taken to pull that off — and still be funny — is remarkable.
Remember his line from the trailer: “I’m the dude that’s playin’ the dude disguised as another dude”? That scene is brilliant because it has a double meaning. Watch for it.
All in all, “Tropic Thunder” is an excellent, laugh-out-loud comedy. It’s the kind of movie that’s best to watch by yourself, so you won’t feel ashamed of your reaction.
Directed by Ben Stiller
Robert Downey Jr. / Ben Stiller / Jack Black
Comedy / Action 107 min.
MPAA: R (for pervasive language including sexual references, violent content and drug material)
U.S. Release Date: August 13, 2008
Copyright 2008: 310
X Excellent
O Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / August 17, 2008
Truly funny comedies seem to be an endangered species, which makes “Tropic Thunder” a rare animal. Much of this movie is hilarious — and vulgar — and hilarious. And I highly recommend it to any non-conservative movie buff.
The cat, no doubt, is out of the bag that “Tropic Thunder” is a fierce satire which mercilessly ridicules big-budget Hollywood and its bottom-line titans.
Ben Stiller, Robert Downey Jr., Jack Black, Tom Cruise, Matthew McConaughey, and Nick Nolte star in this movie about the making of a high-dollar, Vietnam War movie called “Tropic Thunder.”
Now, it’s interesting that the movie these characters are making is called “Tropic Thunder,” while the actual movie we’re watching also has the same title but is in fact a different movie. This would be similar to “Burden of Dreams” (1982) being named “Fitzcarraldo” (1982).
The fictitious studio has spared no expense in special effects, location shooting and big-name actors. Action movie star Tugg Speedman (Ben Stiller) is cast as Foley, the platoon leader. Rick Peck (Matthew McConaughey) is Speedman’s agent, and the most dedicated agent since Jerry Maguire.
And award-winning method actor Kirk Lazarus (Robert Downey Jr.) is an Aussie who has undergone a controversial pigmentation surgery to play an African-American soldier.
Jeff Portnoy (Jack Black) is a heroin addict who’s typically a comedic actor but trying to expand his résumé. Four Leaf (Nick Nolte) is the Vietnam vet who wrote “Tropic Thunder,” the book that the fictitious movie is adapted from. And last but not least, Tom Cruise plays the aptly named Les Grossman, the ruthless, despicable movie mogul whose production company is financing “Tropic Thunder.”
Right away the filming of the movie within the movie is problematic. It is costing far more than the studio execs planned, and the prima donna actors’ egos keep bumping heads. Following the advice of the war-vet-gone-author, first-time director Damien Cockburn (Steve Coogan) deploys his actors deep into the jungle, where they unwittingly encounter real hostiles that they suppose are also actors, much like we saw in “Three Amigos!” (1986).
“Tropic Thunder” gets so many things right: It begins with spoof trailers from the actors’ previous movies, all of which are fictitious, of course. These are great parodies, and are somehow reminiscent of the trailers that played between the “Grindhouse” (2007) double feature. One of these trailers takes aim at Eddie Murphy, and it’s a well-deserved attack.
This could almost be an action movie, too, which is another thing “Tropic Thunder” does right. Unlike Adam Sandler’s “You Don’t Mess With the Zohan” from earlier this year, “Tropic Thunder” is a comedy that also has some fairly entertaining action scenes. Once and a while they go over the top, particularly in the violence department, but it works for the intended comedic effect. “Zohan’s” attempts fail.
As noted above, “Tropic Thunder” is quite vulgar and will surely be offensive to many people: I winced while thinking how war veterans might react to this movie’s parody of “Platoon” (1986), and war in general. And I’ve already read scathing reactions to this movie’s ongoing jokes about mental retardation. Both communities probably should be offended.
Tom Cruise’s brave, surprise performance is a delight. And though Jack Black is usually quite humorous, he is mostly useless in this movie. But it is Robert Downey Jr. who truly steals the show. I suspect that his method-actor character pokes fun at Daniel Day-Lewis and those like him.
I know it’s extremely rare — and nearly unheard of — for comedic actors to be nominated for Academy Awards, but Downey Jr. should receive such a nod. He doesn’t have to win, but he should be nominated. I’m not holding my breath, and neither is Downey Jr.
His character dominates the screen with lines like, “I don’t read the script; the script reads me.” His makeup is exceptional, too. He truly looks like a black man. You know, in the pioneering days of motion pictures, white actors played African-Americans with black face makeup, a practice that has since stirred frequent resentment. So, Downey Jr.’s character shockingly returns to that distasteful yesteryear, incorporating many stereotypes. Whether it’s offensive or not, the role is well done.
At one point Downey Jr. alternates between the African-American soldier and the Australian-born actor. The concentration it must have taken to pull that off — and still be funny — is remarkable.
Remember his line from the trailer: “I’m the dude that’s playin’ the dude disguised as another dude”? That scene is brilliant because it has a double meaning. Watch for it.
All in all, “Tropic Thunder” is an excellent, laugh-out-loud comedy. It’s the kind of movie that’s best to watch by yourself, so you won’t feel ashamed of your reaction.
Directed by Ben Stiller
Robert Downey Jr. / Ben Stiller / Jack Black
Comedy / Action 107 min.
MPAA: R (for pervasive language including sexual references, violent content and drug material)
U.S. Release Date: August 13, 2008
Copyright 2008: 310
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
The Dark Knight (2008)
O Masterpiece
X Excellent
O Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / July 22, 2008
“The Dark Knight” is the towering masterpiece of the superhero movie genre. Nothing else even comes close (except maybe “Batman Begins,” but it’s still a distant second).
In fact, I practice significant self-restraint to avoid ranking “The Dark Knight” as a masterpiece across the board, meaning, not just among superhero movies but among all movies. I can’t do that. I’ll explain later. But I do feel comfortable writing this: “The Dark Knight” is the best film of 2008 … thus far.
Yes, Heath Ledger’s Joker performance makes the movie. But one should not overlook the brilliance that is director Christopher Nolan. Let’s remember his filmography: “The Dark Knight,” “The Prestige” (2006), “Batman Begins (2005), “Insomnia” (2002) and “Memento” (2000). Oh, he also was a writer for all those great films, too, except “Insomnia.”
“The Dark Knight” isn’t perfect, but it’s close. I’m sentimental, sure, but not when it comes to dead actors. I thought Ledger’s untimely death back in January was regrettable, but I felt the same briefly passing pensiveness that I’d feel if any 28-year-old died.
Unfortunately, if Ledger receives an Academy Award next January for best supporting actor, I fear many people will shrug it off as a “consolation prize” for dying. But Ledger is deserving of a nomination for the merits of his performance alone. I can’t remember the last time I was so captivated by an actor. I couldn’t take my eyes off him.
For all you naysayers, if any exist, compare Ledger’s performance as Ennis Del Mar in “Brokeback Mountain” (2005) with this Joker performance. His range is undeniable; the distance between those two characters is so remarkably pronounced, it seems clear to me that Ledger was one of the great actors of his generation. And while it is true that artists are always better appreciated after they’re gone, I’m not just writing this because he’s dead.
Reportedly, veteran actor Michael Caine thought Ledger’s Joker performance was quite unsettling, even frightening. I’ve heard this a couple places, and I believe it’s true: To prepare for the role, Ledger stayed in a hotel room for a month to “become” the Joker. He worked on the character’s psychology and his voice. He supposedly kept a diary, according to the IMDb trivia, of the Joker’s thoughts and feelings to guide himself during his performances. And Ledger was also given various comic books featuring the Joker, so he could become acquainted with the character.
Not all the credit for this masterful character should be given to Ledger. It was brilliant (on somebody’s part) that he doesn’t have a perma-smile, but instead, scars that grimly suggest a smile. His makeup is “war paint,” used to scare people — not just a gimmick. At one point the Joker says he’s not crazy, which makes him scarier. (What if somebody were truly that vile and simultaneously completely sane? Uh oh.) Now that’s scary. And I love how he isn’t afraid of Batman (Christian Bale), nor is he intimidated; in fact, he greatly appreciates him. How do you battle a guy like that?
In short, Heath Ledger’s Joker is one of the best movie villains in the history of cinema (if not the best), ranking up there with the likes of Darth Vader, Hannibal Lecter and Norman Bates.
Currently on the Internet Movie Database, “The Dark Knight” is ranked No. 1 on its top 250 list. Impressive but temporary. That fickle list is always shifting. Even so, Rotten Tomatoes and its exclusive critics rank this movie 94 percent fresh (out of 100). So, the critics are impressed. The movie-going public is also pleased: “The Dark Knight” broke box-office records for the highest all-time gross for opening weekend, which was $155,340,000. It also broke the opening day record with $66.4 million.
Despite my desire to sit in the theater again for a back-to-back showing, the following reasons were my only grounds for not rating “The Dark Knight” as a bona fide masterpiece: The movie is too long, kinda like this review. Yes, I just wrote about how I was willing to sit through it again, but masterpieces (in my estimation) need to be re-watchable, over and over again. Few people will sit through an overly lengthy movie countless times: Case in point, how many times have you watched your “Lord of the Rings” trilogy?
(There is, however, one exception to this rule: The “Up” documentary series, which is up to its seventh film, is a masterpiece, without question, no matter how seldom one watches it.)
The other problems with “The Dark Knight” are that its labyrinthine plot and its often unintelligible action sequences are a little hard to follow. I love action sequences that are clearly able to be seen and comprehended. And the story is impressive; it’s just not a movie that is completely understandable the first time around.
Another problem is its “surprise” (which isn’t really a surprise for most people) super villain who develops later in the movie. I know the movie was just following the character, but he’s simply a weak character. I will credit this movie for not making us wait until the next film to encounter the wrath of that villain.
And why do most superhero movie franchises always hit that whiny point where the superhero cries about the world no longer needing him, lamenting that the world would be better off without him? That is so tiresome, and I was disappointed to see it in a movie of this caliber. But at least we didn’t have to have an origin story for the Joker, a mystery that made him creepier.
Due to the length of this review, I won’t cite examples, but I found it fascinating how many parallels there were (perhaps homages) to the 1989 “Batman” movie.
And now that I’ve reached the end of this review, I’ll close with a nutshell plot summary: Gotham City’s “white knight,” Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) is cleaning up the city. He’s even putting the squeeze on the mafia. Joker (Ledger) comes out of the blue to rally the criminals and to kill their primary obstacle: Batman (Christian Bale).
“The Dark Knight” is a must-see — in the theater. Go right now and please, take me with you.
Directed by Christopher Nolan
Christian Bale / Heath Ledger / Aaron Eckhart
Action / Crime 152 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for intense sequences of violence and some menace)
U.S. Release Date: July 18, 2008
Copyright 2008: 305
Addendum: I have received some interesting criticism for this review of "The Dark Knight," even though I gave it a great review. Some people didn't think my review was great enough. Read the exchange at www.ConsideringTheCinema.blogspot.com.
X Excellent
O Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / July 22, 2008
“The Dark Knight” is the towering masterpiece of the superhero movie genre. Nothing else even comes close (except maybe “Batman Begins,” but it’s still a distant second).
In fact, I practice significant self-restraint to avoid ranking “The Dark Knight” as a masterpiece across the board, meaning, not just among superhero movies but among all movies. I can’t do that. I’ll explain later. But I do feel comfortable writing this: “The Dark Knight” is the best film of 2008 … thus far.
Yes, Heath Ledger’s Joker performance makes the movie. But one should not overlook the brilliance that is director Christopher Nolan. Let’s remember his filmography: “The Dark Knight,” “The Prestige” (2006), “Batman Begins (2005), “Insomnia” (2002) and “Memento” (2000). Oh, he also was a writer for all those great films, too, except “Insomnia.”
“The Dark Knight” isn’t perfect, but it’s close. I’m sentimental, sure, but not when it comes to dead actors. I thought Ledger’s untimely death back in January was regrettable, but I felt the same briefly passing pensiveness that I’d feel if any 28-year-old died.
Unfortunately, if Ledger receives an Academy Award next January for best supporting actor, I fear many people will shrug it off as a “consolation prize” for dying. But Ledger is deserving of a nomination for the merits of his performance alone. I can’t remember the last time I was so captivated by an actor. I couldn’t take my eyes off him.
For all you naysayers, if any exist, compare Ledger’s performance as Ennis Del Mar in “Brokeback Mountain” (2005) with this Joker performance. His range is undeniable; the distance between those two characters is so remarkably pronounced, it seems clear to me that Ledger was one of the great actors of his generation. And while it is true that artists are always better appreciated after they’re gone, I’m not just writing this because he’s dead.
Reportedly, veteran actor Michael Caine thought Ledger’s Joker performance was quite unsettling, even frightening. I’ve heard this a couple places, and I believe it’s true: To prepare for the role, Ledger stayed in a hotel room for a month to “become” the Joker. He worked on the character’s psychology and his voice. He supposedly kept a diary, according to the IMDb trivia, of the Joker’s thoughts and feelings to guide himself during his performances. And Ledger was also given various comic books featuring the Joker, so he could become acquainted with the character.
Not all the credit for this masterful character should be given to Ledger. It was brilliant (on somebody’s part) that he doesn’t have a perma-smile, but instead, scars that grimly suggest a smile. His makeup is “war paint,” used to scare people — not just a gimmick. At one point the Joker says he’s not crazy, which makes him scarier. (What if somebody were truly that vile and simultaneously completely sane? Uh oh.) Now that’s scary. And I love how he isn’t afraid of Batman (Christian Bale), nor is he intimidated; in fact, he greatly appreciates him. How do you battle a guy like that?
In short, Heath Ledger’s Joker is one of the best movie villains in the history of cinema (if not the best), ranking up there with the likes of Darth Vader, Hannibal Lecter and Norman Bates.
Currently on the Internet Movie Database, “The Dark Knight” is ranked No. 1 on its top 250 list. Impressive but temporary. That fickle list is always shifting. Even so, Rotten Tomatoes and its exclusive critics rank this movie 94 percent fresh (out of 100). So, the critics are impressed. The movie-going public is also pleased: “The Dark Knight” broke box-office records for the highest all-time gross for opening weekend, which was $155,340,000. It also broke the opening day record with $66.4 million.
Despite my desire to sit in the theater again for a back-to-back showing, the following reasons were my only grounds for not rating “The Dark Knight” as a bona fide masterpiece: The movie is too long, kinda like this review. Yes, I just wrote about how I was willing to sit through it again, but masterpieces (in my estimation) need to be re-watchable, over and over again. Few people will sit through an overly lengthy movie countless times: Case in point, how many times have you watched your “Lord of the Rings” trilogy?
(There is, however, one exception to this rule: The “Up” documentary series, which is up to its seventh film, is a masterpiece, without question, no matter how seldom one watches it.)
The other problems with “The Dark Knight” are that its labyrinthine plot and its often unintelligible action sequences are a little hard to follow. I love action sequences that are clearly able to be seen and comprehended. And the story is impressive; it’s just not a movie that is completely understandable the first time around.
Another problem is its “surprise” (which isn’t really a surprise for most people) super villain who develops later in the movie. I know the movie was just following the character, but he’s simply a weak character. I will credit this movie for not making us wait until the next film to encounter the wrath of that villain.
And why do most superhero movie franchises always hit that whiny point where the superhero cries about the world no longer needing him, lamenting that the world would be better off without him? That is so tiresome, and I was disappointed to see it in a movie of this caliber. But at least we didn’t have to have an origin story for the Joker, a mystery that made him creepier.
Due to the length of this review, I won’t cite examples, but I found it fascinating how many parallels there were (perhaps homages) to the 1989 “Batman” movie.
And now that I’ve reached the end of this review, I’ll close with a nutshell plot summary: Gotham City’s “white knight,” Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) is cleaning up the city. He’s even putting the squeeze on the mafia. Joker (Ledger) comes out of the blue to rally the criminals and to kill their primary obstacle: Batman (Christian Bale).
“The Dark Knight” is a must-see — in the theater. Go right now and please, take me with you.
Directed by Christopher Nolan
Christian Bale / Heath Ledger / Aaron Eckhart
Action / Crime 152 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for intense sequences of violence and some menace)
U.S. Release Date: July 18, 2008
Copyright 2008: 305
Addendum: I have received some interesting criticism for this review of "The Dark Knight," even though I gave it a great review. Some people didn't think my review was great enough. Read the exchange at www.ConsideringTheCinema.blogspot.com.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Attention Mr. Patrick Svensson
Dear Mr. Svensson,
If you are the same Patrick who has, on occasion, raised a critical voice toward the former College Times movie reviewing, and the same Patrick who leaves comments on my movie review blogs from time to time, please send me an e-mail at this address:
ConsideringTheCinema@gmail.com
I have an invitation that might interest you ...
Thank you.
Jason Pyles
To all others, thank you for checking this blog. I have recently moved across the country, from Utah back to West Virginia, and I've been getting settled. But soon I'll be posting one new release movie review each week, and writing a compilation of most of 2008's theatrical releases, including limited releases. The book will be finished on July 1, 2009. I plan to begin an annual movie yearbook tradition. This first book will be called "Considering the Cinema 2008."
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
The Happening (2008)
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
