Jurassic World is a flawed but enjoyable summer blockbuster. It has almost everything you want from a sequel to Jurassic Park and more. Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard star as a mismatched couple caught in the middle of shenanigans. The theme park they work for creates genetically engineered dinosaurs to attract more visitors. The government wants to militarize the dinosaurs. And there's two kids that need to be rescued. It's safe to say they didn't have a good day, but audiences probably will have a good day watching this movie. It lacks the charm and the groundbreaking special effects of the original, but it makes up for it with great action scenes and lots of humor.
Reviews
19 Reviews
Mad Max: Fury Road
(2015)
Fury Road Lives Up to the Hype!
15 May 2015
30 years after Thunderdome, director George Miller returns to the franchise that made him famous.
Mad Max: Fury Road is about a wasteland warlord who controls the water supply and forces his people to do everything he desires, including using a group of women as breeders. But his time as ruler is challenged when Mad Max and a fellow road warrior named Furiosa (Charlize Theron) take him into battle.
If you enjoyed the other Mad Max movies, then you'll enjoy this one too. Unlike George Lucas, Miller remains loyal to his original vision and simply adds a new chapter instead of re-inventing the wheel.
Mad Max: Fury Road is about a wasteland warlord who controls the water supply and forces his people to do everything he desires, including using a group of women as breeders. But his time as ruler is challenged when Mad Max and a fellow road warrior named Furiosa (Charlize Theron) take him into battle.
If you enjoyed the other Mad Max movies, then you'll enjoy this one too. Unlike George Lucas, Miller remains loyal to his original vision and simply adds a new chapter instead of re-inventing the wheel.
Star Trek Into Darkness
(2013)
J.J. goes full circle with Trek sequel
23 June 2013
"THIS IS A MILITARY MISSION. I THOUGHT WE WERE EXPLORERS!" - Montgomery Scott
It has always bothered me that most Star Trek movies revolve around a military assignment instead of exploration. What makes the original TV series so brilliant is that it tackled social and political issues through the voyages of this space ship. J.J. Abrams clearly understands this and has finally made a Star Trek film where the militarization of the franchise is challenged.
In the story, a terrorist named John Harrison is attacking Starfleet and Captain Pike ends up being one of the causalities. Hungry for revenge, Kirk agrees to go on a covert mission in Klingon territory to kill Harrison. Everyone thinks this is a terrible idea and so Kirk decides to simply arrest Harrison instead. Once he does, he discovers Harrison isn't the man's real identity and that a Starfleet Admiral has tricked the Enterprise into potentially starting a war with the Klingon's.
As the movie comes to an end, Kirk realizes that there's more to him than being a bloodthirsty man-of-action and he agrees to Captain the Enterprise into the famous 5-year mission depicted in the original TV series. For that, I thank you, Mr. Abrams. And hopefully, whoever takes over the franchise will be smart enough to continue on this path and, once again, give us the socially and politically relevant stories that made Star Trek popular in the first place.
Overall, Star Trek Into Darkness might be the most satisfying Trek film since The Voyage Home. The cast got comfortable in their roles and played off each other beautifully. The action scenes are exciting and creative. The visual effects and overall design of the movie are top-notch. And, Michael Giacchino hits another home run with his music. If there's one complain I have about the film it's the lack of screen time for Benedict Cumberbatch. He's phenomenal as the villain, but if you blink, you'll miss him. Mr. Robocop, Peter Weller, had the meatier role. He's great too, but come on, more Sherlock would have been nice.
It has always bothered me that most Star Trek movies revolve around a military assignment instead of exploration. What makes the original TV series so brilliant is that it tackled social and political issues through the voyages of this space ship. J.J. Abrams clearly understands this and has finally made a Star Trek film where the militarization of the franchise is challenged.
In the story, a terrorist named John Harrison is attacking Starfleet and Captain Pike ends up being one of the causalities. Hungry for revenge, Kirk agrees to go on a covert mission in Klingon territory to kill Harrison. Everyone thinks this is a terrible idea and so Kirk decides to simply arrest Harrison instead. Once he does, he discovers Harrison isn't the man's real identity and that a Starfleet Admiral has tricked the Enterprise into potentially starting a war with the Klingon's.
As the movie comes to an end, Kirk realizes that there's more to him than being a bloodthirsty man-of-action and he agrees to Captain the Enterprise into the famous 5-year mission depicted in the original TV series. For that, I thank you, Mr. Abrams. And hopefully, whoever takes over the franchise will be smart enough to continue on this path and, once again, give us the socially and politically relevant stories that made Star Trek popular in the first place.
Overall, Star Trek Into Darkness might be the most satisfying Trek film since The Voyage Home. The cast got comfortable in their roles and played off each other beautifully. The action scenes are exciting and creative. The visual effects and overall design of the movie are top-notch. And, Michael Giacchino hits another home run with his music. If there's one complain I have about the film it's the lack of screen time for Benedict Cumberbatch. He's phenomenal as the villain, but if you blink, you'll miss him. Mr. Robocop, Peter Weller, had the meatier role. He's great too, but come on, more Sherlock would have been nice.
Man of Steel
(2013)
Superman for the Transformers Generation!
23 June 2013
Let's be honest. This movie is terrible. The problem with Man of Steel isn't the laughable script or the Michael Bay-style action sequences, it is the utter lack of love and appreciation for Superman by everyone involved. In 1976, when Richard Donner accepted the job of directing TWO Superman movies at the same time, he said great movies had to be made because Superman is as American as apple pie. Comics books, like Jazz music, was born and bred in this country and Superman was the first to leap off the pages and into our hearts. Donner's passion is on every frame of his 1978 adaptation.
Now compare that to Man of Steel. The set-designs and costumes are ugly. I can understand the dying planet of Krypton looking like crap, but did the entire film have to look so hideous? Secondly, the cinematography is the worst I've seen in a major Hollywood production. Zack Snyder shoots everything like if he's 50-feet away on his cellphone. Thirdly, can we please, for the love of God, get rid of Hans Zimmer and his team of "additional composers"? John Williams is rolling in his grave and he's not even dead yet. And finally, let's get to the root of the problems. There is no heart. This is Superman. He represents hope. He represents truth, justice, and the American way. He's the ray of sunshine. So why is this movie so downbeat, moody, and depressing? Superman kills Zod. That's how messed up it is. Oh, and let's not get started on Metropolis turning into ashes. I can understanding heading there in the second installment of a trilogy or even in a movie featuring Darkseid but starting a Superman series in that direction is absolutely ridiculous. Especially when there's nothing light-hearted to balance it. Man of Steel is just dreadful.
On the positive side Henry Cavill is a good Superman. Does he lack charisma? Yes, but what did you expect from a film that has no charm whatsoever? He fits right in with everything else. The rest of the cast is decent as well. And the action scenes and visual effects were impressive. So, the movie works from a shallow perspective.
Now compare that to Man of Steel. The set-designs and costumes are ugly. I can understand the dying planet of Krypton looking like crap, but did the entire film have to look so hideous? Secondly, the cinematography is the worst I've seen in a major Hollywood production. Zack Snyder shoots everything like if he's 50-feet away on his cellphone. Thirdly, can we please, for the love of God, get rid of Hans Zimmer and his team of "additional composers"? John Williams is rolling in his grave and he's not even dead yet. And finally, let's get to the root of the problems. There is no heart. This is Superman. He represents hope. He represents truth, justice, and the American way. He's the ray of sunshine. So why is this movie so downbeat, moody, and depressing? Superman kills Zod. That's how messed up it is. Oh, and let's not get started on Metropolis turning into ashes. I can understanding heading there in the second installment of a trilogy or even in a movie featuring Darkseid but starting a Superman series in that direction is absolutely ridiculous. Especially when there's nothing light-hearted to balance it. Man of Steel is just dreadful.
On the positive side Henry Cavill is a good Superman. Does he lack charisma? Yes, but what did you expect from a film that has no charm whatsoever? He fits right in with everything else. The rest of the cast is decent as well. And the action scenes and visual effects were impressive. So, the movie works from a shallow perspective.
Evil Dead
(2013)
Hail to the Queen! Jane Levy lives up to Evil Dead standards in remake, but the film not so much.
5 April 2013
I am very curious to read and hear reactions from people with no knowledge of the Evil Dead series. The film begins as a remake of the original cult classic, which leaned heavily on horror instead of the camp humor that would dominate the sequels. But once the movie reaches its second-act, it starts to slowly transition into Evil Dead II territory. Co-writer and director Fede Alvarez never comes anywhere near the trademark comedy of that installment but he's definitely tipping his toe in the water. So I can imagine many viewers that are newcomers to the franchise will be thinking, "what the...?"
This remake, released 30 years after the original became a genre favorite on VHS, tries to correct several flaws made by its counterpart. It is better paced and has a superior screenplay. The plot revolves around Mia, who is played brilliantly by Jane Levy of Suburgatory fame. She's a drug addict trying to go cold turkey after the death of her mother and an overdose soon after. She stays at her family's cabin with support from her closest friends and estranged brother. After one of them discovers the Book of the Dead in the basement, a demon is unleashed and the reign of terror begins.
Evil Dead, like its predecessors, is unrelenting. There aren't many moments for audiences to catch their breath. It's a near endless stream of mayhem. It definitely lives up to its promise of being the most terrifying film experience of all-time. However, it lacks the charm and tongue-n-cheek of the Sam Raimi helmed trilogy. Alvarez recreates Raimi's signature visual style, which is great, but he avoids all the eye-winking except for a few moments. Teenages attacked in the woods is a tired concept in horror films. The Evil Dead movies are supposed to freshen up that sub-genre and provide something different. This remake is mostly run of the mill and only slightly stands-out through entertainment value, strong visuals, and a memorable lead character. It's a great gateway to the original trilogy, but it's not in the same league. Well, at least not on a pedestal like Evil Dead II and Army of Darkness. Regardless, it succeeds as far as remake are concerned, but it breaks no new ground.
This remake, released 30 years after the original became a genre favorite on VHS, tries to correct several flaws made by its counterpart. It is better paced and has a superior screenplay. The plot revolves around Mia, who is played brilliantly by Jane Levy of Suburgatory fame. She's a drug addict trying to go cold turkey after the death of her mother and an overdose soon after. She stays at her family's cabin with support from her closest friends and estranged brother. After one of them discovers the Book of the Dead in the basement, a demon is unleashed and the reign of terror begins.
Evil Dead, like its predecessors, is unrelenting. There aren't many moments for audiences to catch their breath. It's a near endless stream of mayhem. It definitely lives up to its promise of being the most terrifying film experience of all-time. However, it lacks the charm and tongue-n-cheek of the Sam Raimi helmed trilogy. Alvarez recreates Raimi's signature visual style, which is great, but he avoids all the eye-winking except for a few moments. Teenages attacked in the woods is a tired concept in horror films. The Evil Dead movies are supposed to freshen up that sub-genre and provide something different. This remake is mostly run of the mill and only slightly stands-out through entertainment value, strong visuals, and a memorable lead character. It's a great gateway to the original trilogy, but it's not in the same league. Well, at least not on a pedestal like Evil Dead II and Army of Darkness. Regardless, it succeeds as far as remake are concerned, but it breaks no new ground.
Paranormal Activity 3
(2011)
An effective prequel.
19 October 2011
The first two Paranormal Activity films were quite random. They were essentially a contemporary haunted house tale that took things to a comical level. I know I'm not alone in thinking those movies were hilarious. In the third installment, however, the frights start to creep in. We do get a lot of the usual antics that have become trademarks of the franchise, but as the story progresses, we begin to understand the cause of it. Fans of the series will love it... and those who are not, may be tempted to give the franchise a second chance. This is a very effective prequel and allows you to look at the other two films in a whole new light. Plus, now that we know the whole story, the fourth installment sounds very promising.
The Green Hornet
(2011)
Throwback to '90s Superhero Flicks
12 January 2011
Call me crazy, but this movie was awesome. As someone who grew up in the 1990s, it was a great throwback to a time when the superhero genre didn't take itself too seriously.
Seth Rogen stars as the Green Hornet. If that's difficult to swallow then don't worry. He's a joke of a hero. Kato (Jay Chou) does all the work. It's a nice joke towards audience members familiar with the 1960's TV series where Bruce Lee was the true star. Rogen, co-write Evan Goldberg, and director Michel Gondry also use this joke to form the relationship between the two characters. They argue, get into physical fights, and even compete over the same woman (Cameron Diaz). But when it's time to battle the villain (Christoph Waltz) they get their act together and get the job done - even when things don't go too smoothly.
Overall, if you're looking for a fun flick to watch then Green Hornet is a good investment. Otherwise, just wait till May when the "serious" superhero films are released.
Seth Rogen stars as the Green Hornet. If that's difficult to swallow then don't worry. He's a joke of a hero. Kato (Jay Chou) does all the work. It's a nice joke towards audience members familiar with the 1960's TV series where Bruce Lee was the true star. Rogen, co-write Evan Goldberg, and director Michel Gondry also use this joke to form the relationship between the two characters. They argue, get into physical fights, and even compete over the same woman (Cameron Diaz). But when it's time to battle the villain (Christoph Waltz) they get their act together and get the job done - even when things don't go too smoothly.
Overall, if you're looking for a fun flick to watch then Green Hornet is a good investment. Otherwise, just wait till May when the "serious" superhero films are released.
Clash of the Titans
(2010)
Another Bad Remake
30 March 2010
You know a movie based on Greek mythology is bad when Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief is a masterpiece by comparison.
Sam Worthington (Avatar, Terminator Salvation) stars as Perseus, a demi-God who must defeat the kraken before it and its owner, Hades (Ralph Fiennes), God of the Underworld, takes over human civilization. And. . .that's pretty much it. Director Louis Leterrier (The Transporter, The Incredible Hulk) wasn't interested in story and character development. He just wanted to get to the next action scene. What Leterrier fails to understand is that action scenes don't work when the audience doesn't care. Perseus fights demons, beasts, and Gods in spectacular actions scenes but there's nothing to get excited about since interest is absent. And to make matters worse there's the 3D. Unlike Avatar, Alice in Wonderland, and How to Train Your Dragon, this film was converted to the format at the last minute to cash in on the fad - and it shows. It has the worst 3D in recent memory. It's sad when Journey to the Center of the Earth with Brendan Fraser was a better 3D experience.
So, if you haven't, just watch How to Train Your Dragon instead or just rent the original 1981 version with Harry Hamlin. With the recent increase in 3D prices there's no reason to waste your money on this garbage.
Sam Worthington (Avatar, Terminator Salvation) stars as Perseus, a demi-God who must defeat the kraken before it and its owner, Hades (Ralph Fiennes), God of the Underworld, takes over human civilization. And. . .that's pretty much it. Director Louis Leterrier (The Transporter, The Incredible Hulk) wasn't interested in story and character development. He just wanted to get to the next action scene. What Leterrier fails to understand is that action scenes don't work when the audience doesn't care. Perseus fights demons, beasts, and Gods in spectacular actions scenes but there's nothing to get excited about since interest is absent. And to make matters worse there's the 3D. Unlike Avatar, Alice in Wonderland, and How to Train Your Dragon, this film was converted to the format at the last minute to cash in on the fad - and it shows. It has the worst 3D in recent memory. It's sad when Journey to the Center of the Earth with Brendan Fraser was a better 3D experience.
So, if you haven't, just watch How to Train Your Dragon instead or just rent the original 1981 version with Harry Hamlin. With the recent increase in 3D prices there's no reason to waste your money on this garbage.
How to Train Your Dragon
(2010)
Best DreamWorks Animation Movie Since 2004's "Shrek 2."
24 March 2010
A few years ago, Christopher Sanders (Lilo and Stitch) left Disney over a creative dispute with John Lasseter on a film that would eventually become Bolt. He crossed the street and visited Jeffrey Katzenberg, a former chairman at Disney, and together, with their middle fingers high in the air, made the best DreamWorks Animation movie since 2004's Shrek 2.
How to Train Your Dragon tells the tale of Hiccup (Jay Baruchel), a teenage viking whose good at everything except being a viking. That disappoints his father, Stoick (Gerard Butler), the leader of the tribe. Stoick knows that he's not going to be around forever and fears that his son could not survive the constant attacks by dragons at their village. So, he enlists the help of Gobber (Craig Ferguson), his right-hand man, to teach the boy how to be a viking. Hiccup, however, has other plans. In secret he befriended a dragon and discovers that the animals are misunderstood and that they attack the village because someone (or something) is forcing them to.
The film is heartwarming, funny, and exciting. The action scenes rival those of Pixar's The Incredibles. And a flight through the clouds with Hiccup trying to impress Astrid (America Ferrera), his crush, will remind audiences of Aladdin, a movie made during Katzenberg's reign at Disney. But a success similar to that film is unlikely. Warner Bros' decision to release Clash of the Titans in 3D only a week after this movie is going to cause a mess. Alice in Wonderland had three weeks to itself, so it was able to enjoy big success in the post-Avatar world but Dragons and Titans will remind Hollywood that most theaters aren't ready to make the transition. Hopefully, strong word-of-mouth will keep this film alive - even if it's only in 2D.
How to Train Your Dragon tells the tale of Hiccup (Jay Baruchel), a teenage viking whose good at everything except being a viking. That disappoints his father, Stoick (Gerard Butler), the leader of the tribe. Stoick knows that he's not going to be around forever and fears that his son could not survive the constant attacks by dragons at their village. So, he enlists the help of Gobber (Craig Ferguson), his right-hand man, to teach the boy how to be a viking. Hiccup, however, has other plans. In secret he befriended a dragon and discovers that the animals are misunderstood and that they attack the village because someone (or something) is forcing them to.
The film is heartwarming, funny, and exciting. The action scenes rival those of Pixar's The Incredibles. And a flight through the clouds with Hiccup trying to impress Astrid (America Ferrera), his crush, will remind audiences of Aladdin, a movie made during Katzenberg's reign at Disney. But a success similar to that film is unlikely. Warner Bros' decision to release Clash of the Titans in 3D only a week after this movie is going to cause a mess. Alice in Wonderland had three weeks to itself, so it was able to enjoy big success in the post-Avatar world but Dragons and Titans will remind Hollywood that most theaters aren't ready to make the transition. Hopefully, strong word-of-mouth will keep this film alive - even if it's only in 2D.
Cop Out
(2010)
Kevin Smith Falls Asleep In The Director's Chair
23 February 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Kevin Smith is a talented writer, but a less than stellar director. He's the first to admit it. So, it was a surprise when he signed on to helm an action-comedy starring Bruce Willis. What isn't a surprise is that he copped out. There's only three action scenes. One in the beginning with Willis and Tracy Morgan chasing a drug dealer. Another in the middle with the drug dealer chasing them. And a big shootout at the end. Smith needs to man up. First he turns down the Green Hornet, then he chickened out on a horror film titled Red State, and now this. Smith said that Cop Out was a tribute to '80s buddy cop movies. He even hired Harold Faltermeyer (Beverly Hills Cop, Top Gun, Fletch, Tango & Cash) to do the score. Instead he delivered something in the same category as Police Academy.
Willis stars as Jimmy and Morgan as Paul. They are cops in the narcotics unit who get suspended with no pay for 30 days as a result of a major screw-up. Jimmy doesn't mind the suspension, but hates not getting a paycheck since he needs the money to pay for his daughter's wedding. Out of desperation he decides to sell a baseball card that's worth $80,000. His daughter's wedding costs $48,000. Did she really expect him to pay that bill on a cop's salary? No. She's counting on her rich step-father, played by 39-year-old actor Jason Lee, but Jimmy has too much pride. While in the process of selling his card he is robbed by Seann William Scott. You're still with me? Okay. So, afterwards, Jimmy goes looking for Scott's character and when he finds him he demands to know what happened to his baseball card. He is informed that it was sold to a drug dealer. The same drug dealer who got him suspended. What a coincidence.
Dumb plot and lack of action aside, it is a funny flick. It's not hilarious, but it is funny. Morgan has his moments, but the real highlight is Scott. Then again, Scott has been a scene stealer since American Pie. You can never go wrong with Stifler. So, is it worth the price of admission? Nope. Not at all. It's not even worth a matinée price. But it is a rental or waiting till HBO premieres it a year from now.
Willis stars as Jimmy and Morgan as Paul. They are cops in the narcotics unit who get suspended with no pay for 30 days as a result of a major screw-up. Jimmy doesn't mind the suspension, but hates not getting a paycheck since he needs the money to pay for his daughter's wedding. Out of desperation he decides to sell a baseball card that's worth $80,000. His daughter's wedding costs $48,000. Did she really expect him to pay that bill on a cop's salary? No. She's counting on her rich step-father, played by 39-year-old actor Jason Lee, but Jimmy has too much pride. While in the process of selling his card he is robbed by Seann William Scott. You're still with me? Okay. So, afterwards, Jimmy goes looking for Scott's character and when he finds him he demands to know what happened to his baseball card. He is informed that it was sold to a drug dealer. The same drug dealer who got him suspended. What a coincidence.
Dumb plot and lack of action aside, it is a funny flick. It's not hilarious, but it is funny. Morgan has his moments, but the real highlight is Scott. Then again, Scott has been a scene stealer since American Pie. You can never go wrong with Stifler. So, is it worth the price of admission? Nope. Not at all. It's not even worth a matinée price. But it is a rental or waiting till HBO premieres it a year from now.
She's Out of My League
(2010)
Good Date Movie, But That's It
21 February 2010
Sometimes ads can be misleading. It's like when you see an attractive person from far away and the closer they get the less attractive they become. The ads are selling a raunchy sex comedy where the hot lead actress is going to take her top off. That isn't the case, however. Yes, there is a make-out scene between the two stars where the male lead...has an accident. And there's also a shaving scene that will rival the one from the third American Pie. Aside from those two scenes and a few others, the movie is actually a really sweet romantic comedy.
It's about Molly (Alice Eve), a sexy event planner who gets harassed at the airport by a sleazy employee. Luckily, Kirk (Jay Baruchel), another employee, comes to her rescue. Kirk is dopey-looking, skinny, and a bit of a push-over. He's a 5, according to his friends. Yet, Molly, whose a hard 10, finds him amusing and a perfect gentlemen. Soon, to the surprise of many, they start dating. They like each other and get along fine, but their friends keep questioning the relationship and giving them self-doubt. Kirk is constantly reminded that he's a 5 and she's a 10. It goes against all logic. Molly is constantly reminded that she only went out with him in the first place because he is safe. Her previous boyfriend, also a 10, broke her heart and now she's with someone whose in no position to do that. So, does she really like (or love) him? If there's one flaw to this film it's that the filmmakers (or studio) went for the R-rating just for the sake of appearing edgy during the marketing. Anyone expecting The 40-Year-Old Virgin is going to be disappointed. Although the raunchy scenes are funny. They just stick out and disrupt the tone. In a way, this movie is like The Girl Next Door. Elisha Cuthbert played a porn star that needs to be rescued by her nerdy next door neighbor (Emile Hirsch). Yet, she's not naked and doesn't do any wild sex scenes. It's a waste of a concept. A regular PG-13 comedy about two teenagers from opposite worlds that fall in love would have been just fine. It wouldn't have sold any tickets, but it would have been honest. So, remember, if you decide to see this film it's pretty tame and a lot more girly than the ads are willing to admit. It's a really good date movie, but not one you want to see only with your friends.
It's about Molly (Alice Eve), a sexy event planner who gets harassed at the airport by a sleazy employee. Luckily, Kirk (Jay Baruchel), another employee, comes to her rescue. Kirk is dopey-looking, skinny, and a bit of a push-over. He's a 5, according to his friends. Yet, Molly, whose a hard 10, finds him amusing and a perfect gentlemen. Soon, to the surprise of many, they start dating. They like each other and get along fine, but their friends keep questioning the relationship and giving them self-doubt. Kirk is constantly reminded that he's a 5 and she's a 10. It goes against all logic. Molly is constantly reminded that she only went out with him in the first place because he is safe. Her previous boyfriend, also a 10, broke her heart and now she's with someone whose in no position to do that. So, does she really like (or love) him? If there's one flaw to this film it's that the filmmakers (or studio) went for the R-rating just for the sake of appearing edgy during the marketing. Anyone expecting The 40-Year-Old Virgin is going to be disappointed. Although the raunchy scenes are funny. They just stick out and disrupt the tone. In a way, this movie is like The Girl Next Door. Elisha Cuthbert played a porn star that needs to be rescued by her nerdy next door neighbor (Emile Hirsch). Yet, she's not naked and doesn't do any wild sex scenes. It's a waste of a concept. A regular PG-13 comedy about two teenagers from opposite worlds that fall in love would have been just fine. It wouldn't have sold any tickets, but it would have been honest. So, remember, if you decide to see this film it's pretty tame and a lot more girly than the ads are willing to admit. It's a really good date movie, but not one you want to see only with your friends.
Shutter Island
(2010)
Good But Not Great
16 February 2010
A hurricane is approaching and patient Rachel Solando escapes from an insane asylum that's located in an island. She didn't try to swim away because the current would have killed her and washed her ashore. So, where is she? That's what U.S. Marshalls Edward "Teddy" Daniels (Leonardo DiCaprio) and Chuck Aule (Mark Ruffalo) are trying to find out.
Throughout their investigation they begin to wonder if Solando really did escape. Does a Rachel Solando even exist? Perhaps it's a trap. Someone wants them on that island and isn't going to let them escape. And with the hurricane nearby they couldn't even if they wanted to.
That's the mystery in director Martin Scorsese's first film since 2006's The Departed, the movie for which he finally won an Academy Award. Like The Departed and even his 1991 film, Cape Fear, it's a thriller that'll have audiences on the edge of their seat. However, it is the weakest of the three. If this movie has one flaw (and it's only ONE flaw) it's that it relies too much on the mystery. Once you know the ending there's no reason to re-watch the film. It's two hours and twenty minutes of DiCaprio running around a mental institute. Aside from two or three humorous scenes nothing distracts the plot. It's on autopilot. So, it's a really good movie but a B-plot away from being great.
Throughout their investigation they begin to wonder if Solando really did escape. Does a Rachel Solando even exist? Perhaps it's a trap. Someone wants them on that island and isn't going to let them escape. And with the hurricane nearby they couldn't even if they wanted to.
That's the mystery in director Martin Scorsese's first film since 2006's The Departed, the movie for which he finally won an Academy Award. Like The Departed and even his 1991 film, Cape Fear, it's a thriller that'll have audiences on the edge of their seat. However, it is the weakest of the three. If this movie has one flaw (and it's only ONE flaw) it's that it relies too much on the mystery. Once you know the ending there's no reason to re-watch the film. It's two hours and twenty minutes of DiCaprio running around a mental institute. Aside from two or three humorous scenes nothing distracts the plot. It's on autopilot. So, it's a really good movie but a B-plot away from being great.
Up in the Air
(I) (2009)
"Up in the Air" is High in Quality!
4 December 2009
We're in a recession and many are losing their jobs everyday. It's a dark time in American history...except for companies that specialize in corporate downsizing. One of its employees is Ryan Bingham (George Clooney). He's nomadic by nature, so he doesn't mind traveling the country and firing people. In fact, he's about to become the 7th person to reach ten million frequent flyer miles and he's proud of it. Then one day, a 23-year-old college grad named Natalie Keener (Anna Kendrick) is hired to save costs by making the company more electronic. Her idea is to fire people through webcams. Bingham doesn't like that. It has to be done in person...or at least that's the excuse he's using so he can remain on the road. So, he takes the young lady under his wing and shows her how it's done. In the meantime, he meets a fellow frequent flyer named Alex Goran (Vera Farmiga) and the webcam idea doesn't sound bad anymore.
Overall, it's another well-done and quirky film from director Jason Reitman whose credits include Thank You For Smoking and Juno. However, I don't think it's the year's best as the National Board of Review claimed yesterday. The highlight is mostly the performances. Clooney is his usual charming self, but the stand-out is Kendrick. You might remember her as Jessica in the Twilight series. She's very spunky and adds a lot of humor to the film. I can see her being nominated at the Oscars for best supporting actress.
Overall, it's another well-done and quirky film from director Jason Reitman whose credits include Thank You For Smoking and Juno. However, I don't think it's the year's best as the National Board of Review claimed yesterday. The highlight is mostly the performances. Clooney is his usual charming self, but the stand-out is Kendrick. You might remember her as Jessica in the Twilight series. She's very spunky and adds a lot of humor to the film. I can see her being nominated at the Oscars for best supporting actress.
The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien
(2009–2010)
Better Than Leno!
1 June 2009
To quote a line from Seinfeld, "that's gold, Jerry. Gold!" Is it possible that in only ONE night, Conan O' Brien has surpassed 17 years of Jay Leno? Yes, it is very possible. Conan's first episode as host of the Tonight show was, to say the least, hilarious! He began the show by running from New York to L.A. to host the show. That's right. Watching Conan run across the country was funnier than Leno's monologue. Then, he began the show by doing his usual monologue in the set Universal built just for him. It's different from Leno's set since it's a more traditional talk show set with a little New York flavor. However, he did keep Leno's lighting which I thought was interesting. Conan followed the monologue by showing two hilarious remote pieces. One was Conan giving a tour of Universal Studios and the other was him driving his 1992 Ford Tarus around town. Then, the show lost some steam during the interview segment. The guest was Will Ferrell. I like Ferrell and he was funny but you couldn't ignore the fact that a show owned by Universal, being shot at Universal was promoting a movie by Universal. The show went from 30 minutes of hilarity to 30 minutes of promotions.
Either way, it was a great episode. And I hope there's more great episodes to come. We've been waiting 5 years for this and it lived up to expectations. The best part is that Conan didn't really change a thing. It's classic Conan!
Either way, it was a great episode. And I hope there's more great episodes to come. We've been waiting 5 years for this and it lived up to expectations. The best part is that Conan didn't really change a thing. It's classic Conan!
Adventureland
(2009)
It's an amusement!
3 April 2009
Don't waste your money on Fast & Furious. This is a more rewarding movie.
Jesse Eisenberg stars as James Brennan, a young man in 1987 who must spend the summer working at a carnival (run by scene stealers Bill Hader and Kristen Wiig) in order to pay for graduate school. He hates it at first but overtime makes friends and falls in love with a girl who saves him from being stabbed over a stuffed animal. That girl is simply known as Em and is played by Twilight's Kristen Stewart. They date but it isn't serious. Em is a complicated girl. Her home life is a mess and she's having an affair with a married man. That makes it difficult to form a committed relationship. And, it affects James' life as her lies and mixed signals force him to make decisions that he may or may not regret by the end of summer.
Director Greg Mottola, whose previous movie was Superbad, once again manages to make a movie that speaks to young people. He could be this generation's John Hughes if he wanted to. In Superbad he explored the lives of high school kids who wanted to have sex. Here he explores the next stage, falling in love and entering the work force. The difference between the two movies is that this one isn't over-the-top. Superbad features a lot of stuff that would never happen in real life. In Adventureland everything is possible and chances are...it happened to you.
Jesse Eisenberg stars as James Brennan, a young man in 1987 who must spend the summer working at a carnival (run by scene stealers Bill Hader and Kristen Wiig) in order to pay for graduate school. He hates it at first but overtime makes friends and falls in love with a girl who saves him from being stabbed over a stuffed animal. That girl is simply known as Em and is played by Twilight's Kristen Stewart. They date but it isn't serious. Em is a complicated girl. Her home life is a mess and she's having an affair with a married man. That makes it difficult to form a committed relationship. And, it affects James' life as her lies and mixed signals force him to make decisions that he may or may not regret by the end of summer.
Director Greg Mottola, whose previous movie was Superbad, once again manages to make a movie that speaks to young people. He could be this generation's John Hughes if he wanted to. In Superbad he explored the lives of high school kids who wanted to have sex. Here he explores the next stage, falling in love and entering the work force. The difference between the two movies is that this one isn't over-the-top. Superbad features a lot of stuff that would never happen in real life. In Adventureland everything is possible and chances are...it happened to you.
The Dark Knight
(2008)
Batman and Joker's Moral Dilemma...
18 July 2008
The Dark Knight begins with a bank robbery. The Joker (Heath Ledger) is stealing from the bank where the mob keeps it's money. It bores him. He wants to do something that makes an impression.
Meanwhile, Gotham City has a new District Attory. His name is Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart). Thanks to him (as well as Lt. James Gordon and Batman) the mob is falling apart. As you can imagine they are desperate. Who do they turn to for help? The Joker. However, The Joker does not care about helping the mob at all. He just sees it as a way to go through with his plan. What's his plan? To prove that people aren't good. To prove that everyone is, well, like him. He even forces Batman (Christian Bale) to question his own moral code. Will Joker prove his point or will Batman have another victory? Overall, the movie is great. The best movie of the year so far. Director Christopher Nolan makes a large amount of improvements over Batman Begins. Everything from pace to the fighting scenes. It's a movie a lot of people will enjoy. Even those who aren't a fan of the genre because this isn't your typical comic book adaptation. Nolan tries his best to make everything feel and look realistic. Which also hurts the movie if you're a fan of movies that do have the look and feel of a comic. Nonetheless, it's great for what it is. As for Ledger, he's fantastic. He does deserve an Oscar nomination as well as other people involved with this movie.
Meanwhile, Gotham City has a new District Attory. His name is Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart). Thanks to him (as well as Lt. James Gordon and Batman) the mob is falling apart. As you can imagine they are desperate. Who do they turn to for help? The Joker. However, The Joker does not care about helping the mob at all. He just sees it as a way to go through with his plan. What's his plan? To prove that people aren't good. To prove that everyone is, well, like him. He even forces Batman (Christian Bale) to question his own moral code. Will Joker prove his point or will Batman have another victory? Overall, the movie is great. The best movie of the year so far. Director Christopher Nolan makes a large amount of improvements over Batman Begins. Everything from pace to the fighting scenes. It's a movie a lot of people will enjoy. Even those who aren't a fan of the genre because this isn't your typical comic book adaptation. Nolan tries his best to make everything feel and look realistic. Which also hurts the movie if you're a fan of movies that do have the look and feel of a comic. Nonetheless, it's great for what it is. As for Ledger, he's fantastic. He does deserve an Oscar nomination as well as other people involved with this movie.
Indy is back, but does he still have it?
22 May 2008
Indiana Jones returns to the big screen after a 19 year absence. Was it worth the wait? I don't know. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is my least favorite of the four Indy movies, but it's still a good movie. There's enough good stuff to make it a good and fun movie. Harrison Ford, despite his age, can still kick butt. The action scenes are top notch. There's a lot of good humor. And Shia LaBeouf is surprisingly good.
What are the flaws? Well, for starters the movie lacks suspense. The other three movies, most notably Raiders of the Lost Ark, allowed room for suspense. This movie was just moving too fast to allow it. There was A LOT of scenes where suspense could have been included but Spielberg just wanted to move on to the next scene. Another thing the movie lacks is heart. I don't want to spoil anything, but there's an interesting relationship between Indy, Mutt (Shia's character), and Marion (the love interest from Raiders). Spielberg gives us a couple of good scenes, but there wasn't enough. And the scenes that we do get move along too fast.
Overall...you may or may not like the movie. I don't know. You're going to have to watch the movie and judge for yourself. And I say that because I'm not sure what you're expecting from the movie. If you're just looking for a fun time, then yea, you'll like it. If you want more then you might be disappointed.
What are the flaws? Well, for starters the movie lacks suspense. The other three movies, most notably Raiders of the Lost Ark, allowed room for suspense. This movie was just moving too fast to allow it. There was A LOT of scenes where suspense could have been included but Spielberg just wanted to move on to the next scene. Another thing the movie lacks is heart. I don't want to spoil anything, but there's an interesting relationship between Indy, Mutt (Shia's character), and Marion (the love interest from Raiders). Spielberg gives us a couple of good scenes, but there wasn't enough. And the scenes that we do get move along too fast.
Overall...you may or may not like the movie. I don't know. You're going to have to watch the movie and judge for yourself. And I say that because I'm not sure what you're expecting from the movie. If you're just looking for a fun time, then yea, you'll like it. If you want more then you might be disappointed.
Apocalypto
(2006)
Apocalypto is a new beginning for its characters and director!
8 December 2006
Apocalypto has a simple plot. A Mayan tribe (or kingdom--not sure) insists that the key to prosperity is to offer human sacrifices. But, instead of sacrificing their own they basically kidnap the members of another tribe and sacrifice them! I'm sure the Gods approve of that.
Well, what happens then is that, Jaguar Paw (Rudy Youngblood), a young man chosen for sacrifice, manages to escape. He is then chased in the middle of the jungle by his captors. In a way you could call this the Mayan version of the Fugitive! So, as you can see not much happens in this film plot-wise. But...don't think this is a bad or pointless movie because of that. Director Mel Gibson explains that Apocalypto means that for something new to begin something old must end. And, if you think about it the film is a great metaphor for Gibson's life and career. If you follow Gibson's life and career then you know what I'm talking about.
And, well, that's pretty much all you can say about this film. It's simple but profound at the same time. Jaguar Paw had his comfortable life destroyed and is now forced to have a new beginning. That's pretty much the whole point of the story.
And, I know some may be some-what turned off because of Gibson's latest anti-semetic remarks but don't let that get in the way. This is a good film. It's definitely one of the more interesting films of the year. And, Gibson proves once more that he's one of our best directors.
Oh, and I believe this was the second film to use the new Genesis cameras. Superman Returns, of course, was the first. And, I think the camera is put to better use in this film. In Superman Returns there was a lot of CGI and color filters. Here you get to see the camera in its regular mode and it looks amazing. I give kudos to Gibson, Dean Semler (who was the DP in the Mad Max films), and the makers of the Genesis camera.
Well, what happens then is that, Jaguar Paw (Rudy Youngblood), a young man chosen for sacrifice, manages to escape. He is then chased in the middle of the jungle by his captors. In a way you could call this the Mayan version of the Fugitive! So, as you can see not much happens in this film plot-wise. But...don't think this is a bad or pointless movie because of that. Director Mel Gibson explains that Apocalypto means that for something new to begin something old must end. And, if you think about it the film is a great metaphor for Gibson's life and career. If you follow Gibson's life and career then you know what I'm talking about.
And, well, that's pretty much all you can say about this film. It's simple but profound at the same time. Jaguar Paw had his comfortable life destroyed and is now forced to have a new beginning. That's pretty much the whole point of the story.
And, I know some may be some-what turned off because of Gibson's latest anti-semetic remarks but don't let that get in the way. This is a good film. It's definitely one of the more interesting films of the year. And, Gibson proves once more that he's one of our best directors.
Oh, and I believe this was the second film to use the new Genesis cameras. Superman Returns, of course, was the first. And, I think the camera is put to better use in this film. In Superman Returns there was a lot of CGI and color filters. Here you get to see the camera in its regular mode and it looks amazing. I give kudos to Gibson, Dean Semler (who was the DP in the Mad Max films), and the makers of the Genesis camera.
It is NOT Donner's cut. It is a representation of what it WOULD have looked like.
28 November 2006
Before you watch this DVD there is something very important that you must understand. Richard Donner never completed Superman II. And, since he never completed the film it was impossible to truly make a "Donner cut" per say. What this DVD (edited and produced by Michael Thau) shows us is what the film "may" have looked like. Once you understand that you will be able to enjoy the experience.
Why do I go through that explanation? Well...because from the complains I've heard and read it seems that people don't seem to understand that. So, that's why I felt it should be addressed.
Now, on to the review...
Donner was hired by the Salkinds in '76 or '77 to direct two Superman films at the same time. When time and money was running out the decision was made to stop production on Superman II and focus on the first one. By that point Donner had already completed about 80% of the film. When Superman became the biggest hit of 1978 the decision by the Salkinds was to fire Donner. He was replaced by Richard Lester (A Hard Day's Night) and Lester re-shot most of the film. Only about 30% of Donner's work remained.
After almost 30 years WB finally released Donner's version since most fans demanded to see it. And, on the DVD, Donner, thanks the fans which I felt was a nice touch.
The plot of the movie is the same as Lester's Superman II. General Zod and his goons escape the Phantom Zone. They arrive at Earth (or Planet Houston as they call it) and quickly take over. And, where's Superman? He made the mistake of giving up his powers to be with Lois Lane. So, will Superman recover his powers on time to save Earth from Zod? You will have to watch the film to find out.
Now, the question on everyone's mind is whether or not this version is truly better than Lester's take. The answer is yes! Why? Because Lester never really understood the material. Which is prove when you watch Superman III. Donner, on the other hand, truly understood the material. He understood that...YES...it's a comic book adaptation but it's still an art form. As silly as Superman may seem he understands that there is a wonderful story to tell. And, he understands that there is wonderful characters to develop and have an audience understand and fall in love with. When you watch this DVD that's what you'll see. A film directed by a man in love with the material. Not a film by a man who did it for the money. If you love Superman: The Movie then you'll love Richard Donner's version of Superman II. The ONLY flaw of this version is that it was never completed.
Why do I go through that explanation? Well...because from the complains I've heard and read it seems that people don't seem to understand that. So, that's why I felt it should be addressed.
Now, on to the review...
Donner was hired by the Salkinds in '76 or '77 to direct two Superman films at the same time. When time and money was running out the decision was made to stop production on Superman II and focus on the first one. By that point Donner had already completed about 80% of the film. When Superman became the biggest hit of 1978 the decision by the Salkinds was to fire Donner. He was replaced by Richard Lester (A Hard Day's Night) and Lester re-shot most of the film. Only about 30% of Donner's work remained.
After almost 30 years WB finally released Donner's version since most fans demanded to see it. And, on the DVD, Donner, thanks the fans which I felt was a nice touch.
The plot of the movie is the same as Lester's Superman II. General Zod and his goons escape the Phantom Zone. They arrive at Earth (or Planet Houston as they call it) and quickly take over. And, where's Superman? He made the mistake of giving up his powers to be with Lois Lane. So, will Superman recover his powers on time to save Earth from Zod? You will have to watch the film to find out.
Now, the question on everyone's mind is whether or not this version is truly better than Lester's take. The answer is yes! Why? Because Lester never really understood the material. Which is prove when you watch Superman III. Donner, on the other hand, truly understood the material. He understood that...YES...it's a comic book adaptation but it's still an art form. As silly as Superman may seem he understands that there is a wonderful story to tell. And, he understands that there is wonderful characters to develop and have an audience understand and fall in love with. When you watch this DVD that's what you'll see. A film directed by a man in love with the material. Not a film by a man who did it for the money. If you love Superman: The Movie then you'll love Richard Donner's version of Superman II. The ONLY flaw of this version is that it was never completed.
Tell Your Friends