14 posts tagged “movies. movie reviews”
I wasn't 100% percent sure about this movie until half way through it. That is when the Joes chased the Cobra operatives through the streets of Paris. That chase scene is so over-the-top absurd that it approached awesome. Seriously, SUV's that would make James Bond drool being attacked by a ninja wielding swords and a gun being chase by two guys running in Iron Man-esque suits that give them Spider-Man like abilities. That is totally silly and, therefore, a lot of fun.
G.I. Joe is not a great movie. You can argue that it isn't even a good movie. But it is entertaining, that's for sure. But the film does try to be anything else but a pleasant diversion.
This is not a subtle, nuanced film. It works in wide brush strokes and familiar tropes--the star-crossed lovers, the man looking for vengeance for his slain father figure, the cocky hero who can pretty much do anything, the comic relief sidekick.
The better actors in the cast know what they're dealing with and relax and ham it up. The lesser actors in the cast also relax and do the best job they can.
This is a mindless fun type of movie. If you are looking for a weighty film that you can dissect, examine and look for metaphor in, you will be disappointed. There are holes in this film that you can drive a Mack Truck through. But if you are looking for a fun action movie that you do not have to think for, then this is a good choice.
There is a 5 to 10 minute span at the beginning of this movie where the brilliance of Pixar and the filmmakers really shine through. They show us the life of the main character, Carl Fredricksen, from a child to an elderly man. The filmmakers show us how he became the man he is--his loves, his fears, and the tragedies he lived through. This segment is both funny and sad, heart warming and heart breaking. You could give other artists 3 hours of film time and you wouldn't get the same kind of character portrait you get here. And the boys at Pixar did it all in 10 minutes--with no dialogue and no narration. That was just brilliant.
It's bravura film making. That scene alone should qualify UP for an Oscar. And not an animation Oscar, a real, honest to god, given out at the end of the show Best Picture Oscar.
The story is about dreams and the pursuit of them. This plays out in many forms. About how you shouldn't delay in chasing after the dream. That no dream in impossible or unattainable. But, also, the difference between showing determination and obssession in the pursuit.
This being said, the filmmaker create a world of magic and wonder. It is a world where the implausible becomes the reality.Where imagination is key. Yes, you could go through the entire movie and pinpoint all the things that can conceivably happen, but you won't want to. You'll want to be swept up in the fantasy.
The script and plot is intelligent and engaging. There is a lot going on in this story, and where it goes is imaginative and unlike anything else you'll see this year.
UP is a great movie. I saw it almost 12 hours ago and I still smile when I remember seeing it. It's just perfect.
A film reviewer friend of mine said that this movie "was not your father's Star Trek." That is 100% accurate. But it knows your father's Star Trek, realizes how many people like your father's Star Trek, and updates your father's Star Trek with this in mind so it does it without diminishing your father's Star Trek.
For me, as good as they got, the previous Star Trek films seemed to be big-budget, much longer episodes of the TV series. This is the first that feels like a film first, franchise extension second.
You opinion of the film should be determined with in the first half hour. The wife and I were moved to tears. This could probably be due to where we are in our lives right now, but it could also be due to the skill of the filmmakers.
This is a more viseral film than a cerebral one. The emphasis is more on action that the contemplation of weighty issues. But it is a movie, not an episodic TV show. It is a different animal.
Granted, this script isn't King Lear. It manages to be complex (as plots involving time travel usually are) yet simplistic (if you've seen a movie before, you'll be able to predict events before they happen), but it works.
This film moves along quickly and is never boring. Even with the exposition laden scenes, which are a necessity considering the plot, come across as unique and entertaining.
There are nods to fans of the original series. There is a reference to a plot point in the film which should allievate any long-time fans concern about the changes to the mythology. This is not a prequel to the TV series, but rather, a sequel to the other movies.
But you still have taglines and references from the original series thrown in to please fans.
The acting is uniformly awesome. Each actor comes to inhabit the iconic roles they were given. Especially Chris Pine. His Kirk isn't a smooth or polished Shatner-ish Kirk (until the last few frames) but rather a younger, rougher Shatner Kirk. You believe this is the man who will become the hero of the Enterprise. And Karl Urban does well at channelling not only DeForrest Kelley's cantankerous McCoy but also the kind and human McCoy as well.
The film beefs up Sulu, Uhura, and Chekov, giving each of them moments in the sun. The only bad thing about this is that it takes away moments from Bones and Scotty, which is regrettable.
This is not to say the film does not have its flaws. The predictability is an issue. And the reliance on slapstick is very disconcerting. The goofy chase scenes and other physical comedy breaks the narrative flow. And there are plot elements that are essentially MacGuffins which are never explained (Red Matter? What is Red Matter?)
Some people criticize the film as being an ipso facto remake of Star Wars. And I'll admit, when Kirk was fighting that weird animal on the ice planet, I was expecting him to whip a lightsaber out of his boot. But I think the similarites is that both films are sci-fi actioners more than a deliberate attempt of mockery.
However, this isn't a deep film. The creators are actively moving away from that. But if you want a fun, popcorn summer flick, then you should be entertained by this film.
If I had to sum up my feelings about X-Men Origins Wolverine in one word, that word would be "meh". It more disappointing than downright bad.
The film is a brand extension for the X-Men franchise starring Hugh Jackman's Wolverine (I know, weren't the last three Wolverine movies too? Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk). It focuses on his history prior to joining the X-Men.
There is an artistic quality to the work that prevents it from being entirely awful. Gavin Hood has enough skill to shoot a good movie. Yet, there is a major problem of tonal changes through out. There is the Matrix-like beginning, then it shifts to more of a 1970s Clint Eastwood kind of flick, they it apes the look and style of the rest of the X-Men franchise. This results in a choppy viewing experience.
And the plot is lacking. It features two of the most annoying qualities any script can have--not explaining things properly (why did Stryker want to bond adamantium to Logan anyway?) and characters acting like idiots just to move the plot along (Gambit attacks Wolvie for no good reason right before he was going to take care of Sabretooth once and for all, conveniently allowing Sabretooth to escape).
The most annoying quailty of this film is the change in the character. In the other X-Men movies, Wolverine had the Han Solo-esque quality of being a bad man who does good things. Here, he's a good man who occassionally does bad things. You might not think that is much of a difference, but it is and it severely handicaps the character.
There are a lot of comic book characters appearing in this movie for the first time. The filmmakers do a good job of giving them all a reason for being there and not just shoving them in. This doesn't mean that they are not underused. But at least they have a plot worthy reason for being included.
The action scenes are good, inventive and exciting. And, for the most part, the acting is top notch. There are nods to a lot of the elements of the comic book history thrown in. And the plot does a good job of lining up the arrows with the rest of the franchise. This film ends about 20 years before X-Men, and does nothing to contradict that story.
I guess you could enjoy this film if you put aside the flaws and just don't think too much about it. But it definitely could be better.
This movie almost lost me halfway through. I'm not going to spoil it, but it was something that had the comic fan in me saying "No! Tell me they didn't just do that! Tell me it was a swerve!' It was, and when I found out it was that was the moment I fell in love with the movie completely.
This is a great movie. That should have come as no surprise for me because no less that three theater employees told me so on the way in.
This is a film that not only respects the characters but also the fans of the characters.
The acting was great all around. I had my doubts on Eckhart and Ledger based on the trailers, but the trailer didn't show the best part of their perfomances.
Is Ledger as good as they say? Yeah. Is he better than Jack Nicholson, well, it's like comparing apples and oranges. Nicholson was the best Joker for the movie he was in. Ledger for his. Will Ledger get an Oscar? I think its a worthy performance, but perhaps too out there for the Academy.
But I will say this, this probably is the best presentation of the Joker in any medium. He is an agent of chaos, a living embodiment of the Loki the trickster god. Part of that is due to Ledger, part of that is due to excellent writing.
I, unfortunately, did not get the Watchmen trailer. I instead got the Spirit, which looks positively awful.
I consider Hancock to not really be a movie. It is more like a Cliff's Notes version of a movie.
What do I mean by that? Let me explain.
Cliff Notes is a basic summary of a novel, telling you just what you need to know. This film seemed like a summary of some other movie. It went from plot point to plot point with little or no connective tissue between. You get enough to know whats going on, and to set up what's to come, and that's it. It's rather clumsy and sort of annoying.
This is bad, because we could have used a little fleshing out to make the rather abrupt tonal change at the end of the movie more plausible.
This film starts out as a comedy, which is fine. I can stand the superhero movie genre to be a place for laughs, but then it switches to a drama during the last half hour.
And the switch in tone is not done gradually. It's like they got the reels of the movies mixed up. You're watching a comedy then BANG, things get serious.
You need to let the audience know what they're in for. Especially if you are building to a dramatic climax. Because what lacks in the first half is characterization. The characters are pained in the broadest of fashion. This is okay if you are going for laughs, but if we are supposed to feel an emotional connection with these people to add pop to the ending, it just doesn't work.
That is not the only thing wrong with this movie. Hey, fellas, just so you know. If you put an info dump in the middle of the movie and not at the beginning, where it usually goes, it doesn't make it any less of an info dump. It only makes it more awkward.
Also, in a Mystery Science Theater 3000 sense, it might be fun to go through the film and play "Spot the Product Placement!". Not only do we have the typical visual product placement (including one for Jiffy Pop. Hancock has a case of the least convienient home popping pop corn in his home (why? I don't know.) which pops in a pivotal scene so that the cardboard covering convieniently faces the camera) but also a new, garish VERBAL product placement. People don't offer each other use of their sunglasses, they offer their Ray-Bans. They don't call their insurance company, they call State Farm. Each company name is spoken clearly and with such effect that you almost expected them to stop the movie so people could come up the aisles to see you insurance or sunglasses.
The cast does well with what little they're given. Will Smith gets by on his charm. Charlize Theron would be the definition of talent being wasted if it didn't seem that she was just phoning it in. Who comes out best is Jason Bateman. His acting helps make his character at least seem well defined. Eventually, he will get a great film for him to employ his great talent in.
So, yeah. Hancock rates as a pretty bad movie. It's like everyone, with the exception of Bateman, just wanted to get through with the film in a hurry, cash the check and head home. The story had potential that was wasted. The tone was off and could have, should have been addressed better, and the characterization just didn't give the audience enough to care. Your money should be better spent elsewhere.
This is the second of three movies we saw today. And it was good for what it is.
Yes, it is a comic book adaptation, but that shouldn't be held against it. It is quite different from the Millar/Jones miniseries. Only a small part of the book made it to the screen.
I blame the need in Hollywood to have characters you can root for as the hero in every single film. In the comic, there is not one single redeemable quality found in any character. Every one of them are scumbags.
Here, they are assassins instead of supervillains (and almost all the comic book tropes have been removed) but they only kill the people who deserve it. "Kill one to save a thousand" is the motto.
Personally, I think the changes improve the movie over the comic. The comic was Millar being as over-the -top as he could be, aiming for shock value but hitting it so often that the reader became numb to it. Yet, the story was rather plain.
The movie was better. Not that there weren't holes in the plot you could sail an aircraft carrier through. Things that if you thought to much about them, that they would make sense.
Butm if you could turn your brain off and weren't afraid of a little gore (because this flick had BUCKETS of blood), then you should enjoy yourself. The stunt work is visually impressive and imaginative. If you are an action movie fan, then there is eye candy galore.
Good acting from Jolie and Freeman. Especially Jolie, whose character is the most well defined. McAvoy was annoying at times, even when his character wasn't supposed to be.
Bottom line: goiod popcorn flick, high art in the stunts category, but no Oscar winner.
In a marathon of moviegoing, the wife and I saw three movies today. One day and one theater complex, Whew. And Wall-E was the best.
Magical is the one word I would use to describe it (if I could use only one word. It is wonderful and awesome in the truest sense of both those words.
This is virtuoso filmmaking. Most of the beginning of the film is done in pantomime, which is not easy to do and keep your young audience interested. Pixar did it.
I never thought I'd ever be moved by the romance between two robots, but I was--and to tears even. Pixar invests more personality and characterization in all the characters in the movie than you'd see in 20 other films combined.
This movie rocked. Don't miss it while it is in the theaters, especially because there is a charming short before the feature.
The weekend of July 4th will be the weekend the wife and I catch up on our movies. Before the weekend is over, we hope to see Wanted, Wall-E, and Hancock. But, since this movie was out the longest, we decided to see this one first.
I'll admit, I was hesitant to see this. I mean, Pixar had been eating Dreamworkslunch for years. So, I really didn't expect much from this film. But this might be the first Dreamworks film that matches Pixar in quality. It is that good.
This film is utterly charming. It works as a kid flick, a martial arts movie and a comedy. It mixes the tropes you find in kung fu flicks, and even Star Wars feel thrown in, and what you'd expect from a CGI film. You should definitely see this movie.
The voice action is first rate. As a matter of fact, this might be Dustin Hoffman's best performance in years.
It is a movie that adults will like as much as the kids. Although, take care with the young ones. There are some scary parts.
Of the two comedies that opened this week, the wife, my friend Mike and myself saw Get Smart instead of The Love Guru. And it turned out to be a pretty good choice.
Granted, Get Smart is a flawed movie. It is a caper film that really doesn't hold up to close scrutiny. But the quality of the acting made watching the film an enjoyable experience.
Don't be misled by the trailer. This film is less a comedy with action than an action comedy. In fact, the tone is just a little bit sillier than a Lethal Weapon and about equal, if not slightly more serious that the Rush Hour films.
There were a lot of nice touches in the film. Maxwell Smart, played excellently by Steve Carell, is portrayed not as a bumbling incompetent but rather as an inexperience novice. He does screw up, but he learns from his mistakes and grows from them. I really liked that aspect of the character.
Anne Hathaway is beautiful and charming, as she always is. She plays her character fairly well. Dwayne Johnson oozes charn and charisma as Agent 23, and Alan Arkin, who is a god of comedy, in my opinion, simply rocks as the Chief. He brings joy and humor to every aspect of his role, and pretty much lights up the screen.
However, there are things that keep this from being the perfect movie. The romance between Carell and Hathaway is not terribly believeable. I'd imaging that the powers that be felt this might be the case, and thought it was because of the differences in ages. There is a clumsy bit of exposition that pops up in the first act where it is revealed that Hathaway's character is actually older than she really is (her character having plastic surgery is a subplot). It was almost as if the movie makers were saying "See! She might look 15 years younger! But they are really the same age! Therefore, you should believe the hint of romance!"
But the age difference wasn't what made the romance unbelievable. It was that they didn't give it time to develop. They go from a casual flirtation to ga-ga almost instantiously. It is jarring and not terribly believable.
And the identity of the mole in CONTROL could be guessed halfway through by almost anyone who has ever seen a movie before. However, his betrayal is never explained and his motivations are never made clear.
There are a bunch of great homages to the TV show, which is the case with any adaptation. The choice of actor to play Hymie is great and spot on.
All in all, Get Smart is a good movie if you are looking for a fun summer flick where you don't have to think too hard and want a good laugh.
My Groups
-
All Things Reviews! Updated: Yesterday
-
Writers Hub Updated: Yesterday
-
WRITERS TALKING ABOUT WRITING Updated: 5 days ago
Neighborhood
Explore friends, family, friends & family, or entire neighborhood.
