Welcome to another episode of Lights....Camera....Popcorn!
Today's review is Shame.
Directed by Steve McQueen.
Written by Abi Morgan & Steve McQueen.
Review #151
MPAA Rating: NC-17 for some explicit sexual content.
Runtime: 101 min
Cast
Michael Fassbender ...Brandon Sullivan
Carey Mulligan ...Sissy Sullivan
James Badge Dale ...David Fisher
Nicole Beharie ...Marianne
Sibling rivalries. Whether you have one or not you know of them. Some are playful and some are unfortunately malicious. The thing that makes a sibling rivalry unique are the many forms they take combined with how it was created in the first place. Regardless of the reason, a sibling rivalry can drive a wedge between family members that can't be broken. It's sad but an undeniable side effect. It's even sadder when 1 sibling is responsible for driving the wedge between the other. Is this the main story point of Shame?
Yes. No. Maybe. That's why it's a great movie.
Plot
In New York City, Brandon's carefully cultivated private life, which allows him to indulge his sexual addiction is disrupted when his sister Cissy arrives unannounced for an indefinite stay.
The chatter surrounding this film revolved around 2 things. Both involving the same person. Michael Fassbender's performance and his very talked about frontal nudity. Let me clear the air for everyone here. Yes there are full frontal nude shots of him in the film but in NO way are they lingering. Reviews and audience opinions of the film compare his "exhibition" to a porn film and that's simply not true. Are the shots gratuitous? You can make a very valid argument. What they are more importantly are part of a very clever, well exectuted opening montage that introduces his character and his sex addiction.
It also establishes the relationship he has with Sissy.
It's this opening montage that sets up what was a very intense, complex but powerful performance. Fassbender achieves something with his dramatics that I haven't seen in a while. He conveys more saying nothing than with any syllable he uttered. He effectively gives us a man who is perfectly damaged. On the inside he's the total antithesis of what he portrays on the outside which is a Handsome, charming, sexy, confident man. Fassbender gets even better when he has to deal with Sissy's arrival. It's established pretty quickly that Brandon is comfortable living his life the way he is. Sissy comes in and upsets the established order and here is where the film gets good.
The relationship between Brandon and Sissy is in a word complicated.
This is possible by the equally wonderful performance by Carey Mulligan. She's the yin to Brandon's yang. Sissy is a free spirit that represents everything that Brandon isn't. Right from the moment he first sees her in his apartment which is a pretty "telling" scene, you can see immediately that Brandon doesn't want her there. He knows what her presence will do for him and his lifestyle. Mulligan does a masterful job pushing Brandon's buttons just enough to drive him to the edge but never over it.
Until......
Thought I was going to give something away huh? Just messing with ya.
The biggest asset to this movie is Steve McQueen. His only other directorial effort was the 2008's Hunger. Another pretty good film I would recommend also starring Fassbender. Coincidentally. McQueen's next film Twelve Years a Slave will also star Fassbender so a pretty nice tag team has been formed here. McQueen pulls no punches with the material. However, contrary to other reviews, critics and especially the MPAA, with exception of possibly 2 scenes, I didn't see anything here that warranted an NC-17 rating. I realize that the MPAA are a bunch of misguided conservative fools who have no clue how to properly rate a film but the reaction outside of the MPAA's bubble was surprising to me after I saw this movie.
Shame primarily concerns a man and his addiction to sex so that's what we get.
That's why I don't agree with the rating. Especially it's description. I have to reiterate that there are a couple of scenes that do toe the line between a hard R and and NC-17 rating but "explicit sexual content" doesn't jive with me. The supposed explicit content is IMPLIED but never fully exposed. I'm afraid this was another case of the stuffy suits at the Motion Picture Academy of America tagging a film because it's main subject is something they have historically been uncomfortable with.
Enough about my MPAA rant. Back to McQueen's mastery.
McQueen does a lot with so little. There's not much dialogue so character and plot development is acquired through the performances of the cast. This is why the praise for Fassbender and Mulligan is so high and rightfully so. McQueen let's his stars own their characters while maintaining their complexities created by him and co writer Abi Morgan. He also masters pacing and timing. There are several scenes that are filled with tension and anticipation. He achieved this using much more subtle techniques that I wished were in more films. Instead of using predictable music to set up what will eventually happen. He relies on the performance of his talent to drive the scene. He also doesn't cut away too soon. He let's a shot hang just long enough to create the feeling that the scene is supposed to give you. Then he gives you the break you need to breathe. This is expertly done in the very first scene of the film.
McQueen's greatest achievement comes at the film's climax (no pun intended). When the tension between Brandon and Sissy comes to a boil the predictable outcome ensues. What made it so awesome was the way it was executed. I won't say how but if you're paying attention you will see it. Then something happened after that scene that I didn't expect. McQueen pulled a fast one on me. I started to realize that the film's title has multiple meaning's for the film itself and for Brandon. Shame obviously applies to Brandon's sex addiction. It also applies to his lack of attention he gives Sissy. Instead of seeing her as his sister he sees her as a burden on his existence. To think that one can regard another family member like that for no other reason than the feeling of inconvenience is "Shame"ful. It was this realization that brings more weight to a film that seemed very matter of fact at the outset.
BRAVO!
On the 5 star scale. Shame gets the full house. 5 stars with a "Worth Every Penny!" recommendation.
This was a hidden gem for me this year. I'm glad I was able to catch it before it disappeared. It definitely makes my top 10 films of 2011 list.
That's a wrap for today.
Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo
Welcome to a special episode of Lights....Camera....Popcorn!
Today's review is The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo.
Directed by David Fincher.
Written by Steve Zaillian.
Based on the book The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo. Written by Steig Larsson.
Review #150
MPAA Rating: R for brutal violent content including rape and torture, strong sexuality, graphic nudity, and language.
Runtime: 158 min
Cast
Daniel Craig ...Mikael Blomkvist
Rooney Mara ...Lisbeth Salander
Christopher Plummer ...Henrik Vanger
Stellan Skarsgård ...Martin Vanger
Steven Berkoff ...Frode
Robin Wright ...Erika Berger
Yorick van Wageningen ...Bjurman
Joely Richardson ...Anita Vanger
Geraldine James ...Cecilia
First off. I hope all of you had a very Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah.
Now on to the business of reviewing my 150th film which also happens to be one of the years best.
By now we all have heard about this film via the book or it's Swedish predecessor. History has told us that adapting films from books is very tricky. Only a handful could be considered true success stories. The others were colossal failures on every conceivable level. The team of Niels Arden Oplev, Nikolaj Arcel & Rasmus Heisterberg were able to capture the feel of the book with their film. To some, the critical acclaim is justified. To others like me the film was a disappointment. Not because of it's poor entertainment but due to it's potential. I however, seem to be in the minority of said opinion so with the great old USA taking a crack at it. We now have 2 versions to choose from.
Plot
This English-language adaptation of the Swedish novel by Stieg Larsson follows a disgraced journalist, Mikael Blomkvist as he investigates the disappearance of a wealthy patriarch's niece from 40 years ago. He is aided by the pierced, tattooed, punk computer hacker named Lisbeth Salander. As they work together in the investigation, Blomkvist and Salander uncover immense corruption beyond anything they have ever imagined.
A film of this nature can only be handled properly by a few people. It's a story filled with intrigue, mystery, suspense and violence. It's a story that's both entertaining and detestable at the same time. It's a very delicate balance that wasn't adhered to by Oplev's version of the book. He stayed faithful to the source material as did this version with 1 exception. The violence is scaled down here. The Swedish version of the book is far more gratuitous in depicting the brutality. That doesn't mean that Fincher's version is light. Not by any means am I saying that.
It just has a "cleaner" feel to it.
This is precisely why David Fincher was the PERFECT choice to direct this film. He has an amazing imagination and and uncanny ability to keep it real. In a manner of speaking. You look at his resume and with the exception of The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and Alien 3 there isn't a stinker in the bunch. Now before you Ben Button fans come after me let me clarify. The film wasn't bad when it comes to the technical aspects. It was for me dreadfully boring and an insult to every other film that had to compete with it for Best Picture. Now Alien 3 is an entirely different story. I'm actually wrong putting this film in his bad filmography because it's technically not his film. Creative differences between him and 20th Century Fox forced him away from the lens and out of the edit room thus losing the integrity of what his vision for the Alien universe should have been. Looking back on what he's accomplished since then I would be shocked if those idiots at FOX aren't kicking themselves.
And if they're not, they should be.
Fincher did the same thing with The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo that he did with The Social Network. He took the source material. Respected it but made it his own. Because of that this version is FAR SUPERIOR to the Swedish version. There were some liberties taken from both the original film and the book, especially the ending which I will get to in a minute. The main point is that despite the little tweaks, the film stakes it's claim as it's own. In no way does this movie play like a remake, reboot or re-imagination. Fincher does mess with the chronology of events a bit but in my opinion it was a smart way to present, deal with and finish secondary storylines, leaving the rest of the time dedicated to the core plot. This was something I was pleased to see happen. The book has so many other side stories that it was going to be very difficult to manage them all in a film version. Fincher stripped them down to their very core and didn't waste time with semantics. As a result the film plays smoothly, smartly and quite nicely even at 2 and a half plus hours.
My only gripe would be with the ending which I mentioned earlier. I won't say what happens. Let's just say the final shot wasn't necessary for the story's sake. Having said that I realize why they ended the film the way they did.
I just didn't think they had to.
The ending is a nice segue to the cast. The all star cast I should say. This movie is loaded with some pretty impressive names. Leading off with the top 2. Daniel Craig and Rooney Mara. Craig plays Blomkvist with a greater definition than Michael Nyqvist's interpretation of the character. Of course nobody really cares about Craig except for some of you ladies maybe. The real story here is Ms. SalanderNoomi Rapace's rendition of the famous hacker was too cool for school. She was a woman that was not to be messed with. Her character was so perfectly cast that you could compare it to the casting of Wolverine in the first X-Men film. If they got that wrong, the whole movie is done before it even starts.
This was the challenge for Fincher and his crew. They had to find their "Rapace" since she was not going to take part in this version. Nor should she. There were feelers out to everyone from Angelina Jolie (who would have made a pretty good Lisbeth by the way) to Scarlett Johansson (who would have been a TERRIBLE Lisbeth by the way). Fincher's choice was Rooney Mara. Needless to say she was a head scratching pick at first. A relative "unknown" in the film world, her biggest name film's were The Social Network and the Nightmare on Elm Street remake. Instant buzz negative and positive were flowing after the announcement. Many felt she was not the right choice and it caused quite a stir. My feeling on this was pretty simple. It didn't matter who they got. They weren't going to be better than Rapace anyway. Why bother with the comparison's. So does Rooney make you forget about Noomi?
HELL NO! But that's OK because that wasn't her job. It was Mara's job to make Lisbeth right for THIS film.
Mara does the same thing with the character that Fincher does with the film. She respects the source material but makes Lisbeth her own. Her own person. There is a pretty noticeable difference between the Salander's. Rapace's Lisbeth is far more closed off and emotionless than Mara's Lisbeth. Mara plays Lisbeth with a hint of helplessness that you don't feel when you see Rapace's Lisbeth. This is clearly a byproduct of the script. Zaillian and Fincher humanized Lisbeth a little more in their version and it actually worked. I enjoyed Mara's Lisbeth as much as I enjoyed Rapace's Lisbeth. Each woman did a great job making the character their own.
The rest of the cast was superb. I can't say why because some of their descriptions would give a way plot info if you haven't seen the film yet or the original or read the book.
As a result I will call it a wrap for fear of accidentally spilling something I shouldn't.
On the 5 star scale. The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo gets the full house. 5 stars with a "Worth Every Penny!" recommendation.
I was looking forward to seeing this movie for a while now. They got the right people to play in it and most of all they got the right man to make it. Fincher does it again. I just hope he comes back to make The Girl Who Played With Fire and The Girl Who Kicked The Hornets Nest.
That's a wrap for today. Up next is The Adventures of Tintin.
Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
Today's review is The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo.
Directed by David Fincher.
Written by Steve Zaillian.
Based on the book The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo. Written by Steig Larsson.
Review #150
MPAA Rating: R for brutal violent content including rape and torture, strong sexuality, graphic nudity, and language.
Runtime: 158 min
Cast
Daniel Craig ...Mikael Blomkvist
Rooney Mara ...Lisbeth Salander
Christopher Plummer ...Henrik Vanger
Stellan Skarsgård ...Martin Vanger
Steven Berkoff ...Frode
Robin Wright ...Erika Berger
Yorick van Wageningen ...Bjurman
Joely Richardson ...Anita Vanger
Geraldine James ...Cecilia
First off. I hope all of you had a very Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah.
Now on to the business of reviewing my 150th film which also happens to be one of the years best.
By now we all have heard about this film via the book or it's Swedish predecessor. History has told us that adapting films from books is very tricky. Only a handful could be considered true success stories. The others were colossal failures on every conceivable level. The team of Niels Arden Oplev, Nikolaj Arcel & Rasmus Heisterberg were able to capture the feel of the book with their film. To some, the critical acclaim is justified. To others like me the film was a disappointment. Not because of it's poor entertainment but due to it's potential. I however, seem to be in the minority of said opinion so with the great old USA taking a crack at it. We now have 2 versions to choose from.
Plot
This English-language adaptation of the Swedish novel by Stieg Larsson follows a disgraced journalist, Mikael Blomkvist as he investigates the disappearance of a wealthy patriarch's niece from 40 years ago. He is aided by the pierced, tattooed, punk computer hacker named Lisbeth Salander. As they work together in the investigation, Blomkvist and Salander uncover immense corruption beyond anything they have ever imagined.
A film of this nature can only be handled properly by a few people. It's a story filled with intrigue, mystery, suspense and violence. It's a story that's both entertaining and detestable at the same time. It's a very delicate balance that wasn't adhered to by Oplev's version of the book. He stayed faithful to the source material as did this version with 1 exception. The violence is scaled down here. The Swedish version of the book is far more gratuitous in depicting the brutality. That doesn't mean that Fincher's version is light. Not by any means am I saying that.
It just has a "cleaner" feel to it.
This is precisely why David Fincher was the PERFECT choice to direct this film. He has an amazing imagination and and uncanny ability to keep it real. In a manner of speaking. You look at his resume and with the exception of The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and Alien 3 there isn't a stinker in the bunch. Now before you Ben Button fans come after me let me clarify. The film wasn't bad when it comes to the technical aspects. It was for me dreadfully boring and an insult to every other film that had to compete with it for Best Picture. Now Alien 3 is an entirely different story. I'm actually wrong putting this film in his bad filmography because it's technically not his film. Creative differences between him and 20th Century Fox forced him away from the lens and out of the edit room thus losing the integrity of what his vision for the Alien universe should have been. Looking back on what he's accomplished since then I would be shocked if those idiots at FOX aren't kicking themselves.
And if they're not, they should be.
Fincher did the same thing with The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo that he did with The Social Network. He took the source material. Respected it but made it his own. Because of that this version is FAR SUPERIOR to the Swedish version. There were some liberties taken from both the original film and the book, especially the ending which I will get to in a minute. The main point is that despite the little tweaks, the film stakes it's claim as it's own. In no way does this movie play like a remake, reboot or re-imagination. Fincher does mess with the chronology of events a bit but in my opinion it was a smart way to present, deal with and finish secondary storylines, leaving the rest of the time dedicated to the core plot. This was something I was pleased to see happen. The book has so many other side stories that it was going to be very difficult to manage them all in a film version. Fincher stripped them down to their very core and didn't waste time with semantics. As a result the film plays smoothly, smartly and quite nicely even at 2 and a half plus hours.
My only gripe would be with the ending which I mentioned earlier. I won't say what happens. Let's just say the final shot wasn't necessary for the story's sake. Having said that I realize why they ended the film the way they did.
I just didn't think they had to.
The ending is a nice segue to the cast. The all star cast I should say. This movie is loaded with some pretty impressive names. Leading off with the top 2. Daniel Craig and Rooney Mara. Craig plays Blomkvist with a greater definition than Michael Nyqvist's interpretation of the character. Of course nobody really cares about Craig except for some of you ladies maybe. The real story here is Ms. SalanderNoomi Rapace's rendition of the famous hacker was too cool for school. She was a woman that was not to be messed with. Her character was so perfectly cast that you could compare it to the casting of Wolverine in the first X-Men film. If they got that wrong, the whole movie is done before it even starts.
This was the challenge for Fincher and his crew. They had to find their "Rapace" since she was not going to take part in this version. Nor should she. There were feelers out to everyone from Angelina Jolie (who would have made a pretty good Lisbeth by the way) to Scarlett Johansson (who would have been a TERRIBLE Lisbeth by the way). Fincher's choice was Rooney Mara. Needless to say she was a head scratching pick at first. A relative "unknown" in the film world, her biggest name film's were The Social Network and the Nightmare on Elm Street remake. Instant buzz negative and positive were flowing after the announcement. Many felt she was not the right choice and it caused quite a stir. My feeling on this was pretty simple. It didn't matter who they got. They weren't going to be better than Rapace anyway. Why bother with the comparison's. So does Rooney make you forget about Noomi?
HELL NO! But that's OK because that wasn't her job. It was Mara's job to make Lisbeth right for THIS film.
Mara does the same thing with the character that Fincher does with the film. She respects the source material but makes Lisbeth her own. Her own person. There is a pretty noticeable difference between the Salander's. Rapace's Lisbeth is far more closed off and emotionless than Mara's Lisbeth. Mara plays Lisbeth with a hint of helplessness that you don't feel when you see Rapace's Lisbeth. This is clearly a byproduct of the script. Zaillian and Fincher humanized Lisbeth a little more in their version and it actually worked. I enjoyed Mara's Lisbeth as much as I enjoyed Rapace's Lisbeth. Each woman did a great job making the character their own.
The rest of the cast was superb. I can't say why because some of their descriptions would give a way plot info if you haven't seen the film yet or the original or read the book.
As a result I will call it a wrap for fear of accidentally spilling something I shouldn't.
On the 5 star scale. The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo gets the full house. 5 stars with a "Worth Every Penny!" recommendation.
I was looking forward to seeing this movie for a while now. They got the right people to play in it and most of all they got the right man to make it. Fincher does it again. I just hope he comes back to make The Girl Who Played With Fire and The Girl Who Kicked The Hornets Nest.
That's a wrap for today. Up next is The Adventures of Tintin.
Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows
Welcome to another episode Lights....Camera....Popcorn!
Today's review is Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows.
Directed by Guy Ritchie.
Written by Michele & Kieran Mulroney.
Based on characters created by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
Review #149
MPAA Rating: PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and action, and some drug material.
Runtime: 129 min
Cast
Robert Downey Jr. ... Sherlock Holmes
Jude Law ... Dr. John Watson
Noomi Rapace ... Madam Simza Heron
Rachel McAdams ... Irene Adler
Jared Harris ... Professor James Moriarty
Stephen Fry ... Mycroft Holmes
Paul Anderson ... Colonel Sebastian Moran
Kelly Reilly ... Mary Watson
Geraldine James ... Mrs. Hudson
Eddie Marsan ... Inspector Lestrade
William Houston ... Constable Clark
At this time last year we were introduced to a new breed of super hero. Sherlock Holmes. Some of you may debate the super hero label but make no mistake. Sherlock Holmes is a super hero. What defines a super hero? The official definition plays too much to comic books and cartoons so I'll define it myself.
Superhero - Someone who possesses extraordinary abilities beyond that of the normal populace.
If you go by this logic then Sherlock Holmes was the ultimate superhero because he was grounded in reality. His power was his uncanny ability to out think the out thinkable. It didn't hurt that he was a bad ass fighter too boot. This is what Guy Ritchie's 2010 Sherlock Holmes gave us. An entertaining and refreshing look at the ever popular detective. Of course the success of the first meant naturally that a sequel was on the way.
Does this one live up to the reputation it's predecessor set?
Plot
Sherlock Holmes and his sidekick Dr. Watson join forces to outwit and bring down their fiercest adversary, Professor Moriarty.
If you recall the end of the first film. It obviously sets up the premise of this new entry to the franchise. This time Sherlock is matched up against someone of equal intelligence in the form of Professor James Moriarty. It's here where the film excels. It was a lot of fun watching these 2 savants goat at each other tooth and nail. Each man at one point would best the other and so on and so forth. This rivalry was well crafted and executed by Downey Jr. Jared Harris and Guy Ritchie. The fact that Holmes was up against someone who could match him with wits was a nice change up to the first film. There was no real sense of failure on Holmes' part because everyone else in the film including Watson was not on his level.
With that not being the case here Holmes was broken. In fact the journey his character takes against Moriarty is quite akin to how The Joker tore Batman down in The Dark Knight. The seemingly unbeatable was in fact fallible. It was a dark turn for a very popular literary character whose exploits fare more on the adventure side. Speaking of adventure. There was quite of it and it was rather impressive and entertaining. We get more of Holmes rather stylish sleuthing, mixed with some pretty good fight choreography. Ritchie employs his trademark over cranked footage cut sharply between live takes to give that bullet time look only on steroids. He's used that style in many of his films and it's served him very well. It gets the job done nicely here and it's not overused.
This was the good. Here's the not so good.
This film impresses and entertains with it's 2 main characters. That of course is a great thing. The problem is the need to have other characters essential to the mythology be present to contribute to the narrative. The other characters including Watson weigh the film down. Their only purpose is to be around for Holmes to protect or save. Noomi Rapace's character is a waste of time. Her only reason for existence is to play exposition girl. That's really too bad because such a talented woman doesn't deserve to play 3rd or 4th fiddle to anyone. The reintroduction of old characters coupled with the addition of new ones also inflate the film's run time. At a shade over 2 hours, it plays a lot longer than that. This is the film's biggest problem. It's not an over saturation of characters like in say Spiderman 3. But it was getting close. Fortunately that was avoided.
Just barely.
On the 5 star scale. Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows gets 3 stars with a "Go See It!" recommendation.
That's a wrap for today. Up next is The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo.
I have been looking forward to this one since I heard that Fincher was directing it. I can't wait to see how he manages to make this film his own since the Swedish version was so amazing. More importantly, this upcoming review will be my 150th.
I finally made my goal for the year. 50 films. And not soon enough as we approach 2012.
Until Next Epiode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
Today's review is Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows.
Directed by Guy Ritchie.
Written by Michele & Kieran Mulroney.
Based on characters created by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
Review #149
MPAA Rating: PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and action, and some drug material.
Runtime: 129 min
Cast
Robert Downey Jr. ... Sherlock Holmes
Jude Law ... Dr. John Watson
Noomi Rapace ... Madam Simza Heron
Rachel McAdams ... Irene Adler
Jared Harris ... Professor James Moriarty
Stephen Fry ... Mycroft Holmes
Paul Anderson ... Colonel Sebastian Moran
Kelly Reilly ... Mary Watson
Geraldine James ... Mrs. Hudson
Eddie Marsan ... Inspector Lestrade
William Houston ... Constable Clark
At this time last year we were introduced to a new breed of super hero. Sherlock Holmes. Some of you may debate the super hero label but make no mistake. Sherlock Holmes is a super hero. What defines a super hero? The official definition plays too much to comic books and cartoons so I'll define it myself.
Superhero - Someone who possesses extraordinary abilities beyond that of the normal populace.
If you go by this logic then Sherlock Holmes was the ultimate superhero because he was grounded in reality. His power was his uncanny ability to out think the out thinkable. It didn't hurt that he was a bad ass fighter too boot. This is what Guy Ritchie's 2010 Sherlock Holmes gave us. An entertaining and refreshing look at the ever popular detective. Of course the success of the first meant naturally that a sequel was on the way.
Does this one live up to the reputation it's predecessor set?
Plot
Sherlock Holmes and his sidekick Dr. Watson join forces to outwit and bring down their fiercest adversary, Professor Moriarty.
If you recall the end of the first film. It obviously sets up the premise of this new entry to the franchise. This time Sherlock is matched up against someone of equal intelligence in the form of Professor James Moriarty. It's here where the film excels. It was a lot of fun watching these 2 savants goat at each other tooth and nail. Each man at one point would best the other and so on and so forth. This rivalry was well crafted and executed by Downey Jr. Jared Harris and Guy Ritchie. The fact that Holmes was up against someone who could match him with wits was a nice change up to the first film. There was no real sense of failure on Holmes' part because everyone else in the film including Watson was not on his level.
With that not being the case here Holmes was broken. In fact the journey his character takes against Moriarty is quite akin to how The Joker tore Batman down in The Dark Knight. The seemingly unbeatable was in fact fallible. It was a dark turn for a very popular literary character whose exploits fare more on the adventure side. Speaking of adventure. There was quite of it and it was rather impressive and entertaining. We get more of Holmes rather stylish sleuthing, mixed with some pretty good fight choreography. Ritchie employs his trademark over cranked footage cut sharply between live takes to give that bullet time look only on steroids. He's used that style in many of his films and it's served him very well. It gets the job done nicely here and it's not overused.
This was the good. Here's the not so good.
This film impresses and entertains with it's 2 main characters. That of course is a great thing. The problem is the need to have other characters essential to the mythology be present to contribute to the narrative. The other characters including Watson weigh the film down. Their only purpose is to be around for Holmes to protect or save. Noomi Rapace's character is a waste of time. Her only reason for existence is to play exposition girl. That's really too bad because such a talented woman doesn't deserve to play 3rd or 4th fiddle to anyone. The reintroduction of old characters coupled with the addition of new ones also inflate the film's run time. At a shade over 2 hours, it plays a lot longer than that. This is the film's biggest problem. It's not an over saturation of characters like in say Spiderman 3. But it was getting close. Fortunately that was avoided.
Just barely.
On the 5 star scale. Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows gets 3 stars with a "Go See It!" recommendation.
That's a wrap for today. Up next is The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo.
I have been looking forward to this one since I heard that Fincher was directing it. I can't wait to see how he manages to make this film his own since the Swedish version was so amazing. More importantly, this upcoming review will be my 150th.
I finally made my goal for the year. 50 films. And not soon enough as we approach 2012.
Until Next Epiode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol
Welcome to another episode Lights....Camera....Popcorn!
Today's review is Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol.
Directed by Brad Bird.
Written by Josh Appelbaum & André Nemec.
Based on the television series Mission Impossible created by Bruce Gellar.
Review #148
MPAA Rating: PG-13 for sequences of intense action and violence.
Runtime: 133 min
Cast
Tom Cruise ... Ethan Hunt
Jeremy Renner ... Brandt
Simon Pegg ... Benji
Paula Patton ... Jane
Michael Nyqvist ... Hendricks
Samuli Edelmann ... Wistrom
Anil Kapoor ... Brij Nath
Léa Seydoux ... Sabine Moreau
Josh Holloway ... Hanaway
Miraj Grbic ... Bogdan
Hello everyone. After a few months away. I'm baaaaaaaaaaack! And with a vengeance! So without any further adieu. Here we go.
Movie franchises are in many ways fun, entertaining, engaging, complicated, expensive, controversial, risky and most of all DANGEROUS! The popularity of a film can at times turn the creative wheel into a printing press for the almighty dollar. The perception that dominates the minds of Joe Hollywood is that if a good film makes money then 4 or 5 more will do the same. Does that sophomoric thinking actually work?
Sure it does. But there have been countless failures that outnumber the successes. Why is this the case? It's actually quite simple if you break it down to the very core of the issue. The blueprint that made the first film of the franchise is rarely if ever followed with it's subsequent sequels. The end results end up being flat, underwhelming retreads that may do well at the box office but fail to deliver what we true cinema fans pay our hard earned money for.
ENTERTAINMENT!
The point of this ramble is to bring it to the Mission Impossible franchise. This particular group of films illustrate my argument. The first film was a masterpiece in espionage and mystery. The follow up was an abomination of epic proportions. After several years. The powers that be felt it necessary to revive the IMF force. Enter uber-geek J.J. Abrams and his rejuvenation of the Mission Impossible mythology. He did the smart thing and took elements of the previous installments and made a fluffy but entertaining film. And so we now come to this. After appearing to be done with the exploits of Ethan Hunt. We have been invited to once again see if the world's craziest super agent can save the world.
Plot
The IMF is shut down when it's implicated in the bombing of the Kremlin, causing Ethan Hunt and his new team to go rogue to clear their organization's name.
The first thing to take away from this film is the direction of Brad Bird. If the name sounds familiar it's because it should. But not for the reasons you may be thinking. Bird has directed 3 very critically acclaimed, popular and not to mention high grossing films. The Iron Giant, The Incredibles and Ratatouille. He was also a writer on The Simpsons when it was in it's heyday. So the announcement of Bird being hired to take over for Abrams in the chair for the latest Mission was odd to say the least. His ability to delve into live action was questioned almost immediately. Well people the questions have been answered. Bird nailed this film at almost every level. The one he didn't excel at is the film's biggest problem.
The story.
It's in a word flat. The plot is very to the point and vague at the same time which I thought was impossible. But the script pulls it off. Please don't confuse my comments to suggest that the story sucked. It didn't. It just didn't impress. At least not for a Mission Impossible film. I do realize that the series both TV and film is known for it's hyperbolic tendencies. High octane action with some intricate spy stuff mixed in with a little character development to top it off. But these last 2 features rely too much on the eye candy and not enough "intelligence." You get just enough espionage to remind you that you're not just watching car chases and bullets flying for 2 hours.
Shame.
On the plus side however, the action showcased in Ghost Protocol is top notch and very suspenseful. This is one of the areas that Bird knocked out of the park. Every single fight, chase, recon assignment carried a sense of over the top fun that reminds you why you like action films in the first place. The scene where Ethan scales the hotel in Dubai would make Spiderman piss in his pants. It was one of the greatest action scenes I've seen to date in recent memory. The suspense is magnified 100 fold when seen in IMAX. This is the best complement I can give that scene. It's on par with the scene in the original film when Ethan breaks into Langley and steals the Noc list. In terms of the danger and suspense it exhibited, there's no greater praise.
The film as a whole is very entertaining. I enjoyed it a whole lot. The issue I have after seeing it is, was it necessary to make this one in the first place? The answer is yes and no. Which we all know is the dilemma we all face as movie goers. As long as these films continue to make money. More films are going to be made.
Your mission....should you choose to accept it. Is to decide if these sequels are worth both your time and money.
I've already made my decision. What will you do?
On the 5 star scale. Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol gets 3 stars with a "Go See It!" recommendation.
That's a wrap for today. Up next is Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows.
Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
Today's review is Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol.
Directed by Brad Bird.
Written by Josh Appelbaum & André Nemec.
Based on the television series Mission Impossible created by Bruce Gellar.
Review #148
MPAA Rating: PG-13 for sequences of intense action and violence.
Runtime: 133 min
Cast
Tom Cruise ... Ethan Hunt
Jeremy Renner ... Brandt
Simon Pegg ... Benji
Paula Patton ... Jane
Michael Nyqvist ... Hendricks
Samuli Edelmann ... Wistrom
Anil Kapoor ... Brij Nath
Léa Seydoux ... Sabine Moreau
Josh Holloway ... Hanaway
Miraj Grbic ... Bogdan
Hello everyone. After a few months away. I'm baaaaaaaaaaack! And with a vengeance! So without any further adieu. Here we go.
Movie franchises are in many ways fun, entertaining, engaging, complicated, expensive, controversial, risky and most of all DANGEROUS! The popularity of a film can at times turn the creative wheel into a printing press for the almighty dollar. The perception that dominates the minds of Joe Hollywood is that if a good film makes money then 4 or 5 more will do the same. Does that sophomoric thinking actually work?
Sure it does. But there have been countless failures that outnumber the successes. Why is this the case? It's actually quite simple if you break it down to the very core of the issue. The blueprint that made the first film of the franchise is rarely if ever followed with it's subsequent sequels. The end results end up being flat, underwhelming retreads that may do well at the box office but fail to deliver what we true cinema fans pay our hard earned money for.
ENTERTAINMENT!
The point of this ramble is to bring it to the Mission Impossible franchise. This particular group of films illustrate my argument. The first film was a masterpiece in espionage and mystery. The follow up was an abomination of epic proportions. After several years. The powers that be felt it necessary to revive the IMF force. Enter uber-geek J.J. Abrams and his rejuvenation of the Mission Impossible mythology. He did the smart thing and took elements of the previous installments and made a fluffy but entertaining film. And so we now come to this. After appearing to be done with the exploits of Ethan Hunt. We have been invited to once again see if the world's craziest super agent can save the world.
Plot
The IMF is shut down when it's implicated in the bombing of the Kremlin, causing Ethan Hunt and his new team to go rogue to clear their organization's name.
The first thing to take away from this film is the direction of Brad Bird. If the name sounds familiar it's because it should. But not for the reasons you may be thinking. Bird has directed 3 very critically acclaimed, popular and not to mention high grossing films. The Iron Giant, The Incredibles and Ratatouille. He was also a writer on The Simpsons when it was in it's heyday. So the announcement of Bird being hired to take over for Abrams in the chair for the latest Mission was odd to say the least. His ability to delve into live action was questioned almost immediately. Well people the questions have been answered. Bird nailed this film at almost every level. The one he didn't excel at is the film's biggest problem.
The story.
It's in a word flat. The plot is very to the point and vague at the same time which I thought was impossible. But the script pulls it off. Please don't confuse my comments to suggest that the story sucked. It didn't. It just didn't impress. At least not for a Mission Impossible film. I do realize that the series both TV and film is known for it's hyperbolic tendencies. High octane action with some intricate spy stuff mixed in with a little character development to top it off. But these last 2 features rely too much on the eye candy and not enough "intelligence." You get just enough espionage to remind you that you're not just watching car chases and bullets flying for 2 hours.
Shame.
On the plus side however, the action showcased in Ghost Protocol is top notch and very suspenseful. This is one of the areas that Bird knocked out of the park. Every single fight, chase, recon assignment carried a sense of over the top fun that reminds you why you like action films in the first place. The scene where Ethan scales the hotel in Dubai would make Spiderman piss in his pants. It was one of the greatest action scenes I've seen to date in recent memory. The suspense is magnified 100 fold when seen in IMAX. This is the best complement I can give that scene. It's on par with the scene in the original film when Ethan breaks into Langley and steals the Noc list. In terms of the danger and suspense it exhibited, there's no greater praise.
The film as a whole is very entertaining. I enjoyed it a whole lot. The issue I have after seeing it is, was it necessary to make this one in the first place? The answer is yes and no. Which we all know is the dilemma we all face as movie goers. As long as these films continue to make money. More films are going to be made.
Your mission....should you choose to accept it. Is to decide if these sequels are worth both your time and money.
I've already made my decision. What will you do?
On the 5 star scale. Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol gets 3 stars with a "Go See It!" recommendation.
That's a wrap for today. Up next is Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows.
Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
Puss in Boots
Welcome to another episode Lights....Camera....Popcorn!
Today's review is Puss in Boots.
Directed by Chris Miller.
Written by David H. Steinberg, Tom Wheeler & Jon Zack.
Screen Story by Will Davies & Brian Lynch.
Based on Characters created by Charles Perrault
Review #147
MPAA Rating: PG for some adventure action and mild rude humor.
Runtime: 90 min
Cast
Antonio Banderas ...Puss in Boots
Salma Hayek ...Kitty Softpaws
Zach Galifianakis ...Humpty Dumpty
Billy Bob Thornton ...Jack
Amy Sedaris ...Jill
Constance Marie ...Imelda
Guillermo del Toro ...Moustache Man / Comandate
The Shrek franchise gave all of us a unique and entertaining spin on children's fairytales. After 2 very well done films the following 2 sequels were flat and frankly not up to par with their predecessor's. Instead of continuing to bleed a dry series the creators decided to go the always popular and dangerous spin off route. The focus was the loveable and very funny Puss in Boots from Shrek 2-4. The character despite his small stature has the size to carry his own film. The problem was that the people behind the last 2 Shrek films didn't learn their lesson when making this one.
Plot
A story about the events leading up to the sword fighting cat's meeting with Shrek and his friends.
The plot description is surprisingly vague so I will elaborate a bit.
Basically this is meant to be an origin story/solo Puss in Boots adventure. Puss is portrayed exactly like you remember him from the Shrek films. A swashbuckling Zorro type with a seductive Spanish lover's touch. He develops a friendship with Humpty Dumpty and through some unfortunate events Puss is forced to flee his home in shame. The film tells the story from the point of his exploits after his banishment until he reunites with Humpty with a plan to rebuild both their friendship and Puss' reputation.
I didn't get into any specifics so the synopsis should be pretty clean for all of you.
OK. Now on to what works with Puss in Boots. To start it's Puss himself. The character is so fun and engaging. Antonio Banderas applies his rugged yet soothing accent to Puss which gives him a power that is felt all the way through. He definitely displays the lover before fighter persona expertly. That;s pretty much it character wise.
The rest of the ensemble just didn't do it for me.
That's a real shame too because the story doesn't come to the characters rescue. It's too jumbled with several plot lines and twists that continuity gets lost pretty quickly. From Puss' back story to the friendship between him and Humpty to the introduction of Kitty Soft Paws. There was way too much here to keep together. And I didn't even mention Jack and Jill. The one thing that made the first 2 Shrek films so memorable was the balance between all of the fairytales and the characters. Puss in Boots plays more like dare I say Spiderman 3. Too many villains so to speak and not enough story. The animation was as always top notch but it wasn't enough to save this one from falling into mediocrity.
On the 5 star scale. Puss in Boots gets 2.5 stars with a "Netflix It" recommendation.
That's a wrap for today. Up next is J. Edgar.
Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
Today's review is Puss in Boots.
Directed by Chris Miller.
Written by David H. Steinberg, Tom Wheeler & Jon Zack.
Screen Story by Will Davies & Brian Lynch.
Based on Characters created by Charles Perrault
Review #147
MPAA Rating: PG for some adventure action and mild rude humor.
Runtime: 90 min
Cast
Antonio Banderas ...Puss in Boots
Salma Hayek ...Kitty Softpaws
Zach Galifianakis ...Humpty Dumpty
Billy Bob Thornton ...Jack
Amy Sedaris ...Jill
Constance Marie ...Imelda
Guillermo del Toro ...Moustache Man / Comandate
The Shrek franchise gave all of us a unique and entertaining spin on children's fairytales. After 2 very well done films the following 2 sequels were flat and frankly not up to par with their predecessor's. Instead of continuing to bleed a dry series the creators decided to go the always popular and dangerous spin off route. The focus was the loveable and very funny Puss in Boots from Shrek 2-4. The character despite his small stature has the size to carry his own film. The problem was that the people behind the last 2 Shrek films didn't learn their lesson when making this one.
Plot
A story about the events leading up to the sword fighting cat's meeting with Shrek and his friends.
The plot description is surprisingly vague so I will elaborate a bit.
Basically this is meant to be an origin story/solo Puss in Boots adventure. Puss is portrayed exactly like you remember him from the Shrek films. A swashbuckling Zorro type with a seductive Spanish lover's touch. He develops a friendship with Humpty Dumpty and through some unfortunate events Puss is forced to flee his home in shame. The film tells the story from the point of his exploits after his banishment until he reunites with Humpty with a plan to rebuild both their friendship and Puss' reputation.
I didn't get into any specifics so the synopsis should be pretty clean for all of you.
OK. Now on to what works with Puss in Boots. To start it's Puss himself. The character is so fun and engaging. Antonio Banderas applies his rugged yet soothing accent to Puss which gives him a power that is felt all the way through. He definitely displays the lover before fighter persona expertly. That;s pretty much it character wise.
The rest of the ensemble just didn't do it for me.
That's a real shame too because the story doesn't come to the characters rescue. It's too jumbled with several plot lines and twists that continuity gets lost pretty quickly. From Puss' back story to the friendship between him and Humpty to the introduction of Kitty Soft Paws. There was way too much here to keep together. And I didn't even mention Jack and Jill. The one thing that made the first 2 Shrek films so memorable was the balance between all of the fairytales and the characters. Puss in Boots plays more like dare I say Spiderman 3. Too many villains so to speak and not enough story. The animation was as always top notch but it wasn't enough to save this one from falling into mediocrity.
On the 5 star scale. Puss in Boots gets 2.5 stars with a "Netflix It" recommendation.
That's a wrap for today. Up next is J. Edgar.
Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
Immortals
Welcome to another episode Lights....Camera....Popcorn!
Today's review is Immortals.
Directed by Tarsem Singh.
Written by Charley Parlapanides & Vlas Parlapanides
Review #146
MPAA Rating: R for sequences of strong bloody violence, and a scene of sexuality.
Runtime: 110 min
Cast
Henry Cavill ... Theseus
Mickey Rourke ... King Hyperion
Stephen Dorff ... Stavros
Freida Pinto ... Phaedra
Luke Evans ... Zeus
John Hurt ... Old Man
Joseph Morgan ... Lysander
Anne Day-Jones ... Aethra
Alan Van Sprang ... Dareios
Corey Sevier ... Apollo
Peter Stebbings ... Helios
Daniel Sharman ... Aries
Isabel Lucas ... Athena
Kellan Lutz ... Poseidon
Steve Byers ... Heracles
Stephen McHattie ... Cassander
Matthew G. Taylor ... Mondragon
Romano Orzari ... Icarus
Being a professional geek isn't easy. You have to find time to dedicate to many different pleasures. Comic Books, Videogames, Cartoons, (Yes I still watch them. The new Thundercats RULE!) T.V. Shows and of course Movies. Sticking to just movies. There are so many geek genres to choose from but one that holds a VERY special place in my heart is Greek Mythology. I can't get enough of it. The stories of the Gods of Olympus and the countless journeys of it's mortal warriors fascinate me to no end.
Two of my ALL TIME favorite movies are Clash of The Titans (1981) not that putrid ADHD fueled remake and Troy.
Those 2 films couldn't be more opposite in style and story but dealt with the greek mythology and history. And were entertaining as hell. Tell me you didn't smile when Achilles stood in front of the entire Thessaly army and challenged them after he defeated Boagrius. That was pure badass. Clash of the Titans was a special effects marvel led by stop motion wizard Ray Harryhausen. He found a way to bring all of mythologies greatest creatures to life.
Both films captured the imagination of a time filled with fantasy and reality, and did so masterfully. Then a few years ago we were treated to a pretty good blending of Greek history and comic books with the presentation of 300. Another captivating tale that tickles your imagination while educating you on the fight and ingenuity of a once proud and exceptional race of warriors.
With the lackluster response to the new Titans film we have now been treated to a different Greek mythology legend. The story of Theseus and King Hyperion presented in the visual style of both Singh and 300.
Does it work?
Plot
Theseus is a mortal man chosen by Zeus to lead the fight against the ruthless King Hyperion, who is on a rampage across Greece to obtain a weapon that can destroy humanity.
This film falls into the always dreaded S.O.S category. But then something happened. It was actually pretty good. Visually, Immortals is STUNNING! This was never going to be a problem for Singh whose directorial efforts include The Cell. The horrible J Lo film. It wasn't a good movie but was very stylish which pulls you away from the absurdity of the film as a whole. Singh excelled presenting a "new" Greece. There was an asian/indian touch and flare to the architecture and costume design that was both captivating and pleasing to the eyes.
Now most of you who see this film will think that most of this film was made just like 300. Behind a green screen with the environment digitally inserted in post. You would be right in that line of thinking with 1 major exception. Singh doesn't make it look obvious. The set pieces are majestic and contain many actual structures that carry a unique component to the overall look of the area. It was in short a beautiful film to watch.
This helped Immortals negotiate through a thinning story as the film progressed. Somewhere in the middle the film loses it's mojo due to a lack of character development. Particularly Theseus. He's the hero but Cavill plays him as a yelling, brooding muscleman hell bent on retribution. That all worked later on but in the beginning he had some heart that was stripped away and replaced by an overdeveloped sense of vengeance.
Cavill's performance was not as strong as it could have and should have been. He did however quell any fears of playing Superman in the upcoming Man of Steel. Another issue with his character was the high interest Zeus had with him. It was vaguely explained. He watched over him like Zeus did in Clash of The Titans but here never indicated a real reason why. The Gods don't look over someone without a purpose. It was lack of depth here that weakens an otherwise very well told tale.
Of course this is a re-imagination of the Theseus legend. Many of the events in Immortals are greatly exaggerated or fabricated altogether. Then again when dealing with Greek Mythology it's impossible to believe otherwise. What made this re-telling so cool was the subtle touches. For example and this is not a spoiler. When Theseus fights the minotaur, the beast is shown in a way that I promise you have never seen.
It was brilliant and very original.
This goes back to Singh's incredible imagination and visual sense. He found a way to somehow ground mythological creatures and deities into reality. Even the titans were scary despite being the same size as the gods and mortals. Singh's mastery of style finally shines when the film turns up the action. The fights are very well choreographed and shot. Singh uses high speed cameras to their absolute limit creating a power amongst the warriors paralleled by no none. Especially the gods. When they fight it's brutal, unforgiving and graceful at the same time. The action is blocked and edited well. You get the full experience.
Blood included.
This was another hallmark for a Greek Mythology film. The new Clash of the Titans film chickened out and went the PG-13 route. Immortals said to hell with that and made a balls out R rated film. A film of this genre can't be made any other way and the difference is staggering. Keep the kids away from this one. The blood count here is high and hyper.
It wasn't however gratuitous. Was it over the top? Yes. Stylized? Yes.
I only have 2 gripes with this film. The first being Mickey Rourke's performance. He did a decent job and his character was meant to have an emotionless quality and demeanor. It unfortunately gave off the impression that he was just running through his lines. His lack of an accent hurt too. The 2nd gripe was the 3D. This film was converted to 3D in post and that NEVER translates well on screen. Stepping aside the fact that my disdain for 3D knows no bounds. Showing Immortals in 3D robs the audience from the richness that the film offers through it's visual presentation.
Can we stop with the bloody 3D please? It doesn't make movies any better and more importantly IT JUST SUCKS! Damn you James Cameron!
Overall, Immortals was a very good entry into the Greek Mythology universe that Hollywood has now made popular once again. The problem is that I don't think his visual style can be equaled. Which means the stock for the sequel to Clash of The Titans, Wrath of the Titans has already dropped. And they're still filming it now.
On the 5 star scale. Immortals gets 4 stars with a "Go See It!" recommendation.
That's a wrap for today. Up next is Puss in Boots.
Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
Today's review is Immortals.
Directed by Tarsem Singh.
Written by Charley Parlapanides & Vlas Parlapanides
MPAA Rating: R for sequences of strong bloody violence, and a scene of sexuality.
Runtime: 110 min
Cast
Henry Cavill ... Theseus
Mickey Rourke ... King Hyperion
Stephen Dorff ... Stavros
Freida Pinto ... Phaedra
Luke Evans ... Zeus
John Hurt ... Old Man
Joseph Morgan ... Lysander
Anne Day-Jones ... Aethra
Alan Van Sprang ... Dareios
Corey Sevier ... Apollo
Peter Stebbings ... Helios
Daniel Sharman ... Aries
Isabel Lucas ... Athena
Kellan Lutz ... Poseidon
Steve Byers ... Heracles
Stephen McHattie ... Cassander
Matthew G. Taylor ... Mondragon
Romano Orzari ... Icarus
Being a professional geek isn't easy. You have to find time to dedicate to many different pleasures. Comic Books, Videogames, Cartoons, (Yes I still watch them. The new Thundercats RULE!) T.V. Shows and of course Movies. Sticking to just movies. There are so many geek genres to choose from but one that holds a VERY special place in my heart is Greek Mythology. I can't get enough of it. The stories of the Gods of Olympus and the countless journeys of it's mortal warriors fascinate me to no end.
Two of my ALL TIME favorite movies are Clash of The Titans (1981) not that putrid ADHD fueled remake and Troy.
Those 2 films couldn't be more opposite in style and story but dealt with the greek mythology and history. And were entertaining as hell. Tell me you didn't smile when Achilles stood in front of the entire Thessaly army and challenged them after he defeated Boagrius. That was pure badass. Clash of the Titans was a special effects marvel led by stop motion wizard Ray Harryhausen. He found a way to bring all of mythologies greatest creatures to life.
Both films captured the imagination of a time filled with fantasy and reality, and did so masterfully. Then a few years ago we were treated to a pretty good blending of Greek history and comic books with the presentation of 300. Another captivating tale that tickles your imagination while educating you on the fight and ingenuity of a once proud and exceptional race of warriors.
With the lackluster response to the new Titans film we have now been treated to a different Greek mythology legend. The story of Theseus and King Hyperion presented in the visual style of both Singh and 300.
Does it work?
Plot
Theseus is a mortal man chosen by Zeus to lead the fight against the ruthless King Hyperion, who is on a rampage across Greece to obtain a weapon that can destroy humanity.
This film falls into the always dreaded S.O.S category. But then something happened. It was actually pretty good. Visually, Immortals is STUNNING! This was never going to be a problem for Singh whose directorial efforts include The Cell. The horrible J Lo film. It wasn't a good movie but was very stylish which pulls you away from the absurdity of the film as a whole. Singh excelled presenting a "new" Greece. There was an asian/indian touch and flare to the architecture and costume design that was both captivating and pleasing to the eyes.
Now most of you who see this film will think that most of this film was made just like 300. Behind a green screen with the environment digitally inserted in post. You would be right in that line of thinking with 1 major exception. Singh doesn't make it look obvious. The set pieces are majestic and contain many actual structures that carry a unique component to the overall look of the area. It was in short a beautiful film to watch.
This helped Immortals negotiate through a thinning story as the film progressed. Somewhere in the middle the film loses it's mojo due to a lack of character development. Particularly Theseus. He's the hero but Cavill plays him as a yelling, brooding muscleman hell bent on retribution. That all worked later on but in the beginning he had some heart that was stripped away and replaced by an overdeveloped sense of vengeance.
Cavill's performance was not as strong as it could have and should have been. He did however quell any fears of playing Superman in the upcoming Man of Steel. Another issue with his character was the high interest Zeus had with him. It was vaguely explained. He watched over him like Zeus did in Clash of The Titans but here never indicated a real reason why. The Gods don't look over someone without a purpose. It was lack of depth here that weakens an otherwise very well told tale.
Of course this is a re-imagination of the Theseus legend. Many of the events in Immortals are greatly exaggerated or fabricated altogether. Then again when dealing with Greek Mythology it's impossible to believe otherwise. What made this re-telling so cool was the subtle touches. For example and this is not a spoiler. When Theseus fights the minotaur, the beast is shown in a way that I promise you have never seen.
It was brilliant and very original.
This goes back to Singh's incredible imagination and visual sense. He found a way to somehow ground mythological creatures and deities into reality. Even the titans were scary despite being the same size as the gods and mortals. Singh's mastery of style finally shines when the film turns up the action. The fights are very well choreographed and shot. Singh uses high speed cameras to their absolute limit creating a power amongst the warriors paralleled by no none. Especially the gods. When they fight it's brutal, unforgiving and graceful at the same time. The action is blocked and edited well. You get the full experience.
Blood included.
This was another hallmark for a Greek Mythology film. The new Clash of the Titans film chickened out and went the PG-13 route. Immortals said to hell with that and made a balls out R rated film. A film of this genre can't be made any other way and the difference is staggering. Keep the kids away from this one. The blood count here is high and hyper.
It wasn't however gratuitous. Was it over the top? Yes. Stylized? Yes.
I only have 2 gripes with this film. The first being Mickey Rourke's performance. He did a decent job and his character was meant to have an emotionless quality and demeanor. It unfortunately gave off the impression that he was just running through his lines. His lack of an accent hurt too. The 2nd gripe was the 3D. This film was converted to 3D in post and that NEVER translates well on screen. Stepping aside the fact that my disdain for 3D knows no bounds. Showing Immortals in 3D robs the audience from the richness that the film offers through it's visual presentation.
Can we stop with the bloody 3D please? It doesn't make movies any better and more importantly IT JUST SUCKS! Damn you James Cameron!
Overall, Immortals was a very good entry into the Greek Mythology universe that Hollywood has now made popular once again. The problem is that I don't think his visual style can be equaled. Which means the stock for the sequel to Clash of The Titans, Wrath of the Titans has already dropped. And they're still filming it now.
On the 5 star scale. Immortals gets 4 stars with a "Go See It!" recommendation.
That's a wrap for today. Up next is Puss in Boots.
Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
In Time
Welcome to another episode Lights....Camera....Popcorn!
Today's review is In Time.
Written and Directed by Andrew Niccol.
Review #145
MPAA Rating: PG-13 for violence, some sexualty and partial nudity, and strong language.
Runtime: 109 min
Cast
Cillian Murphy ...Raymond Leon
Justin Timberlake ...Will Salas
Amanda Seyfried ...Sylvia Weis
Vincent Kartheiser ... Philippe Weis
Johnny Galecki ...Borel
Olivia Wilde ...Rachel Salas
Matt Bomer ... Henry Hamilton
Alex Pettyfer ... Fortis
If only had a year to live. A month. A week. A day. An hour. How would you spend it?
We've all dealt with that hypothetical before. And we all answered the same non committal way. But what if you actually did have just a year, month, week, day or hour to live. How would you spend it Could you give an answer?
In Time does it for you in a very clever and original way.
That however doesn't make it a good movie.
Plot
In the not-too-distant future the aging gene has been switched off. To avoid overpopulation, time has become the currency and the way people pay for luxuries and necessities. The rich can live forever, while the rest try to negotiate for their immortality. A poor young man who comes into a fortune of time, though too late to help his mother from dying. He ends up on the run from a police force known as time keepers.
This was a mixed bag film for me. On one hand the concept was aforementioned very clever and original. Replacing money with time is a brilliant way to put a spin on the world and the perception of what true living actually means to us. The biggest problem with In Time is that is becomes 2 different movies between acts 2 and 3. Early on In Time plays like a very sharp sci fi thriller. Filled with intrigue and originality. Then it switches gears to a balls out chase film.
That's where In Time loses me.
For some reason Niccol decided to turn his movie into an action adventure midway through and it fails to deliver on the premise it set at the beginning. Another no no Niccol committed was the action scenes were in a word....BLAH. I've seen better chases in the Geico commercial where the dog is chasing the cat in the cars. They're also mind numbingly repetitive. For a film containing a very original idea, the action was severely lacking in that department.
What truly pains me about In Time was that I honestly felt that the abundance of action wasn't necessary. It was clear as day that this movie was a statement about our current financial crisis. How the rich get richer and how the poor scratch and claw for every last dollar to survive day to day. That is an impression worth expanding on through traditional thriller storytelling arcs. The call for guns and screeching tires didn't seem to fit here. A much more psychological approach would have been so much more satisfying.
The emphasis on action towards the latter half of the movie also kills the chemistry between the 2 main characters Will and Sylvia. Their connection is established and to the point when they first meet and just like he movie their relationship goes a complete and inexplicable 180. It's too bad because the change in their feelings for each other would have made more sense if more attention was paid to it. Instead they develop their newly found partnership as their dodging bullets.
I realize I've spent the better part of this review killing this movie. Don't get me wrong, it deserves the spanking I'm giving it but there was some good here too.
Leading off was the performance of Justin Timberlake. It's time to put away the Mickey Mouse Club and N'Sync jokes when it comes to this cat. He has paid his dues and put forth a pretty solid performance. As the leading man he carries the film very well. There was a believability in his emotions and actions. He showed the aptitude to handle action which creates a wider range for his career. He's not just the dopey comedic actor anymore. He's got some chops and it was on display here with his brooding, soft and very dark Will Salas.
It's because of Timberlake's performance the action wasn't a complete snooze fest. There was a pretty cool scene between him and Alex Pettyfer's character when they "fight" for Will's time. It was formulaic and predictable but well performed. It's time to take him seriously as an actor. Someone I hope gets a real look is the guy who took on Will in the fight. Alex Pettyfer. He's a big time unknown but I know him from his Wu Shu background. He's a very accomplished martial artist who has worked with one of Hong Kong's greatest directors/fight choreographers. Donnie Yen Ji Dan. There's something to be said about that because Yen is a bit of a snob when it comes to working with "gweilo" (white) fighters. Unfortunately his Wu Shu skill was not on display here but he showed some pretty decent acting here as the leader of the minute men.
Sadly, that's all about In Time I take seriously. The rest of the cast just robots their way through this one. I was especially disappointed in Cillian Murphy's performance as the Time Keeper. There was a whiff of apathy after every line he uttered. Shame. I really like Murphy a lot. Even the great ones succumb to the almighty paycheck. Everyone else seemed to follow in line with Murphy.
On the 5 star scale. In Time gets 1.5"Netflix It" recommendation.
That's a wrap for today. Up next is Immortals.
Until Next Episode....I'll Save You A Seat!
"D"
Today's review is In Time.
Written and Directed by Andrew Niccol.
Review #145
MPAA Rating: PG-13 for violence, some sexualty and partial nudity, and strong language.
Runtime: 109 min
Cast
Cillian Murphy ...Raymond Leon
Justin Timberlake ...Will Salas
Amanda Seyfried ...Sylvia Weis
Vincent Kartheiser ... Philippe Weis
Johnny Galecki ...Borel
Olivia Wilde ...Rachel Salas
Matt Bomer ... Henry Hamilton
Alex Pettyfer ... Fortis
If only had a year to live. A month. A week. A day. An hour. How would you spend it?
We've all dealt with that hypothetical before. And we all answered the same non committal way. But what if you actually did have just a year, month, week, day or hour to live. How would you spend it Could you give an answer?
In Time does it for you in a very clever and original way.
That however doesn't make it a good movie.
Plot
In the not-too-distant future the aging gene has been switched off. To avoid overpopulation, time has become the currency and the way people pay for luxuries and necessities. The rich can live forever, while the rest try to negotiate for their immortality. A poor young man who comes into a fortune of time, though too late to help his mother from dying. He ends up on the run from a police force known as time keepers.
This was a mixed bag film for me. On one hand the concept was aforementioned very clever and original. Replacing money with time is a brilliant way to put a spin on the world and the perception of what true living actually means to us. The biggest problem with In Time is that is becomes 2 different movies between acts 2 and 3. Early on In Time plays like a very sharp sci fi thriller. Filled with intrigue and originality. Then it switches gears to a balls out chase film.
That's where In Time loses me.
For some reason Niccol decided to turn his movie into an action adventure midway through and it fails to deliver on the premise it set at the beginning. Another no no Niccol committed was the action scenes were in a word....BLAH. I've seen better chases in the Geico commercial where the dog is chasing the cat in the cars. They're also mind numbingly repetitive. For a film containing a very original idea, the action was severely lacking in that department.
What truly pains me about In Time was that I honestly felt that the abundance of action wasn't necessary. It was clear as day that this movie was a statement about our current financial crisis. How the rich get richer and how the poor scratch and claw for every last dollar to survive day to day. That is an impression worth expanding on through traditional thriller storytelling arcs. The call for guns and screeching tires didn't seem to fit here. A much more psychological approach would have been so much more satisfying.
The emphasis on action towards the latter half of the movie also kills the chemistry between the 2 main characters Will and Sylvia. Their connection is established and to the point when they first meet and just like he movie their relationship goes a complete and inexplicable 180. It's too bad because the change in their feelings for each other would have made more sense if more attention was paid to it. Instead they develop their newly found partnership as their dodging bullets.
I realize I've spent the better part of this review killing this movie. Don't get me wrong, it deserves the spanking I'm giving it but there was some good here too.
Leading off was the performance of Justin Timberlake. It's time to put away the Mickey Mouse Club and N'Sync jokes when it comes to this cat. He has paid his dues and put forth a pretty solid performance. As the leading man he carries the film very well. There was a believability in his emotions and actions. He showed the aptitude to handle action which creates a wider range for his career. He's not just the dopey comedic actor anymore. He's got some chops and it was on display here with his brooding, soft and very dark Will Salas.
It's because of Timberlake's performance the action wasn't a complete snooze fest. There was a pretty cool scene between him and Alex Pettyfer's character when they "fight" for Will's time. It was formulaic and predictable but well performed. It's time to take him seriously as an actor. Someone I hope gets a real look is the guy who took on Will in the fight. Alex Pettyfer. He's a big time unknown but I know him from his Wu Shu background. He's a very accomplished martial artist who has worked with one of Hong Kong's greatest directors/fight choreographers. Donnie Yen Ji Dan. There's something to be said about that because Yen is a bit of a snob when it comes to working with "gweilo" (white) fighters. Unfortunately his Wu Shu skill was not on display here but he showed some pretty decent acting here as the leader of the minute men.
Sadly, that's all about In Time I take seriously. The rest of the cast just robots their way through this one. I was especially disappointed in Cillian Murphy's performance as the Time Keeper. There was a whiff of apathy after every line he uttered. Shame. I really like Murphy a lot. Even the great ones succumb to the almighty paycheck. Everyone else seemed to follow in line with Murphy.
On the 5 star scale. In Time gets 1.5"Netflix It" recommendation.
That's a wrap for today. Up next is Immortals.
Until Next Episode....I'll Save You A Seat!
"D"
The Ides of March
Welcome to another episode Lights....Camera....Popcorn!
Today's review is The Ides of March.
Directed by George Clooney.
Written by George Clooney, Grant Heslov & Beau Willimon.
Based on the play "Farragut North" written by Beau Willimon
Review #144
MPAA Rating: R for pervasive language.
Runtime: 127 min
Cast
Ryan Gosling ...Stephen Myers
George Clooney ...Governor Mike Morris
Philip Seymour Hoffman ...Paul Zara
Paul Giamatti ...Tom Duffy
Evan Rachel Wood ...Molly Stearns
Marisa Tomei ...Ida Horowicz
Jeffrey Wright ...Senator Thompson
Max Minghella ...Ben Harpen
Jennifer Ehle ...Cindy Morris
Gregory Itzin ...Jack Stearns
Michael Mantell ...Senator Pullman
Politics is a very intriguing word. Here's how the dictionary defines it.
pol·i·tics
Noun
1. The science or art of political government.
2. The practice or profession of conducting political affairs.
After I looked it up I came across the idiom for Politics and this is actually a far better representation of what Politics actually is.
pol·i·tics
1. To deal with people in an opportunistic, manipulative, or devious way, as for job advancement.
Plot
An idealistic staffer for a newbie presidential candidate gets a crash course on dirty politics during his stint on the campaign trail.
There is a lot to like about this film. Starting with the performances of the cast highlighted by two individuals. Ryan Gosling and Philip Seymour Hoffman. Gosling is Hollywood's hottie right now in pretty much every sense you can imagine. He's in a ton of flicks right now and he's good in all of them. His latest here is probably his weakest but that doesn't mean he was bad. His character was. Stephen was to put it nicely naive in the world of politics. He knew how to manage and prepare his man but to think that the game can be won cleanly is just absurd thinking. That naivety is portrayed very nicely by Gosling.
On the other side Hoffman does a fantastic job playing the stringent, play by the numbers co manager of Morris' campaign. He's fully aware of the back door tactics that are employed to secure a victory but he chooses not to act on them unless absolutely necessary or if his man is protected. There was a steely sense of loyalty to Hoffman here. It comes out in full force when he gives Stephen a spanking before giving him a very important lesson on how the game is played.
The script was well written with just 1 exception. It felt like there was something lacking. The story is very easy to follow and in some ways predictable for a film of this genre. However, at the midway point the story takes a turn that made sense overall but in doing so it shuts down the previous route the film was taking us. It's that quick u turn that felt rushed. The film was based on a stage play and I think just liberating the screenplay from that wasn't enough to pace this one along.
On the 5 star scale. The Ides of March gets 3.5 stars with a "Go See It!" recommendation.
This was a pretty good film and a fine directorial effort by Clooney. It just didn't have the power that the trailer promised.
That's a wrap for today. Up next is In time.
Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
Today's review is The Ides of March.
Directed by George Clooney.
Written by George Clooney, Grant Heslov & Beau Willimon.
Based on the play "Farragut North" written by Beau Willimon
Review #144
MPAA Rating: R for pervasive language.
Runtime: 127 min
Cast
Ryan Gosling ...Stephen Myers
George Clooney ...Governor Mike Morris
Philip Seymour Hoffman ...Paul Zara
Paul Giamatti ...Tom Duffy
Evan Rachel Wood ...Molly Stearns
Marisa Tomei ...Ida Horowicz
Jeffrey Wright ...Senator Thompson
Max Minghella ...Ben Harpen
Jennifer Ehle ...Cindy Morris
Gregory Itzin ...Jack Stearns
Michael Mantell ...Senator Pullman
Politics is a very intriguing word. Here's how the dictionary defines it.
pol·i·tics
Noun
1. The science or art of political government.
2. The practice or profession of conducting political affairs.
After I looked it up I came across the idiom for Politics and this is actually a far better representation of what Politics actually is.
pol·i·tics
1. To deal with people in an opportunistic, manipulative, or devious way, as for job advancement.
That description not only best defines the word and practice of politics it best summarizes the plot of this film.
Plot
An idealistic staffer for a newbie presidential candidate gets a crash course on dirty politics during his stint on the campaign trail.
There is a lot to like about this film. Starting with the performances of the cast highlighted by two individuals. Ryan Gosling and Philip Seymour Hoffman. Gosling is Hollywood's hottie right now in pretty much every sense you can imagine. He's in a ton of flicks right now and he's good in all of them. His latest here is probably his weakest but that doesn't mean he was bad. His character was. Stephen was to put it nicely naive in the world of politics. He knew how to manage and prepare his man but to think that the game can be won cleanly is just absurd thinking. That naivety is portrayed very nicely by Gosling.
On the other side Hoffman does a fantastic job playing the stringent, play by the numbers co manager of Morris' campaign. He's fully aware of the back door tactics that are employed to secure a victory but he chooses not to act on them unless absolutely necessary or if his man is protected. There was a steely sense of loyalty to Hoffman here. It comes out in full force when he gives Stephen a spanking before giving him a very important lesson on how the game is played.
The script was well written with just 1 exception. It felt like there was something lacking. The story is very easy to follow and in some ways predictable for a film of this genre. However, at the midway point the story takes a turn that made sense overall but in doing so it shuts down the previous route the film was taking us. It's that quick u turn that felt rushed. The film was based on a stage play and I think just liberating the screenplay from that wasn't enough to pace this one along.
On the 5 star scale. The Ides of March gets 3.5 stars with a "Go See It!" recommendation.
This was a pretty good film and a fine directorial effort by Clooney. It just didn't have the power that the trailer promised.
That's a wrap for today. Up next is In time.
Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
Real Steel
Welcome to another episode Lights....Camera....Popcorn!
Today's review is Real Steel.
Directed by Shawn Levy.
Written by John Gatins.
Screen Story by Dan Gilroy & Jeremy Leven.
Partially based on the short story "Steel" Written by Richard Matheson.
Review #143
MPAA Rating: PG-13 for some violence, intense action and brief language.
Runtime: 127 min
Cast
Hugh Jackman ...Charlie Kenton
Dakota Goyo ...Max Kenton
Evangeline Lilly ...Bailey Tallet
Anthony Mackie ...Finn
Kevin Durand ...Ricky
Hope Davis ...Aunt Debra
James Rebhorn ...Marvin
Marco Ruggeri ...Cliff
Karl Yune ...Tak Mashido
Olga Fonda ...Farra Lemkova
You guys remember that game Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robots right? It that had the 2 plastic boxing robots that punched each other senseless until the losers head popped up? Well what if I told you that Hollywood was going to make a movie based on that game. Would you go see it?
If your answer is no then that's too bad because you missed one of the best films of 2011.
Plot
Set in the near future, where robot boxing is a top sport, a struggling promoter feels he's found a champion in a discarded robot. During his hopeful rise to the top, he discovers he has an 11-year-old son who wants to know his father.
The film does contains many of the prototypical stereotypes. A washed up fighter looking to return to some form of prominence is suddenly hit with a string of losses and a situation he never saw coming. There is so much that sets Real Steel apart from the traditional film of this make up. It starts at the top with Hugh Jackman's character. Charlie is a 100% pure beef assh@%e. The way he reacts the second he's told that the mother of his son is dead is just appalling. He then follows his crass response with an even greater reprehensible act while in family court.
The disregard he has for Max is amplified when he interacts with him. There is a very obvious and toxic disconnect between the reunited father and son. Neither wants anything to do with the other but in the interest of self preservation they do what they can to make the best of it. And it's the sport of robot boxing that eventually creates the bond that shapes their relationship the rest of the way. Robot boxing is also what gives Real Steel it's adrenaline charged action. The robot fights are action packed and furious. They are also....
EASY TO FOLLOW!
Hey Hackeal Bay! You need to see this movie so you can witness what it's like to really SEE robots fight. As opposed to the unholy mess you gave us with those 2 horrendous Transformer films. I know there were 3 films. I only saw the first 2.
I will NEVER see the last one.
Everything about the robots was impressive. From their design to the names to their individual fighting styles. It was clear that the SFX team learned what NOT to do from the Transformer films and kept things simple with the robots. Their body designs were very streamlined and smooth. The animation was very detailed, lifelike and also smooth. Your eyes stay trained on the action instead of looping all over the place trying to get a sense of what's going on. The fight choreography was also very impressive for a movie that had mostly digital combatants. I guess when you have Sugar Ray Leonard as your boxing consultant your fights will look as authentic as they possibly can.
The fighting was of course the highlight of the movie but Real Steel has so much more to offer than kick ass combat. This film has a ton of heart. You are drawn in to the adventures that Charlie and Max have as they try to get ATOM (their sparring robot) noticed in the robot fighting game. The more ATOM wins the closer Charlie and Max get. Then the film does something that I absolutely LOVED! I won't say exactly what because it would be considered spoiler material. I'll just say that the Hollywood playbook for a movie with this kind of story arc was thrown out the window. The writers realized the kind of characters they were writing and stuck to their guns. You'll get what I mean after you've seen the movie.
I applauded the way Real Steel handled such a predictable route that films of this genre takes. It makes the film's ending just as satisfying if not more so. It's evident that the scribes did their homework and chiseled off pieces of several classic fighting films and blended them with their original ideas.
It worked beautifully.
My only regret is never knowing how well this film would have fared during the hot summer months. Releasing this in October gives it a "play it safe" appearance. There isn't any competition to challenge Real Steel for film of the summer. The tactic can be seen 1 of 2 ways. On one hand it's a smart play because there isn't any major picture to lure the dollars away. Or it's a punk move. Touchstone and Dreamworks were too chicken to put this up against the big boys. It's too bad because Real Steel really had a "fighting" chance to win the summer.
Either way they have a hit on their hands. This was a film that lived up to it's promotional hype and then some. No question one of the best films of 2011 in the humble opinion of yours truly.
On the 5 star scale. Real Steel gets the full house 5 stars with a "Worth Every Penny" recommendation.
That's a wrap for today. Up next is The Ides of March.
Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
Today's review is Real Steel.
Directed by Shawn Levy.
Written by John Gatins.
Screen Story by Dan Gilroy & Jeremy Leven.
Partially based on the short story "Steel" Written by Richard Matheson.
Review #143
MPAA Rating: PG-13 for some violence, intense action and brief language.
Runtime: 127 min
Cast
Hugh Jackman ...Charlie Kenton
Dakota Goyo ...Max Kenton
Evangeline Lilly ...Bailey Tallet
Anthony Mackie ...Finn
Kevin Durand ...Ricky
Hope Davis ...Aunt Debra
James Rebhorn ...Marvin
Marco Ruggeri ...Cliff
Karl Yune ...Tak Mashido
Olga Fonda ...Farra Lemkova
You guys remember that game Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robots right? It that had the 2 plastic boxing robots that punched each other senseless until the losers head popped up? Well what if I told you that Hollywood was going to make a movie based on that game. Would you go see it?
If your answer is no then that's too bad because you missed one of the best films of 2011.
Plot
Set in the near future, where robot boxing is a top sport, a struggling promoter feels he's found a champion in a discarded robot. During his hopeful rise to the top, he discovers he has an 11-year-old son who wants to know his father.
The film does contains many of the prototypical stereotypes. A washed up fighter looking to return to some form of prominence is suddenly hit with a string of losses and a situation he never saw coming. There is so much that sets Real Steel apart from the traditional film of this make up. It starts at the top with Hugh Jackman's character. Charlie is a 100% pure beef assh@%e. The way he reacts the second he's told that the mother of his son is dead is just appalling. He then follows his crass response with an even greater reprehensible act while in family court.
The disregard he has for Max is amplified when he interacts with him. There is a very obvious and toxic disconnect between the reunited father and son. Neither wants anything to do with the other but in the interest of self preservation they do what they can to make the best of it. And it's the sport of robot boxing that eventually creates the bond that shapes their relationship the rest of the way. Robot boxing is also what gives Real Steel it's adrenaline charged action. The robot fights are action packed and furious. They are also....
EASY TO FOLLOW!
Hey Hackeal Bay! You need to see this movie so you can witness what it's like to really SEE robots fight. As opposed to the unholy mess you gave us with those 2 horrendous Transformer films. I know there were 3 films. I only saw the first 2.
I will NEVER see the last one.
Everything about the robots was impressive. From their design to the names to their individual fighting styles. It was clear that the SFX team learned what NOT to do from the Transformer films and kept things simple with the robots. Their body designs were very streamlined and smooth. The animation was very detailed, lifelike and also smooth. Your eyes stay trained on the action instead of looping all over the place trying to get a sense of what's going on. The fight choreography was also very impressive for a movie that had mostly digital combatants. I guess when you have Sugar Ray Leonard as your boxing consultant your fights will look as authentic as they possibly can.
The fighting was of course the highlight of the movie but Real Steel has so much more to offer than kick ass combat. This film has a ton of heart. You are drawn in to the adventures that Charlie and Max have as they try to get ATOM (their sparring robot) noticed in the robot fighting game. The more ATOM wins the closer Charlie and Max get. Then the film does something that I absolutely LOVED! I won't say exactly what because it would be considered spoiler material. I'll just say that the Hollywood playbook for a movie with this kind of story arc was thrown out the window. The writers realized the kind of characters they were writing and stuck to their guns. You'll get what I mean after you've seen the movie.
I applauded the way Real Steel handled such a predictable route that films of this genre takes. It makes the film's ending just as satisfying if not more so. It's evident that the scribes did their homework and chiseled off pieces of several classic fighting films and blended them with their original ideas.
It worked beautifully.
My only regret is never knowing how well this film would have fared during the hot summer months. Releasing this in October gives it a "play it safe" appearance. There isn't any competition to challenge Real Steel for film of the summer. The tactic can be seen 1 of 2 ways. On one hand it's a smart play because there isn't any major picture to lure the dollars away. Or it's a punk move. Touchstone and Dreamworks were too chicken to put this up against the big boys. It's too bad because Real Steel really had a "fighting" chance to win the summer.
Either way they have a hit on their hands. This was a film that lived up to it's promotional hype and then some. No question one of the best films of 2011 in the humble opinion of yours truly.
On the 5 star scale. Real Steel gets the full house 5 stars with a "Worth Every Penny" recommendation.
That's a wrap for today. Up next is The Ides of March.
Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
50/50
Welcome to another episode Lights....Camera....Popcorn!
Today's review is 50/50.
Directed by Jonathan Levine.
Written by Will Reiser.
Review #142
MPAA Rating: R for language throughout, sexual content and some drug use.
Runtime: 99 min
Cast
Joseph Gordon-Levitt ...Adam
Seth Rogen ...Kyle
Anna Kendrick ...Katherine
Bryce Dallas Howard ...Rachael
Anjelica Huston ...Diane
Serge Houde ...Richard
Matt Frewer ...Mitch
Philip Baker Hall ...Alan
This review is dedicated to everyone I know and anyone that you know that has dealt or is currently dealing with cancer and the many forms the disease takes. God Bless each and every one of them. My thoughts and prayers are with them, all of you and your families.
I miss you Peaches.
Cancer
It's one of the scariest words in the english language. It's also one of the scariest diseases we have ever encountered. What makes it so terrifying is that it's no longer considered an old people's disease. Anyone can get it. Cancer doesn't discriminate against age, race, sex or even health. You can be the healthiest person on the planet and you're not immune. I know this sounds very morbid but I'm not telling you anything you don't already know. My point is that cancer is a ninja disease. It will strike at the moment where you least expect it and it will turn your life and the lives of the ones you love upside down.
Trust me. I'm speaking from experience. Personal experience. VERY personal experience.
Tinseltown has made several "Cancer" movies in the past and for the most part their sole objective was to make everyone in the theater cry. That tactic actually was quite successful depending on who you ask of course. Those films however in my opinion didn't do a great job of accurately depicting what the patient actually goes through.
50/50 comes the closest.
Plot
Adam is a 27 year old writer of radio programs and is diagnosed with a rare form of spinal cancer. With the help of his best friend, his mother, and a young therapist at the cancer center, Adam learns what and who the most important things in his life are.
This film might instantly draw comparisons to Judd Apatow's Funny People. 50/50 gets that comparison mostly because of two members of the Apatow tree. Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg. They are 2 of Apatow's creative partners who collaborated on several films together. Their film styles mirror each other to the point of plagiarism. The biggest difference between Funny People and 50/50 is simple.
50/50 is a great film.
It all starts with the fact that 50/50 is a true story. The film is based on Will Reiser's (the film's writer) real life battle with cancer. He and Rogen have been childhood friends and Rogen convinced Reiser to write a movie about his life, the disease and how he dealt with the treatment. The film also depicts Rogen's support of Reiser during his tumultuous time. This comes out masterfully by the performance of Joseph Gordon Leavitt as Adam. He's a good guy who didn't deserve to have this happen to him. You root for his recovery immediately. You just want him to get better right away and not deal with any pain whatsoever.
Of course we all know that doesn't happen
Adam goes through the pain wringer of both the physical and emotional variety and it's painful to watch. Starting with the relationship he has with his girlfriend. I don't know what it is about Bryce Dallas Howard but someone so talented and beautiful shouldn't be playing characters that are such heartless bitches. Next we have Adam's relationship with his mom. As expected his mom freaks out and does what any mother would which is drop everything and be at her son's side. Adam resists her insistence to be involved which causes very tense strain between the two of them.
Leavitt does a great job changing your emotions about him. You feel for him going through all the pain his treatment is causing him. Then you lose some of that sympathy when he rejects the support of people trying to help him. All of this comes to a head when Adam has to have surgery. The raw emotional power of that moment just washes over you and drops you to your knees. The scene with Adam and Kyle at the park then with Adam at the hospital before he goes under the knife will rip your heart out. If you don't shed a tear during those something's wrong.
My mom and I balled and I'm not ashamed to admit it.
This film touches every possible nerve and that's what gives it it's power. Though billed as a comedy, 50/50 is more of a dramedy. There are some quite funny moments but they are just there to give you a moment of pause as Adam struggles with the fight for his life. The relationships that develop are what makes 50/50 so satisfying at the end. The cast turns in strong performances. Particularly Anna Kendrick as the newbie therapist. Her growth in her profession manifests itself almost simultaneously as Adam's physical appearance declines. That dynamic creates a bond that serves them and the film very nicely.
50/50 is a film that does more than tell a story about a sick man. It reminds you to ALWAYS cherish the people you have in your life because in a snap they can be taken away from you. The movie also reminds you that sometimes life deals a shitty hand but you always have a choice. You can either beat the adversity or be beaten by it.
What will you do?
On the 5 star scale. 50/50 gets 4 stars. With a "Worth Every Penny" recommendation.
That's a wrap for today. Up next is Real Steel.
Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
Today's review is 50/50.
Directed by Jonathan Levine.
Written by Will Reiser.
Review #142
MPAA Rating: R for language throughout, sexual content and some drug use.
Runtime: 99 min
Cast
Joseph Gordon-Levitt ...Adam
Seth Rogen ...Kyle
Anna Kendrick ...Katherine
Bryce Dallas Howard ...Rachael
Anjelica Huston ...Diane
Serge Houde ...Richard
Matt Frewer ...Mitch
Philip Baker Hall ...Alan
This review is dedicated to everyone I know and anyone that you know that has dealt or is currently dealing with cancer and the many forms the disease takes. God Bless each and every one of them. My thoughts and prayers are with them, all of you and your families.
I miss you Peaches.
Cancer
It's one of the scariest words in the english language. It's also one of the scariest diseases we have ever encountered. What makes it so terrifying is that it's no longer considered an old people's disease. Anyone can get it. Cancer doesn't discriminate against age, race, sex or even health. You can be the healthiest person on the planet and you're not immune. I know this sounds very morbid but I'm not telling you anything you don't already know. My point is that cancer is a ninja disease. It will strike at the moment where you least expect it and it will turn your life and the lives of the ones you love upside down.
Trust me. I'm speaking from experience. Personal experience. VERY personal experience.
Tinseltown has made several "Cancer" movies in the past and for the most part their sole objective was to make everyone in the theater cry. That tactic actually was quite successful depending on who you ask of course. Those films however in my opinion didn't do a great job of accurately depicting what the patient actually goes through.
50/50 comes the closest.
Plot
Adam is a 27 year old writer of radio programs and is diagnosed with a rare form of spinal cancer. With the help of his best friend, his mother, and a young therapist at the cancer center, Adam learns what and who the most important things in his life are.
This film might instantly draw comparisons to Judd Apatow's Funny People. 50/50 gets that comparison mostly because of two members of the Apatow tree. Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg. They are 2 of Apatow's creative partners who collaborated on several films together. Their film styles mirror each other to the point of plagiarism. The biggest difference between Funny People and 50/50 is simple.
50/50 is a great film.
It all starts with the fact that 50/50 is a true story. The film is based on Will Reiser's (the film's writer) real life battle with cancer. He and Rogen have been childhood friends and Rogen convinced Reiser to write a movie about his life, the disease and how he dealt with the treatment. The film also depicts Rogen's support of Reiser during his tumultuous time. This comes out masterfully by the performance of Joseph Gordon Leavitt as Adam. He's a good guy who didn't deserve to have this happen to him. You root for his recovery immediately. You just want him to get better right away and not deal with any pain whatsoever.
Of course we all know that doesn't happen
Adam goes through the pain wringer of both the physical and emotional variety and it's painful to watch. Starting with the relationship he has with his girlfriend. I don't know what it is about Bryce Dallas Howard but someone so talented and beautiful shouldn't be playing characters that are such heartless bitches. Next we have Adam's relationship with his mom. As expected his mom freaks out and does what any mother would which is drop everything and be at her son's side. Adam resists her insistence to be involved which causes very tense strain between the two of them.
Leavitt does a great job changing your emotions about him. You feel for him going through all the pain his treatment is causing him. Then you lose some of that sympathy when he rejects the support of people trying to help him. All of this comes to a head when Adam has to have surgery. The raw emotional power of that moment just washes over you and drops you to your knees. The scene with Adam and Kyle at the park then with Adam at the hospital before he goes under the knife will rip your heart out. If you don't shed a tear during those something's wrong.
My mom and I balled and I'm not ashamed to admit it.
This film touches every possible nerve and that's what gives it it's power. Though billed as a comedy, 50/50 is more of a dramedy. There are some quite funny moments but they are just there to give you a moment of pause as Adam struggles with the fight for his life. The relationships that develop are what makes 50/50 so satisfying at the end. The cast turns in strong performances. Particularly Anna Kendrick as the newbie therapist. Her growth in her profession manifests itself almost simultaneously as Adam's physical appearance declines. That dynamic creates a bond that serves them and the film very nicely.
50/50 is a film that does more than tell a story about a sick man. It reminds you to ALWAYS cherish the people you have in your life because in a snap they can be taken away from you. The movie also reminds you that sometimes life deals a shitty hand but you always have a choice. You can either beat the adversity or be beaten by it.
What will you do?
On the 5 star scale. 50/50 gets 4 stars. With a "Worth Every Penny" recommendation.
That's a wrap for today. Up next is Real Steel.
Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
Killer Elite
Welcome to another episode Lights....Camera....Popcorn!
Today's review is Killer Elite.
Directed by Gary McKendry.
Written by Matt Sherring.
Based on the book "The Feather Men" written by Ranulph Fiennes.
Review #141
MPAA Rating: R strong violence, language and some sexuality/nudity.
Runtime: 116 min
Cast
Jason Statham ...Danny
Clive Owen ...Spike
Robert De Niro ...Hunter
Dominic Purcell ...Davies
Aden Young ...Meier
Yvonne Strahovski ...Anne
Ben Mendelsohn ...Martin
Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje ...Agent
Based on a true story.
That phrase should always be met with some serious pause before seeing a movie. A film that's based on a true story can be fun, entertaining, educational, emotional, horrifying, disturbing or any other adjectives you can come up with. They can also be misleading, altered and just plain bad. Killer Elite treads very softly against being a pretty good film and a misleading, altered version of the truth.
Plot
Based on a true story, Killer Elite pits two of the worlds' most elite operatives. Danny, an ex-special ops agent and Hunter, his longtime mentor against the cunning leader of a secret military society. Covering the globe from Australia to Paris, London and the Middle East, Danny and Hunter are plunged into a highly dangerous game of cat and mouse where the predators become the prey.
From the trailer you are led to believe that all Statham does is rescue his former mentor and friend. Kind of like a spy version of Rambo III. This plot description doesn't even scratch the surface when it comes to how convoluted the story actually is. The main story arc was actually pretty interesting. Yes Danny's friend was being held hostage but not for the reasons you might think. The main problem with Killer Elite is that it in actuality it's a Rambo movie when it tries to be a Jason Bourne movie. The main subplot is very intriguing but it gets lost in a wave of nonsense.
Killer Elite tries to be dumb and smart at the same time with it's story. Meaning it tries to balance the over the top action with a slick espionage narrative. It didn't work here. It's actually too bad because the potential was there. I think if a little fat trimming of the script was done a better film would have risen to the surface. More importantly I didn't care about any of the characters. I've said this before but especially in an action film you have to care about someone otherwise the film is just 90 minutes of bullets and booms. This was another unfortunate side effect of the unbalanced script. The people felt out of place with very little development to support their existence.
It's a shame because a very talented cast was wasted here and it didn't have to be.
On the 5 star scale. Killer Elite gets 2 stars with a "Netflix It" recommendation.
That's a wrap for today. Up next is 50/50
Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
Today's review is Killer Elite.
Directed by Gary McKendry.
Written by Matt Sherring.
Based on the book "The Feather Men" written by Ranulph Fiennes.
Review #141
MPAA Rating: R strong violence, language and some sexuality/nudity.
Runtime: 116 min
Cast
Jason Statham ...Danny
Clive Owen ...Spike
Robert De Niro ...Hunter
Dominic Purcell ...Davies
Aden Young ...Meier
Yvonne Strahovski ...Anne
Ben Mendelsohn ...Martin
Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje ...Agent
Based on a true story.
That phrase should always be met with some serious pause before seeing a movie. A film that's based on a true story can be fun, entertaining, educational, emotional, horrifying, disturbing or any other adjectives you can come up with. They can also be misleading, altered and just plain bad. Killer Elite treads very softly against being a pretty good film and a misleading, altered version of the truth.
Plot
Based on a true story, Killer Elite pits two of the worlds' most elite operatives. Danny, an ex-special ops agent and Hunter, his longtime mentor against the cunning leader of a secret military society. Covering the globe from Australia to Paris, London and the Middle East, Danny and Hunter are plunged into a highly dangerous game of cat and mouse where the predators become the prey.
From the trailer you are led to believe that all Statham does is rescue his former mentor and friend. Kind of like a spy version of Rambo III. This plot description doesn't even scratch the surface when it comes to how convoluted the story actually is. The main story arc was actually pretty interesting. Yes Danny's friend was being held hostage but not for the reasons you might think. The main problem with Killer Elite is that it in actuality it's a Rambo movie when it tries to be a Jason Bourne movie. The main subplot is very intriguing but it gets lost in a wave of nonsense.
Killer Elite tries to be dumb and smart at the same time with it's story. Meaning it tries to balance the over the top action with a slick espionage narrative. It didn't work here. It's actually too bad because the potential was there. I think if a little fat trimming of the script was done a better film would have risen to the surface. More importantly I didn't care about any of the characters. I've said this before but especially in an action film you have to care about someone otherwise the film is just 90 minutes of bullets and booms. This was another unfortunate side effect of the unbalanced script. The people felt out of place with very little development to support their existence.
It's a shame because a very talented cast was wasted here and it didn't have to be.
On the 5 star scale. Killer Elite gets 2 stars with a "Netflix It" recommendation.
That's a wrap for today. Up next is 50/50
Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
Moneyball
Welcome to another episode Lights....Camera....Popcorn!
Today's review is Moneyball.
Directed by Bennett Miller.
Written by Aaron Sorkin & Steve Zaillian.
Screen Story by Stan Chervin
Based on the book "Moneyball : The Art of Winning an Unfair Game" written by Michael Lewis.
Review #140
MPAA Rating: PG-13 for some strong language.
Runtime: 133 min
Cast
Brad Pitt ... Billy Beane
Jonah Hill ... Peter Brand
Philip Seymour Hoffman ... Art Howe
Robin Wright ... Sharon
Nick Searcy ... Matt Keough
Ken Medlock ...Grady Fuson
The Oakland A's
Chris Pratt ... Scott Hatteberg
Stephen Bishop ... David Justice
Brent Jennings ... Ron Washington
Casey Bond ... Chad Bradford
Nick Porrazzo ... Jeremy Giambi
Derrin Ebert ... Mike Magnante
Miguel Mendoza ... Ricardo Rincon
Adrian Bellani ... Carlos Peña
Art Ortiz ... Eric Chavez
Royce Clayton ... Miguel Tejada
Baseball movies. We've all seen em. Some of us LOVE em. Some of us don't. I'm not sure what it is but there's just something about Hollywood putting the national pastime on film that just inspires so much emotion on both the positive and negative side. And just like any other sports genre film, baseball movies have gone through every possible story angle. From true accounts of the game and it's players. To fictional stories. To comedy and even romance. We all have our personal favorite baseball movies but there are a select few that would be considered the "All Stars" of the genre.
Here they are in no particular order.
Bull Durham
The Natural
Eight Men Out
61*
Pride of The Yankees
Major League
The Bad News Bears (1976)
A League of Their Own
Field of Dreams
For all the success that these movies have had there have been countless failures. Some of them appealed to kids which took the magic of the game away and replaced it with careless hijinks. Little Big League and Rookie of The Year instantly come to mind. Or you would get a complete 180 and be subjected to a baseball movie with over the top drama.
Does The Fan with Wesley Snipes and Robert De Niro ring any bells?
For me, the best kind of baseball film is one that takes us inside the game and shows us parts of it that us mere mortals aren't privy to on an everyday basis. Moneyball gave the impression that we were going to see exactly that.
So did they? Yes.
Plot
Oakland A's GM Billy Beane is handicapped with the lowest salary constraint in baseball. If he ever wants to win the World Series, Billy must find a competitive advantage. Billy is about to turn baseball on its ear when he uses statistical data to analyze and place value on the players he picks for the team.
The moneyball philosophy was one of the games most controversial and revolutionary concepts since the invention of the baseball glove. For those of you not familiar with what moneyball actually is, allow me to give you a crash course.
Basically, moneyball revolves around the belief that a team with limited resources whether it be talent, finances or both can still compete against the larger market clubs using a specific statistical analysis. That analysis identifies players who don't attract attention in the major statistical categories which for most of us would be batting average, home runs and rbi's. They do however excel in a stat that was somewhat undervalued back when moneyball was new to the game.
That stat is OBP or On Base Percentage. This stat calculates the percentage of times a player gets on base via hit, walk, error, hit by pitch. You could make a case that this stat is more telling of a player's value than their batting average because it details several other ways a player can reach base. This is the basic philosophy that Beane and Brand used to build the A's. They looked at a ton of baseball castoffs that for their career made living's of just getting on base.
When you break it down in the simplest form. If your lineup is full of guys that get on base, common sense would dictate that your team will score a lot of runs. The more runs you score, the more games you will win. Sounds easy enough right? Well tell that to the rest of the league that still believed in the old way a team was constructed which was through scouting and player development.
This is where Moneyball shined the brightest. It did the best possible job of capturing the culture of the game back then when this new tactic was being ridiculed by everyone outside and inside the A's organization. Beane's new team was met with immediate and relentless resistance. From the scouting and player development department to the manager. It was very entertaining to see how Beane handled the blatant defiance to his new "way" of building a team.
This comes across excellently by the performance of Brad Pitt. He plays Billy Beane with a very stoic yet calculated madness. He knows that his new philosophy isn't the way baseball plays the game. He also knows that the mountain of scrutiny will be big enough to cripple the A's season before pitchers and catchers report for spring training. He also knew that desperate times called for desperate measures. A's ownership was not on board with following the Yankees blueprint of "buying" rings so Beane had no choice but become unconventional while balancing the checkbook. Pitt balanced Beane's real life persona with the Hollywood approach which made it much more entertaining.
The rest of the cast was equally up to the task with Pitt. Primarily Jonah Hill as Brand and Philip Seymour Hoffman as Art Howe. Hill was the ying to Pitt's yang. As Beane strolled around presenting moneyball to the rest of the baseball world. Brand was the wizard behind the curtain making sure it actually worked. He was the voice of reason and the brilliant baseball mind that assured that this immensely huge gamble Beane took was going to pay off. Of course playing the villain was Howe who had other motivations to disobey Beane's new take on the team. Hoffman plays Howe with just the right amount of old school baseball man with condescending jerk. This is what made the film so much fun for me. Howe and Beane's back and forth over the lineup and use of the roster force you to see both sides of the argument.
Of course none of this is possible without the solid script penned by Zaillian and of course Mr. Sorkin. It's unclear if this was a tag team effort or if Sorkin wrote the script with a polish by Zaillian or vice versa. Regardless, both men did a fine job presenting a potentially challenging baseball subject to the screen. There were several hurdles to jump before this film could even be considered worth watching. The biggest one being the relevancy of moneyball itself. The concept was implemented close to a decade ago. By now every team employs a version of the moneyball model. So you're dealing with telling a story that most baseball fans are very familiar with. This leads to the second biggest hurdle.
The film's ending.
I won't say what happens to the A's but it doesn't take a genius to figure out how their season went in 2002. This is something that has plagued movies and will continue to do so until the end of time. How do you tell a story where EVERYONE knows the ending. There's no big "Luke I am your father!" punch in the gut twist here. Because of this issue the film suffers it's biggest "error". After close to 2 hours of a pretty good film. Moneyball doesn't know how to finish. It felt that there were too many endings which was a shame because a lot of positive momentum was created only to have it come crashing to a halt due to a lack of direction on the film's final shot. This is a byproduct of the change of director before production. Moneyball was supposed to be helmed by Steven Soderbergh but he left the project. It's funny because the film plays like he never left the chair. If he had stayed on I'm pretty sure he would have ended the film at it's most logical closing point. You'll know what it is when you see it.
The feeling of multiple endings aside, Moneyball was still a very good, fun and entertaining film that should belong in the lineup of best baseball films.
On the 5 star scale. Moneyball gets 4.5 stars with a "Worth Every Penny" recommendation.
That's a wrap for today. Up next is Killer Elite.
Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
Today's review is Moneyball.
Directed by Bennett Miller.
Written by Aaron Sorkin & Steve Zaillian.
Screen Story by Stan Chervin
Based on the book "Moneyball : The Art of Winning an Unfair Game" written by Michael Lewis.
Review #140
MPAA Rating: PG-13 for some strong language.
Runtime: 133 min
Cast
Brad Pitt ... Billy Beane
Jonah Hill ... Peter Brand
Philip Seymour Hoffman ... Art Howe
Robin Wright ... Sharon
Nick Searcy ... Matt Keough
Ken Medlock ...Grady Fuson
Chris Pratt ... Scott Hatteberg
Stephen Bishop ... David Justice
Brent Jennings ... Ron Washington
Casey Bond ... Chad Bradford
Nick Porrazzo ... Jeremy Giambi
Derrin Ebert ... Mike Magnante
Miguel Mendoza ... Ricardo Rincon
Adrian Bellani ... Carlos Peña
Art Ortiz ... Eric Chavez
Royce Clayton ... Miguel Tejada
Baseball movies. We've all seen em. Some of us LOVE em. Some of us don't. I'm not sure what it is but there's just something about Hollywood putting the national pastime on film that just inspires so much emotion on both the positive and negative side. And just like any other sports genre film, baseball movies have gone through every possible story angle. From true accounts of the game and it's players. To fictional stories. To comedy and even romance. We all have our personal favorite baseball movies but there are a select few that would be considered the "All Stars" of the genre.
Here they are in no particular order.
Bull Durham
The Natural
Eight Men Out
61*
Pride of The Yankees
Major League
The Bad News Bears (1976)
A League of Their Own
Field of Dreams
For all the success that these movies have had there have been countless failures. Some of them appealed to kids which took the magic of the game away and replaced it with careless hijinks. Little Big League and Rookie of The Year instantly come to mind. Or you would get a complete 180 and be subjected to a baseball movie with over the top drama.
Does The Fan with Wesley Snipes and Robert De Niro ring any bells?
For me, the best kind of baseball film is one that takes us inside the game and shows us parts of it that us mere mortals aren't privy to on an everyday basis. Moneyball gave the impression that we were going to see exactly that.
So did they? Yes.
Plot
Oakland A's GM Billy Beane is handicapped with the lowest salary constraint in baseball. If he ever wants to win the World Series, Billy must find a competitive advantage. Billy is about to turn baseball on its ear when he uses statistical data to analyze and place value on the players he picks for the team.
The moneyball philosophy was one of the games most controversial and revolutionary concepts since the invention of the baseball glove. For those of you not familiar with what moneyball actually is, allow me to give you a crash course.
Basically, moneyball revolves around the belief that a team with limited resources whether it be talent, finances or both can still compete against the larger market clubs using a specific statistical analysis. That analysis identifies players who don't attract attention in the major statistical categories which for most of us would be batting average, home runs and rbi's. They do however excel in a stat that was somewhat undervalued back when moneyball was new to the game.
That stat is OBP or On Base Percentage. This stat calculates the percentage of times a player gets on base via hit, walk, error, hit by pitch. You could make a case that this stat is more telling of a player's value than their batting average because it details several other ways a player can reach base. This is the basic philosophy that Beane and Brand used to build the A's. They looked at a ton of baseball castoffs that for their career made living's of just getting on base.
When you break it down in the simplest form. If your lineup is full of guys that get on base, common sense would dictate that your team will score a lot of runs. The more runs you score, the more games you will win. Sounds easy enough right? Well tell that to the rest of the league that still believed in the old way a team was constructed which was through scouting and player development.
This is where Moneyball shined the brightest. It did the best possible job of capturing the culture of the game back then when this new tactic was being ridiculed by everyone outside and inside the A's organization. Beane's new team was met with immediate and relentless resistance. From the scouting and player development department to the manager. It was very entertaining to see how Beane handled the blatant defiance to his new "way" of building a team.
This comes across excellently by the performance of Brad Pitt. He plays Billy Beane with a very stoic yet calculated madness. He knows that his new philosophy isn't the way baseball plays the game. He also knows that the mountain of scrutiny will be big enough to cripple the A's season before pitchers and catchers report for spring training. He also knew that desperate times called for desperate measures. A's ownership was not on board with following the Yankees blueprint of "buying" rings so Beane had no choice but become unconventional while balancing the checkbook. Pitt balanced Beane's real life persona with the Hollywood approach which made it much more entertaining.
The rest of the cast was equally up to the task with Pitt. Primarily Jonah Hill as Brand and Philip Seymour Hoffman as Art Howe. Hill was the ying to Pitt's yang. As Beane strolled around presenting moneyball to the rest of the baseball world. Brand was the wizard behind the curtain making sure it actually worked. He was the voice of reason and the brilliant baseball mind that assured that this immensely huge gamble Beane took was going to pay off. Of course playing the villain was Howe who had other motivations to disobey Beane's new take on the team. Hoffman plays Howe with just the right amount of old school baseball man with condescending jerk. This is what made the film so much fun for me. Howe and Beane's back and forth over the lineup and use of the roster force you to see both sides of the argument.
Of course none of this is possible without the solid script penned by Zaillian and of course Mr. Sorkin. It's unclear if this was a tag team effort or if Sorkin wrote the script with a polish by Zaillian or vice versa. Regardless, both men did a fine job presenting a potentially challenging baseball subject to the screen. There were several hurdles to jump before this film could even be considered worth watching. The biggest one being the relevancy of moneyball itself. The concept was implemented close to a decade ago. By now every team employs a version of the moneyball model. So you're dealing with telling a story that most baseball fans are very familiar with. This leads to the second biggest hurdle.
The film's ending.
I won't say what happens to the A's but it doesn't take a genius to figure out how their season went in 2002. This is something that has plagued movies and will continue to do so until the end of time. How do you tell a story where EVERYONE knows the ending. There's no big "Luke I am your father!" punch in the gut twist here. Because of this issue the film suffers it's biggest "error". After close to 2 hours of a pretty good film. Moneyball doesn't know how to finish. It felt that there were too many endings which was a shame because a lot of positive momentum was created only to have it come crashing to a halt due to a lack of direction on the film's final shot. This is a byproduct of the change of director before production. Moneyball was supposed to be helmed by Steven Soderbergh but he left the project. It's funny because the film plays like he never left the chair. If he had stayed on I'm pretty sure he would have ended the film at it's most logical closing point. You'll know what it is when you see it.
The feeling of multiple endings aside, Moneyball was still a very good, fun and entertaining film that should belong in the lineup of best baseball films.
On the 5 star scale. Moneyball gets 4.5 stars with a "Worth Every Penny" recommendation.
That's a wrap for today. Up next is Killer Elite.
Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
Drive
Welcome to another episode Lights....Camera....Popcorn!
Today's review is Drive.
Directed by Nicolas Winding Refn.
Written by Hossein Amini.
Based on the book "Drive" written by James Sallis.
Review #139
MPAA Rating: R for strong brutal bloody violence, language and some nudity.
Runtime: 140 min
Cast
Ryan Gosling ...Driver
Carey Mulligan ...Irene
Bryan Cranston ...Shannon
Albert Brooks ...Bernie Rose
Oscar Isaac ...Standard
Christina Hendricks ...Blanche
Ron Perlman ...Nino
It's very rare in the movie world, especially in an action/thriller film that the main character who's playing a villain is viewed more like the hero. It's a seldom used tactic but if executed properly it can become a very satisfying experience.
Drive does that and then some.
Plot
A Hollywood stunt performer who moonlights as a wheelman discovers that a contract has been put on him after a heist gone wrong.
How does the film pull off the bait and switch I just described? The answer lies with two words. Ryan Gosling. His performance as the driver was so steely and mysterious that you instantly forget that he's a bona fide 100% criminal. It's also because of this that many complaints have been voiced about the film's ending. I'll get to that later. Gosling was not plagued with a lot of dialogue so he was forced to express more facially and through his icy glares.
Normally a character performing like that signals a severe lack of writing. In this case, Gosling's driver was perfectly balanced between his world of comfortable silence and the everyday world. It also magnified the mind numbing mystery behind his character. You have little to no idea who he is, where he comes from or why he's alone.
This too was a fantastic aspect to his character and the film. You as the audience are forced to draw your own conclusions about the driver. It brings a different perspective to the thinking man's movie. Your assumptions of the driver will alter your view on the film. Who you think he is or what his endgame can provide an insight that historically never exists in films of this genre. There is of course a flip side to this coin. All the things I just mentioned that made the film so enjoyable for me and very easily backfire and piss a lot of people off. Some people don't want to be shrouded in mystery when they feel it doesn't properly navigate through the story. That's why it's a risky venture.
To each his own I guess.
Moving on to the rest of the cast which was exceptional. Carey Mulligan was so sweet yet carried just the right amount of sexuality to remind you why the driver falls for her. Bryan Cranston does a great job as the driver's right hand man so to speak. He's getting more film gigs and that's a good thing. He needs to have more meaty roles though. His talent is too good to waste on secondary characters. If you've seen him in Breaking Bad then you know exactly what I'm talking about.
All Hail Walter White!
Finishing up the main players is Albert Brooks as Bernie. I initially thought he wouldn't make a convincing bad guy but he pulls it off nicely. There was a quiet psychosis about him. Very similar to the driver only with a little more volume since he didn't talk much. Bottom line the cast all did their part to make this film as strong as it was.
Now on to the film's ending. I've read other reviews and heard people's comments about the film and for the most part they all felt the same way I do with the end being the one exception. So to those who didn't like how Drive ended allow me to toss this question at you.
What else did you expect?
I promise I will not give away the ending but remember what I said earlier. Despite the heroic things he does in the film the driver is a BAD GUY! He's the film's main villain. Now some of you may debate this but I'm sorry.
It's a fact.
The driver was by no means a saint and none of us should be absolving him of his sins just because he does something heroic. This goes back to what I was talking about the rarity of films that have a villain become somebody you root for. Also you have to remember the mystery surrounding his character. It only makes perfect sense to end the film the way it did. It coincides with the make up of his character. Refn rolled the dice with how he was going to present the driver and for me it was stellar.
On a quick ratings note. The film's violence is very very intense and blood heavy so be forewarned.
On the 5 star scale. Drive gets 3.5 stars with a "Go See It!" recommendation.
That's a wrap for today. Up next is Moneyball.
Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
Today's review is Drive.
Directed by Nicolas Winding Refn.
Written by Hossein Amini.
Based on the book "Drive" written by James Sallis.
Review #139
MPAA Rating: R for strong brutal bloody violence, language and some nudity.
Runtime: 140 min
Cast
Ryan Gosling ...Driver
Carey Mulligan ...Irene
Bryan Cranston ...Shannon
Albert Brooks ...Bernie Rose
Oscar Isaac ...Standard
Christina Hendricks ...Blanche
Ron Perlman ...Nino
It's very rare in the movie world, especially in an action/thriller film that the main character who's playing a villain is viewed more like the hero. It's a seldom used tactic but if executed properly it can become a very satisfying experience.
Drive does that and then some.
Plot
A Hollywood stunt performer who moonlights as a wheelman discovers that a contract has been put on him after a heist gone wrong.
How does the film pull off the bait and switch I just described? The answer lies with two words. Ryan Gosling. His performance as the driver was so steely and mysterious that you instantly forget that he's a bona fide 100% criminal. It's also because of this that many complaints have been voiced about the film's ending. I'll get to that later. Gosling was not plagued with a lot of dialogue so he was forced to express more facially and through his icy glares.
Normally a character performing like that signals a severe lack of writing. In this case, Gosling's driver was perfectly balanced between his world of comfortable silence and the everyday world. It also magnified the mind numbing mystery behind his character. You have little to no idea who he is, where he comes from or why he's alone.
This too was a fantastic aspect to his character and the film. You as the audience are forced to draw your own conclusions about the driver. It brings a different perspective to the thinking man's movie. Your assumptions of the driver will alter your view on the film. Who you think he is or what his endgame can provide an insight that historically never exists in films of this genre. There is of course a flip side to this coin. All the things I just mentioned that made the film so enjoyable for me and very easily backfire and piss a lot of people off. Some people don't want to be shrouded in mystery when they feel it doesn't properly navigate through the story. That's why it's a risky venture.
To each his own I guess.
Moving on to the rest of the cast which was exceptional. Carey Mulligan was so sweet yet carried just the right amount of sexuality to remind you why the driver falls for her. Bryan Cranston does a great job as the driver's right hand man so to speak. He's getting more film gigs and that's a good thing. He needs to have more meaty roles though. His talent is too good to waste on secondary characters. If you've seen him in Breaking Bad then you know exactly what I'm talking about.
All Hail Walter White!
Finishing up the main players is Albert Brooks as Bernie. I initially thought he wouldn't make a convincing bad guy but he pulls it off nicely. There was a quiet psychosis about him. Very similar to the driver only with a little more volume since he didn't talk much. Bottom line the cast all did their part to make this film as strong as it was.
Now on to the film's ending. I've read other reviews and heard people's comments about the film and for the most part they all felt the same way I do with the end being the one exception. So to those who didn't like how Drive ended allow me to toss this question at you.
What else did you expect?
I promise I will not give away the ending but remember what I said earlier. Despite the heroic things he does in the film the driver is a BAD GUY! He's the film's main villain. Now some of you may debate this but I'm sorry.
It's a fact.
The driver was by no means a saint and none of us should be absolving him of his sins just because he does something heroic. This goes back to what I was talking about the rarity of films that have a villain become somebody you root for. Also you have to remember the mystery surrounding his character. It only makes perfect sense to end the film the way it did. It coincides with the make up of his character. Refn rolled the dice with how he was going to present the driver and for me it was stellar.
On a quick ratings note. The film's violence is very very intense and blood heavy so be forewarned.
On the 5 star scale. Drive gets 3.5 stars with a "Go See It!" recommendation.
That's a wrap for today. Up next is Moneyball.
Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
Warrior
Welcome to another episode Lights....Camera....Popcorn!
Today's review is Warrior.
Directed by Gavin O'Connor.
Written by Gavin O'Connor, Anthony Tambakis & Cliff Dorfman.
Screen Story by Gavin O'Connor & Cliff Dorfman.
Review #138
MPAA Rating: PG-13 for sequences of intense mixed martial arts fighting, some language and thematic material.
Runtime: 140 min
Cast
Joel Edgerton ... Brendan Conlon
Tom Hardy ... Tommy Conlon
Nick Nolte ... Paddy Conlon
Jennifer Morrison ... Tess Conlon
Frank Grillo ... Frank Campana
Kevin Dunn ... Principal Zito
Maximiliano Hernández ... Colt Boyd
Bryan Callen ... Himself
Josh Rosenthal ... Referee Josh Rosenthal
Kurt Angle ... Koba
Erik Apple ... Pete 'Mad Dog' Grimes
Anthony Johnson ... Orlando 'Midnight' Le
Nathan Marquardt ... Karl Kruller
Roan Carneiro ... Marco Santos
Daniel Stevens ... Francisco Barbosa
Warrior has been a heavily promoted film. It had to be due to it's small stature. The trailers and TV spots have painted this film as The Fighter in the MMA world instead of boxing. It's easy to feel that way but Warrior is different in several ways.
Some better and some not.
Plot
The youngest son of an alcoholic former boxer returns home, where he's trained by his father for competition in a mixed martial arts tournament -- a path that puts the fighter on a collision corner with his older brother.
The parts that don't work for this movie is the plot. It's too generic and overdone. The strife between the brothers and father is nothing new to the genre. To make matters worse it's just glossed over as opposed to being fleshed out and properly explained. This drags the film down in several aspects. In pacing, structure and more importantly entertainment. There are only 2 things that make this film watchable. Here's the good.
Joel Edgerton and Tom Hardy.
These 2 are the life and soul of Warrior. Hardy in particular turns in a terrific performance. It's not going to get any award buzz but it was still strong. His back story was interesting enough and the film does a pretty good job shrouding the reasons behind his gruff and deliberate demeanor. He was seriously jacked for this role. I can't wait to see how he tackles Bane in The Dark Knight Rises.
Then the film takes that momentum and kills it by not following through on the mystery. The explanation though believable was weak and poorly presented. I keep coming back to this because the story flaws hinder Warrior from being superior to The Fighter and trust me when I say the potential was there. Having said that the performances of the Edgerton and Hardy drive this film forward to a very satisfying conclusion.
The final fight between the brothers left me wondering how in the world are they going to end this movie. Who was going to win the tournament. Both men had equally important and honorable reasons to win the money but only 1 man could walk away from the cage victorious. Then out of nowhere the fight turns into a family therapy session and it was BRILLIANT! I won't say any more about it except that it was the only way this film and fight could have ended.
It also saved this movie from getting a lower score.
Warrior probably should get your $$$. I just wish it hadn't sacrificed so much depth within the story. A little more punch (no pun intended) and we would have been talking about something special.
On the 5 star scale. Warrior gets 3 stars with a split. "Go See It/Netflix It" recommendation.
That's a wrap for today. Up next is Drive.
Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
Today's review is Warrior.
Directed by Gavin O'Connor.
Written by Gavin O'Connor, Anthony Tambakis & Cliff Dorfman.
Screen Story by Gavin O'Connor & Cliff Dorfman.
Review #138
MPAA Rating: PG-13 for sequences of intense mixed martial arts fighting, some language and thematic material.
Runtime: 140 min
Cast
Joel Edgerton ... Brendan Conlon
Tom Hardy ... Tommy Conlon
Nick Nolte ... Paddy Conlon
Jennifer Morrison ... Tess Conlon
Frank Grillo ... Frank Campana
Kevin Dunn ... Principal Zito
Maximiliano Hernández ... Colt Boyd
Bryan Callen ... Himself
Josh Rosenthal ... Referee Josh Rosenthal
Kurt Angle ... Koba
Erik Apple ... Pete 'Mad Dog' Grimes
Anthony Johnson ... Orlando 'Midnight' Le
Nathan Marquardt ... Karl Kruller
Roan Carneiro ... Marco Santos
Daniel Stevens ... Francisco Barbosa
Warrior has been a heavily promoted film. It had to be due to it's small stature. The trailers and TV spots have painted this film as The Fighter in the MMA world instead of boxing. It's easy to feel that way but Warrior is different in several ways.
Some better and some not.
Plot
The youngest son of an alcoholic former boxer returns home, where he's trained by his father for competition in a mixed martial arts tournament -- a path that puts the fighter on a collision corner with his older brother.
The parts that don't work for this movie is the plot. It's too generic and overdone. The strife between the brothers and father is nothing new to the genre. To make matters worse it's just glossed over as opposed to being fleshed out and properly explained. This drags the film down in several aspects. In pacing, structure and more importantly entertainment. There are only 2 things that make this film watchable. Here's the good.
Joel Edgerton and Tom Hardy.
These 2 are the life and soul of Warrior. Hardy in particular turns in a terrific performance. It's not going to get any award buzz but it was still strong. His back story was interesting enough and the film does a pretty good job shrouding the reasons behind his gruff and deliberate demeanor. He was seriously jacked for this role. I can't wait to see how he tackles Bane in The Dark Knight Rises.
Then the film takes that momentum and kills it by not following through on the mystery. The explanation though believable was weak and poorly presented. I keep coming back to this because the story flaws hinder Warrior from being superior to The Fighter and trust me when I say the potential was there. Having said that the performances of the Edgerton and Hardy drive this film forward to a very satisfying conclusion.
The final fight between the brothers left me wondering how in the world are they going to end this movie. Who was going to win the tournament. Both men had equally important and honorable reasons to win the money but only 1 man could walk away from the cage victorious. Then out of nowhere the fight turns into a family therapy session and it was BRILLIANT! I won't say any more about it except that it was the only way this film and fight could have ended.
It also saved this movie from getting a lower score.
Warrior probably should get your $$$. I just wish it hadn't sacrificed so much depth within the story. A little more punch (no pun intended) and we would have been talking about something special.
On the 5 star scale. Warrior gets 3 stars with a split. "Go See It/Netflix It" recommendation.
That's a wrap for today. Up next is Drive.
Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
Contagion
Welcome to another episode Lights....Camera....Popcorn!
Today's review is Contagion.
Directed by Steven Soderbergh.
Written by Scott Z. Burns.
Review #137
MPAA Rating: PG-13 for disturbing content and some language.
Runtime: 105 min
Cast
Gwyneth Paltrow ... Beth Emhoff
Matt Damon ... Mitch Emhoff
Laurence Fishburne ... Dr. Ellis Cheever
Marion Cotillard ... Dr. Leonora Orantes
Kate Winslet ... Dr. Erin Mears
Jennifer Ehle ... Dr. Ally Hextall
Elliott Gould ... Dr. Ian Sussman
Enrico Colantoni ... Dennis French
Bryan Cranston ... Lyle Haggerty
If you can, try and think about the scariest movie you ever saw. I know for most of you it will probably be what you would deem a traditional horror film like Friday the 13th or A Nightmare on Elm Street. Of course one of the scariest films of all time is The Exorcist. That film scarred me for life. Want proof. I'm 35 years old and I still can't see that film. When they re-released it in theaters with an extended cut I ran out of the theater when the trailer played. Hand to bible truth.
My point is that Contagion is now on my list as one of the scariest films I have ever seen.
Plot
An action-thriller centered on the threat posed by a deadly disease and an international team of doctors contracted by the CDC to deal with the outbreak.
Before any of you start freaking out. I'll explain what I mean. What makes Contagion more horrifying than any so called horror film that's out now is the plain and simple fact that it's based in REALITY. No matter how scary it can be there's no such thing as a dude infiltrating your dreams and killing you in your sleep. Or some hockey mask wearing zombie walking around with a machete in the woods. There is however such a thing as a virus that can attack your body so rapidly that you're done before you even realize you're sick. Even scarier is that virus has no cure or vaccine and is spreading faster than you can breathe. This is the scenario that Contagion presents to you and it's a very INTENSE experience.
Now some of you may be asking....How is this movie any different than Outbreak or any other film that has tackled this topic of an unstoppable epidemic. The answer is both simple and complex at the same time. You have to forgive me since I don't remember Outbreak that much but if I recall correctly that film was more of the action thriller variety. This one was much darker and serious in tone, delivery and presentation. That in itself makes the film work much better. The virus in the film though fictitious is highly plausible and as a result creates a false sense of safety. This was something I wasn't expecting to feel watching this movie.
It's thought provoking in ways I didn't imagine. I dare you not to buy a case of Purell after you see this.
Contagion breaks up into 4 separate quadrants. The film spends an equal amount of time to each one and this is where the film succeeds and fails. After building a tremendous amount of pressure and tension the film gives you a break as you follow the different events unfolding. Keeping in mind that as this is happening people are dropping like flies at alarming rates. The momentum gained at the beginning gets muddled in one particular story arc that though important to the big picture just doesn't seem as valuable as the rest of the plot seemed to be. That being said, Contagion does a great job showcasing the breakdown of society and civilization once the virus reaches epidemic proportions. The riots and looting were staged with just the right amount of chaos without being too stylized.
Bottom line, the plot description has this film all wrong. Contagion is in no way, shape or form an action thriller. This is a horror film plain and simple. It may not be a "traditional" horror film but I can't think of anything scarier than catching an incurable virus from someone breathing on me or touching something they touched.
Can you?
On the 5 star scale. Contagion gets 4 stars with a "Go See It!" Recommendation.
That's a wrap for today. Up next is Warrior.
Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
Today's review is Contagion.
Directed by Steven Soderbergh.
Written by Scott Z. Burns.
Review #137
MPAA Rating: PG-13 for disturbing content and some language.
Runtime: 105 min
Cast
Gwyneth Paltrow ... Beth Emhoff
Matt Damon ... Mitch Emhoff
Laurence Fishburne ... Dr. Ellis Cheever
Marion Cotillard ... Dr. Leonora Orantes
Kate Winslet ... Dr. Erin Mears
Jennifer Ehle ... Dr. Ally Hextall
Elliott Gould ... Dr. Ian Sussman
Enrico Colantoni ... Dennis French
Bryan Cranston ... Lyle Haggerty
If you can, try and think about the scariest movie you ever saw. I know for most of you it will probably be what you would deem a traditional horror film like Friday the 13th or A Nightmare on Elm Street. Of course one of the scariest films of all time is The Exorcist. That film scarred me for life. Want proof. I'm 35 years old and I still can't see that film. When they re-released it in theaters with an extended cut I ran out of the theater when the trailer played. Hand to bible truth.
My point is that Contagion is now on my list as one of the scariest films I have ever seen.
Plot
An action-thriller centered on the threat posed by a deadly disease and an international team of doctors contracted by the CDC to deal with the outbreak.
Before any of you start freaking out. I'll explain what I mean. What makes Contagion more horrifying than any so called horror film that's out now is the plain and simple fact that it's based in REALITY. No matter how scary it can be there's no such thing as a dude infiltrating your dreams and killing you in your sleep. Or some hockey mask wearing zombie walking around with a machete in the woods. There is however such a thing as a virus that can attack your body so rapidly that you're done before you even realize you're sick. Even scarier is that virus has no cure or vaccine and is spreading faster than you can breathe. This is the scenario that Contagion presents to you and it's a very INTENSE experience.
Now some of you may be asking....How is this movie any different than Outbreak or any other film that has tackled this topic of an unstoppable epidemic. The answer is both simple and complex at the same time. You have to forgive me since I don't remember Outbreak that much but if I recall correctly that film was more of the action thriller variety. This one was much darker and serious in tone, delivery and presentation. That in itself makes the film work much better. The virus in the film though fictitious is highly plausible and as a result creates a false sense of safety. This was something I wasn't expecting to feel watching this movie.
It's thought provoking in ways I didn't imagine. I dare you not to buy a case of Purell after you see this.
Contagion breaks up into 4 separate quadrants. The film spends an equal amount of time to each one and this is where the film succeeds and fails. After building a tremendous amount of pressure and tension the film gives you a break as you follow the different events unfolding. Keeping in mind that as this is happening people are dropping like flies at alarming rates. The momentum gained at the beginning gets muddled in one particular story arc that though important to the big picture just doesn't seem as valuable as the rest of the plot seemed to be. That being said, Contagion does a great job showcasing the breakdown of society and civilization once the virus reaches epidemic proportions. The riots and looting were staged with just the right amount of chaos without being too stylized.
Bottom line, the plot description has this film all wrong. Contagion is in no way, shape or form an action thriller. This is a horror film plain and simple. It may not be a "traditional" horror film but I can't think of anything scarier than catching an incurable virus from someone breathing on me or touching something they touched.
Can you?
On the 5 star scale. Contagion gets 4 stars with a "Go See It!" Recommendation.
That's a wrap for today. Up next is Warrior.
Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
Shark Night 3D
Welcome to another episode Lights....Camera....Popcorn!
Today's review is Shark Night 3D.
Directed by David R. Ellis.
Written by Will Hayes & Jesse Studenberg.
Review #136
MPAA Rating: PG-13 for violence and terror, disturbing images, sexual references, partial nudity, language and thematic material.
Runtime: 91 min
Cast
Sara Paxton ...Sara
Dustin Milligan ...Nick
Chris Carmack ...Dennis
Katharine McPhee ...Beth
Chris Zylka ...Blake
Alyssa Diaz ...Maya
Joel David Moore ...Gordon
Sinqua Walls ...Malik
Donal Logue ...Sabin
Joshua Leonard ...Red
Steven Spielberg and a little mechanical shark named Bruce had to ruin it for everyone. Thanks to Jaws, people have developed a misguided and uneducated fear of sharks. And rightfully so in my opinion. That was one scary bastard. The film also had another negative side effect. In this case it was the film industry that was affected. The monumental success of Jaws spawned multiple and very inferior sequels and worse.....
Copycats.
I can go down the list but we all know for the most part which films I'm talking about. Thinking mostly of Orca, Piranha and Piranha II. Here's a show biz trivia nugget for you. Do you know who directed Piranha II? None other than Mr. Avatar himself James Cameron. Living proof that you literally have to "swim" your way to the top as a film maker.
Sorry. I couldn't resist the pun.
My point is that none of those films were able to capture the fanfare, finances and more importantly entertainment value that Jaws created. This trend continues today with the genre's latest attempt to scare you out of the water.
Does it work....HELL NO! Was it that bad....Not really....Sort of.
Plot
A weekend at a lake house in the Louisiana Gulf turns into a nightmare for seven vacationers as they are subjected to fresh-water shark attacks.
If there's one thing that films like these all have in common is a very underdeveloped plot. Shark Night is no different. The film wastes no time not letting you get to know the characters. Identifying with them. Bond with them. Care for them. Why? DUH! Cause they're all shark bait. That's why REAL actors don't come anywhere near films like this. Now let me clarify what I mean by real actors. I am no way suggesting that the players in this movie can't act. I'm just stating the obvious. Which is aside from Deep Blue Sea which had a pretty solid name cast headlined by Samuel L. Jackson (who by the way had probably the greatest death in any shark film. Including Robert Shaw being eaten alive in Jaws), Thomas Jane, LL Cool J and even Stellan Skarsgard. When was the last time you saw household names in a film if this ilk.
The defense rests.
This is a MAJOR flaw for films like this. If they want to be taken seriously and most of the time they don't. The casting NEEDS to improve. For this film it wasn't that necessary. Getting back to the story or lack there of. The reason for the kids party or need to travel to a deserted lake with no cell phone reception is obviously immaterial. The reason for the shark attacks however is VERY material and I have to say I bought it.
To an extent.
I'll put it this way. There are 2 major motives for the shark attacks. Which of course get explained in traditional villain monologue fashion. The only problem with 1 of the explanations is that there was no visual evidence of said villain's reason for unleashing the sharks on the people. This was a simple script flaw that could have and should have been dealt with. It would have taken 15-30 seconds in flashback and bingo you have more depth behind a very shallow plot. I know I sound WAY too critical about a film called Shark Night but the one thing that got me to see this movie in the first place was the fresh premise for the attacks. It was pretty original to a degree and curiosity got the better of me. Am I disappointed in the end result. Nope cause I wasn't surprised that the film goes the route it does cause it just follows the horror film playbook.
Step by predictable step.
I am however, disappointed in 2 things. The first being the look of the CG sharks. They looked rather lame with the exception of the one close up of the Tiger Shark. The rest of them looked like unrendered versions that were approved by the director. For a film with a budget of $28,000,000, a few extra bucks could have gone to make the sharks more life like. Second is the shark kills. Now I realize that you can't get too creative with a shark attack but the film cheats a lot with the victim being dragged under water and never resurfacing. What makes this even more disappointing is the fact there was a pretty original shark kill. I find it very hard to believe that the writers couldn't find other ways to dispatch our lovely victims.
Bottom line is this. Does Shark Night revolutionize the killer shark film? Absolutely not.
Is it the worst killer shark film ever made? Absolutely not.
Could it have revolutionized the killer shark film? Yes. Possibly. And that's what bugs me about this one. The potential was there and instead of really trying to break the mold they just adjusted it.
Thanks a lot Steve.
On the 5 star scale. Shark Night 3D gets. 1 star with a "Netflix It!" recommendation.
That's a wrap for today. Up next is Contagion.
Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
Today's review is Shark Night 3D.
Directed by David R. Ellis.
Written by Will Hayes & Jesse Studenberg.
Review #136
MPAA Rating: PG-13 for violence and terror, disturbing images, sexual references, partial nudity, language and thematic material.
Runtime: 91 min
Cast
Sara Paxton ...Sara
Dustin Milligan ...Nick
Chris Carmack ...Dennis
Katharine McPhee ...Beth
Chris Zylka ...Blake
Alyssa Diaz ...Maya
Joel David Moore ...Gordon
Sinqua Walls ...Malik
Donal Logue ...Sabin
Joshua Leonard ...Red
Steven Spielberg and a little mechanical shark named Bruce had to ruin it for everyone. Thanks to Jaws, people have developed a misguided and uneducated fear of sharks. And rightfully so in my opinion. That was one scary bastard. The film also had another negative side effect. In this case it was the film industry that was affected. The monumental success of Jaws spawned multiple and very inferior sequels and worse.....
Copycats.
I can go down the list but we all know for the most part which films I'm talking about. Thinking mostly of Orca, Piranha and Piranha II. Here's a show biz trivia nugget for you. Do you know who directed Piranha II? None other than Mr. Avatar himself James Cameron. Living proof that you literally have to "swim" your way to the top as a film maker.
Sorry. I couldn't resist the pun.
My point is that none of those films were able to capture the fanfare, finances and more importantly entertainment value that Jaws created. This trend continues today with the genre's latest attempt to scare you out of the water.
Does it work....HELL NO! Was it that bad....Not really....Sort of.
Plot
A weekend at a lake house in the Louisiana Gulf turns into a nightmare for seven vacationers as they are subjected to fresh-water shark attacks.
If there's one thing that films like these all have in common is a very underdeveloped plot. Shark Night is no different. The film wastes no time not letting you get to know the characters. Identifying with them. Bond with them. Care for them. Why? DUH! Cause they're all shark bait. That's why REAL actors don't come anywhere near films like this. Now let me clarify what I mean by real actors. I am no way suggesting that the players in this movie can't act. I'm just stating the obvious. Which is aside from Deep Blue Sea which had a pretty solid name cast headlined by Samuel L. Jackson (who by the way had probably the greatest death in any shark film. Including Robert Shaw being eaten alive in Jaws), Thomas Jane, LL Cool J and even Stellan Skarsgard. When was the last time you saw household names in a film if this ilk.
The defense rests.
This is a MAJOR flaw for films like this. If they want to be taken seriously and most of the time they don't. The casting NEEDS to improve. For this film it wasn't that necessary. Getting back to the story or lack there of. The reason for the kids party or need to travel to a deserted lake with no cell phone reception is obviously immaterial. The reason for the shark attacks however is VERY material and I have to say I bought it.
To an extent.
I'll put it this way. There are 2 major motives for the shark attacks. Which of course get explained in traditional villain monologue fashion. The only problem with 1 of the explanations is that there was no visual evidence of said villain's reason for unleashing the sharks on the people. This was a simple script flaw that could have and should have been dealt with. It would have taken 15-30 seconds in flashback and bingo you have more depth behind a very shallow plot. I know I sound WAY too critical about a film called Shark Night but the one thing that got me to see this movie in the first place was the fresh premise for the attacks. It was pretty original to a degree and curiosity got the better of me. Am I disappointed in the end result. Nope cause I wasn't surprised that the film goes the route it does cause it just follows the horror film playbook.
Step by predictable step.
I am however, disappointed in 2 things. The first being the look of the CG sharks. They looked rather lame with the exception of the one close up of the Tiger Shark. The rest of them looked like unrendered versions that were approved by the director. For a film with a budget of $28,000,000, a few extra bucks could have gone to make the sharks more life like. Second is the shark kills. Now I realize that you can't get too creative with a shark attack but the film cheats a lot with the victim being dragged under water and never resurfacing. What makes this even more disappointing is the fact there was a pretty original shark kill. I find it very hard to believe that the writers couldn't find other ways to dispatch our lovely victims.
Bottom line is this. Does Shark Night revolutionize the killer shark film? Absolutely not.
Is it the worst killer shark film ever made? Absolutely not.
Could it have revolutionized the killer shark film? Yes. Possibly. And that's what bugs me about this one. The potential was there and instead of really trying to break the mold they just adjusted it.
Thanks a lot Steve.
On the 5 star scale. Shark Night 3D gets. 1 star with a "Netflix It!" recommendation.
That's a wrap for today. Up next is Contagion.
Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)