Rating: 4/5 Check it out
The best summer blockbuster that no one will see.
Based on a 1974 film of the same name this movie has more of a classic movie feel than a modern summer blockbuster. This is the kind of movie they're talking about when they use terms like "thrill-a-minute", and "edge of your seat". It grips you from the start and doesn't let go. What's surprising about this movie is it doesn't rely on special effects or high speed chases. This is a thriller driven entirely by the level of acting and commitment of those who made it and that adds a very real element that you don't find very often. This movie's simplicity is it's greatest strength and it will also turn out to be it's downfall. No one cares about a drama that holds true human emotion. Give us robots, 3D, cars blowing up, and people in super powered suits.
The plot is rather simple. A New York City subway car is hijacked in the middle of Manhattan by a gang led by a man who simply calls himself Ryder (John Travolta). After the hijacking Ryder makes contact with the subway dispatch to make his demands. The dispatcher who receives the call is Walter Garber (Denzel Washington). Garber already has his share of hardships which is only compounded by Ryder's invasion of his day. Ryder has no interest in talking to a hostage negotiator (John Turturro), or even the mayor of New York(James Gandolfini). He finds a kindred spirit in Garber and the two take a ride through their past and their souls during the course of these hostage negotiations.
It is in the telling that this movie steps up and nails it. Denzel Washington and John Travolta give career-level performances here. Both actors play to their strengths, with Travolta playing a level of crazy he has only hinted at in the past, and Denzel nailing the everyman who has been pushed to the brink. The characters are so rich and their chemistry is incredible. The suspense and thrills unfold at a perfect pace and not once do you doubt these characters motivation. The language is rather coarse but it's not for shock value it just fits these characters. The movie is shot with a very gritty in your face style similar to some of Tony Scott's other thrillers (Man On Fire, and Domino). Thankfully they don't play around with the camera so much that you get sick but it definitely puts the action right in your face.
This movie is a testament to how powerful the right story can be. It just has two main characters in a struggle, only a handful of sets, minimal effects, and a dynamite ending. A true testament to what real cinema is capable of. Unfortunately it doesn't have enough bells and whistles to attract a large audience. Still I highly recommend checking it out if you get tired of the very polished garbage Hollywood usually throws our way. You may find that it makes you realize how wonderful a simple movie can be.
The Taking Of Pelham 1 2 3 at IMDB
121 minutes
Rated R for violence and pervasive language.
My Statement Of Purpose
Friday, June 12, 2009
Friday, June 5, 2009
The Hangover (review)
Rating: 3/5 Worth watching
Finally! A hangover that doesn't need a cure.
Sure you still feel dirty afterward but otherwise there are no ill effects. This movie is exactly what you expect and what they sell it as. A raunchy laugh at guys taking the party way too far. So often these movies feature mindless idiots doing stupid things just for a laugh. However, this movie does a much better job showing you that these are some good guys that care about each other. They just made a series of mistakes that led to a serious problem but they'll do anything to set things right.
Doug (Justin Bartha) is scheduled to get married in two days. His two best friends Phil (Bradley Cooper), and Stu (Ed Helms) decide to take him to Vegas for a night. They also invite Alan, (Zach Galifianakis) Doug's soon-to-be brother-in-law, who is a little weird. The four friends set off for the party of a lifetime. The problem comes when they wake up the next morning and can't remember what happened last night. That problem is compounded by the fact that Doug is missing. The three groomsman set off to figure out what went on last night in hopes that retracing their steps will lead them to Doug. Along the way they have to figure out how they picked up a baby and why there is a tiger in their hotel bathroom. They meet some interesting people in their search for what went on including a stripper (Heather Graham) and a flamboyant mob boss named Mr. Chow (Ken Jeong).
Galifianakis is hilarious as the socially inept Alan and really drives the comedy by constantly creating weird situations and saying absurd things. Jeong is another key to the humor in this movie though his flamboyancy seems over the top at times. Cooper is a good leader and although he pretends to be a real man's man he cares deeply for his friend and his family. Helms' character has lived a rather mundane life and may be the character most changed by their trip, though all of them realize the value of their friendship over the course of finding Doug.
There's not much I can say without spoiling some of the jokes so I will keep this short. It balances wonderfully between the laugh out loud funny moments that you expect and the character development story that sneaks up on you. The scenery and shots of Vegas are beautiful and there is one reference to another film that was shot partially in Vegas that I found awesome. The comedy is absurd and vulgar but it never feels over the top.
This is the kind of movie that any man who's had a wild night, or any woman who's ever known a man who sometimes goes overboard (hint: that's every man), can understand and laugh at. Still, it shows us that if we have friends who care about us we can survive anything. Even the worlds worst hangover.
The Hangover at IMDB
100 minutes
Rated R for pervasive language, sexual content including nudity, and some drug material.
My Statement Of Purpose
Finally! A hangover that doesn't need a cure.
Sure you still feel dirty afterward but otherwise there are no ill effects. This movie is exactly what you expect and what they sell it as. A raunchy laugh at guys taking the party way too far. So often these movies feature mindless idiots doing stupid things just for a laugh. However, this movie does a much better job showing you that these are some good guys that care about each other. They just made a series of mistakes that led to a serious problem but they'll do anything to set things right.
Doug (Justin Bartha) is scheduled to get married in two days. His two best friends Phil (Bradley Cooper), and Stu (Ed Helms) decide to take him to Vegas for a night. They also invite Alan, (Zach Galifianakis) Doug's soon-to-be brother-in-law, who is a little weird. The four friends set off for the party of a lifetime. The problem comes when they wake up the next morning and can't remember what happened last night. That problem is compounded by the fact that Doug is missing. The three groomsman set off to figure out what went on last night in hopes that retracing their steps will lead them to Doug. Along the way they have to figure out how they picked up a baby and why there is a tiger in their hotel bathroom. They meet some interesting people in their search for what went on including a stripper (Heather Graham) and a flamboyant mob boss named Mr. Chow (Ken Jeong).
Galifianakis is hilarious as the socially inept Alan and really drives the comedy by constantly creating weird situations and saying absurd things. Jeong is another key to the humor in this movie though his flamboyancy seems over the top at times. Cooper is a good leader and although he pretends to be a real man's man he cares deeply for his friend and his family. Helms' character has lived a rather mundane life and may be the character most changed by their trip, though all of them realize the value of their friendship over the course of finding Doug.
There's not much I can say without spoiling some of the jokes so I will keep this short. It balances wonderfully between the laugh out loud funny moments that you expect and the character development story that sneaks up on you. The scenery and shots of Vegas are beautiful and there is one reference to another film that was shot partially in Vegas that I found awesome. The comedy is absurd and vulgar but it never feels over the top.
This is the kind of movie that any man who's had a wild night, or any woman who's ever known a man who sometimes goes overboard (hint: that's every man), can understand and laugh at. Still, it shows us that if we have friends who care about us we can survive anything. Even the worlds worst hangover.
The Hangover at IMDB
100 minutes
Rated R for pervasive language, sexual content including nudity, and some drug material.
My Statement Of Purpose
Land Of The Lost (review)
Rating: 2/5 Watchable
Some things should stay lost.
Like the movie's main characters the movie itself is lost in some sort of temporal rift. It's been marketed to appear to be a family adventure movie. This is not a family movie. It earns it's rating (PG13) and is closer to an "R" rating then a "PG". Despite the crassness of the humor it is still rather sophomoric bathroom humor and sexual innuendo. So ultimately I'm not sure who this movie is looking to appeal to.
Dr. Rick Marshall (Will Ferrell) has been laughed at by the scientific community because of his theories on traveling to alternate dimensions. One day he is approached by Holly Cantrell (Anna Friel), a Cambridge educated scientist who was kicked out of the program because of her belief in Marshall's theories. The two build the machine that Marshall designed to harness the energies allowing one to travel to alternate dimensions. The two of them go on a routine test in a cave where these energies are strongest. This area is part of a guided tour led by Will Stanton (Danny McBride). The test is successful. So successful in fact, that this unruly bunch is sucked into a dimension where our past, present, and future seem to meet. In this place the three meet Cha-Ka (Jorma Taccone) who appears to be from a race of missing link like monkey people. The three hopeless castaways must battle dinosaurs, giant bugs, and sleestaks (a race of lizard people) to find their machine and get back home.
Ferrell plays the buffoon well, but this is not news. We've seen it before and this time is not particularly inventive or creative. His character reminds us of those Saturday Night Live skits that go on far longer then they need to. Friel is decent but her character is mostly a prop for sexual humor. If you've seen her in Pushing Daisies you are well aware that she is capable of more. It's disappointing to see her first real mainstream role be such a misuse of her ability. McBride is easily the funniest part of this film as the sexist redneck tour guide. McBride's character is not new to us, it's just like his Kenny Powers (Eastbound & Down), but since the character's humor is based on quick gags and one liners as long as it's clever it's still funny.
Overall, the humor is laugh out loud funny at times but totally hit or miss (mostly miss). The effects are reminiscent of the 1970's TV show but not in an homage way. They don't look like 70's effects done with modern equipment, more like modern effects done with a low 70's budget. The plot is unnecessarily convoluted. Even the actors seem uninterested in which sleestak did what to who. This film had plenty enough plot with the travelers trying to find the machine to get them home. The whole film is too exaggerated, too ridiculous, and too much of the same thing. If they had cut out the adult humor this movie may have been passable as a fun afternoon for older kids, like the new Night At The Museum. If they had been a bit more clever with it's humor and a bit more interesting with it's plot, it may have had a good appeal to the adults who liked the show when they were kids. Instead it's stuck somewhere in between and it's a horrible place to be.
Land Of The Lost at IMDB
93 minutes
Rated PG-13 for crude and sexual content, and for language including a drug reference.
My Statement Of Purpose
Some things should stay lost.
Like the movie's main characters the movie itself is lost in some sort of temporal rift. It's been marketed to appear to be a family adventure movie. This is not a family movie. It earns it's rating (PG13) and is closer to an "R" rating then a "PG". Despite the crassness of the humor it is still rather sophomoric bathroom humor and sexual innuendo. So ultimately I'm not sure who this movie is looking to appeal to.
Dr. Rick Marshall (Will Ferrell) has been laughed at by the scientific community because of his theories on traveling to alternate dimensions. One day he is approached by Holly Cantrell (Anna Friel), a Cambridge educated scientist who was kicked out of the program because of her belief in Marshall's theories. The two build the machine that Marshall designed to harness the energies allowing one to travel to alternate dimensions. The two of them go on a routine test in a cave where these energies are strongest. This area is part of a guided tour led by Will Stanton (Danny McBride). The test is successful. So successful in fact, that this unruly bunch is sucked into a dimension where our past, present, and future seem to meet. In this place the three meet Cha-Ka (Jorma Taccone) who appears to be from a race of missing link like monkey people. The three hopeless castaways must battle dinosaurs, giant bugs, and sleestaks (a race of lizard people) to find their machine and get back home.
Ferrell plays the buffoon well, but this is not news. We've seen it before and this time is not particularly inventive or creative. His character reminds us of those Saturday Night Live skits that go on far longer then they need to. Friel is decent but her character is mostly a prop for sexual humor. If you've seen her in Pushing Daisies you are well aware that she is capable of more. It's disappointing to see her first real mainstream role be such a misuse of her ability. McBride is easily the funniest part of this film as the sexist redneck tour guide. McBride's character is not new to us, it's just like his Kenny Powers (Eastbound & Down), but since the character's humor is based on quick gags and one liners as long as it's clever it's still funny.
Overall, the humor is laugh out loud funny at times but totally hit or miss (mostly miss). The effects are reminiscent of the 1970's TV show but not in an homage way. They don't look like 70's effects done with modern equipment, more like modern effects done with a low 70's budget. The plot is unnecessarily convoluted. Even the actors seem uninterested in which sleestak did what to who. This film had plenty enough plot with the travelers trying to find the machine to get them home. The whole film is too exaggerated, too ridiculous, and too much of the same thing. If they had cut out the adult humor this movie may have been passable as a fun afternoon for older kids, like the new Night At The Museum. If they had been a bit more clever with it's humor and a bit more interesting with it's plot, it may have had a good appeal to the adults who liked the show when they were kids. Instead it's stuck somewhere in between and it's a horrible place to be.
Land Of The Lost at IMDB
93 minutes
Rated PG-13 for crude and sexual content, and for language including a drug reference.
My Statement Of Purpose
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Tideland (review)
Rating 4/5 Check it out
some spoilers
"Children are resilient"
This movie is real, unflinchingly real, and that is it's great strength but it also makes it very uncomfortable to watch. I can understand people not enjoying it. To be honest, I didn't enjoy it. I don't think it's meant to be enjoyed. I think it's meant to show us that even in the midst of grim realities children will find hope, joy, and friendship because they need those things as much as food, water, and sleep. As the director (Terry Gilliam) says in his opening comments (found here on YouTube) before the film; "many of you aren't going to know what to think when this film finishes, but hopefully you'll be thinking"
Tideland is a surreal sort of fairytale told through the eyes of a child. Jeliza-Rose (Jodelle Ferland) is a young girl who is so innocent to the messed up world around her that she thinks nothing of it. After her junkie mother (Jennifer Tilly) dies, she and her drug addicted father (Jeff Bridges), go on a trip. They end up at his childhood home which looks like it's been long abandoned and is in the middle of a field somewhere in the Midwest. Shortly after they arrive her father overdoses leaving her all alone with the strangers (who truly are strange) in the next house over, some animals, and her doll heads. She creates a fantasy world that incorporates the tragedy in the real world around her and the childhood wonder she has inside her.
Ultimately this is a story about a girl who has every reason to think the world is dark and hopeless but just never sees it that way. It's really not intended to be taken as dark and disturbing. As Gilliam talks about in the opening. This movie is meant to be seen from a child's eyes. The problem is we put our prejudices and fears as adults into this kid's life. She thinks nothing of preparing heroin for her father, or being around dead things. These things are part of the world she knows, and she accepts them better than the adults around her do. We just have trouble watching that and see it as perverse, grotesque, or insensitive. This is where the movie makes us uncomfortable. It clashes with everything we have been taught to think as adults.
The visuals of this movie are a great contrast of harsh reality and surreal dream. Gilliam (known for The Fisher King, 12 Monkeys, and Fear and Loathing In Las Vegas) has once again created a world all it's own that takes place in our world but is not the same. Jodelle Ferland makes this world believable and engrossing by being so wonderfully invested in her character and the fictitious world that character creates.
We all create fantasies to deal with death or pain or rejection. This movie is just bold enough to make us think about that and make us wonder if children don't have the right idea by living in innocent joy at the world around them.
Side note: I feel it's important to reiterate that this movie is filled with disturbing images (drug use, decaying corpses, severe mental handicap, [spoiler]taxidermy of people, disturbing sexuality[/spoiler], and gruesome situations). All of it involves a child or happens in the child's presence. If you are easily bothered by things of this nature then you may want to skip this one. It is not done for shock value or in a gratuitous manner but it is still tough for some people to watch.
Tideland at IMDB
120 minutes
Rated R for bizarre and disturbing content, including drug use, sexuality, and gruesome situations - all involving a child, and for some language.
(watched on a DVD in my apartment)
My Statement Of Purpose
some spoilers
"Children are resilient"
This movie is real, unflinchingly real, and that is it's great strength but it also makes it very uncomfortable to watch. I can understand people not enjoying it. To be honest, I didn't enjoy it. I don't think it's meant to be enjoyed. I think it's meant to show us that even in the midst of grim realities children will find hope, joy, and friendship because they need those things as much as food, water, and sleep. As the director (Terry Gilliam) says in his opening comments (found here on YouTube) before the film; "many of you aren't going to know what to think when this film finishes, but hopefully you'll be thinking"
Tideland is a surreal sort of fairytale told through the eyes of a child. Jeliza-Rose (Jodelle Ferland) is a young girl who is so innocent to the messed up world around her that she thinks nothing of it. After her junkie mother (Jennifer Tilly) dies, she and her drug addicted father (Jeff Bridges), go on a trip. They end up at his childhood home which looks like it's been long abandoned and is in the middle of a field somewhere in the Midwest. Shortly after they arrive her father overdoses leaving her all alone with the strangers (who truly are strange) in the next house over, some animals, and her doll heads. She creates a fantasy world that incorporates the tragedy in the real world around her and the childhood wonder she has inside her.
Ultimately this is a story about a girl who has every reason to think the world is dark and hopeless but just never sees it that way. It's really not intended to be taken as dark and disturbing. As Gilliam talks about in the opening. This movie is meant to be seen from a child's eyes. The problem is we put our prejudices and fears as adults into this kid's life. She thinks nothing of preparing heroin for her father, or being around dead things. These things are part of the world she knows, and she accepts them better than the adults around her do. We just have trouble watching that and see it as perverse, grotesque, or insensitive. This is where the movie makes us uncomfortable. It clashes with everything we have been taught to think as adults.
The visuals of this movie are a great contrast of harsh reality and surreal dream. Gilliam (known for The Fisher King, 12 Monkeys, and Fear and Loathing In Las Vegas) has once again created a world all it's own that takes place in our world but is not the same. Jodelle Ferland makes this world believable and engrossing by being so wonderfully invested in her character and the fictitious world that character creates.
We all create fantasies to deal with death or pain or rejection. This movie is just bold enough to make us think about that and make us wonder if children don't have the right idea by living in innocent joy at the world around them.
Side note: I feel it's important to reiterate that this movie is filled with disturbing images (drug use, decaying corpses, severe mental handicap, [spoiler]taxidermy of people, disturbing sexuality[/spoiler], and gruesome situations). All of it involves a child or happens in the child's presence. If you are easily bothered by things of this nature then you may want to skip this one. It is not done for shock value or in a gratuitous manner but it is still tough for some people to watch.
Tideland at IMDB
120 minutes
Rated R for bizarre and disturbing content, including drug use, sexuality, and gruesome situations - all involving a child, and for some language.
(watched on a DVD in my apartment)
My Statement Of Purpose
Friday, May 29, 2009
Up (review)
Rating: 5/5 Must see
"Adventure is out there."
The brilliant minds at Pixar Animation Studios have made us fall in love with a collection of heroic toys, some silly bugs, monsters in the closet, a redneck tow truck, a rat, and a robot who never says a word beyond his own name. Now they give us Carl Fredricksen (voiced by Edward Asner) a grumpy 78 year old man.
You may wonder, "how in the world do they make him a lovable hero?", and before this movie I was asking that question too. After the first 15 minutes that concern went right out the window. The opening scenes of this film is one of the most powerful, real, and emotional introductions to a character that I have seen. There is very little dialogue but still it lays out a life of passion and love that is wonderfully lived. We see how Carl became the man that he is, and why his wife, and their dream, drives him to literally uproot his home and take off to "Paradise Falls" in South America.
To make this journey Carl ties thousands of balloons to his house to lift it off the ground and by using a series of sails begins to steer it toward South America. Shortly after takeoff he finds that he has company. Russell (voiced by Jordan Nagai), a wilderness explorer, who just wants to help Mr. Fredricksen so he can get another badge from his troop, got caught on the house as it was taking off. Along the way these two characters find an incredibly rare bird, some talking dogs, and even Carl's childhood idol (voiced by Christopher Plummer). They also learn that adventure can be found anywhere and that no matter what the adventure is, it's your friends and family that are important.
As we have come to expect from Pixar the animation is top notch. It brings the characters to life and gives scope to the beauty of the new land Carl and Russell find. The interplay between these two characters is so touching. They need each other not just to complete this journey but to fill parts of themselves. At the same time this movie warms your heart with it's characters, it also has you falling out of your seat laughing. The humor here is genuine. You don't feel like jokes are thrown in for kids, or to break up the tone, they are just allowed to occur naturally, as all the different characters interact.
"Up" is not just a clever tittle it perfectly describes this movie. As Carl's house leaves the ground your spirit soars with him and is carried away. This movie is a wonderful upper, the equivalent to a cinematic hug. It's messages are just what people need right now. That hope is eternal, life is meaningful, dreams keep you young, and that the greatest adventure in any life is living it. Whether you see it in 3D or 2D (like I did) the depth of this movie is not in the visuals as stunning as they are. The depth is in the story. You owe it to the kid inside you to go see it.
Up at IMDB
96 minutes
Rated PG for some peril and action.
My Statement Of Purpose
"Adventure is out there."
The brilliant minds at Pixar Animation Studios have made us fall in love with a collection of heroic toys, some silly bugs, monsters in the closet, a redneck tow truck, a rat, and a robot who never says a word beyond his own name. Now they give us Carl Fredricksen (voiced by Edward Asner) a grumpy 78 year old man.
You may wonder, "how in the world do they make him a lovable hero?", and before this movie I was asking that question too. After the first 15 minutes that concern went right out the window. The opening scenes of this film is one of the most powerful, real, and emotional introductions to a character that I have seen. There is very little dialogue but still it lays out a life of passion and love that is wonderfully lived. We see how Carl became the man that he is, and why his wife, and their dream, drives him to literally uproot his home and take off to "Paradise Falls" in South America.
To make this journey Carl ties thousands of balloons to his house to lift it off the ground and by using a series of sails begins to steer it toward South America. Shortly after takeoff he finds that he has company. Russell (voiced by Jordan Nagai), a wilderness explorer, who just wants to help Mr. Fredricksen so he can get another badge from his troop, got caught on the house as it was taking off. Along the way these two characters find an incredibly rare bird, some talking dogs, and even Carl's childhood idol (voiced by Christopher Plummer). They also learn that adventure can be found anywhere and that no matter what the adventure is, it's your friends and family that are important.
As we have come to expect from Pixar the animation is top notch. It brings the characters to life and gives scope to the beauty of the new land Carl and Russell find. The interplay between these two characters is so touching. They need each other not just to complete this journey but to fill parts of themselves. At the same time this movie warms your heart with it's characters, it also has you falling out of your seat laughing. The humor here is genuine. You don't feel like jokes are thrown in for kids, or to break up the tone, they are just allowed to occur naturally, as all the different characters interact.
"Up" is not just a clever tittle it perfectly describes this movie. As Carl's house leaves the ground your spirit soars with him and is carried away. This movie is a wonderful upper, the equivalent to a cinematic hug. It's messages are just what people need right now. That hope is eternal, life is meaningful, dreams keep you young, and that the greatest adventure in any life is living it. Whether you see it in 3D or 2D (like I did) the depth of this movie is not in the visuals as stunning as they are. The depth is in the story. You owe it to the kid inside you to go see it.
Up at IMDB
96 minutes
Rated PG for some peril and action.
My Statement Of Purpose
Friday, May 22, 2009
Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian (review)
Rating: 3/5 Worth watching
Museums can be fun, but too much of that fun can get old real quick.
This movie just never quite settles on what it wants to be and because of that it becomes tiresome quickly. It plays like a selection of comedy skits tied together by a thin strand of plot. This would be alright if they let these comedians do what they do best. Instead they chain up this talented cast and force them into childish banter and slapstick humor.
Larry Daley (Ben Stiller) has done pretty well for himself since we saw him last. He now owns a company that produces and sells his inventions. He's become so successful in fact that he didn't realize the exhibits, which come to life at night, that he used to interact with and protect, are being moved, from the New York Museum of Natural History, into national storage below the Smithsonian. Daley decides not to worry about it until he finds out that all his old friends are in trouble because they brought the magic tablet that brings them to life with them, thus bringing the entire Smithsonian archives to life. So Daley heads to Washington D.C. to help his friends stop the nefarious Kahmunrah (Hank Azaria), a lisping Egyptian Pharaoh who has plans to use the tablet to raise an army of the dead and take over the world. To stop the Pharaoh, and help his friends get back to New York, Daley is helped by his old friends Jedediah (Owen Wilson) and Octavius (Steve Coogan), as well as new recruits Amelia Earhart (Amy Adams), General Custer (Bill Hader), and a giant Abe Lincoln (voiced by Azaria).
Like all good museums, this one has it's share of prize pieces that stand out. Amy Adams is captivating as usual, even though her character is a constant clash between flirty temptress and empowered feminist. The score is beautiful but a bit excessive and over-dramatic for this particular movie. There are a ton of bit parts and cameos that actually stand above the major roles (the hype-man for the Tuskegee airmen, Jonah Hill as an over protective Smithsonian security guard, and a collection of Einstein bobble heads). Some of the mid-level roles (Jedediah and Octavius) are very well done and this film could have benefited by giving these characters more screen time. A lot of the pieces of history are neat to see come to life, even if some of them are not in the Smithsonian, or even on this continent for that matter.
I just didn't think these bright spots outweigh the faults of this film. Many of the jokes go on far past their saturation point. The plot twist just seem forced. Some of the characters seem like they were brought in for no other reason then a quick laugh. The action sequences have little or no passion. Overall, the movie just never quite settles on what it's trying to do or say.
I realize that I'm not exactly the target demographic for this film and that's the only thing that keeps it off a 2/5 rating in my book. Kids may enjoy it but don't expect them to learn much.
Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian at IMDB
105 minutes
Rated PG for mild action and brief language.
My Statement Of Purpose
Museums can be fun, but too much of that fun can get old real quick.
This movie just never quite settles on what it wants to be and because of that it becomes tiresome quickly. It plays like a selection of comedy skits tied together by a thin strand of plot. This would be alright if they let these comedians do what they do best. Instead they chain up this talented cast and force them into childish banter and slapstick humor.
Larry Daley (Ben Stiller) has done pretty well for himself since we saw him last. He now owns a company that produces and sells his inventions. He's become so successful in fact that he didn't realize the exhibits, which come to life at night, that he used to interact with and protect, are being moved, from the New York Museum of Natural History, into national storage below the Smithsonian. Daley decides not to worry about it until he finds out that all his old friends are in trouble because they brought the magic tablet that brings them to life with them, thus bringing the entire Smithsonian archives to life. So Daley heads to Washington D.C. to help his friends stop the nefarious Kahmunrah (Hank Azaria), a lisping Egyptian Pharaoh who has plans to use the tablet to raise an army of the dead and take over the world. To stop the Pharaoh, and help his friends get back to New York, Daley is helped by his old friends Jedediah (Owen Wilson) and Octavius (Steve Coogan), as well as new recruits Amelia Earhart (Amy Adams), General Custer (Bill Hader), and a giant Abe Lincoln (voiced by Azaria).
Like all good museums, this one has it's share of prize pieces that stand out. Amy Adams is captivating as usual, even though her character is a constant clash between flirty temptress and empowered feminist. The score is beautiful but a bit excessive and over-dramatic for this particular movie. There are a ton of bit parts and cameos that actually stand above the major roles (the hype-man for the Tuskegee airmen, Jonah Hill as an over protective Smithsonian security guard, and a collection of Einstein bobble heads). Some of the mid-level roles (Jedediah and Octavius) are very well done and this film could have benefited by giving these characters more screen time. A lot of the pieces of history are neat to see come to life, even if some of them are not in the Smithsonian, or even on this continent for that matter.
I just didn't think these bright spots outweigh the faults of this film. Many of the jokes go on far past their saturation point. The plot twist just seem forced. Some of the characters seem like they were brought in for no other reason then a quick laugh. The action sequences have little or no passion. Overall, the movie just never quite settles on what it's trying to do or say.
I realize that I'm not exactly the target demographic for this film and that's the only thing that keeps it off a 2/5 rating in my book. Kids may enjoy it but don't expect them to learn much.
Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian at IMDB
105 minutes
Rated PG for mild action and brief language.
My Statement Of Purpose
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Terminator Salvation (review)
Rating: 3/5 Worth watching
*Possible spoilers if you haven't seen the trailers or any previous Terminator movie
This is not the future Sarah Connor warned us about.
It's actually a good deal better. People seem to be doing alright considering a nuclear Judgment Day happened just 15 years ago. Sure they have to fight robots when those robots notice them, but that only happens when you've been too long without an action sequence. As long as you had an action sequence recently you can feel safe sitting next to a fire in the middle of the desert at night, or being on a well sized airfield with plenty of fueled ready to go planes in plain view. No need to hide underground except when the lighting needs to be dark, dreary, and ominous for effect reasons.
To be honest Terminator Salvation is not that bad. Anyone who has watched any part of this series knows that letting some things slide must take place to make it through these movies. At least the previous three movies tried to stay within the bounds of what I call "action movie reality". McG (director) just pushes things so far that you become lulled into a state of not even trying to argue how realistic it is anymore. Which works and makes this movie reasonably entertaining when you shut your reality meter completely off.
It's the year 2018 and people have begun to form a resistance against Skynet (the self aware militarized robots who seek to destroy humanity and unleashed Judgement Day in 2003). The unofficial leader of this resistance is John Connor (Christian Bale) who has been fighting this future since before he was born. To secure the future Connor must save the teenager Kyle Reese (Anton Yelchin). [spoiler]The man who Connor sends back in time that becomes his father[/spoiler] In order to do this John Connor must defy the true leadership of the resistance and trust his instincts. Along the way he is helped by his close friends and a newcomer Marcus Wright (Sam Worthington) who hides a secret [spoiler](he's a robot)[/spoiler] that makes Connor suspicious of him.
The acting is alright though not much was required of these roles. Marcus Wright is about the only character with real conflict. The characters are more like the scenery between action sequences as this movie is a string of CGI laden action with creative new robots but not so creative new characters. It's like Mad Max meets the Transformers.
If you're a fan of the franchise and the action/sci-fi genre then this movie is worth watching for the tremendous pace and great look and sound of the action sequences. There are a ton of references to the other Terminator movies here in music and dialogue but beyond that it's mostly a mindless action movie. It doesn't have those mind bending sparks of challenging fate that you find in other parts of this franchise. This future is pretty secure. John Connor runs the show and is incredibly tough but even Sarah Connor saw that coming.
Terminator Salvation at IMDB
130 minutes
Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi violence and action, and language.
My Statement Of Purpose
*Possible spoilers if you haven't seen the trailers or any previous Terminator movie
This is not the future Sarah Connor warned us about.
It's actually a good deal better. People seem to be doing alright considering a nuclear Judgment Day happened just 15 years ago. Sure they have to fight robots when those robots notice them, but that only happens when you've been too long without an action sequence. As long as you had an action sequence recently you can feel safe sitting next to a fire in the middle of the desert at night, or being on a well sized airfield with plenty of fueled ready to go planes in plain view. No need to hide underground except when the lighting needs to be dark, dreary, and ominous for effect reasons.
To be honest Terminator Salvation is not that bad. Anyone who has watched any part of this series knows that letting some things slide must take place to make it through these movies. At least the previous three movies tried to stay within the bounds of what I call "action movie reality". McG (director) just pushes things so far that you become lulled into a state of not even trying to argue how realistic it is anymore. Which works and makes this movie reasonably entertaining when you shut your reality meter completely off.
It's the year 2018 and people have begun to form a resistance against Skynet (the self aware militarized robots who seek to destroy humanity and unleashed Judgement Day in 2003). The unofficial leader of this resistance is John Connor (Christian Bale) who has been fighting this future since before he was born. To secure the future Connor must save the teenager Kyle Reese (Anton Yelchin). [spoiler]The man who Connor sends back in time that becomes his father[/spoiler] In order to do this John Connor must defy the true leadership of the resistance and trust his instincts. Along the way he is helped by his close friends and a newcomer Marcus Wright (Sam Worthington) who hides a secret [spoiler](he's a robot)[/spoiler] that makes Connor suspicious of him.
The acting is alright though not much was required of these roles. Marcus Wright is about the only character with real conflict. The characters are more like the scenery between action sequences as this movie is a string of CGI laden action with creative new robots but not so creative new characters. It's like Mad Max meets the Transformers.
If you're a fan of the franchise and the action/sci-fi genre then this movie is worth watching for the tremendous pace and great look and sound of the action sequences. There are a ton of references to the other Terminator movies here in music and dialogue but beyond that it's mostly a mindless action movie. It doesn't have those mind bending sparks of challenging fate that you find in other parts of this franchise. This future is pretty secure. John Connor runs the show and is incredibly tough but even Sarah Connor saw that coming.
Terminator Salvation at IMDB
130 minutes
Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi violence and action, and language.
My Statement Of Purpose
Saturday, May 16, 2009
X-Men Origins: Wolverine (review)
Rating: 3/5 Worth watching
Warning: These claws have no edge.
Let me start off by saying that I am not a huge fan of Wolverine to begin with. I respect his place in the Marvel Universe. He's a very well formed character. He's just not the type of character I connect with. Even though he's not a favorite character of mine, I get tired of the fact that the movies never want to commit to the anger that the character deserves. I don't care about how closely a movie follows the comics as long as the characters are pure. This is now Wolverine's fourth venture into major films and in each venture Marvel has kept him neutered. Why can't we let the real Wolverine out? When can we see Wolverine do the "R" rated action that we all know lies under the surface? I do not enjoy excessive violence but what pains me more is seeing a character on a leash for the sake of a rating. It stands out here more than any of the other films because the film is so focused on his characters development.
We start off watching the mutant Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) fight through every major war with his mutant brother Victor Creed (Liev Schreiber). This opening credit sequence is one of the best I've seen in a while and it sets a great mood for the picture. It's not long before complications come up and people notice that these two have regenerative abilities making them essentially indestructible. So they are recruited for a secret government mercenary force headed by William Stryker (Danny Huston). When Wolverine decides to leave this force trouble arises as Creed is sent to bring him back. From there a game of cat and mouse is played between Stryker (who wants to harness Wolverine's power), Creed (who wants to be better than his brother), and Wolverine (who just wants to be left alone).
Jackman and Schrieber nail the heart of their characters and do a great job showing their intense form of sibling rivalry. The main side characters (Ryan Reynolds as Wade Willson, Will i Am as John Wraith, and Taylor Kitsch as Gambit) do a good job of breaking up the seriousness brought on by our ill-tempered hero. Reynolds particularly shines in the early parts of this movie with a character that wields his razor-sharp wit, and razor-sharp swords with equal skill. Unfortunately, the side characters bounce in and out in bit parts leaving our hero to brood constantly over his losses and pains. This moroseness is part of his character after all. The problem comes in the movies inability to have a real payoff because they were trying to sneak in under the PG13 umbrella. The ending really does feel like a watered down burst of rage.
As far as summer blockbusters go Wolverine delivers explosions, fights, and more then a handful of screen shots that would make good stills of your favorite hero. Most of the CGI is on point and the fight scenes look good. The whole movie looks good. However, I feel this movie needs a disclaimer, this Wolverine has been sanitized for your protection.
X-Men Origins: Wolverine at IMDB
107 minutes
Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of action and violence, and some partial nudity.
My Statement Of Purpose
Warning: These claws have no edge.
Let me start off by saying that I am not a huge fan of Wolverine to begin with. I respect his place in the Marvel Universe. He's a very well formed character. He's just not the type of character I connect with. Even though he's not a favorite character of mine, I get tired of the fact that the movies never want to commit to the anger that the character deserves. I don't care about how closely a movie follows the comics as long as the characters are pure. This is now Wolverine's fourth venture into major films and in each venture Marvel has kept him neutered. Why can't we let the real Wolverine out? When can we see Wolverine do the "R" rated action that we all know lies under the surface? I do not enjoy excessive violence but what pains me more is seeing a character on a leash for the sake of a rating. It stands out here more than any of the other films because the film is so focused on his characters development.
We start off watching the mutant Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) fight through every major war with his mutant brother Victor Creed (Liev Schreiber). This opening credit sequence is one of the best I've seen in a while and it sets a great mood for the picture. It's not long before complications come up and people notice that these two have regenerative abilities making them essentially indestructible. So they are recruited for a secret government mercenary force headed by William Stryker (Danny Huston). When Wolverine decides to leave this force trouble arises as Creed is sent to bring him back. From there a game of cat and mouse is played between Stryker (who wants to harness Wolverine's power), Creed (who wants to be better than his brother), and Wolverine (who just wants to be left alone).
Jackman and Schrieber nail the heart of their characters and do a great job showing their intense form of sibling rivalry. The main side characters (Ryan Reynolds as Wade Willson, Will i Am as John Wraith, and Taylor Kitsch as Gambit) do a good job of breaking up the seriousness brought on by our ill-tempered hero. Reynolds particularly shines in the early parts of this movie with a character that wields his razor-sharp wit, and razor-sharp swords with equal skill. Unfortunately, the side characters bounce in and out in bit parts leaving our hero to brood constantly over his losses and pains. This moroseness is part of his character after all. The problem comes in the movies inability to have a real payoff because they were trying to sneak in under the PG13 umbrella. The ending really does feel like a watered down burst of rage.
As far as summer blockbusters go Wolverine delivers explosions, fights, and more then a handful of screen shots that would make good stills of your favorite hero. Most of the CGI is on point and the fight scenes look good. The whole movie looks good. However, I feel this movie needs a disclaimer, this Wolverine has been sanitized for your protection.
X-Men Origins: Wolverine at IMDB
107 minutes
Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of action and violence, and some partial nudity.
My Statement Of Purpose
Angels & Demons (review)
Rating: 4/5 Check it out
Angels & Demons is a lot like 2 Fast 2 Furious, or House Of 1,000 Corpses*. It's just a matter of what you're into. The other two are popcorn fluff for: car junkies, and gore junkies (respectively). Angels & Demons is the same thing for intellectual junkies. All of them are an exaggeration of what they represent (cars don't flip or explode like that, bodies do not gush that much blood, and symbologists and physicists do not chase killers through Rome). The difference is that intellectual junkies can get; Ron Howard (director), Tom Hanks, and Ewan McGregor, to work on their films.
The story begins as symbologist Robert Langdon (Hanks) and physicist Vittoria Vetra (Ayelet Zurer) are brought to Vatican City to help hunt down a threat that could destroy the Catholic Church. The two meet the leader of the Swiss Gaurd (Stellan Skarsgård) who is uncomfortable working with Langdon because of his criticisms of the Church. Unfortunately, Langdon is their only hope of uncovering the clues and following this killer's trail. Hopefully doing so with enough time for Vetra to disarm the miracle of physics that threatens to literally destroy the Vatican and most of Rome. All of this occurs while the heads of the Church are in the process of selecting a new Pope.
Angels & Demons makes being a book/art/history nerd seem cool. This is due to the way Ron Howard handles the story. The writers (David Koepp, and Akiva Goldsman) cut some of Dan Brown's novel to streamline the story and make it a thrill to watch. It's clear that everyone involved learned from some of the negative criticism The Da Vinci Code got. This movie moves a lot smoother and finds a better way to unfold facts and interesting history in the midst of a well paced story, while it's predecessor muddled about between action and history laden sequences. Though the books were like this too; with Angels & Demons having a much better pacing and being the favorite of most people who have read both. Hanks also helps this overall feel by being more relaxed in his portrayal of Landgon this time.
The plot is pretty silly. The history is piecemeal. The science is frightening but questionable. The religion is about what you expect from Hollywood and pop fiction. However, when you put it all together you get a very entertaining film. A studious, intellectual, mindless, joyride that should be enjoyed for it's surface value not over-analyzed.
This leads me to my final point. The controversy of these movies/books and their portrayal of Christianity. It's fiction people! The Church has survived 2000 years and through that time has faced far more threatening ideas then those laid out in Brown's books (which are not even terribly original). It's time we give faith a little credit. It's stronger then we think. You never know, maybe watching a fictitious character discuss doubt, and question faith, might even strengthen your own.
Angels & Demons at IMDB
138 minutes
Rated PG-13 for sequences of violence, disturbing images and thematic material.
*This does not mean I think of these three films on equal footing.
My Statement Of Purpose
Angels & Demons is a lot like 2 Fast 2 Furious, or House Of 1,000 Corpses*. It's just a matter of what you're into. The other two are popcorn fluff for: car junkies, and gore junkies (respectively). Angels & Demons is the same thing for intellectual junkies. All of them are an exaggeration of what they represent (cars don't flip or explode like that, bodies do not gush that much blood, and symbologists and physicists do not chase killers through Rome). The difference is that intellectual junkies can get; Ron Howard (director), Tom Hanks, and Ewan McGregor, to work on their films.
The story begins as symbologist Robert Langdon (Hanks) and physicist Vittoria Vetra (Ayelet Zurer) are brought to Vatican City to help hunt down a threat that could destroy the Catholic Church. The two meet the leader of the Swiss Gaurd (Stellan Skarsgård) who is uncomfortable working with Langdon because of his criticisms of the Church. Unfortunately, Langdon is their only hope of uncovering the clues and following this killer's trail. Hopefully doing so with enough time for Vetra to disarm the miracle of physics that threatens to literally destroy the Vatican and most of Rome. All of this occurs while the heads of the Church are in the process of selecting a new Pope.
Angels & Demons makes being a book/art/history nerd seem cool. This is due to the way Ron Howard handles the story. The writers (David Koepp, and Akiva Goldsman) cut some of Dan Brown's novel to streamline the story and make it a thrill to watch. It's clear that everyone involved learned from some of the negative criticism The Da Vinci Code got. This movie moves a lot smoother and finds a better way to unfold facts and interesting history in the midst of a well paced story, while it's predecessor muddled about between action and history laden sequences. Though the books were like this too; with Angels & Demons having a much better pacing and being the favorite of most people who have read both. Hanks also helps this overall feel by being more relaxed in his portrayal of Landgon this time.
The plot is pretty silly. The history is piecemeal. The science is frightening but questionable. The religion is about what you expect from Hollywood and pop fiction. However, when you put it all together you get a very entertaining film. A studious, intellectual, mindless, joyride that should be enjoyed for it's surface value not over-analyzed.
This leads me to my final point. The controversy of these movies/books and their portrayal of Christianity. It's fiction people! The Church has survived 2000 years and through that time has faced far more threatening ideas then those laid out in Brown's books (which are not even terribly original). It's time we give faith a little credit. It's stronger then we think. You never know, maybe watching a fictitious character discuss doubt, and question faith, might even strengthen your own.
Angels & Demons at IMDB
138 minutes
Rated PG-13 for sequences of violence, disturbing images and thematic material.
*This does not mean I think of these three films on equal footing.
My Statement Of Purpose
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
