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
Friday, May 29, 2009
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
Thursday, May 14, 2009
State Of Play (review)
Rating: 4/5 Check it out
A surprisingly easy to follow suspense thriller. That is not to say that it was simple or lacked a twist. It was just well done. The plot runs smoothly and as long as you pay attention it is very easy to understand how we get from Point A to Point B. So many movies of this vein try so hard to trick you that they become convoluted and by the end you don't care who did it you just want it to be over so you can relax. However, this movie finds a way to keep you interested the whole way without losing you in the twists and turns.
The cast is what makes this movie stand out from it's contemporaries. Every one of the major characters is committed to their role and make them believable and interesting. We expect this level of performance from all the big names on this cast. Ben Affleck, Russell Crowe, Helen Mirren, and Jeff Daniels all do top notch jobs in this film; the person who stepped up, and stood out, was Rachel McAdams. This wasn't really a surprise to me, but rather a joy to see her onscreen presence when matched with a strong cast. Her role in the film kind of matches her place in this group of actors and actresses. A talented up and comer who has to work extra hard to earn the respect of the veterans in her field. Perhaps this connection is what makes her performance shine.
Based on a 6 episode BBC mini-series. The story follows Rep. Stephen Collins (Affleck), who is a young congressman with passion. He heads a committee that is looking into government contracts with a private military based company. The day the hearing begins his lead Research Assistant on the project dies under very unusual circumstances. This death and Collins' response to it in the televised hearing attracts the media's attention. Particularly, the attention of two reporters; capitol hill blogger Della Frye (McAdams), and reporter Cal McAffrey (Crowe). McAffrey has a special connection to the case as he is Collins' good friend and college roommate. The two reporters form a bond and follow every lead to find the truth.
Thankfully, even though this movie takes place in the halls of power, it avoids an overtly political agenda. The twists and turns are plentiful but they never get overboard or step outside of the realistic courses of the characters. So if you're looking for something that will keep you guessing but still stay close to realistic. I recommend this one.
State of Play at IMDB
127 minutes
Rated PG-13 for some violence, language including sexual references, and brief drug content.
My Statement Of Purpose
A surprisingly easy to follow suspense thriller. That is not to say that it was simple or lacked a twist. It was just well done. The plot runs smoothly and as long as you pay attention it is very easy to understand how we get from Point A to Point B. So many movies of this vein try so hard to trick you that they become convoluted and by the end you don't care who did it you just want it to be over so you can relax. However, this movie finds a way to keep you interested the whole way without losing you in the twists and turns.
The cast is what makes this movie stand out from it's contemporaries. Every one of the major characters is committed to their role and make them believable and interesting. We expect this level of performance from all the big names on this cast. Ben Affleck, Russell Crowe, Helen Mirren, and Jeff Daniels all do top notch jobs in this film; the person who stepped up, and stood out, was Rachel McAdams. This wasn't really a surprise to me, but rather a joy to see her onscreen presence when matched with a strong cast. Her role in the film kind of matches her place in this group of actors and actresses. A talented up and comer who has to work extra hard to earn the respect of the veterans in her field. Perhaps this connection is what makes her performance shine.
Based on a 6 episode BBC mini-series. The story follows Rep. Stephen Collins (Affleck), who is a young congressman with passion. He heads a committee that is looking into government contracts with a private military based company. The day the hearing begins his lead Research Assistant on the project dies under very unusual circumstances. This death and Collins' response to it in the televised hearing attracts the media's attention. Particularly, the attention of two reporters; capitol hill blogger Della Frye (McAdams), and reporter Cal McAffrey (Crowe). McAffrey has a special connection to the case as he is Collins' good friend and college roommate. The two reporters form a bond and follow every lead to find the truth.
Thankfully, even though this movie takes place in the halls of power, it avoids an overtly political agenda. The twists and turns are plentiful but they never get overboard or step outside of the realistic courses of the characters. So if you're looking for something that will keep you guessing but still stay close to realistic. I recommend this one.
State of Play at IMDB
127 minutes
Rated PG-13 for some violence, language including sexual references, and brief drug content.
My Statement Of Purpose
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
The Soloist (review)
Rating: 3/5 Worth watching
Failing with the tear-jerker formula?
If you've seen the trailers you know exactly what this movie looks like. A down on his luck reporter finds a prodigy living on the street. Helping this man not only gives him a story but gives him a desire to change his own world. By the end of the film we've cried and everyone is happy. The setup is always a little different but we've all seen it before.
I watched it and enjoyed the story but it just felt like it was missing something. It never has that moment where it grabs you. This is not because of the performances, both of which hit the high mark we have come to expect from these two actors recent work. It's not because of poor pacing or errors in the story-telling. The movie is easy to follow and paced well. The movie handles schizophrenia very understandingly, avoiding an over dramatized freak out feel.
The story is based on a book (The Soloist) that collects the articles that Steve Lopez (a well known columnist for the L.A. Times) wrote about helping the real Nathaniel Ayers. Lopez (Robert Downey Jr.) finds Ayers (Jamie Foxx) playing beautifully in the park on a violin that only has two strings. He quickly learns that Ayers attended Julliard for a time and is schizophrenic. Lopez then begins a process of trying to help Ayers off the street and out of his mental illness. Through the process these two characters become friends and Lopez is forced to see the world of homelessness and mental illness firsthand.
That's where this movie really hits the mark. Showing the value of friendship and how it changes two individuals regardless of if it changes their circumstances. It also gives us a realistic and un-dramatized view of mental illness and homelessness. We all share this world and sometimes it's easy to forget that some people don't need handouts, just friends. So while The Soloist didn't make me cry, I do not feel it failed in making me look at things a little differently. I think that's what they were going for and in so doing they succeed.
The Soloist at IMDB
117 Minutes
Rated PG-13 for thematic elements, some drug use and language.
My Statement Of Purpose
Failing with the tear-jerker formula?
If you've seen the trailers you know exactly what this movie looks like. A down on his luck reporter finds a prodigy living on the street. Helping this man not only gives him a story but gives him a desire to change his own world. By the end of the film we've cried and everyone is happy. The setup is always a little different but we've all seen it before.
I watched it and enjoyed the story but it just felt like it was missing something. It never has that moment where it grabs you. This is not because of the performances, both of which hit the high mark we have come to expect from these two actors recent work. It's not because of poor pacing or errors in the story-telling. The movie is easy to follow and paced well. The movie handles schizophrenia very understandingly, avoiding an over dramatized freak out feel.
The story is based on a book (The Soloist) that collects the articles that Steve Lopez (a well known columnist for the L.A. Times) wrote about helping the real Nathaniel Ayers. Lopez (Robert Downey Jr.) finds Ayers (Jamie Foxx) playing beautifully in the park on a violin that only has two strings. He quickly learns that Ayers attended Julliard for a time and is schizophrenic. Lopez then begins a process of trying to help Ayers off the street and out of his mental illness. Through the process these two characters become friends and Lopez is forced to see the world of homelessness and mental illness firsthand.
That's where this movie really hits the mark. Showing the value of friendship and how it changes two individuals regardless of if it changes their circumstances. It also gives us a realistic and un-dramatized view of mental illness and homelessness. We all share this world and sometimes it's easy to forget that some people don't need handouts, just friends. So while The Soloist didn't make me cry, I do not feel it failed in making me look at things a little differently. I think that's what they were going for and in so doing they succeed.
The Soloist at IMDB
117 Minutes
Rated PG-13 for thematic elements, some drug use and language.
My Statement Of Purpose
Friday, May 8, 2009
Star Trek (review)
Rating: 5/5 Must see (4/5 if you absolutely hate sci-fi)
"I get the joy of rediscovering you." - Journey (from the song "Faithfully")
This quote sums up my feelings about the new Star Trek better than anything else. It's like you've been away from the love of your life for longer than you would have liked, but you see them again and they are more beautiful than you remember and you fall in love all over again.
J.J. Abrams (Lost creator and Cloverfield producer) claims he was never a fan of Star Trek. Maybe he's lying or maybe that's what makes this movie so wonderful. This movie is everything that makes the Star Trek franchise great, but through brand new eyes. He makes us see it through new eyes as well by creating a well designed alternate reality (one of the perks of sci-fi) that is the same, yet allows him to have a bit more freedom and, theoretically, helps get the uber-geeks off his back. Also a younger fresh perspective allows this movie to reach out to new audiences both young and old who are just looking to enjoy a good sci-fi movie.
I will admit I had my doubts. I was a Next Gen kid who was never a fan of Kirk. So, why would I care about watching him grow up? Also, there's an intellectualism that I liked about Star Trek that I was worried would be lost in a reboot.
The film opens with a Romulan ship coming through a black hole to attack the U.S.S. Kelvin on the day of James T. Kirk's birth. Within minutes you are thrust into the struggles of a family and a ships crew trying to survive this attack. This human struggle for survival is shown through Kirk's father assuming control of the ship and making sure that his wife and kid (along with as many crew members as he could evacuate) are away from danger. By the time the opening credits roll with the Star Trek logo my eyes are wet with tears for the joy of Kirk's birth, and the emotion in those first few minutes. From that moment on I am captivated as we watch the crew of the U.S.S. Enterprise assume old roles and some new. So much for doubt number one.
The main characters - Chris Pine as Kirk, and Zachary Quinto as Spock - are very reminiscent of the actors who defined these roles (Shatner, and Nimoy respectively). Yet the young actors manage to make the roles their own. The rest of the crew is filled out by Zoe Saldana as Uhura, Simon Pegg as Scotty, and Karl Urban as McCoy. All of the roles follow the lead of those playing Kirk and Spock nailing the mannerisms of those who made the characters famous while giving the characters new life. Eric Bana plays the role of the Romulan Captain from the future who comes to destroy Starfleet because the Starfleet of the future couldn't save his home.
All of the characters are distinctly human (even the Romulan enemy) and written with such depth that you connect and care for them. It wasn't till I was driving home that I realized this was the answer to my second doubt. We Trekkies like to over-romanticize this idea that it was the intellectual level of Star Trek that was it's soul and what made it stand out from other sci-fi. That was never it at all. The soul of Star Trek is that it has soul. It's a universe filled with characters we can connect with and care for. A universe of different cultures trying to understand each other just like the world we live on. It's this connection that allowed us to draw our intellectual and philosophical meanings from this and without this connection life and Star Trek would be without meaning.
I'm sure there will be Trekkies and non-Trekkies who will dislike it for nitpick reasons (ex: why build a starship on earth when you would then have to lift it out of earth's gravity), there always are, but for every one of those there will be a handful of new Trekkies born from this movie. You can't please everybody but J.J. Abrams you pleased the heck out of me. I don't know that I've gotten that much enjoyment out of a movie since I was a kid. It reminds us what movies are for; to make us dream, make us feel, and maybe make us think a bit. I got the joy of rediscovering a part of my adolescence and learning that just cause I'm an adult doesn't mean I can't have flutters of geek-ecstasy when I see the Enterprise in action.
I hope the whole cast and crew live long and that the new Star Trek prospers. <-- Too geeky. I know. I can't help it. It has revived my inner geek and my love of this franchise.
Star Trek (2009) at IMDB
126 minutes
Rated PG-13 for sci-fi action and violence, and brief sexual content.
My Statement Of Purpose
"I get the joy of rediscovering you." - Journey (from the song "Faithfully")
This quote sums up my feelings about the new Star Trek better than anything else. It's like you've been away from the love of your life for longer than you would have liked, but you see them again and they are more beautiful than you remember and you fall in love all over again.
J.J. Abrams (Lost creator and Cloverfield producer) claims he was never a fan of Star Trek. Maybe he's lying or maybe that's what makes this movie so wonderful. This movie is everything that makes the Star Trek franchise great, but through brand new eyes. He makes us see it through new eyes as well by creating a well designed alternate reality (one of the perks of sci-fi) that is the same, yet allows him to have a bit more freedom and, theoretically, helps get the uber-geeks off his back. Also a younger fresh perspective allows this movie to reach out to new audiences both young and old who are just looking to enjoy a good sci-fi movie.
I will admit I had my doubts. I was a Next Gen kid who was never a fan of Kirk. So, why would I care about watching him grow up? Also, there's an intellectualism that I liked about Star Trek that I was worried would be lost in a reboot.
The film opens with a Romulan ship coming through a black hole to attack the U.S.S. Kelvin on the day of James T. Kirk's birth. Within minutes you are thrust into the struggles of a family and a ships crew trying to survive this attack. This human struggle for survival is shown through Kirk's father assuming control of the ship and making sure that his wife and kid (along with as many crew members as he could evacuate) are away from danger. By the time the opening credits roll with the Star Trek logo my eyes are wet with tears for the joy of Kirk's birth, and the emotion in those first few minutes. From that moment on I am captivated as we watch the crew of the U.S.S. Enterprise assume old roles and some new. So much for doubt number one.
The main characters - Chris Pine as Kirk, and Zachary Quinto as Spock - are very reminiscent of the actors who defined these roles (Shatner, and Nimoy respectively). Yet the young actors manage to make the roles their own. The rest of the crew is filled out by Zoe Saldana as Uhura, Simon Pegg as Scotty, and Karl Urban as McCoy. All of the roles follow the lead of those playing Kirk and Spock nailing the mannerisms of those who made the characters famous while giving the characters new life. Eric Bana plays the role of the Romulan Captain from the future who comes to destroy Starfleet because the Starfleet of the future couldn't save his home.
All of the characters are distinctly human (even the Romulan enemy) and written with such depth that you connect and care for them. It wasn't till I was driving home that I realized this was the answer to my second doubt. We Trekkies like to over-romanticize this idea that it was the intellectual level of Star Trek that was it's soul and what made it stand out from other sci-fi. That was never it at all. The soul of Star Trek is that it has soul. It's a universe filled with characters we can connect with and care for. A universe of different cultures trying to understand each other just like the world we live on. It's this connection that allowed us to draw our intellectual and philosophical meanings from this and without this connection life and Star Trek would be without meaning.
I'm sure there will be Trekkies and non-Trekkies who will dislike it for nitpick reasons (ex: why build a starship on earth when you would then have to lift it out of earth's gravity), there always are, but for every one of those there will be a handful of new Trekkies born from this movie. You can't please everybody but J.J. Abrams you pleased the heck out of me. I don't know that I've gotten that much enjoyment out of a movie since I was a kid. It reminds us what movies are for; to make us dream, make us feel, and maybe make us think a bit. I got the joy of rediscovering a part of my adolescence and learning that just cause I'm an adult doesn't mean I can't have flutters of geek-ecstasy when I see the Enterprise in action.
I hope the whole cast and crew live long and that the new Star Trek prospers. <-- Too geeky. I know. I can't help it. It has revived my inner geek and my love of this franchise.
Star Trek (2009) at IMDB
126 minutes
Rated PG-13 for sci-fi action and violence, and brief sexual content.
My Statement Of Purpose
Monday, May 4, 2009
What Matters? (A statement of purpose that I may or may not adhere to)
“Books, records, films – these things matter” - Rob Gordon in High Fidelity
I didn’t just choose this quote because I love the movie and the book it’s from. I used it because it says something about how I see movies, music, books, TV shows, and pop culture. I think, “these things matter”, that we can learn from them. However, I also understand that entertainment can just be entertainment. So it’s hard for me to perfectly define what I plan to do with this blog.
A simple description of my ratings: x / 5
1 - Painful (you'd be better off to skip it and I wish I had)
2 - Watchable (not the worst way to kill time if you're bored, but don't go out of your way)
3 - Worth watching (good choice for a movie night)
4 - Check it out (try to make the time whether you chose to head to the theater or rent it on DVD)
5 - Must see (if you like movies make it a point to see this one)
Sometimes the best way to describe something is to state what it is not. Here are a few things I will try to avoid or at least downplay.
This is not….
-Just reviews: I do plan on doing movie* reviews but I may just take a line of dialogue and go on a tangent of philosophy, theology, religion, or anything else. I will do my best to title “reviews” as such and give the tangents and discussions titles like “The progression of M. Night Shyamalan’s directorial career: Is it a long suicide note on film?” If you’re looking for more serious reviews I suggest you check out MaryAnn Johanson (my favorite reviewer) at FlickFilosopher or find a reviewer you like at MRQE.
-Full descriptions of movies: If you want to know exactly what a movie is about then go watch it. Of course some descriptions of movies will be laid out as they are necessary to do my review. Also I will do my best to avoid saying anything that would “spoil” key parts of movies. When spoilers are necessary I will do my best to label the title as such and will put the spoiler out [spoiler] like this [/spoiler] so that you have to highlight the text to see what it says.
-A parental guide: I am a thirty-something single male with no children. I make no claim to know what is appropriate for you, your children, or families. Some of my reviews and insight may be helpful in making such decisions but I support doing your own research before going to a movie particularly with children. If you have any questions I will do my best to give you the information you need but I suggest you check out a movie’s page at IMDB or search for it on the MPAA website to help you make these decisions.
-Pointless rants about movies I think are bad: I will tell you what I think and in the course of reviews there will be times where I will say what I think they could have done better or why I didn't enjoy a particular movie. However, I get no pleasure out of pretending to be better or smarter than those who made it, or audiences who like it, so I will do my best to avoid coming across with such judgment. It takes all kinds to make the world and I know there are movies in my collection that some people would consider awful.
-Journalism: I have no formal training in journalism, film production, or film criticism. I’m just a guy who loves movies. I feel that this love and my experience over the last decade of working in a movie theater (particularly projection) gives me a unique perspective but that’s all.
-A one sided show: Like any good blogger I started this to hear myself talk. However, one of my favorite things to do is discuss movies. Whether you agree with me or not I want to hear what you think. Also I will watch almost anything once so if there is a movie you think I should see and review then please let me know.
-Limited to new movies: I will throw in classic movies or movies that are just a few years old that I had in my collection and just recently watched. Some of the movies will be new to me and others may be movies I’ve watched dozens of times. I will tell you if it is one I've watched before or where I watched it as this sometimes has a bearing on how a movie is received. Unless I state otherwise the movie is my first watch, and was done in a public theater.
I will try and put up something new, be it review or otherwise, once a week but I make no promises.
Ultimately I just really enjoy movies. I love my job and part of that job is being asked “is this movie any good?” This is just an extension of that. I’m always open to criticism and improvement and I hope you like my blog even if you don’t always agree with what I say.
* I use “movie” because this blog will be primarily about movies, but it can be replaced by; books, music, TV shows, or anything else I may decide to talk about.
I didn’t just choose this quote because I love the movie and the book it’s from. I used it because it says something about how I see movies, music, books, TV shows, and pop culture. I think, “these things matter”, that we can learn from them. However, I also understand that entertainment can just be entertainment. So it’s hard for me to perfectly define what I plan to do with this blog.
A simple description of my ratings: x / 5
1 - Painful (you'd be better off to skip it and I wish I had)
2 - Watchable (not the worst way to kill time if you're bored, but don't go out of your way)
3 - Worth watching (good choice for a movie night)
4 - Check it out (try to make the time whether you chose to head to the theater or rent it on DVD)
5 - Must see (if you like movies make it a point to see this one)
Sometimes the best way to describe something is to state what it is not. Here are a few things I will try to avoid or at least downplay.
This is not….
-Just reviews: I do plan on doing movie* reviews but I may just take a line of dialogue and go on a tangent of philosophy, theology, religion, or anything else. I will do my best to title “reviews” as such and give the tangents and discussions titles like “The progression of M. Night Shyamalan’s directorial career: Is it a long suicide note on film?” If you’re looking for more serious reviews I suggest you check out MaryAnn Johanson (my favorite reviewer) at FlickFilosopher or find a reviewer you like at MRQE.
-Full descriptions of movies: If you want to know exactly what a movie is about then go watch it. Of course some descriptions of movies will be laid out as they are necessary to do my review. Also I will do my best to avoid saying anything that would “spoil” key parts of movies. When spoilers are necessary I will do my best to label the title as such and will put the spoiler out [spoiler] like this [/spoiler] so that you have to highlight the text to see what it says.
-A parental guide: I am a thirty-something single male with no children. I make no claim to know what is appropriate for you, your children, or families. Some of my reviews and insight may be helpful in making such decisions but I support doing your own research before going to a movie particularly with children. If you have any questions I will do my best to give you the information you need but I suggest you check out a movie’s page at IMDB or search for it on the MPAA website to help you make these decisions.
-Pointless rants about movies I think are bad: I will tell you what I think and in the course of reviews there will be times where I will say what I think they could have done better or why I didn't enjoy a particular movie. However, I get no pleasure out of pretending to be better or smarter than those who made it, or audiences who like it, so I will do my best to avoid coming across with such judgment. It takes all kinds to make the world and I know there are movies in my collection that some people would consider awful.
-Journalism: I have no formal training in journalism, film production, or film criticism. I’m just a guy who loves movies. I feel that this love and my experience over the last decade of working in a movie theater (particularly projection) gives me a unique perspective but that’s all.
-A one sided show: Like any good blogger I started this to hear myself talk. However, one of my favorite things to do is discuss movies. Whether you agree with me or not I want to hear what you think. Also I will watch almost anything once so if there is a movie you think I should see and review then please let me know.
-Limited to new movies: I will throw in classic movies or movies that are just a few years old that I had in my collection and just recently watched. Some of the movies will be new to me and others may be movies I’ve watched dozens of times. I will tell you if it is one I've watched before or where I watched it as this sometimes has a bearing on how a movie is received. Unless I state otherwise the movie is my first watch, and was done in a public theater.
I will try and put up something new, be it review or otherwise, once a week but I make no promises.
Ultimately I just really enjoy movies. I love my job and part of that job is being asked “is this movie any good?” This is just an extension of that. I’m always open to criticism and improvement and I hope you like my blog even if you don’t always agree with what I say.
* I use “movie” because this blog will be primarily about movies, but it can be replaced by; books, music, TV shows, or anything else I may decide to talk about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
