Jack Ryan - Ordinary Recruit

The Jack Ryan franchise has  never really existed in the same tier as Bond, or even Borne for that matter, and Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit movie proves it. While not bad by any means, there was nothing spectacular about the plot or writing that would set this adventure apart from his other ones. That and the fact that this was made with yet another actor in the Jack Ryan role (Hunt for Red October) makes it a techno spy-thriller in the most generic sense.

What does save the film this time is the direction and acting. Seriously, the story is the most predictable ever...you know whats going to happen. But luckily Kenneth Branagh infects it with just enough style to get your heart racing. Chris Pine plays an almost humble and shy character as the new recruit into the CIA's most undercover organization. This big change from the cocky energy filled Captain Kirk is worth the view alone. Luckily, we also have Keira Knightley in her most human role to date as the noncommittal fiance and Kenneth Branagh who can do a villain almost as well as Shakespeare. Kevin Costner does...well, Kevin Costner.

In all it was a good attempt at invigorating a character that the late Tom Clancy pulled through his novels with such care. I was glad to see a lot of Russia in the movie and the accents were actually tolerable! It does make me wonder what it could have been with a plot and script to match the actors.

Final Consensus:
See it now!!!!
See it in theaters!!!
Rent it on DVD/BluRay!! 
Wait for it on TV!
Don’t Bother
Share

Titanic 3D: A lavish overhaul for a flawed classic

I don’t know if I am qualified to review this film since I can honestly say I never saw it in theaters on its original run. So, I really have nothing to compare it to other than my memories of watching it on VHS. The whole 3D conversion thing is big amongst earlier blockbusters (see Disney) but has yet to yield a bona fide hit other than the Lion King, which was respectable. I can honestly say that here, the 3D is magnificent, and not just for the spectacle of the sinking ship.

I’m not going to bother with the plot or anything, if you don’t know it you’ve been living under a rock for the past 15 years. I will extol the merits of seeing it on the big screen in 3D. What impressed me most were the close-ups of faces, every wrinkle, reflection and hair are given new dimension from the 3D. It’s a very personal experience. Images of the actual wreck become more eerie and magnificently hulking. Also, the interior shots of the ship before it sank are breathtaking. As the camera moves through hallways, staircases and atriums, there is a real sense of space and grandeur. It also lends becomes frightful during the sinking sequences where looking down a vastly deep corridor filling with water seems all but hopeless.

On the other hand, there were plenty of things the 3D couldn’t fix. The outdated special effects for one, or the atrocious dialogue both remain. The film is not great by any means and is truly a piece of manipulative popcorn fluff; but one thing can be said. James Cameron knows how to tell a story, and with his eye for stunning visuals, the 3D here not only improves the experience, but also leaves you wondering what he could have done had he been filming it in 3D from the start!

Final Consensus: 
See it now!!!!
See it in theaters!!! (for the 3D)
Rent it on DVD/BluRay!!
Wait for it on TV!
Don’t Bother

Share

Inception: Movie Review

Movies as a general rule are a visual and audible experience. There have been attempts to add smells and or movement gags in old cinemas that never amounted to anything that stuck permanently. For this reason, Films in general are a passive experience where the most physically interactive you may get is laughter or an increased heart rate. Rarely have I had a physical experience with a film. I can remember gripping my hand rests so hard in Jurassic Park that they hurt later and that All my muscled were tense afterward.

Inception gave me a rare physical experience where after the movie I realized four things. One, I had been crying. Two, I was exhausted and needed to calm myself down. Third, I had been sweating from some physical exertion and the third is that I never realized I was going through these physical responses while the film was going…It was that engrossing. This film starts off full speed an never lets up through almost the full 2 and a half hours of screen time. It’s a huge summer spectacle with giant set pieces and action scenes that rival the matrix. On the other hand it is a tender love story, a Greek tragedy and a catharsis tale layered on top of one another. Just for good measure, writer/director Christopher Nolan throws in the most intellectual and thought provoking plots I’ve seen since artsy film school.

The big question however is does this all work. At first, I thought it was wonderful but still did not enjoy it as much as some of the lighter fare of the summer like How to Train Your Dragon. But then I realized a few hours after, and into the next day that it still had a hold of my brain, forcing me to try an figure out plot points, looking for holes or merely exclaiming in my thought... ”How did they do that?” This is a movie that will stick with you for a long time and a few minutes after seeing it, you will want to go back and watch it again. That is if you weren’t so exhausted after the first screening.

Inception centers around Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) who works with his partner Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) as an extractor, someone who enters your mind through subconscious dreams to steal its secrets. Cobb has personal issues that interfere with his job in the subconscious dream state and that he must resolve to ever be reunited with his family. The main problem with this line of work though is it becomes very difficult to know if you are physically present or in some sort of dream…or dream within a dream etc. Of course this premise gives the filmmakers excuse to do anything they want…cause it’s a dream right. Hence the visuals are incredible. I give credit to the set designers and special effects crew who relied on creating and destroying physical spaces as well as using real stunts to create the scenes rather than rely on computer graphics. When the computer is used however it fits seamlessly into the story so you don’t even notice how visually ‘cool’ they really are.

Christopher Nolan has established himself here as a truly great auteur. His unblemished record…Memento, Insomnia, Batman Begins, The Prestige, and The Dark Knight have led the way to Inceptions capstone of brilliance. Here’s a director who is concerned more with the reason people do things. About ordinary men going through extraordinary challenges to get out of harrowing situations. Films where moral ambiguity is pushed aside for the protagonist to stake his claim on choosing the right path and becoming more than a regular man. These are the kinds of films Alfred Hitchcock would be making had he lived long enough to see special effects and film budgets to bloom within reach of his imagination. What both do so well is to make these grand spectacles seem very personal and human, both toughing and epic in their attempt to present a story that effects your heart and body as much as it sears into your eyes and brain. I am just glad there is someone there with enough blockbuster clout and macabre brainpower to take on the task. This is by no means a perfect movie or as much fun as some other popcorn flicks this summer, but it is a worthy and wonderful headtrip that is well worth the admission price...or two.

Final Consensus:
See it now!!!!
See it in theaters!!!
Rent it on DVD/BluRay!!
Wait for it on TV!
Don’t Bother

Share

Killers: Movie Review

I should never write a movie review on an empty stomach, which is exactly what I’m doing now. Too bad because Killers didn’t have enough filler for me to even remotely feel satisfied. I should have taken it as a bad omen that the studio refused to screen it for critics before its release but they cleverly stated that they wanted word of mouth and online buzz to push the ticket sales rather than reviews or standard advertising. Man, that advertising machine duped me. Killers is a completely forgettable experience that made me long for the smart snappy dialogue and chemistry of Carey Grant and Grace Kelly in To Catch a Thief. Instead we are left with tepid performances by Ashton “I look so good I don’t have to act” Kutcher and Katherine “How did I get famous again” Heigl in a film that couldn’t decide if it was a slapstick, dark comedy or drama.

Katherine plays a stunning and smart woman Jen who has recently been dumped by her ugly looking nerd boyfriend and goes on vacation to France for the heck of it with her parents (sounds believable). Ashton plays a covert assassin Spencer on a mission in the same hotel. For some reason they find time to talk and get acquainted for what seems like months (I want that vacation) before getting married. Jen’s dad played by Tom Selek is skeptical of the union while her mom Catherine O’Hara just lets life go by with a scotch in both hands. Thank goodness for O’Hara who seems like the only one having fun in a comedy. Obviously this is her turf and Ashton, Katherine and Tom are all trying to fit in. Unfortunately they don’t.

There is no chemistry in Killers, and did I mention that for a comedy…there’s really none of that. I only laughed out loud at some parts with the mom; otherwise I sat visually perplexed. I even left the theater to go to the bathroom, get a drink and talk to some of the theater staff in the middle of the movie, and when I returned…I don’t think I missed anything. OK, so I may be a little hard on the movie. There are some pretty cool fight scenes, and some of the married couple banter between Heigl and Ashton seems funnier when killing is involved (is that possible?) The scenes in France are gorgeous and everything technically is very professionally done.

Which leads me to my biggest question. How can a film that looks great with great actors in a pretty funny set-up in a gorgeous location end up being so mundane and, well…bad? I have to blame the director on this one. The editing, script, lighting, acting in general was all very sustainable but nothing gelled. None of the parts or characters in Killers seemed cohesive, believable, developed or for that matter relatable and that job falls distinctly on the director. I won’t name him here, but if you do want an undercover crime romance set in France to watch…see To Catch a Thief with a director who knew how to get things right named Hitchcock!

Final Consensus:
See it now!!!!
See it in theaters!!!
Rent it on DVD/BluRay!!
Wait for it on TV!
Don’t Bother

Share

Prince of Persia: Movie Review

SPOILER ALERT!!

There are stories here and there that use what we could call the ‘cop-out’. You know the ones. The protagonist suddenly wakes up in his bed to realize the whole thing is a dream. The kids finally get rid of the killer but he’s really not dead. You know. These are the films and stories I honestly believe one of two things happened. The original writer was fired and the finished the movie without a script, or the original writer died and a studio executive finished it for them. In either case, no self-respecting writer would ever do that to his or her own book, script, and screenplay what-have-you…until recently. I have seen way too many movies this year that ruin a perfectly enjoyable experience at the theater by killing the ending. They set it up for another sequel, they wrap it up to quickly or, as in the case of Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time…they just pretend it never happened.

OK, sorry, now that I’ve ruined the movie for you…feel free to sit back and enjoy a movie that is actually a lot of fun and really light popcorn fare. Jake Gyllenhaal plays the title character that was plucked as a homeless beggar from the streets to become an adopted son of the king. All grown up, he and his brothers are on conquest and make a fateful decision to attack a holy city who’s princess is charged with protecting a certain dagger. Of course by now you know the price falls for the princess and there is some backstabbing along the way. Believe you me; it is definitely not the plot that makes this movie enjoyable. Rather, it is the cast that seems to have a blast and we just go right along with it.

Jake Gyllenhaal has always been a conundrum to me playing in quirky 'indies' as well as spectacle pictures. But rarely has he seemed so alive and confident in this picture. And Gemma Arterton can actually act if she is given something other to do than be eye candy like in Clash of the Titans or Quantum of Solace. The real scene-stealer in the movie is Alfred Molina as the thief Nizam who throws himself with reckless abandon into the con artist ostrich-loving quasi bad-guy. Everyone else in the film is serviceable being led by Ben Kingsley doing his best Ben Kingsly impersonation and a slew of other characters that takes their roles a little to seriously for a movie based on an old Nintendo game.

The special effects could be amped up a bit, but it didn’t bother me too much since the best parts of the film had little or no effects in them. It’s a good thing the film is called Sands of Time because there is a lot of sand…I mean a LOT. So much so I started getting itchy thinking about how much sand poor Jake had to roll around in. Of course this movie is in no way a great film. I bet there are a few of you who would argue that this is an adequate film at best, but compared to some of the really agonizing stupidity that has come out this past year, Prince of Persia dares to be all out and does so with a healthy dose of tongue in cheek. Now if only we could get Hollywood to stop firing or killing of any descent writer, we might have a winning combination sooner or later.

Final Consensus:
See it now!!!!
See it in theaters!!!
Rent it on DVD/BluRay!!
Wait for it on TV!
Don’t BotherShare

Robin Hood: Movie Review

Word of mouth (or of finger) has the ability to make or break a movie after its released. Take for instance How to Train Your Dragon (still my #1 of 2010), which kept doing well in the theaters week after week because people told other people how good it was. On the other hand you have Clash of the Titans, which did menial box office despite it being one of the studios larger releases of the summer. Another caveat to the word of mouth phenomenon is the critics’ score. As regular people we like to think we don’t care about what all those hoity-toity critics write, but believe me, we are all eventually influence by them. And that was the very reason I was apprehensive about seeing Robin Hood. The critics trashed it so much, I didn’t even go see it opening weekend.

But there is a silver lining to such advice. Every now and then you are pleasantly surprised because your expectations are so low. I was really expecting this movie to suck…and here’s the kicker, it doesn’t. Could it be the critics are wrong? Heaven forbid! But in this case, I can honestly say they were. Robin Hood is an adventure movie pure and simple. It has your requisite corny lines, bad guy, good guy, love interest, totally unbelievable plot points and I though it was great. What dooms the movie however is that its lead actor/director tandem don’t live up to anywhere close to their previous Gladiator. Russell Crowe as Robin Hood is just as gloomy in this film as in Gladiator, but he really doesn’t have a reason to be. And poor Ridley Scott can’t seem to decide if he wants to be the man who directed Matchstick Men or the one directing Alien.

That aside, the movie is an escapist period piece that serves for very passable entertainment. We follow Robin Longstride as he assumes another’s identity to make it in a post-war England where he has no family. His antics win him the admiration of The Loxley patriarch played by a superb Max von Sydow and the ire of the widowed wife Maid Marion (Cate Blanchet). Of course throw in the merry men and Friar Tuck and we have a good time. This plot only brings us up to the moment where Robin becomes the outlaw…and doesn’t really delve into the legend. This irked me, as it seemed the ending of the movie was quickly wrapped up, re-edited and closed down for the sole purpose of making a sequel. It was done in such a rushed way that the pace totally threw me off.

Scott is at his best filming the fight scenes here. Reminiscent of Gladiator, they none-the less pull a few punches to keep the PG-13 rating. There are great action scenes but none that rival the wow factor of the adrenaline pumping 300 or Gladiator. What Robin Hood does try to do is present the story of the man with all the requisite entertainment required. In one aspect I do agree with the critics, it does take itself too seriously at times, but it’s nowhere near as brow-furrowed as Clash of the Titans. This is by no means a great movie, but I am very glad the critics were so off on this to lead me into enjoying it so much; and after Blade Runner..I have to forgive Scott of everything.

Final Consensus:
See it now!!!!
See it in theaters!!!
Rent it on DVD/BluRay!!
Wait for it on TV!
Don’t BotherShare