RED: Movie Review

I honestly knew almost nothing about RED before I went and saw it, and maybe that was a good thing. I had seen a preview for it at some point a while back but it honestly seemed like the marketing was almost non-existent for this film. I knew that it had a lot of famous people in it and was something about retired assassins, but I almost wrote it off as another Expendables until I got the chance to see an early screening. I must say that I was pleasantly surprised by this mildly funny, slick action pick. Of course it doesn’t have the testosterone of the expendables, but the lighter touch I think makes a winning combination when you are telling the story of a group of assassins.

The movie is about Bruce Willis (OK, I don’t know the characters names, but in a movie that is cast with all movie stars, I don’t think the filmmakers really care if you know the characters names) a retired CIA black-ops agent who goes throughout his mundane life before a team of assassins is sent to wipe him out. He then goes on the run with his never-met-before crush Sarah (Mary Louise-Parker) to gather information and essentially reassemble a team of retired assassins including Morgan Freeman, John Malkovitch, Helen Mirren and Brian Cox. Their purpose according to the plot is to find out why they are being targeted for elimination after they have been retired, but in all actuality, it was just so they could all get together and make sly one-liners, banter about age and do some serious damage. It feels like w you are invited to a party where everyone seems to be friends and at the top of their game, and that makes it fun for the audience as well.

The supporting cast is almost as good as the principals, but their characters don’t have near enough fun and are inconsistent in their portrayals. Bane plays the heartless CIA assassin who’s tasked with hunting down and killing Willis, but come to find out he’s a family man? Richard Dreyfuss plays the bad guy and his job is to be a sniveling bad guy. Not much else for him to do. Besides the acting, there is not much here to laude. The script has some very inventive banter, but the directions, cinematography and sets…were all very Hollywood: Top notch, professional and devoid of any personality. Luckily the cast more than makes up for the deficit.

The pacing of the film, could improve. There are too many slow times interspersed by very surreal sped up action sequences that jar the viewing experience. A certain philosophy may hold that the slow times are needed to balance out the overdrive of action explosions. While I tend to agree on this point, I thought that may of the spaces, long pauses, drawn out glances and awkward silences were more of an editing gaffe than intentional timing by the director. All the same, some of these lulls do enable the cast to build relationships and flesh out their characters. Mary Louise-Parker goes through the biggest metamorphosis from harried cubicle dweller to adventure seeker while John Malkovitch’s weirdo lends most of the comedy and care free abandon one would only hope to have in your later years.

I am not one to promote mindless action films usually (see my Losers review) but in this case, I think this film deserves a lot of praise. It is way too much fun and self-aware to be dismissed as horrible filmmaking. As a matter of fact, I would go so far to say that despite the script or predictability, it’s a very good movie. I can’t believe I’m owning up to the fact that a cast can save a picture no matter how mundane the plot, direction or film itself may be. If Alfred Hitchcock is right, and actors are just cattle, then these cattle must be some seriously funny top quality solid gold Angus.

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

Share

The Social Network: Movie Review

It’s saying something about facebooks’ popularity when most people know the new film The Social Network as “The Facebook Movie.” It says even something more that the film uses restraint in telling the story of facebook without delving much into its popularity, functionality or even purpose. If one honestly had no clue what facebook is, they would probably still not know much about it after seeing this movie and honestly probably not care. In The Social Network, facebook itself serves as a sort of McGuffin, a term Hitchcock used to describe a major element of the plot that drove the story forward, yet was really insignificant in relation to the events of the film. Instead in The Social Network, we get characters who are weak, petty, indecisive, repulsive, sympathetic, excited, awkward, conceited and most importantly…all pretty clueless when it comes to dealing with the new fame and fortune that Facebook drops in their lap quite suddenly.

Jesse Eisenberg plays Mark Zuckerburg…the co-founder and programmer of Facebook. Now, I honestly have no clue what mark Zuckerburg is like in real life, his speech cadences or manner of addressing his fellow human beings (outside his wooden delivery as a guest on The Simpsons) so I am not able to rightly say how much Eisenberg channels the persona of Zuckerburg. It is safe to say that I am a huge fan of how Eisenberg portrayed the lead protagonist. He is not a likeable character by any means, and has the knack for alienating and making an enemy out of everyone except his best friend played by future spidey Andrew Garfield. It is the relationship between Garfield’s Eduardo and Zuckerburg that is the heart of the story, and what a twisted, innocent, backstabbing heart it is.

Garfield has the least amount of work to do in this film since he seems like the only normal down to earth person at Harvard and the rest of the film for that matter. Is he honestly the only one that is able to reason logically when this whole Facebook thing exploded? Justin Timberlake plays the napster party guy Sean Parker who seems fun at first but morphs into the slime ball you love to hate. Both actors do a pretentious best that play identical twins Winklevossi (he he) who claim the Zuckerburg stole their idea and can’t bear the thought that anyone could be more popular than they are.

As a movie…the film is actually quite boring. It’s all dialogue, which in this case is a good thing. I was a huge fan of Aaron Sorkin’s short loved but brilliant show Studio 60 and this film proves he is a genius at quick banter, meaningful introspections and very revealing personal speaking which never comes across that way. I was also glad to see David Fincher move away from his more dark and violent material (yes you Se7en and Zodiac) and prove that you don’t need blood and murder to create compelling drama. There are flashes of brilliance in his style (amen rowing scene) and he somehow keeps the audience engaged through almost 2 hours of solid dialog and talking heads.

Did I actually use compelling and boring to describe the same movie? Yes, I did…because that is what this is. No twists, no big reveal just seriously flawed people trying to navigate themselves around each other with each trying to come out as the top dog. While that may seem trite and rather a downer, Fincher does a stupendous job of showing us that in such a dog-eat-dog world nobody is a winner. All the success and money in the world will never change who you are when you started out…so make sure that someone is a person you can live with, or you will be left friendless and lonely…no matter how many facebook friends you have.

Final Consensus:

See it now!!!!

See it in theaters!!! (not for the special effects, but just to support good moviemaking)

Rent it on DVD/BluRay!!

Wait for it on TV!

Don’t Bother

Share

Easy A : Movie Review

Today I get to be on a soapbox. I know that critics are supposed to stick with their opinion of the movie and not go off on tangents but this film brought up some cliché’s that until now I have been able to stomach. First though, I’ll give you my review of Easy A as a movie…not a societal statement. Easy A follows Olive who is goaded into a lie about being promiscuous. While she doesn’t really do any of the things she is rumored to do, she uses her notoriety to help those that have image problems by letting it seem that they scored with the school tramp. Yeah, I dunno what prompted me to see it.

I was pleasantly surprised to find that Easy A is a likable, funny and enjoyable film. Most of that credit goes to Emma Stone who’s sense of depreciating humor, raspy self awareness and wide eyed I Love Lucy sort of physical reactions bind her character to the audience. It is nice to see a young woman portrayed as confident, self assured and strong…except when she’s not. More on that later. Her parents played by Stanley Tucci and Patricia Clarkson are at the peak of their heavenly married banter and seem to genuinely like each other’s company. Their grounded personalities and outrageous sense of humors match closely with their daughters’ dispositions.

As far as actors go however, I’m afraid that’s all who brought their game. Of course some may find Thomas Hayden Church’s wry teacher a great role but its pretty much the same role he has played since Sideways. I do credit the scriptwriting with some snappy dialogue and playful banter. The ever-dreaded high school movie voice over is cleverly masked as a video-cast that becomes essential to the plot of the film. Everything else serves it’s purpose hear, including come of the clichéd characters (if you’re religious, you must be a psychotic wench), token hip music videos and references to pop culture (there was actually a pretty moving tribute to John Hughes…well played filmmakers, except anyone still in high school would have no clue what most of those movies are).

Now begins my Rant. Turn this review off if you prefer the women in your movies being seen as sexual marks, or really do think all guys are slimy jerks, or that religion is the poison of society. This film could have been Mean Girls or Clueless great if it weren’t so dang preachy. I am glad that the Main protagonist seemed so strong…but then why would she hide behind such a heinous lie? Not only that but don’t you think someone with that much wit and knowledge could have come up with something better. Yeah, Yeah…I know that this was the plot and that people make mistakes…I just hated to see the scriptwriters assume that everything in High School is about sex and therefore had to make her issues all about that. Was she really that one-dimensional? The girls I knew in High school were sweet, complicated and yeah, sometimes made fools of themselves. The difference here is that their lives didn’t revolve around the perception of sexual conquest.

Don’t even get me started about the guys or the rest of the school for that matter. I agree, Parts of high c\school and the pressure there is totally horrible. I did feel judged and had problems fitting in. But the film portrays every single person in this school as out for blood, willing to destroy anyone. Everyone was so selfish, hurtful and bigoted that nothing seemed fun at all. Sorry, but the majority of the people I knew in High School were good natures, well intentioned and very friendly. Granted…there was the gossip mill but it was never strong enough to ruin anyone and most people let it slide quite quickly. I inherently believe people assume the best of others, not the other way around.

And finally, religion. The enemy…and I mean proverbial horrid witch with a B played by Amanda Bynes was a Jesus freak. A complete nutzoid in my book. I understand that the Harlot in the story had to have a nemesis…but from what I can recall, it was Jesus who befriended and forgave the Harlots. Here, those who profess his love drag Olive through proverbial Hell. Yes, I know there are those fanatics about (here’s looking at you clinic bombers) but to lump anyone whose sense of spirituality leans towards Christianity as conniving, vindictive, manipulative, damaging, shallow, vile and hypocritical is alienating those who would never espouse that. Good thing Emma Stone is almost good enough to make you forget all that.

Final Consensus:

See it now!!!!

See it in theaters!!!

Rent it on DVD/BluRay!!

Wait for it on TV!

Don’t Bother

Share

Movie Review: Scott Pilgrim vs. the World

Scott Pilgrim is a different sort of movie…and that is a good thing. It’s hard to find uniquely original movie going fare in this day and age outside of cool developments in special effects for action films. Maybe that’s why I like Scott Pilgrim so much, it’s an indie comedy love story (think (500) Days of Summer) mixed with the martial arts and action of Hero. Now, I just realized that description was pretty horrible. Who would want to see a film like that? What works is that the filmmakers, cast and crew all wear the clichés that come with romance and action flicks on their sleeve, and there is a lot going for a film that a) doesn’t take itself too seriously and b) everyone’s in on the same joke.

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World is about…you guessed it Scott Pilgrim (Michael Cera). He’s a loafer nerd (can he play anything else) who for some reason gets a lot of interesting girls interested in him despite the fact that he’s not very interesting. He falls head over heals with his ‘dream girl’ and spends the rest of the film wooing her by having to defeat her seven evil exes who happen to all know martial arts and be way above Scott in terms of success and looks. Its kind of hard to imagine that alternative nymphet Ramona (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) would actually want anything to do with Scott, but I guess that’s part of the charm, maybe all she wants is a normal relationship without all the expectations that come from so overly possessive significant others.

The real story behind this whole movie is how Scott deals with dating Ramona and breaking up with his old High School age girlfriend Knives Chow (played by the iridescent Ellen Wong). Here is where the writing is at its best and that is a real compliment since the films strength is based on the script. It explores the angst, turmoil and puppy love we have all felt at some point in our life regarding exes and lovers and everyone else that comes in between. The banter between Knives and Scott is beyond adorable except when it is sickening and no matter how hard you try…there is always going to be someone hurt in a breakup. How you deal with it is another matter. Knives loyalty and spontaneous enthusiasm ignite an otherwise Dull Cera.

The casting I must say was sheer Genius. It’s not every day that the lead actors are upstaged so dramatically by everyone else in the film. The Exes go a little over the top, but look for Kieran Culkin and Anna Kendrick (she may redeem herself from Twilight) to drop some choice one-liners and zany advice. The special effects are 80’s Atari tacky, which bodes well for its Indy cred and somewhat lean the gamer audience towards a bygone era. These are the fight games that I remember from Sega and Atari, not your Xbox 360 type shenanigans, and that is just fine with me.

I read an article that talks about why nobody goes and sees different movies anymore, and yet sit and complain about all the bile that Hollywood spews forth. Well, here is your chance to do something about it even though I have a feeling that this film may not even be in theaters anymore. I guess that goes to prove that what makes little gems valuable is how rare they truly are.

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

Share

Movie Comparison: Dinner for Schmucks vs. The Other Guys

Its not often I get to do a comparison piece, but I found these two movies to be too eerily similar and seeing them just a week apart from each other gave me a great opportunity to scrutinize them as sort of a competition. It seems that all “blockbuster” comedies are the slapstick buddy comedies (or some derivative of guys asserting their masculinity in some awkward way). Cases in point Tommy Boy, Caddyshack, Dumb & Dumber…the list goes on and on. Both Dinner for Schmucks and The Other Guys unabashedly follow this genre rule to a clichéd degree, but luckily, both know it and wear it out in the open despite the risk of appearing as been there, done that films.

In comparison, both are pretty outlandish. There are characters and situation so implausible that you laughing at the sheer audacity of the movie before the punch lines are spewed. Both have a love/hate relationship between the two leads that for better or worse makes the movie all the more cringe inducing. Both feature a kaleidoscope of characters that come passing through with more and more crazy stunts and quirks to drive home the laughs. I can honestly say that both made me laugh out loud, both had great audience reaction and both were brash, fun and a little on the edge.

In the case of these two films then, the winner was the one that showed a little more restraint. The one that knew which punches to hold back and the one that honestly developed its characters beyond the annoying weirdo and the annoyed shlub that has to put up with him. Dinner for Schmucks has a heap of Physical Comedy. Steve Carell just cemented himself in my pantheon of greatness with his turn in Dinner for schmucks. There are a few choice scenes that will have you laughing with queasy delight.

However, Dinner goes a little too far with its comedy. There are times I felt it was a little out of control, like each joke was trying to top the previous and the end result was a lot of crude humor and sexual innuendos. Don’t get me wrong, a well-placed zinger can say a lot about societies reservation and even make some commentary on our culture in general. Unfortunately, Dinner for Schmucks failed to capitalize on this when it was the film with the plot that shouted for satire. A dinner is held by bigwigs in a firm monthly to make fun of the biggest idiot. Before he is promoted Tim (Paul Rudd) is asked to come to the dinner with one Barry (Carell) putting Rudd as the identifiable character in the film. Unfortunately, we never identify with him because the premise is so dang mean and there was really no reversal or appraisal of the dinner organizers as the schmucks. There is a lesson about dreaming and moving on in there somewhere, but without the character buildup. There isn’t much payoff.

The Other Guys however shows Farrell at his best. I know some argue that Ricky Bobby or Anchorman are untouchable, but in those he played a straight up SNL character, in this film he actually plays a flawed person. Mark Wahlberg is passable as Terry his police partner, both who are absolutely going nowhere. Before going into these pics I was more excited see the Rudd/Carell pairing but who knew a Farrell/Wahlberg would have so much more chemistry. The mismatched pair stumbles upon a crime that may be bigger than they can handle. Wahlberg’s character is itching for a chance while Farrells Allen is content to push paper. What we come to realize is he is hiding some demons that he is afraid might make him revert to a version of himself he has repressed for so long.

As the hijinks ensue, Farrell lets loose with the one-liners and the bickering awkward cadence of dialogue that results in some seriously funny reasoning (who would win between a lion and a tuna). Allen’s obliviousness to the beauty of his wife (Eva Mendez) irks Terry so much it completely throws him off his game. In the end though, the bond these two develop in trying to repress what makes them the happiest sends more of a message than Schmucks ever could. Not that comedy is about message, but it sure helps to have some emotional clout behind those one-liners, and some investment in the characters that are saying them.


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

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

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