 (5 BDKs) WHAT ARE YOU DOING STILL SITTING THERE READING THIS CRAP--GET OFF YOUR ASS AND GO SEE THIS MOVIE RIGHT NOW!!!!! |
(4 BDKs) Go see it in theaters if it interests you. Try to catch a Matinee if you are unsure. |
(3 BDKs) RENT THIS MOVIE, but do not see it in the theaters. |
(2 BDKs) Watch it on cable!!! |
(1 BDK) Watch it on cable if you have time!!! |
Public EnemiesGenre: Crime/Drama/Thriller Released: 2009 Rating:  What could have been Michael Mann's masterpiece ends up being a bland, slow, emotionless film with one very cool action sequence. Did I mention that the first hour of the film will bore you to tears? I was going to go with something cheesy like; "Hey, make sure you check your watch's battery so you can check the time" or something. Mann, who is known for shooting his most recent films (Collateral, Miami Vice) on high definition cameras, pretty much lost his touch with this movie. The biggest concern I had going into the film was the fact that he was shooting the 1930's in HD. To be honest, that was the least of the film's problems and actually turned out to be one of the few positive aspects. It actually ended up adding to the time period and realism. The problems lie within the script and the acting. This movie was almost as confusing, at times, as Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. Characters would pop out of nowhere and story points would just fall into our laps as if we were supposed to know what was going on the entire time. When you combine one of the greatest living actors, with one of biggest stars in Hollywood right now, you better come out with guns blazing. No pun intended. Johnny Depp stars as John Dillinger, the famous bank robber from the 1930's. According to the film, he could rob a bank in one minute and 40 seconds flat. Depp plays Dillinger as this carefree guy, who goes around robbing banks and doing everything his way. He can have any girl he wants, whenever he wants her. As he does with Billie Frechette (played by Oscar winner Marion Cotillard). Throughout the movie, we see Dillinger robbing banks and escaping from prison over and over again. F.B.I. director, J. Edgar Hoover (played by Billy Crudup) wants to put an end to this by assigning Agent Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale) to the case. Purvis has just taken down Pretty Boy Floyd (Channing Tatum) and his new mission is to take down public enemy number one, John Dillinger. The majority of the film takes place in Chicago where Dillinger and his friends continue to rob banks. One of Dillinger's men, Baby Face Nelson (played by Stephan Graham), is also on the public enemies list. The film's biggest problem is the overall tone. You leave the film feeling very bland and dull. There is hardly any emotion to any of the characters. Even when there is an emotional seen, you have a hard time connecting with the character. This issue became apparent during the first hour, which bores you to tears. You never have time to learn about the characters. I guess Michael Mann just assumed we already knew a lot about Dillinger and Purvis. He probably thought that he did not need to expand on their lives and decided to jump right into the meat of the plot. That is fine in certain circumstances but when you want the audience to connect with a character, you need to give some type of backing. The prime example of the film's lack of emotion is the relationship between Depp's character and Cotillard's character. They meet, he tells her that she is his girl and that is it. We are then supposed to assume that they are now in love and that when they are apart, they hurt for each other. That is fine, but Mann didn't give the audience any time to learn about them. I never for once, felt any emotion when she was crying or sad that he was in jail or that he was away robbing banks, etc. You need that emotional connection to stay with a film. If you don't feel for the lead character and his lover, what is the point? We all know Michael Mann is amazing at filming action scenes as we have seen in Heat, Collateral and Miami Vice. The action scenes in this film, which consist of guns from 1930's, were really well shot and one of them in particular was extremely intense. They are scattered throughout the emotionless plot and just seem to blend in. Like I said, only one of them stands out. Depp has the most memorable scenes in the film, including one scene which actually turned the movie around for me at one point. His character, John Dillinger, has an interesting experience inside the Chicago Police Department, one afternoon. That is all I will say. The clue to this scene is that he asks someone a baseball score. You will know it when you see it. I really have nothing to say about Christian Bale. His character talked exactly like a President. He even had the exact hand gestures at one point. It was extremely awkward and very emotionless. To be honest, it just seems like he phoned it in. I hate to say that, considering how good of an actor he is. Lately, with Terminator: Salvation and now this, he has just been slacking. I want the American Pyscho back. I hate to say this but he is honestly just a blip in this movie. Depp overrules everything with a very mediocre performance that is nothing to write home about. I was waiting for a Pacino/De Niro-type scene between these two characters. To this day, I will say that is the best work Michael Mann has ever done. There is a scene in this movie which has a similar vibe but is nowhere near the caliber of Heat. Is the movie bad? Not at all. It just happens to be very mediocre, which is not okay for a Michael Mann film starring Johnny Depp and Christian Bale. The movie would be best seen as a rental. There is one action scene worth seeing and the rest is just okay. Rent this one and save your money, hence the 3 BDK rating. Back to Top |
Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs Genre: Animation/Action/Adventure/Comedy/Family/Romance Released: 2009 Rating: The trilogy takes a downward spiral with the first being the best and this one the worst. While the film may appeal to kids, I did not laugh one time and it appears to me that adults will find this film to be dreadful. I immediately lost interest when the first three minutes were the entire movie trailer that has been playing in theaters for months. The opening of a film is supposed to capture your attention but if you have already seen the opening, you will immediately be turned off. I understand if they want to show a clip from the trailer in the opening but to have your entire opening sequence be the trailer you have been showing for months now; that is just sad and unnecessary. This is the first Ice Age film in 3D and it looks no different from the last two movies except for the fact that theaters will be charging you two or three extra dollars to see it. Oh and did I mention that most of the jokes in this film fall flat and it just adds more fuel to the fire that Pixar is the only animated film business right now that knows how to make a good animated flick. They have the formula down where adults see one movie and the kids see the other. The directors of this film only went for the kids. Big mistake! Plus, we all know the best parts of the Ice Age films are with Scrat; the squirrel who is always trying to find an acorn but comes across life threatening issues when trying to hold onto it. Even that bit is getting old in this movie. It was funny in the first film, made the second film tolerable and now it is getting tired in this third one. This time around, the crew are dealing with childbirth and dinosaurs. Ellie (voiced by Queen Latifah) and Manny (Ray Romano) play a woolly mammoth couple who are about to become parents. Their sidekicks, which include a sabre tooth tiger named Diego (Dennis Leary) and a sloth named Sid (John Leguizamo) are going through a life crisis where they feel they have no family and no future. Watching Ellie and Manny together makes them jealous. Diego wants to go off on his own and Sid has a complex that he will never have a family until one day when Sid stumbles across three dinosaur eggs. These eggs eventually hatch and he considers them to be his family. That is, until the mother T-Rex, wants her kids back. The problem is that she takes Sid along with her. This creates the drama for the film, as now, Manny, Ellie and a couple of their friends have to make a journey to an unknown world underneath the ice to find their friend Sid. This world is filled with dinosaurs and a little animal named Buck (voiced by Simon Pegg). Buck thinks he is the greatest warrior of all time, considering he has faced the father T-Rex; named Rudy. He signs on to help the pact on their journey to find their friend, Sid. While all this is going on, we have no idea when Ellie is going to give birth. That sounds interesting and entertaining right? Well, it could have worked if the script was not so terribly written. There were just so many awful jokes, especially for Buck's part. There was one point where Ellie is sliding down a dinosaur tail and says "Yaba Yaba Do!" That was clearly bad but afterwards when one of the characters said that she should never "Yaba Yaba Dothat again," I wanted to blow my brains out. Look, I am all for cheesy jokes but not when they are done to seriously make people laugh. I guarantee those writers actually thought those were funny jokes. After the film, I was talking to some parents and they said that there six year old kids loved the movie. Now, that I can understand. The movie is written for kids that age and they do not know any better. They will laugh at anything. It is a very interesting dynamic if you think about it. Most younger kids that I talked to, did not like Wall-E. That film was so adult and barely had any dialogue. When you look at movie like Up, the filmmakers combined the adult and the kid humor perfectly. With Ice Age: Rise of the Dinosaurs, they only paid attention to the kids, not the people who have seen the first two and are tired of all the same jokes. Regardless of what I say, kids are going to enjoy this movie because there is a ton of bathroom humor and the jokes are very low rent. No offense to kids but they will find anything funny. In my opinion, the film was slightly entertaining but overall, a very dull experience. I would recommend a cable viewing of this movie, hence the 2 BDK rating. If you do see the film, stay away from the 3D added charges. The only thing 3D about this movie is the depth of field. Trust me, there is nothing different. Back to Top |
Transformers: Revenge of the FallenGenre: Action/Adventure/Sci-Fi Released: 2009 Rating:  (I have seen the film in both 35mm and in IMAX. I had heard before seeing the film in IMAX that there would be additional scenes but I did not see anything different at all. The only difference were that 2 of the key action scenes were shot on IMAX film; meaning they took up the entire screen. Those scenes are the only thing worth seeing in this film). Visually, the film is beautiful, but as a huge fan of the first film, I was thoroughly disappointed with the overall structure, pacing, script and experience. I don't think I have seen a film this unstructured in my entire life. There was no tension whatsoever throughout the entire film. It felt like Michael Bay shot everything, threw it all into a blender and then dumped it out onto the screen. Bay has always been criticized for only being a director when it comes to explosions and action. People think that he can't direct a decent story or decent acting. Well, I have always been the one to back him up but after seeing this film, I honestly cannot defend him this time. All of Bay's flaws became apparent in this latest film where the pacing and structure were just atrocious. The film clocks in at close to 2 hours and 30 minutes long and it feels like it goes on forever. When I discuss the structure of the film, it is kind of hard to express exactly what I feel. I guess I can say it is a very unsatisfying film because, at least for me, people are expecting so much. Bay, who has directed some of the better action films of the 90's and early 2000's, has obviously become a little full of himself. He started off so strong with films like Bad Boys, The Rock, Armageddon and then he hit his peak in 2007 with Transformers. That film had, easily, some of the best special effects ever seen on screen. Never before had I seen such flawless interactions between a CGI character and a real human actor. I was talking to a friend of mine today about how special those effects were. Now that we have seen them, what did Bay need to do in order to top the first flick? Well, whatever he did with this movie was not the answer. Those effects were already done so he almost needed to build a better story arc this time. He relied too much on the effects and action, which we have already seen, and that hurt the overall film. The entire cast is pretty much back including Shia LaBeouf (Disturbia), Megan Fox, Hugo Weaving (Mr. Smith from The Matrix), Josh Duhamel (Win a Date with Todd Hamilton), John Turturro (The Big Lebowski),Peter Cullen (voices Optimus Prime), Tyrese Gibson (2 Fast 2 Furious) and one of the best stars of the film; Julie White (she plays Shia's mother in the film). The first and second film both deal with pretty much the exact same story. The Autobots are trying to save the earth, while the Decepticons are trying to destroy it. In the words of Vincent Coccotti (Walken from True Romance), "In case you are in the dark on this, let me shed some light." In the first film, we learned of a cube called the "Allspark," which has the potential to create worlds and transformers. Anyone who has control over this can rule the universe. We learn in the first film that high school senior Sam Witwicky (LaBeouf) has a secret pair of glasses that contain the locaton of the "Allspark." His great Grandfather came across the Allspark many years ago and the location was ingrained in his glasses, which now belong to Sam. The first film deals with the Autobots going to Sam to retrieve the glasses and the Allspark before the Decepticons get a hold of it. For people who do not know, Optimus Prime is the leader of the Autobots and Megatron is the leader of the Decepticons. The end of the first film ended in a street battle between the Autobots and Decepticons. They were fighting over the Allspark which ended in the deathof Megatron. Sam saved Optimus Prime's life and the destroyed the Allspark. Or, we thought! (Insert scary music with don don don!!) In the second film, we pretty much have the same story, but this time around, it is two years later. The Autobots have now formed an alliance with the U.S. Government and are currently fighting remaining Decepticons that are left on the planet. Sam is now going off to college and his beautiful girlfriend, Mikaela (Megan Fox) is staying behind. They will be dealing with a long distance relationship. Right before he leaves for school, he finds a piece of the Allspark in his old shirt from the first film. When he touches this, he is immediately affected and starts seeing odd symbols in his head. The Decepticons get word of this and realize that Sam can lead them to a secret location that contains an object which can completely destroy earth. All Sam wants is a normal college life but the Autobots come to him asking for help to save Earth. The leader of the Decepticons is now a transformer called "The Fallen" and he wants earth destroyed. They are able to hack a U.S. Army Satellite to get information on the whereabouts of Megatron's body, in order to bring him back to life. We are now lead back into a battle between the Autobots and the Decepticons with Sam Witwicky directly in the middle. The film's biggest problems lay within the editing and script. When you have a film that is two hours and 30 minutes long, you need to engage your audience. All Michael Bay did with this movie was create an up and down pattern. Here is the pattern of the movie; Action scene, love scene, action scene, love scene, action scene, love scene. The film did not flow right at all and felt very anti-climatic. I felt nothing for the characters and could care less where the ending was headed. You may be saying to yourself, "It's an action movie, who cares?" Well, yes, you are right. The first film was perfect with great action, funny dialogue and a decent story. This one relies to heavy on the action we have already seen and it becomes over saturated. The first film at least had a decent story line and built enough tension throughout, that you were engaged and wondering what was going to happen next. I was so blown away by the first movie because of the special effects and overall mind blowing experience. This sequel completely lacks everything that made the first movie so memorable. Bay over saturates you with special effects and bad jokes. After a while, the action scenes and special effects became meaningless and boring. Don't get me wrong, there were some decent action scenes that will leave you with your mouth wide open but they are very few and far between. There was a sound that would continue to play throughout the movie that essentially played at every cut of the movie. I can't describe the sound but it was a sound that should only be played every once in a while to create tension. It truly saddens me to say that this film was not up to par with the first and is not worth your money. The visuals are stunning at times, but overall, we are inundated with terrible dialogue and awful characters, specifically Mud Flap and Skids. These are two transformers who follow Shia and Mikaela around but they extremely racist and extremely annoying. Considering they are in around 60% of the film, they were a huge problem. I have heard people already referring to them as the Jar Jar Binks of "Transformers." This film receives 2.5 BDK's. Go rent the first one. You are guaranteed to have a better time. Back to Top |
My Sister's KeeperGenre: Drama Released: 2009 Rating: The film is not easy to digest but is told in such a way that you can easily relate it to your own life in a positive way. If anything, the film will affirm the undying love of a mother. To this day, as a 25 year-old man, I still do not understand the love of a mother. My mom is constantly checking up on me, wondering what I am doing and always cries the minute I leave. I never really understood that until now. When you are watching My Sister's Keeper, you may find yourself frustrated as to why the mother will not let up. As her character says, it is because she can't. No one will ever understand that, unless you are a mother. My Sister's Keeper is based on a very popular novel that, ironically, my mother talks about all the time. The novel was written by Jodi Picoult and the film is directed by The Notebook director; Nick Cassavetes. The trailers for this movie were among the most depressing I have ever seen. There were times when this trailer first came out that you could hear people crying during it. That was just the trailer! What was going to happen when the full movie came out? The story revolves around a young girl named Kate (played by Sofia Vassilivia) who is dying of Leukemia. Her sister, Anna (played by Abigail Breslin) was genetically conceived by her parents (played by Cameron Diaz and Jason Patrick) in order to keep Kate alive. Growing up, Anna had to give blood, bone marrow and many other aspects of her body to keep Kate alive. She was made with the same genetics on purpose so that she would match. In harsher terms, she was not a child her parents were expecting to have. At the age of 11, she decides that enough is enough and wants to sue her family for the right to her own body. It has gotten to the point now where Anna is going to have to give Kate a kidney in order for Kate for survive. Anna no longer wants to do this because she feels it will ruin her life; i.e. partying, drinking, eating certain foods,etc. She goes to an attorney, played by Alec Baldwin. You can see where the drama goes from here. First of all, this is one hell of a story. On top of that, Cassavetes wrote a script that told the story from a very unique perspective. He gives each main character their own voice over. This allows the audience to capture the essence of the family and how they each react to Kate's illness. My issue is that Cassavetes should have kept this up more throughout the entire film. It was an interesting aesthetic used more in the beginning. I would have liked to have more of that in the end of the film. The performances are just phenomenal. One of the biggest surprises was Joan Cusack as the judge. Her character had lost a 12 year old daughter recently. Therefore, she played a very key and emotional role as the judge on this particular case. Her scenes with Abigail Breslin were breathtaking. Cameron Diaz was the perfect caring mother. You sit there the entire time, wondering when she is going to give up and just let her daughter pass away. You as an audience member, slowly start to realize that she will not give up because her love is so strong. My biggest issue with the film was the fact that they ended it on such a Hollywood note. Meaning, they took the easy route out so that they could please the audience members. Personally, after hearing the ending the book had, I would have like to have seen that. It is a little more on the harsh side but it is not all buttered up like the film's ending. I think this is a film well deserving of your viewing either in the theaters or as a rental, hence the 3.5 BDK rating. It delivers the right amount of emotions whether it be sad or happy. Back to Top |
Year OneGenre: Adventure/Comedy Released: 2009 Rating: Year One contains a few jokes that work and many that do not but what is really bothersome is that Cera and Black play the exact same roles they always play. This was mentioned in my Nick and Nora's Infinite Playlist review where I said that I have no clue if Michael Cera will have a long career in this business. Every one of his characters has the exact same delivery every time. It's that very subtle, not understanding-type of dialogue with a hint of unintentional sarcasm. The same goes for Jack Black where he is always playing the rocking out, stoner-type character that is completely secure with his flaws; i.e. being overweight. Black has made a long career out of it though. So we shall see what Cera makes of it. Here's the thing, both Cera and Black utilize those traits well enough in this film that it actually adds to the story in an interesting way. It was just funny to see these types of characters in this time period. The flick is written and directed by Harold Ramis, who if you go back and check out his IMDB page, has written and directed some of the greatest comedies of all time. A lot of people remember him from Ghostbusters but forget that he wrote Caddyshack and Animal House. Based on that resume, you should have a gem of a comedy with Year One, right? Well, not exactly! Ramis also gets writing help in this film by co-writers Lee Eisenberg and Gene Stupnitsky. Both Lee and Gene write for NBC's "The Office." The film tells the story of the first road trip ever, taken by Zed (Jack Black) and Oh (Michael Cera). Both Zed and Oh grew up in a small village where they were so sheltered from the real world that they thought if they walked far enough, they would fall off the earth. We are in the hunters and gatherer's phase of our history. Zed is terrible at hunting; always getting picked on and not completing all of his tasks. He is in love with a girl named Maya (June Diane Raphael), who only really wants to go for the head hunter with the big muscles. Oh is a terrible gatherer that is always getting picked on as well and is in love with a young girl named Eema (Juno Temple). One day, when they are out taking a stroll, they come across a tree that contains forbidden fruit. Their village has always had one rule and that is too never eat the forbidden fruit. Zed, being the rebel and the typical Jack Black character, decides to eat the forbidden fruit and then is immediately ejected from the tribe. In a very Jerry Maguire-type moment, Zed asks if anyone will come with him. Oh and Zed end up making an epic journey across the lands. They come across a lot of the historical people like Cain (David Cross) and Able (Paul Rudd), Abraham (Hank Azaria) and a High Priest with a ton of chest hair (Oliver Platt). On this journey, they also realize that people from their village have been held captive and they must save the love of their lives. The jokes in the film are very 50/50. There are some pretty decent jokes that do hit you in the right way but there are also a lot of jokes that just fall completely flat. There was one particular scene when we first meet Cain and Able and they discussing "suck" and it was the most awkward and unfunny thing I have seen. I enjoyed the Zed and Oh characters but they were essentially just Jack Black and Michael Cera with long hair. They even talked and used the exact same language they use all the time. The one positive that came out of using those same characters was their interaction with the story and the set designs. The concept is definitely interesting and you watch the movie with the curiosity of what will happen next. Ramis did a great job keeping the settings like the old times and definitely deserves some credit there. The film is not bad and actually stays consistently entertaining throughout but some of that is hope that the jokes will get funnier as film goes on. It turns out that it becomes less and less true after a while. The beginning picked up with some steam and some more jokes hit throughout but not enough to keep it afloat as a great comedy. This is the perfect film to check out as a rental/cable viewing, hence the 2.5 BDK rating. Back to Top |
The ProposalGenre: Comedy/Romance Released: 2009 Rating: Even though I was able to figure out the ending just based on my knowledge of romantic comedies, the film still delivered decent laughs and good chemistry. It's pretty sad when you can tell the direction a film will go, just by watching the trailers. Then, once you see the film, you find out that your instincts were correct. Ryan Reynolds, who received the majority of his fame playing Van Wilder, has now ventured into the romantic comedy scene. One of the few romantic comedies that really resonated last year was Definitely, Maybe starring Reynolds. He really does work well in all settings, delivering that same type of sarcastic humor and awkwardness. He was also able to be a complete bad-ass in films like X-Men Origins: Wolverine and Blade 3. Not that those movies were any good, but he always adds a fun flavor to even the worst movies out there. That just proves how well-rounded he is as an actor. You could just tell it was very easy for him to step right into this role with Sandra Bullock. It was as if they knew each other for years. The film also stars Craig T. Nelson (Blades of Glory, The Incredibles), Mary Steenburgen (Stepbrothers, I Am Sam), Betty White (Rose Nylund from "The Golden Girls"), Malin Ackerman (Watchmen) and a hilarious recurring role from an actor named Oscar Nunez (who plays Oscar on "The Office.") He was definitely the best part of the flick. He definitely stole the entire movie. The sad part about this film is how cliché the plot line is. Regurgitating the plot line via this review is making think even less of the film; which is a problem because I kind of enjoyed it. Essentially, Margaret Tate (played by Sandra Bullock) is the chief editor of a book publishing company in New York City. She has had the same hard working assistant for three years; Andrew Paxton (played by Ryan Reynolds). Paxton only took the job because he, one day, wanted to become an editor and have his own manuscript published. One day, Margaret finds out that since she is Canadian and has not filled out proper paper work, that she is now being deported back to Canada. The only way to keep her in the U.S. is to get married. She bribes her assistant, Andrew, into getting engaged with her so that she can stay in the country. There is only one problem; they have to legally get married and that means that they have to pass tests and prove that they are not committing fraud. The perfect opportunity arises for them to take a trip to Alaska to see Andrew’s parents for his grandma's 90th birthday. They will have to pretend like they are in love the whole time so that they can fool everyone. The Proposal actually does deliver some really funny moments. There were definitely parts where I was laughing out-loud. What is terrible about that is I know I have seen this movie before, yet I still find myself getting suckered into it emotionally. I don't get why I allow myself to do that but I guess that is just the magic of cinema. Bullock and Reynolds resonate so well together on screen that they make this predictable film, worth watching. What happened is the writers took a predictable and cliché plot and wrote great dialogue and new scenes around it. That shouldn't be too hard and it is happening all around Hollywood all the time. I remember having a conversation with someone about movie plots and they were joking about some vault that writers/producers go into to make the perfect movie. It is almost like every movie contains a certain building block from this movie-making factory. Reynolds and Bullock could not have been cast more perfectly. They played the perfect roles where they hated each other at first and they start to grow slowly on each other. I saw this movie two years ago when it was called; What Happens in Vegas. They were both playing extremely awkward parts, which were very fitting. One of the funniest parts of this film, which has already been spoiled in the trailers, is the scene where they are both naked. Yes, Sandra Bullock is completely naked in this film. She conveniently places her arms in the right place to cover her areas. There is way more in the actual film than you see in the trailers and that alone is worth seeing. It was the perfect awkward comedic moment. While the film is very entertaining, it still falls into the category of a movie you have seen. Why pay the money to see it. I can see this being a good date movie; therefore, to each his own. Personally, I would suggest this as a rental, hence the 3 BDK rating. Back to Top |
The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3Genre: Crime/Drama/Thriller Released: 2009 Rating: At best, Tony Scott has directed a mediocre action thriller that delivers some decent intense sequences. The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 is a very tough film to review because it is not a bad flick but it isn't a great film either. To be completely honest, I did not feel like my time was wasted at all but I would not revisit this film again unless it was on cable. On the upside, it leaves you guessing until the final minute and you actually sit there wondering what is going to happen next. The downside is that afterwards, you walk out with a very middle-of-the-road outlook. There is a lot of build up to a very simplistic finale. Was it me or did John Travolta not sound right when he said the word; Motherf*****? I know that is an odd thing to pick out when reviewing a movie but that really bothered me. When he first said it, I let it go as a bad line. He literally goes on to say it more than ten times and you start to feel more uncomfortable after each one. Maybe it was the character but only certain actors have the skills to pull off that word. I would love to see a montage sequence of that word being used. I bet the majority of those would be from Samuel L. Jackson. As Walter Garber (played by Denzel Washington) describes in the film, Pelham 1 2 3 got it's name because it leaves from Pelham station at 1:23pm everyday. It was just a normal afternoon in New York City until a man named Ryder (played by John Travolta) decided to take a metro train hostage. After all is said and done, the train contains 19 hostages and is stopped underground. Going along for the ride with Ryder is Phil Ramos (played by Luis Guzman). They skillfully take over the train and then report in to the MTA station where Walter Garber happens to be on call duty that day. Ryder requests $10 million in one hour and each minute that the money is late, he will kill a hostage. The Mayor (James Gandolfini) is notified immediately, as well as the New York Police Department. Their negotiator, Camonetti (John Turtturo), arrives on the scene but this only makes matters worse. Ryder only wants to deal with Garber. This begins an hour long intimate back and forth between the two which raises other issues which create more intensity for the film. In the original 1974 film, Garbar's part was played by Walter Matthau and Ryder was played by Robert Shaw. I am actually watching the original film while I write this review. The film is very similar but the new flick relies more on technology, i.e. Travolta using a laptop to keep an eye on things, as well as a young teen on the train is able to communicate with his girlfriend via a web cam. Looking back on the film, I have a feeling of "that was pretty good." Tony Scott tends to overuse his highly stylized editing and directing in a lot of his movies. This was mostly overdone in Domino but he was able to use it perfectly in such films as Man on Fire and Deja Vu. He truly is a remarkable director and is a genius at creating great intensity and beautiful cinematography. If anything, his films are always good looking. He did not always have the highly stylized editing. He and his brother, Ridley, have always been great at shooting the really dark rooms with someone smoking. The scene in True Romance comes to mind when Dennis Hopper asks for that Chesterfield cigarette while talking to Christoper Walken. Scott kept his cool with this film though and did not over do it. You definitely get his normal fast paced editing in the opening credit sequence and some of the scenes throughout are shot in that quick shooting style of his. As always, Denzel Washington gives a solid performance. The only problem is that Travolta's performance is completely over-the-top. I don't mind a quirky Travolta character like the one he had in Face/Off but this just felt awkward. A lot of that had to do with the way his character was written. He was very goofy but the word choice just didn't fit the character at all. Because of his choice of words, the character did not come off as menacing at all. The one thing that Tony Scott does beautifully is create intensity and great car chase scenes. There are scenes in this film where money is being delivered throughout New York City via cop cars and motorcycles. These scenes are amazingly shot and just great to see on the big screen because they are very quick and unpredictable. Scott uses his classic slow motion technique to show the crashes and they look beautiful. Again, this is not a bad film and it is not a great film. If you go in with mediocre expectations, you will walk out satisfied. I did. I would say this is a solid 3 BDK rating meaning the best place to check it out is the comfort of your own home. It is not worth the ten or twelve bucks to see on the big screen considering most of the film is dialogue back and forth between Washington and Travolta. Back to Top |
Imagine That Genre: Comedy/Drama/Fantasy Released: 2009 Rating: Eddie Murphy's latest is exactly what everyone expects it to be; painful, cliché and predictable. I understand why some people may find this movie to be cute but why pay money to see a film that you have already seen a million times before. I honestly felt like a writer for the movie, considering I knew everything that was going to happen before it came on screen. Honestly, is Eddie Murphy only in it for the pay check now? Why else would he keep making films like this, Meet Dave, Norbit, Daddy Day Care, etc. What happened to films like Beverley Hills Cop, Trading Places or The Nutty Professor? Honestly, what is there to say about this movie except for the fact that it is just really bad? The film tells the story of Evan (Eddie Murphy) who is a financial executive that has the opportunity to take over his company after the head CEO retires. The only problem is that he is competing for the job against the companies golden child, Whitefeather (played by Thomas Haden Church). Whitefeather reminded me a lot of Steve Martin's character from Baby Mama. He had this extremely awkward long hair and always talked about weird spiritual references within his work. Let's move on to the cliché part of the story. Evan is the absent father who puts work before his family. He and his wife are divorced but share custody of their child, Olivia (Yara Shahidi). Shocker, the week that Evan is going up for the job, he has to take care of Olivia. Olivia is going through that phase of her childhood where she never wants to be apart from her blanket; or as she calls it, her "GooGaa." Olivia is always talking to her imaginary friends while she is underneath her blanket and of course, Evan thinks that is crazy. Well, he keeps that attitude until he finds out that the imaginary princes and princesses under the blanket apparently give good financial advice about stocks and can be used to help him with his job. Let me get the positive aspects out of the way first. The little girl who played Olivia, Yara Shahidi, was very cute and played the perfect part of a little girl who wanted more attention from her father. Also, Thomas Haden Church had a couple of funny moments and his hair was classic. That is it. Now on to the negatives. At one point, did the writers realize they were stealing plot lines and scenes from a million different movies. This movie was essentially a PG version of Liar, Liar. The only difference is that Liar, Liar was actually well done and original at the time. You know a film is bad when you are laughing at scenes that are just so uncomfortable and so cheesy that you just feel the need to let out some type of emotion. I guess you could also cry because you feel bad for yourself that you just spent money on a movie you have seen before. They could not have made this movie any more cliché. I felt like the script and storyboards were handed to me at the door because I knew every scene before it happened. You could say; "Well, Kevin, this is a kids film and should not be judged by these standards." The problem with that statement is that there are plenty of kids films that actually work and are done well. Take a film like the remake of Cheaper by the Dozen with Steve Martin. Even though it was cliché, it worked. It is almost like the filmmakers did not even try with Imagine That. Eddie Murphy looked uncomfortable the entire film. All I kept thinking was that he was getting paid millions of dollars to do this film and if that means dancing around, talking to imaginary princesses and saying "GooGaa" a million times; why not? Murphy has found a gold mine. He can continue to make bad films that make no money and still get paid. How did he get that deal? By the end of this film, you will feel exhausted and tired from all of the horrible jokes. It really starts to wear on you, especially if you are able to map out the entire ending in your head. I wish I could count how many times this movie has been done. The sad part is that people will still pay to see it this weekend and continue to show that is OK for Hollywood to rehash ideas over and over again. I give this film a 1.5 BDK rating based on a couple of funny scenes. Other than that, this movie is barely worth your time at all, even if you see it for free. Back to Top |
Away We GoGenre: Comedy/Drama Released: 2009 Rating: Director Sam Mendes perfectly balances comedy and real life drama with a film that will have your attention from the first frame until the last. If you are one of those movie watchers who gets to the film late and misses the first five minutes, change your habits for this one! First of all, for any movie, you should never miss the first couple of minutes. At least for me, the trailers before the movie are sometimes the highlight. With Away We Go, you are treated to a very interesting opening sequence, which if I recall correctly, was done all in one shot. The best part about the opening sequence is that it sets this funny/awkward tone for the entire movie. Considering what is happening in this opening sequence, Mendes (American Beauty, Road to Perdition) brilliantly established both of these characters. You will have to see it to find out what I am talking about and I promise you will not regret shelling out the cash. The film stars John Krasinski ("The Office"), Maya Rudolph ("SNL"), Jeff Daniels (Dumb and Dumber), Allison Janney (Juno) and Maggie Gyllenhaal (The Dark Knight). As we meet Burt Farlander (Krasinski) and Verona De Tessant (Rudolph) at the beginning of the film, we quickly learn about their relationship. They are madly in love, Verona is pregnant, Burt wants to get married, Verona does not want to get married, etc. At one point during the movie, they literally stop to ask themselves if they are screw-ups. Verona is seriously debating this considering both are in their early thirties and have no clue what they want to do with their lives. They both moved closer to Burt's parents so that when the baby is born, the Grandparents can be around to be a part of it. Well, it turns out that Burt's parents are now moving out of the country before the baby is born. Burt and Verona are now left alone and the only thing they can do is go visit other friends and family to try and start a whole new life. The film follows the couple around as they visit family, college friends, etc. Each place they visit, problems occur and hilarity ensues. The film is honestly a look into a couple and the struggles of not having a plan in life. Every year, there are only a couple of films that come around that are just completely refreshing to watch. They are original, not cliché, not predictable and do not follow the formula of normal cinema. I would say that Director Sam Mendes usually falls into that boat with most of his movies. Well, that is easily seen in Away We Go, which purposely has no direction. It is "free falling" as Tom Petty would say it. Besides the obviously great performances from Krasinski and Rudolph, it was the little things that made this movie enjoyable for me. I really enjoyed how Mendes decided not to use a normal score. There was a continuing soundtrack throughout the movie, mostly done by a guy named Alexi Murdoch. You could compare the music style to Juno. One little quirk that amazed me was this one scene where the two characters are sitting on a trampoline having a heart to heart. Normally, in a film at this moment, you expect violins and sad music to come in and grip you emotionally. I honestly sat there, thinking I heard that music but nothing was there. I have been so used to cheesy scenes with cheesy music that I started adding in my own score for the scene. It was not until a couple of beats later that Alexi's guitar part came in. I just thought that little quirk was pretty genius. It almost proved how trained our minds are to films now. Rudolph really did surprise me with this role. I did kind of feel that she over acted a little in certain scenes but for the most part, she was fantastic in her role. We all know her from "SNL," which made me a little skeptical as to why they put her in this film. Her and Krasinski were made for this film and I wouldn't be surprised if this movie launches Rudolph a whole new career. She was funny and she worked that "pregnancy" make-up really well. You could tell the movie was made for a really small budget. The main focus was around the amazing script and the acting. The script was actually written by a married couple (Dave Eggers and Vendela Vidda). This is their first film they have written but Dave actually went on to right the screenplay for Spike Jonze's. The script flowed naturally and I felt that I could relate in some way to each character from this film. You could tell the writers were really focused on creating realism. This is definitely a film too check out, as it will make you laugh really hard but also make you think. It was just fun to see an original film and coming from the likes of Sam Mendes, you will not be disappointed. Look out for his cool camera tricks especially during a great sleeping scene on a train. Away We Go is the perfect flick to catch during a matinee showing and then grab some dinner afterwards to talk about it, hence the 4 BDK rating. Back to Top |
The HangoverGenre: Comedy Released: 2009 Rating: If I had enough money, I would be willing to pay anyone back in the world if they saw this movie and did not like it. That is how funny, smart and well-written this film is. Director Todd Phillips has another comedic masterpiece on his hands here and he knows it, considering the film has already been green lit for a sequel. If you are not familiar with Phillips' work, let me refresh your memory with Old School or Road Trip. This guy is no stranger and when you see The Hangover you will totally understand why. The great thing about this movie is that I can judge it as a comedy, drama or action flick. The film has everything you could want in a comedy, plus Mike Tyson. I almost wish the filmmakers did not ruin the Mike Tyson bit in the trailers. That would be been a pleasant surprise. The Hangover tells the story of four friends who go to Las Vegas for a bachelor party two days before the wedding. Doug (Justin Bartha) is due to be married and his best friends Stu (Ed Helms) and Phil (Bradley Cooper) want to show him a good time. Doug decides to bring his fiance's brother, Alan (Zack Galafianakis), along as well to have some family bonding. Without giving anything away, they go take the road trip to Vegas and grab a sweet villa at Caesar's Palace. They start the night off on the roof drinking some Jagermeister shots and that is the last we see of that night. As you have seen in the trailers, Phil, Alan and Stu wake up the next morning in their hotel room with a tiger, a baby, chickens and a destroyed room. The biggest problem is that their friend Doug is missing and they do not remember one thing about the night. The rest of the movie is the three guys looking around Vegas and using any clues they can possibly find to try to locate Doug. The comedy comes from the problems they run into while strolling around Vegas. Let's just say that they got into some pretty heavy stuff that night. If you have seen the trailers then you pretty much know everything I just told you. I will say that the Mike Tyson bit is longer in the film and way more in depth so don't consider that to be 100% ruined. The film also stars Heather Graham as a stripper/escort, Mike Epps as a guy named Doug and a hilariously vulgar performance from Ken Jeong, who practically steals the entire film. Prepare to see lots of unnecessary penis. The best part about this film is that we the audience, like the characters, have no clue what happen that night. We are detectives as well, searching out clues throughout Vegas to find out what could have possibly happened to their friend Doug who is supposed to get married in one day now. This creates a great intensity for the audience and Phillips perfectly tops that off with great comedy bits and complete absurdity. Hats off to the writers of the film, Jon Lucas and Scott Moore. Looking at their resume, which consists of Four Christmases and Ghost of Girlfriends Past, you would think they would not be able to pull of something this funny. It is like they have been holding back this script for just the right time. The comedy timing was absolutely perfect. I would say the only issue with the film was that the beginning dragged a little bit. Other than that, the jokes all hit perfectly and the picture was casted brilliantly. Ed Helms is seriously going to be a huge star. Can anyone tell me how they heck they made his missing tooth look so real? There were scenes where he was putting his finger through the area where the tooth was missing. Director Todd Phillips finally figured out a way to get Bradley Cooper into the limelight. This guy has been in so many flicks recently; including his great role in The Wedding Crashers. Until this movie, he has always been "That Guy." This time, he has taken the bull by the horns and this will be the film he will be remembered for. He was the perfect "a-hole" type character that also had a ton of heart. There really is not much to say about this film except for the fact that it is funny as all hell. There are so many insane moments and parts that will go down in history as classic comedy bits. You know how everyone talks about scenes from Animal House and Caddyshack? People will be talking about scenes from this film for years. I promise that. Please stay and watch the credits of the movie. You will not be disappointed. I want to point out that there is one particular scene in the credits that I am completely shocked about. There is absolutely no way I have ever seen this particular thing in a major motion picture before. Please send me at email at bdk@bdkreviews.com if you want to know what I am talking about. This film receives a 4.5 BDK rating out of 5 only because the beginning is a little slow. You have heard all of the hype for this movie. Believe it! Back to Top |
Land of the LostGenre: Adventure/Comedy/Sci-Fi Released: 2009 Rating: (Just a little side note: I know this movie is getting crushed by all of the critics and this is one of the few positive reviews you have seen for it. I was talking to my fellow critic Brandon Fibbs about this the other night. Sometimes there is a movie that everyone hates and I like. It just happens and it happened with this one.) Surprisingly, the film actually delivers great visuals, laughs and gives hope that Will Ferrell can be funny again. Ferrell has been on a dry spell for the past couple of years in which all of his jokes started to blend together and his humor quickly became unfunny. At one point, he was the funniest man in comedy. Now, Seth Rogen has taken over those shoes very quickly and even he is losing some steam. Can Will Ferrell take back that thrown? Well, with Land of the Lost, he was at least given a mediocre script but was able to add in his own flavor. Maybe it was me, but based on the trailers for this movie, I was expecting a kid-friendly film. What you get is actually very crude and very adult throughout and this became obvious in the first couple of minutes with all of the sexual jokes and curse words. This apparently is a very different approach from the television show, which was very family oriented. Land of the Lost, the television show, actually aired between the years of 1974 and 1976, which according to Wikipedia, was a kids show and aired a total of 43 episodes on NBC. Based on the "popular" TV show that I have personally never seen, the film stars Will Ferrell as Dr. Rick Marshall. He is a paleontologist who believes in space/time portals in which other worlds exist. In an interview with Matt Lauer on NBC, he tries to explain his theory and Lauer just laughs in his face. Three years go by and now Marshall is an elementary school science teacher. His dream of creating a Tachyon Amplifier (an object that could help him travel through time), has been crushed. Until one day, a lovely woman named Holly (played by "Pushing Daisies" actress Anna Friel) comes to visit saying that she has studied all of his books and theories and believes it to be true. To make a long story short, she convinces him to make this amplifier and they drive out to the dessert to test it out during a cave tour with a guy named Will (Danny McBride). The amplifier works and they end up in a world full of T-Rex and lizard- people called Sleestaks. Their only way back to earth is to use the amplifier, which has been lost during their travels. They also get mixed up in a war between the Sleeskaks. A little side note; the leader of the Sleestaks is voiced by Leonard Nimoy. The movie has a lot going for it including some incredible visuals. There are a couple of scenes where the blue screen did not look too great but overall, the filmmakers did a great job at creating this alternate universe. I was able to suspend my disbelief and enjoy the environment with the characters. This was a big problem for me in other films this year, such as X-Men Origins: Wolverine. If you have bad visual effects, your mind will immediately take you away from the film. Thankfully, they took out that awful part in the trailers where Will Ferrell is at an extreme close-up talking about how the dinosaur is behind him, which looked extremely campy and over-the-top. The jokes were written very well and for the most part, they hit right on time. McBride and Ferrell play perfectly off of each other. Even the female lead, Anna Friel, worked well with the characters. There were some moments where she had some terrible lines, but all-in-all, the casting was perfect. I really do think people are going to dislike the film based on the fact that they are tired of Will Ferrell. Coming from a person who things that Will Ferrell has slowly become the most unfunny man in the world (his H.B.O. special on George Bush was horrendous), he did a really good job in this film. I wouldn't necessarily call this a great film but it is fun. Ferrell plays for the audience perfectly and surprisingly, a lot of his jokes hit at all of the right times. I was shocked because I was expecting all the same stupid Will Ferrell jokes. A lot of the reason they worked was the McBride angle. McBride, who is the same character in pretty much all of his films, moves Ferrell along and allows him to get back into that original comedy routine that made him funny to begin with. Trust me on this, I wanted to completely hate this movie and I was ready to give it a negative review. I am not saying to waste your ten to twelve bucks to see it in theaters but I would definitely check it out on a rental, hence the 3 BDK rating. Back to Top |
My Life In RuinsGenre: Comedy Released: 2009 Rating: For a movie filled with cliches, the laughs happen so frequently that you are able to forget about the fact that you have seen this movie a billion times before. There is a very interesting parallel with this film and the lead characters' job. Nia Vardalos plays a very average tour guide in Greece who is known for her boring and history-filled tours. In the beginning of the film, we get to experience the horrific beginning of one of her famous tours. I couldn't help but think to myself; "this movie is as painful as her tours." The parallel is that as the movie became better, her tour became better as well. I highly doubt this was done on purpose but it was just interesting to see that happen. The films' lead star and producer, Tom Hanks, were all involved in this little independent film called My Big Fat Greek Wedding. That was the independent film that changed all independent films considering it went on to make over $100 million. Nia Vardalos (My Big Fat Greek Wedding) plays Georgia, a boring tour guide who moved to Greece to give tours on the history of the great country. She loves to focus her tours around the history and the landscapes of Greece. The other tour guide for the company, Nico (played by Alistair McGowan), is the golden boy. Everyone loves his tours because he focuses on shopping, ice cream and touristy things. As Georgia points out in the beginning, she is always given the worst tour guide group with the same stereotypical people; i.e. the old people, the Australians and the man who always thinks he's funny and makes it all about him. Well, she gets stuck with that same group for her most recent tour and an awful bus driver named Poupi (played by Alexis Georgoulis) who looks like he is homeless. I looked over to a buddy of mine and I said, "I bet he is good looking and has a ton of muscles by the end of the film." Well, as the film goes on, she starts to realize that it was her attitude all along. She needed to "loosen up" a little and have fun. She learns a lot of this from the "man who always thinks he's funny and makes it all about him"-character named Irv (played by Richard Dreyfuss). Irv opens her mind to being a better person and having more fun. Even if that means having a little bit of sex, which her character hasn't had in years. Part of her tour group consists of characters played by Harland Williams (Half Baked) and Rachel Dratch ("SNL"). The films jokes almost guard you from the cliché story you are experiencing. Nia Vardalos is one of those actresses that I have only seen in two films that completely sucks you in. When she immediately comes on screen, you feel attached to her character. The writers and filmmakers try so hard with the writing to make you feel bad for her character at first as she is getting stepped on left and right by people and nothing is going right in her life. You want to pull for her and have her do well. That is one of the most simple and effective ways to get your audience to feel for the main character and start rooting for them. For that, they do a great job. The film practically follows every cliché in the book. They even went as far as to have a slow motion shot of the lead love interest (played by Alexis Georgoulis) on the beach putting his hair back as he exits the water It also didn't help that he had a guitar in his hands during the scene when he is trying to make love to Nia's character. There are just so many of these moments that you have seen in so many romantic comedies before. Again though, the laughs are enough to look past that. The laughs generally come from Richard Dreyfuss' character. His part was written perfectly as the older man who has lost his wife but is trying to relive their memories by going on this tour of Greece. He cracks jokes through the entire film and all of them hit and work perfectly. He is also the leading emotional element of the film as well. I would go as far as to say that if he were not in this film, I would not be recommending it. I will not tell you to see this flick in theaters but I will say it is worth a rental, hence the 3 BDK rating. **(I want to give critic Brandon Fibbs credit on helping me think that parallel through because at the end of the film I was thinking that through. During the beginning of the film, I was thinking my line for this movie would be "The movie is as painful as her tour guides." Once the film started getting better, I couldn't use that anymore. I said this after the movie and Brandon says, "Yeah, that has happened to me before too and then the movie gets better." That is when I thought, "Yeah, the movie became better and so did her tour." So, I wanted to give him credit for helping me think of that afterwards. You can check his reviews out at www.brandonfibbs.com). Back to Top |
Drag Me To HellGenre: Horror/Thriller Released: 2009 Rating: When I walked out of the theater, the publicist asked me if I was the little girl screaming in the front row and I answered them honestly with; 'Yes.' Writer/director Sam Raimi is back with one of the scariest horror films in years. Raimi hasn't directed a horror flick since Evil Dead 2 (22 years ago) and has been off directing big budget super hero flicks (Spider-Man 1,2,3). When the trailer initially came out, we saw that Raimi was trying to get back into the horror directing chair but when I saw the PG-13 rating, I started to get a little worried. Raimi completely shoved that worry aside with a horror flick that did not rely on blood and gore. The scares come from his genius use sounds and canted camera angles. Raimi is just a genius of creating a very intense and eerie feeling. He keeps all of the scares very unpredictable and just goes completely off the charts with the intensity. In an interview Sam Raimi did with my movie show on CBS Radio, he said that he knew where the audience expects the scares to be. He wanted to create these intense moments and then wait an extra "beat" before delivering the climatic scare. The best part is that you are also laughing as much as you are screaming. I felt bad because I was screaming out obscenities during the movie because I was so scared. The critics next to me were probably getting a little irritated. The film tells the story of Christine Brown (played by Allison Lohman), who is a loan officer that keeps getting disrespected every day. She has been trying for months to get promoted to an assistant management position at the bank. You can just tell that she feels her boss is more in favor of her co-worker Stu because he is a complete suck up and always does everything right. The one thing her boss tells Christine is that she is not aggressive enough and pretty much gives out too many loans. Shocker, that morning, a creepy old woman comes to the bank to ask for a 3rd extension on her home because she is at risk of losing her house to the bank. Christine wants to help her but she knows it will look bad upon her. As Sam Raimi explained in my interview, Christine commits the sin of greed and decides not to give her the loan and this drives the woman insane to the point where she puts a curse on Christine. In three days, Christine will go to hell and within these three days, she will be tortured by an evil spirit called "The Black Goat." She tries looking for help from her boyfriend, played by Justin Long and a local psychic but in the end, she is just going to have fight this demon herself. I understand that the plot line may sound ridiculous but this is truly one of the most frightening and scary films I have seen in years. Raimi is able to make you laugh and scream all at the same time, which is not an easy thing to do. His use of sounds, shadows and canted angles are just masterfully done and create a perfect environment for you to be scared. As I said above, he is able to find moments where you least expect to be scared. As Sam Raimi said in the interview, people are used to being scared at a certain moment. So he basically used all of the horror films that have come in the past five years or so to his advantage and tries to scare people at different moments. The lead actress, Allison Lhoman, puts on a phenomenal performance, carrying an extremely secure leading role. She knew her stuff and really came at this role with all she had. Female leads are not the easiest characters to write, but Raimi nailed and it almost made her come off as strong as Bruce Campbell in all of the Evil Dead films. Now, I am not saying she is Bruce, but she had a very similar vibe in a lot of the scenes. The PG-13 rating does not effect the movie one bit. He was able to scare the crap out of you regardless. That to me is genius film making. If you can scare an audience using pure ambiance, you have your stuff together. There were little references to all of the Evil Dead films all over this flick. Even little things like the lady's handkerchief, reminded of the moving hand in Evil Dead 2. If you are looking for a movie that is worth all of your money, this is the one. This is officially the second 5 BDK movie I have given this year. The first one was Watchmen. I can't imagine or think of a better film to see in theaters. With the loud sound effects and just unbelievably scary faces and noises, this is the movie you will walk out of completely freaking out. I am not kidding about the publicist asking me that question about me screaming like a little girl. I was literally screaming at the top of my lungs. This is the movie to see this summer and you will not be let down. Back to Top |
UpGenre: Animation/Action/Adventure/Comedy/Family Released: 2009 Rating: I saw the film in both 3D and 2D. Personally, the 3D didn't change the film at all for me. The only difference is a little more depth of field. The trailers before hand; i.e. Toy Story 3 and G-Force looked better than Up. I would not waste the extra money to see the 3D. Pixar really set the bar high with Wall-E and even though this film falls a little short, it is still sweet, visually stunning, and filled with a ton of heart. This is the first Pixar film being released in 3-D and I have to say that there truthfully was not a huge difference between the 2D and 3-D version. You would think that since Pixar is finally doing 3-D, they would go all out but they really just concentrated on the depth of field aspect. You can always count on Pixar to throw you a wonderful kids film that also has adult themes and is generally a movie that everyone can enjoy; Toy Story, A Bug's Life, Cars, Wall-E, The Incredibles, etc. The first film that I saw shy away from the formula was Wall-E. As cute as that movie was, it was one of the most emotional films I had seen that year. What Wall-E and Up have in common is the fact that they do not rely on the big name casts to voice their characters. A lot of these animated kids films rely on getting around ten big name actors. At that point, you are just trying to figure out which character is which actor. I remember watching so many of these films when I was growing up and I would have to ask the person next to me whose voice was on screen. That curiosity took me away from the story line. The biggest stars in this film are Edward Asner (who you know from the "Mary Tyler Moore" TV show) and Christoper Plummer (National Treasure). Plummer plays a character named Charles Muntz and he plays an extremely pivotal role in the film. That role will be kept a secret, as to not give away any spoilers. Like Wall-E, the film touches on many adult themes and if I am not mistaken, contains the first blood I have ever seen in a Pixar movie. The movie also contains death, which was a first for me as well. The main character of the film, Carl Fredricksen (Voiced by Asner) is a grumpy old man whose wife, Elie (voiced by Elie Docter) has just recently passed away. His house is the last home on the street that has not been torn down and he refuses to let his property be destroyed. Unfortunately, after a mailbox incident, Carl is forced to give up his house and move to a retirement home. The problem is that when Carl was a kid, he met his late wife Elie and they shared a dream that one day, they would go to a magical place called Paradise Falls in South America. Since Elie has now passed away, the only way to bring her along would be to bring the house with him. On the day he is to leave his house for the last time, he attaches tens of thousands of helium balloons to the house and takes off. Little did he know that a little boyscout named Russell (voiced by Jordan Nagai) was attached to the house and is now along for the ride. They are now set on an adventure to South America which is filled with adventure and danger. As Russell and Carl get to know each other, we learn about both of them as individuals and this is where the adult themes come about. This film seemed a little more sweet to me than I was expecting. Meaning, based on Wall-E's emotional roller coaster, I was expecting this movie to a bit more on the serious side. It had some tough scenes but the majority of the film is filled with laughs and beautiful visuals. That is not a bad thing at all but I was just expecting a little more of a darker tone. Yes, the film deals with death, absent parents, etc but I still wanted more emotion. Maybe I am just spoiled from Wall-E. The visuals, as with every Pixar movie, are absolutely stunning. Every little detail and color were perfectly mapped out. While you are watching the movie, notice the growth of Carl's facial hair. His goatee and gray beard are coming in throughout the film. It was just so realistic. I had a chance to interview Peter Docter, the director of the film, and apparently there are over 10,000 balloons attached to Carl's house before he gets afloat. As you are watching the film, you can not help but try to count the balloons. The sheer imagination behind creating such a device to float your house is just mind boggling. Docter created such a colorful environment. One of the characters that Russell and Carl meet along the way is a huge colorful bird named Kevin. This massive animal reminded of something that should be on the cover of the Fruit Loops box. My favorite parts of the film were the dogs. Anytime jokes are made on dogs in a clever way, it is always entertaining. When Carl and Russell reach South America, they are in great danger. I won't say why because that will ruin the story but part of the adventure is when they encounter these talking dogs. The dogs have collars that allow their thoughts to be voiced through human vocals. It was pretty interesting and hilarious at the same time. One of the dogs they encounter is named Dug and he is voiced by the co-director of the film; Bob Peterson (Peterson also wrote the screenplay). Regardless of the film not hitting me emotionally as hard as earlier Pixar movies, the movie still delivers. It was entertaining, riveting and is definitely intense. The sheer size of this house hanging over Carl and Russell's head while being attached to 10,000+ helium balloons is just insane. I also wanted to add the Michael Giacchino's score is absolutely fantastic. He also scored the six minute short in the beginning entitled "Partly Cloudy." Up is easily worth a matinée viewing based on the visuals and laughs, hence the 4 BDK rating. Back to Top |
The Brothers BloomGenre: Adventure/Comedy/Crime/Drama/Romance Released: 2009 Rating: The Brothers Bloom is a fun a quirky film that is extremely well written and leaves you guessing until the final minute. Director Rian Johnson came on to the scene in 2006 with a little film called "Brick" which was made for just under $500,000. The film told the story of high school students in the vein of an old school detective story. The film was written around old school Daishell Hammett stories. Now Johnson is on his second film with a budget a little under $20 million. The cast, much like the budget has increased in mass amounts. With "Brick", Johnson threw underrated actor Joseph Gordon-Levitt into the lead role, which was smart considering how unknown Levitt truly is. One of his most underrated roles was in a flick called The Lookout. Getting back to The Brothers Bloom, Johnson wanted to tell a different take on a conman story. Yes, the goofy conman story has been done before, but not with these types of characters and story telling. Johnson figured out a way to tell a conman story that was not predictable and did not have an ending that everyone would expect. The Brothers Bloom consist of Stephen (Mark Ruffalo) and Bloom (Adrian Brody). Ever since they were kids, the Brothers Bloom have been pulling off cons to make money to get by. They were in and out of almost a dozen foster homes. The cons were always very similar, with Stephen and Bloom carrying out a storyline to screw someone of out their money. Stephen is usually behind the scenes while Bloom has to emotionally linger the victims. The two brothers always work together until they meet Bang Bang (Rinko Kikuchi) who specializes in explosives and "fake blood." At some points they even use her to pull off fake gun shots. The Brothers Bloom are considered to be some of the best con men in the world. Therefore, in order to fool the people they are screwing over, they sometimes need to fake their deaths. That is where Bang Bang comes into play. To make a long story short, Bloom is getting fed up with living this fake life and wants out. Stephen asks him to do one more con and then he can quit for good. This last con deals with a lonely millionaire named Penelope Stamp (Weisz). The genius behind their cons is that they are able to work the person into their plan as if that person is part of the made-up con. If they can give Penelope a fun time, they can easily get a few million dollars out of her. The question is, can Bloom keep himself from falling in love with her. What makes the movie so good is the fact that much like Bloom's character, we have no clue what is real is what is not. Since Bloom (Brody) wants out of this business and his brother Stephen is the one writing the cons, he is confused sometimes as well. He has no clue if his brother is joking or not about certain aspects of the con. Therefore, throughout the whole movie, you are just as confused as he is. I have heard a lot of people talking about how Rachel Weisz steals the film and I completely disagree with that. Brody clearly steals this entire film. He is the driving force behind all of the emotion. Whether it be a moment where comedy or sadness, Brody's character is the center of it all. Weisz was phenomenal as always but she is definitely not the core of the film. Ruffalo and Brody's chemistry was perfect with Ruffalo being the controlling one and Brody being the weak willed individual who can't break away from the peer pressure. Writer/director Rian Johnson directed the movie beautifully, which took place all over the world. Each location perfectly fit the storyline. One of the best parts of Rian's direction are the little things. There is one particular scene in the film that is just brilliant, yet it is one of the smallest shots in the film; no pun intended. I don't want to give it away but it deals with graffiti on a wall and a character sitting in front of the graffiti. Once you see the film, you will know what I mean. Just look out for it. Johnson also employed his cousin Nathan Johnson to the do the score for the flick. The score is as quirky and energetic as the movie. If you are looking for a fun, original and intense good time at the movies, this is the one to see. Everything that has come out this year, minus Watchmen and Star Trek, has been pretty bland. It was nice to see something as refreshing as this film. Check it out as a matinée and you will not be disappointed, hence the 4 BDK rating. Back to Top |
Terminator SalvationGenre: Action/Adventure/Sci-Fi/Thriller Released: 2009 Rating: Terminator Salvation is all special effects and zero depth. Yes, the action looks great but if you want all effects and no depth done well, go see a Michael Bay film. This might be the most disappointing film I have seen in a long time considering the other three films in the series. Even standing alone, it does not work. Director McG did the polar opposite of what J.J. Abrams did with Star Trek. I think fans will be ashamed of it and new fans will think it's mediocre. The script was just so horrendous, along with the acting and overall pacing of the film. When you think of pacing, you want a film to move along smoothly. What you get is a dragging beginning and a very mediocre finale. It adds nothing new to the series except that we get to see the Resistance in action. What's worse is the characters have absolutely no depth, leading you to feel no emotion whatsoever for what happens to them. McG has created the absolute worst Terminatorfilm in the series. Now, in my humble opinion, I have always been a Terminator 2: Judgment Day guy but I enjoyed all three flicks; even Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines. What McG missed is the fact that these Terminator films are more than action and blowing stuff up. They are about character depth and feelings as well. Do you know how many times I have wanted to cry at the end of T2 when they are lowering Arnold into that pit? The film takes place in the year 2018. If you have not seen the first three films in the series, you will be completely lost. Let me do my best to re-cap them for you. In the first film; The Terminator, Arnold Schwarzenegger is sent back in time from the future to kill Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton). A leader of the human resistance is sent back as well to help her. He went by the name of Kyle Reese and he is John Connor's father. Kyle and Sarah Connor defeat Schwarzenegger. In T2, Schwarzenegger comes back as a good Terminator to protect Kyle and Sarah's son, John Connor (Edward Furlong). Schwarzenegger was sent back by John Connor himself in the the future because Connor eventually becomes the leader of the Resistance against the machines. The T-1000 (Robert Patrick) is also sent back to kill John Connor. A computer system named Skynet, which controls all of our militaries weapons, becomes self aware and that is when the third film comes into play. Judgment Day hits in 1997. This is when the machines go to all out war with each other, launching nuclear weapons, basically killing all of man kind. John Connor takes shelter during the war and rises up to lead the resistance against the machines. Skynet's goal is to kill all humans, which is ironic considering humans created Skynet. Now, with this fourth film, we are now in the future and with John Connor (Bale) as he is leading the resistance against Skynet. New Terminators are being built everyday to stop the humans from surviving. Essentially, the movie takes place around Kyle Reese (played by Anton Yelchin) as a teenage boy, who happens to be John's father, even though he is younger than him. Connor has to protect Reese from being killed to ensure his existence in the future. A new Terminator emerges in this flick, named Marcus (Sam Worthington). He has no clue what he is but he wants to help Kyle Reese survive. As you have seen in the trailers, he is half man and half terminator. That is all I will give away about the plot line but that pretty much sums the whole film up. Oh wait, I forgot to add that 90% of the film is explosions. The film also stars Bryce Dallas Howard as John Connor's wife and Common as John Connor's wing man. I honestly felt like I was watching the new Transformers film. A lot of the scenes in the film and machines had a ton of similarities to Transformers characters; that and the fact that it felt like a bad Michael Bay film. I thought the biggest problem would be the PG-13 rating, considering some of the most classic scenes from the first films were R-rated violence, i.e. the hand sword through the milk carton, etc. As director McG stated on an interview during the Big O and Dukes show on 106.7 WJFK-FM, he was advised to shoot an R-rated film but when it came down to it, he only had to remove small bits to get the PG-13 rating. He said that nothing was compromised. I will agree because when you watch the movie, the violence would not have been necessary to tell the story. I have a laundry list of complaints about this film. 1) You can't have Christian Bale saying "I'll Be Back." They throw that in there for a cheap laugh and it was very poorly done. 2) When you have a Terminator flick, you have to have depth and emotion. I couldn't feel or suspend my disbelief for one second for any of these characters. 3) The dialogue needs to be realistic and not clichéd garbage. They needed a new script on this thing badly. 4) McG made his entire focus on the action which is why he is unfit to make a film like this. I wanted to feel for John Connor instead of having plot points shoved down my throat just to get the story to move along. The only thing this film has going for it are the amazing visuals. The action scenes were well done and the effects looked great. They spent way too much time on that. It was just action scene after action scene and no plot whatsoever. I know that sounds like Transformers but I actually felt connected to those characters. Bale was not that great in this movie. He just did a deep voice the whole movie and tried to be cool. I thought that Sam Worthington's performance was pretty good and he had his character down pretty well. Everyone else in the movie just felt forced and as if they did not need to be there. I felt like the characters were speaking to us as if they knew the other films existed. I understand they wanted to throw in the "I'll be back" line and do homages to those films, but those little things ended up hurting the film. There is one particularly bad scene in the film where I almost left the theatre. I won't say what it was but it was another one of those scenes where they try to make a joke on the first films. I am giving this a generous 2.5 BDK rating because the effects were great. Other than that, the movie does not add anything to the series. Back to Top |
Night at the Museum: Battle of the SmithsonianGenre: Action/Comedy Released: 2009 Rating: Check out my VIDEO interviews with Robin Williams, Hank Azaria, Ben Stiller, Amy Adams, Ricky Gervais, Owen Wilson and writers Thomas Lennon/Robert Ben Garant by clicking here. The sequel is missing what made the first film so special; magic and mystery. Night at the Museum was original at the time because everyone has always wondered what happens in museums after hours. It is the same question you have about what your pets do when you are not home. So, as you are watching the first flick, you are going along for the ride with Larry Davey's character. Stiller's acting in the first film is vastly superior to this film, as was his character. He wasn't jaded yet about the situation and did not know about all the wonders of the museum. In this movie, his character is used to everything so it takes the fun out of it for him and the audience. Writers Ben Garant and Thomas Lennon (both whom appear on "Reno 911") also do not deliver that many laughs with this movie. A lot of the jokes were completely cheesy and did not work. I understand what they were going for but they weren't even able to appeal to the kids in the audience. The film almost falls into the same category that an animated kids flick does. There was so much star power in the film that you really could not connect to a lot of the characters. I just kept thinking, "oh there's Ben Stiller or oh there's Amy Adams." That is why Wall-E worked so well because you didn't have to connect with Ben Stiller. You had to connect with this character named Wall-E. As we saw in the first flick, Larry Davey (Stiller) was a night guard at the National Museum of Natural History in New York City. One night he stayed late after work and the entire museum came to life and he had to fight this unbelievable battle with icons of history, such as Theodore Roosevelt (Robin Williams), Sacajawea (Muzuo Peck), Attila The Hun (Patrick Gallagher) and even a live dinosaur display. You also had the small cowboy Jedediah Smith (Owen Wilson). After that one night, Davey's career took off and now he works for his own company inventing little unique tools such as glow in the dark flashlights. Even with his new job though, he visits the museum quite often to see his friends until he learns that one of the higher ups of the museum (Ricky Gervais) is moving some of the materials to the Smithsonian so that they can re-invent the National Museum of Natural History. As a little side note, the Smithsonian consists of over 19 different museums throughout Washignton D.C. To make a long story short, all of the main characters are moved to the Smithsonian and when trouble calls, Larry Davey comes to the rescue. This time, there is a new bad guy named Kahmunrah (Hank Azaria) who is an Egyptian Pharaoh that has come back from the dead to take over the world. His henchmen include Al Capone (Jon Bernthal), Napoleon (Alain Chabat) and Ivan the Terrible (Christopher Guest). Larry partners up with Amelia Earhart (Amy Adams) to help save the day. The flick does not deliver anywhere near the same quality of entertainment as the first one. Stiller completely overacts and is completely self-aware of his character. It was rather annoying. I liked the confused Ben Stiller character. Most of his jokes were tired and played out which is mainly due to the script being lackluster and not bring that punch that the first film did. The three best performances in the movie were Hank Azaria as Kahmunrah, Amy Adams as Earheart and Bill Hader as General Custer. Adams was bubbly as usual and fit the part perfectly. She did that exact overacting she did in Enchanted and it worked great. Azaria had a hilarious lisp and you can just tell he had a really time fun time making the movie. Hader was just being himself except in a General Custer uniform and make-up. That still worked well for the part. There were some new additions to this film that I liked, i.e. the moving paintings and how the directors put Al Capone and his men in black and white. It reminded me a lot of Pleasantville where a lot of the scenes were in color but some parts would be in black and white. It was a nice touch to their time period and worked well. The parts where paintings in the museums came to life were interesting to see as well as the Abraham Lincoln statue coming to life. If you live in DC, some of the scenes will be fun for you to see. I understand that I just listed some positives about the film but overall it lacks comedy, heart and magic. There were times where I was completely bored and times where it was tolerable. The overall experience is just OK and not worth your money to see in theaters. I would wait for the rental on this one, hence the 3 BDK rating. Back to Top |
Dance FlickGenre: Action/Comedy Released: 2009 Rating: As usual with most comedies, the best parts of the film are in the trailers. That's a shame because this was the one spoof movie that has come out in recent years that actually had promise. The rest of the jokes have been done before and are not worth your money. The movie companies will do anything these days to promote a film, even if that means ruining the actual movie going experience. As long as they get your butt in that theater seat, they will be happy. This even happened with Terminator Salvation where a key plot point/twist was ruined within the trailers. It truly is a lose/lose situation though considering the studios have to make good trailers in order to get people in the seats. The Wayans Brothers are back with another spoof flick. But wait, they actually do great spoof movies, i.e. Scary Movie, Scary Movie 2. Those were the decent ones. They became a problem as the numbers started increasing and the producers started making garbage like Date Movie, Epic Movie, Superhero Movie, Meet the Spartans, etc. Those are all steaming piles and you can slowly tell when the Wayans Brothers started to take their hands off the projects. Marlon, Shawn and Keenan Ivory Wayans have always worked really well together with the spoof flicks, especially Don't Be a Menace To South Central While Drinking Your Juice in the Hood. While this one is not anywhere near as good as their previous work, it still delivers a few cable viewing worthy laughs. Dance Flick is answering the call of all the dancing movies that have been coming out over the years; Save the Last Dance, Stomp the Yard, You Got Served, Step Up, Step Up 2. There have been a bunch of them and they all seem to do really well in the box office. So, why not spoof them? It's actually a genius idea if you ask me. In this particular spoof, we have two main characters, Thomas (played by Damon Wayans Jr.) and Megan (Shoshana Bush). Both of which go to a school called Musical High; an obvious rip off of High School Musical. Megan's mother passed away tragically on the way to see one of Megan's dance auditions. Therefore, she has now moved in with her father and is attending this new school. Her and Thomas hit it off and there are plenty of interracial jokes as you have seen in the trailers. Thomas is caught up in some money related trouble with a guy named Sugar Bear (played by David Alan Grier). He and his friend A-con (Affion Crockett) owe him $5,000 dollars or they will be killed. They decide to put their dance moves to the test to win the money. Now, that is the plot line but you have to remember that the whole movie is a big joke and every encounter is played as joke. Some of the best parts of the film are the little things going on in the background. It is sad when the foreground and main story line are more interesting than background images and jokes. If you go see this movie, pay attention to the background; i.e. the name of the water machine in the cafeteria, the name of the woman's basketball team, etc. In fact, I would almost see the film again just to see if I can catch more background jokes. The biggest problem with the film is that a lot of the jokes are tired. There are just so many slapstick jokes where people are getting hit or run over or stomped on. Those have been done so many times in these movies. It almost gets to a point where it becomes annoying to watch. When are writers going to realize that slapstick is over? It is not funny anymore when people get hit or smashed, yet, every time I go to a movie, there are people laughing. There is nothing special about the film and besides a couple of laugh-out-loud moments, you will wish you didn't spend the 12 bucks to sit through this one hour and fifteen minute comedy, hence the 2 BDK rating. Go to youtube.com and watch the trailer. Besides one funny bit with one of the dance teachers named Ms. Cameltoe, all of the funny parts are there. Back to Top |
Angels & DemonsGenre: Crime/Drama/Mystery/Thriller Released: 2009 Rating: Though the film is a little long and extremely predictable, it is slightly better than Da Vinci Code and packs some great intensity. Growing up in a household with a Jewish mother and Catholic father, my knowledge of religion is a little bit different than most. What makes Angels and Demons tolerable are the interesting facts about the Vatican and the Catholic religion as a whole. It amazes me how some people dedicate their entire lives to their religion and this movie touches on how important religion is to people. I admire that. The cool angle this story took was the science vs. religion argument. You would think based on the film’s resume that it would deliver a perfect film, i.e. acting, score, directing and producing but considering how mediocre the first film was, it had a lot to accomplish. This is the second film to come from author Dan Brown, who also wrote the novel for Da Vinci Code. Angels and Demons did come first but the movie plays this film as the sequel to Da Vinci Code. There are little quick mentions but not enough to stir up any controversy about the linear points of the books. With Ron Howard directing, Hans Zimmer doing the score, Brian Grazer producing, Tom Hanks acting and a great source material, what could go wrong? The film takes place in present day where the most recent Pope has passed away. The Vatican is in shock and scrambling to elect their next Pope. Reporters and people are crowding around the Vatican waiting for answers. Meanwhile, in Switzerland, a secret scientific experiment is taking place to create a substance called Anti-Matter, so that the scientists can study the origins of the earth. The Anti-Matter is stolen around the same time that four Cardinals from the Vatican Church are kidnapped. Both are connected and the kidnapper sends a letter/video explaining that each Cardinal will be murdered each hour tonight starting at 8pm. Once 12am hits, the Anti-matter will explode killing and destroying everything in the Vatican. The Vatican police bring him famed symbologist Robert Langdon (played by Tom Hanks) to stop the murders and save the Vatican. He has to use symbols and old texts in order to find a path to where each Cardinal is being killed. The group revolved around the attacks are the Illuminati, which are a group of people that were once with the church until the Church banished them in the 17th century because they believed in science. The film also stars Ewan McGreger as Camerlengo Patrick McKenna and Ayelet Zurer as Vittoria Vetra. On an extremely positive note, Ron Howard is a mastermind when it comes to creating tension. There are two particular scenes in the film, which I will not give away, that will leave you completely breathless. I literally could not breath and I found myself trying to breath for the characters during these scenes. Howard created amazing intensity along with Hans Zimmer's terrifying score. You can always tell it is a Han Zimmer flick when the flick opens and the score starts as the movie studio logo flashes on screen. Another positive note was how interesting and how in depth the story was. I really enjoyed learning the facts about the Vatican and about the Vatican archives. Whether you are religious or not, learning about it is very enlightening and in this case, entertaining. A lot of the facts came from Dan Brown's book, which I have not read, but it seems the filmmakers and writers spent a lot of time making sure the facts were straight. Now, to the problems with the film. The movie went on for way too long. It was not that it was boring but it should have ended four different times. There were a lot of scenes at the end of the film where I thought it was going to be over and it just kept going. Usually the publicists for the film will get up a couple of minutes before the film ends so that they can get reactions from the press as they walk out. They got out of their seats and walked downstairs at the point where we all thought it was over and it turned out there was still a whole 20 minutes or so left. The film was way to reliant on computer graphics. I understand the problems with filming at the Vatican and the fact that they had to film a lot of scenes in California to make it look like the Vatican. Still, it was very obvious that a lot of the scenes were CGI, especially the crowds of people. There was one particular scene, that I could be completely wrong about but, it felt weird to me. There is a scene where Tom Hanks and the female scientist (Ayelet Zurer) are searching the first church for the first Cardinal. The crowd of people who were in this church did not seem to be in the same place as the lead actors. I felt like either one of them was superimposed into the room. The computer graphics kind of took away from the serious tone of the film. I found myself saying, "Oh that's computer generated." My suspension of disbelief goes right out the window. Also, as a little side note warning, the film is extremely violent for a PG-13 rating. I am giving the film a 3.5 BDK rating. The film is better done than Da Vinci Code but still is not great. You would think that Howard would get it right the second time. I personally have never read the books but I was able to figure out the ending in five minutes or so. That usually is a sign of poor writing. Back to Top |
Star TrekGenre: Action/Adventure/Sci-Fi Released: 2009 Rating: ***SPOILER-FREE REVIEW*** The effects, direction and film score were so beautiful that it made a grown man cry. That grown man would be me. Abrams created a Star Trek film for everyone. There are two kinds of people in the world: Trekkies and the "others." An "other" could be anyone from a casual fan to a person who just completely hates the series. Here is the complete review of this film. I, not being a huge Star Trek fan, enjoyed the film on many levels; i.e. special effects, acting, story and overall vision of the universe. My buddy sitting next to me, being the biggest Star Trek fan I have ever met left the theatre clapping and skipping with glee. So, what director/producer J.J. Abrams has created is a film that both Star Trek fans and non Star Trek fans can enjoy. Has that been done before? Yes, with a little flick called Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan. Until I saw that film, I had nothing but negative things to say about Star Trek. That film opened my eyes and bridged that gap for me, as it does for a lot of people. Most people you meet will say that film is what made them enjoy the series. Abrams has proved himself yet again with this phenomenal science fiction epic, which ironically featured a monster which looked almost exactly like the monster from Cloverfield. Many people have a misconception that Abrams directed Cloverfield. They would obviously be wrong, considering Star Trek is Abrams' second directed film; his first being Mission Impossible 3. Is it blasphemous that I think MI:3 is the best in the series? I am going to keep this plot description brief because I don't want to ruin any of the surprises. At the beginning of the film, we meet and quickly learn of Captain James T. Kirk's father who died on the U.S.S. Kelvin, saving 800 lives while being attacked by a Romulan (Alien) ship ran by Captain Nero (Eric Bana). One of the survivors was Kirk's wife who was carrying James T. Kirk. Fast forward twenty-five years and we have Kirk as he is about to join the Star Fleet. This is the Kirk you remember from the original film. He is a smart*** who loves to prove himself right. To make a long story short, this is the beginning of the story. We are learning how Leonard McCoy, Spock and Kirk all came together. Spock, who is a Vulcan, rebelled against his kind (considering his mother (Winona Ryder) was a human and his dad a Vulcan) to work with the Starfleet. Kirk and McCoy both went to the Star Fleet academy together and on one particular day, they are all three forced into a situation aboard the U.S.S. Enterprise. Little did they know that this event would change their lives forever. Yes, all of the classic people are on board; Sulu (played by John Cho from Harold and Kumar), Pavel Checkov (played by Charlie Bartlett himself Anton Yelchin) and Uhura (played by Zoe Saldana). The real stars of the film are Zachary Quinto (who plays Spock) and Chris Pine (who plays Kirk). These guys are nobodies! I understand that Quinto plays a huge role on Heroes but nobody knows his real name, but they are going to know it now. Could you imagine J.J. Abrams coming to you with this type of a gig? I am actually still having a hard time grasping how everything came together. I watched an interview the other day with Abrams on the Charlie Rose show where he discussed how he was not originally supposed to direct the movie. Once he read the amazing script, he said that he would be "jealous" of the guy who could direct this. The special effects are mind blowing, but in an interview that I did with John Cho recently, Cho stated that Abrams did not want to use a lot of CGI. Minus the obvious CGI during the battles, a lot of the platforms and gadgets were real. There is a particular scene where Sulu and Kirk are parachuting down to the Vulcan planet. The sounds and effects that Abrams used were so realistic and epic that it felt real. Abrams did a great job at making the entire film seem realistic, even though it was dealing with futuristic time travel, etc. The movie had a vibe of realism. Here is what makes J.J. Abrams such a genius. The utter use of the beautiful score accompanied by Abrams' spectacularly shot film come together like two people making love. They could not have complimented each other better. The best scenes of the film were when there was no sound except for the score. It added an epic sense to the film and literally made me teary eyed. I will say that there was particular scene in the film when a tingle went up my spine. It has to do with the ending so I will not be giving that way. The realism comes mainly in the form of acting. Zachary Quinto, who plays Spock in the film, perfectly captured the essence of the character, while also making it is own performance. I am sure Leonard Nimoy would be pleased. Spock is the center of the whole story and his facial expressions were perfect. Considering that Vulcans carry little emotion on the surface, Spock reminded me of the Terminator. His face was practically dead as he delivered his lines. It was kind of spooky to be honest. My biggest problem with the film was the villain, Captain Nero. Eric Bana just didn't seem villainous enough for my taste. I kept thinking of Khan from the second Star Trek film. He looked scary and the tattoos and make-up were great but I didn't feel that villain presence on screen. You be the judge though. I would say this is a great sci-fi action flick and deserves to be seen in theatres regardless if you are a Star Trek fan or not, hence the 4.5 BDK rating. The adventure and special effects alone are worth the 12 bucks. One thing I kept thinking that I wish Abrams did better was show how EPIC everything was. For example, if a planet is destroyed, I would have liked to have felt more emotion about it. Regardless of the film's flaws, Abrams still delivers an entertaining, breathtaking and completely fun experience. Back to Top |
TysonGenre: Documentary Released: 2009 Rating: Director James Toback gives the audience a raw and realistic view into one of the greatest names in sports of all time. The best decision Toback was made was to show us a real version of Mike Tyson. This is not Tyson all buttered up and put into a nice bow for us. Mike lets it all hang out and Toback captured everything. According to Toback in an interview he did for my radio show, he shot over 30 hours of interview footage, which he then had to cut down to a 91 minute movie. How he did that, I will never know. I just wouldn't know what to chose and what to leave out. Toback said that Tyson gave him the complete freedom and that everything he said was fair game. You can easily tell that, especially in the scenes where Tyson is getting teary eyed. You almost start to feel bad for the guy, which I am sure was one of the intentions. The documentary contains archival footage as well as new interview footage that Toback did while Mike Tyson was in rehab in California. Tyson pretty much narrates the entire flick taking us through his childhood when he was dealing drugs to the jail cells he spent nights in as a teenager to his amateur boxing days. Tyson lays himself out there and is just completely vulnerable right in front of you. He explains how he was able to get his start by meeting a trainer named Cus D'Amato who completely changed Tyson's entire life. Cus D'Amato was able to get to Mike Tyson when Tyson was in juvenile detention centers. He wanted to keep Mike out of trouble and he knew the best way to do this was by boxing. We are also taken through his famous rape case that led to Tyson getting 3 years in jail and to his most recent fights. Toback was able to figure out a way to entertain you, while also getting you completely and emotionally involved. One of the techniques he used, which was interesting, was at times he would play three or four different versions of a question Mike Tyson answered. These answers would overlap each other while on split screens. The cool part about the flick was that Toback created tension and suspension of disbelief in a documentary. I know that makes no sense but let me try explaining. There was a particular scene in the film that was so mind blowingly good, I felt like I was watching a fiction-based film. Tyson was talking about how he would outsmart his fighters before the fight even began. He knew that if he walked out a certain way and stared down his opponent that he could mentally beat his opponent. Tyson takes us through this mentality while Toback shows him entering an earlier fight. Tyson explains that this one particular opponent looked down for a split second while Tyson was staring him down. It was at this moment that Tyson knew he won the fight. Tyson comes off as a "real" person in this flick. You could just tell that he was all there emotionally and wanted to share his story with the world. It was almost like Tyson was in confession and Toback was the priest because he just confesses everything to the camera about his life. He doesn't leave anything out; sex, drugs, his marriages, his jail time, etc. To this day, Tyson still denies raping that 19 year old woman. I will say that the best documentary I have seen in a while was that Man on Wire flick but this comes close and I am going to rate it a 3.5 BDK film. Even if you are not a fan of Tyson, it is a well put together film where we get a fly-on-the-ceiling view of this legend's life. When it comes to basketball, Michael Jordan is the face. When it comes to hockey, you think of Wayne Gretsky. When it comes to baseball, you think of Babe Ruth. When it comes to boxing, you think of Mike Tyson or Muhammad Ali. Back to Top |
Next Day AirGenre: Action/Comedy/Crime Released: 2009 Rating: 0 BDKs! I wish that the film was never delivered to the theaters. The flick contains horrendous editing, directing, and acting and contains not one redeeming quality. I was just flabbergasted that this movie was even shown to critics. The filmmakers decided to completely exploit violence and bad language for a comedic aesthetic. That usually works very well in flicks but not here. Here's the big problem; it isn't funny in the least bit. Listen, I understand how certain violence can be funny. It just has to be done right. Tarantino, The Coen Brothers and Robert Rodriguez have that formula down. The violence in Next Day Air was just over-the-top and unnecessary. You can easily tell the filmmakers were going for a Snatch-type flick with tons of characters and the gritty style of film making. Well, if they had a better script and a little bit of heart, it could have worked. This movie is honestly worthless. The film revolves around a package that contains ten kilos of cocaine. A Next Day Air employee named Leo (played by Donald Faison) is set to deliver the package to apartment number 303 and mistakenly delivers it to 302. Little did he know that the people in 302 were going to open the package and try to sell the cocaine. This causes a problem because the drug dealer who sent the ten kilos is now out of his product and all of the potential money. He immediately points his fingers at the original recipient of the product, who was supposed to receive the package and sell the drugs. This character’s name is Jesus (played by Cisco Reyes). Jesus and his girlfriend have no clue where the package is and the head drug dealer basically threatens his life if he can't find the package. Meanwhile, the guys who live in apartment 302, which are Brody (Mike Epps) and his buddy Guch (played by Wood Harris) are having the time of their lives while trying to sell the product. As Brody said, "God delivered this package." They figure it is just free money and they will use it to their advantage. As my dad always said, nothing comes for free and you eventually get to see how this package is about to change everyone's life who is involved. The film also stars Mos Def who also works with Donald Faison's character. You know Faison from the popular T.V. Show "Scrubs." Let me say this again. This film does not have one redeeming quality. There were just so many pointless scenes in the film where characters would be having conversations that made no sense. Just when you think these characters may have morals or some type of sense, the scene would go to an awkward cut or another scene. The flow was not there at all and you could tell this from the first two minutes of the film. For the record, I enjoy Mike Epps as an actor. He worked great in the Friday sequels and It's All About the Benjamins. He always makes people laugh and usually can make a terrible film, watchable. In this flick though, he is lifeless. I felt like I was just watching Mike Epps talk and not act. There was no emotion and his character did not have that funny spark that his other characters have. The violence was beyond me. There is a big shoot out at some point in the film and I felt no emotion for anything that was going on. I literally threw my hands in the air wondering what the hell was going on. There was just no sense to anything and everything just seemed so pointless. My buddy Josh was next to me saying he would have nothing but bad things to say about this movie. I am having trouble thinking of ANYTHING to say about this worthless piece of film. The trailers were actually promising for this. I loved the gritty directing as well as the Ritchie style filmmaking but the script was so weak. Please stay as far away from this film as possible. Back to Top |
X-Men Origins: WolverineGenre: Action/Fantasy/Sci-Fi/Thriller Released: 2009 Rating: The biggest problem with Wolverine is that the film could have been so much better. You honestly will walk out of the film and say, "That was ok." To quote the famous Peter Griffin, that really "grinds my gears!" The first twenty minutes of the film are fantastic as we go through the beginning of his character and the action is intense. As the flick goes on, massive plot holes start to appear and the acting becomes more like a soap opera than an action flick. Also, what was up with the green screen? You could tell it was not real. I just wish they would have spent more time on that considering how big of a release this type of film is. It was to the point where you knew you were seeing CGI backgrounds and that the characters were not standing where they appeared to be standing. That to me, ruins the suspension of disbelief that you want from your films. Your brain disconnects and you realize that you are watching a film. To be nerdy for one second, Gambit was always my favorite comic book character. Therefore, going into the flick, I expected it to be amazing because the filmmakers were finally going to utilize his character. To be honest, and this is not ruining anything, he is only in the movie for about ten to fifteen minutes. In case you are in the dark about this series, this is the origin of the character "Wolverine" from the famous X-Men comics. There were already three flicks that came out before this one; X-Men, X-Men 2, X-Men: The Last Stand. Personally, I prefer the second over the latter. To match this X-Men film with the other three, I would say it is not anywhere near as good as X-Men 2, but better than X-Men: The Last Stand and on par with the first flick. In order for Marvel to make more money, they decided to spin off movies to show how these characters began. (This paragraph contains the plot points of the film. If you do not want that ruined for you at all, please skip this paragraph). The film starts in 1865 where we meet Wolverine as a little boy. This little boy is confused as to why he has bones coming out of his hands. We then fast forward to present day where both Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) and his brother Victor A.K.A Sabretooth (Liev Shreiber) are grown men who have lived well over 100 years. My question is, why do the characters stop aging at a certain point? That is one of the many plot holes within the film. Because both Wolverine and Victor are "different," they are asked to join a special government-based group headed by William Stryker (Danny Huston). The group includes The Blob (played by Kevin Durand), John Wraith (played by Will I Am), Agent Zero (Daniel Henney) and Wade Wilson (also Deadpool–both played by Ryan Reynolds). Wolverine decides that this group is not for him when he realizes they kill innocent people. To make a long story short, Logan quits the group to live a quiet life and Victor ends up killing Logan's girlfriend because of it. This causes Logan to go crazy and subject himself to an experiment that turns his entire bone structure into metal so that he can defeat Sabretooth. As Stryker tells him, this path will be extremely dark and Wolverine will find things he does not like. Let me say that I did enjoy the film for what it is. Meaning, that it didn't blow me away but I still enjoyed what I watched. The reason the rating is so high, considering how mediocre the film is, is the fact that the first 20 minutes spectacular. Another critic compared the opening credit sequence to that of Watchmen because it covers a huge span of time (or should I say a Hugh span of time). That is totally fine with me considering both films were probably shot around the same time. The biggest issue with the film, besides the massive plot holes, was the mediocre special effects. The green screen just looked completely unrealistic and you could see a lot of this during the end of the film. I overheard another critic mentioning that some of the scenes did not require green screen, yet they still used it. To be honest and this might be a bold statement, there were better special effects in the 1991 film; Terminator 2: Judgment Day. The acting could have easily appeared on a television soap opera, especially with Liev Schrieber. His character was completely over-the-top. A lot of that had to do with the dialogue and script. I really felt his character was not menacing in the least bit and every time he would whip out his claws, I would never feel worried because Wolverine's claws were so much worse! There was no balance between the two. It was clear that Sabretooth was not as powerful as Wolverine, yet Wolverine had to go through a life threatening process to try and stop him. Overall, the film has a huge plot holes, mediocre special effects and some decent action scenes. I give it a 3.5 BDK rating based on the fact that the first 20 minutes are pretty damn good. I did enjoy the character of Deadpool (Reynolds) as well. Back to Top |
Ghosts of Girlfriends PastGenre: Comedy/Romance Released: 2009 Rating: The best part about Ghosts of Girlfriends Past is that the film knows it is unoriginal and uses that to its advantage. Michael Douglas was priceless. If someone were to ask me to bet $1,000 dollars on whether this flick or X-Men Origins: Wolverine would be the better movie, I would have easily gone with the latter. How unoriginal could you possibly be with a film like this? It is just a rip off of the classic Dickens novel, "A Christmas Carol," except in this case, the filmmakers and writers put a modern spin on it and make it about relationships and love. We all know what to expect when walking into a Matthew McConaughey film, whether it revolves around his shirt being off the entire film or the fact that his character always ends up being likable in the end. Regardless, the guy generally does not appear in great films. Except for maybe A Time To Kill or Tropic Thunder; he generally stars in garbage. Garbage is exactly what I expected out of this film but I was pleasantly surprised. Connor Meade (McConaughey) is a famous photographer for magazines (Variety) who has slept with dozens of woman. He is a complete womanizer and never gets into serious relationships. If you have seen the trailers for this movie, you have seen the part where he breaks up with three girls over I-Chat. He is the type of guy that every girl in the world flocks too, i.e. a completely emotionless jerk that treats women as if they are objects. When his brother Paul (Breckin Meyer) gets engaged, Meade is immediately invited to be the best man at the wedding. Meade, being the popular man that he is, has to "fit" his brother's wedding into his packed schedule. Nobody expected him to be, including Jenny Perotti (Jennifer Garner). Jenny has always had a thing for Connor but many years ago when they finally hooked up, Connor left her that night and she never forgave him for that. While at his brother's wedding, he is visited by the ghost of his Uncle Wayne (Michael Douglas), who is there to warn him that treating people the way he does will leave him lonely at the end of his life. Throughout the night, Connor is visited by three ghosts who take him through his life to show him the mistakes he has made and the opportunities he has missed out on. One of these ghosts is Connor's first girlfriend (played hilariously by Emma Stone). What makes this movie work is the fact that it is self aware and knows that it is cliché. They are able to use that to their advantage and make a ton of jokes off of it. Everyone knows that every time we see one of these romantic comedies, we are going to get a cheesy montage set to music while the main characters are in reflection time. I don't want to ruin the joke in this film but Emma Stone's character does a hilarious job of making fun of that aesthetic. Michael Douglas and Emma Stone completely steal the film here. McConaughey was great and all but Douglas was just such a badass. Considering he was the father figure to Connor Meade, he had to teach the lesson of women. He does such a great job at breaking down relationships. You have heard these breakdowns before but he put his own Michael Douglas vibe on the dialogue and it just came out very smooth. You could just tell he had fun making this film because he was able to cut loose a little. Moving on to Emma Stone though, she is an amazing up and coming star. She plays the braces-filled high school girl who comes back as a ghost to teach Meade a lesson and pulls the geeky roll off perfectly. Stone captures the every essence of a female high school teenager from the 80's. The part was so realistic that I can almost guarantee that Stone's high school career was very much like her character in this movie. The movie just moves along at a great pace, makes you laugh out loud and also makes you think about your own life and the choices you have made. It has been done a zillion times but I enjoyed the modern day spin that was put on the story. I am going with a 3.5 BDK rating on this. Back to Top |
Undead World OrderGenre: Short Film Released: 2009 Rating: (This is a seven minute short film created by midday show host Chad Dukes from the Big O and Dukes show heard on CBS RADIO in Washington D.C. 106.7 WJFK-FM). The film will be available on line to watch this weekend. Check back for the link) The Undead World Order exceeds as a brilliant short zombie flick that reminded of the early innovative filmmaking seen in Evil Dead, Dead Alive, etc. Except this time, the camera work is not intentionally shaky! When Nash Dukes stated "He's a zombie, he's not going to tap out," I immediately started throwing fist pumps in the air. What a brilliant piece of dialogue! Dukes, who looks a lot like Chad Dukes from the Big O and Dukes show heard on 106.7 WJFK-FM, pulls off a breathtaking performance in this well-balanced Zombie flick. Nash is part of a wrestling group called The Main Event Mafia, which have been keeping the hallways of 10800 Main Street in Fairfax, VA, safe for months now. When I say "safe," I mean that anyone who talks trash, thinks he is a swinging dick or just generally is D-baggin' it up, the Mafia will take care of them. I have had the pleasure of taking a beating from those guys and trust me, it is not fun. Anyone who is into wrestling knows about certain wrestling groups that just lay the smack down. Well, this is one of them. The Mafia also includes a character named Kurt Schembechler, who quite possibly could have the worst hair of all time. Though, I have heard through the grapevine that he has a hot sister. Who could forget about their third member, Booker T-Shirt? When he is not out with the Mafia beating up bad guys, he is enjoying "cc time" and tweeting about his long distance relationship. The Mafia usually runs the hallways of 10800 Main Street but when the Undead World Order arrives in the film, they are immediately backed into a corner. To give a little back story, The Mafia has been looking for a mysterious individual around the office named Mr. X. Mr. X has been beating up members and friends of the Main Event Mafia. No one knows who Mr. X is and the situation became personal when Booker T-Shirt was brutally beaten in the parking garage of WJFK-FM. The film picks up shortly after the beating while all three of the Main Event Mafia are upstairs in the conference room plotting their revenge. They are immediately disrupted when the lights go out and the hallways are infested with Zombies. What will the Main Event Mafia do? They are only used to kicking the crap out of human beings. First time film director, Shaky Knee, has captured a great horror environment with his use of night vision and shaky filmmaking. The constant shaking of the camera added to the intensity of the scenes. The question is, was the shakiness done on purpose or was it due to the fact that Knee constantly shakes his leg. Regardless of that fact, you can tell that Knee derives a lot of his film knowledge from Danny Boyle (28 Days Later, Slumdog Millionaire) and Sam Raimi (Evil Dead, Spider-Man). I am excited to see what other flicks Knee has in store for us. He quite possibly could be the next Martin Scorcese or Steven Spielberg. My only criticisms with the film were some of the forced dialogue lines from Kurt Schembechler. Specifically, in the beginning sequence, Kurt stumbled on some of his words, which took away a little bit from the intensity of the Mafia. Schembechler regains his character later on when he starts beating up zombies. There were also some minor plot holes. Someone like me who has seen all of the Main Event Mafia videos is definitely up to speed on all of the characters, etc. Since this is the Mafia's first major released film, it would have been nice to have a little more back story. Regardless of the film's issues, it is still a well-done Zombie film that should definitely be seen in theatres, hence the 4 BDK rating. Back to Top |
The SoloistGenre: Biography/Drama/Music Released: 2009 Rating: The Soloist is great in the visual, sound and acting department but fails to tell a story that grabs your attention. There was just this bland feeling that was hanging over the film during its entirety. Director Joe Wright, who also directed Atonement, is known for his interesting shots and takes. Remember that amazing five minute, no edit, sequence from Atonement where Wright takes you across the beach during the war? That was just plain genius! You could tell he was trying new things with this film; using the extremely long shots from a bird's eye view or interesting uses of colors to display moods. His shots and angles are always done with music in mind. It is like he is directing the music. Wright's genius came out during the scenes where there were large orchestras. The colors of the room and the size of the orchestra just came together perfectly. That is definitely one of the film's high points. Robert Downey Jr. is hot off his amazing 2008 year where he played Iron Man and was nominated for an Academy Award for his amazing performance in Tropic Thunder. Downey Jr. plays a real life Los Angeles Times columnist named Steve Lopez. Lopez is divorced from his lovely ex-wife played by Catherine Keener. From the look of him, he looks like he leads kind a miserable life. In the beginning of the film, he meets a homeless man named Nathaniel Ayers (Jamie Foxx) while strolling around L.A. one day. Ayers happened to be playing the violin. After getting to know Ayers, Lopez gets interested and wants to write a story about him. He finds it stunning that a man who went to Julliard is now a homeless man living on the streets of L.A. Little did Lopez know that this story would change Lopez and Ayers' entire lives and he would gain a friend that would push him to limits that he had never experienced. Lopez wanted to help Ayers but all Ayers wanted to do was play his music. The film focuses around their struggles and the fact that Ayers could possibly have schizophrenia. Lopez wanted to help Ayers by putting him on meds and giving him home but it ends up being far more complicated than that. To tell you the truth, I thought this was going to be another one of those films that pushes for Oscar buzz and tries to win acting awards. Despite my thoughts, Jamie Foxx blew me away. This performance was so raw and realistic that I forgot that I was watching Jamie Foxx. I became deeply immersed in his character. Downey Jr. was more of the co-star to Jamie's madness. Foxx was just so into this character and every little thing about him was perfect. I just loved the way his lips would quiver while he was playing his music. As Downey's character says in the film; he wishes he could love something as much Ayers loved music. It was his entire life and the only real thing that made him happy. The story is based on true events and according to the credits, both Lopez and Ayers still reside in LA today. Ayers lives in a community called LAMP, which Lopez introduces him to in the film. It is basically an assisted living home area for the mentally handicapped and the homeless. Wright does a great job of showing these parts of LA where people are struggling daily. Again, the movie falls short to a very bland tone and story. The directing and acting alone are worth seeing but the movie doesn't really go anywhere. I didn't really feel for the characters to be honest. It just breaks my heart to see the talent go to waste on a weak script. Maybe the story itself just wasn't that interesting. To be honest, it's about a newspaper writer who becomes friends with a homeless man and tells his music stories via his column. It really is that simple. I am giving this film a 3 BDK rating because I feel like it should be rented. You can enjoy the performances right on your home screen and not worry about dropping tons of money on movie tickets and popcorn. Back to Top |
ObsessedGenre: Drama/Thriller Released: 2009 Rating: Obsessed is your typical stalker thriller but is horrifically written and terribly overacted. Beyonce Knowles' performance is completely laughable and Idris Elba needs to look back over his resume and do more of the good flicks and T.V. shows; i.e. American Gangster, "The Office" and "The Wire." Speaking of overacting, the filmmakers wanted to make Beyonce a bad*** but they failed miserably and her dialogue came off as cheesy and non-threatening. Her character is angry at her husband for a "supposed" affair he had with Ali Larter's character. There were so many awful and "filthy" (this will make sense if you see the film—probably one of the worst lines of dialogue I have seen in a while) lines in the film that it just became offensive at times. I was thinking to myself, "How can a major studio allow such a film to be released nationwide?" Then I remembered that the film was not screened to critics, hence the reason why I had to see it at 12AM on a Thursday night. Now it all makes sense. Derek Charles (Elba) works at a financial consultant firm and is married to a lovely woman named Sharon (Beyonce). They have the perfect life, one beautiful child and have just moved into a dream home. One day when Derek goes to work he meets a beautifully seductive temp worker named Lisa (Larter). You can tell that she immediately wanted to be with him in a sexual nature and tried her hardest to be as close to him as possible. She tries to seduce him but he refuses to sleep with her. She immediately becomes obsessed and she tries to wreck their marriage. Lisa practically rapes Derek in a bathroom stall and he becomes frightened that this will ruin his career and his family. The more he refuses to sleep with her, the more obsessed she becomes. Does this sound familiar yet? Fatal Attraction? The movie literally felt like it lasted nearly double it's almost two hour runtime thanks to horrible dialogue and clichéd story lines. I am just trying to understand how this movie slips through and is released nationwide. It felt like a made-for-TV film that should have been shown on a Sunday night at 11pm when no one is watching. I just don't understand why the filmmakers went so over the top with Beyonce's character. Here is the issue though. The audience members were clapping during her scenes and I couldn't understand why. It was just so implausible. See, implausibility works for films like Crank but not for a serious drama about marriage and cheating. We all know Ali Larter from her famous scene in Varsity Blues with the whipped cream. She should stick to that. She was a laughable villain and was completely non-threatening. At one point, she has a line about dirty martinis where she asks for hers to be "filthy." I laughed so hard that I thought I was watching a Vince Vaughn flick. She came off as completely cheesy. There is no way that Idris Elba thinks this movie turned out well. I would love to be inside his head when he is watching this film, thinking about all of the other films he has done. I guess the paycheck speaks louder than the logical mind. Please stay away from this film and don't support it. This is another example of Hollywood rehashing the same story line with new stars to make money. If more people ban films like this, they will stop being made. It is up to you, the reader, to do that. If this movie makes number one in the box office this weekend, we will see another film just like it in a year or so. Obsessed receives a 1.5 BDK rating. Back to Top |
EarthGenre: Documentary Released: 2009 Rating: Earth is a film of epic proportions which carries a lot of intensity and stunning visuals but drags a little in the beginning before picking up some steam. With a title like that you should be expecting a massive flick that will completely blow your mind. What's funny about this film is that I feel like I have seen it before. A couple of years back, Discovery Channel released a T.V. series called "Planet Earth, " that had a lot of similar shots. It turns out, at least from watching the credits of Earth, that Disney used some of the exact shots from the Discovery Channel series. Now, is that a bad thing? Well, if you have already seen them, of course without James Earl Jones making cheesy jokes, then what is the point of watching this film? One could argue that the Discovery Channel version was a T.V. show and this movie is on the big screen. While that is true, why spend the extra 12 bucks to see it? I could fight both sides because there were times tonight when I was just blown back in my seat and then times when I wanted to stay blown back and fall asleep. As Darth Vader is narrating the audience through three parallel stories, we are just drenched with stunningly beautiful visuals of the earth. The cool thing about this film is that there is not one human being or city involved. Earl Jones makes a point that because of how insane our society has become, we almost forget what Mother Nature is really like. I will be the first to admit that I personally have become very distant from Mother Nature; meaning that I rely heavily on technology and almost forget about that the vast world that is out there. This movie is practically a wake up call that the human species aren't the only ones on this earth. Vader takes us through an entire year explaining that Earth is just an amazing place due to the fact that we are the only known planet that supports life. The fact that the Earth is tilted at a 23 degree angle towards the sun helps create life. The three stories we are taken through deal with a parent animal and its new born; i.e. a polar bear and her two cubs, a whale and her calf and an elephant and her new born. Each is struggling to survive and get food/water. Human beings have it so easy compared to these animals. They know the real struggle and practically their entire life trying to survive. It's hard to judge a film like this because on my scale, I would want to recommend a theatre viewing. The visuals are stunning and there are many intense scenes where your heart is racing because you don't know what is going to happen to a certain animal. Will the animal get killed? The filmmakers used lots of slow motion to capture pretty wild scenes of animals being chased and killed. Those were the scenes that made the film worth it. After a while, you kind of get used to the visuals. There were sections though where I was bored to tears. It does not have anything to do with the movie being bad but some of the information didn't interest me. I could have done without some of the bird scenes, etc. Again, a lot of this footage I have seen before. Now, for the footage I haven't scene, I was just flabbergasted by the scenes underwater when the whales were swimming in unison with the fish. There were some great slow motion shots of the sharks jumping out of the water. The most epic shots were the ones from above showing the dolphins and whales jumping through the water. If you have not seen "Planet Earth" on T.V. I would recommend the matinee viewing of this film. You will be amazed by the visuals and seeing it on the big screen is definitely satisfying. I just have a hard time recommending this fully since a lot of the material has already been done. I am settling on a 3.5 BDK rating for this meaning you could either rent the flick or see the matinee. Don't pay the full ticket price. Back to Top |
FightingGenre: Action/Drama Released: 2009 Rating: I am trying to pinpoint just when I realized how terrible this film really was. It could have been when the film hit a dead end at around the twenty minute marker or maybe it was when one of the most pivotal lines of dialogue in the film brought tears of laughter to the crowd instead of tears of sadness. First of all, did the studio really think they could pull a fast one here and get by with a title such as "Fighting?" Talk about unoriginal and lame. Second of all, hasn't Channing Tatum starred in enough of these films where a person from a poor background rises up against all odds and becomes a star? Oh, I know why these movies continue to get made. They make a ton of money! This movie is just another excuse for Tatum to take his shirt off, overcome life's obstacles and meet the girl of his dreams. It is the same formula over and over again. With a title like "Fighting," you should expect depth, great acting and an overall extraordinary film. Right? As Arnold Schwarzenegger would answer in Comnando; "Wrong!" Sean MaCarthur (Tatum) is practically a bum living in New York City. He spends his nights in hotels with the money he makes selling IPODS and books on the streets during the day. One day he is provoked by some hecklers on the street and is forced to fight them. A local hustler named Harvey (Terrence Howard) notices Sean's fighting skills and offers him $5,000 to win a fight. Harvey slowly becomes MaCarthur's agent/manager, marketing him all around New York City. It all becomes real when Harvey has to put Sean up against a childhood enemy of his named Evan Hailey (played by Brian J. White). Will Sean throw the fight to help Harvey make money or will he win the fight for his own pride. Unfortunately, you will have to stay until the very end to find out. But wait, there's more! You get a lackluster performance by Paul Thomas Anderson's best friend, Luiz Guzman. Guzman plays an agent/manager as well who used to be friends with Harvey but differences tore them apart. Let's also not forget the clichéd love interest of the film played by Zulay Henao. Of course, she brings complications to Sean's fighting career. The film drags so badly in the beginning and felt like it was going absolutely nowhere. There was no drive to it and the editing and storyline were way to fast paced to be considered remotely realistic. The script was just riddled with the same old rags to riches clichés and did not try to do anything different about it. Some of the acting was just laughable. One of the characters had this awkward accent and the way he talked was just extremely amusing. He would shake his head in a certain way during his delivery. Speaking of delivery, Terrence Howard had an interesting inflection on his voice. That didn't bother me as much as the other guy though. Howard's was interesting and really worked with his character. Tatum was Channing Tatum the entire time. The guy has no range whatsoever, hence why he is put into the same films over and over again. You can see the end of the film coming from a mile away. I will give it to the music of the film. I did like the old school music that played throughout the beginning. That was more interesting than the entire first hour or so. The film does pick up a little bit of steam with the ending but once the lead bad guy references "the great American Poet Marvin Gaye" before starting one of the rounds, I knew I was finished. This film only deserves a 0.5 BDK rating. Watch it only if you have time and nothing better to do on cable T.V. Back to Top |
Crank: High VoltageGenre: Action Released: 2009 Rating: Crank: High Voltage is a complete and utter mess and nowhere near as good as the first one but still finds a way to deliver the entertainment. Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor are back to direct the sequel to one of the most underrated action flicks in years. With Jason Statham and Amy Smart back on board, the directors were ready to go. Apparently, they shot the film on home video HD cameras and used objects like rollerblades and skateboards to film certain scenes. The film delivers violence, gore, tons of nudity and Jason Statham. What more could you want? Yes, the film is all over the place but it's a good mess. You will be laughing and cringing throughout. I recommend a rental/matinee viewing on this one. I do feel that it is worth seeing if you want to see a movie that takes everything to the extreme. Jason Statham is back as Chev Chelios and the reason I can spell his name so perfectly without looking it up is that they had it flashing on screen at least 15-20 times throughout the movie. Considering the movie's opening sequence, the directors were obviously going for a video game type theme. As we saw in the first flick, Chev is injected with a poison that could kill him if he stops moving. The only way to keep his body alive is by running, having sex or being as active as possible. If you have seen the first flick, you know the famous scene between Statham and his girlfriend in the movie, Amy Smart. At the end of the first film, he falls a mile out of a helicopter to what appeared to be his death, but of course they left it open because he blinks his eyes. The second film picks up right where that one left off. The Triad gang scoops him up right off the street and removes his heart, replacing it with an artificial heart that runs on electric charges, voltage and batteries. He has one hour to live after the battery stops working but he can recharge the heart by electrocuting himself, having sex, etc. The entire movie is him running around looking for his heart, while killing everyone in his path. You get a lot of surprise roles from Chester of Linkin Park fame, David Carradine (Kill Bill and Kung Fu) and Clifton Collins Jr, who plays the Ferret (one of the lead bad guys). The movie is way too over the top which can work to its advantage at times but other times, it doesn't work well at all. There were scenes that were completely unnecessary, like the scene where they do a talk show of Chev as a kid. That didn't make any sense and was completely unnecessary. Films like this are obviously what Statham is meant to do. This is the type of film that is 85 minutes long and feels like an adrenaline rush. The biggest problem is that the first film was so good that you could tell the directors were trying to completely top it with the sequel. It becomes way too absurd and just a giant mess. It was a good mess though. I still enjoyed the flick. This film gets a 3.5 BDK rating out of 5 based on the fact that it still delivered what it was supposed to deliver. The filmmakers could have tweaked some of the scenes and tightened the film up but overall it is still a fun experience. There is no possible way this movie will ever be on regular T.V. There is a ton of nudity, violence and cursing. Check it out if this is your style of film and make sure you stay through the credits for some extra footage. Back to Top |
State of PlayGenre: Crime/Drama/Thriller Released: 2009 Rating: It was honestly refreshing to see a well-done thriller that keeps you guessing throughout with great performances. To anyone who has lived, lives or has been to DC, I think you will have a greater appreciation for this film. From the looks of it, the entire film was shot in either Arlington, Virginia or Washington, D.C. Not to say that this makes the movie any better, but it just added a nice local vibe to it. Every scene that came up, I found myself knowing that area. That is a great topic though; could the memories of a certain place affect how you view a film? As a critic, it probably shouldn't, but how can you avoid that? We have seen so many of these "who done it" thrillers but this one worked. The cast was perfect along with the directing and writing. The filmmakers do throw some curve balls (one of which I did enjoy—the Jason Bateman character) and twists at you but overall, they did a fine job. The film revolves around a murder conspiracy dealing with politics and newspapers. Ben Affleck plays Congressman Stephen Collins and in the beginning of the film, we learn that his mistress has been murdered. Sonia Baker (played by Maria Thayer) is thrown in front of a moving metro train at the Rosslyn metro station. There was already speculation that Collins was cheating on his wife (played by Robin Wright Penn), but this all became obvious that morning when Collins had to appear on T.V. and broke down in tears. Collins' appearance on T.V. was scheduled because he had taken the initiative to investigate a corrupt military organization called Pointcorp. The minute this happens, the media is all over Collins and his best friend Cal McAffey (Crowe), who writes for The Washington Globe. McAffey and Collins were college roommates, which makes reporting news about Collins a little tough. The movie takes us down a path of guessing and thrills while we try to figure out who killed Sonia Baker and why. It could have something to do with Collins' investigation into Pointcorp. McAffey teams up with an unlikely Globe blogger, Della Frye (McAdams) to investigate the case and bring the truth out. The film also stars Helen Mirren (The Queen) and Jason Bateman ("Arrested Development"). This movie was special to me and here is why. As a critic, when you are watching a film, you are constantly reviewing it. It almost becomes second nature to you. Usually I am sitting there thinking about what I am going to give this particular movie or whether or not I liked this scene. This was one of the first movies I have seen as a critic where I was not thinking anything. I was so into the film that I totally forgot that I was even reviewing it. Not until the very last five minutes of the film did I remember that I was supposed to be reviewing this film. That's just credit to the directors and actors because they suspended my disbelief so much. I was riding home with my intern Josh and we were discussing this. He felt that he would slowly be taken away from the movie at times but then get right back into it, which is normally how I feel. This time, I was totally into it. The best chemistry in the film came from McAdams and Crowe. I was shocked at how well they worked together. You could tell they were really into their parts and studied the role. Apparently, McAdams was in DC a year and a half ago studying the role. That studying really pays off. One thing both of their characters did, which was great, was show the moral problems journalists face while reporting news. There are scenes where they obtain certain evidence that the police could use, but could ruin the case. We have to make decisions like that all the time in every day life. The guessing continues on and writer, Tony Gilroy (who wrote/directed Michael Clayton) really knows how to keep the audience guessing. I think the film deserves to be seen as a matinee, hence the 4 BDK rating. Kevin MacDonald did such a great job at capturing Washington, D.C. Back to Top |
17 AgainGenre: Comedy Released: 2009 Rating: 17 Again is yet another teenage flick that is completely out of my demographic completely unoriginal, but works on so many levels. The movie delivers great laughs, a great message and a fun experience. Now, if you have seen the trailers, you know this film is essentially 13 Going on 30 or Freaky Friday. A person with a different mental age is put in a younger/older body and has to figure out life lessons while struggling to keep their identity. In this film's case, Efron's character gets to relive his senior year in body form but his mind is still of a forty year old man. One thing this film really had going for it was the acting chemistry. Thomas Lennon (who you know as Lt. Dangle from "Reno: 911") worked extremely well with Zac Efron, who is starting to prove himself as an actor. After recently dropping out of the remake of Footloose, where Efron was supposed to play Kevin Bacon's role, Efron has decided he wants to be taken more seriously and get away from the whole singing and dancing vibe. He was recently on "Saturday Night Live" where he did a "High School Musical 4" bit where he basically mocked the entire series. It was actually very clever. The film revolves around Mike O' Donnell, a middle aged man (played by Matthew Perry) who made a "mistake" during his senior year of High School. On, what he thought was the biggest night of his life, O' Donnell (Zac Efron), a 17 year old High School student and star basketball player and king of the class, had a decision to make. It was a huge basketball game for him and on this night, college scouts were waiting in the bleachers to give him a scholarship. His girlfriend, Scarlett, raced in to tell him that she was pregnant right before the game started. Instead of playing the game, he decided to propose to her and raise the baby with her. Now, as a middle aged man, he has regrets, two high school kids of his own and a terrible marriage. Since this movie is a fantasy, he meets a weird janitor in the hallways of his old school that his kids now attend, who essentially leads him down a voodoo type path that ends up turning O' Donnell back into a seventeen year old guy again. He has the mindset of the middle aged man but he has now been given a second chance. The question is, will he use this to better his own life or use it to fix his marriage and become closer with his own kids? His kids have no idea that the new guy in school, who goes by the name of Mark, is actually their father. You have seen this film a billion times, i.e. Big, 13 Going on 30 or Freaky Friday. Yes, it is completely unoriginal, clichéd and predictable but there are some great laughs and the formula works. The key point was the hilarious co-star acting of Thomas Lennon. His chemistry with Zac Efron, who were childhood friends in the film, was perfectly on point. Lennon's character is a nerd who hits the jackpot by creating the software that helps prevent people from downloading music. He is a huge Lord of the Rings nerd, which they use for a lot of the jokes. He was hilarious and made the movie more comical. This movie has more of an edge to it, then say, a Hannah Montana flick. This at least had a PG-13 rating so it had sexual jokes and innuendos. Again this isn't original at all but it works. I feel that it is the perfect rental. Back to Top |
Observe and ReportGenre: Action/Comedy Released: 2009 Rating: Observe and Report is one of those films that leaves you feeling confused about what you just watched. Luckily the last five minutes make up for the rest of the film. The best way to describe the flick is; interesting. During the film, I was trying to figure out when Seth Rogen shot this flick? He has obviously been looking rather skinny recently, which leads me to believe that this was shot a while ago and they put it on the shelf for some time. Call me crazy, but this flick definitely falls into the category of a black comedy. Now, there are obviously boundaries and edges the film has to fit into, to be considered that. Anytime serious violence or serious situations are laughed at to an extent over an entire film, I would consider that a "Black Comedy." Movies like Pulp Fiction and The Big Lebowski set the perfect tone for these types of flicks. Remember the scene in Pulp Fiction when Travolta shoots Marv in the face while riding in the car with Samuel L. Jackson? That scene makes people laugh but obviously the person was just brutally murdered. Observe and Report contains scenes like that but not to that extreme. This flick just sprinkles in scenes of date rape, shootings and violence while trying to be funny at the same time. Then, you could say, well what you call Pineapple Express? Well, that was all done in a light hearted way and we were always laughing. With Observe and Report, you really don't know what to feel. You almost have this confused look on your face the entire time. The flick stars Seth Rogen (Knocked Up, Zack and Miri Make a Porno), Anna Farris (The House Bunny, Scary Movie), Ray Liotta (Goodfellas–enough said) and Michael Pena. Essentially, Ronnie (Rogen) works at a shopping mall in the suburbs where he is the head of security. He aspires to be a "real" cop someday but for now he is stuck in this position; sound familiar? When he finds out that there is a pervert located around the mall, he decides to take the law into his own hands. This pervert keeps walking around the parking lots of the mall and flashing his genitals to each person. This situation perfectly sets up Ronnie to be the "hero" type character and take it to his advantage. This leads me to the love his life (played by Anna Faris). She works in cosmetics and has always wanted to take her out. After pretty much forcing her into a date by being her knight in shining armor, they go out and he immediately falls in love. The big problem is that there is a hot shot detective (Ray Liotta) who has been assigned to the pervert case and Ronnie's character feels the need to compete with him. I understand that the movie was trying to be dark but it just didn't work. The overall feeling of the movie leaves a weird taste in your mouth and you walk out feeling unsure about what you just watched. The more I look back on the film over the past couple of days, the more forgetful it becomes. It has a few funny scenes throughout the film that get a couple of laughs but the majority of the film is depressing and very strange. There's no problem with that but the movie had no direction. Will Ferrell came up in discussion the other day with some fellow critics about how everyone became tired of him. Ferrell lost a lot of steam and the same thing could possibly happen to Rogen. I think he still has a few more years to keep things fresh but he is definitely heading down that path. A lot of his characters are becoming very similar, except for Ronnie in Observe and Report. The character was very strange and definitely goes outside of that bubble he usually finds himself in. The movie does a complete 180 at the end and actually becomes pretty hilarious. That is the reason why my rating isn't as low as it should be. If you want to talk about shock value, definitely stay for the last five minutes. Heck, I would just show up for the last five minutes of the film. What was Ray Liotta doing in this movie? His character just seemed pointless. I understand he was put there as a catalyst for Rogen but it just seemed like such a big name for a very mediocre part. Rogen did a relatively decent job as a crazy man. He has this nature about him where you think he's a good person one minute and then the next minute, he can be a complete piece of garbage. That is the definition of bi-polar, which is what this movie is like. You just walk out feeling nothing but confusion and just wondering why this movie was made. Luckily, the ending is so surprising and funny that it kind of makes it worth watching. I am sticking with a mediocre 2.5 BDK rating on this one. Back to Top |
Hannah Montana: The MovieGenre: Comedy/Family/Music Released: 2009 Rating: I may be putting my career on the line for this but this movie was enjoyable, well directed and well acted. Personally, I have never viewed the show before (considering it airs on Disney Channel and I am a 25 year-old guy). That doesn't mean it is wrong to watch that if you fit my description, but generally Miley Cyrus gears toward young girls between the ages of eight and fifteen. While I was driving to Washington D.C. tonight, the last thing I wanted to do was see a Hannah Montana film. In fact, I would have rather been anywhere else in the world, like mowing my bee infested lawn or having spiders walk all over me. Now, a friend of mine once said, anytime you have low expectations for something, it will become entertaining regardless. That I can agree with, but in this case, the movie actually delivers and works on many levels. It also shows how talented Miley Cyrus really is. She can actually play guitar, sing and act. Not knowing what the show was about, I had to quickly figure out that she is playing two characters, very much like Superman. The flick stars Miley Cyrus (she has starred in all sixty-five episodes of the Disney Channel hit show), Billy Ray Cyrus, Lucas Till, Vanessa Williams and Emily Osment (plays Lilly Truscott on the T.V. show as well as the movie). As I write this review, I have the "Best of Both Worlds" song in my head. The film follows the double teenage life of Miley Stewart. Most of the world knows her as Hannah Montana (Miley Cyrus), the amazingly talented pop star with blonde hair that tours around singing to massive crowds every night. Her family and friends know her as Miley Stewart, the average teenage girl from Tennessee. Her fans have no clue that she is also this normal hometown girl. This leads to issues with her personal life because she can't really have personal relationships with guys. She is all caught up with the glamorous life of being in LA and touring around. She starts to forget how important her family is, i.e. her Grandmother, brother (played by Jason Earles), father, etc. When she is offered to play a concert in NYC in place of Beyonce, she immediately jumps on the offer forgetting it is her Grandma's birthday. Her father forces her to go to Tennesse to see her Grandmother so that she can reconnect with her family. Of course, since it is a Disney film, she is forced into a situation where she has to appreciate what she had in Tennessee. She also might be finally falling in love. I honestly think that Martin Scorcese might have stepped in the directing chair during some of these scenes. I looked over at my fellow critic Brandon Fibbs and we were both just stunned as to how well this film was shot. There was a particular scene that involved a revolving door that was just completely stunning. I am guessing they used an HD camera to shoot this but it just looked phenomenal. This film must have been an outer body experience for her because I am sure she probably needs to look into her own life and realize where she came from. The film makes you appreciate your own family life. We all get busy sometimes and forget about the most important thing in the world, i.e. family. In the end, that is all that is all that matters. You really get to see Miley's talents as a singer and actress in this movie. From my point of view, before seeing this film, I just thought of her as a snobby pop singer who has a great life. Granted, she was acting in this movie, she still showed me real talent and I enjoyed watching this story. It had the same exact idea as a Superman flick but it worked really well. Even the music was amazing. There were two scenes where I became teary eyed because the music was so emotional. I am sure that Miley Cyrus did not write the music but she was definitely playing guitar and singing in one particular scene. Now, to be completely honest, the movie has a ton of plot holes, some horrific dialogue and acting and a clichéd ending, but I really felt it. I honestly became teary eyed two times throughout the film. I know that I will probably be crapped on by a lot of people, mainly people who had the same thoughts as I did. Going in, this looked dreadful but if you give the film a chance, you might actually enjoy it. I am giving it a 3.5 out of 5 BDKs. I feel that it could be worth a matinee if you are a huge fan but renting it will be just as good. Back to Top |
Fast & FuriousGenre: Action Released: 2009 Rating: If you are a fan of the first film in the series and can forget about the two predecessors, then this is the sequel you have been waiting for. Vin Diesel is back and has revived his career. Director Justin Lin literally picked this film up along the exact same timeline as the first one. He basically makes you forget that 2 Fast 2 Furious and The Fast and The Furious: Tokyo Drift even exist. Growing up, the first film was fun for me. It had everything you wanted; great car chase scenes, action, sex, beautiful women, etc. Well, the second one gives you just that and a continuation of the first film's story line. The big question is where Vin Diesel has been all these years. He comes out with a great action flick to jumpstart his career and then goes on to make awful films which do not allow him to be himself. I feel bad pigeon holding the guy but all he is really good for is being a bad-ass. Anytime he is wearing tight shirts, beating people up and saying great one-liners, I am all in. That is the Vin Diesel we all pay money to see. Well, he has brought all that back and then some. As the tag line states, New Model, Original Parts. The four lead characters from the first film are "kind of" back in the second one, including Paul Walker (who was in a very underrated action film called Running Scared), Jordana Brewster, Michelle Rodriguez and of course, Vin Diesel. If you don't remember the first film in the series, I will give you a little background. Essentially, in the first movie, we meet Brian O' Connor (Walker). As an undercover cop, he works his way into the underground world of cars to take down a group of people who have been stealing major electronics from 18-wheeler trucks. The leader of this group, Dom (Diesel), has a sister (Jordana Brewster) and a girlfriend named Letty (Rodriguez). As, O' Connor becomes deeper involved with this family, he actually builds a relationship and as we saw at the end of the first film, he actually lets Dom go right at the film's climax. This is all after the cat is let out of the bag that he is a cop and that everything he has been saying is a lie. Obviously, he fell for Dom's sister and that was real but of course she thought it was all a lie. Now, five years have gone by. Dom and Letty are in the Dominican Republic still doing the same deal of ripping off trucks. Brian is in L.A. as an F.B.I. agent. Dom gets word that the heat is on him and that he needs to get away. He leaves to go to Panama City and finds out that someone close to him has been killed in L.A. To make a long story short, when he gets back to L.A., he wants to kill the person who killed his loved one. In order to do that, he has to get back into the underground racing syndicate to get to the man who killed her. Brian is also after this same group, which puts Dom and him back to work again. The film is SO MUCH FUN! Right when the film opens up with a STUNNING action sequence, right up until the very last frame, it delivers highly intense action. The car chase scenes are absolutely stunning and definitely put you on the edge of your seat. Your suspension of disbelief is definitely there. It is funny because after you have watched a ton of flicks, you pretty much know the outcome of car chase scenes and action scenes. The movie was directed well enough though, that you are pushed into these characters' worlds and are just as on-edge as they are. This is the type of movie that Vin Diesel should be doing once a year, as well as Paul Walker. They were meant to act in movies where scripts and acting do not really matter. They are able to be themselves and just have fun. You can tell Vin Diesel was happy to be back in the character of Dom. That is what I always remember him as when I see him on screen. Of course you have your overacting, terrible one-liners, etc. but the action is done well enough that you are able to see past that. If you try and pick apart a movie like this, you will dislike it all the way through. The film is not made for the Academy. It was made for audiences to have fun and not have to think. Every car chase scene works. My favorites were the ones where the characters were driving through the tunnels. I don't want to give away why or what the tunnels mean, but you will see for yourself. They went all out with this movie and it is a film well deserving of a theatre viewing. Catch it in theatres for the matinee price, hence the 4 BDK rating. Back to Top |
AdventurelandGenre: Comedy Released: 2009 Rating: Adventureland is the perfect coming of age story with great performances and a beautifully written script. I was thinking of being hacky and writing a line like; "I just visited Adventureland and really enjoyed the ride." That line has probably already been used by someone. No offense if you are a critic and used that line. I thought of it too! No matter how old you are, there is always a film you can relate too or that reminds you of a time when you were younger. Stand By Me is probably one of the more famous films in that category. Growing up, The Sandlot was the go to for my age group. I was just able to recognize parts of my life in each of the characters. A similar experience happened for me when I saw 2007's Superbad. To me, that was the most accurate representation of high school I had seen on screen, at least for my age group. Ironically, Adventureland had a similar effect on me but deals with the college years. Both films were directed by Greg Mottola, but this time around instead of Seth Rogen writing a script about his high school years, Mottola steps into the writer's chair. Mottola actually worked at the real Adventureland theme park in Farmingdale, New York on Long Island. The film is based on a summer in 1987 and stars Jesse Eisenberg (Rodger Dodger, The Squid and the Whale), Kristen Stewart (Twilight, Panic Room), Bill Hader (Superbad, Hot Rod), Kristen Wiig ("SNL"), Ryan Reynolds (Van Wilder, Smokin' Aces), Marin Starr and Margarita Leviena (The Invisible). The film takes place in Pittsburgh, PA at a theme park called Adventureland (the flick was actually shot at a theme park called Kennywood according to Wikipedia.com). It is the summer of 1987 and James Brennan has just graduated college. He is all pumped up to go on this trip to Europe with his college buddy but when his dad is transferred to PA and loses most of his income, James is forced to give up the trip and move with them. He was planning on spending the summer in Europe and then going right to Grad school at Columbia in New York City. Plans change, as they always do. Considering his parents cannot support him anymore, James (Eisenberg) is forced to get a job at a low rent theme park so that he can afford to live in NYC. The movie takes place over the entire summer and all of the experiences he has as a kid in his 20's. The park is managed by the wacky Bobby (Hader) and his wife Paulette (Wiig). One of the park's employees, Em (Stewart), catches James' eye and becomes a huge part of his life. The only problem is that she is having an affair with a married man named Connell (played by Ryan Reynolds). The story line may not sound that intriguing but it is a very natural coming of age story. I am aware that many people have a dislike for Kristen Stewart but when you watch her in a film like this, what is not to like? She is such a natural actress and really just owns her character. Her on screen chemistry with Jesse Eisenberg is so natural. There was not one second where my mind left the movie. I was 100% locked into the film and always believed that these characters were into each other. This is how I felt about Stewart's performance in Twilight. She is just great on screen and always makes me believe her character. The same goes for Eisenberg. I especially related to him because of personal reasons, but he really captured that awkward phase guys go through when they are trying to find that special someone. I especially enjoyed the music that played when these two characters were together. There were some great 80's rock songs pumping throughout the movie as well! It was great to hear Rob Halford's voice on the big screen. Mottola's script and overall film will really resonate with a lot of people. A lot of people will expect Superbad. The funny story about that is I tried to book an interview with Mottola and I told the publicist that I loved Superbad. She literally stopped and said, "Kevin, this movie is nothing like that at all." The sad part is that all of the advertisements state that the film comes from the director of Superbad. The advertisements are doing exactly what they are meant to do though. It will get people in the seats but they don't care how the person takes in the movie. All they care about is whether the movie makes money. My only real criticism with the movie was the fact that the actors seemed a little young to be playing these parts. They had a very high school feel to them. Eventually, I was able to get over that fact but there was a little bit of a disconnect in the beginning. The movie makes you feel good and is very light, while being heavy at the same time. I am giving the flick a 4 BDK rating out of 5. It is totally worth the matinee rating. You will be laughing throughout the film. Don't let me discourage you when I say it is nothing like Superbad. It is still very funny but it is not that same style of gross-out humor. The comedy is actually a little more thought-provoking. Back to Top |
Monsters vs. AliensGenre: Animation/Sci-Fi Released: 2009 Rating: Monsters Vs. Aliens is visually pleasing but is a sad attempt at entertaining kids; riddled with tired jokes and wasted talent. That is how I felt the first time I saw the film and now, here is how I feel about it the second time; the flick is a sad attempt at entertaining kids, which is riddled with tired jokes and wasted talent. I thought maybe I missed something during my first viewing, which happened to be in 3D. The second viewing was is 2D and frankly, there is no difference. Besides maybe a couple of scenes where things are shot out at you, there is nothing 3D about it. People will argue, but wait man, it is not about things popping out at you. It is about the DEPTH OF FIELD, as my intern Josh Hylton asked me. Yes, that is true, as was seen in Coraline. Does depth of field really matter in something like an animated kids flick? Not really! You want the popping out stuff for kids! The filmmakers wasted so many comedic actors with this script. They could have done so much more with Stephen Colbert and Seth Rogen. While they had some funny moments, I just felt like jumping in the movie and pushing them to be funnier. This is just a classic case of talent being wasted by a mediocre script. The flick isn't HORRIBLE but after such great animated films last year (Wall-E, Bolt), you would kind of expect more. There is a difference between a film like this and a film like Wall-E. The fundamental problem with a lot of these animated films is that they rely on the big cast and the big names to be the selling point, while forgetting about the script. I am not saying that the big cast and big names hasn't worked before (Shrek, Finding Nemo) but nowadays, I just feel like it's become the cool thing to do. Wall-E set a new standard in the animated film world with barely any big named stars. It was a smart film that didn't make the audience feel stupid. I actually felt like Wall-E was made for the audience and not made as just a money-maker. But when you come out with Monsters Vs. Aliens and you have the voices of Seth Rogen, Stephen Colbert, Reese Witherspoon, Hugh Laurie, Keifer Sutherland, Paul Rudd and Rainn Wilson, you better come out swinging and land your punches. The film feels a little bit like Men in Black. It starts off and we see that a huge meteorite is falling to the earth and this happens to land on the bride to be, Susan (Witherspoon). She gets up, dusts herself off and gets back to getting married. The only problem is that this meteorite contains a substance called Quantonium, which makes her bigger and stronger. She literally becomes a giant while saying her vows to her fiancé, Derek (Paul Rudd). She is immediately locked up in a secret government facility where she meets fellow "Monsters" like Dr. Cockroach (Hugh Laurie), The Missing Link (Will Arnett) and Bob (Seth Rogen). There also happens to be a huge gerbil-like monster named Insectosaurous. When California is then attacked by a huge Alien spaceship, the Government cuts a deal with the monsters. If they can stop the Alien from destroying earth, they will be set free. Overall, in the both times that I have seen the film, the crowd has barely laughed. I think I laughed 3 times the first I saw the flick and then one time the second time I saw it. I looked at another critic next to me in confusion during the movie, like "What is going on?" He said, &The jokes aren't hitting?" See, that is the reason I saw it a second time. I figured that I missed something or maybe I was in a weird mood that day. That is not it at all. The movie just not that funny! I have had conversations before with other critics about the mood you are in when you watch a movie. Can that affect how you view the film? That is why I gave this movie a second chance. Well, both times, I was in different moods and both times, I didn't like them. Every joke is predictable and has been done before. Listen, it isn't that the movie is bad at all. It's just very very very very very very very very average. The writers and filmmakers completely misused Stephen Colbert, who plays the President in the film. Every funny joke is in the trailer!! The joke where Seth Rogen's character, Bob, is stuck to the foot of the alien is the funniest part of the film and it is in the trailer!!! That just stuck in my head the whole time during the film. Kids will enjoy parts of the movie but this is just another way for Dreamworks to make money. The film doesn't have IT. The jokes just completely fall off and it becomes a little bit boring after a while. I can see kids walking out saying that it was fun but to be honest, no one was laughing. I am recommending a strong CABLE VIEWING on this one. There is no need to shell out all the money to take the kids to see it. Regardless, if you are parent, you are going to do it anyway, so why are you still reading this review? Back to Top |
The Haunting in ConnecticutGenre: Horror/Thriller Released: 2009 Rating: Haunting in Connecticut made me feel like I was in a padded room. The core was awful but the two ends were actually pretty entertaining. I was listening to the radio the other day and was directed to an article on FILMDRUNK.COM that discussed the fact that Watchmen might have ruined the R-rated film. Meaning, that since Watchmen didn't do well in the box office, Warner Brothers is going to stop making these R-rated NICHE movies. That may cause them cut down and make Terminator: Salvation a PG-13 rating. This leads me to a question that has been posed before about whether or not studios are only putting out PG-13 movies to make money. At what point does the studio cut into the film so much that it takes away what the director originally intended for us to see. Chad Dukes from the Big O and Dukes Show (heard on 106.7 WJFK-FM in Washington, DC) was discussing how Watchmen possibly ruined it for movies. I disagree with that fact but I do feel that studios think it is safer to release the PG-13 movie over the R, which obviously cuts into what a director was trying to do, especially in the horror movie world. It is all about the business side of things, as opposed to actually entertaining audiences. That to me is scary. The flick, like every other movie, is based on a true story from the 80's about a haunted house that apparently worked its magic on a teenage boy. The film stars Virginia Madsen, who plays Sara Campbell, the mother of Matt Campbell (Kyle Gallner). Matt Campbell is a teenage boy who has been diagnosed with cancer and has been given a short time to live, depending on this treatment. The hospital in which he is being treated is extremely far from his home and this forces Matt and his family to move to a house in Connecticut to be closer to the hospital. Matt and his family pack their bags and move to a very old home, which is awkwardly sold for very cheap. Hmm, I wonder why? To make a long story short, the house is haunted and we begin to see this immediately, as the director loves to continually remind us by showing quick glimpses of scary looking people. As with every movie like this, the characters start to dig deeper into the house's history to find that it was once a funeral home. But it was not only used for that!! Matt and his family also receive help from a Reverend along the way, played by Elias Koates. Let's just say that some of his scenes look like they were directed by William Friedkin. The film opens strong and then takes a nose dive crashing straight into the ground. There is light though when the film picks itself back up and kind of takes off again right at the end. The film's biggest problem is that it is not that scary. The director attempts to use the same scare tactics over and over again. It is the one where you get a quick glimpse of something scary and then it is not there anymore. They must have done that 1000 times in the movie and after a while, it became very redundant. All horror movies do that and that's fine but you eventually have to change the pacing as the movie goes on. It wasn't paced right, to the point where you just start getting bored. At one point, a guy in the first row started busting out laughing and I couldn't understand why at first. Then, in that brief second it hit me; the movie literally stole an EXACT SHOT from The Exorcist. There is a scene where a RELIGIOUS figure goes up to a door with a hat on and the door is answered by the "possessed" person's mother. He is invited in the house and starts to look around for any signs of demons. It was literally THE EXACT SAME SHOT. I immediately shouted this out and two critics in front of me turned around and started laughing. Then, as the movie went on you could see similar scenes from The Shining and Psycho. Listen, the movie isn't TERRIBLE. It has a gripping beginning and a pretty brutal ending but the meat of the movie doesn't work. The reason is that it builds itself around these scare tactics that get boring after the 3 or 4th try. I would recommend the cable viewing on this one. Back to Top |
12 RoundsGenre: Action Released: 2009 Rating: Harlin must have watched Die Hard With a Vengeance after he made Die Hard 2 because this film had so many similarities. Die Hard 2 was easily the worst in the series, including Live Free Die Hard. It seems like 12 Rounds is the Die Hard that Harlin should have made. I was waiting for Simon (Jeremy Irons) to pop out somewhere throughout the film. Here's the question, how many wrestlers have turned into actors and actually made decent films; besides Mickey Rourke of course (he was a boxer but I was going for a joke- I failed). Well, Stone Cold Steve Austin was just dreadful. Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson had a couple of good roles including The Rundown and he was the only good part of the Get Shorty sequel, Be Cool. John Cena, known as the WWE World Heavy Weight Champion, had a break out role in The Marine, which I unfortunately have not had the desire of seeing as of yet. He was on my radio program a couple of months ago and he told me he wanted to become the next big action star. He made a good point about the fact that we really don't have one right now. Growing up, I had Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sylvester Stallone to keep me company. I would sit around watching Commando and Terminator 2: Judgment Day like it was my job. Is there an action star right now that we can look up to? Not really. Cena is attempting to do that with films like 12 Rounds. All I can say is that I wish he would chose better scripts because this movie really did have potential. Daniel Fischer (John Cena) is a New Orleans police officer who finds himself in a minor predicament. One night, while on patrol, the FBI sends out a signal for help. They need help tracking a vehicle containing a wanted man named Miles Jackson (played by Aidan Gillen). He is known internationally as a weapons dealer and a mass murderer. Miles thinks he is getting away with the love of his life and plate full of diamonds, until Danny Fischer and his partner stop him, which ends in the death of Miles' girlfriend. A year goes by and Miles has escaped from prison and captured Danny's girlfriend, Molly (played by Ashley Scott). Much like the Saw films, Miles puts Danny through 12 rounds of exercises and games, promising him that Molly will be put back into his arms. Overall, to be completely honest, the movie was pretty intense and had me locked in about 80% of the time. I have mentioned "Dagger" lines in my review before. Again, those are lines of dialogue that just stab me in the chest like a dagger. Any time a film opens cold, it is an immediate red flag. Therefore, it was already on thin ice for me. I want to give it a chance though. As I am watching it, I am enjoying the flick but of course, they have to toss out the "Dagger" lines, which are like slow stabs to the heart. They are lines of dialogue that are cheesy, forced, etc. The "Dagger" line of this particular film was the whole thing on "TRUST." Danny and Molly had a trust dialogue at the beginning and end of the film which just made me feel so uncomfortable and felt so forced. Is it me or does Cena look funny when he is running? I don't know but that guy just looks awkward when he runs. Maybe it was the outfit he was wearing. That kind of took me away from the film a little bit. The 12 rounds themselves were actually very entertaining. I was biting my nails the entire time. It had the exact same feel as Die Hard With a Vengeance where Cena's character, much like Bruce Willis, would get a phone call and have a task to complete. He had to do everything from stopping bombs, to saving lives, etc. I actually enjoyed the villain of the film, Miles Jackson. I liked how subtle and collect he was. He comes off as very easy going, which was an interesting take. You just never know what he is going to do. I would recommend a rental for this movie. It has some great action scenes but is killed by a horribly written script and ending. The ending is actually painful. I looked over at my buddy and said, ok, the movie just lost me. Back to Top |