Directed by: John Hamburg
Written by: John Hamburg and Larry Levin
Produced by: Jeff Clifford and Andrew Haas
Starring: Paul Rudd, Jason Segel, and Rashida Jones
In vaults of the buddy comedy genre, there are many reiterations of the same theme spit out over and over again. Audiences, in an effort to relieve the stresses of everyday life in a struggling economy, pay nearly ten dollars to see such movies, if only just to laugh for a while. These movies might not be satisfying story wise, but they provide clever punchlines and situations that make people laugh. A recent comedy, who's plot has a slightly different twist than the norm, while still providing laughs is John Hamburg's I Love You, Man.
Peter Klaven has a problem. He met the perfect woman for him, and after dating for a short time is now preparing to marry her. Doesn't sound that terrible right? Ironically, Peter has no trouble meeting and relating to women. It's relating to men that's the problem. Throughout his life, Peter has devoted most of time to whoever his current girlfriend was at the time, so he had no time for a best friend. Now, with his wedding day steadily approaching, Peter must search for a best friend to become his best man.
If you're looking for intelligent, subtle humor, this is not the movie for you. If you are instead looking for a quick laugh that will leave you unusually satisfied at the end, I Love You, Man will provide. Sexual references abound, but it is done in a way that rarely seems over the top. In addition to physical humor, much of the comedy is provided by Peter, played by Paul Rudd. He is completely new to this friendship idea and it shows. When Peter tries to relate to Sydney, played by Jason Segel, it becomes obvious that he is completely clueless.
Initially the plot seems somewhat far fetched. Peter is a genuinely good guy, so how could he not have acquired friends throughout his life? In areas where the plot seems too thin, the comedic elements more than make up for it. One example would be the very last scene. In effort to avoid spoilers, this scene in a real life situation, would most likely not happen, but the writers insert the right jokes at the right time, which makes it work. Ultimately the plot serves its purpose and is quite satisfying.
Taking the plot and comedy styles into consideration, this movie is definitely worth seeing. While its not quite a revolutionary addition to the buddy comedy genre, it has that entertainment value that will keep audiences laughing, and perhaps even have them come back for a second viewing.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Monday, March 30, 2009
DVD Review: Nobel Son
Directed By: Randall Miller
Written By: Jody Savin and Randall Miller
Produced By: Jody Savin and Randall Miller
Starring: Alan Rickman, Bryan Greenberg, Shawn Hatosy, Mary Steenburgen, Bill Pullman, Eliza Dushku and Danny DeVito
What better way to make easy cash than from stealing it from your own father? With a very calculated plan, it could easily be pulled off without becoming a suspect. Nobel Son, directed by Randall Miller, is a crime film that is sure to keep the viewers watching to see just how far a man will go to reach his desires.
From the very start, we can see the tension between Eli Michaelson (Alan Rickman) and his son, Barkley Michaelson (Bryan Greenberg). After learning the news that his father had won the Nobel Prize, Barkley had felt that Eli had done nothing to deserve it. However, out of duty, Barkley attends the Nobel party. From this, we learn more about Eli's character; an attention grabbing, obnoxious doctor committing adultery. Both, Barkley and Sarah Michaelson (Mary Steenburgen) are unaware of Eli's unfaithfulness.
Bored of the party, Barkley escapes to see a group of poets reader at a local bookstore. He particularly goes to see City Hall (Eliza Dushku), a girl he's never held a conversation with. After a bit of small talk, City invites him to tag along. Several hours later and a stop at an ATM machine, City takes Barkley to her home. It is there he gets to know her better.
It is soon after that Barkley gets kidnapped. To get his revenge, Thaddeus James (Shawn Hatosy) holds Barkley for ransom. But Eli is unfazed, or rather, indifferent. While Barkley is desperate to keep his life, Eli just brushes it off as a prank. Only when he receives a human thumb in the mail does things start to get serious.
While Eli and Sarah, well mostly Sarah, begin to become impatient, Barkley has now struck a deal with Thaddeus; each of them will get half of the money. They come up with an elaborate plan that will assure their escape. And according to plan, it works.
This may seem like where the movie ends, however, this is not true. To go his own separate way is now not enough for Thaddeus. As a side plan, it was made to look as if the entire plot was Barkley's idea; a set up. This was for one goal. Thaddeus never had a father to look up to and now he is aiming for Barkley's. Even though Barkley hates his father, this is all just too much for him. Barkley wants Thaddeus out of his life and will stoop to any level to do it. With the help of his mother, Barkley comes up with a plan of his own. It is one that will require all his wits to pull off.
Overall the movie was an entertaining watch. However, it did not really have the viewer watching at the edge of their seats. There were a few twists in the story that prolonged it. But none of them were so shocking, but rather, they were almost predictable.
There were also some inconsistencies within the movie. It would seem almost unbelievable that Sarah, an FBI agent, would rent out a room to a stranger without first checking his background. You would think that this was the first thing she would have done instead of waiting until problems arise.
The movie is fun to watch and that is all that it is. There are no nail-biting scenes that should be included within a crime story-line. There is hardly any type of action. This game is played all within the mind, but even that is fully explained to the viewer. What makes a crime movie work is the suspense and thrill of the chase. But Nobel Son lacks even those two basic elements.
Written By: Jody Savin and Randall Miller
Produced By: Jody Savin and Randall Miller
Starring: Alan Rickman, Bryan Greenberg, Shawn Hatosy, Mary Steenburgen, Bill Pullman, Eliza Dushku and Danny DeVito
What better way to make easy cash than from stealing it from your own father? With a very calculated plan, it could easily be pulled off without becoming a suspect. Nobel Son, directed by Randall Miller, is a crime film that is sure to keep the viewers watching to see just how far a man will go to reach his desires.
From the very start, we can see the tension between Eli Michaelson (Alan Rickman) and his son, Barkley Michaelson (Bryan Greenberg). After learning the news that his father had won the Nobel Prize, Barkley had felt that Eli had done nothing to deserve it. However, out of duty, Barkley attends the Nobel party. From this, we learn more about Eli's character; an attention grabbing, obnoxious doctor committing adultery. Both, Barkley and Sarah Michaelson (Mary Steenburgen) are unaware of Eli's unfaithfulness.
Bored of the party, Barkley escapes to see a group of poets reader at a local bookstore. He particularly goes to see City Hall (Eliza Dushku), a girl he's never held a conversation with. After a bit of small talk, City invites him to tag along. Several hours later and a stop at an ATM machine, City takes Barkley to her home. It is there he gets to know her better.
It is soon after that Barkley gets kidnapped. To get his revenge, Thaddeus James (Shawn Hatosy) holds Barkley for ransom. But Eli is unfazed, or rather, indifferent. While Barkley is desperate to keep his life, Eli just brushes it off as a prank. Only when he receives a human thumb in the mail does things start to get serious.
While Eli and Sarah, well mostly Sarah, begin to become impatient, Barkley has now struck a deal with Thaddeus; each of them will get half of the money. They come up with an elaborate plan that will assure their escape. And according to plan, it works.
This may seem like where the movie ends, however, this is not true. To go his own separate way is now not enough for Thaddeus. As a side plan, it was made to look as if the entire plot was Barkley's idea; a set up. This was for one goal. Thaddeus never had a father to look up to and now he is aiming for Barkley's. Even though Barkley hates his father, this is all just too much for him. Barkley wants Thaddeus out of his life and will stoop to any level to do it. With the help of his mother, Barkley comes up with a plan of his own. It is one that will require all his wits to pull off.
Overall the movie was an entertaining watch. However, it did not really have the viewer watching at the edge of their seats. There were a few twists in the story that prolonged it. But none of them were so shocking, but rather, they were almost predictable.
There were also some inconsistencies within the movie. It would seem almost unbelievable that Sarah, an FBI agent, would rent out a room to a stranger without first checking his background. You would think that this was the first thing she would have done instead of waiting until problems arise.
The movie is fun to watch and that is all that it is. There are no nail-biting scenes that should be included within a crime story-line. There is hardly any type of action. This game is played all within the mind, but even that is fully explained to the viewer. What makes a crime movie work is the suspense and thrill of the chase. But Nobel Son lacks even those two basic elements.
Critic Watch: Watchmen
Mick LaSalle of the San Francisco Chronicle gave Watchmen Directed by Zack Snyder, a perfect score despite the film not reaching the psychological sophistication the other films like it achieved. He talked about how the director did such a good job with choreographing action scenes and thrilling audiences with his inventiveness. He also stated that the filmmakers’ strategy was not to hold audience’s attention with the story but with its breath taking visuals. The rest of the review talks about the plot of the film and the good qualities of the film.
Ian Nathan of the Empire Reviews Central gave this film 80 out of 100. In his review, he talks about how the creator of the graphic novel Watchmen, Alan Moore, claims that the film is “inherently unfilmable.” He also states that director Zack Snyder was one of the faithful, staying true to the film and would make sure that it wouldn’t end up like other Hollywood comic book screw-up’s. Nathan’s then talks about the basic plot of the movie and finishes his review talking about how the film tries to please two worlds, the true story to one that new comers would enjoy. He finishes his review saying that this film is memorable and visually stunning.
Shawn Levy of the Portland Oregonian gave this film 75 out of 100. He goes into the history of the film talking about what it is about and how finally technology has caught up to make the imaginations of Moore a reality. He says that the film is filled with inspired spectacles but it reaffirms the belief that the book was to great to be made into a film. He talks about the plot, focusing around one of the characters, Dr. Manhattan and other heroes and eventually talks about the acting. Levy finds that some of the acting isn’t up to the pair that they should have been and the sounds the director chooses to use end up harming the film.
A.O. Scott of The New York Times gave this film 40 out of 100. Scott finds this film to never end, stating that it is too hard to make sense of now but would have probably made more sense if it was released back in 1985. He talks about the original graphic novel and how it was scouting new horizons of complexity and thematic ambition. Scott talks about how this film is better then director Zack Snyder’s “300” film was. He ends his review finding that one of the sex scenes was laughable too.
Joe Morgenstem of the Wall Street Journal gave this film 20 out of 100, one of the lowest scores issued to this film. He finds this film to be too hard to show with one film, saying that it was clearly impossible. Joe also finds that you really have to be invested in this film to fully understand everything that is happening. He goes into the plot of the film and starts comparing it to “300” but ends his review on a good note saying the film as a whole is impressive.
Ian Nathan of the Empire Reviews Central gave this film 80 out of 100. In his review, he talks about how the creator of the graphic novel Watchmen, Alan Moore, claims that the film is “inherently unfilmable.” He also states that director Zack Snyder was one of the faithful, staying true to the film and would make sure that it wouldn’t end up like other Hollywood comic book screw-up’s. Nathan’s then talks about the basic plot of the movie and finishes his review talking about how the film tries to please two worlds, the true story to one that new comers would enjoy. He finishes his review saying that this film is memorable and visually stunning.
Shawn Levy of the Portland Oregonian gave this film 75 out of 100. He goes into the history of the film talking about what it is about and how finally technology has caught up to make the imaginations of Moore a reality. He says that the film is filled with inspired spectacles but it reaffirms the belief that the book was to great to be made into a film. He talks about the plot, focusing around one of the characters, Dr. Manhattan and other heroes and eventually talks about the acting. Levy finds that some of the acting isn’t up to the pair that they should have been and the sounds the director chooses to use end up harming the film.
A.O. Scott of The New York Times gave this film 40 out of 100. Scott finds this film to never end, stating that it is too hard to make sense of now but would have probably made more sense if it was released back in 1985. He talks about the original graphic novel and how it was scouting new horizons of complexity and thematic ambition. Scott talks about how this film is better then director Zack Snyder’s “300” film was. He ends his review finding that one of the sex scenes was laughable too.
Joe Morgenstem of the Wall Street Journal gave this film 20 out of 100, one of the lowest scores issued to this film. He finds this film to be too hard to show with one film, saying that it was clearly impossible. Joe also finds that you really have to be invested in this film to fully understand everything that is happening. He goes into the plot of the film and starts comparing it to “300” but ends his review on a good note saying the film as a whole is impressive.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Meta Critic Watch: "Duplicity"
Director: Tony Gilroy
Writer: Tony Gilroy
Producer: Jennifer Fox and Laura Bickford
Starring: Clive Owen, Julia Roberts, Tom Wilkinson, Paul Giamatti, Denis O’Hare, Thomas McCarthy
In "Duplicity" opposing secret operatives Claire Stenwick (Julia Roberts) and Ray Koval (Clive Owen) struggle to decide whether they want their careers or each other. Despite the a-list cast, bountiful budget, and all other the tools for success, viewers on Metacritic.com gave the film an average rating of 69/100, with ratings varying from a disgruntled 25 to the perfect 100.
Mick LaSalle of "San Francisco Chronicle" was the unfortunate soul that was the least satisfied person on the site. The entire review is a repetitive pan on the same short-comings: "His screenplay for "Duplicity," about corporate spying, is more than confusing. It's opaque." Although Owens and Roberts' redeeming qualities are allowed to shine, the audience is left wondering what the hell is going on. Mick LaSalle brands Gilroy's cheek with a 25/100.
The "Austin Chronicle's" Kimberley Jones summed up her opinion of the movie by breaking down the opening scene: "It’s a sparky way to start a picture, but the scene goes on too long and turns lumbering." For her the techniques and plot are fun, but too disjointed and lacking in direction. For her director Tony Gilroy and actor Clive Owen were obviously out of their element. The film exhibits flashes of potential, but is unsure if it wants to be a witty-crime film, or a dark drama. Unsurprisingly, Ms. Jones yawned a 50/100.
The venerable Roger Ebert of the "Chicago Sun-Times" found a good number of redeeming qualities in the film, but too many negatives to award the film a rating higher than a 75/100. While he appreciates the depth and complexity of the plot and the quality of the acting, as with the other reviewers, the film flutters with "a plot so ingenious that at the end, we know more or less what happened, but mostly less."
Mike Clark of "USA TODAY" called the film the first "satisfying, big-star entertaining spring lift" movie of the year. He was in love with the "trickiest plot structure in recent memory" and that the actors fight with sharp, witty dialogue. The star actors lived up to their role, the writing and plot challenged the viewer to guess who was screwing who over, and the shooting locations and gadgetry are all superb. For those reasons Mike Clark gave the film an 88/100.
A. O. Scott from "The New York Times" may be one of the happiest reviewers of the past week considering he gave the film the highly coveted rating of 100/100. Like the rest of the reviewers, Scott loved the highly intelligent dialogue sparked by the steamy chemistry between Owens and Roberts, and the fierce hatred between rivals Wilkinson and Giamatti. Unlike the other reviewers, Scott found the twists and turns and triple-crosses in this caper to be not only extremely well thought out, but genius in their complexity.
Apparently Gilroy's genius is hard to understand considering there was only one other 100 rating. But the common consensus is that while the dialogue and star actors are entertaining, Gilroy fails to fully convey to the viewer all that is really taking place in the plot.
Writer: Tony Gilroy
Producer: Jennifer Fox and Laura Bickford
Starring: Clive Owen, Julia Roberts, Tom Wilkinson, Paul Giamatti, Denis O’Hare, Thomas McCarthy
In "Duplicity" opposing secret operatives Claire Stenwick (Julia Roberts) and Ray Koval (Clive Owen) struggle to decide whether they want their careers or each other. Despite the a-list cast, bountiful budget, and all other the tools for success, viewers on Metacritic.com gave the film an average rating of 69/100, with ratings varying from a disgruntled 25 to the perfect 100.
Mick LaSalle of "San Francisco Chronicle" was the unfortunate soul that was the least satisfied person on the site. The entire review is a repetitive pan on the same short-comings: "His screenplay for "Duplicity," about corporate spying, is more than confusing. It's opaque." Although Owens and Roberts' redeeming qualities are allowed to shine, the audience is left wondering what the hell is going on. Mick LaSalle brands Gilroy's cheek with a 25/100.
The "Austin Chronicle's" Kimberley Jones summed up her opinion of the movie by breaking down the opening scene: "It’s a sparky way to start a picture, but the scene goes on too long and turns lumbering." For her the techniques and plot are fun, but too disjointed and lacking in direction. For her director Tony Gilroy and actor Clive Owen were obviously out of their element. The film exhibits flashes of potential, but is unsure if it wants to be a witty-crime film, or a dark drama. Unsurprisingly, Ms. Jones yawned a 50/100.
The venerable Roger Ebert of the "Chicago Sun-Times" found a good number of redeeming qualities in the film, but too many negatives to award the film a rating higher than a 75/100. While he appreciates the depth and complexity of the plot and the quality of the acting, as with the other reviewers, the film flutters with "a plot so ingenious that at the end, we know more or less what happened, but mostly less."
Mike Clark of "USA TODAY" called the film the first "satisfying, big-star entertaining spring lift" movie of the year. He was in love with the "trickiest plot structure in recent memory" and that the actors fight with sharp, witty dialogue. The star actors lived up to their role, the writing and plot challenged the viewer to guess who was screwing who over, and the shooting locations and gadgetry are all superb. For those reasons Mike Clark gave the film an 88/100.
A. O. Scott from "The New York Times" may be one of the happiest reviewers of the past week considering he gave the film the highly coveted rating of 100/100. Like the rest of the reviewers, Scott loved the highly intelligent dialogue sparked by the steamy chemistry between Owens and Roberts, and the fierce hatred between rivals Wilkinson and Giamatti. Unlike the other reviewers, Scott found the twists and turns and triple-crosses in this caper to be not only extremely well thought out, but genius in their complexity.
Apparently Gilroy's genius is hard to understand considering there was only one other 100 rating. But the common consensus is that while the dialogue and star actors are entertaining, Gilroy fails to fully convey to the viewer all that is really taking place in the plot.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Blog Review: Taken
Taken
20th Century Fox Distribution
Produced by: Didier Hoarau, Luc Besson, and Pierre-Ange Le Pogam
Starring: Liam Neeson, Maggie Grace, Leland Orser,
Directed by: Pierre Morel
This film has the perfect title because it is literally "taken" from the Bourne movies, but not nearly as good. It follows the fast, action-packed chase sequence, incredibly unbelievable fight sequences, and the necessary shaky hand-held camera feel. Unfortunately, Taken can not stand up next to the Bourne films.
Liam Neeson plays a former government agent, not entirely sure which government agency or what his former job title was, but apparantly he recieved some super-spy training and several martial arts blackbelts. However, he gave up that life to live closer to his ex-wife and teenaged daughter. Apparantly his numerous international trips proved too taxing on his ex, and she thus dishes out the usual snide remarks and cunning acts. He loves his daughter unconditionaly and shows it by being extremely protective (he does know from first hand experience how bad the world can be). So when she and her friend want to go to Europe to follow U2's concert tour, she lies to her father to get permission, telling him that she will being staying in her friend's relative's appartment in Paris and just tour the city. He begrudgingly allows her to go. Of course some bad things go down, and she goes missing. That's when Paris experiences the wrath of Neeson.
The fighting sequences went above and beyound unrealistic. The entire time one wonders just how Liam Neeson was able to pull that off. Whether it's driving through buildings, taking on numerous of bad guys at once, Neeson does it all. The amazing fight scenes is there to cover up the true flaw of this movie: the plot. Or perhaps lack thereof. Yes, Neeson is there to rescue his daughter. But to keep that same thought going for an hour and thirty-four minutes is draining. That is where the Bourne movies have succeeded where so many have fallen behind. The audience is kept guessing and wondering about Jason Bourne and the shady characters of his past. You almost know how Taken will end before you even start. But, if you want to see some really cool fights, this movie is for you.
20th Century Fox Distribution
Produced by: Didier Hoarau, Luc Besson, and Pierre-Ange Le Pogam
Starring: Liam Neeson, Maggie Grace, Leland Orser,
Directed by: Pierre Morel
This film has the perfect title because it is literally "taken" from the Bourne movies, but not nearly as good. It follows the fast, action-packed chase sequence, incredibly unbelievable fight sequences, and the necessary shaky hand-held camera feel. Unfortunately, Taken can not stand up next to the Bourne films.
Liam Neeson plays a former government agent, not entirely sure which government agency or what his former job title was, but apparantly he recieved some super-spy training and several martial arts blackbelts. However, he gave up that life to live closer to his ex-wife and teenaged daughter. Apparantly his numerous international trips proved too taxing on his ex, and she thus dishes out the usual snide remarks and cunning acts. He loves his daughter unconditionaly and shows it by being extremely protective (he does know from first hand experience how bad the world can be). So when she and her friend want to go to Europe to follow U2's concert tour, she lies to her father to get permission, telling him that she will being staying in her friend's relative's appartment in Paris and just tour the city. He begrudgingly allows her to go. Of course some bad things go down, and she goes missing. That's when Paris experiences the wrath of Neeson.
The fighting sequences went above and beyound unrealistic. The entire time one wonders just how Liam Neeson was able to pull that off. Whether it's driving through buildings, taking on numerous of bad guys at once, Neeson does it all. The amazing fight scenes is there to cover up the true flaw of this movie: the plot. Or perhaps lack thereof. Yes, Neeson is there to rescue his daughter. But to keep that same thought going for an hour and thirty-four minutes is draining. That is where the Bourne movies have succeeded where so many have fallen behind. The audience is kept guessing and wondering about Jason Bourne and the shady characters of his past. You almost know how Taken will end before you even start. But, if you want to see some really cool fights, this movie is for you.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Blog Review: "Gran Torino"
Director: Clint Eastwood
Screenplay: Nick Schenk
Producer: Clint Eastwood
Starring: Clint Eastwood, Christopher Carley, Bee Vang, Ahney Her
Not only does “Gran Torino” star Clint Eastwood, it also is directed and produced by him. Unfortunately, it would seem Eastwood was too busy with his duties to put more time toward casting. While calling the supporting cast’s performance subpar would be a euphemism, Eastwood’s brilliant delivery and the heart of the film save it and make it an enjoyable one.
Eastwood plays Walt Kawalski, the old man we all know and find it so easy to hate: a lone widower, bitter toward his offspring and neighbors, and a war veteran. But being that this is a Hollywood film, Walt finds a second breath of life in an unlikely character. In this case, that unlikely character is his Hmong neighbor’s son, a troubled teenage boy named Thao (Bee Vang) that he catches trying to boost his classic Gran Torino car. To make up for his crime the boy’s mother makes him work for Walt for two weeks. In that time he and Walt become friends as Walt guides Thao away from his gangster cousins toward a meaningful life. Through Thao and his sister Sue (Ahney Her), Walt finds new purpose in his life, but at a cost as the neighborhood gang refuses to take no for an answer.
Though the story is simple and fairly familiar, the human dynamics exhibited in the film that we experience on a day-to-day basis can’t be ignored.But for those not yet exposed to an Eastwood film, they are consistent in that they are not for those looking to escape the realities of life and language. Eastwood’s equal opportunist approach to politically incorrect remarks are also hard to ignore, but even harder not to laugh at.
First we are introduced to the relationship between Walt and Father Janovich (Christopher Carley) after Walt's wife's funeral. Father Janovich represents the young, ignorant, and inexperienced view of the world, while Walt has lived a callous and disenfranchised experience of the world. Then there’s the relationship he has with his children: to him they’re nothing more than soft, yuppie, garbage; however, the real issue, as he later recognizes, is that he never knew how to raise or talk to his children. As far as his Asian-origin Hmong neighbors go, he was a bit biased in his opinion of them considering he fought in the Korean War. But after being weakened in his opinion by their kindness his is coerced into attending their family gathering by Sue.
It’s while Walt is sitting at a table of stern-faced, hard-working, content older Hmong women that he comes to a bitter-sweet realization that simultaneously summarizes the tone and message of the film: “God dammit, I have more in common with these gooks than my own family.” For such hilarious honesty I give "Gran Torino" an 8/10 rating.
Critic Watch: Revolutionary Road
The movie Revolutionary Road is a literary adaptation of the 1961 novel by Richard Yates. The story is about a married couple who are very unhappy with the stereotypical lifestyle they have fallen into instead of living an authentic lifestyle. The couple pretends to have a perfect life, but it is just a cover-up of the disappointment they feel everyday and their failing marriage. The film takes place in 1950's America and is directed by Sam Mendes. The movie had a good overall rating of 69 with critics giving the movie a wide range of ratings from 38 to a perfect 100.
Michael Sragow from the Baltimore Sun gave the film its lowest rating. He thought the movie could be considered a complete failure outside of the great acting of Leonardo Dicaprio and Kate Winslet. The movie is such a terrible adaptation of Richard Yates' legendary book that it leaves you with absolutely no desire to ever read the novel. The film does not draw you in and the director is unable to present the complex emotions and secrets of the characters of which the book is based on.
Manohla Dargis, of the New York Times, gives the movie a 50, saying that the movie gives no justice to the book. This movie is a great example of how Hollywood tends to ruin books in which most of the story takes place in the minds of the characters. The movie is anything but short on talent, the problem is that this type of story is very difficult to tell on the screen. There are a few directors that really could have done the great novel justice, but Mendes was not one of them instead he fell short of expectations.
Ty Burr of the Boston Globe gave the movie a 63, which is best rating so far. Agreeing with all the other critics, he feels that the emotions and thoughts of the characters were not displayed in the film as they should have been. It seems as though the director is aware of his shortcomings and tries to cover them up with beautiful costumes, pristine cinematography, and a great score. Burr feels that Kate Winslet is truly the movie's saving grace. She was able to bring great emotion and depth to her character, something Dicaprio was unable to do.
Michael Phillips of the Chicago Tribune thought the movie to be more desirable than most other critics when he gave the film a 75. He did feel that the movie did not portray the depth and emotion of the book, but had its high points. The acting in the film is fantastic. Kate Winslet's performance is phenomenal and Dicaprio does an excellent job of portraying Frank exactly how his wife sees him. The cinematography is excellent as well. What the film is really missing is another dimension; emotion and depth.
Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times, thought the movie was "so good it was devastating." Saying that, it is obvious that he gave the movie a perfect score. What may no be so obvious is why. Ebert focuses on the direction, cinematography, and great acting. He sees this as an actual representation of a couple from the 1950's, rather than the couple from Yates' novel. The acting on the screen is amazing and the characters and setting remind him what it was really like to grow up in the 1950's. Roger Ebert sees the movie as a great film with talent just pouring from it.
Ultimately, the movie is well-made and has a great cast. When compared to the book of which the idea originated, it does a poor job of expressing the emotion and depth of the characters. The wide range of reviews was due to the wide range of focus. Those that gave the movie exceptional ratings were focused on the great acting and directing; the critics who gave the movie low ratings were focused on the lack of depth from the characters compared to how the book portrays them.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Critic Watch: Race To Witch Mountain
Dwayne Johnson, formerly known as "The Rock", stars in the Disney movie Race To Witch Mountain. This former pro wrestler has successfully moved from acting in front of a live audience to the big screen. The two are very similar in that both involve a lot of action. Director Andy Fickman uses Johnsons' experience from his wrestling career to create an action-packed movie for a younger audience to enjoy.
Kick Honeycutt from The Hollywood Reporter gave the highest review of an 80 out of 100. He praises the film, describing it as "entertaining with a crafty mixture of action, humor and drama." It should do well to satisfy an audience of all ages. Honeycutt does mention that the story does not always make sense. Like why do two highly intelligent, extraterrestrial children with magical powers need a cabbie to get around? Honeycutt dismisses that fact because there is so much action going on that it doesn't need to make sense.
Michael Phillips of the Chicago Tribune gave the movie a 63 out of 100. He stresses the action aspect of the movie. He says it "is determined to remake every live-action feature." The movie is so upbeat and barely leaves any time for the audience to comprehend what was going on in the previous action scene because a new starts immediately. But even though that the movie may consist of action scene after action scene, you can't help but love the character Johnson plays and as a result enjoy the movie.
A.O. Scott of the The New York Times gave the movie a 50 out of 100. Scott describes the movie as nothing but "noise." Meaning that there are countless action scenes. He compares this current version to the original Escape To Witch Mountain. The older version is described as being more mysterious than this updated modern version. The older versions did not require all the extra "noise." As for Johnsons' acting, it is not considered to be one of the best, however, he is improving. Scott believes that the movie is not mind-blowingly great but rather amusing for the younger viewers.
Joe Morganstern of the Wall Street Journal gave the movie a 40 out of 100. He mentions that when a film like Escape To Witch Mountain is remade into a more modern version, it is generally supposed to get better. Instead, Race To Witch Mountain does nothing to improve upon the story. It is just the same story told within a different time period. It didn't help that Johnsons' acting skills were lacking. Morganstern says that he has potential, however, Johnsons' skills are not up to par. His interections with his co-stars were not smooth. Overall, the filmmakers used Johnsons' name to big in the money.
Justin Berton of the San Francisco Chronicle gave the lowest review of a 25 out of 100. Berton feels that there is just too much action within the movie and no real content. There is really nothing worthwhile about the movie except for the role of one minor character played by Ciaran Hinds. The script was written with Johnson in mind for the role. However, Johnson is not a stand-out kind of actor that makes the movie good.
Basically, this movie is filled to the brim with action and nothing else. Most critics compare this movie with its' older version and most will agree that the older one was better. The only thing Race To Witch Mountain has going for it is the big name hero, Dwayne Johnson, and the many actions scenes that will keep an audience watching just to keep up.
Kick Honeycutt from The Hollywood Reporter gave the highest review of an 80 out of 100. He praises the film, describing it as "entertaining with a crafty mixture of action, humor and drama." It should do well to satisfy an audience of all ages. Honeycutt does mention that the story does not always make sense. Like why do two highly intelligent, extraterrestrial children with magical powers need a cabbie to get around? Honeycutt dismisses that fact because there is so much action going on that it doesn't need to make sense.
Michael Phillips of the Chicago Tribune gave the movie a 63 out of 100. He stresses the action aspect of the movie. He says it "is determined to remake every live-action feature." The movie is so upbeat and barely leaves any time for the audience to comprehend what was going on in the previous action scene because a new starts immediately. But even though that the movie may consist of action scene after action scene, you can't help but love the character Johnson plays and as a result enjoy the movie.
A.O. Scott of the The New York Times gave the movie a 50 out of 100. Scott describes the movie as nothing but "noise." Meaning that there are countless action scenes. He compares this current version to the original Escape To Witch Mountain. The older version is described as being more mysterious than this updated modern version. The older versions did not require all the extra "noise." As for Johnsons' acting, it is not considered to be one of the best, however, he is improving. Scott believes that the movie is not mind-blowingly great but rather amusing for the younger viewers.
Joe Morganstern of the Wall Street Journal gave the movie a 40 out of 100. He mentions that when a film like Escape To Witch Mountain is remade into a more modern version, it is generally supposed to get better. Instead, Race To Witch Mountain does nothing to improve upon the story. It is just the same story told within a different time period. It didn't help that Johnsons' acting skills were lacking. Morganstern says that he has potential, however, Johnsons' skills are not up to par. His interections with his co-stars were not smooth. Overall, the filmmakers used Johnsons' name to big in the money.
Justin Berton of the San Francisco Chronicle gave the lowest review of a 25 out of 100. Berton feels that there is just too much action within the movie and no real content. There is really nothing worthwhile about the movie except for the role of one minor character played by Ciaran Hinds. The script was written with Johnson in mind for the role. However, Johnson is not a stand-out kind of actor that makes the movie good.
Basically, this movie is filled to the brim with action and nothing else. Most critics compare this movie with its' older version and most will agree that the older one was better. The only thing Race To Witch Mountain has going for it is the big name hero, Dwayne Johnson, and the many actions scenes that will keep an audience watching just to keep up.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Watching the Watchmen
Being one of the most anticipated movies of 2009, many film critics and avid moviegoers eagerly awaited the results of Watchmen. This DC graphic novel now turned film opened with a large fan base and along with the massive ad campaigns for the film turned a large number of people out for this new movie. Directed by Zack Snyder, this action/adventure film was arguably a largely disputed film among critics. Overall, the film received a wide range of reviews. On metacritic, the film has received an overall score of 50%, showcasing what critics have pointed out as a decidedly mixed film.
Critic Bob Mondello of NPR, gave the film one and a half stars rabidly stating that, “Synder recycles some the better effects from gladiator epic 300…he might as well have used the graphic novel as a story board.” Overall, Mondello faulted the film for having too many digitally rendered scenes while at the same time refraining from developing a sufficient storyline for the film to actually have substance. Additionally, this critic seemed to take issue with the pacing of the film believing that only those fans faithful to the Watchmen graphic novel could follow the movie effectively.
Similarly, Michael Phillips of the Chicago Tribune also awarded Watchmen with one and a half stars. However, Phillips unlike Mondello took issue with the film’s hyper-specific adaptation of the graphic novel faulting the notion that it takes about forty minutes to simply relay the backstory. Afterwards, the film seems to devolve into cheap thrills choosing to emphasize, “eye-for-an-eye, severed limb-for-a-limb vengeance. Pointing out for example, the use of child molestation to justify repeated shots of head splitting death sequences several times over and over and assuming that the audience will approve because the child molester is “vermin.” The brutality in the film adaptation seemed far overdone by this critic’s standards and Synder seems to have eclipsed any moral conclusions with the due to the excessive violence portrayed in the film.
Faring a little better with Claudia Puig of USA Today, who rated the film two stars, the cinematic adaptation was quite simply, “forgettable after the opening blast.” Claudia seems to summarize previous critical complaints about the film point out that, the cinematography seemed to overshadow the story, while at the same time the violence depicted in the film had a far more sadistic quality than intellectually stimulating one. Even the costumes Puig writes, were far more distracting than cinematically illuminating. The example that Puig used, was the “buck naked” Dr. Manhattan who resembles, “a radioactive and NC-17 member of the blue man group.”
Yet, not all critics lashed out at the film’s cinematography. Peter Travers of Rolling Stone gave the film an acceptable three out of four stars praising the digital cinematic as a useful tool in unraveling some of the deepest parts of the dense graphic novel. Unlike other reviewers Travers credits the film for having gotten at the core of some of the deepest symbolism of the novel. Doling some pity toward Synder for a good attempt at trying to combine hardcore fan elements with the complete “newbies” of the novel for Travers, the forty minute back story is completely justified because it simply takes that long to get at the symbolism entrenched in the novel. Unfortunately the film adaptation falters due to the extreme violence depicted in the film.
Finally however, Kyle Smith of the New York Post was one of the critics who hailed Watchmen as “exhilarating in breadth and depth.” Literally gushing over the film, Smith writes about the similarities between this film and classics such as A Clockwork Orange. Although he writes almost an hour is devoted to introductions, the art and pleasure in watching the film lies in decoding all the symbolism hidden beneath the surface. The political and social overtones that lie at the heart of this film truly shine when combined with spectacular visual effects. In the eyes of this critic Synder does no wrong and every act of violence and every character seems like one large game of chess where one mind must rule over the other.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Critic Watch: Bed Time Stories
The Disney movie Bed Time Stories is a comedy directed by Adam Shankman and the leading role is played by Adam Sandler. The movie has received a wide variety of ratings from a zero to a 75. Altogether its rating on metacritic.com is 33%. The story is about a man who is babysitting his sister's kids for a week and has to tell them bedtime stories to get them to go to sleep. These bedtime stories magically become reality for Skeeter (Adam Sandler).
Joe Morgenstern of the Wall Street Journal gave the movie a big fat zero. He feels that this movie does not live up to the children's movies that are normally created by Disney. Although this movie is rated PG and directed towards a young audience it contains the crude humor we are used to seeing from films with Adam Sandler. This film is not the wholesome family entertainment it was advertised to be.
This movie received another poor rating from Peter Travers of the Rolling Stone Magazine. He felt that the movie earned a rating of only 25 out of a 100. Again, the major disappointment of this movie was found in the lead part played by Adam Sandler. Travers uses a quote by Sandler in the movie to sum up how he felt about Adam Sandler's acting as well as the entire movie; "I'm like stink on your feet - I'll always be there."
The movie also receive a mixed review of 50%. This rating was given by Michael Phillips from the Chicago Tribune. He thought although the movie had the normal crudeness and unnecessary cleavage of a normal Adam Sandler film it was not dominated by the comedy. Instead it dutifully delivered a more meaningful message of how a man's life filled with constant disappointment was able to escape it through these stories where anything could happen. Again the movie was safe enough to have the Disney label, but it is more suitable for an older audience.
Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times had a different take on the film when giving it a rating of 63. He felt that it was a "harmless and pleasant Disney comedy." Although he thinks that this film would be appealing to kids of all ages, he did not feel it was really that entertaining. It definitely had its funny moments in this unlikely story where anything can happen and just about anything and everything does happen. This movies shows that all you need to do is believe and anything can happen.
The last and best review received was given by Jonathan Curiel from the San Francisco Chronicle. He gave the film a 75, feeling that Adam Sandler made a pretty successful attempt at a type of comedy he is not really used to. Sandler plays a safe role, one of which he hopes his children will watch someday and "be able to look [him] in the eye" afterwards. Curiel felt this movie definitely did not have the cutting-edge Sandler that landed him on Saturday Night Live. Rather it was a more conserved comedian "trying to inspire a new generation of Adam Sandler fans." Although it was not the performance we are used to seeing from him, he played a good part which appealed to a younger audience.
Altogether the movie is not considered especially enjoyable by any of the critics, but felt that it could be a entertaining movie for children between the ages of 6 and 10. Most of the movie is focused on Adam Sandler which is normally how it is when he is in a film. This movie does not seem like it would be the best choice when choosing what to watch for family night, but is a glimpse of the new Adam Sandler and his hopeful career in kid-friendly movies.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Critic Watch: He's Just Not that Into You
The film He’s Just Not That Into You, directed by Ken Kwapis, is a light comedy that has received mixed reviews of 47% overall on Metacritic. The movie, according to Mick LaSalle of the San Francisco Chronicle, was a decent romantic comedy. Although there were no “break through observations” with dealing with relationship problems, it was still likable. The movie never had any significant scenes which were mind-blowing, but mainly were just good. Although the movie had a popular cast, the only character that strongly stood out was Ginnifer Goodwin who played Gigi, a woman who keeps losing in “the game of love.” Finding the movie to be entertaining and filled with the effort to try to make an enjoyable film, LaSalle gave the movie a rating of 75 out of 100, signifying that the film is a decent choice to watch.
James Berardinelli of ReelViews sees He’s Just Not that Into You as a movie that seemed flat throughout it’s two hour run. There are four main plots but the characters seem underdeveloped and a “wannabe Love Actually” movie. Unlike LaSalle, Berardinelli argues that Goodwin’s plot, although the main in the movie, is the “least compelling” out of all the others. A girl finds a bartender who one night gives her advice on men; she ends up calling him continuously afterwards to keep getting his advice, and the story goes on. Berardinelli particularly enjoyed the “Janine/Ben/Anna/Connor foursome” because that segment showed the complications of relationships. Overall, he considered the movie decent, there were some moments that were enjoyable and worth watching while some parts of the movie were not necessary, such as the Drew Barrymore scene. Berardinelli gave the movie an overall rating of sixty three percent.
Sean Axmaker from seattlepi.com expressed his apparent dislike for the film He’s Just Not that Into You when he called it “easily the least passionate romantic comedy I've seen in years.” He feels that the movie is cutesy more than anything, rather than funny. The comedy aspect is lost in all of the chorus of the emotional problems that all the characters are facing with their emotional problems. He feels that the movie misses the true feelings that love expresses. He’s just not that into you received a 58 percent rating from Axmaker, expressing his dislike for the movie.
Peter Travers from Rolling Stone gave the movie a thirty eight percent rating. He speaks of Goodwin’s character Gigi who “salivates” over characters that aren’t worth the attention. He calls it a movie that is poisonous for women and depicts them as flighty, insecure human beings. He speaks that the movie doesn’t depict real women. For example, Jennifer Aniston’s character stays with her boyfriend for seven years and cannot decide whether her relationship is worth it. Travers says that women would make up their minds rather than waste all of that time on a man. He also says Drew Barrymore’s character is a waste on screen because her only relationships are those that involve cyber space, and is not relevant to the movie. Overall, Travers disliked how women are depicted in this movie, the movie being unrealistic in the realm of the relationship world.
Scott Tobias from The Onion gave He’s Just Not That Into You a 50 percent on Metacritic. He did not like the movie and said “How much space can really be devoted to a straight dude telling straight women that men are simple creatures who send off clear, unambiguous signals?” when speaking of the movie’s plot. The movie seemed to be drawn out and scattered with all of the characters. The women are needy and constantly embarrass themselves in the realm of the relationship world. It seems as it would try to relate to Sex in the City as “liberating” women as showing them as independent but the movie works in reverse. The movie, according to Tobias is not worth watching, for it may cause even more relationship confusion.
James Berardinelli of ReelViews sees He’s Just Not that Into You as a movie that seemed flat throughout it’s two hour run. There are four main plots but the characters seem underdeveloped and a “wannabe Love Actually” movie. Unlike LaSalle, Berardinelli argues that Goodwin’s plot, although the main in the movie, is the “least compelling” out of all the others. A girl finds a bartender who one night gives her advice on men; she ends up calling him continuously afterwards to keep getting his advice, and the story goes on. Berardinelli particularly enjoyed the “Janine/Ben/Anna/Connor foursome” because that segment showed the complications of relationships. Overall, he considered the movie decent, there were some moments that were enjoyable and worth watching while some parts of the movie were not necessary, such as the Drew Barrymore scene. Berardinelli gave the movie an overall rating of sixty three percent.
Sean Axmaker from seattlepi.com expressed his apparent dislike for the film He’s Just Not that Into You when he called it “easily the least passionate romantic comedy I've seen in years.” He feels that the movie is cutesy more than anything, rather than funny. The comedy aspect is lost in all of the chorus of the emotional problems that all the characters are facing with their emotional problems. He feels that the movie misses the true feelings that love expresses. He’s just not that into you received a 58 percent rating from Axmaker, expressing his dislike for the movie.
Peter Travers from Rolling Stone gave the movie a thirty eight percent rating. He speaks of Goodwin’s character Gigi who “salivates” over characters that aren’t worth the attention. He calls it a movie that is poisonous for women and depicts them as flighty, insecure human beings. He speaks that the movie doesn’t depict real women. For example, Jennifer Aniston’s character stays with her boyfriend for seven years and cannot decide whether her relationship is worth it. Travers says that women would make up their minds rather than waste all of that time on a man. He also says Drew Barrymore’s character is a waste on screen because her only relationships are those that involve cyber space, and is not relevant to the movie. Overall, Travers disliked how women are depicted in this movie, the movie being unrealistic in the realm of the relationship world.
Scott Tobias from The Onion gave He’s Just Not That Into You a 50 percent on Metacritic. He did not like the movie and said “How much space can really be devoted to a straight dude telling straight women that men are simple creatures who send off clear, unambiguous signals?” when speaking of the movie’s plot. The movie seemed to be drawn out and scattered with all of the characters. The women are needy and constantly embarrass themselves in the realm of the relationship world. It seems as it would try to relate to Sex in the City as “liberating” women as showing them as independent but the movie works in reverse. The movie, according to Tobias is not worth watching, for it may cause even more relationship confusion.
The Long and Curious Case of Benjamin Button
In The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, a man is born in his eighties and ages backwards. It was directed by David Fincher, and written by Eric Roth and Robin Swicord.
Lou Lumenick of The New York Post gave the movie a 100, citing "world-class story telling" and though Lumenick is not a fan of Brad Pitt (who plays Button in the movie) he enjoyed him in this role. He states that Pitt gave a "deeply soulful and affecting" performance due to the digital effects that allow Cate Blanchett, who plays Daisy, to play widely varied ages throughout the movies. He does rebuke the movie for being too long, saying it "doesn't need to be nearly three hours long", but in the end he raves about The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.
Another positive review received by Benjamin Button was written by Claudia Puig of USA Today. She tells readers the film is "at its best when spinning fantastic yarns of Benjamin's bizarre, long life". She calls it a "cinematic curiousity", though also reprimands the film for it's length and emotional uninvolement, and being "folksy and predictable".
Though she calls it an ambitious piece, Ann Hornaday of The Washington post also accuses Benjamin Button of having "self inflated importance" and agrees, again, that it is far too long. She even wonders what "visionaries like Tim Burton...would have done with the film"; a sort of rebuff to the direction of David Fincher. Hornaday says the movie plays it too safe, and that it should be a film that "let's its freak flag fly".
Kimberley Jones of The Austin Chronicle wonders how this movie might have been created from F. Scott Fitzgerald's mild, short book by the same name. She calls the film "unmotivated" and complains, again, about the length of the film. Jones says that Fincher focused far too much on when Blanchett and Pitt were the same age, rather than focusing on when Pitt was portraying a young man in an old man's body, which she found more emotionally stirring.
And finally, in a rather brutal assault, Mike LaSalle of The San Fransico Chronicle states that the movie doesn't really have anything to say. LaSalle calls Button "uninteresting person to whom something medically interesting has happened" and says "this is the worst choice the screenwriter could've made". He does praise the movie's visuals, stating they are "flawless" but beyond this he does not have anything positive to say.
Throughout the varying degree of criticisms about The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, one thing remains the same. All the critics found the movie too long, and complained that the same story could've been told in a short film. Overall, it seems like a pretty good film.
Lou Lumenick of The New York Post gave the movie a 100, citing "world-class story telling" and though Lumenick is not a fan of Brad Pitt (who plays Button in the movie) he enjoyed him in this role. He states that Pitt gave a "deeply soulful and affecting" performance due to the digital effects that allow Cate Blanchett, who plays Daisy, to play widely varied ages throughout the movies. He does rebuke the movie for being too long, saying it "doesn't need to be nearly three hours long", but in the end he raves about The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.
Another positive review received by Benjamin Button was written by Claudia Puig of USA Today. She tells readers the film is "at its best when spinning fantastic yarns of Benjamin's bizarre, long life". She calls it a "cinematic curiousity", though also reprimands the film for it's length and emotional uninvolement, and being "folksy and predictable".
Though she calls it an ambitious piece, Ann Hornaday of The Washington post also accuses Benjamin Button of having "self inflated importance" and agrees, again, that it is far too long. She even wonders what "visionaries like Tim Burton...would have done with the film"; a sort of rebuff to the direction of David Fincher. Hornaday says the movie plays it too safe, and that it should be a film that "let's its freak flag fly".
Kimberley Jones of The Austin Chronicle wonders how this movie might have been created from F. Scott Fitzgerald's mild, short book by the same name. She calls the film "unmotivated" and complains, again, about the length of the film. Jones says that Fincher focused far too much on when Blanchett and Pitt were the same age, rather than focusing on when Pitt was portraying a young man in an old man's body, which she found more emotionally stirring.
And finally, in a rather brutal assault, Mike LaSalle of The San Fransico Chronicle states that the movie doesn't really have anything to say. LaSalle calls Button "uninteresting person to whom something medically interesting has happened" and says "this is the worst choice the screenwriter could've made". He does praise the movie's visuals, stating they are "flawless" but beyond this he does not have anything positive to say.
Throughout the varying degree of criticisms about The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, one thing remains the same. All the critics found the movie too long, and complained that the same story could've been told in a short film. Overall, it seems like a pretty good film.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Mostly Love for Two Lovers
Directed by James Gray and starring Vinessa Shaw, Gwyneth Paltrow, and Joaquin Phoenix (in what may be his last role) Two Lovers is a drama about a troubled man, Leonard (played appropriately by Phoenix) who meets two beautiful women who are very different, yet similarly affect the psychologically ailing Leonard.
Mick LaSalle of The San Francisco Chronicle says that Two Lovers is “sure to go down as one of the best films of 2009” despite its “standing up, easily achieved sex interlude”. The sexual tension in the movie, according to LaSalle, is purposeful and not overdone. He gives Two Lovers an extremely high rating.
Roger Ebert also gave Two Lovers a rather high rating, and assures readers that one can watch Two Lovers without any particular awareness of acting. He also points out that though the Leonard’s parents are portrayed as bourgeois, they are not overly “Jewish” as might be expected in a movie. Ebert calls its “a movie involving kinds of people we know, or perhaps have been,” which of course makes viewers more susceptible to enjoying a movie.
Peter Travers of Rolling Stone calls it, like many critics, one of Phoenix’s best performances, citing a “luminous fusion of grace and grit” between Phoenix and Paltrow. He reminds us at the end of his critique that this movie “will get to you.”
Oppositely, in Shawn Levy’s (of The Oregonian) opinion, Phoenix is not leading man material. He says “there’s virtually no electricity in the air, even when sex and death are present.” He even goes so far as to call the characters “phony” and that even if this is Phoenix’s last performance, it’s “a disappointing whimper to go out on.”
By far the worst reviewed received by Two Lovers was issued by Kyle Smith of The New York Post saying “the only possible interest the movie will inspire in anyone comes when Paltrow flashes a breast toward the end.” He calls Phoenix unattractive, agrees with Levy’s judgment that Phoenix should not be a leading man, and ripping the film to shreds.
Though the film received mostly good reviews, many of them, aside from Levy’s and Smith’s reviews, lamented the loss of Joaquin Phoenix to the film industry. Many of the reviews also said that this was a good way for Phoenix to go out, if indeed it is his last film.
Mick LaSalle of The San Francisco Chronicle says that Two Lovers is “sure to go down as one of the best films of 2009” despite its “standing up, easily achieved sex interlude”. The sexual tension in the movie, according to LaSalle, is purposeful and not overdone. He gives Two Lovers an extremely high rating.
Roger Ebert also gave Two Lovers a rather high rating, and assures readers that one can watch Two Lovers without any particular awareness of acting. He also points out that though the Leonard’s parents are portrayed as bourgeois, they are not overly “Jewish” as might be expected in a movie. Ebert calls its “a movie involving kinds of people we know, or perhaps have been,” which of course makes viewers more susceptible to enjoying a movie.
Peter Travers of Rolling Stone calls it, like many critics, one of Phoenix’s best performances, citing a “luminous fusion of grace and grit” between Phoenix and Paltrow. He reminds us at the end of his critique that this movie “will get to you.”
Oppositely, in Shawn Levy’s (of The Oregonian) opinion, Phoenix is not leading man material. He says “there’s virtually no electricity in the air, even when sex and death are present.” He even goes so far as to call the characters “phony” and that even if this is Phoenix’s last performance, it’s “a disappointing whimper to go out on.”
By far the worst reviewed received by Two Lovers was issued by Kyle Smith of The New York Post saying “the only possible interest the movie will inspire in anyone comes when Paltrow flashes a breast toward the end.” He calls Phoenix unattractive, agrees with Levy’s judgment that Phoenix should not be a leading man, and ripping the film to shreds.
Though the film received mostly good reviews, many of them, aside from Levy’s and Smith’s reviews, lamented the loss of Joaquin Phoenix to the film industry. Many of the reviews also said that this was a good way for Phoenix to go out, if indeed it is his last film.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Critic Watch: Madea Goes to Jail
---Tyler Perry is making a name of himself, but not necessarily in such a good way. Remember Jim Varney (1949-2000) and the “Ernest Goes to…” series? They are probably some of the most annoying films of the 90s and the early 2000s. Towards the middle of the 2000s Tyler Perry started making films in a similar fashion. He writes and directs movies about the sentimentality of black families featuring his signature character, Madea, a voluptuous wife and grandmother. Most notably, he wrote “Madea’s Family Reunion” and “Diary of a Mad Black Woman.” On IMDb.com, all of his films are rated worse than all of the “Ernest” series, just to give some perspective. On February 20 “Madea Goes to Jail” was released in theaters. Averaging a 50 out of 100 on metacritic.com, here is what some of the few reviewers had to say.
---Owen Gleiberman of ‘Entertainment Weekly’, in his very short review, gave the movie a C. He says “As long as Madea, the primly old-fashioned yet fearlessly badass matriarch, is shooting off her machine-gun mouth, Tyler Perry's latest soul operetta lives up to the mischief promised by its title.” However he doesn’t think it happens enough, as most of the film is the story of a lawyer trying to resurrect a former friend turned prostitute. He thinks Madea is very entertaining and gives out some good race and class lessons, but really isn’t that good all around.
---“At times their intensity is almost too much for the movie, making the transitions from raw emotion to silly humor all the more jarring” says A.O. Scott from ‘The New York Times.’ Scott doesn’t seem to actually like this movie either. He claims that Tyler Perry does entertain his target audience but really could make better movies; however with his character Madea he may not have to. Not only that, but with this movie Perry shows that his movie making skills are still “noticeably unpolished.”
---On a more positive note, critic Philip Kennicott of ‘The Washington Post’ thinks Tyler Perry achieved his goal and did it well on the way. He thinks that without Madea, the movie is a great weeper of a social drama. However with Madea it’s a great mix of the latter genre and slapstick comedy. Kennicott also noticed that Perry uses many of the same actors from some of his previous works, which he calls “immensely successful.”
---Back on the negative, Wesley Scott of ‘The Boston Globe’ thinks Perry would almost be better off writing day time soaps. “Why clear up in one scene what can be dragged across 10?” Madea is too much for Scott in long doses and he thinks that Perry could do a better job in his writing, even if his heart is in the right place now. Wesley criticizes the relationships of the characters in that their characteristics are not typical of their supposed standing in the movie, but he shows a commitment to the black experience through melodrama.
---Last, J.R. Jones of ‘The Chicago Reader’ loves Perry’s new movie. “…This enjoyable comedy is quicker on the uptake than any of Eddie Murphy's fat ladies, quicker even than Flip Wilson's Geraldine Jones.” He thinks that Perry has an expertise in dealing with the female audiences because of his drag performances as Madea. Jones also likes the mix between the melodrama, supported by the great acting job of Derek Luke, and Madea’s antics.
---Will Tyler Perry improve his camera work and writing by sacrificing his loud mouthed quintessential character? It’s doubtful. As much as it would benefit him and Hollywood, he keeps making money and so there’s no reason for him to quit.
---Owen Gleiberman of ‘Entertainment Weekly’, in his very short review, gave the movie a C. He says “As long as Madea, the primly old-fashioned yet fearlessly badass matriarch, is shooting off her machine-gun mouth, Tyler Perry's latest soul operetta lives up to the mischief promised by its title.” However he doesn’t think it happens enough, as most of the film is the story of a lawyer trying to resurrect a former friend turned prostitute. He thinks Madea is very entertaining and gives out some good race and class lessons, but really isn’t that good all around.
---“At times their intensity is almost too much for the movie, making the transitions from raw emotion to silly humor all the more jarring” says A.O. Scott from ‘The New York Times.’ Scott doesn’t seem to actually like this movie either. He claims that Tyler Perry does entertain his target audience but really could make better movies; however with his character Madea he may not have to. Not only that, but with this movie Perry shows that his movie making skills are still “noticeably unpolished.”
---On a more positive note, critic Philip Kennicott of ‘The Washington Post’ thinks Tyler Perry achieved his goal and did it well on the way. He thinks that without Madea, the movie is a great weeper of a social drama. However with Madea it’s a great mix of the latter genre and slapstick comedy. Kennicott also noticed that Perry uses many of the same actors from some of his previous works, which he calls “immensely successful.”
---Back on the negative, Wesley Scott of ‘The Boston Globe’ thinks Perry would almost be better off writing day time soaps. “Why clear up in one scene what can be dragged across 10?” Madea is too much for Scott in long doses and he thinks that Perry could do a better job in his writing, even if his heart is in the right place now. Wesley criticizes the relationships of the characters in that their characteristics are not typical of their supposed standing in the movie, but he shows a commitment to the black experience through melodrama.
---Last, J.R. Jones of ‘The Chicago Reader’ loves Perry’s new movie. “…This enjoyable comedy is quicker on the uptake than any of Eddie Murphy's fat ladies, quicker even than Flip Wilson's Geraldine Jones.” He thinks that Perry has an expertise in dealing with the female audiences because of his drag performances as Madea. Jones also likes the mix between the melodrama, supported by the great acting job of Derek Luke, and Madea’s antics.
---Will Tyler Perry improve his camera work and writing by sacrificing his loud mouthed quintessential character? It’s doubtful. As much as it would benefit him and Hollywood, he keeps making money and so there’s no reason for him to quit.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
---Aslan, Qui-Gon Jinn, and Henri Ducard. Three characters that have little in common; seeing as how one is a lion, one is a Jedi, and the other is a disguised super villain. Could Liam Neeson, the actor behind each one of those characters, also play a concerned father? Actually, concerned father doesn’t accurately describe the role. Concerned father that’s also a retired bodyguard? Absolutely. “Taken” is an action packed film with some sentiment thrown in that puts Liam Neeson in his element.
---Neeson plays a character by the name of Brian Mills, a retired government bodyguard, or as he says, ‘a preventer’. Not only that but he is a divorced father who just moved closer to his daughter Kim, who lives with her mother Eleanor and step father. Kim, 17, asks her father to sign a paper allowing her to go to Paris, allegedly to spend the summer with her friend’s cousin. Brian is very hesitant but ultimately signs the paper with certain stipulations (well, he is a body guard isn’t he?).
---Kim and her friend fly to Paris and immediately meet a handsome young man named Peter whom they share a cab with. After the two arrive at their apartment and relax for a few hours, Kim realizes her father called her and she returns his call. Suddenly, men rush the apartment and kidnap both of them. Brian confers with a colleague of his and he is told that in about 96 hours Kim will be unable to be found. With a little more than a voice and a location, Brian sets out to rescue his daughter from these people with their motive unbeknownst to him.
---Nothing really stands out in this movie. The music is fitting for an action movie and doesn’t really have a lasting appeal outside of viewing the film. The writing has its times of humor and creativity but isn’t full of one liners that keep the script fresh in a person’s mind.
---This movie is actually quite predictable. In most action movies, there is an objective that the main character needs to fulfill and the climax of the movie is that fulfillment. Without giving the plot away, this film more or less follows that algorithm. Not only that but the movie is shorter compared to a lot of films of this genre, only running 93 minutes.
---Despite these things that may make the viewer somewhat ambivalent toward the film, the action scenes are quite well done. They are just short enough to not drag on but they are long enough to get a message across. The camera work that accompanies the scenes is really shaky to add to the suspense which helps make the movie more appealing.
---After seeing the film and Liam Neeson running away with this character, ambivalence seems like bliss. There is no real downside to this film. Combining the factors of action content, story, and length, there is just the right consistency to make this movie quite good. There really could have been more story and development, but honestly too much would have ruined the movie’s likeability. I give this movie a 4.25 out of 5 and two thumbs up to Liam Neeson for pulling this role off so well.
---Neeson plays a character by the name of Brian Mills, a retired government bodyguard, or as he says, ‘a preventer’. Not only that but he is a divorced father who just moved closer to his daughter Kim, who lives with her mother Eleanor and step father. Kim, 17, asks her father to sign a paper allowing her to go to Paris, allegedly to spend the summer with her friend’s cousin. Brian is very hesitant but ultimately signs the paper with certain stipulations (well, he is a body guard isn’t he?).
---Kim and her friend fly to Paris and immediately meet a handsome young man named Peter whom they share a cab with. After the two arrive at their apartment and relax for a few hours, Kim realizes her father called her and she returns his call. Suddenly, men rush the apartment and kidnap both of them. Brian confers with a colleague of his and he is told that in about 96 hours Kim will be unable to be found. With a little more than a voice and a location, Brian sets out to rescue his daughter from these people with their motive unbeknownst to him.
---Nothing really stands out in this movie. The music is fitting for an action movie and doesn’t really have a lasting appeal outside of viewing the film. The writing has its times of humor and creativity but isn’t full of one liners that keep the script fresh in a person’s mind.
---This movie is actually quite predictable. In most action movies, there is an objective that the main character needs to fulfill and the climax of the movie is that fulfillment. Without giving the plot away, this film more or less follows that algorithm. Not only that but the movie is shorter compared to a lot of films of this genre, only running 93 minutes.
---Despite these things that may make the viewer somewhat ambivalent toward the film, the action scenes are quite well done. They are just short enough to not drag on but they are long enough to get a message across. The camera work that accompanies the scenes is really shaky to add to the suspense which helps make the movie more appealing.
---After seeing the film and Liam Neeson running away with this character, ambivalence seems like bliss. There is no real downside to this film. Combining the factors of action content, story, and length, there is just the right consistency to make this movie quite good. There really could have been more story and development, but honestly too much would have ruined the movie’s likeability. I give this movie a 4.25 out of 5 and two thumbs up to Liam Neeson for pulling this role off so well.
Critic Watch: Watchmen
Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times gave Watchmen a perfect 100 out of 100 score on Megacritic. He touches on the film's symbolism, admitting that even he isn't sure that he understands all of it. He mentions the blockbuster that is the Dark Knight, and how this is another sprout in the comic book genre. He explains that this in an alternate reality where superheroes are real, a collective group named the Watchmen, who overlook human affairs. It's 1985 the U.S. has won in Vietnam, thanks to Mr. Manhattan, Richard Nixon is still president, and superheroes have been banished. Yet, when one of them is killed, the Watchmen reassemble. He mentions that the problem with most superheroes is that they aren't human, but must deal with a human world, which is why Batman's angst is so appealing. In this film, all but one of these superheroes are human with gifts, like superior intelligence or technical skills, and a theme is the exploration of the flawed nature of the characters. Ebert says the movie has a "fearsome beauty" and that he will be seeing it again.
Steven Rea of the Philadelphia Inquirer gave this film a 75 out of 100. He also lauds the movie for its apperance- it is beautiful. He mentions that the director and screenwriter both paid great detail to remaining true to the original graphic novel. In this world where "red" was indeed the scariest of all colors, the film gives a great look into "paranoia-fueled look of heroism gone bad". Rea highlighted the fact that the first couple hours of the movie is great, but there are so many lose ends to tie up that the last 40 minutes was a lot of stereotypical superhero cliches.
Phillip Kennicott of The Wahsington Post gave the movie a 50 out of 100. He spends about half of his review discussing the actual graphic novel, then the other half the movie's attempt to follow it to the letter. He mentions that the lenght of the movie is a draw back; it is very long. The original novel was hailed as literary genius, even making its way onto TIME magazine's list of 100 best English novels since 1923 along such greats as Hemingway and Orwell. It didn't deserve it, acording to Kennicott. And by following it to such a close degree in the movie, the viewer becomes painfully aware of the bad dialogue. He does mention how great the special effects are, however.
Devin Gordon of Newsweek gave the film a 40 out of 100. The main fault for him was the way the director, Zach Snyder, followed the graphic novel detail for detail. He says worshipers of the book will love it, because it is so familiar, but it is not enough to carry the movie. He gives examples of other movies that became wildly successful that were based off of novels- The Godfather and Lord of the Rings. The directors loved those books as well, but realized that where some things work on the page, they won't work on the screen. He says the film feels dated and, although advertised as a visionary, Snyder has not reached that level yet.
David Edelstein of New York Magazine gave the film a 20 out of 100. He says that it is so true to the original comic that it is embalmed. In an attempt to remain true to the comic, Snyder did the exact opposite of what the author did: he did not utilize his tools to the full. The feels extremely dated, with it's Cold War-reminiscent doomsday scenarios. Edelstein mentions that the one group who will be pleased will be the fanboys, because the characters are exactly the same.
Steven Rea of the Philadelphia Inquirer gave this film a 75 out of 100. He also lauds the movie for its apperance- it is beautiful. He mentions that the director and screenwriter both paid great detail to remaining true to the original graphic novel. In this world where "red" was indeed the scariest of all colors, the film gives a great look into "paranoia-fueled look of heroism gone bad". Rea highlighted the fact that the first couple hours of the movie is great, but there are so many lose ends to tie up that the last 40 minutes was a lot of stereotypical superhero cliches.
Phillip Kennicott of The Wahsington Post gave the movie a 50 out of 100. He spends about half of his review discussing the actual graphic novel, then the other half the movie's attempt to follow it to the letter. He mentions that the lenght of the movie is a draw back; it is very long. The original novel was hailed as literary genius, even making its way onto TIME magazine's list of 100 best English novels since 1923 along such greats as Hemingway and Orwell. It didn't deserve it, acording to Kennicott. And by following it to such a close degree in the movie, the viewer becomes painfully aware of the bad dialogue. He does mention how great the special effects are, however.
Devin Gordon of Newsweek gave the film a 40 out of 100. The main fault for him was the way the director, Zach Snyder, followed the graphic novel detail for detail. He says worshipers of the book will love it, because it is so familiar, but it is not enough to carry the movie. He gives examples of other movies that became wildly successful that were based off of novels- The Godfather and Lord of the Rings. The directors loved those books as well, but realized that where some things work on the page, they won't work on the screen. He says the film feels dated and, although advertised as a visionary, Snyder has not reached that level yet.
David Edelstein of New York Magazine gave the film a 20 out of 100. He says that it is so true to the original comic that it is embalmed. In an attempt to remain true to the comic, Snyder did the exact opposite of what the author did: he did not utilize his tools to the full. The feels extremely dated, with it's Cold War-reminiscent doomsday scenarios. Edelstein mentions that the one group who will be pleased will be the fanboys, because the characters are exactly the same.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Critic Watch: The Trouble with Romance
The Trouble with Romance, a movie written and directed by Gene Rhee, focuses its plot around four different couples each sharing a room in the same hotel. They aren't exactly the picture perfect couples however. Each relationship has some flaw in it, whether it be a hallucinogenic girlfriend or a bitter breakup. According to film critics however, the trouble just isn't with the romance, but also nearly every other aspect of the movie as well.
The only semi-positive review, giving the movie as score a 60 out of 100, was by Fred Camper from the Chicago Reader. Camper feels that while these short stories contained within the movie have a large amount of problems, they still provide some laughs and insights. He continues to summarize each part, also saying that the performances are convincing and that Rhee brings up some deep human flaws. He says the movie outlines the messiness of human affections, and that we really don't know what we want.
Immediately the reviews drop into the negative side with the next highest review being 20 out of 100. Elizabeth Weitzman from the Daily News calls this relationship dramedy amateurish at best, containing all the things you would rather skip in a late night cable drama. Moving from movie criticism to comments on the director, Weitzman says that while Rhee is clearly interested in sex, he also fears it, which is why the movie has a PG-13 rating. Weitzman doesn't have a problem with this if only the movie had some redeeming quality or interest factor.
The next review, giving a bad score of 12 out of 100 comes from V.A. Musetto of The New York Post. Musetto voices his disdain immediately by referencing a particularly gruesome part of the movie involving human excrement. He states that this scene is the lowest part of a movie with many low points, two of which are bad acting and a generic script. Musetto also comments on the lack of anything graphic in terms of sex other than just speaking about it. Overall Musetto feels the movie is just a waste of time and money.
Dropping a little to the score of 10 out of 100 is a review written by Jeannette Catsoulis of the New York Times. Calling the film an, "airless, fragmented" feature, stating that even just the opening scene leaves the viewer wondering if they should stick around. She continues her harsh criticism throughout the review, calling some segments pointless and also disgusting. Towards the end of her review she compares the movie with another similarly plotted one, Room 314. As opposed to the superior Room 314, The Trouble with Romance is, "visually stagnant and tonally bewildered."
Giving the film the worst score possible, a 0 out of 100, is John Anderson from Variety. Anderson clearly sees no redeeming qualities and feels it is just a terrible film. What he says cannot be stated any better, "Very little that anyone here says, or does, has the slightest connection to any known reality, and if a film is going to perform an autopsy on love, the corpse should at least be recognizable." His point is made clear in the very first sentence. This movie doesn't relate even in the slightest bit to love or reality.
The overall feelings for this movie are very clear. Even the best review says that there is little enjoyment to be had from viewing. Bad script, bad acting and overall ridiculous plotlines prevent this film from being anything near presentable.
The only semi-positive review, giving the movie as score a 60 out of 100, was by Fred Camper from the Chicago Reader. Camper feels that while these short stories contained within the movie have a large amount of problems, they still provide some laughs and insights. He continues to summarize each part, also saying that the performances are convincing and that Rhee brings up some deep human flaws. He says the movie outlines the messiness of human affections, and that we really don't know what we want.
Immediately the reviews drop into the negative side with the next highest review being 20 out of 100. Elizabeth Weitzman from the Daily News calls this relationship dramedy amateurish at best, containing all the things you would rather skip in a late night cable drama. Moving from movie criticism to comments on the director, Weitzman says that while Rhee is clearly interested in sex, he also fears it, which is why the movie has a PG-13 rating. Weitzman doesn't have a problem with this if only the movie had some redeeming quality or interest factor.
The next review, giving a bad score of 12 out of 100 comes from V.A. Musetto of The New York Post. Musetto voices his disdain immediately by referencing a particularly gruesome part of the movie involving human excrement. He states that this scene is the lowest part of a movie with many low points, two of which are bad acting and a generic script. Musetto also comments on the lack of anything graphic in terms of sex other than just speaking about it. Overall Musetto feels the movie is just a waste of time and money.
Dropping a little to the score of 10 out of 100 is a review written by Jeannette Catsoulis of the New York Times. Calling the film an, "airless, fragmented" feature, stating that even just the opening scene leaves the viewer wondering if they should stick around. She continues her harsh criticism throughout the review, calling some segments pointless and also disgusting. Towards the end of her review she compares the movie with another similarly plotted one, Room 314. As opposed to the superior Room 314, The Trouble with Romance is, "visually stagnant and tonally bewildered."
Giving the film the worst score possible, a 0 out of 100, is John Anderson from Variety. Anderson clearly sees no redeeming qualities and feels it is just a terrible film. What he says cannot be stated any better, "Very little that anyone here says, or does, has the slightest connection to any known reality, and if a film is going to perform an autopsy on love, the corpse should at least be recognizable." His point is made clear in the very first sentence. This movie doesn't relate even in the slightest bit to love or reality.
The overall feelings for this movie are very clear. Even the best review says that there is little enjoyment to be had from viewing. Bad script, bad acting and overall ridiculous plotlines prevent this film from being anything near presentable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)