I Love You, Man
Starring: Paul Rudd, Jason Segel, Rashida Jones, Andy Samberg
Written by: Larry Levin (& story) John Hamburg
Directed by: John Hamburg
I Love You, Man is another comedy brought brought forth by John Hamburg, previously known for his movies Meet the Parents, Zoolander, and Along Come Polly. This film follows Peter Klaven (Paul Rudd), a real estate agent who has recently become engaged to Zooey (Rashida Jones). While planning for his upcoming wedding, Klaven realizes he has no close male best friends to fill that all important role of best man. So Klaven embarchs on a series of man-dates, where he meets Sydney Fife (Jason Segel). The two become friends but the closer they become, the more Klaven and Zooey's relationship suffers.
Peter Hartlaub of the "San Francisco Chronicle" gave the film the highes score possible, a perfect 100 out of 100 on Megacritic. Hartlaub praises the film as one of the best comedies of the year. He makes a referece to the movie The 40-Year-Old Virgin, explaining that the funniest parts of that film were the interractions between Steve Carrell and his male friends, not the actual love story. In Hartlaub's opinion, that is the main strength of I Love You, Man: the focus is between the man love, and the relationship between Klaven and Zooey takes a back seat. Hartlaub gives directer Hamburg credit for making the satire seem fresh and new, even though we have seen the jokes before. In addition to this, Hartlaub also highlights the supporting characters who, even though they are not the main players, never fail to disappoint.
Roger Ebert of the "Chicago Sun-Times" gives the film a very respectable 88 out of 100. Ebert calls the film truly funny and will leave the viewer feeling good from watching the movie. Ebert touches on the character of Sydney (Segel) as a real highlight of the film, and his entrance as the place where the film stops being predictable. He also praises Pau Rudd's acting, which really conveys the slight awkwardness that follows around his character. Ebert says that yes it has the obligatory dumb, physical humor, but also has witty dialogue and observations that are truly funny.
Michael Phillips of the "Chicago Tribune" gives the film a 75 out 100, a pretty good score. Describes of the film as missing director Judd Apatow, but definitely influenced by him. Not as good as previous films such as Knocked Up, Superbad, or Forgetting Sarah Marshall, the film is a notable mention. Most of the jokes he describes as being redundant, almost like a "been there done that" sort of feel. For him, the real comedy is in the dialogue for the characters, things that have no importances whatsoever for the plot of the story. He closes his review by saying if only one of these movies could feature an interesting female lead, then it would be great.
Kyle Smith of the "New York Post" gave this film a 50 out of 50. His main argument is, why do I care if this guy has a best man? In fact, why won't he do what most guys do and use his brother? There is far too much time spent on Rudd's character going on his "man -dates" using tired jokes. There are some funny scenes, but the majority are not. Segel's character is supposed to be the man's man, but his "enlivened" speeches are the complete opposite of what men really feel or care about. Smith compares this film as to asking Michael Jackson what real men are like.
Johs Rosenblatt of the "Austin Chronicle" gave the film the worst rating of the bunch, a 40 out of 100. He says that in ten years when critics look back at the Bromance genre, they may look at I Love You, Man as the tipping point when films went from being inventive to being mechanical. Rosenblatt says that most of the jokes are written in becuase it is felt as if they have to be there. Everything is safe and Rashida Jones' character is compared to a black hole, a faceless force of gravity. He feels as if everything in the film is predictable.
Over all, I Love You, Man did very well, recieving an average score of 71 on Megacritic. Most feel as if it is a very funny movie, even if it panders to a specific audience in a specific age group.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Critic Watch: Monsters vs. Aliens
---Ever since 1995 the film world hasn’t been the same; that was the year that Disney released their international blockbuster “Toy Story.” Once that hurdle was jumped, this sub-genre of animation went to the spotlight. Disney is pretty much the leader in computer generated kids films, but DreamWorks makes a decent attempt to snatch the silver screen from its counterpart. Their big hits are “Ice Age”, “Shrek”, and “Kung Fu Panda”; on March 27, they released “Monsters vs. Aliens.” Expecting a film to compete with the likes of “Monster’s, Inc.”, Disney’s monster film, and to at least hold a candle to their own film “Kung Fu Panda”, critics seem to be disappointed.
---Michael Phillips of the “Chicago Tribune” claims that the film forgot two main things: good jokes and a purpose to the 3D portions. He even goes as far to say “… (it) is pure marketing without anything to market.” Regardless of the all star voice crew, including Seth Rogen, Stephen Colbert, and Reese Witherspoon, the writing is too poor to even showcase their talents. There is some spectacle involved in the movie that makes it somewhat desirable, such as the scene where a monster destroys the Golden Gate Bridge. Phillips didn’t like it, however, and says it was just “loud.”
---“The Baltimore Sun’s” Michael Sragow inadvertently agrees with everything that Phillips says. They say the same thing about how the script is a lame attempt at trying to create a surefire epic film. He wants to know where some of the creativity went when writing this film. Even the 3D parts wear out their welcome, according to Sragow, due to the lack of imagination.
---Bob Mondello from National Public Radio notices how most DreamWorks movies focus on and try to sell some sort of gimmick, and this particular film tries to sell 3D animation. There are some moments of wit, and the movie should technically appeal to every age level, but the film’s repeated attempts at 3D spectacle lead to predictability, thereby ruining the movie.
---Continuing this somewhat dismal and repetitious string of reviews, Ann Hornaday from “The Washington Post” echoes the sentiments of the other reviewers. There is a worn out idea of the 3D animation aspect that the movie so forcefully hits on. She also feels the writing lacks a story, which could have propelled the movie to at least something worth remembering. Instead it will fade to the back of the audience’s mind.
---“The Philly Inquirer” has one of the few reviewers with something even remotely decent to say. Steven Rea actually liked the film, even though he didn’t see it in 3D (or perhaps because he didn’t see it as such.) He enjoyed the plot of how a glowing bride becomes a literal glowing bride due to a meteor and gets shipped to a government holding facility for monsters and mutants. Rea also enjoys the characters’ wisecracks and all around weirdness.
---Earning an average of 56 out of 100 on metacritic.com, this film is pitted for being another average animation film. A little more writing probably would have gone a long way. Fortunately or unfortunately for the audience: Disney still comes out on top because of DreamWorks’ lack of success.
---Michael Phillips of the “Chicago Tribune” claims that the film forgot two main things: good jokes and a purpose to the 3D portions. He even goes as far to say “… (it) is pure marketing without anything to market.” Regardless of the all star voice crew, including Seth Rogen, Stephen Colbert, and Reese Witherspoon, the writing is too poor to even showcase their talents. There is some spectacle involved in the movie that makes it somewhat desirable, such as the scene where a monster destroys the Golden Gate Bridge. Phillips didn’t like it, however, and says it was just “loud.”
---“The Baltimore Sun’s” Michael Sragow inadvertently agrees with everything that Phillips says. They say the same thing about how the script is a lame attempt at trying to create a surefire epic film. He wants to know where some of the creativity went when writing this film. Even the 3D parts wear out their welcome, according to Sragow, due to the lack of imagination.
---Bob Mondello from National Public Radio notices how most DreamWorks movies focus on and try to sell some sort of gimmick, and this particular film tries to sell 3D animation. There are some moments of wit, and the movie should technically appeal to every age level, but the film’s repeated attempts at 3D spectacle lead to predictability, thereby ruining the movie.
---Continuing this somewhat dismal and repetitious string of reviews, Ann Hornaday from “The Washington Post” echoes the sentiments of the other reviewers. There is a worn out idea of the 3D animation aspect that the movie so forcefully hits on. She also feels the writing lacks a story, which could have propelled the movie to at least something worth remembering. Instead it will fade to the back of the audience’s mind.
---“The Philly Inquirer” has one of the few reviewers with something even remotely decent to say. Steven Rea actually liked the film, even though he didn’t see it in 3D (or perhaps because he didn’t see it as such.) He enjoyed the plot of how a glowing bride becomes a literal glowing bride due to a meteor and gets shipped to a government holding facility for monsters and mutants. Rea also enjoys the characters’ wisecracks and all around weirdness.
---Earning an average of 56 out of 100 on metacritic.com, this film is pitted for being another average animation film. A little more writing probably would have gone a long way. Fortunately or unfortunately for the audience: Disney still comes out on top because of DreamWorks’ lack of success.
Critic Watch: Fast & Furious
In “Fast & Furious”, Brian O’Conner is tracking down a drug dealer and reunites with ex-pal Dom Toretto to go after a common enemy. With the lack of a good plot to make the story have more depth, it falls on the action which hasn’t changed. On Metacritic.com, this film was given a rating of 45 out of 100, with ratings varying from 20 to 83.
Lisa Schwarzbaum of the Entertainment Weekly gave this film one of the highest score with 83 out of 100. She talks about the long history of this film going back to the first released film eight years ago and the global tour that the franchise has gone. She says “that The Fast and the Furious celebrated great music, cars, and minimally clothed chicks cast as extras” and it is this that was great to watch but that it is no Point Break. She talks about the film briefly, stating that the plot is weak but the old gang is back for one more ride.
Betsy Sharkey of the Los Angeles Times gave this film 70 out of 100. Sharkey talks about how the films use of speed and flashy thrills makes it interesting to who ever likes cars. Going into a little detail of what is happening in the story, Sharkey explains that the films real star is back, Vin Diesel, after 2 sub par films have not shown the hype compared to the original. Without his character, the film wouldn’t have been as good even with the lack of plot.
David Hiltbrand of the Philadelphia Inquirer gave this film 63 out of 100. He says that the car-fetish franchise is back in its fourth film, Fast & Furious. The original gangs returns as well but not much else has changed. This film is just like the rest, a gleaming display of chrome pornography set to race. He goes into the plot of this four film and talks about the events that lead up to this part. He says that this film only succeeds because of the supercharged action comparing it The Road Warrior and due partly to Diesel’s character.
Nathan Lee of The New York Times gave this film one of its most given scores with 50 out of 100. He attacks this film by talking about its tagline, “New Model. Original Parts”, which the parts part is referring to the crew that had reunited for another B-movie. He goes after Vin Diesels acting in this film, making him out to be a bad actor that has little acting skills. He talks about the plot and says finally that the script is primitive at best and that the film could lose 20 minutes to better suit its truncated title. On a final note of the rating PG-13 for the film, he says that it was given this due to the outrageous moving violations and tough-guy talk.
Todd McCarthy of Variety gave this film the lowest score on Metacritic.com with 20 out of 100. He says that the film tried to bring back some memories and start up the engine one more time but unfortunately, it fall ways short of all the films in the franchise. He finishes his review says that it is time for everyone to just move on.
Critic Watch: Duplicity
Directed by: Tony Gilroy
Written by: Tony Gilroy
Produced by: Laure Bickford and Jennifer Fox
Starring: Clive Owen, Julia Roberts, Paul Giamatti
Julia Roberts and Clive Owen star in Duplicity, a "twisty romantic thriller," that has most critics raving. Duplicity follows CIA officer Claire Stenwick (Roberts) and MI6 agent Ray Koval (Owen) on their quest to secure a secret formula for their respective companies. Each uses intelligence tactics in an effort to outsmart the other and to achieve victory. As their game gets trickier and dirtier, one thing they didn't expect stands in their way, their growing attraction for each other.
Giving the movie the highest possible rating, 100 out of 100, was Lou Lumenick of The New York Post. Lumenick references many movies throughout his review. He states there is a direct comparison to Mr. and Mrs. Smith and that Duplicity's intricate plot makes Ocean's 11 look like child's play. He also comments on the film's lack of violence and that its IQ is closer to the movie Charade with Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn. Overall he feels the movie is a smart and funny film, topped off with the excellent chemistry between Owen and Roberts.
Giving a good score of 80 out of 100 is Dan Kois of The Washington Post. Kois' first bit of criticism also involves the lack of violence in the film, comparing it to its opposite, the Bourne series. His main complaint with the movie is that Julia Roberts isn't given enough room to "strut her stuff." Other than that he seems to like the movie quite a bit, calling it smart and funny, if only for adults.
Joe Morgenstern of The Wall Street Journal give the movie an average score of 60 out of 100. Morgenstern agrees with his fellow critics in saying that the film is indeed of a higher caliber when it comes to intelligence. He feels the plot intricacy is too much, however, and that it takes away from any emotional value the film could have had. He also has a problem with the acting. While the lines are cleverly written, the deliveries of Owen and Roberts leave a lot to be desired. Owen's performance is uninteresting and Roberts, as a result, seems bored.
Kimberly Jones of The Austin Chronicle gives the movie a score of 50 out of 100. The film's opening scene, which contains the only violent scene the other reviews talked about, is one of the problems. The scene, she says, goes on for too long and "turns lumbering." Jones also feels Owen was not at his best here, and that his chemistry with Roberts is essentially nonexistent.
Mick LaSalle from the San Francisco Chronicle gave the film a terrible score of 25 out of 100. He says that, "As a caper film, "Duplicity" is a fizzle. As a mystery, it's a cheat." He says that Gilroy does all the wrong things when it comes to corporate espionage. The only pleasures the movie has are incidental, Robert's eyes, Owen in a dark suit, and Paul Giamatti, who plays a corporate owner, at his comedic best. The movie's main problem is its lack of a good script or good direction.
Overall the reviews for this movie are about average. Its total rating is 69 out of 100, which isn't bad, but it also isn't the best movie out there. Certain points critics rave about in some reviews are the subject of disapproval in others. The reviews are so mixed that perhaps the best idea is to jugde it for yourself.
Written by: Tony Gilroy
Produced by: Laure Bickford and Jennifer Fox
Starring: Clive Owen, Julia Roberts, Paul Giamatti
Julia Roberts and Clive Owen star in Duplicity, a "twisty romantic thriller," that has most critics raving. Duplicity follows CIA officer Claire Stenwick (Roberts) and MI6 agent Ray Koval (Owen) on their quest to secure a secret formula for their respective companies. Each uses intelligence tactics in an effort to outsmart the other and to achieve victory. As their game gets trickier and dirtier, one thing they didn't expect stands in their way, their growing attraction for each other.
Giving the movie the highest possible rating, 100 out of 100, was Lou Lumenick of The New York Post. Lumenick references many movies throughout his review. He states there is a direct comparison to Mr. and Mrs. Smith and that Duplicity's intricate plot makes Ocean's 11 look like child's play. He also comments on the film's lack of violence and that its IQ is closer to the movie Charade with Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn. Overall he feels the movie is a smart and funny film, topped off with the excellent chemistry between Owen and Roberts.
Giving a good score of 80 out of 100 is Dan Kois of The Washington Post. Kois' first bit of criticism also involves the lack of violence in the film, comparing it to its opposite, the Bourne series. His main complaint with the movie is that Julia Roberts isn't given enough room to "strut her stuff." Other than that he seems to like the movie quite a bit, calling it smart and funny, if only for adults.
Joe Morgenstern of The Wall Street Journal give the movie an average score of 60 out of 100. Morgenstern agrees with his fellow critics in saying that the film is indeed of a higher caliber when it comes to intelligence. He feels the plot intricacy is too much, however, and that it takes away from any emotional value the film could have had. He also has a problem with the acting. While the lines are cleverly written, the deliveries of Owen and Roberts leave a lot to be desired. Owen's performance is uninteresting and Roberts, as a result, seems bored.
Kimberly Jones of The Austin Chronicle gives the movie a score of 50 out of 100. The film's opening scene, which contains the only violent scene the other reviews talked about, is one of the problems. The scene, she says, goes on for too long and "turns lumbering." Jones also feels Owen was not at his best here, and that his chemistry with Roberts is essentially nonexistent.
Mick LaSalle from the San Francisco Chronicle gave the film a terrible score of 25 out of 100. He says that, "As a caper film, "Duplicity" is a fizzle. As a mystery, it's a cheat." He says that Gilroy does all the wrong things when it comes to corporate espionage. The only pleasures the movie has are incidental, Robert's eyes, Owen in a dark suit, and Paul Giamatti, who plays a corporate owner, at his comedic best. The movie's main problem is its lack of a good script or good direction.
Overall the reviews for this movie are about average. Its total rating is 69 out of 100, which isn't bad, but it also isn't the best movie out there. Certain points critics rave about in some reviews are the subject of disapproval in others. The reviews are so mixed that perhaps the best idea is to jugde it for yourself.
Blog Review: Monsters Vs. Aliens
Monsters Vs. Aliens
Directed by: Rob Letterman and Conrad Vernon
Written by: Maya Forbes and Wallace Wolodarsky
Produced by: Jill Hopper, Latifa Ouaou, and Lisa Stewart
Starring: Reese Witherspoon, Hugh Laurie, Seth Rogen, and Will Arnett
Monsters Vs. Aliens, another film by Dreamworks, contains a familiar concept, human mutants who were once outcasts must now fight to save the world. While the movie won't have an overall appeal like the X-Men movies did, it will appeal to its target audience, children.
The movie begins with a young woman named Susan (voiced by Reese Witherspoon), who initially seems to have the perfect life. She has a supportive family and fiancee who has a good job and who seems to absolutely adore her. Life for Susan doesn't remain so happy for long. A few minutes before her wedding, she struck by what seems to be a meteorite from space. After being found and cleaned off by her mother, the wedding begins as planned. Things seem to be going fine until Susan beings to glow a bright green. In a matter of seconds, she grows to the size of the room and beyond. The military already knew about the meteorite and were outside of the church, ready to attack. They quickly bring Susan down.
When Susan wakes up, she is in unfamiliar territory. Shortly after she meets her unlikely comrades, Dr. Cockroach (Hugh Laurie), B.O.B. (Seth Rogen), and The Missing Link (Will Arnett). Accompanying them is their pet-like friend Insectosaurus. She soon learns that, like her, these creatures were once normal humans as well. She also learns that now she is a gigantic "monster," the government intends to keep her in confinement the rest of her life. The government soon changes their decision, however, when they are attacked by a giant alien robot. Susan and her friends must now go from prisoners to heroes.
Considering this movie is aimed towards children, it is very well done. The jokes and sight gags are enough to keep the children and also the adults entertained for its 90 minute running time. The characters are likable and very funny, specifically the dumb and innocent B.O.B. The writers even insert a touch of drama when Susan's fiancee breaks up with her because she was stealing his thunder. Overall the movie balances action, comedy and drama very well.
The only problem, which in part is due to its genre, is its plot. While its basic idea seems somewhat new and interesting, it fails in execution. Despite its quirky and lovable characters, the plot is very predictable. Any adult member of the audience could guess its outcome fairly early on. The movie is indeed a kids movie however, which means plot progression might have taken a back seat to the comedy aspect. The movie is still entertaining and it ended the way it had to in order to be a successful children's story.
Monsters Vs. Aliens is a children's movie that is very well done. It has great visuals, jokes that appeal to any age, and lovable characters. While its plot is somewhat predictable, it still has a high entertainment factor. This movie is definitely recommended, especially for children and their families.
Directed by: Rob Letterman and Conrad Vernon
Written by: Maya Forbes and Wallace Wolodarsky
Produced by: Jill Hopper, Latifa Ouaou, and Lisa Stewart
Starring: Reese Witherspoon, Hugh Laurie, Seth Rogen, and Will Arnett
Monsters Vs. Aliens, another film by Dreamworks, contains a familiar concept, human mutants who were once outcasts must now fight to save the world. While the movie won't have an overall appeal like the X-Men movies did, it will appeal to its target audience, children.
The movie begins with a young woman named Susan (voiced by Reese Witherspoon), who initially seems to have the perfect life. She has a supportive family and fiancee who has a good job and who seems to absolutely adore her. Life for Susan doesn't remain so happy for long. A few minutes before her wedding, she struck by what seems to be a meteorite from space. After being found and cleaned off by her mother, the wedding begins as planned. Things seem to be going fine until Susan beings to glow a bright green. In a matter of seconds, she grows to the size of the room and beyond. The military already knew about the meteorite and were outside of the church, ready to attack. They quickly bring Susan down.
When Susan wakes up, she is in unfamiliar territory. Shortly after she meets her unlikely comrades, Dr. Cockroach (Hugh Laurie), B.O.B. (Seth Rogen), and The Missing Link (Will Arnett). Accompanying them is their pet-like friend Insectosaurus. She soon learns that, like her, these creatures were once normal humans as well. She also learns that now she is a gigantic "monster," the government intends to keep her in confinement the rest of her life. The government soon changes their decision, however, when they are attacked by a giant alien robot. Susan and her friends must now go from prisoners to heroes.
Considering this movie is aimed towards children, it is very well done. The jokes and sight gags are enough to keep the children and also the adults entertained for its 90 minute running time. The characters are likable and very funny, specifically the dumb and innocent B.O.B. The writers even insert a touch of drama when Susan's fiancee breaks up with her because she was stealing his thunder. Overall the movie balances action, comedy and drama very well.
The only problem, which in part is due to its genre, is its plot. While its basic idea seems somewhat new and interesting, it fails in execution. Despite its quirky and lovable characters, the plot is very predictable. Any adult member of the audience could guess its outcome fairly early on. The movie is indeed a kids movie however, which means plot progression might have taken a back seat to the comedy aspect. The movie is still entertaining and it ended the way it had to in order to be a successful children's story.
Monsters Vs. Aliens is a children's movie that is very well done. It has great visuals, jokes that appeal to any age, and lovable characters. While its plot is somewhat predictable, it still has a high entertainment factor. This movie is definitely recommended, especially for children and their families.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Blog (DVD Review): More Than Vampires in Twilight
Directed by: Catherine Hardwicke
Novel by: Stephenie Mayer
Screenplay by: Melissa Rosenberg
Produced by: Marty Bowen and WyckGodfrey
Starring: Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson
Boy meets girl. Boy likes girl. Boy can't have girl because of some social or personal limitation. Boy falls in love with girl anyway. Sounds exactly like a classic love story. In the case of Twilight, the word classic doesn't really describe it correctly. Based off of a novel series by Stephenie Mayer, Twilight combines romance with horror, desires with responsibility. Just like Edward and Bella's romance, the movie leaves the audience wanting a little bit more.
Bella (played by Kristen Stewart) has just moved in with her father and must attend a new school. Relocating to a new school mid-year is hard enough for anyone, but it's even harder when you're a loner. Bella makes a few acquaintances fairly quickly however, including the odd and elusive Edward Cullen (played by Robert Pattinson). Edward and his family are a close knit group and rarely interact with the rest of the students. Bella however, seems to be an exception with Edward. Soon the two become close, contrary to Edward's wishes. Edward loves Bella, but he has a problem. He is a vampire and the scent of her blood entices him unlike any other. Eventually he is able to overcome the scent for the most part, and discovers that his love for her exceeds his need for blood.
Initially, I was quite hesitant to see this movie. I haven't read the books, but anything that causes hoards of fourteen year old girls to crowd a Walmart two hours before its DVD release doesn't sound like something I would be interested in. I was actually quite surprised. I've heard from avid fans of the book that the plot differs from the book too much, so I was glad that I saw the movie first. The plot seemed to progress well, and if you can overcome that fact that the film is a hopeless love story, it can be very enjoyable. Dreary, rainy settings helped to create a less romantic, more sinister tone. The acting was fairly good and the characters were believable.
The movie isn't flawless though. One problem I had was with certain areas of the script. At times it seemed a bit too corny for my tastes, but such is to be expected from the type of love story it is. Nevertheless, the statements made seemed cheesey, even for two teenagers in love. Another issue I had was with the make-up jobs given to certain characters. Edward and his father were too pale. Granted they are supposed to be vampires, but they also live in a society surrounded by humans. They would find it nearly impossible to go unnoticed with such an appearance.
Canon aside, Twilight is a well done movie. Quality acting and some nice visuals prevent the questionable script and love-soaked storyline from bringing it down. The movie, however, will never be judged solely on its own merits. The viewer will have some type of bias going into it, whether it be love of the book or fear of its fan girl popularity. In order to enjoy (or not enjoy) the movie to its fullest, the viewers must clear their minds of any preconceived ideas, and only then can they make an unbiased judgment.
Novel by: Stephenie Mayer
Screenplay by: Melissa Rosenberg
Produced by: Marty Bowen and WyckGodfrey
Starring: Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson
Boy meets girl. Boy likes girl. Boy can't have girl because of some social or personal limitation. Boy falls in love with girl anyway. Sounds exactly like a classic love story. In the case of Twilight, the word classic doesn't really describe it correctly. Based off of a novel series by Stephenie Mayer, Twilight combines romance with horror, desires with responsibility. Just like Edward and Bella's romance, the movie leaves the audience wanting a little bit more.
Bella (played by Kristen Stewart) has just moved in with her father and must attend a new school. Relocating to a new school mid-year is hard enough for anyone, but it's even harder when you're a loner. Bella makes a few acquaintances fairly quickly however, including the odd and elusive Edward Cullen (played by Robert Pattinson). Edward and his family are a close knit group and rarely interact with the rest of the students. Bella however, seems to be an exception with Edward. Soon the two become close, contrary to Edward's wishes. Edward loves Bella, but he has a problem. He is a vampire and the scent of her blood entices him unlike any other. Eventually he is able to overcome the scent for the most part, and discovers that his love for her exceeds his need for blood.
Initially, I was quite hesitant to see this movie. I haven't read the books, but anything that causes hoards of fourteen year old girls to crowd a Walmart two hours before its DVD release doesn't sound like something I would be interested in. I was actually quite surprised. I've heard from avid fans of the book that the plot differs from the book too much, so I was glad that I saw the movie first. The plot seemed to progress well, and if you can overcome that fact that the film is a hopeless love story, it can be very enjoyable. Dreary, rainy settings helped to create a less romantic, more sinister tone. The acting was fairly good and the characters were believable.
The movie isn't flawless though. One problem I had was with certain areas of the script. At times it seemed a bit too corny for my tastes, but such is to be expected from the type of love story it is. Nevertheless, the statements made seemed cheesey, even for two teenagers in love. Another issue I had was with the make-up jobs given to certain characters. Edward and his father were too pale. Granted they are supposed to be vampires, but they also live in a society surrounded by humans. They would find it nearly impossible to go unnoticed with such an appearance.
Canon aside, Twilight is a well done movie. Quality acting and some nice visuals prevent the questionable script and love-soaked storyline from bringing it down. The movie, however, will never be judged solely on its own merits. The viewer will have some type of bias going into it, whether it be love of the book or fear of its fan girl popularity. In order to enjoy (or not enjoy) the movie to its fullest, the viewers must clear their minds of any preconceived ideas, and only then can they make an unbiased judgment.
DVD Review: Bolt
Directed By: Byron Howard and Chris Williams
Screenplay By: Dan Fogelman and Chris Williams
Produced By: Clark Spencer
Starring: John Travolta, Miley Cyrus, Susie Essman and Mark Walton
Every weekend, millions of families take a trip to go see a movie. Most prefer to see a fun-filled, laughter inducing movie that will make the children happy. From directors Byron Howard and Chris Williams comes thrills and adventures filled with stunts and silliness. Bolt is a movie that takes the most unlikeliest set of animals and throws them together.
Bolt (John Travolta) is a genetically altered super dog that protects his human, Penny (Miley Cyrus). From the opening scene, we follow Bolt and Penny as they dodge evil henchman after evil henchman to save Penny's father. As a member of the audience, we are made to believe this is going to be an action-packed movie with a lot of thrills and nail-biting close calls. We closely watch as Bolt assists Penny hoping that they will make it out unharmed while knowing that the heroes could never be injured. This is what we expect from years and years of watching our favorite superheroes.
When Bolt and Penny finally beat all the henchman, we think Penny will be able to save her father. That is until she she steps into her trailer. All the excitement up to this point was shot purposefully for a television show. In the back of our minds we're thinking, "What?" We don't expect to be fooled in this way. Although we know the truth now, there is someone who still believes this is all real: Bolt. Bolt is kept on the set at all times to ensure that he believes that it is real. He knows nothing of the truth. So when Penny gets kidnapped for the show, Bolt believes Penny really is kidnapped. Angry, Bolt escapes from his trailer.
After some mishaps, Bolt ends up on the other side of the country. Knowing he'll need help to get back to Penny, Bolt enlists the help of the enemy of all dogs, a cat named Mittens (Susie Essman). Still refusing to believe reality, Bolt drags Mittens along for the ride. During their road trip across America, they meet a hamster in a ball looking for excitement, Rhino (Mark Walton). With the addition of a new team member comes more laughter. Rhino serves as comedic relief. No matter what it is Rhino does, it will be sure to entice laughs from anyone. His laughter becomes contagious and with it comes a warm-fuzzy feeling. You can't help but to fall in love with Rhino.
Aside from all the comedy, there is also a seriousness when Bolt finally decides to accept reality and when we learn of Mittens' past. In both instances, there is no laughter as we watch both characters desperately searching for answers. But with each other's help, Bolt and Mittens find exactly what they want. From here, their relationship develops from bitter rivals to good friends. Their development can be summed up in one word: awww. This is also the feeling we get when we watch the ending scenes.
Bolt is a movie that has a wide audience range. Although it is targeted mostly towards a younger audience, anyone can enjoy it. Filled with thrills, laughter and heart-wrenching scenes, we come out with smiles upon our faces. We can't help watching just how each character will turn out in the end: better or worse. As we follow their adventures, we hope for the former.
Screenplay By: Dan Fogelman and Chris Williams
Produced By: Clark Spencer
Starring: John Travolta, Miley Cyrus, Susie Essman and Mark Walton
Every weekend, millions of families take a trip to go see a movie. Most prefer to see a fun-filled, laughter inducing movie that will make the children happy. From directors Byron Howard and Chris Williams comes thrills and adventures filled with stunts and silliness. Bolt is a movie that takes the most unlikeliest set of animals and throws them together.
Bolt (John Travolta) is a genetically altered super dog that protects his human, Penny (Miley Cyrus). From the opening scene, we follow Bolt and Penny as they dodge evil henchman after evil henchman to save Penny's father. As a member of the audience, we are made to believe this is going to be an action-packed movie with a lot of thrills and nail-biting close calls. We closely watch as Bolt assists Penny hoping that they will make it out unharmed while knowing that the heroes could never be injured. This is what we expect from years and years of watching our favorite superheroes.
When Bolt and Penny finally beat all the henchman, we think Penny will be able to save her father. That is until she she steps into her trailer. All the excitement up to this point was shot purposefully for a television show. In the back of our minds we're thinking, "What?" We don't expect to be fooled in this way. Although we know the truth now, there is someone who still believes this is all real: Bolt. Bolt is kept on the set at all times to ensure that he believes that it is real. He knows nothing of the truth. So when Penny gets kidnapped for the show, Bolt believes Penny really is kidnapped. Angry, Bolt escapes from his trailer.
After some mishaps, Bolt ends up on the other side of the country. Knowing he'll need help to get back to Penny, Bolt enlists the help of the enemy of all dogs, a cat named Mittens (Susie Essman). Still refusing to believe reality, Bolt drags Mittens along for the ride. During their road trip across America, they meet a hamster in a ball looking for excitement, Rhino (Mark Walton). With the addition of a new team member comes more laughter. Rhino serves as comedic relief. No matter what it is Rhino does, it will be sure to entice laughs from anyone. His laughter becomes contagious and with it comes a warm-fuzzy feeling. You can't help but to fall in love with Rhino.
Aside from all the comedy, there is also a seriousness when Bolt finally decides to accept reality and when we learn of Mittens' past. In both instances, there is no laughter as we watch both characters desperately searching for answers. But with each other's help, Bolt and Mittens find exactly what they want. From here, their relationship develops from bitter rivals to good friends. Their development can be summed up in one word: awww. This is also the feeling we get when we watch the ending scenes.
Bolt is a movie that has a wide audience range. Although it is targeted mostly towards a younger audience, anyone can enjoy it. Filled with thrills, laughter and heart-wrenching scenes, we come out with smiles upon our faces. We can't help watching just how each character will turn out in the end: better or worse. As we follow their adventures, we hope for the former.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)