REVIEW: The Hangover Part II

31 05 2011

I’ve harped on Hollywood relentlessly for relying so heavily on formula to churn out movies, and this summer looks to be a barrage of cliches and banalities.  If, according to these criteria, any other movie this summer is worse than “The Hangover Part II,” I will be shocked.  From the opening scene, virtually identical to the first film’s, it’s clear that the sequel will cling to the exact same structure that made its predecessor a $277 million surprise smash.

From this point, there are two ways to react to the movie.  You can be disgusted by the writers’ lack of originality, scoffing at how it settles for being just a cheap imitation of the original.  You can sit there and wait for it to make even the slightest of departures from the formula – a wait that would be in vain.  It’s a carbon copy, an identical twin, you name it.

Or, as I would recommend, you can put aside this nagging concern, accept up front that you are going to be watching the same outline of a movie with slightly different jokes and situations, and just enjoy that you have another 100 minutes to spend with the Wolfpack.  I would have been content finding one-liners that I missed the first ten times in the original on HBO, but it’s kind of nice to get a scene change and a few new jokes.  It’s a sort of Faustian bargain for the viewer, but one ultimately worth making since putting Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms, and Zach Galifianakis together in a room with a camera is guaranteed to generate some hard-core laughter.

Read the rest of this entry »


Comments : 4 Comments »
Tags: , , , , , , ,
Categories : Movie Reviews

Classics Corner: “Modern Times”

29 05 2011

I don’t know why I still manage to get so awestruck when an old movie manages to feel as relevant as this morning’s edition of The New York Times, but Charlie Chaplin’s 75-year-old “Modern Times” applies just as much to 1936’s factory work as it does to 2011’s technological work.  It will forever be a prophetically prescient social commentary on progress and modernity as long as it continues to dehumanize us.  (Not to mention it’s also a fantastic movie with a thoroughly captivating story to tell!)

In the film, Chaplin’s iconic Little Tramp character hits the assembly line and encounters the problem many of us face today: with technology making us move so quickly, the way that we live in the real world inevitably takes the form of our dealings with technology.  Chaplin communicates this idea in a very literal way that is at once hilarious and haunting – his arms can’t stop screwing nuts, acting as if there were an assembly line in front of them at all times.  Modernism has invaded his subconscious behaviors, and work is no longer something confined to the workplace.  Sounds scary, right?

But thanks to Chaplin’s charm, the movie is hardly a rant about how factory work kills the soul (something that would have been all too easy to do in 1936 when America was still in the midst of the Great Depression).  Despite all the troubles that the Little Tramp endures from the challenges of living in a modern world, his misfortunes lead him to the gamine (played by Chaplin’s future wife, Paulette Goddard), who turns out to be the love of his life.  Together, they endure whatever the world might throw at them.  Things will never be perfect, but they are hopeful because they know that they will always have each other’s love.

And it is precisely this aspect that makes “Modern Times” such a rewarding movie to watch in the present.  In an era where social commentary in art and film are almost inevitably wrapped in a thick coat of cynicism, Chaplin reminds us of the power of a human connection and how it can provide comfort in times when industrial advancement threatens to make humans virtually obsolete.  This (almost-)silent film had volumes more to say about culture and humanity than most movies with words say nowadays.  I’m certainly glad that I put aside my hesitancy to watch silent movies because Chaplin’s vision truly is timeless and transcends the barriers that cinematic progress inevitably erects.


Comments : 3 Comments »
Tags: , , ,
Categories : Classics Corner, Movie Reviews

F.I.L.M. of the Week (May 27, 2011)

27 05 2011

With Woody Allen’s “Midnight in Paris” earning its place in the box office record books (but still nowhere to be found in Houston theaters), I figured the right way to kick off the return of the “F.I.L.M.” (First-Class, Independent Little-Known Movie) of the Week was to shine a light on one of star Rachel McAdam’s finest flicks, “Red Eye.”  The phrase “killer thriller” gets thrown around a lot in regards to chilling cinema due to alliteration, yet few actually merit the descriptor.  This one does.

Say what you will about “Scream 4” being a critical flop and a box office disaster, but you can’t deny that director Wes Craven can send chills up your spine.  “Red Eye” is more in the vein of “A Nightmare on Elm Street” than it is in horror-comedy of “Scream,” and even on DVD and the second watch, it’s still as frightening as ever.  Running at only 85 minutes, the compact volume of terror keeps the tension so taut it could be cut with a knife at any moment.

McAdams stars as Lisa Reisert, a hotel manager taking the red eye home to Miami from her grandmother’s funeral.  Little does she know, however, that she is in the thick of a terrorist plot spearheaded by the devilishly charming man in the seat next to her, Jackson Rippner (Cillian Murphy).  His plan of terror is not to hijack the plane but rather hijack Lisa’s sanity, exploiting her position, threatening her, and playing intense psychological games with her.

Murphy, channeling his eerie performance from “Batman Begins,” is an absolutely terrifying villain.  He keeps most of Jack’s ferocity bubbling under the surface, just waiting to explode, and it keeps the viewer on the edge of their seat awaiting the moment when he finally snaps.  Thanks to Murphy, “Red Eye” keeps the blood pumping and the heart pounding all the way to the movie’s climactic moments.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , ,
Categories : F.I.L.M. of the Week, Movie Reviews

REVIEW: I Am Number Four

25 05 2011

If you are willing to get over the initial corniness of the plot of “I Am Number Four,” you might find that it’s not so bad.  In fact, it’s actually quite enjoyable.  The movie is high-octane action with plenty of noise, but there’s something there that I can’t quite enumerate or describe.  It’s a movie I kept telling myself I shouldn’t like (I mean, it IS a Michael Bay-produced venture) – yet I wound up having some of the most fun I’ve had at a sci-fi movie in a long time.

The story isn’t anything spectacular: Number Four (Alex Pettyfer) is an alien on earth hiding from the Mogadorians, a hostile tribe that invaded their home planet and intends to kill the nine toddlers who escaped.  But here’s the catch – they can only be killed in sequence, and three are dead.  Masquerading as John Smith in Paradise, Ohio, Number Four tries to blend in to the high school crowd to lay low, befriending the conspiracy theorist Sam (Callan MacAuliffe) and wooing the big jock’s girl, Sarah (Dianna Agron from TV’s Glee).

On paper, it actually sounds kind of stupid.  The acting isn’t exactly spectacular, nor does it provide any profound insights into alienation or bullying in modern high schools.  (Trust me, I just finished four years of high school.)  But even though on paper, “I Am Number Four” doesn’t seem to work, on screen it actually does.  Why is that?

I think it has to be because of the energy that D.J. Caruso endows the movie.  Just like his previous helming efforts, “Disturbia” and “Eagle Eye,” there’s an electricity and excitement that bursts through the screen and infects the viewer.  He keeps the movie running at a perfectly paced clip, adeptly balancing human elements and big bangs.  Caruso takes the audience on a roller-coaster ride, that although familiar, still provides a walloping dose of fun. B+ / 


Comments : 5 Comments »
Tags: , , , , ,
Categories : Movie Reviews

REVIEW: Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides

24 05 2011

Perhaps a more accurate surname for the latest installment of the “Pirates of the Caribbean” would have been In Familiar Waters.  Despite numerous changes to signal a distinctly different volume in the saga than the original trilogy, “On Stranger Tides” feels just like more of what we’ve seen the series do – and then overdo.  In fact, I found myself wondering if I’ve seen the movie before, and deja vu in a movie theater is never good.

Suggested by the novel “On Stranger Tides” (a phrase taken straight from the credits, which is something I’ve never seen before), the plot unfolds just as the previous three did.  A mystical and mythical booty awaits, this time the Fountain of Youth, coveted by the British, the Spanish, and – you guessed it – Captain Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp reprising his iconic role).  Their journeys are fraught with just enough peril and tumult to endure two and a half hours on the screen.

Most of the movie just feels like a $250 million (yes, that was the actual pricetag) straight-to-DVD sequel for the series that managed to net its big star for a hefty paycheck.  Slight scene changes give the movie a new look but not a new feel.  Director Rob Marshall, who directed the film adaptation of “Chicago” with an almost prophetic foresight, settles for his best imitation of Gore Verbinski and doesn’t put his own mark on the movie.

No Keira Knightley?  No problem, just replace the British beauty with the sassy Spanish starlet Penelope Cruz and get essentially the same romantic foil for Captain Jack.  No Orlando Bloom?  Just add in Sam Claffin, a British missionary that will make girls swoon – oh, and don’t forget that gratuitous shirtless scene!  Geoffrey Rush’s storyline has gotten kind of boring?  Refashion him as a sell-out to the crown and give him a peg leg!

Thankfully, the saving grace of the movie is Depp as Captain Jack Sparrow, the reason that the series became such a hit in the first place.  The movie gives him a lot more humor to chew on, and Depp definitely seems a lot more into his character this go-round.  He doesn’t recede into a bad imitation of himself but rather animates Jack with spunk and teeth.  However, as much fun as he is to watch, neither Depp nor the movie earn their bloated running time, which makes 150 minutes often seem interminable.

So by all means, if you like the “Pirates of the Caribbean” series enough to watch Disney churn out a third sequel purely for commerce, then this will be fun summer entertainment.  But if you crave something unique, or dare I say, original to justify expending your time and paying for ridiculously puffed-up ticket prices, perhaps you should stay at home and wait until some critic calls a movie “as original as Inception.”  C+ / 


Comments : 3 Comments »
Tags: , , , , , , ,
Categories : Movie Reviews

REVIEW: Bridesmaids

14 05 2011

It’s all too easy to label Kristen Wiig’s uproarious new comedy “Bridesmaids” the female equivalent of “The Hangover,” and it works for a quick comparison to sell the movie to a doubting friend.  However, for accuracy’s sake (something of great consequence to me), let’s set the record straight.  If you put “The Hangover” in a room with “27 Dresses” and allowed them to have a baby, and that baby turned out to be a girl, they would spawn “Bridesmaids.”

In other words, it’s a mixture of raunchy comedy that makes guys howl with the romantic comedy that makes girls swoon.  Call it the best of both worlds, but such a combination doesn’t make the great equalizing date movie a great movie.  The hybrid has a bit of an uneasy consistency, mainly because the belly laughs come to a screeching halt as soon as Wiig’s Irish-accented love interest comes on screen.  Maybe it’s just the critic in me that’s rom-com weary or the male in me that doesn’t really care how the girl inevitably winds up with the guy, but the cliched romance could easily have been excised to maximize the laughs.  (Not to mention it could cut down on the length, which is over 2 hours – epic length in terms of comedic films.)

So rather than endlessly compare “Bridesmaids” to “The Hangover,” I’ll let it stand on its own merit.  The credit for the laughs, both shocking and sensitive, goes to star and co-writer Kristen Wiig, who after years of stealing the show finally gets to be the show.  I feel very vindicated seeing her success after being a vocal advocate since 2005 when she joined “Saturday Night Live” and a written advocate ever since beginning to blog in 2009 (from “Extract” to “Whip It” to “Adventureland” to “Date Night” and even amidst the dung that was “MacGruber”).  But this shouldn’t be about me; it should be about her.  This is her big moment, and I hope she uses it to fly higher than previous female “SNL” comediennes like Tina Fey and Amy Poehler.

Read the rest of this entry »


Comments : 4 Comments »
Tags: , , , , , ,
Categories : Movie Reviews

Classics Corner: “From Here to Eternity”

24 02 2011

(This post first appeared as part of Stephanie’s Best Picture marathon over at “The Flick Chick.” Go check out the series as all 82 Best Picture nominees are being reviewed leading up to the big day.)

It’s easy to see why a movie like “From Here to Eternity” could take the Oscars by storm back in 1953. In the midst of a post-war baby boom, patriotism was still running high after our victory in World War II and tension with the USSR were at a simmer, not a boil. We had yet to be mired in the Vietnam War or have our nation’s highest office be tainted by the Watergate scandal. It was a different world, and movies fictionalizing these times have a mentality that reflects the times.

So when I watched the movie in an attempt to understand why it won Best Picture, I had to move myself out of our current times where last year’s winner, “The Hurt Locker,” conveys a stark pessimism about military maneuvers. So while I might see the movie as an excessively romanticized portrait of the American soldier, they saw it as a rousing tribute to the men who served their country with honor and courage. And while I might see the movie’s characters and plot as being a touch over-melodramatic, audiences were totally won over by their personification of military values. (This is not meant as a criticism of older generations, more a generalization of how audiences have changed over the decades.)

The movie follows two storylines: the tenacious Private Robert E. Lee Prewitt (Montgomery Clift) transfers to Hawaii after missing out on an unfair promotion. He was once a prized boxer and finds himself being hazed by his comrades to join their ranks, authorized from high-ranking officers. To cope, he befriends Maggio (Frank Sinatra) and romances Lorene (Donna Reed). Meanwhile, his superior, First Sgt. Milton Warden (Burt Lancaster), begins an affair with the captain’s wife (Deborah Kerr) that gave us one of the most iconic love scenes ever shot. So iconic, in fact, that it had to parodied in “Shrek 2.”

I’d be lying if I said I loved “From Here to Eternity.” While it might capture the isolation of the soldiers in Hawaii and their humdrum routine existence at times, it felt like a more idealized portrait of military stereotypes. It’s an interesting story (one good enough to be repeated a few times), but aside from Prewitt’s erratic personality, I didn’t find myself engaged in the characters at all. This is a very different kind of American war movie than is being made nowadays – chalk it up to generational differences.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , ,
Categories : Classics Corner, Movie Reviews

REVIEW: Just Go With It

12 02 2011

Adam Sandler sure has fallen a long way since the glory days of “Billy Madison” and “Happy Gilmore” – and those days weren’t even that good.  Fifteen years later, we are invited to just go wherever with the comic who has long since worn out the welcome mat with “Just Go With It,” a typical Sandler comedy that might have been fairly amusing if it had been made a decade ago.  It’s a step above last summer’s “Grown Ups” but probably only because there is a strong female presence to whip him in line.

Taking a fairly unique premise, the movie follows Sandler’s Los Angeles plastic surgeon (cue some scary and derivative jokes involving lots of Joan Rivers-esque figures) Danny and his morally suspect way of picking up women without a hitch – pretending to be married.  It works out great for him until he meets the incredibly well-endowed, good-natured, and much younger Palmer (Brooklyn Decker), and he has to start an elaborate lie to keep her.  The ruse, which eventually requires index cards, grows to include his divorced assistant Katherine (Jennifer Aniston) and her two annoyingly precocious children as well as his horndog brother (Nick Swardson).

All things considered, this could have been more than just mildly entertaining, which is what the end product settles for.  There are a few chuckles, usually accompanied by a groan but thankfully not with eye-rolling.  So by all means, if you want to see Adam Sandler re-enact the movies from his prime, “Just Go With It” should provide you with what you’re looking for.  But you’re probably better off dusting off one of his older flicks so you can have the faintest hint of nostalgia of a time when these jokes and formulas weren’t stale.  C / 


Comments : 2 Comments »
Tags: , , , , ,
Categories : Movie Reviews

F.I.L.M. of the Week (February 11, 2011)

11 02 2011

Wes Craven has made many a good horror movie, helming such classics as “The Last House on the Left” and “A Nightmare on Elm Street” but arguably leaving his biggest mark on the genre with the revolutionary self-aware “Scream” series.  He merges the two together to form the irresistible guilty pleasure “Cursed.”

Yes, I fully realize that by labeling it a guilty pleasure, I’m saying that you could easily hate this movie.  But if you love that seamless blend of comedy and horror with a touch of irony, I think you will be drawn in by the cultish appeal of “Cursed.”  In an era marked by movies that are emasculating such fearsome beasts as werewolves and vampires, Craven delivers a werewolf movie with true bite!

Not to mention that it features fun performances from plenty of ’90s stars like Christina Ricci and Joshua Jackson that have disappeared, as well as providing one of cinema’s first glances at an Academy Award-nominated actor by the name of Jesse Eisenberg.  In one of his earliest screen roles, Eisenberg still has the same fast-talking and dorky awkwardness that has marked his career ever since.  (“The Social Network” just served to refine and harness that power.)

As for the movie’s plot, it’s a mash-up of the typical werewolf curse stories as two siblings, Eisenberg’s high-school dork Jimmy and Ricci’s professional Ellie, are attacked and are forced to confront and kill the beast if they want to avoid total transformation.  But along the way, they find little changes make a big difference.

…Ok, it sounds dumb on paper, but I loved this movie because in all the ways it should have failed, it somehow worked!


Comments : 1 Comment »
Tags: , , , ,
Categories : F.I.L.M. of the Week, Movie Reviews

F.I.L.M. of the Week (February 4, 2011)

4 02 2011

Surely I can’t be the only one who’s a little shocked that Christian Bale is just receiving his first Oscar nomination, and if there’s any justice in the world, his incredible performance in “The Fighter” will earn him a statue on his first time to the big dance.  Bale is one heck of an actor who really can do it all: headline blockbusters like “The Dark Knight” and “Terminator: Salvation” but also step into unconventional leading man roles in independent movies such as “Rescue Dawn,” my pick for the “F.I.L.M. of the Week.”

Bale plays real-life Dieter Dengler, a U.S. military pilot shot down over Laos in the early years of the nation’s involvement with Vietnam.  He survives the crash and attempts to run to safety, but he gets caught by hostile militant forces who take him to a P.O.W. camp.  There, Dieter meets other prisoners, including Duane (Steve Zahn) and Gene (Jeremy Davies), all gaunt from their extended stays.

Dieter won’t be held back or held in and almost instantaneously begins plans for escape.  After getting the lay of the land, it takes him a while to find the perfect way and the perfect time.  He and Duane manage to get away unscathed, but that leaves the two of them with very little food in the middle of the jungles of Laos.  Lost and desperate, the two embark on a journey for survival that is both harrowing and inspiring.

Sure, Bale makes another one of his trademark physical transformations to make the role believable; however, this is not what makes “Rescue Dawn” such a fantastic watch.  It’s his emotional transformation that’s so gripping. Bale’s stripping away of all acting instincts to portray the most primal instincts with such raw power is nothing short of astonishing.  (And on a lesser note, will someone give Steve Zahn his own movie?  The guy kills every supporting role has gets – it’s time for him to move up to the big leagues.)


Comments : 2 Comments »
Tags: , , , , , ,
Categories : F.I.L.M. of the Week, Movie Reviews

HITCHCOCKED: “The 39 Steps” (1935)

31 01 2011

NOTE: The name of this 12-part series reviewing some of Alfred Hitchcock’s finest features has been changed from “Hallowed Hitchcock” to “Hitchcocked” for the sake of compactness.

Can you believe I’ve gone 18 years of living and 18 months of blogging without seeing a single movie directed by Alfred Hitchcock?  Of course I’ve heard of his mastery and know of his influence over the craft of filmmaking as we know it, but as a New Year’s resolution, I decided to stop knowing about him and finally experience him.

So here we are, at the first of a monthly series running through 2011 hitting 12 high points in the filmmaking career of Alfred Hitchcock.  Where to start?  Before he came to America and made the films that made him an icon, I decided to start with one of his smaller British movies, “The 39 Steps,” to see if I noticed him returning to his roots.

While I didn’t watch this movie and instantly proclaim Hitchcock a men among boys and a god among men, what I did see was good, precise filmmaking that sure did entertain and engage.  It’s less of a thriller, the genre most fans associate Hitchcock with, and more of a captivating mystery with none of the ridiculous bells and whistles Hollywood movies add on nowadays.

Over the course of four days, Richard Hannay (Robert Donat) runs all over England and Scotland trying to escape the police after being wrongfully accused of murder and a league of spies who believe he holds dangerous knowledge about them.  The innocent Richard winds up assuming multiple identities to keep himself safe from his pursuers.  It’s an well-plotted adventure that keeps the audience on its toes for the duration of the movie.

I don’t really have any context to put “The 39 Steps” into, but it sure does make me look forward to exploring some of Hitchcock’s more famous filmography.  If something this good isn’t one of his most popular directorial ventures, then I’m expecting some real winners coming up.

 


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: ,
Categories : Blog Events, Hitchcocked, Movie Reviews

Classics Corner: “Rosemary’s Baby”

30 01 2011

I find that when it comes to watching horror classics, I’m generally not as scared as I’m told I should be.  Perhaps it’s just expectations being set sky-high, or maybe I’m just really not freaked out by horror movies at all.  Roman Polanski’s most famous entry into the genre, 1968’s “Rosemary’s Baby” is no exception.  Thanks to some eerie Satanic twists and some very well-directed realism, it did manage to creep me out on levels I didn’t think it would.

I think the hardest thing about looking retrospectively at horror movies is changing the mindset of what to expect.  Several decades ago, filmmakers styled horror in a much more ambient and cerebral manner.  These made for some very traumatizing experiences for moviegoers in those times because that was all they could expect.  Thanks to advances in technology, horror has now been taken to different levels, usually preying more on suspense and cheap thrills to get an audience reaction.

I’m not quite sure when the turning point came (“Final Destination,” perhaps?), but sometime between 1968 and 2011, genre movies like “Rosemary’s Baby” became considered more artistic films than horror flicks.  That’s why “Black Swan,” a movie with a few similarities, is such a hard sell as a horror movie to many people nowadays.   Horror has been redefined, and anything that doesn’t fit into the narrow box of predictability and jump-out surprises is dismissed.

But this sort of “old horror,” as I’ll call it, is so much more affecting.  It’s truly a shame that the Hollywood system has turned away from making them in favor of five entries into the “Final Destination” series while visionary cinema like “Black Swan” has to be produced on scraps outside the established order.  Roman Polanski’s movie kicks the butt of any sort of horror movie you’ll see at the multiplex nowadays.

What I found to be particularly remarkable about the movie was the sense of tension that he builds.  Rosemary Woodhouse (Mia Farrow) is just an ordinary woman with a workaholic husband and two neighbors (including Ruth Gordon in an Academy Award-winning role) who redefine overbearing.  She gets pregnant just like she wants, but there’s an sense of foreboding doom accompanying her pregnancy.  We are never quite sure of what it is, and we don’t have to know for it to be chilling.  It could be the apartment, where most of the movie takes place, and the sense of claustrophobia it provides.  It could just be nerves.  But whatever is going on, it drives Rosemary over the edge.

It’s the psychological collapse of Rosemary that makes the movie a fascinating and interesting watch.  It all leads up to a climax that’s good for a jaw-drop but ultimately kind of underwhelms in terms of aesthetics.  The plot, based on a novel by Ira Levin, is good enough to be regurgitated by filmmakers consistently for over four decades.  Yet the movie isn’t a classic because of the story; it’s a classic because of Polanski’s knack for bringing the terror of the mind out onto the screen.


Comments : 2 Comments »
Tags: , , , ,
Categories : Classics Corner, Movie Reviews

F.I.L.M. of the Week (January 28, 2011)

28 01 2011

It’s forgivable to ask who the $#%@ John Hawkes is upon hearing 2010’s Academy Award nominations.  He’s not an incredibly recognizable name, largely because he’s been a character actor making his way around the indie circuit.  In “Winter’s Bone,” the movie that earned him a nomination, he played a hard-as-nails uncle to Jennifer Lawrence’s Ree with a bit of a soft side.  While I wasn’t entirely sold on the performance, I did see some real talent and acting prowess.

So, after Hawkes earned the nomination (which I should have seen coming given his SAG recognition), I hit Netflix and flipped through his filmography.  He’s been lurking in the shadows for most of his career, but he had a phenomenal leading turn in an incredibly quirky but ultimately winning indie called “Me and You and Everyone We Know.”  The Sundance breakout written and directed by star Miranda July is a strange meditation on connection in the digital age paired with a story of teenage sexual awakening.  Does it sound weird enough yet?

Hawkes plays separated shoe salesman Richard, clumsily trying to be a good father to his children while they are totally absorbed in the world of the computer.  He begins a cordial relationship with the off-kilter modern artist Christine (July), whose works would look strange in the universe of “Napoleon Dynamite.”  Their courtship is unconventional, but it’s charming through and through.

Meanwhile, Richard’s sons, a curious teenager and a naive youngster, do some searching of their own.  Perhaps it’s because they can’t feel connected to their father, or maybe they just need escapism.  But they are only one of the movie’s subplots involving kids and coming-of-age.  There’s also a young neighbor preparing her dowry and two adolescent teenagers trying to front as sexual beings.

These stories are peculiarly juxtaposed, but they hit home with an unexpected resonance.  “Me and You and Everyone We Know” predates the Facebook age, but it’s still a fascinating look at how the digital disconnect affects us in all aspects of our lives.  Our relationships, our feelings, and even art – all of it, irrevocably changed.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , ,
Categories : F.I.L.M. of the Week, Movie Reviews

REVIEW: Red

26 01 2011

There’s more to the fun of “Red” than Helen Mirren firing away like a madman with a machine gun.  It’s an action movie not afraid to flash its AARP card, which makes its rather typical action and plot feel a lot fresher than it probably is.  With Bruce Willis finally embracing his age, rather than doing movie after movie that’s one “yippee-ki-yay” away from complete implausibility, it’s a nice change of pace for the action star that could signal better days ahead.

As Frank Moses, the retired and extremely dangerous (hence the acronym RED) former CIA agent, Willis is having a rough time adjusting to life after his time in black-ops.  He’s trying to do the whole suburban thing, but the only thing that gives him real joy is chatting with Sarah (Mary-Louise Parker), a federal pension phone customer service representative.  Of course, at 55, main street Americans only wish they could be receiving retirement benefits as opposed to unemployment benefits.

But whatever normalcy he built in suburbia is shattered as he’s drawn back into the bullet-ridden world by an attempt on his life.  Frank discovers that thanks to being part of a Guatemalan mission back in the ’80s, he’s being targeted for death.  Gathering up a gang of other Baby Boomers including the incredibly paranoid conspiracy theorist Marvin Boggs (John Malkovich), Frank’s terminally ill mentor Joe Matheson (Morgan Freeman), and Victoria (Helen Mirren), a former assassin with class and grace.  Yet the best part of all is that Frank brings Sarah, oblivious to the perils of the, along for the ride.

The trigger-happy travelogue through the United States is a wild romp that excites and entertains at surprisingly high octane and high thrills.  At 110 minutes, the premise ages quickly and begins to drag a little bit.  Yet the entertainment is always solid as the bullets fly and bombs explode, even as the trek through the plot gets a little … dare I say it, old.  But it has a plot, and that’s more than I can say for most action movies nowadays.  B / 


Comments : 6 Comments »
Tags: , , , , , ,
Categories : Movie Reviews

REVIEW: Devil

22 01 2011

I’ve said it once, and I’ll say it again for good measure: I absolutely DREAD writing reviews for middle-of-the-road movies like “Devil.”  I didn’t hate it, so there’s no reason to rip it to shreds – and besides, I think M. Night Shyamalan took enough of a beating in 2010 with “The Last Airbender.”  But at the same time, I didn’t really like it either, so there’s no aspect of the movie I can praise – not the acting, writing, directing, or production values.  In essence, there’s nothing to talk about!

Yet being a movie reviewer, and you being a reader willing to go this far into a review, I’m obligated to give you at least three paragraphs about the movie.  So what is there to write now?  I could talk about the plot, which is stale and laughable but at least gets in and out in roughly 75 minutes.  5 people trapped in an elevator, 1 is probably the devil.  Who could it be?  You’ll find out if you watch the movie, but don’t expect any sort of terror, horror, or suspense in getting there.

The claustrophobia of being stuck in an elevator isn’t exactly present as the movie frequently cuts back to the control room, where a skeptic and religious fanatic debate the events going on with a battered police officer (Chris Messina).  It’s packed with enough corny horror entertainment to keep you awake, but not enough to really keep you engaged.  In other words, don’t plan a movie night around “Devil.”  Plan to fold the laundry or do an hour of Facebooking.  C+ / 


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , ,
Categories : Movie Reviews

« Previous Entries Next Entries »