Regulating my sleep schedule has been a problem for several months now. I streamed this movie at about 1:30 this morning, after about two hours of staring at my ceiling in an attempt to fall asleep. I saw this movie several years ago and knew full well that this had the potential to stupefy me to sleep. In this case, that didn't happen, so I ended up watching this whole and several episodes of Farscape before I finally started to drift off as the light from my windows changed to gray. The real fun is that I'll probably go through the same routine tonight, even though I'm currently operating on about three hours sleep.
That is how I celebrated the end of the first month of this project with such a lackluster movie. January's been fun. I've seen a few good movies and quite few bad ones. What's surprised me is the number of movies that I assumed would be terrible that just… weren't. Hopefully, February will provide more entertainment and fewer bad flicks.
My first problem with this movie comes straight from the title. None of it seems to apply. While lots of bullets are haphazardly fired by just about everyone in the cast, there is no discussion of ballistics. A man who sounds (and looks) like Antonio Banderas is probably not going to be named Jeremiah Ecks, which in my mind seems to smack of Germanic breeding, not Latin. "Sever" is the moniker given to a woman who uses a bladed weapon for approximately 20 seconds and severs absolutely nothing. Even the versus is questionable, since there's only conflict between these two for a few minutes. This is only the first problem I had with Ballistic; there are more forthcoming.
Now, if you're a fan of mindless action sequences in which Lucy Liu looks crazy hot and Antonio Banderas looks middle aged and as if he's getting slightly pudgier as the story warbles around aimlessly in the background, then you might just like this, because, well, all of those things happen for approximately 75 minutes. There are a few decent explosions and some pretty nice action sequences. The bent on these sequences seems to be that despite the implications of the word "ballistic," no one having been trained by a super secret government agency can shoot. I've played Duck Hunt a time or two and I could have accidentally hit more people with an automatic weapon than these field operatives managed to hit after time to aim. There is SOME attempt to do fight choreography, and it's enough that between this piece of crap and the slightly more effective Charlie's Angels franchise, that I'm half convinced that Lucy Liu is part ninja.
This could have been halfway decent. Someone could have added twenty minutes of back story to provide a decent setting for the actions going on in the film's present. But, that might require so much as a half-hearted attempt to cobble together a cohesive story. It does generally take more than explosions and badly choreographed twists and red herrings.
A cold, lazy Sunday prompted me to dig through my movie collection for something I haven't watched in awhile. Troy was one of the first movies I spotted, and I realized that I haven't watched it in about five years, although it still drives my movie watching habits to this day. I've often said how much I love historical epics, and this movie is the reason for that. Sure, there have been historical epics since, well, movies were grainy, black-and-white moving images without sound, but this one sparked my interest. Other films that came out around the same time, such as Kingdom of Heaven, Alexander and The Last Samurai helped drive the interest, but Troy brought that interest to life in ways that no previous epic had.
So, I sat down and watched. This film is certainly not without its flaws. Dragging its cast from the cover of Teen Beat is a bit problematic for me, but I have to admit it's weird that only ten years ago, Brad Pitt was still pretty. I caught a glimpse of him at this year's Golden Globes and I'm fairly sure he's been auditioning for ZZ Top. Either that or he wants to play Angela's dad on Bones, because he has that same aging biker look to him. I suspect he's taking the fact that he married someone prettier than he is hard and might be working on a full-fledged breakdown. I'm also wondering why it is that everyone's wearing blue on their off-time, because that would have been hard to find, and I'm fairly sure reserved for royalty because dye in those colors was not only hard to make, but expensive. I'm thinking the filmmakers should have done a bit more research, because I assumed that most people would wear undyed linen or colors like red or ochre. But, I could be wrong.
Troy has always been a bit cheesy. The story of the Trojan War goes much the same way; a tragic romance involving some of Greek history's most infamous heroes, but it has the kind of thematic involvement that makes a story worth telling. This movie is the reimaged version of Homer's Illiad, which is itself a great story, if hard to read in the English translation, and there are a lot of complaints out there that this went too far in its reimagery. I'm moderately inclined to agree, but what this does do is provide a hefty dose of culture in a format that's easily digestible by the main movie-watching demographic (I mean teenagers). It's got fun action sequences, some great battle scenes, and a smidge of hormones in all that impossible but eternal love. So long as you don't talk about what a coward Paris was all the way through to the end, Troy is pretty much the perfect way to kill a couple hours when it's too bloody cold to go outside.
For some of the cast, this is really them at their best. Eric Bana is great, although I rarely find reason to dislike him with the possible exception of Funny People, which should have been reviled for its false advertising. I don't think Orlando Bloom is better in any movie I've seen him in, although I am open to the idea that he's played this same basic part for the vast majority of his career. Where is Orlando Bloom, anyway? It seems like he's disappeared since he sold his soul to Disney and made the first of the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise.
About a year ago, I wrote how She's Out Of My League had me through creative use of the word "oyster." That's still true, and that scene continues to make me crack up whenever I watch the movie. No String Attached provided me with two similar buzz generators: the first is "it's like a crime scene in my pants," which I promise will be funnier in context than when you read it in flat words on your computer monitor. The second is watching Natalie Portman totally stuffing her face with what must be like five dozen donut holes. There was something insanely hot about her with powdered sugar smeared over the bottom right quarter of her face.
Fortunately, that's not the only positive thing in this movie. I didn't hate Ashton Kutcher, which keeps happening of late. I'm hoping he's getting acting lessons from his, um, "dad". You know. Bruce Willis. It could also be a fluke and that he's getting supported by a much more charming (and interesting) cast. That's actually probably it, because I have no doubt that he's still an idiot. Natalie Portman was her usual loveable self. This won't go down as her best performance ever, but she is fun to watch here. By the way, why is it I can't meet a woman like her? No marriage, no family, no frigging biological clock? Some guys get all the luck. Yes, I just quoted a terrible song from the 80s, but the cliché manages to hold true. In an interesting twist in this movie, I think the supporting cast is way more entertaining than the leading couple. In particular, Ludacris, Mindy Kaling, and Lake Bell manage to steal the show (in my opinion) in nearly every scene they share with the much more famous actors in the cast. At the end of the day, Portman and Kutcher's antics remind me too much of Ross and Rachel for my own comfort. There is a reason I don't watch friends anymore, and like five seasons of Ross and Rachel drama was it.
Unfortunately, there's plenty of bad here. Other than a cultural concept that appeared after the 1939 filming of It Happened One Night, the original romantic comedy, this is ridiculously formulaic. The rampant predictability of how characters are going to interact and what is going to happen to the mini-dramas and problems that arise over the course of the film makes for a bad film watching event. This is tempered, in part, by some of the more unique shenanigans that pepper the story line, but not enough that I can say this is great as a standalone movie. Obviously, this movie has taken cues from movies like Boys & Girls, Casual Sex? and a few other modern romcoms. This might have been better if it had gone the route of The Ugly Truth, aiming most of the comedic aspects at a potential male audience.
I went to this movie expecting a horror film; something a bit like The Exorcist, but without the pea soup and spinning heads. The Rite is going to disappoint American audiences, but I suspect it will thrill more god-fearing places in South America and Europe. This actually feels a bit like a book written by a modern British author: ponderous scene-setting in slow, some might say plodding dialogue and details. It's the same problem I have reading Robert Jordan. He might be okay once you get to the story line, but I have little interest in reading 60 pages before something of interest happens. Oh, and don't tell the geeks that I hate Robert Jordan. I could get my membership pulled. So… what you're looking at is a religious-themed drama that (supposedly) is based on true accounts of demonic possession made to the Vatican. It's not horror. It's not trying to be. If; however, you have concerns that the devil is winning the war of good and evil on earth, this might scare you a bit.
This movie is a bit too… erudite for its own good. Someone did a LOT of research into exorcism practices in the modern day, and particularly those rituals practiced by American priests, which might surprise one or more people. Intellectually, I found this to be semi-satisfying once I suspended my own disbelief in demonic possession and some of the other "gimmes" that make their appearance in the story plots. But this wasn't what I would call entertainment. It wasn't fun to watch. It "read," if you'll pardon the term, a bit too much like the more boring parts of The Exorcist, and let's face it, there are plenty of boring parts there to choose from.
The casting wasn't perfect. I didn't even particularly love Anthony Hopkins; feeling that he took his own performance a bit more seriously in the latter half of the film that the early scenes. He does successfully swap back and forth between the personality types he has to portray, in much the same way that he did playing Dr. Hannibal Lecter. If you didn't know any better, no one would have suspected Lecter of being "Hannibal the cannibal," and you don't really predict the transition in Father Lucas (unless, of course, you've either done some research on the film or you've seen more than one or two of the trailer sequences). The rest of the cast was fairly weak, even some of the cast that has better performances to their credit, like Ciaran Hinds and Rutger Hauer. Okay, maybe not Rutger Hauer.
All told, I'd suggest holding off on this one for DVD. You won't be sorry.
A few people have been asking me how I'm doing this one movie a day and since my plans for today got train-wrecked by real life, I figured that I'd use today's entry to explain. I plan pretty far in advance. Currently, I have a flexible plan for my titles through March. I include movies from my Netflix DVD queue, my stream queue, my personal collection, and new releases in the theaters. I decided early on that my life would be much easier if I gave myself a rough schedule rather than waking up and saying "today I'm going to watch… [insert film title here]. Today, my original plans had been to go see No Strings Attached, but I found myself loaded with a double helping of family obligation and a remarkable amount of Catholic guilt considering that I haven't seen the inside of a church since the Reagan administration. In response to that, I woke up early and grabbed a DVD from my own collection that I haven't talked about on one of my old blogs. It was an Underworld kind of morning, so here we are.
There are a few things that have always bothered me about this movie. The first is that I can't figure out where this is supposed to take place. Is it one of the older, East Coast cities of America that are built on the European model? Is it in Europe? Is this some fabricated world where neither place exists? There is a reference to the two groups of vampires being separated by a "great ocean," and there are hints that this is Europe, but too many supporting cast and extras have American accents for me to tell. The city scenes make me think of Central or Eastern Europe, but again, there are way too many American and British accents running around to make me comfortable with that locale, either. The second is that despite having centuries to accommodate themselves to firearms, neither the vampires nor the lycans seem to be able to hit the broadside of a barn. They have superpowers and yet we're supposed to believe that despite that they have like a 20% chance of hitting each other with a bullet… The third is that no two of these vampires seem to have the same accent, not even from the same continent. And one or two of them have accents that change distinctly over the course of the film. I won't continue my rant about American-made films and poor accent use, mostly because it reminds me that I actually watched Ghost Writer, but still, it's a problem.
All that aside, this is surely among my top ten action movies… for sure of the 21st century to date, and possibly of all time. The characters are engrossing, rich and complicated in ways that I would have guessed might bog down a more poorly crafted story. The story is wonderfully developed, able to support not only a sequel but a PREQUEL that are solid both as contributors to this franchise and as standalone projects. The action sequences are amazing, with special effects that highlight the "otherness" that the storyline attributes to both sides of this war.
There aren't many good fantasy movies out there. There are even fewer fantasy action flicks worth watching. Underworld and its spawn are all on the lists of action-fantasy movies to watch, although in my less-than-humble opinion, Rise of the Lycans is only barely on the list. Lightning struck more than once for this franchise, despite the odds. Cate Beckinsale likely owes the current state of her career to this movie, although the downside is that now when I see her, I'm always missing those pale blue eyes and her mouth seems funny because it's not distorted by fangs. I'd feel bad for her, but there are certainly actors more cubbyholed by their role choices than Ms. Beckinsale (cough cough Daniel Radcliffe cough).
I am probably the only person ever to really just love this movie. I saw this in the theaters several times, dragging friends and family to see it with me, suffering through their incredulity that I would bring them along into the travesty. There isn't anything much that I don't love about this movie, regardless of how bad it is, regardless of how hokey the story. I have to admit that I also love the spoofs that have appeared out of the wood works since this was released. Currently, The Family Guy is the best source of these. It seems like there's at least one cut scene dedicated to the stupidity of the story line in every season of the show.
I never like Andrew McCarthy in a leading role, even when his character is as… unimpressive as the leading man in Mannequin. I think he's fine in a supporting role, but he lacks the punch I think a leading man needs. Fortunately, he's balanced by the late and great Estelle Getty, who needs a MUCH bigger part, Kim Cattral before she got heinously old and/or Vulcanized, and that guy from Police Academy whose name I can never remember, but always plays the same basic part. And let's not forget Meeshak Taylor's portrayal of Hollywood, the flamboyantly homosexual window dresser who never fails to crack me up. I'm pretty sure he borrowed heavily from the Wayans brothers' gay characters from In Living Color, but it's still funny. Yes, yes. I know I've griped about stereotyping used as a comedic tool in the past, but this time it makes me laugh.
Is the story ridiculously unbelievable? Yes. Did they even have mannequins in ancient Egypt? Probably not. In the late 80s, would it really have been THAT hard for a young man to find a job that fit his skills and interests? Definitely not. There are enough plot holes in this to drive a MACK truck through, and even so I can't help it. For me, this is just going to be one of those movies that reminds me of my childhood. There are people in our lives that we love despite their faults, or maybe because of them. That's really how I feel about this film. It takes me back to my childhood, some of the happier days of my childhood and that's why I love this movie. It doesn't bother me at all that the vast majority of Americans absolutely loathed this film. It doesn't even matter.
I wouldn't recommend this movie to everyone, and I myself don't watch it very often, even though it's buried in my DVD collection somewhere. I needed a bit of a pick-me-up today, some cheap laughs (or at least smiles) and when I stumbled across this disc, I knew I had a winner. Waking up early with a cold, it's freezing cold outside, and I have nothing better to do. Mannequin and some hot tea made for a decent morning. It could easily be adapted to a semi-family friendly movie for a cold, rainy night with some popcorn.
R, 1 hr. 31 min. Directed by: Steve Beck. Release Date: October 23, 2001. DVD Release Date: April 2, 2002.
For whatever reason, this movie always takes me back to my fraternity days. I had graduated by the time this hit theaters, but it's the type of movie that really had its heyday in the 90s, back when I was in college. Thirteen Ghosts is one of those horror movies that strives more for visual impact than any real fear, where the fright takes a backstage to anything that might make the final production cooler, hipper, trendier. Scream seems to have started that trend, influencing a generation of horror films with mixed results.
There's a lot wrong with this as a film. As is almost a requirement in horror films, the acting is horrific, bordering on criminal, and frankly, no movie should feature Shannon Elizabeth and Matthew Lillard together as a matter of public service. But even Tony Shalhoub sucked, and I know he can do better… so I blame most of the technical problems on the director. I don't need the blood and gore that abounds in this movie. With the exceptions of the first Saw and Final Destination, that's never the variable that drives my interest when I go to see a horror movie. I like those movies where sound effects creep you out and then something reaches out and grabs some half-wit victim, and I feel like that's lacking, even though there is some of that because of the cast's inability to see the ghosts without the specially made goggles strewn around the house. But really, most of what drives this movie is kind of silly. Fake Latin, some ghosts inspired (slightly) by Dickens' A Christmas Carol, Dante-esque research into the occult, and Matthew Lillard drooling all over himself.
The first thing that stands out in this movie is the soundtrack, which is hot for the time, but dated now. The songs are good, but tended to overwhelm what was going on in the movie, to include dialogue. The soundtrack is almost the most obvious clue that we're looking at "hip horror," although Matthew Lillard's drooling, spastic presence helps clarify that if we were questioning the purpose of the movie. I'm told he was hip once. I don't buy it, but that's what I'm told. The settings of the movies all have a certain aspect of chic-ness, whether it's raw and gritty or modern with retro cultish elements. I would happily suspect they spent almost as much on the sets and related effects as they did anything else in the movie. I have to dig the costumes for the ghosts. Pretty slick. More back story on each ghost would have been appreciated.
I should also mention that no matter what my thoughts on the movie, I love the graphic design of the film poster. That picture in a picture thing is awesome and largely underrepresented in film posters.
About thirty minutes in to this I started swearing. I am BITTERLY, BITTERLY tired of post-9/11 rhetoric and conspiracy-involved finger pointing. I don't like it when it comes from politicians, both domestic and foreign, but I'm especially tired of it coming from brainless Hollywood hacks who can't even be bothered to mask their own political agendas by more than the thinnest of veils. If I were Roman Polanski, whose last visit to this country several decades ago ended with him fleeing justice after some unlawful escapades with a tween-age girl, I wouldn't be so quick to point fingers. Actually, if I were him, I'd be appropriately ashamed to never poke my head out of a self-dug hole again.
Actually, I did like one idea that comes out here that was born out of the controversy of airport security: create two separate airline systems. One system would be flown by people who wanted minimal or no security measures, no scans, no random checks. The other would be full security and everything that could be done to maintain passenger security would be done. I cleaned up the pretentious monologue a bit, but I know which system I'd fly. I think the film also adequately describes what ruthless people we have in political positions everywhere, although the film will try to convince you that America and conservative British politicians are the only ones who suffer from this affliction. History would indicate otherwise, but this film's intended audience has not done such a good job of learning from the past, so that might slide by a bit.
But other than that, this movie was a two hour train wreck: a long-winded, pontificating, pile of crap passing itself off (badly) as political commentary. Ewan McGregor should be assassinated for his part in this. Apparently he cares so little about his career sans-light saber that he can't be bothered to behave normally in day-to-day situations. Or, we're expected to believe that he types like Lori Petty reads aloud (poorly) and gets in fights with GPS units. His stilted and off-putting performance is the kind of thing I've come to expect from well, Nicholas Cage, but I expect a bit more from my least favorite Jedi. The "mystery" is weak, especially once even the slowest human on the planet recognizes the bias in the film and what the film is truly trying to accomplish. The ending twist is better, but not much better. Not interesting, but less tedious.
Note to filmmakers: Please work with Kim Cattrall on her British accent. It's not supposed to come and go. For more information on accent appropriateness, please see Kevin Costner and Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves.
It's probably a good thing that Michael Cera found this niche acting job market, because otherwise he'd be totally screwed. My concern is what's going to happen when he's obviously NOT 16 (as opposed to being only somewhat not obviously 16). The good news is that he's pretty funny in Youth In Revolt. I don't always like Cera, in fact I think other than Scott Pilgrim v. The World, and Juno, I haven't liked him in anything. I also liked Zach Galifianakis in this movie and I don't like him in ANYTHING.
Youth In Revolt is your basic coming-of-age film with a few twists that aren't totally unique. It's all about that first flush of romance and the pull of first love. As a species, humans are never dumber than when we're in that moment of our lives, and Youth is a testament to that stupidity. What is unique is that this movie wasn't set as far back in the past as I had thought (based on the clothes of the cast members). My clue was the purchase of a dog with a "Subway card with four stickers on it." It's also unique that this coming-of-age movie is funny. Ridiculously so. There are one-liners and situations that are so hysterical that if they aren't being freely quoted on the internet, they should be. Justin Long bumps this up just a bit and I regret that his part wasn't a bit bigger. But the man does do a good cameo.
The multi-personality creation between Nick and Francois is brilliant. I especially like that regardless of which is talking or moving around, there's no change in perspective on the part of the rest of the cast. Although what self-respecting modern teenager would create an alter ego that wore white sansabelt pants and a blue button down linen shirt? Don't get me started on the mustache.
If this movie has a fault, it's that none of the cast of characters feel real in something other than fits and starts. It's not that this keeps the movie from being funny, but it takes the story from being funny because these things could happen to funny because of how ludicrous these people are.
When I start raving about this movie, a lot of you who know me well will roll your eyes and dismiss what I'm going to say because I love these teen movies, no matter how stupid. But it's true. I've loved the teen flick since I started watching John Hughes' work back in the day. These movies bring back endless hours spent with good friends, some of whom I'm no longer in touch with, and for that, I'll always love these movies because of the memories they bring with them, even when the antics I'm watching don't always perfectly match my own high school antics. I don't rave about all of them, but the large majority of these kind of trashy movies get some positive feedback. That being said….
So now, I'm going to start raving. There is a trinity of cast members that make this movie just outstanding. The first is Seth Green. For those of you who haven't seen the trailers, he plays a very… I'll say "anglicized" Amish guy, someone who's as fond of his rumspringa days as I am for my high school and college days. His deadpan timing is brilliant and he grounds, rather than reinforces the insanity of what we're watching. I suspect the Amish scenes help keep this from being totally unbelievable and over the top, which has been the swan's song of more than one teen movie. The second part of the trinity is Clark Duke. I think he's awesome in Greek, when I remember that it's on and where I can find ABC Family on my dial. He's awesome here, but who really buys him as the lady killer? Not me. The final part of the trinity is James Marsden (God help me). Normally I hate him. In fact, this may be a singular event, a movie where I don't think his mere presence just sucks the life out of everything. In this, he is hysterical. While I think his comedic performance is strong throughout, I can't even THINK about the garage door scene with laughing.
If the movie has a fault, it's that it provides an overly exaggerated way of depicting how teenaged boys deal with their own hormones. I won't say they won't take a lot of steps to go after whatever girl's attracted their attentions, but this whole road trip thing for an internet hookup is a bit too much. Most boys of that age are too lazy to stay focused on something as unreal as "Ms. Tasty" for that long after all that effort comes to a total lack of fruition.
It's rare when a movie makes me laugh out loud once. Mostly I give out snickers and smiles like they're cheap, but laughter is reserved for those things I find really funny. Sex Drive makes me laugh frequently, even on this viewing, which is possibly my fifth or sixth run since I bought the DVD a few years back. This isn't a great movie, but this kind of entertainment is priceless.
I have two things to say about Jerry O'Connell. The first is that NO ONE plays a douche like he does. We've seen it a couple times over the years, and he keeps giving a douchier performance. The second is that I'm thrilled I don't have 3D, or I would have been even more disturbed by his much discussed (at least on nighttime talk shows) full Monty appearance. I'll continue on with a joint comment about Elizabeth Shue, Ving Rhames, Richard Dreyfuss, and Christopher Lloyd… I can't believe these guys are all still alive. I haven't seen most of these guys in a decade or more. Seeing them all at the same time was near-mind blowing.
While some of this is really tired out… the rogue animals (or in this case, rogue prehistoric animals) running amok and feeding off of whatever dumb, drunken coeds they happen to find in their domain, some of this was pretty good on a technical level. I remember reading that a school of piranha could deflesh a cow in seconds, and that is certainly well portrayed here. While the original movie was a spoof of Jaws, this movie is pretty much focused on upping the carnage provided by cinema's favorite seafood, which wasn't entirely unpleasant, although some of the bloody scenes were way, way too long. On the other hand, I'm a big fan of natural selection actually being applied to humanity every once in awhile. It would help make us all a bit smarter. If this had been in real life, half these idiots would have sued the sheriff, despite the fact that they ignored the warnings and the sheriff's order to get out of the water.
I didn't even attempt to go see this in the theaters and I'm sorry that I didn't. This wasn't a great movie, but it got a bunch of adrenaline running. Even before the action revs up this is has an upbeat feel to it that makes it difficult for me to say that this wasn't worth watching. Was it a bit predictable? Yeah, a bit. I knew who was going to survive and who wasn't from early on in the carnage. But that didn't mean that the teasers weren't fun.
A bout with a cold turned this into a six hour experience starting at around 1:30 this morning. Whatever I caught, it's kept me awake for about an hour at a time, then I sleep for several hours. My inability to stay awake should in no way be interpreted as criticism.
This movie is cool, it's fun, and I enjoy watching it, but I'm the first to say that it's not a great movie. I've owned this on DVD for awhile and I've acquired the habit of running this movie when I want to hear the soundtrack, even though I have the songs I really like from this movie's soundtrack on my iPod. It's pretty rare that I'm so positively impacted by a movie's soundtrack (in its entirety). To my knowledge, the last time that I became so obsessed with the music in a movie was Romy & Michelle's High School Reunion. The Covenant has that whole fake-occultish thing going on, which is almost always cool and it has story elements that (supposedly) are loosely based on historical fact, i.e., the names of people and places all figure in somewhere during the Salem Witch Trials.
Add in a young, hip cast, many of whom will never see the light of day elsewhere, and some pretty slick special effects… like the Mustang scene, and you have what should be a strong project. But this project was upstaged, and I'm not entirely sure why. Admittedly, some of that young, hip cast pretty much sucks and finds work based solely on their ability to look good in a state of undress, which could tank just about anything, but I don't think there are enough of those people in this film for that to have really been a detriment. There are problems with recitation of dialogue and even some of the movements that seem like they should have been caught during editing, but weren't. But again, the poor editing shouldn't have been enough that the film project should have been derailed.
This was never going to win an Oscar. But, it could have been a much stronger action flick with some more careful work from editing and casting. It bothers me because I do like it. The Covenant is a great pick-me-up. It's simple and uncluttered by anything like ambition or delusion.
I'm going to try to start with the stuff about this movie that I liked, because I think I'm in the middle of a serious bashing spree. I think it's been about ten days since I saw the last movie I really liked and it's always easier to dwell on the negative, usually because in movies, the negative is ridiculously glaring. So here goes:
I thought the dilemma that causes everything in this movie to happen was an interesting one and it made me put on my seldom-used thinking cap. What would I do if I found my friend's husband or wife was cheating on them without their knowledge? The best answer I could come up with is the MBA "it depends." The dilemma was truly the star of this film, and I'm sorry that the answer that the filmmakers came up with wasn't good enough to match the question. With the exception of how Vince Vaughn's character stumbles through this moral dilemma like that drunk that puked on my $500 leather jacket stumbled down the aisle of the plane (of course) to sit right in front of me, I thought the story was pretty strong. There were a few cast members that I thought were exceptional: Queen Latifah was her normal, down-to-earth goodness. I'm starting to think that she provides some realness to any story, no matter how ridiculous. (If you ever read this, Queen Latifah, you call me, we'll hang out.) It makes me sick to my stomach to say this, but Kevin James and Channing Tatum really stole the show. I don't like either of these guys, as long-time followers of my blogs can attest. But, there was a genuine feeling to these two guys that I had to admire. By the end of the film, I felt sorry for Kevin James and was laughing at Channing Tatum, who is arguably the story's antagonist and unquestionably the comedy driver of the story.
Now that I've eaten the carrot, it's time for the stick. The real dilemma here was whether or not I'd recommend anyone I liked go to see this movie. I feel pretty strongly that if you've seen one Vince Vaughn movie, you've seen them all… with the possible exception of Couples Retreat.
The Dilemma is not the funny. Not even a little. Channing Tatum tries real hard, and it's hard to try to be funny when you spend half your camera time nude (no self-respecting man wants anyone laughing at him when he's naked). I get that. But at best he managed silly bordering on insanity. Queen Latifah made me smile with her talk of "lady wood" and sexualized dialogue… since it's pretty rare we see a woman cast to perform that kind of dialogue, but again, she wasn't funny. If you're inclined to let you thoughts wander, like I am, you'll probably ask yourself how you'd behave in Vaughn's place. It beats actually paying attention to what's going on. Vaughn's performance is so horribad that I wanted to cry. Winona Ryder gave such a "stellar" performance here that I'm sure she should limit future interaction with a camera to her in-court antics. She was far more believable on Court TV and I would have rated her somewhere on the Kato scale back then.
Unless you're really desperate to see one of these guys on the big screen, I'd dodge this particular bullet. I'd pass on the subsequent movie rental and/or Netflixing as well. If you're hell bent on seeing this, wait for it to come online for streaming.
Good actors have bad days. Unfortunately, that wasn't the case with The Green Hornet, which satisficed its consumer demand with mediocre actors on (at best) a mediocre day. In particular, Seth Rogen was terrible; blurring out lines with no apparent consideration to timing or normal human behavior. I'm guessing he can't multi-task as actor, producer, and whatever-the-hell else he did in the making of this movie... although considering how hit or miss he's been since his career started to get big, I could be giving him more credit than he truly deserves. And he wasn't alone. It's a bad sign when it's less than two hours in to a movie and I'm looking at my watch every five minutes. Fortunately, audience is distracted from the piss poor performance by the cast through the cheapest of tricks: explosions a la Michael Bay and gymnastic martial arts stunts. On that point the makers of this didn't fail. The special effects, while not Avatar quality are certainly eye-catching.
On the surface, this movie feels like more of a caricature than an actual super hero action flick. If that was the goal, then I think Hornet was a wild success, but it seems to have borrowed elements from true superhero or comic action films in order to keep itself afloat, such as the Dick Tracy-like limitation of color usage: black, white, red, green, a bit of blue, some gold and purple for those enquiry minds that want to know. Some of the pantomiming that went on during the montage scenes reminded me of Pacino's performance in Dick Tracy, as well. The use of green neon was very reminiscent of Batman Forever, the Batman that shall not speak its name. That, more than anything else, makes me think that there was some plan for this to be a serious entry into the comic book/superhero film genre. That goal was overzealous at best and unreachable based on my own experience in the theater.
The movie is campy and frequently funny, which I thought a nice change from the dark films that have been dominating the genre for the last three or four years. There is plenty of charisma and chemistry at work. If that humor and interplay had been absent, this could have been truly abominable instead of a movie I just won't feel the need to watch again. Ever. The comedy flows like water from a bizarre faucet, but it does flow in ways that Rogen's comedy hasn't flowed for me since Pineapple Express. I also dug his ties throughout the film, which is irrelevant but ill mention it anyway, because they were really sweet ties and I'd like to own a few should I ever find my way back in to employment that requires me to wear the damned things.
If you're a parent with older kids or tweens wanting to watch this, I didn't see anything (other than the violence, which is not only gymnastic, but prolific) that might offend. Well, there was Seth Rogen nudity, and that offended, but it's nothing your kids might not see at a beach or city pool… so, you be the judge.
The one thing that this movie confirms without a doubt is that Joss Whedon is the luckiest man alive. How did he manage to score the Buffy TV series in the wake of this steaming pile of crap? This has all the genre-stereotyped problems: stupid posturing, bad puns, worse acting, vampires flitting around like someone opened the pixie cage in some underworld version of Peter Pan.
On top of that, this suffers from crappy dialogue, strange casting decisions that leaned for familiar faces in lieu of talent (such as casting someone that I think was Ben Affleck as an unnamed player for an opposing school's basketball team), poor direction, since at least one Academy Award winner is in residence, seriously bad fight choreography, and lame special effects. I'm not just griping about the lack of the post-slay dust-up, but did you see the flying? Come on. None of these problems find their way their way into the television show, although you could see the influence of this movie on the show for the first season.
Normally, I try to avoid comparisons between films and other media forms, but the television show is just SO much better that I'm amazed it was spawned by this. Admittedly, I've heard tales spun that suggest that this crapfest wasn't Whedon's fault. Blame is generally turned on the production company, who decided to spend less money than ole Joss would have liked. I wonder if they're kicking themselves now, considering how much the Buffy brand makes every year.
It's very rare that I can't find anything positive to say about a movie. Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and it makes my teeth clench when I refer to this movie by the same name as one of my favorite TV shows ever, is going to be one of those. Although I did smile at the recurring fashion trend of denim shorts, flannel, rolled socks, and black boots, since I had a friend from high school who favored that same look. At every turn, these people went for cheap and sucky instead of the fun and flashy that characterized the show. There has been, over the last few years, rumor of a Buffy remake starring the television cast. That I can't wait to see.
In the wake of a movie this heinous, I'd suggest deportation or possible execution of everyone involved. I'm making an exception for Joss Whedon because he eventually redeemed himself, and later gave us Firefly… and like ten good episodes of Dollhouse.
Troof, I tried watching this like two years, and the disk that Netflix sent me was cracked and stopped working like 20 minutes before everything gets revealed to the audience. But, I liked this well enough to go back through everything again. This was a good thing, because I couldn't remember anything about the movie… other than the presumed identity of the killer, which I learned from some bonehead DJ going to work one day. I'm glad I made an attempt to revisit this when it appeared on my recommendations for stream content on Netflix because it's a pretty decent sleeper. By that I mean a thriller that has a slow start, just so everybody's clear.
The first thing you notice about this movie is the cast: Al Pacino and Robin Williams certainly trump any "iffy-ness" that Hillary Swank might bring to the table. Even the supporting cast is filled with people whom I recognize by sight if not by face. Pacino, Williams, and Swank certainly create an effective trinity that sets the pace for this movie. In retrospect, some of Hillary Swank's best movies are those with three major players in them, so it's possible that she needs the trinity to be formed to really shine. I like that this is a VERY different kind of role for Robin Williams. The story is very strong. I like that this kind of nastiness is going on somewhere OTHER than L.A. or New York. It reminds me that bad stuff can happen everywhere, even close to Santa's house. I also like that the blood and gore is kept minimized. In other serial killer mysteries, there would be lots more blood, and I respect that they chose to keep that elsewhere.
Now I mentioned that this is a bit sleepy, and this is at least partially caused by the film's attempt to actually recreate a police investigation as opposed to "Hollywooding" their way through the process, using insane leaps of intuition, forensic science, or hurdling across little things like the law and/or the Constitution and coming up with golden results. Intriguing, technical scenes of police work and unfolding drama are broken intermittently by some decent action sequences make it feel a little bit like a really good Law & Order episode, although I do miss Lenny Briscoe. The environment makes for something different and helps in many cases to enhance the feeling of danger.
I went in to this movie knowing quite a bit about it and I still struggled to determine what was real and what wasn't… which is likely a struggle for Professor Nash every day of his life. Having just done a paper on the links between creativity and psychopathologies (such as schizophrenia), I wish I'd seen this movie a few months ago when it would have been beneficial for something other than pure entertainment. I found that this was an excellent commentary on how we react to people with mental illness both as a culture and as individuals. No one wanted to use the word crazy, and I can cede that point, because "crazy" has all kinds of negative implications to it, but John Nash's family and friends almost let his schizophrenia destroy his life, marriage and career before they stood up and suggested something was wrong.
I always like these historical true story movies, even when the stories are up to interpretation. I ESPECIALLY like these historical true story movies when they focus on an event or individual that I've never heard of, which was the case with John Nash. The funniest part is that having watched this, I can see where my studies of economics and even political science bore his mark, but I don't think that his name ever came up in a lecture or a textbook. This movie is filled with interesting and poignant characters; it has action, conflict, a bit of drama. It's just about everything I look for in a movie. I can certainly see why this garnered so much Academy attention at the 2002 Oscars. Without a doubt, this is a much better film that the movie that takes the same prize in 2003. I also like that for quite a long time, your own sense of reality and fantasy are blurred because of the way these characters are presented.
The one thing that bothers me is that this took place in the 40s… and while I get that young men in their late teens and twenties haven't changed all that much since, well, ever, I expected less frank and open discussion about skirt-chasing. Most of the "bar talk" felt like it would have been more in place in a movie set in the 80s or 90s, but that's probably my own bias.
Is the transformation of a classic 80s icon into a franchise just a shameless attempt to revitalize the long-dead career of a not-so-legendary 80s pop star? Probably. More than two years ago, I watched Lost Boys: The Tribe, and found it to be an okay movie to watch during a rainy night at home. This time I was less impressed, but still found this vaguely watchable, if predictable.
The Thirst takes its cues from some of the top concepts in the whole vampire genre: Blade and Buffy. You'd think that with these two powerhouses in the vampire-verse for inspiration that the movie could have been better. This has the same feel as the Blade Trinity: a lot of flashing teeth, spurts of blood, club music, relatively high-tech weaponry. The special effects were mostly of the Buffy milieu, as were the frequent puns.
I have two major issues to address. The first is the fight choreography. I'm no ninja, but even I could see the moves being telegraphed, and the swordplay was ridiculously slow. I've seen kids with plastic swords do a more convincing act. If you're going to do this, do it right. The second problem is all the flashbacks to the original Lost Boys. I get that they're trying to establish a connection to a better film, but mostly it was a glaring reminder that they were in no way living up to the iconic status of the original in their franchise. I sympathize with their plight, which is basically what happened to the Batman franchise between Batman and Batman Begins, but they should take a lesson from Warner Brothers, and completely revamp the franchise. There are hints that more of these movies are to come, but I can't go in to details without dropping spoilers, and I try not to do that.
Oh. High-heels are not likely to survive a drop from 30,000 feet just because vampires are wearing them. Physics will out.
This has a very dated feel to it and a lot of that is due to Bridgette Fonda, who must have completed this project around the time she completed Point of No Return. She looks too similar in both roles for that to have been accidental. Also, Bridgette Fonda's appearance in the film helps date this, since she seemed to disappear off the face of the Earth around the time I graduated high school, which was (cough) 1995. Add Jennifer Jason Leigh and one of the brothers from Wings to the mix and you have a cast that certainly didn't maintain their celebrity status past the 1990s. Thematically, this movie feels very 1990s in that post-Basic Instinct, we're going to have a "thriller" which mostly derives its thrills from nudity and sexual content. There's very little here that's actually frightening, although Single White Female certainly supports my "to hell with roommates" policy to the nth degree. There are crazy people out there and they seem to like me.
Other than the dated feel of the movie, I don't have much to complain about. I feel that there was good work on suspension of disbelief, although I like to think that no one in New York would let down their guard as quickly as Alison (Fonda) when she lets Hedy (Jason Leigh) walk in her front door. I am willing to concede that I might have gotten all unguarded at the appearance of the puppy, too. Mostly by "suspension of disbelief" I mean that I felt that this could reasonably happen. I mean you're more likely to be struck by lightning than to have a crazy roommate who fixates on you (oh wait, that happened to me while I was in the Navy) in a psychopathic manner, but it COULD happen.
This wasn't terrible. It seems very much aimed at a female audience, but I don't think men watching this will have a lot to complain about thanks to classic 90s gratuitous nudity.
c
When Percy and Cyclops get in a fistfight, I have a hard time choosing who to root for. After a moment of flailing, I voted on mutual knockout with an option for grisly head wounds. This is actually my favorite part of this movie, that does a fair to middling-good job of depicting how our flapping jaws can, intentionally or otherwise, hurt the people around us. Think of a game of telephone that's gone horribly wrong, and then the people who made the game go wrong in the first place blame the person who started the message.
It may sound like American politics, but nothing in this movie claims to be intelligent or anything like it. Gossip is the tail end of 90s-era teen thrillers: hot, youngish actors pretending to be five to ten years younger than they really are, hip locations, a bunch of rampaging stupidity passing itself off as cultural commentary (I find this less even less appealing when the stars in the movie have been guilty of what the movie is commentating about). I have to admit that I probably would have liked this movie back in the day. But, now that I'm old, I found even the comely Kate Hudson less than interesting. I do have to give this movie credit for not feeling like it was running for all eternity. At more than two hours, I certainly would have expected this to get more tired than it did.
Why watch it? If you have similar tastes in movies to me and have a Netflix account, this has probably shown up in the Starz Play section of their content available to stream. If I'd realized that I'd have to contend with James Marsden AND Joshua Jackson, and neither of them were getting cut up by a rampaging killer, I probably would have passed.
I should preface this by saying that I don't have a problem with musicals. They're not something I run out and see, but I generally find them entertaining. That was not the case with Chicago, which mostly left me wondering how bad the movies were in 2002 so that this picked up not only Best Picture, but five other Academy Awards. A musical's star should be the music and I felt that the songs here were mostly lackluster, with performances that were okay, but hardly worthy of a show that spent a long time on Broadway. In recent years, there have been several musicals made into films that I felt showed more passion in their songs: Burlesque, Sweeney Todd (if you'll make an exception for Helena Bonham Carter, who gave a good performance, but was not a good singer), Moulin Rouge and even Nine all come to mind. Keep in mind that I didn't particularly love Nine, either.
There was one exception, and perhaps it's just my bias, but I loved Queen Latifah. I thought she gave a hell of a singing performance, which reminded me that in the dim past, Ms. Latifah started her entertainment career in the music industry… although I confess that I couldn't name even one of her songs. Catherine Zeta Jones gave a decent acting performance… although she's got that whole sexpot thing down, so it's not like her role as the murderous showgirl was too far off the mark. Don't get me started on Renee Zellwegger or Richard Gere; or John C. Reilly, who should have had a bigger part and fewer songs.
In my opinion, this would have been a better movie if they'd replaced all the songs with dialogue. The characters are pretty intense here, with the possible exception of John C. Reilly's character, who was too weak-willed for me. This would have been a great courtroom drama, even a movie commentating on the condition of women's prisons in the United States back in the day. It would have been interesting to see them do the whole mob-and-gun-moll thing, too. But with songs that fell a bit flat for me, Chicago just didn't live up to its own hype, and it took me less than 30 minutes for me to realize that something was going wrong, which is never a good sign.
I loved this movie back in high school, in what I not-so-openly admit was my Freshman year. What could be better Emilio Estevez back when he was the only remaining cool thing of the Estevez-Sheen clan (and now we suffer from no cool things remaining in the Estevez-Sheen clan), Renee Russo back before her body went all saggy funhouse mirror, and a whole lot of scenes of Mick Jagger shooting people?
This time around, I noticed things. In particular I noticed the "future" date of this movie: November 23, 2009. Can sci-fi be retro? If not, some of you, like me, will have a SERIOUS problem here. Despite this, there were a few things predicted for 2009 that I thought were very insightful or even potentially accurate: talk of a 10-year recession, new diseases crippling large parts of humanity, the growing divide between the haves and have-nots in the capitalist economies, and a growing sense of violence and despair.
One of the things that I found most interesting about revisiting this was the feeling that the most interesting characters in the movie were the ones that were on the periphery, like the myriad people found living on the streets. I'd rather this have focused on them than the characters this story did focus on. Even Anthony Hopkins didn't change that fact.
So Freejack has developed a certain "overcome by event"-ness that makes it less popular with me than I was 15 years ago. It's still cool as a standalone, in the same sense that Logan's Run is still cool, even though our mainstream technology blows theirs out of the water for the most part, but if you're looking for futuristic sci-fi action, this isn't going to be your flick. If you just want some future gone amok movie, this might be a good choice for you. All in all, I considered this a pretty pleasant walk down memory lane, although if this wasn't streamable on Netflix, I probably wouldn't have rushed out to watch it.
Finally. Finally we find a role for Nicholas Cage in which his stilted, semi-retarded recitation of what's flashing on the teleprompters (usually to screen right… at least, that's generally the direction in which he's listlessly staring) isn't a heinous drawback to the entire film project. I won't say I liked his performance, but I didn't hate him in this, either. It is; however, a bad thing when Nicholas Cage's acting abilities make him the star of a film in more than just name.
Despite horrific acting from nearly all comers, this isn't the worst supernatural thriller I've ever seen. It's nothing all that original, which I say because I've seen elements of this film repeated frequently in my three decades of life. But, I do give the story writers credit for creating a stable, familiar mythology from which the audience can derive its emotional response. Most Americans and Europeans associate certain things with the presence of evil: bats, check. Wolves, check. Crows, check. Approaching dark-clouded storms, check. Many of us (who should know better) still believe that even plague or illness is the sign of something bad afoot. We even all vaguely accept the shenanigans that went along with the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the much later Salem Witch Trials as a really sad time in our history at the global level. These guys spoon-fed us material from our comfort zone, and I think it helped make this movie more effective as a thriller.
But this movie had a lot of problems. The initial scenes are filled with locations that (mostly) no longer exist. Since my medieval geography of the Middle East is pretty… rough, I'm thinking more information would have been helpful. I'd have liked a map. I'd have also liked to know how they managed to make it from Styria (not Syria, Styria) to a place with names like Severnac (which sound French to me, even though they kept implying they weren't in France). The other major issue came from the introduction of concepts that were premature by several centuries. Generously, the "fair trial" escaped Western civ until at least the 19th century and the line "do you ever get the feeling God's made too many enemies?" is a critique on holy war man has yet to embrace… or really consider.
All that aside, if you're looking for a couple of cheap thrills with pre-Industrial tech, this could be for you.
R, 1 hr. 51 min. Directed by: Tom Hooper. Release Date: November 26, 2010.
I've been griping for about four months that I haven't found a movie yet that I thought was Academy nod worthy. I've been making wild speculations, such as my guess that Hereafter will get one solely because it's a Clint Eastwood project. I don't know why I think Eastwood is automatically a ticket to the red carpet, because I loved Invictus, and it got nada last year, but I still do. My search is finally over. The King's Speech is easily the best movie I've seen all year: certainly in the theaters and most probably in any video format.
Why did I love this movie? Probably for a lot of the same reasons that left me speechless after watching Helen Mirren play this king's daughter in The Queen. A historical biopic needs a few things to really be a success (in my opinion): (1) a likable character. Mainstream America wouldn't flock to see Hitler: The Movie, even if the film portrayed his life only up to the point where he took office in Germany. (2) A little bit of tragedy or flaw. Perfect people lack conflict, which tends to make for a dull story. (3): One hell of a monologue, and this one is a doozy. I'm a sucker for historical epics, but I have a more… balanced view when it comes to biopics. This was nothing short of genius.
Not only do I think this film warrants a Best Picture nod, I'm thinking that Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush both should get a nomination for Best Actor and Supporting Actor… although I'm not sure which is which in this case. Colin Firth is the title character, but Geoffrey Rush lights up this film. With supporting cast like Guy Pierce and Helena Bonham Carter, they've packed a lot of talent in what is a low-focus film. The whole two hours really introduces only about a dozen characters, most of them historical figures, with one or two speaking extras on the fringes. I can't even find something to gripe about here. The story is fascinating, moving, and occasionally funny. It's a little bit like life should be.
I should have known better. After my terrible experience watching Romancing the Stone, you'd think I'd have learned that I just really, really don't like this franchise and that I might, just might have avoided the sequel. But, the threat of impending boredom made me queue this up on my stream queue on Netflix. Actual boredom caused this to appear on my television.
Ridiculous set ups, highly dramatic, tense moments that bear even a bit of resemblance to reality, and lame characters that are more flaw than substance are characteristic of this franchise. It might try to be equal parts Harlequin romance and Indiana Jones, but both elements feel flat to the point of death.
Everything I disliked in Romancing the Stone is worse in Nile. The few things I liked in the previous film of the franchise are either worse or totally absent. Even a reappearance by Danny DeVito didn't save this from being terrible. If you like really sappy romances or read Harlequin novels and think they're good, you're probably going to dig this. Otherwise… skip it.
Unrated, 2 hr. 12 min. Directed by: Robert Aldrich. Release Date: October 31, 1960. DVD Release Date: September 25, 1997.
Have you ever seen Who Framed Roger Rabbit? Specifically, I'm thinking about the dueling piano bar scene involving Daffy and Donald Duck performing attempting homicide on each other? In some ways, I think the well documented (and frequently quoted) battle of the barbs between Bette Davis and Joan Crawford would have looked a little like that. Putting them together in the same film and in the same scenes should have caused some interesting reactions even in the most benign movies, but What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? isn't benign. I would LOVE to have been able to watch the shenanigans back stage between these two aging scream queens. Hollywood has had some infamous hate-hate relationships, but I'm fairly sure that the politely guised, but chronically barbed poison that spewed between Davis and Crawford would have made for serious entertainment for any bystander, but probably was the stuff of nightmares for the poor director of this movie. I also suspect that Davis' well-known and possibly jealousy-fueled hatred for Crawford added some oomph to the film and made for a far more believable relationship between these women's characters. I don't know that I've ever seen two people have better negative chemistry with each other.
I love these old thrillers as a genre, but this was fantastic. Insanity, abuse and the occasional murder make for a heady cocktail that is only slightly marred by the fact that it takes FOREVER for this movie to get off the ground and rolling. Well, that's not entirely the way to describe this. There are periods of what would have disturbed and disgusted audiences of the 60s but that have not stood the test of time for the modern audience, which is more used to gory attacks on screaming co-eds. These periods are buffered by long, long periods of being introduced to Baby Jane's madness. As much as I think Bette Davis was an amazing actress, the woman couldn't hold a tune in a bucket, and for some reason, she seems to sing in every movie I've seen her in. Imagine a 70-something wearing kabuki-like makeup and wearing a child's frock and Shirley Temple curls.
The only problem I have with this movie come in the details. Even before Baby Jane departs her own brain for happier place, she'd kept her hair the same for what must have been 60 years. I made the same complaint of Lynn Redgrave in Atonement and that's possibly my favorite movie ever. No woman does that. Not even crazy women. Total fail. And if you're planning on starving someone to death, you should possibly prevent them from actually moving around where they might find food. These people should be thanking God that all this went down before the Patriot Act was voted in.
PG-13, 1 hr. 31 min. Directed by: Joseph Ruben. Release Date: September 24, 2004. DVD Release Date: January 18, 2005.
I should preface this with a warning: don't try to multitask while you watch this. Julianne Moore goes from normal to complete and raging psychopath in less time that it takes a Ferrari to go from 0 to 60. The meltdown was so quick and so violent that I had to do a backwards search on the DVD in order to tap in to what one my favorite authors called the "WTF was THAT? party line." Didn't Jodie Foster have a similar movie? She's an avionics engineer who loses her kid on a flight and no one remembers the kid ever being there except Jodie Foster, until you suddenly find out the kid died in an accident or something years before. Am I wrong? Is there a series or something that this film's a part of? I guess it's apparent that if nothing else, Ms. Moore plays one hell of a crazy woman. All she needs is some aluminum foil and a cat or three.
But, other than the talents of the film's star, this movie just kind of plummets into the twin spirals of fail and shame. There's not only nothing original about this, but what material is borrowed is tired and cliché. I'm a little sorry that I let my respect for Julianne Moore translate into me putting this on my Netflix queue. There are problems in nearly every aspect of the film, which reads a bit like Matt Damon's upcoming The Adjustment Bureau. Blah blah blah, government conspiracy with aliens blah blah kidnapping children. Seriously, if aliens wanted to study something about humanity, why would they chose to study the bond between parents and their children (although the actual experiment is one of the several, major plot holes in the story when you combine that with Moore's co-star).
The immortal bard, Phillip J. Fry, once referred to a his self-created world filled with "plot holes and spelling errors." Based on what I saw here, that world is expanding at nearly ridiculous speed. The Forgotten is loosely based on every parent's worst nightmare, but that's the last point in which the movie even attempts to broach something sensible. This won't stop me from watching Julianne Moore movies, but I'll think twice about it next time.
PG-13, 1 hr. 40 min. Directed by: Raymond De Felitta. Release Date: March 19, 2010. DVD Release Date: August 24, 2010.
When I talked about The Fighter, I mentioned that I have to wonder why no movies that take place around Boston depict functional (normal) families. I have the same question about New York. I also have to wonder why aliens are always destroying the city in the movies, but that's for another episode of this blog. City Island follows that well-traveled road, but I have to say that this was arguably the funniest, bunch of poorly adjusted mooks to grace my television screen since I foolishly decided to watch an episode of Jersey Shore. There doesn't seem to be a single, well-adjusted character in the film, and it's a sad statement when the most "normal" (I use the word hesitantly) person around is a recently released convict.
The ensemble cast is great, and I was surprised to see that they anchored themselves almost completely on the strength of Andy Garcia and Julianna Marguilies (who I didn't come close to recognizing until I pulled a movie poster picture for the blog site), although I have to say Andy Garcia's mumbled, heavily accented dialogue drove me nuts and made him close to impossible to understand. I like how all these people are interconnected (being family) and how they have so little idea what's going on in each others' lives. The confusion and misperceptions that go on lead to a lot of entertainment, but I would have liked a lengthier bout of family drama, given all the quirks and borderline insanity that seemed to characterize this movie.
City Island is kind of fun. It's also a bit long-winded. There's so much going on that it's hard to focus on any one thing, and each character basically represents his or her own storyline. I still haven't figured out why Garcia's acting class partner runs away during the family's final confrontation. She was kind of a third wheel in the scene, but she beat major feet… and without apparent cause. It's possible that these guys tried to bring too much to the table in terms of story development, but I can't fault them for the development of some fairly complicated characters. I don't know that I was entertained during this movie, but my interest was always present.
