Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 review

I'll spare you the 'interesting' tale of how I gained entry to the CW sponsored screening tonight, but I did and as a general event it was fantastic. Since I go to the movies a ridiculous amount at different venues and for different types of films I'm always looking for experiences that transcend just watching a movie. With some films I look for a lively crowd of spectators to provide some sort of running commentary on the film. Not necessarily actual diologue, but emotions and reactions to what they're experiencing. As far as that's concerned HP 7 and it's giddy bunch of fans there tonight were very entertaining and fairly close to the type of group I excepted. Well... perhaps a bit more tame. Oh and the film? Highly impressive.

For those who don't know my feelings on the long running Harry Potter franchise it goes like this. I think the first two films are GREAT for kids, but don't hold up well to anyone else. If you have kids and want an easy way to introduce them into this universe through cinema or into the fantasy adventure genre all together, they are great points of entry. Then came the third and fourth films which stand as two of my favorites. Three because of the best use of CGI in the entire series of films (this one included) and because they began to really flesh out the characters and universe more. Really most of what we say in three we are still seeing now design wise. However part 4 is my favorite of them all. For me it encompasses all the light, dark, adventure, humor and real world troubles this sort of story could contain and it does it very, very well. This brings us to the fifth and sixth films where David Yates took over directorial duties. For both of those films he was my biggest beef. Both films were photographed nicely and performed well, but his directing was rarely exciting and never packed any real emotion.

The best example was in the last film where the beloved Dumbledore dies. There was ways of shooting and editing that sequence to make it more dramatic and actually deliver something more from it, yet it was just another scene. Nothing special. So heading into the Deathly Hallows I figured it would be more of the same. Happily I was wrong. The film isn't perfect and it doesn't dethrone part 4 as my favorite, but it is now a close second. It seems Yates got the picture for the most part and impressively delivers stronger character moments and fairly decent action sequences. But really the best stuff in the film is the slow pieces. The long stretches without a ton of shoddy CGI and simply Radcliffe, Watson and Grint acting in fascinating, real world locations. If there was ever a time to be impressed with their acting abilities, this would be it.

The supporting cast of well-knowns return and don't have a ton of screen time, but in his few scenes Ralph Fiennes' Voldemort gets to play a bit more than in the last two films and almost reminds me of his grand debut in part 4. Back when he was the character we heard about for three films and then finally get to see in all his horrific glory. Here we see a bit more of his true malice in some great quiet scenes. It really makes me long to see the final confrontation between him and Harry. Not so much the fight, but the lead up to the fight. Harry and the gang are really 90% of the picture. Granted they are always the mainstay of things, but this time there are less character additions or action fills. Harry doesn't have all the answers as usual, but this time I kind of... feel it. It doesn't feel like there's the magical safety net that there used to be and getting out and away from Hogwarts makes it far more atmospheric. The foggy woods mixed with Desplat's quiet score and the general tone Yates sets brings it all together.

So what holds it back from greatness? Honestly it's simple things... well mostly. For some reason they still don't spend either the right time or the right amount of money on their CGI. The Dobby stuff near the end looks pretty good, but quite a bit of the beginning CG appears very dated. Also for a time they pull the old 'let's talk about what we don't show' game. This works when you're trying to avoid hard violence or something along those lines, but they decide to tell us about two rather important characters demise instead of showing us the lead up and/or what happened. It's not as if these scene were horribly violent or prolonged, but visually something ought to be delivered. It's as if Sirius died and someone walks in, tells the group and they have a moment of silence. And finally Yates hasn't quite got the hang of action sequences. His love of wanting to stay on the actors faces is well and good, but a nice wide shot or a longer wide shot to really show off the scope and magnitude of the event would be great. All of those issues however, happen within the first twenty to forty minutes of the two and half hour picture. So there was a lot of making up for me to still be really impressed.

I'm happy to eat crow on this. I'm happy that this turned out to be a fun fantasy adventure that hits the right notes. I don't really feel like this had a climax, but it certainly ends at the right moments. I'm not talking like "Empire Strikes Back" right moments; where everything feels horrible and all hope could be lost one way or another. I'm not even talking about "The Dark Knight" finale where it's a 'happy' ending, but with a less than favorable outcome for the hero. It's more of a just the right moment kind of thing. Power and momentum have swung the other direction for the moment, but the battle is far from over. "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1" is a hit already no matter what. But at least with this installment I feel that it's earned it and it actually has me looking forward to it's conclusion next July.

Unstoppable review

A long time ago I started realizing that certain studios were best at certain things. Others might be able to do those same things well, but there would always be the studios that did it best as a whole. Universal is a great house for science fiction and horror. Paramount used to be known for it's dramas and comedies... that has changed now I suppose. Now it's more big budget whatevers. Warner Brothers could pull off crime pictures like clockwork. Fox though was a tough one. Really their strongest suit in the old days was putting on nicely produced pieces of whatever was selling at the time. They could do a little of it all. After a while I did notice a few little things that stood out to me more and more. They could make common folk look awesome. For some reason there are a TON of films in which they make slightly more everyday people much more heroic. Cops, civilians, simple villagers, grunt workers etc. Sure it might be a bit of an odd thing to notice, but they did. Tony Scott's "Unstoppable" actually helps revive that skill over at Fox.

First off I admit to a bias in enjoyed the vast majority of Tony Scott's films. I maintain that he is still one of the most impressive and enjoyable action directors working today and can more than hold his own in the over CGI-ed genre. But heading into "Unstoppable" I was actually expecting NOT to like it. I wasn't impressed by the trailer which depicted the movie as this massive series of overly emotional and big events, when really it's just one event. As I told a co-worker last weekend I don't think the whole kids on a train thing is a big part of the movie. I was right. It's really about three minutes of the movie... at the beginning. Instead it's one major issue and a fluid series of problems. There's an unmanned train gaining speed, carrying explosive chemicals that will at some point derail and potentially kill several thousand people. Whats to stop it? Two normal working joes.

Right there is where "Unstoppable" fully wins me. There's a lot about it I like and enjoy the shit out of, but the basic fact that we're dealing with realistic guys that at their most heroic are still grounded firmly in the real world, that's something I love to see in film. Sure we get a little bit of emotional and family schmaltz near the beginning when learning about Coulson (Chris Pine), but it's all needed for the bigger picture. This is taking a true story and sensationalizing it into a perilous, escapist thriller. And what would it be without heart? Or for that matter main characters risking their lives with nothing on the line.

Scott again teams up with Denzel Washington who plays Barnes, a train driver and veteran of this kind of work. He's smart and knows his stuff. Basically the kind of role Denzel can play like a fiddle. Pine's Coulson is the newbie, but not unskilled and very daring. Together it's a match made in qusi-realistic, badass heaven. Somewhere Charles Bronson and Walter Matthau are smiling. Rosario Dawson is also in there as Connie, the yard manager from which the train escapes from. Interestingly enough the way it happens in the movie IS the way it happened in real life as well. It's great seeing Dawson in any capacity, but seeing her hold down a role that would normally go to any number of male character actors and do it better than they would makes me a happy viewer.

Most of the film is spent looking at hulking, steel trains running at high speeds through small towns and country side. What Tony Scott and writer Mark Bomback do is explain more than enough of the world of trains to get us to understand why this is such a bad thing. Much like a semi truck trains don't stop on a dime... and neither do the cars it's carrying behind it. Something slightly more important however is the speed limits for certain sets of tracks. Which is to say if an elevated curve says limit 15mph then a train going 75mph just...might...have a problem. Scott makes this situation exciting and fun to watch unfold. His photography is great, Harry Gregson-Williams score is booming as loud as the trains, yet strangely works nicely together. And of course the stunt team pulls off some absolutely intense and fantastic work.

One reason I think I love Tony Scott's work so much is his lack of interest in doing things with CGI. He knows what it can do and why you can use it, but opts to actually derail and explode a train instead. Opts to use real stunt men and his actors running across moving trains rather than green screen it. That attention to detail and the moment makes him invaluable to the film industry.

Beyond that there isn't much left to say really. "Unstoppable" was promoted fucking horribly if you ask me, but it's a surprisingly fun ride. It's sort of a throwback in a way to the days of movies about common people being heroic in the face of peril. I know there's some other runaway train movies, however I can't think of a single one. Or the the last time one was made. It's not a hard movie and it's damn sure not a complex one which is probably why it's so fun. Today I watched and reviewing "Morning Glory" as well and my biggest gripe is that they wanted as much conflict as they could instead of just letting it come naturally from the characters in their current situation. "Unstoppable" wisely doesn't second or third guess itself like that. It's fluid and deals with it's main issue as a whole with no real added fillers.

Also HERE is a link to the real story for which the film is based on.

Despicable Me review

If Pixar and "Toy Story 3" told of what is all right in the world of animated films, then "Despicable Me" tells heavily of what's wrong. Yes, much like my unpopular opinion of this springs big hit "How to Train Your Dragon", I just don't get the greatness that's supposed to be found in "Despicable Me". I get the references and the point of the story... but I don't see what's supposed to be so great about it all. Perhaps if the movie went as far as to give us something that was... oh say... original feeling, then maybe I'd be on board.

Basically the film is as the trailer dictated. Gru (voiced by Steve Carrell) is a super villain who has been out matched by Vector (voiced by Jason Segel). This starts a rivalry between the two that ultimately leads to Gru adopting three young girls so that they can sneak into Vector's fortress and steal a shrink ray which will allow him to commit the crime of the century; which is stealing the moon. And as mildly complex at that might sound, it's really not. In fact it's so incredibly simple minded that at one point I forgot it entirely and felt the film was designed for the sole purpose of making an over the top villain have to take care of kids. In my mind that's about as awesome as action heroes taking care of kids ('The Spy Next Door', 'Race to Witch Mountain', 'The Pacifier', 'Kindergarten Cop' etc).

Now much like in 'How to Train Your Dragon', our lead (in this case Carrell) offers up a voice that after about forty minutes or so will have officially gotten on your last nerve. Basically Gru is something of a Russian or German or general Europe type and Carrell's voice acting chops wavers throughout. Sometimes it's meshes together alright and sometimes it's like he's speaking normally, but very slowly. Regardless of that it's still an annoying ass accent. Segel's isn't much better as his tries his hardest to sound dastardly. All the while his character Vector simply does mildly smirk inspiring things like dispatching attack sharks on Gru by dragging his butt across a computer board. Splendid.

I can say however that I don't think this is quite as horrible as I expected. Honestly I've been dreading this movie all summer. None of the trailers interested me in the slightest and after a while of hearing the snazzy one line the world loves ('it's so fluffy, I gonna die!') about fifty thousand times I was pretty dead set against it. But it's not totally bad, just really lame. In fact while watching it myself and my friends noted the similarities to the animated adventure, comedy "Hoodwinked"; both through substance and animation style. Oh and they're both super lame. One thing I remember about "Hoodwinked" specifically was that it was ugly as far as CGI animation goes. Obviously it was made much cheaper than most, but the characters looked oddly shaped and almost so cartoonish that it was a turn off. The lighting was always really wonky in which it would range from awkwardly lit in the house to this blue night which made it's characters look slightly crappier. With "Despicable Me" it all seemed like it was one tier up. The designs were better, the lighting was better, the storytelling was... about the same and the character movements were just as stiff as before. I should say that I don't know if it's the same team, but there are many connections that could be made. Some of the jokes are fairly clever due to the timing of the actors and sometimes of the images like in the case of the sight gags. But it's never anything to write home about.

Yes... that's the phrase I want to use. It's nothing to write home about. The world is that of Roger Moore- James Bond movies and not in the cool way like 'The Incredibles'. It's a world of general cartoonishness, but with less interested writers. They never go full 'Shrek' sequel and just start pumping out pop culture references for laughs, but it'll play tricks like it. It'll somewhat be touching and somewhat be clever, but none of these things ever hit their marks. It's simply a safe and easy going animated feature that brings nothing new to the table. I maintain what I said about animated films in the spring, in that so many of them play by the same rules. I'd love to see some more animated films that attempted something more creative or more clever. I have hope for projects like Gore Verbinski's "Rango" (in glorious 2D) which he explained awesomely and I'm interested to see what Zack Snyder's "The Legend of the Guardians" will be like. I feel like there's a push to just give out the most generalist animated pictures and maybe if a couple of more experimental or stronger written ones come along and spice the field up, that it could create a change in the flow of things and maybe we'll end up seeing some more impressive animation features coming out way.

The Last Airbender review

With "The Last Airbender" M. Night Shyamalan has indeed made his worst film. This is coming from someone who actually does find "The Happening" entertaining on that 50's-60's cheap horror film way. All this said I don't buy this as the worst film of the summer. At the very least I can say TLA is nice to look at and James Newton Howard's score is as good as most of his for M. Night's films. The cinematography is dry, but in a refreshing way for the genre and hell I'll even give Shyamalan some credit for NOT falling into the pits of the genre as far as shots are concerned. There's a lot of issue with what's there (I'll get into that in a second), but after 'The Lord of the Rings' and 'Harry Potter' almost all fantasy films are shot in the same fashion ('The Golden Compass', 'The Chronicles of Narnia', 'Stardust' etc) and that's been killing me while watching them. At least when Night wasn't in extreme fucking close ups for no reason, he could lay down some interesting looking images here and there that wasn't all middle-earthy.

Ok, so why is this such a clusterfuck? First off what Shyamalan screws up is a potentially interesting beginning to what could be his trilogy. Since the money numbers are in, it's in that weird stage where a sequel might or might not happen considering it's budget was ... $280 million dollars and it's at $70 million right now. By the way if any of that money was accidentally sent to your house by mistake please contact someone at Paramount Pictures cause it damn sure was not used on this movie. With that kind of cash this film should've been about two and half hours long. In fact with this source material it would dictate a two and a half hour long movie. Instead we get 103 minutes that speeds along jumping where necessary and using action derivative language the whole time. It also plays the whole we'll talk about, but not show action through the means of weak appearing and disappearing narrations via Nicola Peltz's character Katara, whose voice could make an angel's anus bleed for weeks. The few fights scenes are over in a blink mostly and kind of awkwardly composed. The first one involving some earthbenders defending themselves against firebenders starts to seem impressive before ending about a minute in and doing little more than making a dirt wall and throwing some small rocks. As a mild fan of the series I can also say that is does change many aspects of the first season. Somethings are understandable and aren't that important at this state, while others might need to be addressed... like oh say... figuring out how to say the words 'Avatar' not 'Ovatar' and 'Aang' not 'Ung'.

That brings me to the acting of our three leads. Noah Ringer plays the young Aang who awakes and begins this pretty lackluster adventure. Ringer isn't an actor (and it shows). Shyamalan found him through tapes sent into Paramount looking for kids who could be these characters. He's apparently a martial artist and I'll say that's probably true as his moves and form seem quite on par with that. His acting is... well it ain't good, but compared with the other two characters he might as well be Daniel Day-Lewis. Jackson Rathbone ('Twilight's Jasper aka Willy Wonka) plays Sokka, Katara's older brother. Almost everything thing he says is cringe worthy. Part of it is due to some of the junk Shyamalan has written for him, but even when it's general stuff he performs like he's never acted before. Equally Peltz seems to have the most bizarre fucking reactions to everything. When things are at peace she looks like she's about to faint from frustration, when things are burning around her she's smiling and pleased. So either she's a mental case or she's an action junkie that gets her jollys from drowning people in mid air. I'm more incline to believe the prior though.

On the villain side we have 'Slumdog Millionaire' star Dev Patel as Prince Zuko, who was banished and disgraced by his father played by Cliff Curtis. Zuko can only return to his place in the empire by catching the avatar. Patel is one of the few here that actually works for me. Had the film been the length it should've I could maybe even see him getting a nice monologue to really pump up his villainy as well as the duality of his feelings towards Aang. Shaun Toub plays Zuko's Uncle Iroh who ain't so bad and tries to get Zuko to think that being an outcast isn't a bad thing. But ole' lonely Zuko just can't stop pissing and moaning about how he wants back in and blah, blah, blah. At some point Iroh should've told him to go bitch about it in his diary. Then there's Commander Zhao played by 'The Daily Show' star Aasif Mandvi. Not the role for him. I agree with the rest of the world by saying here's a role for a strong, meaty and actually frightening actor. This is the real bad guy to everybody in the story and Mandvi doesn't cut it.

And after going through all this I still can't say this is this big awful piece of work. It sucks, it sucks on several levels, but I've seen worse. I question HIGHLY how critics actually liked "Macgruber" or how "Grown Ups" gets a critical pass. Honestly the whole bad press over this film got me thinking a few days ago about another director and his out of his element film. David Lynch's "Dune" had a very similar fate as this. Interestingly enough it has now achieved a cult status, but go back and read reviews from 1984 and it was pretty much called the worst film of the year and it was only January when it came out. "Dune" isn't good, but it's not utter shit. "The Last Airbender" isn't good, but it's not utter shit. Perhaps I find it difficult to fully destroy the idea of any film with an interesting concept, but I don't think it's a total wash.

I think with this film Shyamalan got scared while writing and scaled back to such a bogus level as to leave next to nothing for viewers to get wrapped up in. It reminds me of FOX's box office train of 90 minute, PG-13 films that were all cut to ribbons and by the time people saw them, they didn't make any sense, but they made money. If ever he were allowed to make a sequel to this (which I highly doubt) or to do another effects heavy film I offer up these thoughts... 1: if you subscribe to making an action film, don't puss out and NOT make one. 2: films can be and often should be longer than an hour and a half. 3: Fucking pay attention during casting sessions! And furthermore fire the fuck out of Peltz and Rathbone or send them on a weekend with Tom Hardy, Daniel Day-Lewis and Viola Davis. If they don't know how to act after hanging with them, then there's no hope for their careers. 4: Hire a writing buddy or someone to check what you're writing and make sure it doesn't involve people repeating the same lines over and over and over again. 5: I hear there are deleted scenes... GOOD. For the DVD Michael Mann the fuck outta your movie and throw it all in! Got different takes of some of the acting? PERFECT, put that in too. Any thing you can do to fix this is a good call.

So really that's all I have to say on the matter of "The Last Airbender". Admittedly even with a misstep with "Lady in the Water", I found it an interesting one. Honestly I like the guy because he does have a style that's all his own and isn't interested in compromising it in this day and age where a lot of movies look the identical. At the same time maybe it's time he really analyzes that style and figures that there is a way to still utilize it, but in a better way that's more in tune with what people want to watch in general and what people want to watch from him. Regardless of what people say I think he's still got some good stories in him, but God help him if he can't tell them better than this.

Toy Story 3 review

I've waited since Thursday night to write this up. It's taken so long simply because I wasn't FULLY sure how I felt about the film. Granted to did really like it, in fact if anyone didn't like it then I'd think they lacked a heart. However I wasn't 100% sure how I felt about the film as a whole. I looked at different pieces as something all their own, but the big picture wasn't quite visible to me. After much thought and re-watching key sequences (including the ending with nearly "Terminator 2" level intensity) I've concluded that this is A: the best film of the summer thus far, B: one of the best films of the year and C: the best film in the trilogy.

As for the Pixar lineup I'd say it's somewhere under "Wall-E" and "The Incredibles". On a technically level this is beautiful and from a storytelling perspective it's smart, somewhat tipsy in the middle but has a final act packed with intensity and emotion. You all know the story, Andy getting ready to head off to college and his toy's getting donated to Sunnyside Daycare only to discover that their new home isn't as friendly as they thought. So the crew must go all 'Great Escape' on these goons and get back home. However it won't be easy. Woody's dead set on everyone simply returning home and being there for Andy no matter what, whereas Buzz and the others truly believe that it's time to move on and have new owners. These differing mind sets is where 90% of the emotion with the rest coming from that last bit of hardcore peril the toys must face.

We gets lots of great new characters including Ken and Barbie, the evil Lotso and the creepy Big Baby. Despite it's G-rating 'Toy Story 3' plays in the darker side of things quite a bit. Sure there's that frolicking good, bright fun we see in all their films, but there's also a heavy amount of darker toned sequences, jokes and general style. Those things really make the film stand out and adds something fresh.

It's funny seeing how fantastic a picture "Toy Story 3" is compared to the dozens of animated films that have come out this year already and were simply cookie cutter tales with rehashed jokes that don't work. Here is a well written conclusion to a story began in 1995, that's still funny and charming and witty. Here's a film that doesn't need bottom feeder jokes to get you laughing. Really there's not a lot else to say about "Toy Story 3". I was surprised at how good it was and how strong it gets, but not surprised that Pixar could pull off something this impressive for their only real franchise piece. I can't swear that we'll NEVER see Woody or Andy again. I don't really think it's something necessary, but I wouldn't be against it either. Let's just say out of everything in theaters now THIS is the best you can see.

The A-Team review

It almost seems like with each review this summer I've had to pretty much sum how things ain't how they used to be. I've pondered over this thought quite a bit; is it the fact that I've gotten older and seen other things and have outgrown the popcorn and mindless summer films? Has the elitist side of me take over and I'm now forced to look at these movies with an up-turned snout or perhaps elitist views of others that have rubbed off on me? The very nature of why to go the these films has started to plague over the past month due to... really just a lot of pretty unimpressive works.
Overall I liked but forgot "Iron Man 2". Ridley Scott's "Robin Hood" was nice spectacle, but still a B-Scott film. "Get Him to the Greek" was a fun enough ride and then there's the careful-who-you-tell-you-like "Splice" ;which has divided viewers and placed them in the love it or hate zones. Pretty much everything else has been crap.

I guess these times occur. I remember a few years back during Oscar season critics and audiences could easily say that a lot of the films had great performances (like Philip Seymour Hoffman in "Capote"), but the movies weren't really as good (also like "Capote"). However here and there are sprinkled films that remind you of why these times of the year is supposed to be great for movies; whether it's for fun or for acclaim. While I'll say 'The A-Team' isn't greatness, I will say that it is a subtle reminder and example of why the summer season is fun. TV to movie adaptations can be rough. There's that fan basis you have to attract who want fucking everything from the show top to bottom on the screen and for some reason feel that it's owed to them. Then there's casting, finding a story that works well enough for a movie NOT an extended episode of the show and finally getting somebody behind the camera that can bring the baby home. For my money the best two are still Andrew Davis' "The Fugitive" and Brian DePalma's "Mission:Impossible". Both got it right and both work well still.

For FOX the wanted to gather themselves a damn good team to make work a four year running show that was influential, the butt of many jokes and relished in it's ridiculousness. Personally I'm a moderate fan of the show. I used to watch the re-runs on TNN (now Spike TV) and after a long while of never understanding why people liked it, it hooked me in. Mainly Murdock... but it hooked me. Here they update the whole pack and deliver jokes that work, characters that are quite like that of the series and equally fun to watch and action sequences that... are absurd but in that kind of "that was pretty fucking cool and extremely unrealistic" way. Liam Neeson's Hannibal has charm and is always fun to see play around in this type of film. While I wasn't a lover 'Taken', I do have to say it's reinvented his career in a great way. Bradley Cooper's Faceman is pretty spot on. Cooper's a funny guy and I do remember seeing him a few movies pre-'The Hangover' that really dug him in, so it's cool seeing his expansion into this genre. "District 9" star Sharlto Copley never quite over plays Murdock. He hits the right notes that play into his humor and insanity and keep you wanting more. And finally UFC fighter Quinton 'Rampage' Jackson. Not bad for a first film. Granted this isn't 'Hamlet', but he still did a more that passable job of playing B.A. Baracus and not trying to copy Mr. T. Patrick Wilson is also here playing a nasty and quirky CIA man and Jessica Biel as a former lover interest of Faceman's and the person in charge of finding them all after they escape custody.

Co-writer and director Joe Carnahan ('Smokin' Aces' and 'Narc') works hard to make it much more of a character piece (like with his previous films) rather than as a simple and straight shooting action movie. That said there is no shortage of over the tip-top action sequences and it gets pretty damn ridiculous in that big final act. I'd have loved to have seen some of the big and ridiculous scenes done CGI-less, however I'm fully aware that attempting to fly a tank doesn't work too well in real life. Seriously though there is some less than lovely CGI pieces coupled with the really nice looking ones and they practical effects work (which there's a lot of). I do wish that was more evened out. But never know could be something to work on for a sequel.

"The A-Team" is probably the single most entertaining action film of the summer thus far and that's what this season is about. (RANT ALERT) I've honestly hit a boiling point where I've lost all tolerance for the elitist film pushers. Yeah... I'm fucking balling my eyes out that's I'm not renting your fucking Fellini or Goddard films. And yes I'm well aware (probably more so than you) of what foreign films are coming to America and why I should see them. Guess what... just because it's from another goddamn country DOESN'T MAKE IT GOOD! And pardon me all to hell if I wanna watch something with less substance from time to time. I'm fucking sorry you're pissed that people like "Avatar"; guess what I'm pissed that people think "Cold Mountain" is a good movie and that Renee Zellweger deserved her Oscar for it! I'm pissed that people seem to think Jonnie To is the next John Woo and I'm pissed that most Criterion DVD are hard to find and really fucking expensive. I'm pissed that people actually think that Vincent Gallo is an artist instead of the dirty, pretentious, tactless prick he is. But by no means bombard me with your sophomoric peddling of older films that you know you're supposed to like and thus you do even if you don't understand it. It doesn't impress me, it just pisses me off because if there's one thing I hate (hahahaha... like there's only one thing...) it's elitists film pushers. (RANT ended)

So... hmmmm... I was talking about something... oh yeah "The A-Team"! If you like fun, mindless movies that don't attempt to do anything other than allow you have a good time and say fuck off to 90 degree weather, than this is it.

Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time review

I remember when I was first getting hardcore into movies one of the first names I learned was that of producer Jerry Bruckheimer. I've probably mentioned this in past reviews, but I wasn't someone who began to love film via French new wave, the works of Goddard and even smaller power pieces by modern auteurs like Soderbergh. I enjoyed spectacle and things that were exciting to the eye and at least mostly tolerable to the mind.

I feel a bit sad every time I see his name placed on yet another half assed police show or another family geared, mild adventure movie. I remember the days of "Crimson Tide", "The Rock", "Con Air", "Armageddon", "Bad Boys" and "Enemy of the State". Days when he really pulled out all the stops and had hella stylish and original (or at least fairly original) fun with the films he presented. After the mega success of the "Pirates of the Caribbean" films he's chosen to stick with these types of movies (or lower like fucking "G-Force"). Not that I'm a hater of PoTC, but it's not something that has the same glorious excitement as his older work.

Now this is his first video game based property and something that... well... COULD'VE been fun enough to watch; although I've liked NONE of the games older or newer for this, but I see how in film form it could be ok. Instead "Prince of Persia" is a bland bowl of ice cream that's poppy and watchable, but not in the slightest bit memorable or unique or all that fun honestly. I will say that in true Bruckheimer fashion he casts against the usual grain and goes with his proven and usually pretty cool formula. See he picks two fairly un-proven for the genre leads with a film like this. Usually people with good or even great track records and then surrounds them with vets that have done everything under the sun. So we get Jake Gyllenhaal as Daston and Gemma Arterton as Princess Tamina and they're placed along side Sir Ben Kingsley in villain form as usual and Alfred Molina as the comic relief.

They all sell their roles as best they can in this. Gyllenhaal isn't a proven action hero, but he is a proven actor that has a lot of range. Arterton is literally what prompted me to want to see this as I loved her (or loved looking at her) in "Clash of the Titans" and remember her quite well from "RockNRolla" and "Quantum of Solace". Both are really allowed to have fun and play around with their characters, but it's all done in that classical romantic adventure sort of way which is generic and sort of cheesy at times. Which is what people wanted "Robin Hood" to be like. They have chemistry as well and that goes a long way towards making their conversations less cheesy and distracting. The major problems lay with the directing choice and the story they went with. Granted this is based on a video game and this is the first in that version of the series of games, but it's presented in a kind of boring ass way.

Basically the dagger has magic sand in it and it can turn back time and Kingsley and the other bad guys want to get their hands on it. Most of the movie however is a desert trek that's... well... boring? Nah, I'll just say dull; after all there was ostrich racing! Nothing wrong with a little bit of that. (Fingers crossed this leads to Bruckheimer producing a live action version of "Joust") The problem is the fight scenes which are... seemingly well blocked off, are shot with about a billion close up cuts that greatly kills what fun could be in there. Director Mike Newell who did make by favorite Harry Potter film, just doesn't seem cut out for this sort of action setting honestly. The fighting is very much designed around parkour which as we've seen before can be pretty damn cool... but if it's done through 10000000 quick shots, then it's boring. Can I say that Pierre Morell, Martin Campbell or even "District B13: Ultimatum" director Patrick Alessandrin could have been better suited for this job? Yep! And that even with a dull-ish story it might have still been alright.

But alas we end up with another very run-of-the-mill action adventure picture that is better than most video game movies, but still doesn't work anywhere near enough to be called good. At the least people can see that Gyllenhaal is someone who wants to extend his range into more action fair and I think given all the work he put in it will pay off. Arterton is a strong actress that deserves stronger female roles and God willing that will happen for her too. Who knows maybe they'll even be used again in a film worthy of both their talents and looks.

Robin Hood review

Walking into "Robin Hood" this evening I stepped with heavy doubts. Simply put I read bashing after bashing of the film and with them pretty much saying the same things about it both things that were good and things that weren't. After the 148 minutes of crashing, bashing, slashing and galloping I could see why people weren't so loving of Ridley Scott's new epic vision of the birth of a legend however I wasn't one of those people. Granted I can't say I love "Robin Hood", but it was an entertaining and well made adventurous battle movie. And that right there is why it's getting handled this way critically. Is this really a Robin Hood picture as we know it? No. It's maybe... 30% a Robin Hood story. Traditionally Robin Hood films are high, frolicking adventure tales of nobility, honor, friendship and love. Robin is a quirky sort of man that loves causing trouble for those who abuse their authority and harm the good english people for personal profit. He vies for the love of Maid Marian and loves the adventures he has with his merry men. By the way I'm not saying this as some back-handed insult, I think that stuff's great and really feel like there are so few adventure tales told in todays cinema, because not as many people are interested or it's simply done in a very watered down, highly commercialized way as to never stick out too much.

Ridley Scott's "Robin Hood" is about the birth of who that character COULD become given another film or what not. So instead of high adventures and swashbuckling, it's waring, ravaged lands, people being burning alive in houses, grit, grime, crime, corruption and betrayal. On second thought maybe I do kinda love it. The thing of it is (and I REALLY do get this) is that most critics (or at least the ones I read) have a certain expectation of the character and story due to be accompanied with this stuff and as you can see this ain't what's expected. This is a battle movie that at times attempts to bring about the concept of high adventure, but it's never frolicking, it's still brooding. And a heavy thanks to that goes to Russell Crowe, king of the brooding actors. But that's not to say some fun is had here and there. Once in a while he interacts quirky and freely with his men as does he with Marian played by Cate Blanchett. The moments are far between but there are little kick back and relax moments that occur when there is no fighting to be done.

Really the story is about the death of King Richard the Lion Heart, played by Danny Huston and the crowning of the tyrannical and oppressive King John the lying dick wad played by Oscar Isaac. John doesn't really give a damn about the people, just about money and power. Mark Strong plays Godfrey who is secretly working for the French and is bringing them into England to try and take over while Richard and his troops are still at war. Robin and his men fought with their king till his death in which they fled and aimed to get home rich. Well long story short shit gets poppin' and things don't go the way they're planned and now Robin, Marian and the merry men gotta go get badassed up and roll on these jive suckas. Again if you're a lover of the legend, not your cup of tea, however I'm not so in my book that's a simple case of bring on the mayhem. And it's Scott at his best bringing a stylish and grim eye to the battlefields that's still impressive even after seeing his proof that he's the best at this several times before.

Personally when it comes to the stories of Robin Hood I've never been a huge fan. I don't think I find them boring, I just don't find them too interesting. On film I've seen Flynn as Robin (cool, but I preferred 'The Count of Monte Cristo'), Kevin Costner (nice cast, boring as shit movie), Mel Brooks' 'Robin Hood Men in Tights' (which is fairly funny, until compared with other Brooks films in which it doesn't hold a candle) and then Disney's. That last one's probably my favorite and even then I wasn't a grand lover. Oh and that crappy TV show. So for me it's like going in with a blank slate and just hoping to, at the very least be entertained. As a Ridley Scott fan I'll say that visually it's quite a notch in the belt. I wasn't so sure from some of the trailers, but it appears that he went to great lengths to not show case the same landscapes we've been seeing since 'The Lord of the Rings' while also digging back into his stylistic past to present a much more interesting looking color palate. I will say it's biggest flaw is Brian Helgaland's screenplay which is pretty point blank and lacks much of the complicated depth we get in most of Ridley's pictures. It's not one dimensional story by any means, but considering both of their last couple films I would've expected something much more complex than this.

At the end I can say it was a good ride and one of the more rich looking and flowing summer films I've seen thus far. It's not a perfect film either for it's genre or Ridley Scott, but it's like B-Ridley Scott. You know like "Black Rain", "Legend" or "The Duelist". I'd also think it might treat people differently by knowing what kind of picture it is before hand rather than thinking it'll be like all the other Robin Hood films of the past fifty years. It's not that and really it's not a re-tread of "Gladiator" either (still not a big fan of that one by the way), it's more like grim adventure on an epic scale. Now if down the line things worked out and an idea for a sequel made on the concept of the stories we all know, but using this film as the foundation; that would be something interesting to see. I imagine it'd be dark yet still thriving with frolicking adventure. Best of both worlds I think.

Shrek Forever After review

Is "Shrek Forever After" aka The Final Chapter the grand send off for the major animated franchise of the past decade? I'm hoping it is. While this newest installment is nowhere as bleeding tear boring as "Shrek the Third", it still doesn't live up to the glowing originality, humor, wit and intelligence of the first two. This time around the basic construct of Shrek is that of 'It's a Wonderful Life' where Shrek is never born after he gets all bitchy for not feeling like a 'real ogre' anymore. The subtle point at the end being that parenthood ain't easy, but always be thankful for what you've got.

So he signs a contract with Rumpelstiltskin who in turn plays the trading game where Shrek will get his one day of being a feared ogre again for a day he doesn't remember, that ended up being his birth. Awwwww snap, the playa got played! This then takes us down remake road where Shrek has to do basically the same things he did in the first film just with less death and depth. The only way to break the contract is for true loves kiss so he has to find the now warrior queen Fiona and get her to fall in love with him again and along with way re-friend the loud mouthed and only slightly humorous Donkey and the now retired and overweight Puss who isn't bringing in the laughs either, but he's doing a better job than the others. Oh and he has to defeat a small man with a big ego. Ah memories.

Ok, but seriously I don't hate this film. In fact I don't really dislike it, but it doesn't do anything for me. "Shrek Forever After" is 100% forgettable. Like "The Rocker"! You watch it, you shrug it off then you eat and go about the rest of your day. Nothing in this film is funny, but nothing is so blatantly unfunny as to make me hate it. Thus I'm not having to re-watch "How to Train Your Dragon" which is a film that I STILL go over and think of just how annoying and headache inducing those terrible jokes were and how tired I am of the overly cartoony and uninspired designs being used in a lot of these movies. Oh and don't get me started on Baruchel's fucking voice. Instead this final chapter plays is safe and does things that work to move along the fairly weak little story while not carrying on too long or throwing in too much.

I will say that the multitude of pop culture song uses have worn out their welcome and at this point it's like watching an episode of "Cold Case" and seeing what oldie they've got headlining this weeks episode. So what comes next in the animated world? I have zero interest in Universal's "Despicable Me", which MIGHT have been just a mediocre idea until they decided to turn it into complete junk by giving him kids to take care of. There's "Toy Story 3" of course which will probably be alright as most Pixar movies are, but I doubt it'll send us forward in anyway. And then to round out the ones being pushed now and that HAVE a chance to be something (that's right "Alpha and Omega", you look like shit, sound like shit and probably are shit) is "Megamind" which is basically a lot like the plot of "Despicable Me", but without kids and with a better cast including Brad Pitt. In anycase I don't feel like any of these will recapture that special something the first "Shrek" had. That certain kick that the animation world needed where they didn't think kids just wanted pop culture references and silly jokes, but that they could understand at least some form of satire and parody.

Clash of the Titans review

Between my second grade love of dinosaurs and my fourth grade interest into the paranormal, there was my third grade love and interest in Greek mythology. I vaguely remember the story and characters both this and the original film are based off of, but not enough to toss around facts and what not. But I will say that just about everything in Greek mythology is pretty damn interesting and in the right hands can be made into a working and exciting film. The original "Clash of the Titans" was filled with Ray Harryhousen monster creatures and wall to wall royal British performers. In addition to that it was one of those high adventure, glory to all fantasy pictures that worked well then and still kind of does today. Now to Warner Brothers "Clash of the Titans" of 2010 we have a might of a mixed bag.

At issue is primarily the reason in which our hero Perseus (Sam Worthington) goes on the quest. I'm more than willing to put aside my notions of Greek mythology and familiarity with the original film for whatever said reason is, and in this case it's revenge for killing his foster family at sea. Ok, that works, hell the one thing about those "God of War" games I do enjoy is the story of the man who seeks to kill the Gods for what they've done to him. However here the tone and the idea behind it seems to twist in the wind and often change making some key plot points questionable and really killing the emotion of things. The tone is another bother throughout the film; advertised as a pre-summer action blockbuster that gives us a fantasy world style closer to Peter Jackson's Middle Earth, making it a dark, muddy and war-torn world; whereas what we get is a mixture of that and that high adventure of the original movie. Sometimes it's a noticeable thing and sometimes it eases on by, it all depends on what happening.

Yet with these flaws I did still have a good time watching "Clash of the Titans". The enjoyed almost all the set designs, costumes, weapons and CGI design. It was great seeing Ralph Finnes and Liam Neeson as Zeus and Hades and the look of the God's suits of armor was different and a pleasing bit of creativity. The action sequences for the most part work well, sans this bizarre timing issue in which it seems like as the movie progresses the battles are shorter, but well blocked. For example the giant scorpion sequence feels like a good fifth-teen minute bout, where as Medusa and the Kraken breeze through pretty quickly. Director Louis Leterrier is no stranger to heavy action pictures by the way, cutting his teeth under the french Jerry Bruckheimer, Luc Besson. Leterrier directed "Transporter 2" (my favorite of the series), "Unleashed" (my favorite Jet Li martial arts film) and the one that brought him up in the world, Marvel and Universal's reloading of "The Incredible Hulk". His work on the Hulk shines through for being one of Marvel's best movies, jumping into that comic world of the Hulk and bringing in the love that people had for the book and the tv show and making fit together better than Ang Lee, while not making it just an action picture. Furthermore he had a great cast, didn't misuse or miss a chance to let they strut their stuff in a big budget movie and had some fantastic action sequences. In my mind his 'Hulk' picture was miles better than the heavy handed and often dull "Iron Man".

But even with that under his belt some of his look and feel are missing from 'Clash...' and instead is aimed at presenting a faster paced action film without caring as much for what's going on with the characters. Even in "Transporter 2" a great deal of time is spent with the family of the kidnapped son and seeing Franks connection with the boy so that it all means something more than bullets flying and cars crashing. Some of these work well and some are like I said earlier, ended too soon. But in the end it feels like a better version of Stephen Sommers' "The Jungle Book". In fact that's the best movie comparison I have for this (barring animals throwing things at one another and all that jazz). There's some nice work here, but it doesn't hit any homeruns or go that extra mile to become more. Worthington as a hero I think does better with "Avatar" than this simply because he's a fairly hollow character here, which might be why the tone shifts around so much. Gemma Arterton sells herself well and actually managed to make me look forward to "Prince of Persia". She has that perfect observant voice and a look that's both beautiful, but more realistic looking than Hollywood looking. But the badass award really should go to Mads Mikkelsen, who plays Draco the leader of the small band of soldiers aiding Perseus. Time after time he delivers impressive combat skills in the action sequences and plays a better version of that tough as nails, but ya love em' character.

"Clash of the Titans" is not really what this film is, but more or less an easy way to capitalize on the name and give a slightly twisted up version of that story. One that's fun enough of a mixed bag that agrees with me. Not unlike my feelings towards the last two Harry Potter. This is adventure in it's purest form so it's flaws can be... tolerated slightly more, however I'd have loved to completely dig into the film and run with it all the way. But perhaps with this succeeding it will open the doors to more Greek themed adventure flicks that I can completely love.

How to Train Your Dragon review

I decided last night to wait on writing this review simply because... I was hot piss angry about it. Which I shouldn't be given that it's a kids film I went into with low expectations, however it was blending in to the blob of family junk food movies that we're hit with dozens of times a year that are filled with dated pop culture comments, tasteless jokes, overly cartoonish design and worst of all monsters with no spine. But I thought it over really hard and realized I shouldn't take out my frustrations on this single picture and instead need to just focus on it's flaws and successes and nothing else. SO let's do that!

"How to Train Your Dragon" is a tailor made movie for kids in that 7 to 12 year old range that just like seeing movies with jokes and action and damn the rest; and for their parents who either never had too good of cinematic taste to begin with or who have been mentally brought down to the level of their child and think this junk works. Easily this is out of my demographic, but hell I enjoyed "Kung-Fu Panda" and "Monster House" and those were out of my demographic, so really that shouldn't matter too much. The problem here is it's pure old junk food, with nothing added to make it taste better. All the vikings have 'funny' names like Hiccup and Stoick and live in a very viking world of screaming violently and running around trying to kill things. I'm not saying vikings didn't do that, but there pretty much one big, bearded stereotype in the movie. Jay Baruchel voices our dweebish hero Hiccup with his dweebish fucking voice which works well... if he wasn't a main character and thus didn't have to hear him so often. This is something that worked for him in "Tropic Thunder".

Hiccup wants to be a viking, but instead is a loser that disappoints his father (voiced by Gerard Butler) on a regular basis and causes much chaos in the village. OK now let's get good ole' Toothless the 'dragon' with is really just a mixture of a cat and a newt with wings. They attempt to make that dragon as cute... scratch that they attempt to make every dragon as cute as possible while still trying to make things as adventurous as possible. That concept kind of works in the final act which is strangely filled with better looking and moving imagery, but nothing amazing or awe inspiring. A cute winged cat-newt and an ugly six eyed, winged version of Roland Emmerich's Godzilla going head to head in dark clouds; not quite cool, but not lame either. Sadly that's the only sequence I can get behind.

I notice that a lot of people aren't so hard on judging animated kids movies and that right there could be the problem. If creators know that now matter what they do as long as it has a mild story and moral and some action or comedy, then they're looking at mega money and at least decent reviews. And maybe I wouldn't be so feeling so bad after watching this movie if there were more animated movies or just kids movies in general with balls now-a-days. If we could have a family adventure picture come out that could give kids something fresh and interesting to look at and think about. Something that might scare them a bit or confuse them some, but damned if it won't stick with em' so they remember that and want to re-watch it when they're older to see if it still has that effect. Oh wait we did have that last year. One was called "Avatar" and was quickly trumped up into an awards film and hated on to a high level because of that and the other was called "Fantastic Mr. Fox"... show of hands, who saw that last movie? *crickets* I see...

Perhaps crap like "How to Train Your Dragon", "Monsters vs. Aliens" and upcoming crap like "Sherk Forever After" and "Despicable Me" is what parents, kids and I guess everybody else wants to see. On the one hand they get the big bucks and nobody yells out that it's ripped off from something else or it's too long or weird or has a bad message and all that. It appears that audiences don't care as long as they're content with what it is and nothing more. But on the other hand this has got me all depressed for the future of cinema and shit because then most of the impressive stuff goes unseen and mediocrity reigns. But until producers or audiences wake up, some of us will have to await in silence for animated films NOT made for kids (like the Fincher, Eastman, Cameron, Verbinski, Snyder etc collaboration of "Heavy Metal") or just any kids picture that's not dumbed down as far as possible (basically most non-U.S. made kids films that reach our country. Or things from Pixar... sometimes.)

Alice in Wonderland review

Here's a list of everything I thought while watching Tim Burton's "Alice in Wonderland".
1. I wish I could get them to replay that amazing "Tron Legacy" trailer.
2. I've got a feeling I know where this film is going...
3. Is it too late to get into "Avatar"?
4. I wonder how would this have been if Terry Gilliam or Sam Raimi or Guillermo Del Toro or Alex Proyas made this instead?
5. Why is Johnny Depp dressed up like a gay Ronald McDonald with a Scottish accent?
6. I'm digging the voice combo of Michael Sheen, Alan Rickman and Stephen Fry. I wish every movie had those three in it together.
7. Wow, forty damn minutes before Anne Hathaway is on screen... lame.
8. This is some lackluster 3D.
9. I really want something to eat. I should've taken care of that at home while watching "Cold Case Files".
10. I really want to see that "Tron" trailer again.
11. The is an awful screenplay...
12-29. (General white noise while trying to like the movie)
30. Wow... this is perhaps as bad as "Corpse Bride".

That's really all of it in a nutshell. "Alice in Wonderland" is boring, drab, long, poorly written, disappointingly directed by Burton and with that 3D price tag slapped on, a rip off. And it's sad because of all the fantasy filmmakers out there Burton would be at the top of anyones list for something involving this story, but with his vision clouded with tons of cartoonish CGI, a story that straight outta Narnia and creatures that look like they were designed for Crash Banidcoot games in the late 90's... well... his vision sucks.

I'll begin with our Alice, young Mia Wasikowska who moves about wonderland... or underland I think some call it, as if she was moving through a video game the whole time. Her mono toned voice through the film and fairly dull characterization leaves much to be desired in ever caring about what happens to her. Johnny Depp's Mad Hatter is simply annoying and stupid. He's an eyesore. He's Shaun White in pancake makeup serving tea instead of selling shitty video games with his name on them. Helena Bonham Carter's Red Queen is actually... well... pretty good. As much as I hated the giant head deal, I think she did a fine job playing her and made her lamest lines work really well. Also some of the CGi animation looks pretty nice in the finished product, but the 3D is has pronounced as it was in "Bolt".

The journey through Wonderland also concludes in a very Super Nintendo like way, where the main character finally fights something huge and ridiculous, it's defeated by a series of simple, yet effective moves and you are treated for a fucking stupid song and dance finale with the Mad Hatter. Speaking of which... did we really did an action sequence with the lighting of "The Lord of the Rings", but the action of "Journey to the Center of the Earth"? If Burton and company's plan was to make me want to go back and watch better fantasy films like "Pan's Labyrinth" or "The Imaginaruim of Dr. Parnassus" then mission accomplished.

And this isn't coming from some I hate Tim Burton thing. I think he's ok. He's made many films I don't like ("Corpse Bride", "The Nightmare Before Christmas", "Edward Scissorhands"), he's made films I love ("Ed Wood", "Sleepy Hollow", "Sweeny Todd") and many in the middle ("Mars Attacks!", "Planet of the Apes", "Batman"). However I do not think he's some unbeatable, champion filmmaker. This being a good example of why I feel he's not that. I think he needs to swing back into his old roots and try making something with less CGI crap and do things old school. Then it seemed like his work looked and moved better, you know. You had characters that were interesting and not just wild eyed crazies throwing things about. Rumor has it he's going to make "Return of Sleeping Beauty" or something of that nature. I'm not sure what to think, but perhaps he should stay away from kiddie flicks for a while. At least long enough that he can remember what telling a story means and making visually interesting films, not candy coated needles for the eyes.