Change Your Image
MisterMxyzptlk
What makes us men is that we can think logically. What makes us human is that we sometimes choose not to
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Man of Steel (2013)
Man of Steel
As a fan all my life, I was highly anticipating this film from the start. Superman is certainly a polarizing figure in his own right and within the last 30 odd years we have encapsulated him and have been confused as to what we do with him. The 78 Donner film, seems to have encased this mythos to a point the character has been stuck in a time lapse. Zack Snyder's re imagining is the beginning of making large cracks in the glass that surrounds him. This film is ballsy. It's large and an epic in every sense of the word. It is humorless and quite heavy, to agree with the criticism. But it's also the most emotional and spiritual of the mythos thus far. Not a perfect film, as it does plod along on large plot exposition in the 3rd act. The fight scenes become comparable to a Bugs Bunny Daffy Duck fight with no real emotional investment, but Snyder plays with us to reveal that these fights serve a purpose for a finality to a Superman battle that might again create some controversy. I for applaud it and applaud Snyder for making a larger stand on what it really means for Superman to be the world's savior and moral compass. It comes at a cost and reduces Clark to understand the power of being human. Isn't that really what a Superman is?
Captain America: The First Avenger (2011)
America, F*@K Yeah!
Captain America is one of the noblest of characters. With the most recent flooding of superhero films for what has seemed like a decades worth, what we get this time around from Marvel is nothing short of...pleasurable. Which might seem like faint praise for those who want to analyze the term pleasurable when referring to a superhero of his stature. Like a visit to a great aunt's house. A late night snack while watching an old western. Pleasurable has it's place. And this First Avenger has definitely found his.
In fact good ol' Steve Rogers is so gosh darn pleasurable, that he in fact is quite... colorless. Sure the cannon fodder outfit is a solid costume. But when you start holding the mirror up to the Captain is when we start to see cracks. One could be quite confused as to what exactly the scope of his powers are. We aren't really introduced into his capabilities or where he actually stands morally. We are told he is good. What that means and how far that actually gets investigated is of no importance I guess. What I'm suggesting is that while Evans does his best Norman Rockwell painting impersonation, he just doesn't over ride us with charisma. He is just good. Good at looking good, good at fighting and just all around a good guy. There is no depth here. No conflict. The contrast between a man like Tony Stark played by Robert Downey Jr and Chris Evans is night and day. And yes, Captain America is supposed to be banal. But surely the serum can tap into the small part of his brain to crack a joke, a smile or even flirt properly. Joe Johnston has flirted a little more successfully in this genre, with a very toned down Rocketeer and a wonderful character film in October Sky. But action is not where Johnston shines. I felt cramped watching most of the action play out. It felt busy but underwhelming. I almost hoped the action wasn't so generic because as I left the theatre I was more confused to what exactly Captain could and couldn't do with his new found powers. He can run fast, I gathered. But how fast? He can jump, but how high? Where does the limits of his strength run? So far this all probably sounds highly negative. I assure you it's not. It's a solid base hit for the likes of Marvel films who have really let me down more than they have succeeded over the course of their blockbuster onslaught. While the film plays on the kooky levels of an old 1940's serial with large organizations, spies and laser guns, it does so with at least a solid vision as to what tone they were aiming for. Something DC failed with Green Lantern. The supporting cast add much more richness to the characters and storyline, and that helps Evans at least keep his noble nature in check. Captain America's strength is the 1940's back drop and while I can't see a second film centre specifically on Cappy himself, it's a solid move to surround the Marvel boy scout with a more interesting cast in The Avengers. And that's pleasurable enough.
Green Lantern (2011)
There is nothing to fear, but an over bloated price tag that doesn't deliver.
Green Lantern is quite like no other comic book film I have seen to date. This is perhaps the good and the bad of that notion. Beckoned finally by the powers that be, a special human is selected by a large corp, because they believe he holds leverage over all the others to bring something special to all man kind. If you think I'm referring to the general plot line, I was more steering this towards how Ryan Reynolds garnered the job. Reynolds simply isn't a hero. Not in a traditional sense, and while maybe Hal Jordan isn't the traditional hero, Reynolds simply doesn't have the gravitas to deliver. He can win me over with a few small scenes, but Hal Jordan is destined to carry the weight of the the large responsibility. I think Dennis Quaid. Now this isn't to suggest that the part should have gone to Quaid (but hell, how sweet would that film be?) but we have to believe that there is a possibility that a "Quaid" lives dormant for the time being in this Hal Jordan body. What we get is more akin to Randy Quaid. Reynolds is the interchangeable actor. You can simply replace him with countless body types and get the same film. Bradley Cooper or Paul Walker come to mind. There are some scenes that stirred emotion in me and I started to see the potential in what this film had, but all this led to more depression because I was more aware of what Martin Campbell missed. The more he showcased these small moments the more frustrating it got when he didn't stay with it. This was DC's first attempt at a franchise outside of the two powerhouses of the last 30 years, and it comes at us like Daredevil or Fantastic Four did for Marvel. Ouch. The dialogue is messy and stilted. There isn't anything memorable here and given the writing credits, you'd think Berlanti would at least push for some of his signature human emotionfest he was known for to make an appearance. The film clunks forward for the first 45 minutes and not until Randy Qua-er, Ryan Quai- ... Reynolds is literally out of this world does the story lift us and the possibility up. Campbell wasn't capable here, the 3-D is useless like always and at the end of the day, the tone of story simply isn't sweeping. Not even a proper theme. Lesson #345 of the superhero genre, you need a theme. Period. Fear is what the film focused on. I'm afraid it failed.
Inception (2010)
Blows the mind.
Christopher Nolan's newest mind game, turned blockbuster, turned art-house shows that Nolan is the real deal. A master at his craft and a firecracker of a writer. Here's a story so deep, emotional and down right confusing, for me to reveal any or most of the tricks would simply baffle me and confuse you. Nolan's cerebral outing is compelling and visually challenging than anything out in the last several years. His ability to construct this world with as much depth and passion still play to the highly entertaining crowd as a Blockbuster hidden in the rough is remarkable. A captivating film, with wonderful and careful cinematography and cast, designed for their talent and not a distraction.
The Incredibles (2004)
Super, human.
This is a very enjoyable movie, with a lot of smart and interesting twists to the superhero genre. however it feels like two separate movies. The first half is more serious and is like a cross between a superhero spoof and the idea of a superhero taken as reality. The problem comes when the movie switches from being something that questioned the genre and made it more real to something that no longer takes its characters seriously. By the end this is just a ride movie, not an action movie with consistent character development and a point that people could walk away with. now, i'm not talking about a sound-byte "Message" that was missing, because something like that actually was there, it was just betrayed by the ending. The family of the incredibles became people with extraordinary powers rather than truly special or extraordinary people. *Spoiler* The lack of responsibility towards the villain that Mr. "incredible" showed disproves that he is anything other than a man with superhuman strength. He is not a hero. His ego had a part in creating the villain. syndrome had free will and choice to do what he did and it couldn't be called Mr incredible's fault, but Mr. incredible does kill him in a very cavalier manner with no attempt to capture or rehabilitate him, as a hero, incredible is supposed to be better in character than regular people. The film also treated the killing of syndrome as a joke, with that cape thing. on the one hand something like that can be considered funny in a cartoonish comic book setting but not in a world that is supposed to be taken seriously as the world of the incredibles had been set up to be. This movie had great potential and is still excellent in many respects, but it is not the great film that many critics and audiences seem to think it is.
Live Free or Die Hard (2007)
Die again and again.
Die Hard 4 .... welcome back to the somewhat classic action movie. From the technical perspective (audio dubbing, writing) it simply isn't that good. In fact, anyone (Bruce Willis himself) that claims this film isn't hindered by studio PG-13 rating is kidding themselves. The dialouge takes a serious hit because of it and I think this is one example where strong language is important and needed.
Kevin Smith slows the film down in his rather sloppy acting performance. And the film, doesn't really feel like a "Die Hard". But it should be noted that I disliked the third film of the series. Mainly for the obvious tacked on ending and the fact that it didn't put John in that "tight" spot. Here, in this fourth installment, the ending isn't tacked on but it's also not even thought out, either.
Call me a purist, but for me a villain has to "die hard". In the first outing, we got probably the best ending. The second, not too bad. The third film was el'stinkeroo, but this end..... Jesus titty fuckng Christ.
I think the writers here failed at bringing John full circle on this one journey. Consider this: After the run in with the F-18 and such, John should have understood that all emergency vehicles were lowjacked and one can pin point a location. Gabriel was driving a Hazmat truck and thus John had a chance at surprising the villain AND showing us that John has at least figured out how some technology works. So it didn't matter if John saw where the truck went. He just needed some tech support from a friend with a computer. Instead we are stuck with a rather lackluster scene where John simply turns his head and discovers the vehicles destination. That's just lazy.
Okay, those complaints out of the way... This was a fun film nonetheless. The actions scenes and putting John into one strange predicament after another works. It's over the top but in a good way. It's still a good film, but because of a PG-13 rating and problems mentioned, it falls a little flat.
Batman Begins (2005)
It begins
After two attempts by Tim Burton who dabbled in a German expressionistic Gotham and a Batman, "with his arm-chair "split right down the middle" psychology. And two other attempts by Joel Shumacher to add a teenage sidekick, nipples on latex and a Visa card with an expiry date that only Paris Hilton could love, we get Christopher Nolans interpretation.
I say interpretation, and I use that loosely in this case. But I will get back to that. Recalling how, in 1986, Frank Miller borough Bob Kane's Caped Crusader into contemporary America, the film centeres around that myth surrounding the character. Nolan and David S Goyer understand that Batman is probably the most complex, intriguing and darkest character of the DC universe, that in order to understand Batman, we must understand the man that has been consumed by him.
This is a film with very little "gloss", unlike the previous vrsions. It's gritty, in your face, creepy and real. The costumes, gadgets and vehicles come to surface honestly. Think of this as a slasher film for thugs. We watch several creep around in the alley ways, hearing anomalous sounds, only to see them suddenly disappear without a trace, and wonder if they were there in the first place.
To me, the real turn around is the relationships that we weren't privy to before. Nolan finally understands that there is a complex alliance in his butler Alfred. I mean, here's a guy who is employed by the Waynes, but has a paternal nurturing aspect to him. Can they both co exist? Should they?
We meet Jim Gordon, the one true clean cop in this crooked city, and Lucius Fox an agreeable Morgan Freeman who deserving of more screen time, plays the role with a glimmer of fun in his eye.
What works? The in-depth analysis of Bruce Wayne, it's over an hour before Batman even materializes. He's not just a guy in a latex mask, he's an arrogant,smug, self absorbed playboy billionaire who's been dead since they day his parents died. The Batman is not just Batman, it's the Dark Knight. He's cunning, unrelentless and unsure of himself.
The villains. These men actually are independent from one another. It used to be that Riddler simply was the Joker, the Joker was simply the Riddler,it was just the costumes helped us differentiate between them. All the villains were as manic and wild as the next one. Hot off the assembly line, they all engaged in the same practise. Spouting the same drivel and looney mannerisms. Here, there are no costumes, everyone has a separate agenda and a way to implement it.
What doesn't work? This is where the review gets more difficult. The biggest problem in the film is that there is no real problems in the film. Like it or lump it, Burton had a vision. I lumped it. This wasn't MY Gotham, but surely we all understand that a creator shouldn't sit on the laps of the fans, spouting what it is they exactly want to hear. There has to be room for play. After all, what good is a film that is literally ripped right from Millers Year One? Nolan is the most faithful to the Dark Knight, but he also didn't extend that idea neither.
Wally Pfister, the cinematographer. The fight scenes are a mess, too close for our own good and unable to see perhaps what kind of martial arts that Batman has acquired. One has argued that that level of closeness works on the POV of the villains he's beating. Keep the viewer as disoriented as they are. I don't bite.
The mob take down. I think this was where the story lied. It played nicely on the Phoenix theme, but Falcone, the underworld mob boss who controls most, if not all of Gotham, doesn't last a minute when Batman enters. These are all small elements as to what has gone wrong in most comic book films. I accept the fact that my vision of The Dark Knight will most likely never be achieved, so I can only focus on what has.
This film is faithful, careful and powerful. It's fun. Everyone played it like they should, grounded in reality. Everyone was believable, and if this is the stepping stone to perhaps a darker Batman, I think this wil be the one film that people remember in 20 years as the film that reintroduced Batman to contemporary America, like Miller did in 86.
BTW, we get to see Batman on the rooftop with Jim Gordon, actually talking and laying roots to a strong alliance. Something Burton never got.
Superman Returns (2006)
Superham
Singer has managed to create a film so uninspiring, unoriginal, undemanding and basically a complete rape of the mythos of this character, that one has to question as to whether or not Singer understood the ideals behind the hero as opposed to relying on the breathtaking imagery to pass the film. It's poorly paced and cut and I had to question at some moments if they simply forgot to splice scenes in before the curtain went up. There is a scene so confusing and cold, I wondered if Clark forgot that he was raised as a human. Consider this: He lands on earth, returns home to his frail mother who's been pining for him, they share a moment and the next scene has him walking through the doors of The Daily Planet. Imagine Martha's surprise when she goes to his room in the morning and found the bugger didn't even leave a forwarding address. This is a crucial aspect of the film and story and I'll explain in greater below. Martha is his only human, moral compass. It's his ties to the past. To wash over it is somewhat disingenuous. The actions scenes that do exist, while thrilling to witness, have no lead up. There is no awe- inspiring moment or second that ever gave me that goose bump moment. In the Donner version, we felt the march. That at the height of the cresendo, it wasn't just Reeve rocketing into the stratosphere, it was the audience. In this film, there is no build up to reintroduce us to the hero.Things get worse, when Singer unhinges all the ideals of Superman and makes him a creepy stalker; just eager for a shot on Dateline to show that he's the most challenging predator to catch yet. I'm not sure when Superman thought it was a good idea to float outside bedroom windows and using x-ray vision and super hearing, spy on the conversation between two people that he has no business spying on. NSA would be proud. These problems probably started around the same time he thought cock blocking, and penis measuring were still solid forms of chivalry. The talks are insipid, the don't move with natural punch and basically serve to get from A to B. Where is the wonderful charm that Lois and Clark shared high above her apartment, speaking of the color pink? It's dead and gone and we are left with Clark simply trying to horn in on a loving family. Wow, last son of Krypton AND a homewrecker. Singer has taken Superman into the 21st Century via Liberalism, and while that will please many, knowing that the most Conservative hero has finally bowed down to the pressures to get with the times, what we lose is more damaging. The very fact Singer hasn't learn that Superman doesn't reflect current speech patterns, ideals, style and time is forever lost on him and he killed the last true Boy Scouts. There are moments of absolute wonderment, Singer over supplies us with grandiose scenes. We get imagery of Christ and scenes from Action comics #1. We get a severe beating scene that even Sam Peckinpah would tip his hat towards. But then Singer doesn't let up and we gear up for another run in case the first one was lost on you. It's a shame Singer didn't just simply rely on the hero that has worked for all this time. Instead he tweaks something that needs no tweaking. The most crucial aspect as to why it didn't work is Singer forgot that, morally Superman isn't shallow. I'm not against him spying, if he acknowledges it's wrong. But he doesn't and he comes off like a creep. This is why the opening with Martha is soooo crucial. Because, it's his compass to better things. That when he does struggle with his morality, someone there is to guide him and ground him. Let's look at Donner's version again:
Jonathan Kent: (after Clark has beaten Brad's car to the Kent farmhouse by RUNNING!) Been showing off a bit, haven't you, son??
Young Clark Kent: ? Oh, I didn't mean to show off, Pop. It's just that well, guys like that Brad, I just wanna well, I know I shouldn't, but...
Jonathan Kent: I know. You can do all these amazing things, and sometimes you think that you will just GO BUST unless you can tell someone about it, don't you?? There's one thing I know for sure, son. And that is, YOU ARE HERE FOR A REASON. I don't know what it is, exactly, but I do know this much: it's NOT to score touchdowns.
Superman struggled, but here gets set straight. I also like a Superman who isn't perfect but what do these words mean if we don't put them to use: "They only lack the light to show the way. For this reason above all, their capacity for good, I have sent them you my only son"
Superman may stumble with morality, but how can he be a leader to the world if he himself does what anyone else would do? Remember, Superman isn't called Superman because of all the powers he has, it?s because what he chooses to do with those powers.
I Am Legend (2007)
Hear me roar
Two thirds of this film is wonderful entertainment, both in scope and story telling, and in Will Smith we have a cracking central performance that carries the film with consummate ease, sadly the final third undoes all the great promise and tension building that had gone before.
After a genetic engineered cancer curing virus wipes out practically all of mankind, Robert Neville {Will Smith} appears to be the sole surviving human on earth, the only company he has is the family dog and an army of virus infected mutants that can only come out in the dark. That Neville is a former scientist who is immune to the deadly strain is a bonus as it means he can work on a potential cure.
Yes it's daft, and yes it's contrived, but there sure is a lot of good stuff to enjoy before the films major failing surfaces. Firstly is Will Smith's performance, there is no doubting he is a major star these days, but here he cements his standing as a bona fide A lister of note. He layers the performance so well, his character not only has to deal with the heavy threat of being killed by the mutants at night, he also has to fight his own isolation, mans inherent need for companionship is a tortured thing when you appear to be the sole beneficiary of gods green earth.
Secondly the setting of a barren desolate New York is eerily staggering, overgrown with foliage and stalked by lions searching for food, it really is a big screen must to embrace the scope of it. Thirdly the mutants themselves are scary enough, but they honestly would of been better served being played by human actors rather than the CGI used admittedly to competent effect, and Fourthly the tension building is pitch perfect, the makers manage to have you on the edge of your seat gasping for a solution to this cracking story unfolding, but then...............
They throw it all away by a rushed ending that had me positively seething, a quick turn of events should be a prelude to a fully fleshed out finale but instead we get a quick wham bam, oh The End. It leaves a bitter taste in the mouth on leaving the cinema and frankly the audience deserves better, and in fact so does Will Smith, did they run out of money ?, well that I don't know, but what I do know is that we so nearly had a genre classic to look fondly on for years to come, shame.
Iron Man (2008)
Big Guns
Iron Man above all else is unlike most superhero origin story lines. Partly because everyone involved is adult and we are not dealing with teenage angst. But mainly because it didn't follow the paint by numbers storytelling we have been brought up with. Yes, the main character Tony Stark is an established, smarmy philanderer rich man. He makes weapons and gets paid handsomely for it. Jeez, this guy has more toys than Bruce Wayne. Well, that's a stretch, but he definitely has more fun.
But Tony didn't witness any particular family member die. He doesn't owe a debt to a mother or uncle. He's just a guy who finally saw the wheel he created come round. And he couldn't accept it.
But added to this fact, Tony isn't dealing with the complexities of teenage love. His feelings are made quite clear. And there is no need for him to let the woman he loves go in fear her life would be in greater jeopardy. Tony doesn't think like this. In this film, the origin isn't really the focus here, as the characters and the interactions. These guys love to talk and they speak with such colorful fun. Sure, there's serious business in weapons manufacturing. But when dealing in a deadly business why not at least have fun doing it.
Unlike most superhero films, this one is a character film first and an action film second. Of course that is where Jon Faverau slowly stumbles. What he gets right is that he allows the action to have a good sense of "freedom". He doesn't jam the camera in between the fights. He stays back enough so we have breathing space to enjoy the flights of Iron man. What fails is that the fights aren't that exhilarating. They are a vehicle from A to B. Faverau doesn't play enough with camera angles or the choreography. It's tic- tac- toe.
Robert Downey Jr has formed himself into perhaps the best adaptation of a superhero to date. To be fair, he's kinda got it easy. Tony Stark is simply so much fun. Chris Reeve had to play the noble, earnest ridden god. Christian Bale has to play the cunning and deeply scarred playboy. So including Downey in the list of these guys is worthy accolades.
Still this was the most fun I've had at a Marvel film since Spider-man 2. And again, these two are comparable because those that write and direct it love these characters and want to make an honest comic book movie. I think of scenes from Spider-man 2 that resonate deep in me. The speech that Aunt May give Peter about the importance of a hero. The New York subway riders protecting their heroes identity. It's corny to the Nth degree. But it works. It works because it shows us that the people writing these projects actually believe the importance of a hero like Spider-man and they are telling you.
Iron Man doesn't lack that kinda devotion. These people have something to say about the world and their place in it. Which brings me to the latest Incredible Hulk and Dark Knight trailer. Both premiered ahead of Iron Man. However one completed it's objective and the other one left a larger question mark.
Dark Knight continues to show that these characters speak in a way that we normally wouldn't. They make grandiose statements. These guys have a lot of bravado to share. It's a battle in who has the better line. But what's interesting about Incredible Hulk is how pedestrian people speak. I'd settle for a "...don't make me angry" line. But what we get is banality, just without the Eric. This does not make the Hulk an uninteresting venture. But for me, I look for films of this calibure who are willing to express it's intentions. Stand up on its soapbox and say, "I am a comic book film."
Iron Man has set itself above most comic book films and probably stands to be judged along the greats. I look forward to the future of this franchise. Given the choices that we will have in a couple years time, it's a welcome respite.
The Losers (2010)
Winners and Losers
Based on the popular comic book and visually ripped from the likes of Peter Berg. Who interestingly didn't direct the film, but helped pen it. However, it feels like a Berg film throughout. Which is the good and bad. Visually, Berg is perhaps one of my favorites. But if you also recall Berg films, he has done some stinkers (Hancock) ad mist the gems (Friday Night Lights). Here the film starts off reminiscent of the old TV show the A-Team. A group of soldiers are framed for a crime they didn't commit and must prove their innocence. Once the groundwork is created, we shift to auto pilot. The team is congested with colorful, almost psychologically damaged individuals. Check. Add a sultry ass-kicking female to throw a kink in the armor. Check. Waggish banter between the crew and loads of Jeffrey Dean Morgan chest hair and we got a testosterone driven action film. It's exciting to see a film that reminded me of the old classic, morally bankrupt action films of the 80's. I have always wondered if studios were too nervous about allowing their heroes to cuss and shove the large bravado in our faces as they did when I was a child. The Losers doesn't disappoint in this regard. However, the story isn't really that interesting and the sense of tension was muddled. Still, it delivered enough fun to recommend. And Jason Patric does his best impression of an evil mastermind.
The Book of Eli (2010)
By the book.
Here's another bleak, filtered and cold post apocalyptic tale wonderfully directed but poorly delivered by the infamous Hughes Brothers. Like all the recent adaptations of showcasing the demise of the human race, this one is no different. The film starts off intriguing enough, but never expands on the idea behind it. It's a western tale we are familiar with. And when the third act begins, we have already predicted the outcome and patiently wait for the story to arrive there. This is the moment in the story which loses all tension and conflict. We see the sacrifice early on and we don't buy the haphazard shell game that they try to impress you with. Still, the choreography is dead on, the acting highly capable. A strong cast rounds out what turns out to be a bleak film, that raises interesting ideas and thoughts, but leaves it there because they were to afraid to be answered.
Remember Me (2010)
Forgettable.
There's something amiss when your pedestrian love story (which embodies all the familiar clichés, stereotypes and even throws some new ones into the mix) has to surround itself with an over the top plot device, exploiting it, whoring it and garnering tears and accolades to win over the audience. Remember Me configures itself to do just that. I can't recall a film in the recent past that made me angry for these very reasons. That's not to say there isn't some nice moments here, but everyone involved are walking psychological powder kegs just waiting to go off. There are scenes here that are cringe worthy and the writers here just watched to many Bon Jovi videos to take themselves serious.
The A-Team (2010)
A team that's quite B.
I didn't think it was possible. Making a film based on the hit TV show, more ridiculous and empty on plot than the TV show itself. But here we are. After years of trying to get this tank off the ground, A-Team finally arrives in no more than a whimper. It starts off in dire need of an editing job. The introduction to the "team" has no real purpose and this "Meet Cute" had me rolling my eyes. Fast forward and the Team is in a bind. The classic "crime they didn't commit" is underway, at least I think so. The cutting and shaky cam was so much, I wasn't sure as to what or who I was watching. Everyone took the roles and did the best with what they could. But the script and nonsensical action just made this film really a huge disappointment.
Grown Ups (2010)
I don't wanna grow up....
Adam Sandler is a highly successful Hollywood hot shot who reacquaints himself with his rag tag and largely unsuccessful friends of the past and heads to the lake to pay tribute to times past. This is also the premise of his new film. This film, was no doubt a situation where I'm sure these friends had more fun shooting it than what we get in return. An absolute abysmal film and largely a comedy that perhaps 15 years ago might have had some better Sandler moments. Here, these guys look tired and old and are not honing their comedic craft. Compare this comedy to the newest ones we have been given in the last several years. 40 Year Old Virgin, Knocked up, Forgetting Sarah Marshall to name a few. Sandler's crew do nothing to accommodate where we are going in terms of humor, nor where we have been. I'd beg for my hour and a half back, but it probably took Rob Schneider more than 6 months to film. And that just seems mean.
Toy Story 3 (2010)
Toy Story 3.
Here's a wonderful completion to Pixar's flagship. The film does exactly what it aims to do and is strong enough on it's own to be recognized outside of the pack. However, the lying problems to me were two fold. The use of 3D hindered my enjoyment. The tool is useful when applied properly and perhaps for limited viewing. But I couldn't help but feel a wall between me and the film. The final moments with Andy could have been richer for me without this distraction. I wanted to well up inside. I wanted to shed tears for a story a cared very deeply about, but I couldn't move past the awkwardness. Still, a great fitting end to a wonderful series.
Cop Out (2010)
What a cop out.
I had to wonder. Did Kevin Smith suddenly sit down one day and say, "I'm tired of working simply within my own infantile limits. I wanna work with someone else's."? Let's be honest here, Smith's largest strengths really are in his writing. His directing skills can be summed up as "capable". If you told me he directed such films as "Jungle 2 Jungle" or "Operation: Elephant Drop" I'd probably believe you. But it's his writing that really allows him to shine. That is when he chooses to do so. When he tries, he's making Chasing Amy and Dogma. When he isn't, it's Mallrats and well, this. Cop Out. The film is a mish mash of clichés, jaw dropping boredom, lame jokes and all around insipidness. When Smith decided to take on the cop and buddy venture, surely research was in the picture. And there are lots to choose from. Quality examples. But I get the feeling he saw Kuffs on cable and called it a day. This film is about baseball cards, stolen cars, Mexican drug lords and pay-checks. Namely Smith's and cast. When Smith made Jersey Girl I thought this here is a film that 15 years ago Smith would have blasted with negative bombardment. Here, I can't even begin to comprehend his bizarre interest as to why this project was even created. This is a film that, if made 15 years ago was still a pile of sh**.
The Joneses (2009)
Keeping up is hard to do.
Here's a chance for a real hard looking satirical take on consumerism, commercialism and nihilism. That chance gets squandered. So it's a chance for a real hard looking edgy contemporary family film. That too fails. What we are left with however are simply the ideas of two potentially good films. And one potentially great one. This film has all the makings of that great film, but just doesn't rise to the challenge. It has the ability to really sink into the conflict that each character has created for themselves. The noose however never gets tighter. We should feel that by the third act that things are really getting convoluted and restrained. That the edge is slipping away from the family. We only see glimpses. Consider the softened exit of Gary Cole's character and the abrupt and real lame crossover that Duchovny faces. His filibuster scene doesn't stand that test and Borte has run out of ideas and where to go.
Iron Man 2 (2010)
Canned laughter.
When all is said an done, Iron Man 2 delivers. The question now perhaps is, did we need it in the first place? First things first, Downey simply makes this entire franchise worth watching and waiting for. He's got the Midas touch here when he's the troubled and pseudo egotistical Tony Stark. I simply can't think of a more capable and gifted actor in the last several years who's been able to reposition himself as an elite actor after years of a spiralling demise. What Downey brings to this Marvel tin soldier is depth and heart (even if his seems to be failing). The sequel picks up where the last one left off and for the first hour really has me enjoying these faces again. And with the scope of real domestic issues here, I was captivated. But as the story continues and Marvel simply wants to force feed us the impending crisis (as Sam Jackson seems to keep popping up to remind us) in all various remote locations in the world, we have to start cataloguing what elements are important to the story today and what can be shelved for later. After all, Avengers is still years away. Sam Jackson pops up and then flares up more and more like a case of vaginal warts. He offers the parties involved nothing of substance, but the possibility of a relationship later. More and more characters are introduced, subplots and villains galore and an army of Iron men. All of this occurring at the pinnacle disintegration of Tony Stark. Here Favreau begins to touch on the real dangers that Tony has within him, but finds a quick fix amongst the film canisters of a drunken father. Before you know it, the two hours have whizzed by and you can't help but wonder if you simply watched a retread of of the first Iron Man plot line. The film still works because of the richness of all the characters and it showcases how much the best actors can take what would potentially be a subpar script and make it into a gem.
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)
Die Dr. Jones!
Holy shatfest was this thing bad. Lucas has taken the same formula he used in the prequels to his infamous meal ticket and planted the same seed into this abomination. That is to say, he has stripped the characters, convoluted the storyline, exaggerated the action sequences and pretty much plundered any remaining component that made the first three films memorable. Then there is old Spielberg, who took the dog turd of a script and managed to create action sequences that were long, uninspired and basically a disaster to wrap ones head around. This was by far one of the worst films I have seen in ages and the entire crew and cast should be taken to a field, tied up and shot. What a terrible way to destroy this creative and exciting trilogy.
Redbelt (2008)
Socks a punch
Ranking in the high portion of his extensive resume, RedBelt is an intriguing look into mixed martial arts world. Of course it wouldn't be a David Mamet film without the grifting and the succulent dialogue. That's not to say there aren't problems. Like most Mamet films the plots are convoluted and sometimes even the characters don't even know what exactly is happening. There are usually so many twists and cons and backstabbing, that eventually we have to ask if even Mamet himself knows whom is chasing whom. But that really is never the point with this guy. It's really about the journey and the ride he takes us on.
RedBelt has a wonderful humble performance by Chiwetel Ejiofor and even a perfectly cast Tim Allen as a Hollywood action hero looking to gain some authenticity. The usual suspects in Mamet's personal arsenal are still playing, and when Ricky Jay or Joe Mantenga appear on screen you aren't disappointed with what he gives them to do.
A good film worthy of a look.
Watchmen (2009)
Who watches the Watchmen?
From the opening sequence, to where we are introduced to a wide diversification of notable Americans and prominent moments in American history (JFK Assassination, Conservative think tanker William F Buckley) we understand the scope of this world that is put in front of us. We are in a special time of crisis. And the world needs heroes. Watchmen doesn't disappoint in this regard, but we get more than we bargained for. The heroes that we discover have secrets. They have pain. They are lost. Snyder was able to adapt this film so close to the chest that he brings all the multi layered complexities that Moore did so years ago, and all the problems with it. This film is convoluted. It's messy and long. If the plot was lost on you, or you found you really didn't care about the outcome, welcome to the Watchmen. But the thing of it is, this film isn't really about the plot to find out who killed the Comedian. It's about the heroes who were left behind in this modified Cold War era (Nixon is on his 5th term). It's about relationships. It's about heroes unwilling to waiver in uncertainty and about those who won't compromise. It's about the punishment of the heroes good deeds. The film itself looks amazing. It reached across Gibbons art work and painted it with oil. It's getting the look I always felt the Watchmen needed. The actors are perfectly cast and delivered with conviction. This is an adult film for adults. It's the superhero film adults have always wanted and never think they would get. It's another example how a great film doesn't have to be perfect. Fitting for the Watchmen.
Zombieland (2009)
Dead end.
I've heard many compare this film as the American Shawn of the Dead. And while the idea seems to be comparable, the differences is what makes Zombieland a more pleasurable movie. The film chugs along at a nice pace for most of the time, and when it does stutter, it's not long before we are watching the creative ways in which Harrelson decides to kill the flesh eaters. There's a wonderful cameo in here and the film is picked up with the set rules that Eisenberg has created. For the most part the entire cast and sequences made me laugh, but I couldn't help every once in awhile feel restless. Perhaps because there was no real story here. That the union between all the characters seemed unfleshed, to pardon a pun.
(500) Days of Summer (2009)
Had me a blast
Perhaps one of the greatest "Rom Coms" to come out in ages, this film spins the concept of what romantic comedies are to Hollywood. This film is sweet but tragic. It's endearing and real. The characters are treated like real people with real complex philosophical attractions to things like fate and destiny. It's always disappointing to watch a film of the same genre following its characters as they go through the motions to an ending that insults us and is preordained. In this case the film starts at the end and we see how these two people break up. And we are given insight through a series of flashbacks so we can piece together how the puzzle fell apart. Joseph Gordon Levitt plays it straight and charming. He's not unsure of himself and bumbling like other characters we have seen in similar roles. He's natural and easy to like. Zooey Deschanel also is wonderful in her performance and I have met girls like this before. Each bring their own foibles to the relationship. Both strength and weakness. There's a wonderful dance sequence with an old Hall and Oats song and the film has fun with it's narrations and observations. What a remarkable film and a great study of modern relationships.
Funny People (2009)
Funny and sad.
Judd Apatow has created a sober, sensible film of personal convictions. Unlike his other fields of films, (Knocked Up, 40 Year Old Virgin) this one is a lot darker, more serious but the most natural of all his films thus far. Adam Sandler like his other terrific work in Punch Drunk Love, showcases how he can be a great dramatic actor when the right work is written for him. He is angry and a tragic comic. Consider the scenes of anguish when Sandler discovers the news of his untimely disease and he's unable to remove himself from the legion of fans who await him in the lobby. Here with a wonderful close up by Oscar winner Janusz Kaminski, we see the seasoned comic with nothing but pain in his eyes and regret. The film treats all the characters fairly and doesn't go for the easy way out. It goes for the road less traveled and true to Apatow style does it with grace and heart.