Young’s Review
I have been having an ongoing debate in my mind about whether or not the terrible ending to 'No Country For Old Men' ruined the film for me.
The first three-quarters of the film are mesmerizing, but the ending leaves you wondering what in the world just happened. The lady sitting in front of me turned to her husband and said 'Is it over?' when the final credits rolled. I had the same question.
I could not help but think that 'No Country' is the opposite of the cult classic 'The Usual Suspects'. In my opinion, that film was average and a bit slow most of the time but came together wonderfully with a brilliant ending. The ending made the movie.
One of the main reasons I write reviews is to let people know which films to see and which to skip. The bottom line here is that this film is brilliant in so many ways that I still think people should see it. I am giving it a 'thumbs up' despite the head scratching ending.
Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin) is out hunting on the Texas-Mexico border when he stumbles across a haunting scene: a mixture of guns, cars and dead bodies strewn about everywhere. Moss finds a bag full of money next to one of the victims. Moss takes the money and that’s where the action starts.
Moss foolishly returns to the crime scene later that night to bring water to the lone survivor of the attack, and finds himself on the run from a ruthless killer named Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem). Chigurh, in turn, is being hunted by local law enforcement agent Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones). The rest of the movie is a cat-and-mouse game between Moss and Chigurh, with Bell always two steps behind.
This film is the latest project from visionary filmmakers Joel and Ethan Coen, who are responsible for classic films such as ‘Fargo’ and ‘O Brother, Where Art Thou?’. The Coens adapted Cormac McCarthy’s novel for this film and also directed it. They have concocted a gripping drama that keeps the audience guessing.
Most of the film is absolutely riveting, and that is due in large part to the performances of the two main characters. Brolin and Bardem should expect phone calls from the Academy next year when Oscar nominations are handed out.
Brolin, fresh off a fantastic turn as a crooked cop in ‘American Gangster’, is at the top of his game. Moss must appear under control outwardly while always having to stay in front of his pursuer, and Brolin delivers. His cocksure confidence is in the mold of John Wayne.
Bardem has to be considered the odds on favorite for ‘Best Supporting Actor’ at this point for his portrayal of Chigurh. He creates one of the scariest and most ruthless bad guys ever captured on film. A scene at the beginning where Chigurh strangles a policeman is chilling in that he seems to derive joy in draining the life out of the cop’s body. In Bardem’s hands, Chigugh is void of any sense of sentimentality or remorse. Rarely has an actor immersed himself in a character so completely.
I would be remiss if I failed to mention the performance of Jones. Bell is a worn out lawman, and Jones imbues him with a sense of resignation. He is a fine actor and he is the perfect choice for this role.
I am glad I saw this film. While the ending is terribly open-ended and unsatisfying, the rest of the film is fantastic. It is very violent and dark and, despite some reviews to the contrary, not a carbon copy of ‘Fargo’. I enjoyed the film, but it is not for everyone.
Wilsford's Review
Thumb: Down
Notable Characters:
Tommy Lee Jones – Sheriff Ed Tom Bell
Javier Bardem – Anton Chigurh
Josh Brolin – Llewelyn Moss
Reason why I didn’t like it:
· Horrible ending. My mom was a music teacher for a long time. She used to tell this is story about a hand bell choir she was directing. Through the whole song they missed virtually every not except the end. The ending of the song they nailed perfectly. She would say that after the church service people were coming up and telling her how wonderfully they played. Why? The end is what people remember. It is by the end that things are judged. This movie had a crap-tastic ending which is why this is a crap movie and I don’t care what the Post-Dispatch says.
Reasons why I liked it:
· Javier Bardem was freaky. The character he played and the way he played it, in my opinion, made him one of the all-time greatest villains. He was nightmare creepy and his performance is unforgettable.
· No music. I know my awesomely talented cousin, Rob Simonsen (http://robsimonsen.com/) who has composed music for some great movies, is probably going to hate me for saying this, but the absence of music added to the suspense of the movie itself.
· Up until the end it was a good story, very realistic chain of events.
Final Notes: While this movie is being loved by virtually every critic, I for one am not drinking their Kool-aid. This movie was disappointing and no one should go see it in a theater.
Friday, November 30, 2007
Friday, November 23, 2007
Hitman
Wilsford's Review
Thumb: Up
Notable Characters:
Timothy Olyphant – Agent 47
Olga Kurylenko – Nika Boronina
Ulrich Thomsen – Mikhail Belicoff
Plot (contains spoilers): Agent 47 has been bred to be an assassin. Employed by a mystical corporation, he travels the world killing people. His next assignment is Russian President Mikhail Belicoff. Upon completion, he is told that there was a witness that needed to be dispatched, Nika. When he approaches he realizes that she has no idea who he is, deduces that it is a trap, and rescues her from danger. We discover that Nika is Mikhail’s girlfriend and that she was being used to bring Agent 47 out into the open. From there we follow Agent 47 as he unravels this mystery and kills a good number while doing so.
Reason why I didn’t like it:
• The movie was a little hokey but what should one expect from a video game movie.
Reasons why I liked it:
• Mr. Olyphant was really good. He plays the part of a man with no soul and a little heart perfectly.
• It was what I expected. This was a movie based off a video game, which means that it is not trying to win Oscars, it is trying to be entertaining and it did the job.
Final Notes: While entertaining and probably most kids have played the game and therefore want to see the movie, I would caution this. It is rated R for good reason. If you are looking for a movie to just sit in front of and be entertained, this is it.
Young's Review
When I sat down to write this review, I had no idea what to say about 'Hitman'. It is not exactly a cinematic masterpiece, but is entertaining. Every review I have read about the movie has been extremely negative, but I feel that opinion is unfair.
That's when I talked to James about the difficulty I was having about which way my thumb should go for this movie. He said something that made a lot of sense to me. James said (and I am paraphrasing here) that you have to judge a movie based on what it's trying to be. In other words, a movie like 'Hitman' (which is based on a video game) is not trying to win any Oscars. It is trying to be an entertaining hour and a half for fans of the action genre. It is this reasoning that caused me to give the movie a 'thumbs up'.
A covert anti-terror organization (creatively called The Agency) trains and sends out assassins all over the world. These hired guns are given numbers instead of names, and this movie focuses on Agent 47 (Timothy Olyphant). 47 is sent by a client to assassinate Russian president Mikhail Belicoff (Ulrich Thomsen). What he doesn't know is that he is being set up and the man he is sent to kill is actually the president's body double. After the shooting, 47 finds himself on the run from an Interpol agent named Mike Whittier (Dougray Scott) and the Russian police. The rest of the film is a cornucopia of guns, swords, general debauchery. Oh, and there's a pretty girl too.
Olyphant is a fine thespian, and a surprising choice for the role of 47. Most movies based on video games choose far less talented actor to play the lead role. Despite the fact he walks around with a permanent smirk on his face, Olyphant's performance is spot on. 47 is cold and calculated, refusing to become attatched to anyone. That includes Nika (Olga Kurylenko), a Russian prostitute who finds herself on the wrong side of the manhunt for 47. Despite Nika's constant attempts to throw herself at him, 47 resists her advances. He is trying to do one thing and one thing only: keep himself and Nika alive.
There are two supporting performances from actors who also appear in popular television shows. Robert Knepper, who plays the despicable Theodore (T-Bag) Bagwell on 'Prison Break', is corrupt detective Yuri Marklov. Knepper impressively handles the role as well a Russian accent. Henry Ian Cusick, aka Desmond on 'Lost', does not fare as well in the role of Belicoff's brother Udre. Cusick's performance is overplayed and difficult to understand.
While director Xavier Gens keeps things moving in a timely fashion, screenwriter Skip Woods (Swordfish) does not dally in pretense. There is no elaborate plot to get lost in. This movie is going to be watched mostly by men who want nonstop action, lots of guns and explosions and a pretty girl. If you're looking for brilliant filmmaking, look elsewhere. If it's a action-packed thrill ride you seek, then look no further.
Thumb: Up
Notable Characters:
Timothy Olyphant – Agent 47
Olga Kurylenko – Nika Boronina
Ulrich Thomsen – Mikhail Belicoff
Plot (contains spoilers): Agent 47 has been bred to be an assassin. Employed by a mystical corporation, he travels the world killing people. His next assignment is Russian President Mikhail Belicoff. Upon completion, he is told that there was a witness that needed to be dispatched, Nika. When he approaches he realizes that she has no idea who he is, deduces that it is a trap, and rescues her from danger. We discover that Nika is Mikhail’s girlfriend and that she was being used to bring Agent 47 out into the open. From there we follow Agent 47 as he unravels this mystery and kills a good number while doing so.
Reason why I didn’t like it:
• The movie was a little hokey but what should one expect from a video game movie.
Reasons why I liked it:
• Mr. Olyphant was really good. He plays the part of a man with no soul and a little heart perfectly.
• It was what I expected. This was a movie based off a video game, which means that it is not trying to win Oscars, it is trying to be entertaining and it did the job.
Final Notes: While entertaining and probably most kids have played the game and therefore want to see the movie, I would caution this. It is rated R for good reason. If you are looking for a movie to just sit in front of and be entertained, this is it.
Young's Review
When I sat down to write this review, I had no idea what to say about 'Hitman'. It is not exactly a cinematic masterpiece, but is entertaining. Every review I have read about the movie has been extremely negative, but I feel that opinion is unfair.
That's when I talked to James about the difficulty I was having about which way my thumb should go for this movie. He said something that made a lot of sense to me. James said (and I am paraphrasing here) that you have to judge a movie based on what it's trying to be. In other words, a movie like 'Hitman' (which is based on a video game) is not trying to win any Oscars. It is trying to be an entertaining hour and a half for fans of the action genre. It is this reasoning that caused me to give the movie a 'thumbs up'.
A covert anti-terror organization (creatively called The Agency) trains and sends out assassins all over the world. These hired guns are given numbers instead of names, and this movie focuses on Agent 47 (Timothy Olyphant). 47 is sent by a client to assassinate Russian president Mikhail Belicoff (Ulrich Thomsen). What he doesn't know is that he is being set up and the man he is sent to kill is actually the president's body double. After the shooting, 47 finds himself on the run from an Interpol agent named Mike Whittier (Dougray Scott) and the Russian police. The rest of the film is a cornucopia of guns, swords, general debauchery. Oh, and there's a pretty girl too.
Olyphant is a fine thespian, and a surprising choice for the role of 47. Most movies based on video games choose far less talented actor to play the lead role. Despite the fact he walks around with a permanent smirk on his face, Olyphant's performance is spot on. 47 is cold and calculated, refusing to become attatched to anyone. That includes Nika (Olga Kurylenko), a Russian prostitute who finds herself on the wrong side of the manhunt for 47. Despite Nika's constant attempts to throw herself at him, 47 resists her advances. He is trying to do one thing and one thing only: keep himself and Nika alive.
There are two supporting performances from actors who also appear in popular television shows. Robert Knepper, who plays the despicable Theodore (T-Bag) Bagwell on 'Prison Break', is corrupt detective Yuri Marklov. Knepper impressively handles the role as well a Russian accent. Henry Ian Cusick, aka Desmond on 'Lost', does not fare as well in the role of Belicoff's brother Udre. Cusick's performance is overplayed and difficult to understand.
While director Xavier Gens keeps things moving in a timely fashion, screenwriter Skip Woods (Swordfish) does not dally in pretense. There is no elaborate plot to get lost in. This movie is going to be watched mostly by men who want nonstop action, lots of guns and explosions and a pretty girl. If you're looking for brilliant filmmaking, look elsewhere. If it's a action-packed thrill ride you seek, then look no further.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Lions For Lambs
By Nathan Young
Movies with a political bent might turn off the casual moviegoer. After all, most people do not go to the nearest multiplex to learn about foreign policy. Robert Redford’s latest directorial effort ‘Lions For Lambs’ is certainly heady stuff that might grate on the nerves of people looking to be purely entertained. It is also an intelligent, thought provoking piece of filmmaking.
While it makes no effort to hide its liberal agenda, even a true-blue conservative would have a hard time criticizing the quality of the final product. The film is well-done and deserves a ‘thumbs up’.
Matthew Michael Carnahan’s screenplay divides the story into three parts. First, we meet veteran political reporter Janine Roth (Meryl Streep), who is on an assignment to interview up and coming Republican senator Jasper Irving (Tom Cruise). Irving is giving Roth the exclusive scoop on a new military operation in Afghanistan.
That new operation is where story number two begins. Two young soldiers, Ernest Rodriguez (Michael Pena) and Arian Finch (Derek Luke), are shot down and stranded in enemy Afghan territory. They are sitting ducks for the opposition as neither man can move particularly well after a long fall from a plane.
The final storyline involves a college professor, Stephen Malley (Redford), and one of his slacking students. Malley is trying to motivate the student, Todd Hayes (Andrew Garfield), to greater things. He uses the story of Rodriguez and Finch, two of his former pupils, to try and light a fire under Hayes.
The interconnectedness of the stories works well. Each story is unique, but relates seamlessly to the others. The back story of Rodriguez and Finch is a nice touch in Malley's attempt to break through to Hayes. Redford the director keeps the story moving and brings the best out of his actors.
The cast in this film is superb. Streep and Cruise steal the show, brilliantly playing off of one another's performance. In the hands of Streep, Roth is skeptical of Irving's claims and is not afraid to say so. This role is not as meaty as some Streep has had in the past couple of years (in films such as 'The Manchurian Candidate' and 'The Devil Wears Prada'), but she makes the most of it nonetheless.
Cruise's ability as an actor has been overshadowed recently by his personal life, but he reminds viewers that he is capable of commanding attention for things other than Katie Holmes and Scientology. Irving is a smooth-talking politician with (despite his denials) aspirations of a presidential run. Cruise brings charm and conviction to Irving, but doesn't let him get soft when he is challenged by Roth.
Pena and Luke are solid supporting actors who do their jobs admirably. They certainly have the most physically challenging roles in the film, but also do a realistic job of portraying the sense of fear and isolation their characters feel. Redford is of course a pro as an actor, and he is reliably good here. Garfield is the newcomer of the cast, but holds his own against Redford in the role of the arrogant and stubborn Hayes.
This film is not for everyone. If political commentary on the war on terror does not sound appealing to you, look elsewhere. However, if you're looking for an interesting and well acted film that makes you think, I recommend it highly.
Movies with a political bent might turn off the casual moviegoer. After all, most people do not go to the nearest multiplex to learn about foreign policy. Robert Redford’s latest directorial effort ‘Lions For Lambs’ is certainly heady stuff that might grate on the nerves of people looking to be purely entertained. It is also an intelligent, thought provoking piece of filmmaking.
While it makes no effort to hide its liberal agenda, even a true-blue conservative would have a hard time criticizing the quality of the final product. The film is well-done and deserves a ‘thumbs up’.
Matthew Michael Carnahan’s screenplay divides the story into three parts. First, we meet veteran political reporter Janine Roth (Meryl Streep), who is on an assignment to interview up and coming Republican senator Jasper Irving (Tom Cruise). Irving is giving Roth the exclusive scoop on a new military operation in Afghanistan.
That new operation is where story number two begins. Two young soldiers, Ernest Rodriguez (Michael Pena) and Arian Finch (Derek Luke), are shot down and stranded in enemy Afghan territory. They are sitting ducks for the opposition as neither man can move particularly well after a long fall from a plane.
The final storyline involves a college professor, Stephen Malley (Redford), and one of his slacking students. Malley is trying to motivate the student, Todd Hayes (Andrew Garfield), to greater things. He uses the story of Rodriguez and Finch, two of his former pupils, to try and light a fire under Hayes.
The interconnectedness of the stories works well. Each story is unique, but relates seamlessly to the others. The back story of Rodriguez and Finch is a nice touch in Malley's attempt to break through to Hayes. Redford the director keeps the story moving and brings the best out of his actors.
The cast in this film is superb. Streep and Cruise steal the show, brilliantly playing off of one another's performance. In the hands of Streep, Roth is skeptical of Irving's claims and is not afraid to say so. This role is not as meaty as some Streep has had in the past couple of years (in films such as 'The Manchurian Candidate' and 'The Devil Wears Prada'), but she makes the most of it nonetheless.
Cruise's ability as an actor has been overshadowed recently by his personal life, but he reminds viewers that he is capable of commanding attention for things other than Katie Holmes and Scientology. Irving is a smooth-talking politician with (despite his denials) aspirations of a presidential run. Cruise brings charm and conviction to Irving, but doesn't let him get soft when he is challenged by Roth.
Pena and Luke are solid supporting actors who do their jobs admirably. They certainly have the most physically challenging roles in the film, but also do a realistic job of portraying the sense of fear and isolation their characters feel. Redford is of course a pro as an actor, and he is reliably good here. Garfield is the newcomer of the cast, but holds his own against Redford in the role of the arrogant and stubborn Hayes.
This film is not for everyone. If political commentary on the war on terror does not sound appealing to you, look elsewhere. However, if you're looking for an interesting and well acted film that makes you think, I recommend it highly.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Juno
By Nathan Young
A quirky and offbeat comedy is one of my favorite types of films.
‘ Juno’, the latest film from director Jason Reitman (Thank You For Smoking), is a bitingly funny reminder why.
Juno MacGuff, played wonderfully by Ellen Page, is a 16-year-old girl who is impregnated by her geeky but sweet friend Paulie Bleeker (Michael Cera). She goes to a women's clinic for an abortion but ends up changing her mind. Shortly thereafter, she reads about Vanessa and Mark Loring (Jennifer Garner and Jason Bateman). The Lorings are a young couple unable to conceive and looking to adopt. Juno’s parents Mac (J.K. Simmons) and Bren (Allison Janney) are bewildered by their daughter's situation, but supportive nonetheless.
There are so many things to like in this film, it’s hard to know where to begin. Diablo Cody's first screenplay is caustic and sweet at the same time, and Reitman does a masterful job at bringing it all together. There are several laugh out loud moments mixed with more subtle humor. The lead character is someone to root for, which makes the film easy to invest in.
The entire cast is fantastic. Page is so perfect in the lead role it is hard to imagine anyone else playing the role. She completely inhabits Juno, capably juggling her seemingly contradictory qualities of precociousness and naiveté.
Cera shows his hilarious performance as George Michael on the underrated television show ‘Arrested Development’ was no fluke. In his hands, Paulie is awkward in a lot of ways, but not when it comes to his feelings for Juno.
Simmons and Janney are both brilliant. The scene where Juno announces her pregnancy to her parents is awkwardly hilarious. Simmons is a capable character actor who brings humor and a surprising warmth to Mac. Janney is one of the finest actresses around, and yet still floats under the radar of most moviegoers. She is one the best reasons to see the film despite her limited role.
Garner and Bateman also put in commendable performances, especially when one considers that they are in supporting roles despite being the biggest names in the cast. Garner quietly displays Vanessa's desperation for a child, while Bateman supplies a palpable sense of fear to Mark over the baby's arrival.
The story is a sweet one despite its sometimes racy subject matter. A good example is Mark's inappropriate attraction to Juno, a situation that Cody thankfully keeps above board in the end.
'Juno' is a fun film. It is poignant and funny, and features a breakthrough performance by Page. She will be a household name before long.
A quirky and offbeat comedy is one of my favorite types of films.
‘ Juno’, the latest film from director Jason Reitman (Thank You For Smoking), is a bitingly funny reminder why.
Juno MacGuff, played wonderfully by Ellen Page, is a 16-year-old girl who is impregnated by her geeky but sweet friend Paulie Bleeker (Michael Cera). She goes to a women's clinic for an abortion but ends up changing her mind. Shortly thereafter, she reads about Vanessa and Mark Loring (Jennifer Garner and Jason Bateman). The Lorings are a young couple unable to conceive and looking to adopt. Juno’s parents Mac (J.K. Simmons) and Bren (Allison Janney) are bewildered by their daughter's situation, but supportive nonetheless.
There are so many things to like in this film, it’s hard to know where to begin. Diablo Cody's first screenplay is caustic and sweet at the same time, and Reitman does a masterful job at bringing it all together. There are several laugh out loud moments mixed with more subtle humor. The lead character is someone to root for, which makes the film easy to invest in.
The entire cast is fantastic. Page is so perfect in the lead role it is hard to imagine anyone else playing the role. She completely inhabits Juno, capably juggling her seemingly contradictory qualities of precociousness and naiveté.
Cera shows his hilarious performance as George Michael on the underrated television show ‘Arrested Development’ was no fluke. In his hands, Paulie is awkward in a lot of ways, but not when it comes to his feelings for Juno.
Simmons and Janney are both brilliant. The scene where Juno announces her pregnancy to her parents is awkwardly hilarious. Simmons is a capable character actor who brings humor and a surprising warmth to Mac. Janney is one of the finest actresses around, and yet still floats under the radar of most moviegoers. She is one the best reasons to see the film despite her limited role.
Garner and Bateman also put in commendable performances, especially when one considers that they are in supporting roles despite being the biggest names in the cast. Garner quietly displays Vanessa's desperation for a child, while Bateman supplies a palpable sense of fear to Mark over the baby's arrival.
The story is a sweet one despite its sometimes racy subject matter. A good example is Mark's inappropriate attraction to Juno, a situation that Cody thankfully keeps above board in the end.
'Juno' is a fun film. It is poignant and funny, and features a breakthrough performance by Page. She will be a household name before long.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Before the Devil Knows You're Dead
Young's Review
Some films are universally accepted as wonderful. Critics hail them, audiences flock to see them and the awards shows lavish them with accolades. 'Before The Devil Knows You're Dead' is one such film.
It was because of the praise coming from critics I respect (such as Roger Ebert) that I dragged James and my friends Patrick and Angela McNeil to see 'Devil' with me on the final day of the St. Louis International Film Festival. I had high hopes for this film, which is why I am truly disappointed to to give it a 'thumbs down'.
The film moved at a glacial pace and featured overwrought acting at every turn. Afterwards, James turned to me and put both thumbs down. There have been few films that have been a bigger letdown.
The film focuses on the repercussions of a botched bank robbery planned by brothers Andy (Phillip Seymour Hoffman) and Hank (Ethan Hawke). Andy is in need of money and knows Hank is down on his luck, so he recruits his baby brother to rob their parents' jewelry shop. The job is supposed to go down without any violence, or even a gun. Things go awry, however, when Hank hires his pal Bobby (Brian F. O'Byrne) to do the dirty work. After the plan literally blows up in their faces, Andy and Hank are left to deal with the shattered remains of their increasingly empty lives.
The first half drags considerably, with the exception being the robbery scene. The film does pick up, but not enough to overcome all its flaws.
The characters are not easy to care about or invest in. Andy is self-absorbed and Hank is a desperate loner. Andy's wife Gina (Marisa Tomei) and the boys' father Charles (Albert Finney) aren't any better. Andy practically begs Hank to help with the robbery and then berates him when the operation fails. Hank feels guilty about not being able to provide for his daughter but then blows a $2,000 advance his brother gives him. Gina is so shallow that she asks Andy for cab fare after grandly announcing she is leaving him.
The device of using flashbacks to advance the story works in some films, such as ‘Pulp Fiction’. Here it just serves to bog down an already slow film. Just when Lumet starts to liven the action, he moves the story backwards. Some of the material is just pointless. A sex scene involving Andy and Gina to open the movie adds nothing to the plot, and neither do the subsequent views of a topless Gina.
The acting is mostly overdone, which is a surprise considering Lumet’s involvement. I expected more from a man who helmed such classics as ‘Dog Day Afternoon’ and ’Serpico’. The performances of Hoffman and Hawke, two actors that I normally love, are average. Tomei and Finney both emote as if their livelihood depended on it (which in this case is not a good thing). A scene near the end where Andy cries to Gina about his father’s lack of love is almost laughable when the intention seems to be poignancy.
I just never connected with this film. Every review I have read has said what a great film it is, so something must be wrong with me. I just did not get it. James summed it up best when I apologized to him for wasting two hours of his time. His response: “I am more upset with wasting eight bucks.”
Wilsford's Review
Thumb: Down
Notable Characters:
Phillip Seymour Hoffman - Andy
Ethan Hawke - Hank
Reasons why I didn’t like it:
• Bad story telling. It followed the Pulp Fiction, break the story up formula and it didn’t work. In fact I thought that it hurt the movie. The movie was about the downfall of two desperate men and I think that telling the story chronologically would play more into that aspect of the story.
• The movie was slow and when a movie is slow and bad story telling is amplified. Which makes me look at my watch more, which makes me do math so I can figure out when I get to leave the movie theater and when a movie makes me do more math, no one wins.
• Opening sex scene was worthless and the image of a nude Phillip Seymour Hoffman is scary.
• It cost me 2 hours of my life and 8 bucks.
• It was just a stupid movie.
Reasons why I liked it:
• None.
Final Notes:
Crap. Please don’t waste your time and money. I know that the St. Louis Post Dispatch praised this movie but you should know that they don’t know what they are talking about.
Some films are universally accepted as wonderful. Critics hail them, audiences flock to see them and the awards shows lavish them with accolades. 'Before The Devil Knows You're Dead' is one such film.
It was because of the praise coming from critics I respect (such as Roger Ebert) that I dragged James and my friends Patrick and Angela McNeil to see 'Devil' with me on the final day of the St. Louis International Film Festival. I had high hopes for this film, which is why I am truly disappointed to to give it a 'thumbs down'.
The film moved at a glacial pace and featured overwrought acting at every turn. Afterwards, James turned to me and put both thumbs down. There have been few films that have been a bigger letdown.
The film focuses on the repercussions of a botched bank robbery planned by brothers Andy (Phillip Seymour Hoffman) and Hank (Ethan Hawke). Andy is in need of money and knows Hank is down on his luck, so he recruits his baby brother to rob their parents' jewelry shop. The job is supposed to go down without any violence, or even a gun. Things go awry, however, when Hank hires his pal Bobby (Brian F. O'Byrne) to do the dirty work. After the plan literally blows up in their faces, Andy and Hank are left to deal with the shattered remains of their increasingly empty lives.
The first half drags considerably, with the exception being the robbery scene. The film does pick up, but not enough to overcome all its flaws.
The characters are not easy to care about or invest in. Andy is self-absorbed and Hank is a desperate loner. Andy's wife Gina (Marisa Tomei) and the boys' father Charles (Albert Finney) aren't any better. Andy practically begs Hank to help with the robbery and then berates him when the operation fails. Hank feels guilty about not being able to provide for his daughter but then blows a $2,000 advance his brother gives him. Gina is so shallow that she asks Andy for cab fare after grandly announcing she is leaving him.
The device of using flashbacks to advance the story works in some films, such as ‘Pulp Fiction’. Here it just serves to bog down an already slow film. Just when Lumet starts to liven the action, he moves the story backwards. Some of the material is just pointless. A sex scene involving Andy and Gina to open the movie adds nothing to the plot, and neither do the subsequent views of a topless Gina.
The acting is mostly overdone, which is a surprise considering Lumet’s involvement. I expected more from a man who helmed such classics as ‘Dog Day Afternoon’ and ’Serpico’. The performances of Hoffman and Hawke, two actors that I normally love, are average. Tomei and Finney both emote as if their livelihood depended on it (which in this case is not a good thing). A scene near the end where Andy cries to Gina about his father’s lack of love is almost laughable when the intention seems to be poignancy.
I just never connected with this film. Every review I have read has said what a great film it is, so something must be wrong with me. I just did not get it. James summed it up best when I apologized to him for wasting two hours of his time. His response: “I am more upset with wasting eight bucks.”
Wilsford's Review
Thumb: Down
Notable Characters:
Phillip Seymour Hoffman - Andy
Ethan Hawke - Hank
Reasons why I didn’t like it:
• Bad story telling. It followed the Pulp Fiction, break the story up formula and it didn’t work. In fact I thought that it hurt the movie. The movie was about the downfall of two desperate men and I think that telling the story chronologically would play more into that aspect of the story.
• The movie was slow and when a movie is slow and bad story telling is amplified. Which makes me look at my watch more, which makes me do math so I can figure out when I get to leave the movie theater and when a movie makes me do more math, no one wins.
• Opening sex scene was worthless and the image of a nude Phillip Seymour Hoffman is scary.
• It cost me 2 hours of my life and 8 bucks.
• It was just a stupid movie.
Reasons why I liked it:
• None.
Final Notes:
Crap. Please don’t waste your time and money. I know that the St. Louis Post Dispatch praised this movie but you should know that they don’t know what they are talking about.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Beowulf
Thumb: Up
Notable Characters:
Ray Winstone – Beowulf
Anthony Hopkins – Hrothgar
Angelina Jolie – Grendel’s Mother
Brendan Gleeson – Wiglaf
Plot (contains spoilers): Hrothgar and his people have been plagued by Grendel, a monster who brings destruction whenever something is going down in the great hall, and are looking to the gods for deliverance. Mighty warrior Beowulf and his gang arrive on the scene to bring that deliverance. As Hrothgar and his people sleep, Beowulf and company start making a racket prompting the entrance of Grendel and a bloody fight. When morning comes, Beowulf is praised for his valor and revels in it while the rest of his party morns the death of their friends. Soon after Beowulf learns that the threat is not yet over as he needs to dispatch of Grendel’s mother. Beowulf makes his way up the mountain, enters the cave, and meets Grendel’s mother, a demon that has taken the form of a beautiful woman. She promises to give him all that his heart desires if he leaves behind a golden horn and gives her a son. Being young and seeking only his wishes, Beowulf obliges. When he returns to the castle he claims to have been involved in a great battle and has dispatched the demon. Upon hearing the news, Hrothgar feels compelled to confess that a long time ago he was in Beowulf position and his choice led to the birth of Grendel and a life of misery. Now free he chooses to end it all and jumps from the tower. Now many years later Beowulf is a great king, known throughout the world, yet he is empty. Like Hrothgar before him, his son, birthed by a demon from long ago, terrorizes his kingdom. This time instead of being a deformed giant like Grendel, his son can take the shape of a massive dragon. Wanting to end the curse, Beowulf engages the dragon and rips out his heart. Unfortunately the contest leaves both fallen. Beowulf’s noble and long-time friend, Wiglaf, is there to see him to the end. He is also there to see Beowulf’s body taken by the demon and there is enticed to keep the cycle going.
Reasons why I didn’t like it:
• I usually don’t like open-ended endings and it wasn’t any different in this one. I know that in my plot section I kind put it in a way that showed definite direction but I would imagine that others would disagree with my take on the ending.
• Kind of wished that it had been live action instead of animation.
Reasons why I liked it:
• I only kind of wished it were live action because overall I enjoyed the animation. I thought that the animation really helped in getting into the movie as a fantasy epic.
• The story was awesome. There were a lot of aspects of the story that I liked but I loved the emptiness of Beowulf. I loved that the story revolved around this cycle of great men getting all their hearts desired in their youth only to end up old, weathered, and empty. I felt it spoke volumes to the nature of mankind.
Final Notes:
Good movie. Though it is rated PG-13, I would be wary to bring my adolescent to the movie. I never read the poem but the story was exciting and deep and I only guess that the movie does good to the original.
Young's Review
My review for 'Beowulf' almost did not get published. James and I saw two different films, and I was not sure it would be fair to compare the two. I screened the film in 3-D on an Imax screen, and he did not. It is like comparing apples to oranges.
This was my first experience with the 3-D Imax format, and it was incredible. 'Beowulf' is the most visually amazing film I have ever seen. The animation is top-notch, the entire cast is strong and the story is thought provoking and moving.
In ancient Denmark, King Hrothgar (Anthony Hopkins) is hailed by his subjects as a wonderful king. All the merriment stops, however, when the mighty beast Grendel raids the town and leaves a pile of bodies behind. No one is able to stop Grendel and Hrothgar is forced to put out a large reward to anyone who can slay the beast.
Enter Beowulf (Ray Winstone) and his army. He takes down Grendel in an epic, bloody fight and is hailed as a hero by Hrothgar and admired from afar by the queen (Robin Wright Penn). Little does he know his problems are just beginning. Grendel's mom (Angelina Jolie) is more than a little irked about her son's death, and lures Beowulf to her lair for a talk. From there, Beowulf's (and the rest of the kingdom's) world is never the same.
The fact that the film is so visually stunning should come as no surprise when one considers it is directed by Robert Zemeckis, who is responsible for the classic 'The Polar Express'. Zemeckis has certainly gotten the motion capture animation down to a science. It is startling how much the characters look like the real actors.
In fact, the animation is so good that I feel the 'PG-13' rating the film carries is too light. The violence is graphic and there are several scenes in which Jolie's character is shown nude. This movie is not appropriate for children. I guess the ratings people did not give it an 'R' because it is a cartoon, but the action is so real you forget all about it being animated.
The rating is the only qualm I have with the film. Zemeckis creates a magical fantasy world that is easy to get lost in. The performances of Winstone and Wright Penn are awesome. Winstone is the perfect choice for the lead role. He brings many different emtions to life in Beowulf, from self-confidence to insecurity. Wright Penn captures the inner turmoil the queen faces in falling for Beowulf while still being married to Hrothgar.
Hopkins, Jolie (and John Malkovich as Unferth) are all wonderful actors, and they are great choices here. The film would not have worked without such a strong supporting cast.
The open-ended nature of the final scene might be frustrating for some viewers, but I feel it fit well with the rest of the story. I highly recommend seeing this movie in Imax 3-D. I cannot imagine it being nearly as good visually on a regular screen. The bottom line , though, is that the story transcends the animation, as does the performance of the cast. This is a great film all the way around.
Notable Characters:
Ray Winstone – Beowulf
Anthony Hopkins – Hrothgar
Angelina Jolie – Grendel’s Mother
Brendan Gleeson – Wiglaf
Plot (contains spoilers): Hrothgar and his people have been plagued by Grendel, a monster who brings destruction whenever something is going down in the great hall, and are looking to the gods for deliverance. Mighty warrior Beowulf and his gang arrive on the scene to bring that deliverance. As Hrothgar and his people sleep, Beowulf and company start making a racket prompting the entrance of Grendel and a bloody fight. When morning comes, Beowulf is praised for his valor and revels in it while the rest of his party morns the death of their friends. Soon after Beowulf learns that the threat is not yet over as he needs to dispatch of Grendel’s mother. Beowulf makes his way up the mountain, enters the cave, and meets Grendel’s mother, a demon that has taken the form of a beautiful woman. She promises to give him all that his heart desires if he leaves behind a golden horn and gives her a son. Being young and seeking only his wishes, Beowulf obliges. When he returns to the castle he claims to have been involved in a great battle and has dispatched the demon. Upon hearing the news, Hrothgar feels compelled to confess that a long time ago he was in Beowulf position and his choice led to the birth of Grendel and a life of misery. Now free he chooses to end it all and jumps from the tower. Now many years later Beowulf is a great king, known throughout the world, yet he is empty. Like Hrothgar before him, his son, birthed by a demon from long ago, terrorizes his kingdom. This time instead of being a deformed giant like Grendel, his son can take the shape of a massive dragon. Wanting to end the curse, Beowulf engages the dragon and rips out his heart. Unfortunately the contest leaves both fallen. Beowulf’s noble and long-time friend, Wiglaf, is there to see him to the end. He is also there to see Beowulf’s body taken by the demon and there is enticed to keep the cycle going.
Reasons why I didn’t like it:
• I usually don’t like open-ended endings and it wasn’t any different in this one. I know that in my plot section I kind put it in a way that showed definite direction but I would imagine that others would disagree with my take on the ending.
• Kind of wished that it had been live action instead of animation.
Reasons why I liked it:
• I only kind of wished it were live action because overall I enjoyed the animation. I thought that the animation really helped in getting into the movie as a fantasy epic.
• The story was awesome. There were a lot of aspects of the story that I liked but I loved the emptiness of Beowulf. I loved that the story revolved around this cycle of great men getting all their hearts desired in their youth only to end up old, weathered, and empty. I felt it spoke volumes to the nature of mankind.
Final Notes:
Good movie. Though it is rated PG-13, I would be wary to bring my adolescent to the movie. I never read the poem but the story was exciting and deep and I only guess that the movie does good to the original.
Young's Review
My review for 'Beowulf' almost did not get published. James and I saw two different films, and I was not sure it would be fair to compare the two. I screened the film in 3-D on an Imax screen, and he did not. It is like comparing apples to oranges.
This was my first experience with the 3-D Imax format, and it was incredible. 'Beowulf' is the most visually amazing film I have ever seen. The animation is top-notch, the entire cast is strong and the story is thought provoking and moving.
In ancient Denmark, King Hrothgar (Anthony Hopkins) is hailed by his subjects as a wonderful king. All the merriment stops, however, when the mighty beast Grendel raids the town and leaves a pile of bodies behind. No one is able to stop Grendel and Hrothgar is forced to put out a large reward to anyone who can slay the beast.
Enter Beowulf (Ray Winstone) and his army. He takes down Grendel in an epic, bloody fight and is hailed as a hero by Hrothgar and admired from afar by the queen (Robin Wright Penn). Little does he know his problems are just beginning. Grendel's mom (Angelina Jolie) is more than a little irked about her son's death, and lures Beowulf to her lair for a talk. From there, Beowulf's (and the rest of the kingdom's) world is never the same.
The fact that the film is so visually stunning should come as no surprise when one considers it is directed by Robert Zemeckis, who is responsible for the classic 'The Polar Express'. Zemeckis has certainly gotten the motion capture animation down to a science. It is startling how much the characters look like the real actors.
In fact, the animation is so good that I feel the 'PG-13' rating the film carries is too light. The violence is graphic and there are several scenes in which Jolie's character is shown nude. This movie is not appropriate for children. I guess the ratings people did not give it an 'R' because it is a cartoon, but the action is so real you forget all about it being animated.
The rating is the only qualm I have with the film. Zemeckis creates a magical fantasy world that is easy to get lost in. The performances of Winstone and Wright Penn are awesome. Winstone is the perfect choice for the lead role. He brings many different emtions to life in Beowulf, from self-confidence to insecurity. Wright Penn captures the inner turmoil the queen faces in falling for Beowulf while still being married to Hrothgar.
Hopkins, Jolie (and John Malkovich as Unferth) are all wonderful actors, and they are great choices here. The film would not have worked without such a strong supporting cast.
The open-ended nature of the final scene might be frustrating for some viewers, but I feel it fit well with the rest of the story. I highly recommend seeing this movie in Imax 3-D. I cannot imagine it being nearly as good visually on a regular screen. The bottom line , though, is that the story transcends the animation, as does the performance of the cast. This is a great film all the way around.
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Fred Claus
Wilsford's Review
Thumb: Up
Notable Characters:
Vince Vaughn – Fred Claus
Paul Giamatti – Nick Claus
Kevin Spacey - Clyde
Plot (contains spoilers): We start in peasant times in the Claus’s home to witness the birth of Fred Claus’s little brother Nick. Predisposed to kindness and generosity, Nick quickly becomes the beloved son that Fred needs to be more like and Fred quickly begins to wish that Nick were never born. Fast forward to today, apparently when someone becomes a saint they and their family are blessed with eternal life, Fred is a repo man spreading his disdain for Christmas with everyone he meets. After an altercation with 30 Santa’s, Fred lands in jail and is forced to call his brother Nick for bail money. Nick agrees to give him the money but Fred must go to the North Pole and work for Nick. At the North Pole child demands are increasing and Santa’s productivity is decreasing, an efficiency expert is called in Clyde. Clyde is rough, as he makes his way through Santa’s shop, he continuously picks out the flaws and gives Santa an ultimatum to shape up or ship out. Meanwhile Fred, being the naughty person he is, is making Nick’s life miserable. He is rebelling against everything Nick has built and ruins everything to the point that Nick is fired from being Santa and Christmas is outsourced from the North Pole. Following the usual format, Fred gets his act together and saves Christmas and reconciles with his family.
Reasons why I didn’t like it:
• Predictable Christmas movie. Follows usual formula, which is not a bad thing but not a good thing either.
• A Christmas movie in November. Please people join me in doing something to keep Christmas in December.
• The music, I know I can’t believe I am writing about the music too. The main theme of the movie sounded very familiar to the theme of “Back to the Future”. Just listen. I think the reason I didn’t like this is because I felt it was a cop out, not original. I don’t know why this bothered me but it did.
Reasons why I liked it:
• This movie was funny. I have liked Vince Vaughn but now I really like him. I have enjoyed his cameos in movies but never really realized how funny he is. I really like his fast paced delivery and I think it is a big reason why most adults will enjoy seeing this movie (it allows for more adult humor to be in the movie because kids won’t catch it and understand it, or maybe I am naïve about kids ability to pick up things).
• Paul Giamatti is a fantastic actor. I didn’t think that a kids holiday movie would have scenes as emotional as this movie had. There was a brotherly love scene that was touching and a scene with Kevin Spacey about naughty children that could bring tears to some. I think the power of those two scenes should be credited with Giamatti’s talent.
Final Notes:
This movie was funny, seasonal, and emotional. I think this is a movie that most people will enjoy, even those that typically go for Vince Vaughn’s more crude humor movies.
Young’s Review
There have been many movies about Santa. We know a lot about him, and some about his wife, but the rest of his famiy remains a mystery. ‘Fred Claus’ sets out to change that. It is a good (if not great) movie and while it may not go down as a Christmas classic, it certainly earns a ‘thumbs up’.
Vince Vaughn plays the title character, Santa’s big brother Fred. Fred lives a nondescript life as a repo man in Chicago. His dream is to start an off-track betting parlor, but he is having trouble raising money for the venture. After an ill-advised fund raising attempt on a street corner gets him chased by a mob of street corner Santas and thrown in jail, Fred turns to his brother Nick (Paul Giamatti) to bail him out.
The problem is that Fred has not spoken to his family in years. Despite the objections of Mrs. Claus (Miranda Richardson), Nick offers to help Fred on the condition that he comes to work for him. While Fred is not looking forward to the extended family time, he agrees to the deal.
Fred’s arrival at the North Pole coincides with that of Clyde Northcut (Kevin Spacey), an efficiency expert sent to shut down Santa’s operation. Santa is left with the task of saving Christmas for kids everywhere while also trying to keep his brother in line.
While I expected more laughs from this film, I still walked away pleased with the final product. Vaughn is the perfect choice for the bitter, sarcastic Fred. He channels some of his previous roles in films such as ‘Swingers’ and ‘Wedding Crashers’, but with a much smoother edge. The best part of Vaughn’s performance is his seamless transition between the comedic and dramatic elements of the character. With his wonderful appearance in ‘Into The Wild’ earlier this year, Vaughn proved his acting chops went beyond just being a smooth talking womanizer in comedies. That trend continues here.
The presence of acting heavyweights Giamatti and Spacey were unexpected. Giamatti makes a surprisingly good Santa. He brings humor and warmth to Nick. I was stunned to see Spacey’s name in the opening credits, but upon screening the film could see no one else playing the role of the sinister Clyde.
The best performance is turned in by one of the cast's relative unknowns. John Michael Higgins plays the role of head elf Willie and does so spendidly. Willie runs the emotional gamut and Higgins is up to the task. A scene where Fred teaches Willie to dance in order to impress Charlene (Elizabeth Banks) is priceless comedy.
While there are some syrupy moments, director David Dobkin does not let the movie become too sappy. Dobkin, who also collaborated with Vaughn in ‘Clay Pigeons’ and ‘Wedding Crashers’, helmed a good holiday movie that should be seen by Christmas lovers everywhere.
Thumb: Up
Notable Characters:
Vince Vaughn – Fred Claus
Paul Giamatti – Nick Claus
Kevin Spacey - Clyde
Plot (contains spoilers): We start in peasant times in the Claus’s home to witness the birth of Fred Claus’s little brother Nick. Predisposed to kindness and generosity, Nick quickly becomes the beloved son that Fred needs to be more like and Fred quickly begins to wish that Nick were never born. Fast forward to today, apparently when someone becomes a saint they and their family are blessed with eternal life, Fred is a repo man spreading his disdain for Christmas with everyone he meets. After an altercation with 30 Santa’s, Fred lands in jail and is forced to call his brother Nick for bail money. Nick agrees to give him the money but Fred must go to the North Pole and work for Nick. At the North Pole child demands are increasing and Santa’s productivity is decreasing, an efficiency expert is called in Clyde. Clyde is rough, as he makes his way through Santa’s shop, he continuously picks out the flaws and gives Santa an ultimatum to shape up or ship out. Meanwhile Fred, being the naughty person he is, is making Nick’s life miserable. He is rebelling against everything Nick has built and ruins everything to the point that Nick is fired from being Santa and Christmas is outsourced from the North Pole. Following the usual format, Fred gets his act together and saves Christmas and reconciles with his family.
Reasons why I didn’t like it:
• Predictable Christmas movie. Follows usual formula, which is not a bad thing but not a good thing either.
• A Christmas movie in November. Please people join me in doing something to keep Christmas in December.
• The music, I know I can’t believe I am writing about the music too. The main theme of the movie sounded very familiar to the theme of “Back to the Future”. Just listen. I think the reason I didn’t like this is because I felt it was a cop out, not original. I don’t know why this bothered me but it did.
Reasons why I liked it:
• This movie was funny. I have liked Vince Vaughn but now I really like him. I have enjoyed his cameos in movies but never really realized how funny he is. I really like his fast paced delivery and I think it is a big reason why most adults will enjoy seeing this movie (it allows for more adult humor to be in the movie because kids won’t catch it and understand it, or maybe I am naïve about kids ability to pick up things).
• Paul Giamatti is a fantastic actor. I didn’t think that a kids holiday movie would have scenes as emotional as this movie had. There was a brotherly love scene that was touching and a scene with Kevin Spacey about naughty children that could bring tears to some. I think the power of those two scenes should be credited with Giamatti’s talent.
Final Notes:
This movie was funny, seasonal, and emotional. I think this is a movie that most people will enjoy, even those that typically go for Vince Vaughn’s more crude humor movies.
Young’s Review
There have been many movies about Santa. We know a lot about him, and some about his wife, but the rest of his famiy remains a mystery. ‘Fred Claus’ sets out to change that. It is a good (if not great) movie and while it may not go down as a Christmas classic, it certainly earns a ‘thumbs up’.
Vince Vaughn plays the title character, Santa’s big brother Fred. Fred lives a nondescript life as a repo man in Chicago. His dream is to start an off-track betting parlor, but he is having trouble raising money for the venture. After an ill-advised fund raising attempt on a street corner gets him chased by a mob of street corner Santas and thrown in jail, Fred turns to his brother Nick (Paul Giamatti) to bail him out.
The problem is that Fred has not spoken to his family in years. Despite the objections of Mrs. Claus (Miranda Richardson), Nick offers to help Fred on the condition that he comes to work for him. While Fred is not looking forward to the extended family time, he agrees to the deal.
Fred’s arrival at the North Pole coincides with that of Clyde Northcut (Kevin Spacey), an efficiency expert sent to shut down Santa’s operation. Santa is left with the task of saving Christmas for kids everywhere while also trying to keep his brother in line.
While I expected more laughs from this film, I still walked away pleased with the final product. Vaughn is the perfect choice for the bitter, sarcastic Fred. He channels some of his previous roles in films such as ‘Swingers’ and ‘Wedding Crashers’, but with a much smoother edge. The best part of Vaughn’s performance is his seamless transition between the comedic and dramatic elements of the character. With his wonderful appearance in ‘Into The Wild’ earlier this year, Vaughn proved his acting chops went beyond just being a smooth talking womanizer in comedies. That trend continues here.
The presence of acting heavyweights Giamatti and Spacey were unexpected. Giamatti makes a surprisingly good Santa. He brings humor and warmth to Nick. I was stunned to see Spacey’s name in the opening credits, but upon screening the film could see no one else playing the role of the sinister Clyde.
The best performance is turned in by one of the cast's relative unknowns. John Michael Higgins plays the role of head elf Willie and does so spendidly. Willie runs the emotional gamut and Higgins is up to the task. A scene where Fred teaches Willie to dance in order to impress Charlene (Elizabeth Banks) is priceless comedy.
While there are some syrupy moments, director David Dobkin does not let the movie become too sappy. Dobkin, who also collaborated with Vaughn in ‘Clay Pigeons’ and ‘Wedding Crashers’, helmed a good holiday movie that should be seen by Christmas lovers everywhere.
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Bee Movie
Wilsford's Review
Thumb: Up
Notable Characters:
Jerry Seinfeld – Barry B. Benson
Renee Zellweger – Vanessa Bloome
Plot (contains spoilers): Barry B. Benson just graduated from college and is ready to enter the workforce. Unfortunately Barry didn’t realize that the job he picks is going to be his job for the rest of his life. Beefore he chooses, he decides to take a ride with the pollen jocks (the bees that are responsible for pollination and the extraction of nectar for their honey). While flying around it starts to rain and since bees can’t fly in the rain, Barry seeks shelter in a nearby apartment. Beeing the unwanted guest that he is, one of the residents tries to kill him. In swoops Vanessa to save the day. Grateful for saving his life, Barry breaks bee law and talks to a human. After the initial weirdness, Barry and Vanessa become friends. On one of their shopping trips, Barry learns that the humans are enslaving millions of bees and stealing their honey and Barry then takes the humans to court. After the trial, the court rules in favor of the bees and mandates that the humans give back all the honey. Since now the bees have more honey than they know what to do with, they stop working. This sets off a chain of events that leads to the death of virtually all plant life which destroys the whole food chain and will eventually lead to the destruction of the world. Fortunately the Rose bowl is going on and it has collected the last surviving flowers in the world. Barry and Vanessa fly out to California and steal a Rose Bowl float. They bring the flowers back to New York, via Bee Power, and restore order to the world.
Reason why I didn’t like it:
· Corny, but then what should I expect from a kid’s movie.
Reasons why I liked it:
· Hilarious. I laughed a lot more than what I expected. If you enjoy Seinfeld’s unique brand of humor, I think you will really enjoy this movie. I should say that I haven’t seen Ratatouille. The only reason I mention that is because every time I say this movie was funny people always say, “Well it’s no Ratatouille”.
· As usual, Dreamworks produces a well animated movie.
· It was funny.
Final Note: Again I haven’t seen Ratatouille, so until then I am going to rate this movie as the best animated movie of the year.
Young's Review
Jerry Seinfeld is one the most successful comedians of his generation. Between his hugely popular 90's sitcom and his sold-out stand up tours, he has made himself into a household name. So when he attaches his name to an animated feature film, viewers will be sure to follow.
'Bee Movie', which Seinfeld helped write and produce in addition to voicing the lead character, is a worthy effort. I give it a 'thumbs up'.
Seinfeld is Barry B. Benson, a bee who longs for life outside the hive. On the day of his college graduation, he talks his way into joining the "Pollen Jocks", the group that leaves the hive daily to pollinate flowers and gather pollen to make more honey. After a series of wild adventures in the real world, Barry finds himself in the home of Vanessa (Renee Zellweger). Vanessa saves Barry from certain death at the hands of her boyfriend Ken (Patrick Warburton).
After Vanessa gets over her shock that she can actually hear Barry thanking her, the pair strike up a friendship. On a trip to the grocery store, Barry discovers a shelf full of honey. Stunned that all the work he and his fellow bees are doing is being exploited for human gain, Barry begins a journey to free all bees from a life of honey producing bondage.
The cast in this film is very good. Seinfeld is funny as Barry and Zellweger makes a charming Vanessa. The highlight of the movie is an appearance by Chris Rock as Mooseblood, a roaming mosquito. Rock has the prototypical cartoon voice and he produces multiple laugh out loud moments in his brief time on screen. Also noteworthy for a funny performance is John Goodman as prosecuting attorney Layton T. Montgomery. Cameos are abundant, including Oprah Winfrey, Larry King, Ray Liotta and (appropriately in a film about bees) Sting.
The first third of the film drags a bit and is short on big laughs. It picks up considerably from there. The animation is amazing, as is the case in all Dreamworks Studios productions. I have heard and read a lot of negative reviews of this film. It's comparison to 'Ratatouille', one of the year's best films overall and one of the best animated movies of all time, is not a fair one. Just because 'Bee Movie' is flawed doesn't make it any less entertaining. I enjoyed it, and more importantly for Dreamworks, so did my friend's second grader who saw it with us. I recommend it to kids of all ages.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
American Gangster
Wilsford's Review
Thumb: Down
Notable Characters:
Denzel Washington – Frank Lucas
Russell Crowe – Richie Roberts
Plot (contains spoilers): Up and coming premier gangster of New York, Frank Lucas, finds himself in position to use the values of capitalism to his advantage. Those values being selling a product that the people want at a price that is better than the competition, the product in this case is heroin. Lucas is able to achieve this by buying directly from the heroin source and transporting the drugs through military transport. Richie Roberts, an honest cop that no one wants to work with, gets assigned to a special drug task force. One night out scouting potential suspects, he notices Lucas sitting in better seats than the New York mob boss. This sends Roberts and his team down the trail of discovering who Frank Lucas really is. At the end of the Vietnam war, Lucas sees that his operation is in jeopardy and so he places a large order and conceives to smuggle in the drugs through the caskets of dead soldiers. Roberts and company follow the drugs to the place where they are packaged and distributed and capture all the bad guys in a multi-floor shootout in the projects. With a massive amount of evidence that would put Lucas away for the rest of his life, he agrees to a deal, proposed by Roberts, to turn in dirty cops. In the end, due to Frank Lucas’s information, 75% of New York’s drug enforcement officers are arrested and Frank spends the next 15 years in prison.
Reasons why I didn’t like it:
· It was slow and long. Usually long movies don’t bother me because I feel that I am getting more for my money. However, when a long movie isn’t good or in this case is slow, the length really stands out.
· Russell Crowe. I have had a real up-and-down relationship with Russell Crowe. As of late it has been on the up swing but he was a let down in this movie. Let me make it clear, he wasn’t bad. He was good, I just was expecting more.
· The story itself seemed choppy. I don’t know how to explain it except through an analogy. Say you found a recipe for making chocolate chip cookies that involved 10 steps. Unfortunately this recipe only showed 7 steps. While the recipe is incomplete, you could still figure it out and make the cookies and thus the outcome will be the same. It is just that it would have been easier to follow if it included all the steps.
Reason why I liked it:
· Denzel Washington is awesome. I loved him in this movie from the opening scene. When he set the guy on fire and shot him, while that is gruesome, they way he portrayed himself really set the tone that Frank Lucas is an evil man.
Final Notes: This movie isn’t awful. It is long and there are some scenes that are unnecessary, but the general story is interesting. However, I would just wait for video.
Young’s Review
Two of Hollywood’s top heavyweights face off in ‘American Gangster’. The sport of boxing, which is struggling mightily to attract viewers, can only dream of having such a scenario.
This film is memorable for the performances its stars turn in, and this is the main reason I am giving it a 'thumbs up'. Denzel Washington plays Frank Lucas, a 1970’s crime boss in Harlem that thrives in the illegal drug trade. Russell Crowe is Richie Roberts, the cop bent on stopping him. Lucas is the head of a crime syndicate that specializes in selling the purest heroine on the street for half the price. Roberts is trying to make a small difference in the drug epidemic in New York City, but all the corruption in the local police department makes it difficult. When his boss suggests he head up a drug task force designed to take down the major distributors, Roberts jumps at the chance.
The boxing analogy is fitting because Roberts discovers Lucas on a stakeout at an Ali-Frazier fight. Roberts notices that Lucas is in a prime seat for the fight and wonders how he got there. The forthcoming investigation uncovers just how deep Lucas is in the drug selling game.
The film is a brilliant juxtaposition of right and wrong. Lucas is ruthless with anyone that gets in his way, including his own family. The opening scene sets the tone for the character, as Lucas douses a man with gasoline, lights him on fire, pulls out a gun and unloads a round of bullets. Roberts, in contrast, finds nearly a million dollars in unmarked bills in a suspect's car and turns it in as evidence. This move is even more noble when contrasted with the rampant corruption surounding him at work.
Washington gives one of his best performances in an already illustrious career. In his hands, Lucas is both ruthless and calculated. Crowe, the master of unlimited accents, doesn't wilt in the presence of Washington. His performance is memorable for bringing out the desperation Roberts feels to stay in control of some part of his life as his marriage crumbles.
A scene towards the end featuring Lucas and Roberts together in an interrogation room is classic filmmaking. Scenes like this are why Washington and Crowe make the big bucks. They play off each other so well, each not backing down from the other. It makes you regret that this is the only scene they share. The connection the two created while making 1995's 'Virtuosity' is clearly on display here.
While the two lead actors shine, they are not the only positives. Ridley Scott adds to the long list of quality films he has directed (such as 'Gladiator' and 'Thelma and Louise'). Scott moves the story foward in a logical, if deliberate, pace and gets top-notch performances from the entire cast. Josh Brolin is dynamite as a crooked cop. Armand Assante plays a typical Italian mobster, Dominic Cattano, and does it well. Cuba Gooding Jr. also makes a memorable appearance as club owner Nicky Barnes.
This film recalls legendary mob movies such as 'The Godfather' and 'Goodfellas'. While it is not the film those classics were, it is still a must see. This is the second film of the year (along with 'Eastern Promises') that belongs on any 'Best Mafia Movies' list. I strongly recommend it to fans of the genre.
Thumb: Down
Notable Characters:
Denzel Washington – Frank Lucas
Russell Crowe – Richie Roberts
Plot (contains spoilers): Up and coming premier gangster of New York, Frank Lucas, finds himself in position to use the values of capitalism to his advantage. Those values being selling a product that the people want at a price that is better than the competition, the product in this case is heroin. Lucas is able to achieve this by buying directly from the heroin source and transporting the drugs through military transport. Richie Roberts, an honest cop that no one wants to work with, gets assigned to a special drug task force. One night out scouting potential suspects, he notices Lucas sitting in better seats than the New York mob boss. This sends Roberts and his team down the trail of discovering who Frank Lucas really is. At the end of the Vietnam war, Lucas sees that his operation is in jeopardy and so he places a large order and conceives to smuggle in the drugs through the caskets of dead soldiers. Roberts and company follow the drugs to the place where they are packaged and distributed and capture all the bad guys in a multi-floor shootout in the projects. With a massive amount of evidence that would put Lucas away for the rest of his life, he agrees to a deal, proposed by Roberts, to turn in dirty cops. In the end, due to Frank Lucas’s information, 75% of New York’s drug enforcement officers are arrested and Frank spends the next 15 years in prison.
Reasons why I didn’t like it:
· It was slow and long. Usually long movies don’t bother me because I feel that I am getting more for my money. However, when a long movie isn’t good or in this case is slow, the length really stands out.
· Russell Crowe. I have had a real up-and-down relationship with Russell Crowe. As of late it has been on the up swing but he was a let down in this movie. Let me make it clear, he wasn’t bad. He was good, I just was expecting more.
· The story itself seemed choppy. I don’t know how to explain it except through an analogy. Say you found a recipe for making chocolate chip cookies that involved 10 steps. Unfortunately this recipe only showed 7 steps. While the recipe is incomplete, you could still figure it out and make the cookies and thus the outcome will be the same. It is just that it would have been easier to follow if it included all the steps.
Reason why I liked it:
· Denzel Washington is awesome. I loved him in this movie from the opening scene. When he set the guy on fire and shot him, while that is gruesome, they way he portrayed himself really set the tone that Frank Lucas is an evil man.
Final Notes: This movie isn’t awful. It is long and there are some scenes that are unnecessary, but the general story is interesting. However, I would just wait for video.
Young’s Review
Two of Hollywood’s top heavyweights face off in ‘American Gangster’. The sport of boxing, which is struggling mightily to attract viewers, can only dream of having such a scenario.
This film is memorable for the performances its stars turn in, and this is the main reason I am giving it a 'thumbs up'. Denzel Washington plays Frank Lucas, a 1970’s crime boss in Harlem that thrives in the illegal drug trade. Russell Crowe is Richie Roberts, the cop bent on stopping him. Lucas is the head of a crime syndicate that specializes in selling the purest heroine on the street for half the price. Roberts is trying to make a small difference in the drug epidemic in New York City, but all the corruption in the local police department makes it difficult. When his boss suggests he head up a drug task force designed to take down the major distributors, Roberts jumps at the chance.
The boxing analogy is fitting because Roberts discovers Lucas on a stakeout at an Ali-Frazier fight. Roberts notices that Lucas is in a prime seat for the fight and wonders how he got there. The forthcoming investigation uncovers just how deep Lucas is in the drug selling game.
The film is a brilliant juxtaposition of right and wrong. Lucas is ruthless with anyone that gets in his way, including his own family. The opening scene sets the tone for the character, as Lucas douses a man with gasoline, lights him on fire, pulls out a gun and unloads a round of bullets. Roberts, in contrast, finds nearly a million dollars in unmarked bills in a suspect's car and turns it in as evidence. This move is even more noble when contrasted with the rampant corruption surounding him at work.
Washington gives one of his best performances in an already illustrious career. In his hands, Lucas is both ruthless and calculated. Crowe, the master of unlimited accents, doesn't wilt in the presence of Washington. His performance is memorable for bringing out the desperation Roberts feels to stay in control of some part of his life as his marriage crumbles.
A scene towards the end featuring Lucas and Roberts together in an interrogation room is classic filmmaking. Scenes like this are why Washington and Crowe make the big bucks. They play off each other so well, each not backing down from the other. It makes you regret that this is the only scene they share. The connection the two created while making 1995's 'Virtuosity' is clearly on display here.
While the two lead actors shine, they are not the only positives. Ridley Scott adds to the long list of quality films he has directed (such as 'Gladiator' and 'Thelma and Louise'). Scott moves the story foward in a logical, if deliberate, pace and gets top-notch performances from the entire cast. Josh Brolin is dynamite as a crooked cop. Armand Assante plays a typical Italian mobster, Dominic Cattano, and does it well. Cuba Gooding Jr. also makes a memorable appearance as club owner Nicky Barnes.
This film recalls legendary mob movies such as 'The Godfather' and 'Goodfellas'. While it is not the film those classics were, it is still a must see. This is the second film of the year (along with 'Eastern Promises') that belongs on any 'Best Mafia Movies' list. I strongly recommend it to fans of the genre.
Martian Child
Wilsford's Review
Thumb: Up
Notable Characters:
John Cusack – David
Bobby Coleman – Dennis
Amanda Peet - Harlee
Plot (contains spoilers): David, a famous and quirky fantasy writer, is coping with the loss of his wife. In his journey to cope, he decides to adopt a child. While hanging out in an orphanage, David finds Dennis, a child who believes that he is from mars. Despite the skeptics that are in charge, the adoption goes through and David and Dennis begin their difficult and awkward journey to come to terms with their lives. In the end David is finally able to let go of the memory of his late wife and love someone else and Dennis is finally able to accept that David isn’t abandoning him and be himself.
Reasons why I didn’t like it:
Final Notes: While this was a movie that I typically wouldn’t choose to see, I was very surprised by how much I enjoyed it. I imagine that this is a movie that any girl would love and if their significant other isn’t a “macho man”, this is a movie that both sexes would enjoy.
Young’s Review
The world can be a cruel place to kids with even the slightest hint of eccentricity. It can be even harder for children from another planet.
This proves to be true in ‘Martian Child’, a touching and funny story of acceptance and transformation that I am giving a ‘thumbs up’.Dennis (Bobby Coleman) is a lonely little boy. He has no friends in the foster care center where he lives and he spends most of his day hiding in a box. He also thinks he is from Mars. His world is rocked when a grieving widower and famous author named David (John Cusack) comes along and befriends him. Despite the objections of his sister Liz (played by John Cusack’s real-life sister Joan), David sets in motion a plan to adopt Dennis.
The relationship between Dennis and David is what makes this film worth watching. The precocious Coleman brings a necessary vulnerability to Dennis. A lesser actor would have caused the film to devolve into a schmaltzy mess. He makes you care about him while keeping you guessing as to whether or not he really is from outer space. Cusack is a versatile performer who rarely disappoints, and his portrayal of David is no exception. He keeps his emotions close to the surface, whether he is laughing about something Dennis did or quietly weeping about his wife’s death.
The rest of the cast, from Amanda Peet as David’s friend Harlee to the social worker Sophie (Sophie Okonedo), is lost in the shuffle. Anjelica Huston, Oliver Platt, and Richard Schiff also appear as David’s publisher, agent and child welfare contact, respectively. Joan Cusack, a fine character actress, does not have much to work in the script but makes the most of her screen time nonetheless. Peet's performance is likable, but like James I felt that her relationship with David was not explored enough.
The film does have its sappy moments, as you would expect. Director Menno Meyjes never lets the sentimentality run rampant, though, mixing in enough light moments to prevent it. The story, which was adapted from David Gerrold’s novel of the same name, makes an important point about accepting people for who they are. All Dennis is looking for is someone to love him just the way he is. After viewing this film, I am guessing viewers will have no problem doing just that.
Thumb: Up
Notable Characters:
John Cusack – David
Bobby Coleman – Dennis
Amanda Peet - Harlee
Plot (contains spoilers): David, a famous and quirky fantasy writer, is coping with the loss of his wife. In his journey to cope, he decides to adopt a child. While hanging out in an orphanage, David finds Dennis, a child who believes that he is from mars. Despite the skeptics that are in charge, the adoption goes through and David and Dennis begin their difficult and awkward journey to come to terms with their lives. In the end David is finally able to let go of the memory of his late wife and love someone else and Dennis is finally able to accept that David isn’t abandoning him and be himself.
Reasons why I didn’t like it:
- Bobby Coleman played his part well but the kid was just too weird. I know he is supposed to be from mars but he was too weird/borderline creepy.
- Amanda Peet served her purpose but I thought that they left her storyline unfinished. Maybe that was the point but I was curious to see what was going to happen between David and Harlee.
- It was just a good movie. It had good characters played by good actors in a good story. It was funny, serious, emotional, and enjoyable.
Final Notes: While this was a movie that I typically wouldn’t choose to see, I was very surprised by how much I enjoyed it. I imagine that this is a movie that any girl would love and if their significant other isn’t a “macho man”, this is a movie that both sexes would enjoy.
Young’s Review
The world can be a cruel place to kids with even the slightest hint of eccentricity. It can be even harder for children from another planet.
This proves to be true in ‘Martian Child’, a touching and funny story of acceptance and transformation that I am giving a ‘thumbs up’.Dennis (Bobby Coleman) is a lonely little boy. He has no friends in the foster care center where he lives and he spends most of his day hiding in a box. He also thinks he is from Mars. His world is rocked when a grieving widower and famous author named David (John Cusack) comes along and befriends him. Despite the objections of his sister Liz (played by John Cusack’s real-life sister Joan), David sets in motion a plan to adopt Dennis.
The relationship between Dennis and David is what makes this film worth watching. The precocious Coleman brings a necessary vulnerability to Dennis. A lesser actor would have caused the film to devolve into a schmaltzy mess. He makes you care about him while keeping you guessing as to whether or not he really is from outer space. Cusack is a versatile performer who rarely disappoints, and his portrayal of David is no exception. He keeps his emotions close to the surface, whether he is laughing about something Dennis did or quietly weeping about his wife’s death.
The rest of the cast, from Amanda Peet as David’s friend Harlee to the social worker Sophie (Sophie Okonedo), is lost in the shuffle. Anjelica Huston, Oliver Platt, and Richard Schiff also appear as David’s publisher, agent and child welfare contact, respectively. Joan Cusack, a fine character actress, does not have much to work in the script but makes the most of her screen time nonetheless. Peet's performance is likable, but like James I felt that her relationship with David was not explored enough.
The film does have its sappy moments, as you would expect. Director Menno Meyjes never lets the sentimentality run rampant, though, mixing in enough light moments to prevent it. The story, which was adapted from David Gerrold’s novel of the same name, makes an important point about accepting people for who they are. All Dennis is looking for is someone to love him just the way he is. After viewing this film, I am guessing viewers will have no problem doing just that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
