Having only seen the Tim Burton Planet of the Apes, my initial reaction to the first Rise trailer was "meh." I was not, and continue to not be, impressed by that movie. It was with a certain hesitancy that I approached this movie after the debacle that was Cowboys and Aliens last week. Nevertheless, I checked out the midnight screening for this prequel to a classic, and i'm definitely glad I did.
For those who don't know, Rise of the Planet of the Apes isn't a remake of the original, it is in fact a prequel (as if the title didn't say it all already). Will Rodman (played by James Franco) is a scientist for Gen Sys labs, who is trying to discover a cure for Alzheimers, which his father Charles (John Lithgow) is afflicted with. After his initial serum, ALZ-112, causes its chimp test subject to act aggressively, the project is shut down and all the chimps are put down. Unbeknownst to anyone but Will and the chimp handler, the test chimp was not aggressive due to side effects of the ALZ, but in fact because she was trying to protect her newborn infant. The chimp handler refuses to put down the baby, and Rodman takes it home to take care of it. He soon finds out that the ALZ-112 has been passed on genetically, as Caesar (the chimp) exhibits extraordinary intelligence for a human his age, let alone a chimp. From there, it is a story centered around Caesar, depicting his growth in intelligence and also where his disdain for mankind comes.
This movie is perhaps one of the best examples of straightforward narrative storytelling in any movie i've seen all summer. Since the main character is a monkey (or ape if you want to get technical about it) there is significantly less dialogue than other movies, but that doesn't impede the flow or clarity of the story. A child could follow the plot of the movie easily, since Caesar clearly emotes all his feelings quite expressively. It takes a while for the flick to get to the titular Uprising, but every second of build up is worth it. Every scene slowly builds up to a fever pitch until a single commanding scene which lets the viewer irrevocably know that the tides have turned. Trust me, you'll know what i'm talking about when you see it. After that point, it is game on. They definitely should've just called this movie "Apes gone Wild".
The human cast in the movie is so incidental that it hardly seems fruitful to mention it, but I guess I might as well. James Franco does an alright job as Will Rodman, though again I feel that the part could have been played by almost anyone and still have been effective. John Lithgow, on the other hand, rips it with one of the most emotional performances in the flick. It's good to see that guy still kicking around and he shows us that he's still got it in this flick. Freida Pinto plays Caroline Aranha, a vet and chimp specialist, who in my opinion is in the movie for no other reason than to have a love story. She's probably the most inconsequential of all the human characters, but I must say, she is VERY nice to look at. The real up-and-comer in this flick is Tom Felton, who i'm sure you all know better as Draco Malfoy. My fear for this kid is that he's been typecast as a dick. Draco Malfoy is a dick. And Dodge Landon, (Felton) also a dick. He's good at it, don't get me wrong, but we already know he can play a dick. He's been doing it for the past 10 years. Show me those acting chops kid. I know they're in there.
The REAL star of the show, however, is Caesar, the hyper-intelligent chimp. The genius that is Andy Serkis (the man behind Gollum and King Kong) once again steps into the motion capture mobile that's now as familiar to him as a second skin, and gives a riveting performance, proving once again the old saying "acting is doing".
This movie is rife with wide overhead aerial shots and sweeping dolly moves which, while being very nice to look at, also help enhance the emotional intensity of various points in the movie. While there are a lot of dynamic shots in the flick, the director has abandoned the handheld style of filming for a more classic, smoother style of dynamic shot, which I definitely approve of. A++ to the Director of Photography on this one.
Rise of the Planet of the Apes is a tale of love and trust turning to pain and betrayal, underneath the guise of an action film revolving around monkeys. I urge everyone to go see this amazingly directed movie. Do it now, or i'll set my chimp on you.
Final Score: 9/10
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Cowboys and Aliens
Cowboys and Aliens. Two things that generally don't go together. But, they are both very good things, so I suppose it's fair enough that someone one day would think it would be a good idea to put the two of them together, in a movie. Now the day has finally come when someone DID put them together. The result is one silly as hell movie.
The movie starts off with Jake Lonergan (played by Daniel Craig) in an empty desert with no memory of who he is and a strange device strapped to his wrist. After failing to get the device off his wrist, he travels to a nearby town looking for clues of his past. In town, he runs afoul of Percy Dolarhyde (played by Paul Dano - Eli Sunday from There Will be Blood), the son of wealthy cattle merchant Woodrow Dolarhyde (Harrison Ford), known for being a ruthless business man and even more ferocious warrior. After causing a minor incident, the pair are locked up in jail for the night. Word gets to Woodrow, who makes his way to the town in order to bail out his son, and his arrival coincides with the first wave of alien visitors, who start snatching citizens and carrying them off. It's then up to Lonergan and Dolarhyde along with the townfolk including Ella (Olivia Wilde) to locate and rescue their missing kinsmen.
Let me start off by saying that this is one huge clusterfuck of a movie. It's confused narratively, the plot scarcely makes any kind of sense. To me it seemed as though they created the title of the movie and then tried to make a plot make sense to fit it. It's filled with so many cliches that it makes your head spin, and as for character development, good luck trying to find ANY. That all being said, I will give credit to Daniel Craig - he's the only part of this movie that's worth watching, as he kicks ass all the way to the alien ship and back. Olivia Wilde's character literally does not make any sense, it seems like she was just thrown in there because the producers wanted to have a female body to look at. And as much as I love Harrison Ford for being the scoundrel known across the galaxy as Han Solo, his efforts in this flick are truly sub-par.
Visually the film looks alright, the graphics for the ships and aliens are pretty on point, but as we all know, a movie these days can't just be about how good the graphics are, or they will fail utterly. Cowboys and Aliens seems just that - an effects driven vehicle that discards sense for scenery.
Not much more to say about this flick except that even given my low expectations, it underperformed severely. Don't see this movie unless you like movies about Aliens who like to touch little boys and ride dong shaped spaceships that are fuelled by gold. Just, extremely silly stuff.
Final Score: 4/10
The movie starts off with Jake Lonergan (played by Daniel Craig) in an empty desert with no memory of who he is and a strange device strapped to his wrist. After failing to get the device off his wrist, he travels to a nearby town looking for clues of his past. In town, he runs afoul of Percy Dolarhyde (played by Paul Dano - Eli Sunday from There Will be Blood), the son of wealthy cattle merchant Woodrow Dolarhyde (Harrison Ford), known for being a ruthless business man and even more ferocious warrior. After causing a minor incident, the pair are locked up in jail for the night. Word gets to Woodrow, who makes his way to the town in order to bail out his son, and his arrival coincides with the first wave of alien visitors, who start snatching citizens and carrying them off. It's then up to Lonergan and Dolarhyde along with the townfolk including Ella (Olivia Wilde) to locate and rescue their missing kinsmen.
Let me start off by saying that this is one huge clusterfuck of a movie. It's confused narratively, the plot scarcely makes any kind of sense. To me it seemed as though they created the title of the movie and then tried to make a plot make sense to fit it. It's filled with so many cliches that it makes your head spin, and as for character development, good luck trying to find ANY. That all being said, I will give credit to Daniel Craig - he's the only part of this movie that's worth watching, as he kicks ass all the way to the alien ship and back. Olivia Wilde's character literally does not make any sense, it seems like she was just thrown in there because the producers wanted to have a female body to look at. And as much as I love Harrison Ford for being the scoundrel known across the galaxy as Han Solo, his efforts in this flick are truly sub-par.
Visually the film looks alright, the graphics for the ships and aliens are pretty on point, but as we all know, a movie these days can't just be about how good the graphics are, or they will fail utterly. Cowboys and Aliens seems just that - an effects driven vehicle that discards sense for scenery.
Not much more to say about this flick except that even given my low expectations, it underperformed severely. Don't see this movie unless you like movies about Aliens who like to touch little boys and ride dong shaped spaceships that are fuelled by gold. Just, extremely silly stuff.
Final Score: 4/10
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Captain America
So Marvel's third summer blockbuster dropped last weekend and I, with characteristic nerdiness, caught the midnight screening. I was surprised to find out that the local Coliseum had sold out of tickets for it, meaning I had to make the trek to the next closest theatre. So far, a good sign. I was especially surprised since Captain America is not exactly Marvel's most famous property, but then, he's not as obscure as say, Ghost Rider (I can't believe they're making a second one.) Regardless, if you're unfamiliar with the Captain America mythos, the movie does a great job of summarizing it.
Set against the backdrop of World War 2, Captain America pits the forces of America's army, namely the 107th Infantry, against Germany's Johann Schmidt (played by Hugo Weaving). Schmidt is a scientist obsessed with finding an ancient and secret power which everyone believes to be fable. His search for power leads him to Dr. Erskine (played by Stanley Tucci), a scientist who has created a serum to enhance every aspect of the human body. After performing the experiment, Erskine realizes that the evil that was within Schmidt has now also been amplified, along with his strength and speed, and he defects from Germany and flees to America. Meanwhile, in the USA, scrawny and sickly Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) is trying for the 6th time to enlist in the military. After initially being rejected yet again, he catches the eye of Dr. Erskine, who is now working with the American military. Erskine convinces Colonel Phillips (Tommy Lee Jones) to take on the undersized fighter with the intention of administering the same serum to Rogers. Phillips reluctantly agrees to the procedure, while Rogers eagerly accepts Erskine's proposal and Captain America is born. The rest, as they say, is history.
I walked into this movie having very few expectations. Not to say that I was expecting it to be a bad movie, it's just not one of the Marvel properties i'm terribly familiar with. So I must say that I was pleasantly surprised by the quality of the movie, particularily the acting - for the most part. Chris Evans is pretty good as Steve Rogers, funny, et cetera, but I feel like a lot of other people could have played the part equally or better. It wasn't one of those "born to play this part" roles. Tommy Lee Jones, however, is pitch perfect as Colonel Phillips. He's sharp as a tack, quick as a whip, and funny as hell. Old Tommy boy has still got it. In my opinion though, Stanley Tucci steals the show, as the gentle and kindhearted Dr. Erskine. Though he's in the movie only briefly, his performance is solid and witty. Now on the other hand, we have Hugo Weaving, who played Schmidt. Now I like Weaving. Who can deny how maliciious he was as Agent Smith, or how noble as Elrond the high elf? Weaving is an excellent actor - just not in this movie. Mostly, it is his accent that bothers me. It's not quite german. It's not quite anything else either, but German is what it's supposed to sound like. Otherwise, a solid job all around.
I particularly enjoyed this flick for its setting, during the era of world war. Many comic book films these days take place in the present universe - it's rather refreshing to see one taking place in the past. Plus, it's also a throw back to the Golden Age of comic books, and the campiness of some of the scenes is also definitely a reflection of this as well. Overall, I was also satisfied with the amount of shield throwing present in the movie.
Captain America is a solid flick. Any comic book lovers should check it out, and if you wanna see an entertaining movie, go check it out as well. If you're excited for The Avengers, stick around for after the credits ;)
Final Score: 7/10
Set against the backdrop of World War 2, Captain America pits the forces of America's army, namely the 107th Infantry, against Germany's Johann Schmidt (played by Hugo Weaving). Schmidt is a scientist obsessed with finding an ancient and secret power which everyone believes to be fable. His search for power leads him to Dr. Erskine (played by Stanley Tucci), a scientist who has created a serum to enhance every aspect of the human body. After performing the experiment, Erskine realizes that the evil that was within Schmidt has now also been amplified, along with his strength and speed, and he defects from Germany and flees to America. Meanwhile, in the USA, scrawny and sickly Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) is trying for the 6th time to enlist in the military. After initially being rejected yet again, he catches the eye of Dr. Erskine, who is now working with the American military. Erskine convinces Colonel Phillips (Tommy Lee Jones) to take on the undersized fighter with the intention of administering the same serum to Rogers. Phillips reluctantly agrees to the procedure, while Rogers eagerly accepts Erskine's proposal and Captain America is born. The rest, as they say, is history.
I walked into this movie having very few expectations. Not to say that I was expecting it to be a bad movie, it's just not one of the Marvel properties i'm terribly familiar with. So I must say that I was pleasantly surprised by the quality of the movie, particularily the acting - for the most part. Chris Evans is pretty good as Steve Rogers, funny, et cetera, but I feel like a lot of other people could have played the part equally or better. It wasn't one of those "born to play this part" roles. Tommy Lee Jones, however, is pitch perfect as Colonel Phillips. He's sharp as a tack, quick as a whip, and funny as hell. Old Tommy boy has still got it. In my opinion though, Stanley Tucci steals the show, as the gentle and kindhearted Dr. Erskine. Though he's in the movie only briefly, his performance is solid and witty. Now on the other hand, we have Hugo Weaving, who played Schmidt. Now I like Weaving. Who can deny how maliciious he was as Agent Smith, or how noble as Elrond the high elf? Weaving is an excellent actor - just not in this movie. Mostly, it is his accent that bothers me. It's not quite german. It's not quite anything else either, but German is what it's supposed to sound like. Otherwise, a solid job all around.
I particularly enjoyed this flick for its setting, during the era of world war. Many comic book films these days take place in the present universe - it's rather refreshing to see one taking place in the past. Plus, it's also a throw back to the Golden Age of comic books, and the campiness of some of the scenes is also definitely a reflection of this as well. Overall, I was also satisfied with the amount of shield throwing present in the movie.
Captain America is a solid flick. Any comic book lovers should check it out, and if you wanna see an entertaining movie, go check it out as well. If you're excited for The Avengers, stick around for after the credits ;)
Final Score: 7/10
Friday, July 15, 2011
Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows part 2 a.k.a. The end of an era
So it's finally come. The last Harry Potter movie that will ever be made. The end of a legendary saga. The finale of perhaps the largest cultural phenomenon of our generation. Chances are, if you are even the remotest fan of Harry Potter, this review isn't necessary, because you're going to see it. And rightly so, as it is the closing chapter of a journey that started more than a decade ago. I suppose then, that this is for those casual observers who have only the mildest interest in the franchise, or for those who have been living under some sort of rock for the past 11 years.
The story continues exactly where Part 1 left off, with Voldemort stealing the elder wand from Dumbledore's grave. Harry, Ron, and Hermione continue to search for the remaining horcruxes, which ultimately leads them back to Hogwarts, where the final battle for the fate of wizardkind takes place.
So was it worth the 4 hour wait in line? Of course. But I say that based solely on the cultural impact of the film. It truly is the end of an era. How was it as a movie as a whole? Pretty good - although as a die hard Potter fan, I wish that David Yates (the director) would have taken the opportunity to expand on the few scenes that didn't focus on Harry - namely the battles between Snape and McGonagall and Bellatrix and Molly. In the books, the duel between the headmaster and deputy is perhaps the most magically involved battle depicted, which makes sense as they are the two most talented and powerful professors remaining at Hogwarts. In the movie however, Yates glosses over the battle with a few half-hearted flame bursts from McGonagall and Snape escaping through the window. The battle between Molly and Bellatrix, while not as intricately described, is one of the most emotional fights in the series. In the movie, the fight fails to evoke the emotion it did in the books. Now I realize that of course, the main focus is Harry and his journey. But really, we've seen 7 movies of Harry being a hero - my opinion is that it would have been nice to see others share the spotlight if only for a few moments. That's not to say that the entire movie was lackluster, but those were two of my favorite parts in the book, and I have to say that I was disappointed in those parts particularly. The rest of the film is filled with its usual action, emotion, and humour. The movie is good, certainly, but it just felt like some parts were lacking the epicness befitting the finale of this franchise.
What else can I say about this film that hasn't already been said about the others? The only new player is Aberforth Dumbledore, played by Ciaran Hinds, who shows up for about 5 minutes total. The visual effects are stunning. The main trio have been doing this for so long that you don't even consider the fact that they are not actually the characters that they portray.
All in all, while I found some parts a bit disappointing, it is still a solid movie. And like I mentioned before, you're going to go see it anyways. My final parting word is this though: as good as these movies are, they will never be able to fully do the books justice. If you haven't read the original source material, go grab a copy, and start reading the stuff that legends are made of.
Final Score: 8/10
The story continues exactly where Part 1 left off, with Voldemort stealing the elder wand from Dumbledore's grave. Harry, Ron, and Hermione continue to search for the remaining horcruxes, which ultimately leads them back to Hogwarts, where the final battle for the fate of wizardkind takes place.
So was it worth the 4 hour wait in line? Of course. But I say that based solely on the cultural impact of the film. It truly is the end of an era. How was it as a movie as a whole? Pretty good - although as a die hard Potter fan, I wish that David Yates (the director) would have taken the opportunity to expand on the few scenes that didn't focus on Harry - namely the battles between Snape and McGonagall and Bellatrix and Molly. In the books, the duel between the headmaster and deputy is perhaps the most magically involved battle depicted, which makes sense as they are the two most talented and powerful professors remaining at Hogwarts. In the movie however, Yates glosses over the battle with a few half-hearted flame bursts from McGonagall and Snape escaping through the window. The battle between Molly and Bellatrix, while not as intricately described, is one of the most emotional fights in the series. In the movie, the fight fails to evoke the emotion it did in the books. Now I realize that of course, the main focus is Harry and his journey. But really, we've seen 7 movies of Harry being a hero - my opinion is that it would have been nice to see others share the spotlight if only for a few moments. That's not to say that the entire movie was lackluster, but those were two of my favorite parts in the book, and I have to say that I was disappointed in those parts particularly. The rest of the film is filled with its usual action, emotion, and humour. The movie is good, certainly, but it just felt like some parts were lacking the epicness befitting the finale of this franchise.
What else can I say about this film that hasn't already been said about the others? The only new player is Aberforth Dumbledore, played by Ciaran Hinds, who shows up for about 5 minutes total. The visual effects are stunning. The main trio have been doing this for so long that you don't even consider the fact that they are not actually the characters that they portray.
All in all, while I found some parts a bit disappointing, it is still a solid movie. And like I mentioned before, you're going to go see it anyways. My final parting word is this though: as good as these movies are, they will never be able to fully do the books justice. If you haven't read the original source material, go grab a copy, and start reading the stuff that legends are made of.
Final Score: 8/10
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
SNEAK PEEK: Horrible Bosses
This evening I had the very great pleasure of attending an advanced screening of New Line Cinema's upcoming flick Horrible Bosses. If you're a follower of my work (if you're not, get on that right now) you know i'm not one to gush about a movie in the introductory paragraph. Today, history is made, because i'm telling you right now that if you have any respect for comedy, a single funny bone in your body, or a love for laughter, you MUST GO SEE THIS MOVIE. I do say this without an ounce of hyperbole: it is the single funniest movie I have seen in my 23 years on this Earth.
The premise, as with all good films, is extremely simple. Nick (Jason Bateman), Dale (Charlie Day), and Kurt (Jason Sudeikis) are three old friends who are fed up with their abusive and truly (as the title explains) horrible bosses. As tensions with their respective superiors reach a boiling point, the three decide that their lives would be so much the better if their bosses were out of their lives. Over a few drinks, they decide to hatch a Hitchcockian scheme in the vein of Strangers on a Train: they will each murder one of the other's bosses. The resulting melee is a hilarious ride that I implore you to go see.
So why have I seemingly leaked all the objectivity out of my brains? Perhaps it's the casting of Kevin Spacey, Colin Farrell, and Jennifer Aniston as the bosses in the title. Spacey's Dave Harken is what one might call a polished turd - he has the bearing and demeanour of a company CEO but is by far one of the biggest pricks in Hollywood history. Colin Farrell plays Bobby Pellit, the heir of a chemical plant, who oozes malice and contempt for just about every single employee that works for him. Jennifer Aniston rounds out the bosses as Dr. Julia Harris, the sex-crazed maniac intent on banging Dale before his marriage. It's a marked departure from, well Rachel, and refreshing to see Aniston play such a raunchy part. And though the powerhouse trio of Spacey, Farrell and Aniston bring absolute gold to the table as the titular bosses, it's our white collar heroes Bateman, Day, and Sudeikis who really steal the show. It's not so much that they bring outstanding characters to life. Quite the contrary in fact, as the characters of Nick, Kurt, and Dale are completely unremarkable (intentionally, i'm sure, so that you as the viewer can easily put yourself in their place). It's the chemistry between the three that really grabs you and punches you in the bladder, so that you're laughing and peeing all over the place. This is one of those instances in which you know the actors had a great time filming the movie. The laughs start from the very first moment of the film, and they never let up - no word of a lie, I missed several jokes because I was still trying to catch my breath from laughing at the previous one.
This is my kind of movie. It's a shining example of cinema that proves that you don't need CG, explosions, or a convoluted plot to make an excellent movie. All you need is a plot ANYONE can relate to, some good writing, and a few very, VERY funny sons'a bitches. Forget X-Men. Forget Transformers. If you go see ONE movie this summer, make sure it's Horrible Bosses (well, Harry Potter too, but that's a whole different ballpark.)
Final Score: 9/10
The premise, as with all good films, is extremely simple. Nick (Jason Bateman), Dale (Charlie Day), and Kurt (Jason Sudeikis) are three old friends who are fed up with their abusive and truly (as the title explains) horrible bosses. As tensions with their respective superiors reach a boiling point, the three decide that their lives would be so much the better if their bosses were out of their lives. Over a few drinks, they decide to hatch a Hitchcockian scheme in the vein of Strangers on a Train: they will each murder one of the other's bosses. The resulting melee is a hilarious ride that I implore you to go see.
So why have I seemingly leaked all the objectivity out of my brains? Perhaps it's the casting of Kevin Spacey, Colin Farrell, and Jennifer Aniston as the bosses in the title. Spacey's Dave Harken is what one might call a polished turd - he has the bearing and demeanour of a company CEO but is by far one of the biggest pricks in Hollywood history. Colin Farrell plays Bobby Pellit, the heir of a chemical plant, who oozes malice and contempt for just about every single employee that works for him. Jennifer Aniston rounds out the bosses as Dr. Julia Harris, the sex-crazed maniac intent on banging Dale before his marriage. It's a marked departure from, well Rachel, and refreshing to see Aniston play such a raunchy part. And though the powerhouse trio of Spacey, Farrell and Aniston bring absolute gold to the table as the titular bosses, it's our white collar heroes Bateman, Day, and Sudeikis who really steal the show. It's not so much that they bring outstanding characters to life. Quite the contrary in fact, as the characters of Nick, Kurt, and Dale are completely unremarkable (intentionally, i'm sure, so that you as the viewer can easily put yourself in their place). It's the chemistry between the three that really grabs you and punches you in the bladder, so that you're laughing and peeing all over the place. This is one of those instances in which you know the actors had a great time filming the movie. The laughs start from the very first moment of the film, and they never let up - no word of a lie, I missed several jokes because I was still trying to catch my breath from laughing at the previous one.
This is my kind of movie. It's a shining example of cinema that proves that you don't need CG, explosions, or a convoluted plot to make an excellent movie. All you need is a plot ANYONE can relate to, some good writing, and a few very, VERY funny sons'a bitches. Forget X-Men. Forget Transformers. If you go see ONE movie this summer, make sure it's Horrible Bosses (well, Harry Potter too, but that's a whole different ballpark.)
Final Score: 9/10
Bad Teacher
So, it's been a busy week for me, as I checked out a couple of flicks, and will be catching an advanced screening of Horrible Bosses later today (someone start paying me for this!!!) Over the weekend I saw Bad Teacher, starring Cameron Diaz, Justin Timberlake, and Jason Segel. Despite the "Bad" prefix, it has nothing to do with 2003's Bad Santa - not the writers, director, or producers. Which is not particularly important, I just found it to be an interesting fact.
Bad Teacher is about Elisabeth Halsey (Cameron Diaz), an elementary school teacher who embodies the spirit of simply not giving a fuck. She's set to marry a wealthy dude, but the engagement is called off when he finds she's spent $170,000 in the last month alone (that number may not be accurate, but it's the principle of the thing). With her sugar daddy gone, Elisabeth has no choice but to return to the school that she had planned to retire from after only a year of teaching. Enter Scott Delacorte (Justin Timberlake) the new substitute teacher, and the heir of a very large designer watch empire. Elisabeth's new plan is to get breast implants in order to seduce Delacorte, who's got a thing for a nice rack. To earn the money, she'll have to do everything in her power...even if it means teaching her kids so they can get the highest grade in the state exam, and grant her a bonus.
Cameron Diaz has taken a step away from her previous roles like Natalie Cook in Charlie's Angels, or Princess Fiona in the Shrek movies, or that blonde girl in that movie that no one gives a damn about. She is pretty much a total bitch in this movie - and I loved every minute of it. In my opinion, it showcases her acting talent, and demonstrates that she's much more versatile than just playing the sweet blonde girl next door. She made me lol pretty frequently throughout the movie. JT plays what I suppose you could say is an interesting character but I find it just weird. He's a goody two-shoes-y, somewhat neurotic character that I don't really care for much at all, the character just seems too unrealistic. Jason Segel, on the other hand, is all kinds of comedy gold. Though he doesn't have a lot of on screen time, he makes every second count. Rounding out the main cast is Lucy Punch, whom you may recognize if you've seen Hot Fuzz (she's the girl who plays Juliet in their rendition of Romeo and Juliet.) Punch plays Amy Squirrel, the opposite of Diaz' Halsey and while she does a good job of portraying the character, I again feel like the character is just a shade too unrealistic for me to accept fully. Nonetheless, the entire ensemble works quite well together.
Now you won't be seeing Bad Teacher win any awards for cinematography because let's face it, it's just not that kind of a movie. The shots are serviceable, every active shot is smooth, and really there's not much more you can ask for then that. I also felt that the pacing for a movie that elapsed a year flowed very nicely, and it didn't overstay it's welcome.
Not a whole lot more to say about this flick, it's a lighthearted entertaining little comedy that does its job. If you find yourself at the theatres and not knowing what to watch, definitely give this flick a shot.
Final Score: 7.5/10
Bad Teacher is about Elisabeth Halsey (Cameron Diaz), an elementary school teacher who embodies the spirit of simply not giving a fuck. She's set to marry a wealthy dude, but the engagement is called off when he finds she's spent $170,000 in the last month alone (that number may not be accurate, but it's the principle of the thing). With her sugar daddy gone, Elisabeth has no choice but to return to the school that she had planned to retire from after only a year of teaching. Enter Scott Delacorte (Justin Timberlake) the new substitute teacher, and the heir of a very large designer watch empire. Elisabeth's new plan is to get breast implants in order to seduce Delacorte, who's got a thing for a nice rack. To earn the money, she'll have to do everything in her power...even if it means teaching her kids so they can get the highest grade in the state exam, and grant her a bonus.
Cameron Diaz has taken a step away from her previous roles like Natalie Cook in Charlie's Angels, or Princess Fiona in the Shrek movies, or that blonde girl in that movie that no one gives a damn about. She is pretty much a total bitch in this movie - and I loved every minute of it. In my opinion, it showcases her acting talent, and demonstrates that she's much more versatile than just playing the sweet blonde girl next door. She made me lol pretty frequently throughout the movie. JT plays what I suppose you could say is an interesting character but I find it just weird. He's a goody two-shoes-y, somewhat neurotic character that I don't really care for much at all, the character just seems too unrealistic. Jason Segel, on the other hand, is all kinds of comedy gold. Though he doesn't have a lot of on screen time, he makes every second count. Rounding out the main cast is Lucy Punch, whom you may recognize if you've seen Hot Fuzz (she's the girl who plays Juliet in their rendition of Romeo and Juliet.) Punch plays Amy Squirrel, the opposite of Diaz' Halsey and while she does a good job of portraying the character, I again feel like the character is just a shade too unrealistic for me to accept fully. Nonetheless, the entire ensemble works quite well together.
Now you won't be seeing Bad Teacher win any awards for cinematography because let's face it, it's just not that kind of a movie. The shots are serviceable, every active shot is smooth, and really there's not much more you can ask for then that. I also felt that the pacing for a movie that elapsed a year flowed very nicely, and it didn't overstay it's welcome.
Not a whole lot more to say about this flick, it's a lighthearted entertaining little comedy that does its job. If you find yourself at the theatres and not knowing what to watch, definitely give this flick a shot.
Final Score: 7.5/10
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Transformers: Dark of the Moon
So, the third installment of Michael Bay's continuing Transformers saga has officially hit theatres, and realistically, if you have any urge to go see this movie at all, then you have probably seen the first two and really you ought to already know what you're gonna get walking into the theatre. But for the sake of argument, i'll pretend that there are people out there who have no idea what the Transformers are all about and are drawn to Dark of the Moon out of some sense of morbid curiosity.
DOTM, like the first two movies, centers around Sam Witwicky and his Autobot friends. In this third movie, NASA detects activity on the moon during the era of the Space race. During the first moon landing, Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong are sent to investigate the source of the disturbance and find, unbeknownst to them, an Autobot ship that had escaped the war on Cybertron and crash landed on the moon. In the present day, Optimus Prime reveals that the ship is known as the Arc, and contains powerful Autobot weaponry, as well as the body of their first leader, Sentinel Prime. As the implications of this discovery dawn on the human race, the Autobots are thrown into a race to recover the remains of the old ship before the Decepticons can get their hands on this ultimate power.
So, what's new in this latest flick you ask? To be honest, not a whole lot. The most prominent change is the introduction of Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, who plays the character of Carly, Sam Witwicky's new girlfriend (since Megan Fox got shitcanned). Her introductory shot is of DAT ASS, and oh what an ass it is. However, besides being a nice piece of eye candy as well as a in-film explanation as to why Megan Fox is no longer around, she doesn't do a whole lot. Another addition is Frances McDormand as the head of CIA, and she does quite a good job at portraying the hard-assed, no nonsense Chief Mearing. Patrick Dempsey is also a fresh face, playing Dylan, Carly's boss. The rest of the cast reprise their roles from the first two films: Shia Labeouf as Sam Witwicky, Josh Duhamel as Lennox, Tyrese Gibson as Epps. In terms of acting, the only real difference seems to be in Labeouf's character Sam. Mr. Witwicky appears to have grown a backbone in between the last film in this - his character is seen actually standing up for himself and talking back to people instead of just stuttering awkwardly. Also, I don't think he says "no" even one time in this movie! (If you don't know what I mean, watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IXCK1EyP4s).
It also seems that Mr. Bay has decided to go for a bit more of an actual storyline this time through, resulting in quite a long build-up with lots of backstory. Not to worry though, because there's more than enough wanton destruction to glut even the most hardy action fans. It also seems that he's cooled it a little with the cheesy one-liners, although not entirely. You won't see any robots with a pair hanging down, but there are definitely some facepalm-worthy moments.
The CG, as it has since the first movie, is outstanding, and visually, Michael Bay seems to have lost his hard on for the "shaky cam" effect, making it possible to actually see what's happening in the film. Which is great, because it means you get to see Optimus and Bumblebee kicking all kinds of ass.
Transformers: Dark of the Moon is much in the same vein as it's predecessors. It's a stunning display of computer graphics, backed by a whole lot of action, and at least a little bit more substance than Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. As I said already, if you're interested in this movie you already know what you're going to be getting. For everyone else, don't go into the theatre expecting an oscar worthy piece of cinema - remember, this IS a movie franchise based on children's toys.
Final score: 7/10
DOTM, like the first two movies, centers around Sam Witwicky and his Autobot friends. In this third movie, NASA detects activity on the moon during the era of the Space race. During the first moon landing, Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong are sent to investigate the source of the disturbance and find, unbeknownst to them, an Autobot ship that had escaped the war on Cybertron and crash landed on the moon. In the present day, Optimus Prime reveals that the ship is known as the Arc, and contains powerful Autobot weaponry, as well as the body of their first leader, Sentinel Prime. As the implications of this discovery dawn on the human race, the Autobots are thrown into a race to recover the remains of the old ship before the Decepticons can get their hands on this ultimate power.
So, what's new in this latest flick you ask? To be honest, not a whole lot. The most prominent change is the introduction of Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, who plays the character of Carly, Sam Witwicky's new girlfriend (since Megan Fox got shitcanned). Her introductory shot is of DAT ASS, and oh what an ass it is. However, besides being a nice piece of eye candy as well as a in-film explanation as to why Megan Fox is no longer around, she doesn't do a whole lot. Another addition is Frances McDormand as the head of CIA, and she does quite a good job at portraying the hard-assed, no nonsense Chief Mearing. Patrick Dempsey is also a fresh face, playing Dylan, Carly's boss. The rest of the cast reprise their roles from the first two films: Shia Labeouf as Sam Witwicky, Josh Duhamel as Lennox, Tyrese Gibson as Epps. In terms of acting, the only real difference seems to be in Labeouf's character Sam. Mr. Witwicky appears to have grown a backbone in between the last film in this - his character is seen actually standing up for himself and talking back to people instead of just stuttering awkwardly. Also, I don't think he says "no" even one time in this movie! (If you don't know what I mean, watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IXCK1EyP4s).
It also seems that Mr. Bay has decided to go for a bit more of an actual storyline this time through, resulting in quite a long build-up with lots of backstory. Not to worry though, because there's more than enough wanton destruction to glut even the most hardy action fans. It also seems that he's cooled it a little with the cheesy one-liners, although not entirely. You won't see any robots with a pair hanging down, but there are definitely some facepalm-worthy moments.
The CG, as it has since the first movie, is outstanding, and visually, Michael Bay seems to have lost his hard on for the "shaky cam" effect, making it possible to actually see what's happening in the film. Which is great, because it means you get to see Optimus and Bumblebee kicking all kinds of ass.
Transformers: Dark of the Moon is much in the same vein as it's predecessors. It's a stunning display of computer graphics, backed by a whole lot of action, and at least a little bit more substance than Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. As I said already, if you're interested in this movie you already know what you're going to be getting. For everyone else, don't go into the theatre expecting an oscar worthy piece of cinema - remember, this IS a movie franchise based on children's toys.
Final score: 7/10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)